Coriolanus:  Nature teaches beasts to know their friends.

Fiennes star as Caius Martius Coriolanus, a brilliant general, living and serving in what is referred to as ‘a place called Rome’.  Early on we see Coriolanus take on an attack against the Volscian’s, who are led by Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), showing just how tough and how great of a soldier Coriolanus is.  However, the people do not favor Coriolanus and nor does he favor them; believing true citizens should be those who have served in battle.  While he fights for his people, gaining his respect would be another matter.

Having shown great courage in the battlefield, Coriolanus is convinced (despite his own doubts) by his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) to run for Counsel.  Unfortunately, this backfires spectacularly, as Coriolanus is challenged by opposing politicians (played by James Nesbitt and Paul Jesson), which leads to the people rioting against Coriolanus, eventually leading to his own banishment from Rome.  Coriolanus then vows revenge by teaming up with Tullus and the Volscian’s, which will lead matters up to his wife Virgilia (played by Jessica Chastain), the Senator of Rome (played by Brian Cox), and  his mother to possibly stop him and quiet his rage.

Screenwriter John Logan (Gladiator, Hugo) has done a fine job in compacting the narrative of the play into a straight-forward film.  The way this film has been constructed is fitting in how it brings together these various characters and has them effectively deliver what is required of their roles.  As commanding and (frankly) scary as Fiennes is, the other actors too get to play in this gritty sandbox of Shakespeare-gone-tactical.  The fact that the film does retain so much of the language that would be seen in the classic version of the play makes it all the richer, with interesting ways of viewing how this version will turn out.

As a director, I really enjoyed how Fiennes put together some key sequences in the film.  Having filmed in Belgrade, Serbia, there is certainly room to spare when it comes to showing an area that has certainly seen its share of battles.  The graffiti covered ruins that litter the backgrounds serve well as scenery.  The action beats that comes early on are filmed with an intensity that is only later matched by the verbal sparring, which pits Coriolanus against those who would oppose him.  My favorite scene may have been Coriolanus’ blow up at the public, as he realizes that he must leave Rome, as his unflinching nature leads him to no other choice.  The way Fiennes has effectively found ways to capture intensity of scenes that involve tricky dialogue such as this, mainly by use of close-ups on his own face (which is generally covered in blood or on the verge of rage-bursting) is very well handled, and makes the film continually compelling.

I can probably praise Fiennes work in this film for more paragraphs than I need to, but the performance he puts forward is pretty fantastic.  The way this character is shown as being disconnected from the world around him, when the subject at hand does not deal with the nature of battle, creates a terrific way for this film to give Fiennes the space to amaze with the ferocious nature of his performance.  The depth that is added in the way he can relate to both his mother and Tullus are all the more interesting for the character as well, with further chances to delve into the man’s psyche.  But enough about Fiennes, as there truly is a very strong supporting cast here.

Chief amongst this support is Vanessa Redgrave, who may have brought just as much force to the proceedings as Coriolanus’ mother, the one woman who may have a chance at properly reasoning with him.  Redgrave, as well as Brian Cox, are both actors who are mature enough to truly bring out the best in the kind rhythms and reason in dialogue they must deliver here.  Fairing very well also is Gerard Butler, who certainly has not softened after dalliances in lighter films, following the machismo of 300.  His accent choice, grizzled face, and willingness to add a level of passion to his shouting actually did a lot in making the Shakespearean dialogue he was responsible for quite effective as well.  The fact that he and Fiennes face off in more ways than one is certainly not a bad thing either.  Seeing the two of them together on screen leads to various ways one could even interpret their relationship, given all that these two enemies have in common.

There is not much in the way of issues, regarding Coriolanus.  It is maybe one of the angriest dialogue driven films I have seen in some time, in addition to the blast of glossy action towards the beginning, and the rest of the gritty atmosphere that surrounds the film.  The greatest strength relies in this anger and how Fiennes was able to channel it into his performance.  The fact that he has great back-up work stemming from this strong cast, while employing old Shakespearean tongue keeps the film alive.  It may not have more to it that pushes it towards overzealous greatness in my eyes, let alone the fact that keeping its tone at a certain level throughout gets a bit numbing at times, but Coriolanus is a very strong film indeed.  Seeing Shakespeare done in this manner certainly seemed rewarding, but the confidence in Fiennes from both an in-front-of and a behind-the-camera perspective solidified that for me.  It was surely no tragedy to see how this film came together.

Coriolanus:  Despising, for you, the city, thus I turn my back.  There is a world elsewhere.

[While flying]
Matt:  It’s cold up here!

The film begins with Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a high school teenager, who has purchased a camera, with the intention to film (chronicle) his life.  It is essentially a way for him to cope with what he is dealing with.  Andrew has a sick mother and abusive father at home and is bullied and lonely at school.  The opening of the film is pretty clear in setting up the anti-social qualities of Andrew’s life.  However, Andrew’s cousin Matt (Alex Russell) wants to do his best to help out Andrew and brings him along to a party.  While the party is not quite Andrew’s scene, what happens later in the night is far more interesting.

All around popular guy and fellow student Steve (Michael B. Jordan) approaches Andrew outside the party and alerts him of something he and Matt found.  Out in an isolated field, there appears to be a mysterious hole in the ground.  The trio probe deeper and find a large glowing object. Cut to black.  When things pick back up, we discover that the three have now developed telekinetic powers, allowing them to move, throw, and stop objects with their minds (among other possible abilities).  It is fun and games at first, with the guys playing pranks on others and further enhancing their newfound skill set.  Andrew is also enjoying being able to express himself more openly, but as time goes on, the notion of great power and great responsibility comes to mind, as certain choices lead to dark places.

As Chronicle moved along, I enjoyed it more and more.  It functions pretty successfully as an alternative spin on the superhero origin story.  The introduction does enough to set everything up.  The second act has fun with exploring newfound powers.  And the finale goes into action territory, but with an added level of how the perspectives of the various cameras involved portray that action.  Chronicle manages to accomplish a lot and provide a higher level of scope than one would think for a film under the settings of a “found footage” film that was made on a low ($15 million) budget, as far as super-powered films are concerned.

While I will get to why the “found footage” angle has gimmick-related issues, an aspect that works because of the use of this format for structuring the film is the relationship seen between the leads.  There is a level of authenticity in the chemistry between the guys that makes the fact that camcorders are being used to show them together feel more real.  This is important, because selling the friendship between these three is a very important aspect of the film.  That sense of discovery has been seen before in other superhero movies, but the notion of having three teenagers figuring these things out together is an interesting one and believing their friendship benefits the film.

Matt:  Andrew stop!

The key player in this film is the character of Andrew, who is setup with the most dramatic business to deal with.  In the role, DeHaan is good enough.  I think that with how the film is structured and what is required of him, DeHaan plays well with the emotion, even if there are some steps taken by his character that may not feel as organic as they could have been in a multi-volume comic series (this is a simple, 80-minute popcorn flick after all).  The other actors are good enough as well, mainly because of the chemistry between their interactions, which I have pointed out already.

Getting back to the idea of this being a “found footage” film, the problem that can be generally associated with this style revolves around the idea of why the camera is needed at all.  There are some clever touches, such as establishing early on that Chronicle is not going to play out on just one camera, as well as coming up with a way to have all three actors in front of the camera for reasons beyond just setting it down somewhere.  Still, I did get distracted at times due to the fact that I knew that a camera had no real reason in being present during some scenes, regardless of what movie logic tried to dictate to me.

The low budget of the film is another area that had many positives as well as a few negatives.  On the one hand, working with a small budget provided director Josh Trank, writer Max Landis, and the rest of the crew with a lot of areas that required them to be quite clever as filmmakers.  How to provide a minimal representation of what it is like to have telekinetic superpowers was an interesting feat to see accomplished.  At the same time, Chronicle does have a lot of CG effects and some of them are quite obvious.  This was surprisingly not as much of an issue for me during the fairly hectic third act, but when the effects stuck out, they stuck out.  Still, all in all, I got into the film enough from a storytelling/entertainment level that these were not major issue, just minor problematic areas.  There is an ambitious quality to Chronicle that does a lot to overweigh enough of these problems.

As a person who enjoys superhero flicks and creative filmmaking, I can say that Chronicle is a success.  It takes an intriguing premise, sets it up properly, plays around with the idea for a while, and then lets loose in its finale.  The film does not overstay its welcome and feels well-balanced throughout.  Issues with some of the effects and gimmickry aside, Chronicle is a fresh blast of fun that has entered theaters with little commotion behind it, beyond selling the idea of an original story of teen angst and super powers.  So yeah, I was happy to see John Hughes’ Paranormal Activity by way of Stan Lee.

Andrew:  I am more powerful than you!

In the last few years alone, we’ve seen a terrible remake of the original “evil kid” flick (The Omen), a she’s-not-really-a-kid-she’s-actually-a-homicidal-dwarf movie (Orphan), and a horror-indie about an undead baby (Grace),  but only that last one was any good (actually, Grace is excellent if you can handle it), and before that we hadn’t seen a good “evil kid” movie in over a decade.  Knowing this, the prospect of yet another trip through “evil kid” territory did not blow my proverbial skirt to new and exciting heights.  In fact, the very idea of it left me yawning, and so I stopped paying attention to Kevin almost as soon as I’d read the film’s logline.

This was a massive mistake.

Lynne Ramsay’s We Need to Talk About Kevin (based on the novel of the same name by Lionel Shriver) might’ve been unfairly shut out at the Oscars this year, but—for the love of all that is holy—do not take that as commentary on its general quality:  not only is Kevin the best film I’ve seen thus far in 2012, but it would’ve easily ended up near the top of my “Best of 2011” list had I seen it before 2011 wrapped.  Kevin is a harrowing, genuinely disturbing, intense little movie, and you should go way, way out of your way to see it as soon as possible.

The film’s been making the film festival rounds for some time now (it played during Fantastic Fest, but—like a jackass– I managed to miss the film’s one and only screening), so  I’m probably not the first critic you’ve heard ranting about how great Ramsay’s film is:  critics have been fawning over star Tilda Swinton’s awards-worthy turn for months now (they’ve moved on to bemoaning her shut-out at the Oscars;  like Kirsten Dunst’s shut-out for Melancholia, it’s a travesty), while fans of the novel have praised the adaptation for being unusually respectful to the source material (more on this a little later on).  Still others have championed the stifling sense of dread the film inspires.  Indeed, some have claimed that the tension was so severe, they became nauseous while watching the film.

That’s right:  nauseous.

While that may not sound like your average “ringing endorsement”, in this case it might be some of the highest praise one could heap upon Ramsay’s film:  were it not as emotionally disturbing and effective as it is, there’d be very little point.  Causing audiences to squirm is We Need to Talk About Kevin’s entire reason for being.

That was certainly the case with Shriver’s novel.   Some have nervously joked that We Need to Talk About Kevin is really just birth-control disguised as unnerving entertainment, but it’s unlikely that Shriver’s intent in writing the novel—and, in turn, Ramsay’s intent in directing the film—had anything to do with keeping lusty teenagers or clueless adults from impregnating one another.  It’s a cautionary tale of sorts, yes, but its main purpose is to attract and repulse in the same way that any great work of horror-fiction does:  by showing us that true evil doesn’t always wear a hockey mask and carry a machete.  All the truly scary works of fiction know that “evil” can look just like your next-door neighbor (Martyrs), a group of septuagenarians (Rosemary’s Baby),  a parent battling alcoholism (The Shining), or—in the case of Kevin—a teenage boy with a lethal chip on his shoulder.

That virtually every one of us is already a parent or a parent-waiting-to-happen makes it all the easier to imagine ourselves in the deeply unfortunate position We Need To Talk About Kevin’s Eva Katchadourian (Tilda Swinton) finds herself in in:  what would you do if your own child rejected you, and what if you suspected that the rejection wasn’t just garden-variety teen-angst, but something far more insidious?  What if your own child seemed determined to drive you insane, or destined to hurt others?  And–most chillingly of all– what if your own spouse didn’t believe you when you shared these suspicions?

We Need to Talk About Kevin takes us from Eva’s pregnancy all the way up through the aftermath of her son’s teenage years (and one particularly nasty event around the time of his sixteenth birthday).  When Kevin is a baby, he’s uncommunicative and resistant to Eva’s clumsy attempts at mothering;  when he’s a toddler, he’s outright scornful.  When Eva voices concerns to her husband, Franklyn (John C. Reilly, always an asset), he assumes she’s exaggerating…or, in darker moments, assumes she’s rejecting the responsibilities of motherhood.  Things come to a grisly head when Kevin enters his teenage years (where he’s played by the impressive newcomer Ezra Miller), but to say anything more about the film’s plot would do you a disservice:  go into We Need to Talk About Kevin knowing nothing more than I’ve laid out here and you’ll do just fine.

Ramsay’s film retains most of the major plot points from Shriver’s novel, not to mention much of its dialogue and seemingly throwaway details (Kevin’s undersized clothing, for instance, which makes the transition from page to screen).  Of course this won’t mean anything to you if you’ve never read the book, but those of you who have know that this is very good news, indeed:  Shriver’s novel is dense and poetic, with sharp bits of dialogue and relatable, clearly-drawn, intelligent characters (I’m sure plenty of studios noted the success of Shriver’s book, and so one imagines that their probable impulse was to turn We Need to Talk About Kevin into a cookie-cutter, run-of-the-mill splatterfest –they probably would’ve retitled it “Crossbow” or “High School Massacre” or “Domestic Violence” or some stupid thing—so thank God Ramsay got a hold of it first).  As you surely know, “sharp dialogue” and “intelligent characters” are not hallmarks of the horror genre, so it’s a breath of fresh air to see such things employed so effectively here.

Which reminds me:  some will surely bristle at the idea of Kevin being referred to as a “horror film”, but I’m standing by my guns.  Much in the same way that Black Swan snuck into the party by presenting itself as a “dramatic thriller”, We Need to Talk About Kevin is a horror film even if it doesn’t showcase the usual symptoms of a film in that genre:  there are no buckets of blood, pot-smoking teens, or cabin in the woods.  Black Swan was a “body-horror” film (see also:  the work of David Cronenberg),  while Kevin is what I’d consider an “emotional-horror” film:  the violence happening onscreen may not be as gory as some of the onscreen deaths you’d seen in, say, the latest Friday The 13th sequel, but that doesn’t mean the violence is any less brutal.  These are emotional wounds, but We Need to Talk About Kevin proves that those can be even scarier:  after you’ve seen it, I think you’ll have no trouble agreeing that a silent five-year-old wielding a squirt-gun can be just as terrifying as a hockey-masked killer wielding a machete.

Final Thoughts

The film is only 83 minutes long, but that’s plenty of time for victimized videographer-turned-super villain Andrew Detmer (newcomer Dane DeHaan, a ringer for DiCaprio circa What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?) to his sudden, yet believable turn to the dark side.  You may start to wonder what the hell took Anakin Skywalker so long.  The bratty ex-Jedi needed three movies and a Sith guidance counselor to become Darth Vader; the Seattle high school senior has an abusive, alcoholic father and about an hour of screen time to become “The Apex Predator,” a hormonal maelstrom swirling with schizophrenic tendencies and a penchant for Animal Planet.  Anakin had a much cooler HQ, though.  The Death Star beats the Space Needle every time.

Andrew started out normal enough— at least as normal as a kid with a dying mom and slaphappy dad can be.  He innocently begins the video chronicle (get it?) as a coping mechanism for all the things he cannot control in life.  This also gives the viewer a first-person perspective of how shitty high school can be, though this may trigger PTSD in the target audience, young adult males.  This “found footage” conceit less of a gimmick used for scares, like in Cloverfield or Quarantine, and more of an entry point into the troubled teen’s psyche.  In his world, he is the director who chooses the perspective, the editor who decides which parts of the story to keep.  He finally has power.

One day Andrew’s more popular cousin Matt (Alex Russel) invites him to a rave on the outskirts of town.  Along the way, Matt quotes philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which offers some foreshadowing of the journey to come: “Emotional, physical and sexual desires can never be fulfilled.”  We now know not to expect a happy ending, but when should you in this genre?

Good guy Matt is determined to get his anti-social cousin some action and maybe even pry him away from that camera.  It’s creepin’ folks out, especially the cheerleaders.  The one girl not creeped out, perky blonde video blogger Casey Letter (Ashley Hinshaw), seemed like she could have helped Andrew come out of his shell, among other things, but alas, Matt’s a cock blocker and took her for himself.

Up to this point, everything is realistic, from the cousins’ amusing tete-a-tetes to the random raving d-bag’s violent reaction to Andrew filming his bitch’s booty.  While Andrew enjoys a good post-beat down cry, charismatic class presidential candidate Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan) rudely interrupts, telling Andrew he and Matt found something that needs to be caught on camera.  Usually this means two – possibly three – drunk girls are making out on the dance floor.  Here it appears that a giant meteor has pierced the Earth near the party. Something bellows deep within the dark, foreboding crater.  Anything could be down there, from the Super 8 alien to a family of fraggles.  It’s the type of situation that is just begging to be investigated.  If you think only an idiot would do that, you must have never seen the Indiana Jones trilogy or Goonies.  And if that’s the case, you’re the idiot.

Well, thank God they went down there, because the giant glowing red crystal they discover gives them the ability to move anything with their minds.  And bloody noses.  The guys all become pals, using their newfound powers in hilariously mischievous ways.  If the boys didn’t want to keep their hidden talents a secret, their prank videos would have definitely gone viral.  Soon they learn to fly, something even the Jedi never could master.  The trios’ football game in the clouds is among the most enjoyable scenes depicting the recreational use of super powers ever.  Director Josh Trank made this film for less than $15 million.  Green Lantern cost $200 million and doesn’t contain one action scene nearly as memorable as the most forgettable from Chronicle, if it even has one.

Just when you think the guys are going to say, “Why don’t we use our awesome gifts to help mankind,” Andrew goes rogue.  He almost kills a guy tailgating them (can’t blame him) and then beats the crap out of his dad (still can’t blame him).  Matt and Steve stick to their self-imposed rules: Never use on a living being, never use when angry, never in public.  For once, Andrew is the strongest and chooses to ignore these rules that cannot be enforced.  “A lion does not feel guilty when it kills a gazelle,” Andrew muses.

Eventually, his dalliances with devilish impulsiveness escalate to a Macbethian final act.  The aerial fistfight spans the city, the combatants flinging buses and crashing into buildings with reckless abandon.  Their abilities allow them to reflexively generate force fields, an unfortunate side effect for downtown Seattle.  You expect to see such an epic fight in one of many comic book movies this summer, not in early February

Maybe going into this with low expectations influenced my profound affection for this film, as did my appreciation of convincing actors, a smart, witty script and creative direction.  It doesn’t offer anything truly original — fictional teens gain super powers all the time.  Chronicle really succeeds by injecting a healthy dose of harsh realism into every boy’s fantasy of being able to fly and become invincible.  No matter how much power or fame people have, it’s never enough for most guys.  Let’s just hope the power and influence Trank gains from this movie doesn’t corrupt him like it did Lucas.

Sam:  If we open the door to superstition, where does that lead?

Set in the early 20^th century, after an incredibly somber cold open, we are introduced to Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a young lawyer living in London.  He is a widower, with a young son who has apparently never seen him smile.  Arthur is given news of a recently deceased woman in a village out in the countryside and must leave to settle her legal affairs.  Upon arrival, Mr. Kipps (and try to pronounce that with the most droll, British accent possible) is given pretty much nothing but dirty looks from the village residents, with the exception of Sam Daily (Ciaran Hinds), a wealthy land owner, willing to give the young lawyer a ride to where he needs to be.

Eventually, Mr. Kipps arrives at the home of the recently deceased woman, who lived in an incredibly isolated home (the tides literally have to go down in order to reach it).  While attempting to conduct his business, mysterious sights and sounds continue to be seen and heard.  In particular, a woman in…dark garb…is constantly appearing all over the place (sometimes screaming).  This is creepy enough for Mr. Kipps, but the real tragedy is the toll it is taking on certain residents back in the village.  Hopefully Mr. Kipps will be able to finish his legal business and make his way back home, but a slight detour may make this less than possible.

This film has been adapted by screenwriter Jane Goldman (co-writer on X-Men: First Class, Kickass, and Stardust) from the popular 1983 horror novel of the same name by Susan Hill, which has been previously adapted in a very popular UK stage play.  The result is a very simple story that is built around its setting, thick atmosphere, and a couple of lost souls.  I could almost call it an echo of classic horror filmmaking if it wasn’t for a slight overreliance on jump-scares.  However, for a PG-13 horror film, one of the best compliments I can give The Woman In Black is how it feels like a complete film and not one that needed any edits in order to gain a general audience –friendly rating, only to have a silly “unrated edition” upon its Blu-ray/DVD release.

Having jump-scares in mind, the thought of whether this film should be considered scary or creepy is important to establish.  I would not necessarily say the film is scary, as jump-scares simply make one jump after a sudden shock combined with a loud music chord.  As well setup as some of these jumps may be, they are also fairly predictable and did not lead to me being kept awake later that night.  For the most part, I would say that the film is much more about establishing its creepiness, especially when focus is in and around the secluded house, which is really more of a gothic mansion.  Simple horror staples involving sound design (plenty of creakiness), effective use of the dark, and the placement of creepy toys all work in the film’s benefit, when it comes to establishing a mood.  And I am also always a fan of how a film managed to appropriately layout its geography.  Knowing how the house is setup works in keeping me intrigued as opposed to confused.  The look of the film in general is decidedly somber, which is played to the film’s benefit, even if there are some problems stemming from this.

One of these problems is a common issue that involves what I’m calling, “horror movie show & tell.”  This is the wonderful game that characters in this type of horror film play, where they are quick to warn someone away by using vague statements and evil stares; however, they do nothing to be more understandable, like giving clear indication as to why they need to warn outsiders of something evil afoot.  It only serves movie logic as to why characters are not being clear with one another, which tests one’s tolerance when it comes to films like this.  As the movie was fairly entertaining in more ways than just spooky atmosphere, this was not too much of an issue for me.

The cast here is quite small (a step up from the stage play, which only has two actors), but all have the appropriate look of countryside villagers.  Two significant roles belong to Ciaran Hinds (a character actor I quite like) as Sam Daily, who has a significant supporting role, and Janet McTeer, who portrays Mrs. Daily.  Again, as my title implies, the film’s screentime is almost entirely based around Daniel Radcliffe, who is given a pretty dramatic role to portray.  It is slightly unfortunate that he comes up a bit short here, which is not to the fault of his acting ability and more due to his boyishness.  The character of Mr. Kipps is supposed to be young, yes, but Radcliffe doesn’t quite have the authority needed to be this person.  This is especially apparent when watching him interact with his son, but fortunately the film mostly relies on Mr. Kipps reacting to the spooky occurrences happening around him.  The roles both requires a filler persona to see scary things, but also one that can create empathy, and only one of those things is realized more believably.  Issues aside, Radcliffe certainly doesn’t embarrass himself and I look forward to seeing his post-Potter career.

The Woman In Black works.  I would not say it is a standout horror film for the ages, but it gets what it is trying to do right.  Production design is very important in a film like this for the sake of atmosphere and I think it is handled very appropriately.  The somber mood (and I have not emphasized enough how depressing the subject matter really is) and deliberate pacing takes a bit of an adjustment, but as the film got going, I got more into it.  It is a satisfying horror film overall and I would be happy to see more modern Hammer Horror films such as this one.

Arthur Kipps:  She’s there, trying to reach me.

This film is probably my most anticipated of 2012…yes, even more than The Avengers.  The Underworld franchise is easily one of my favorites, although the lack of press screenings for the fourth installment was a bit disconcerting at best.  The concept of the film focuses around humans finally discovering that vampire and werewolf races actually exist which is followed by a genocide of the supernatural species.  Beckinsale resumes her role as the centuries-old vampire Selene who finds herself on the run from a group of well-armed soldiers, whom she quickly and creatively dispatches.  Her heightened abilities (and über sex factor) are highlighted to the Nth degree as she weaves, slides and slashes her way to the man she loves; werewolf-vamp hybrid Michael Corvin.

Corvin is played once again by Scott Speedman and with his character are where my complaints begin.  When we last left the Selene-Michael pairing, they were madly in love and on the run into a future unknown.  The new movie takes on a different direction as Speedman’s character is in the movie for just mere seconds.  He doesn’t even have a line in the film.  Strike one.  Eventually, Selene finds herself awakening (hence the subtitle) from a cryogenic-induced slumber in a labratory.  Her escape ultimately leads to a connection with a young girl who happens to be another vampire-werewolf hybrid.  Along the way, Selene befriends a cop and another vampire as she progresses her search of Michael, the lab that held her, and just who this young girl is.

Sadly, Awakening doesn’t feel like an Underworld movie…at least not all the way through (strike two).  The acting is at times atrocious and the story is consistently hurried (strikes three & four and this inning’s long over).  It is impossible for someone to say they thoroughly enjoyed this movie because there’s not enough quality content to warrant use of the word ‘thorough.’  Plot issues (science builds a better werewolf) and a case of too many cooks in the kitchen (two directors & close to half a dozen writers on the script) equalled to one disappointing film, which ultimately tainted the series.  Is there entertainment value here?  Yes.  Will it make a good rental?  Yes.  Is it worth the price of cinema admission?  Heck no.

The ending is left wide open for a sequel, which I’m all for, despite the empty feel of Awakening.  Here’s a chance for the series to redeem itself if and when a fifth film comes to fruition.  Bring Selene back, bring Michael back (in a greater capacity than just a few growls) and put Len Wiseman back in the director’s chair.  In a nutshell, Underworld 4 is ultimately The Phantom Menace of the franchise.  Here’s hoping for a return to the original feel that made Underworld that wicked film it was.

Nick Cassidy:  Don’t worry, everyone’s looking at me.

How do you get back at someone who set you up?  In the case of Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington), an ex-cop, who was framed by the nefarious David Englander (Ed Harris) for stealing his $40 million diamond and is now serving a long prison sentence, the plan is simple.  Nick must (obviously) form an ingenious plan that involves him escaping prison, finding the hotel room that faces Englander’s building from across the street, climb onto the ledge of the building, and threaten suicide in an effort to prove his innocence.  That is, of course, just phase 1.  Phase 2 involves Nick’s brother Joey (Jamie Bell) and his spicy hot girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez (I should probably change my name to Nintendo Neuwirth)) breaking into Englander’s building, while everyone’s attention is drawn to Nick, and stealing the diamond Nick was said to have stolen, in order to prove his innocence.  It’s just that simple.

In order for Nick to be able to pull off his part in the plan as an alleged “possible jumper”, he decides to specifically request Det. Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks) to act as his negotiator, with Det. Jack Dougherty (Ed Burns) and his men standing as back up.  Anthony Mackie is also around and concerned as Mike, Nick’s former partner.  Along with maintaining his balance, Nick must put on quite the show in order to pull off one big heist, while he stands up high on the side of a building.  And don’t worry; news correspondent Suzie Morales (Kyra Sedgwick) is making sure to get plenty of coverage.

The biggest problem with this movie is how even after displacing the notion of logic that one needs to dispel if they want to attempt to take the film seriously, it is the lack of any real tension that ultimately undoes what the film manages to entertainingly setup.  Given that we know what Nick is up to, there is no tension ever in whether or not he has plans to commit suicide by jumping off the ledge.  At the same time, the ‘Adventures of Joey and Angie’ going on inside the building across the way are handled with such a playfulness (and extra doses of T&A from Ms. SEGA Genesis Rodriguez, who Mr. Nintendo Neuwirth would like to meet one day) that no one ever really expects them to completely fail in their plan.  Neither of these plots needs to necessarily be more serious, but the stakes never quite feel as high as Nick is on his ledge.

This could be attributed to the actors involved, or at least how they play it.  The emotional core of this movie is supposed to belong to Sam Worthington, but given that Worthington seems to have way more charisma in a Modern Warfare 3 commercial, training the n00b (Oscar nominee Jonah Hill) in combat, than he does as Nick Cassidy, there was not much to attach onto in this regard.  Similarly, with the exception of Jamie Bell and ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’s System SEGA Genesis Rodriguez’, the rest of the cast are all pretty much playing things by the numbers.  I definitely try to praise Ed Harris whenever I can, but even he does little more than play a very one-dimensional villain in a fancy suit.

Ridiculous as it is, I can give the film credit for at least having the semblance of a decently paced heist film.  Even with the lack of tension in whether or not this film is going to have a happy ending (sorry for that mild spoiler), there is a level of confidence in the filmmaking that seemed like enough to get this film by…until the third act.  Once the film starts revolving less around whether or not Nick will get off the ledge and more on who else will get on the ledge, the movie’s plot becomes a mess, with screenwriter Pablo F. Fenjves and director Asger Leth clearly running out of clever ideas for the film, as opposed to implausible and silly ones.  Between this film and Tower Heist, I think I am ready to see caper films move back down to ground level for a while.

Man on a Ledge is basically harmless.  It contains a lot of forgettable entertainment in a very “don’t stop to think” sort of way, but is also completely ridiculous and wastes a lot of the talents of its strong ensemble cast.  The film is not insultingly bad, there is just little to recommend.  The premise is kind of intriguing, but I have literally seen exact sequences from this film lifted from two Mission: Impossible movies, the Ocean’s series, and Phone Booth.  I can always enjoy a quality heist film, it’s just that Man on a Ledge is not exactly a quality film; instead, it falls just sort of said ledge.

Nick Cassidy:  I am an innocent man!

John Ottway:  Once more into the fray.  Into the last good fight I’ll ever know…

The Grey takes place in Alaska, amidst the company of an oil drilling team at a refinery.  Liam Neeson stars as John Ottway, a sharpshooter who has been hired by the refinery to keep bears, canines and other wild beasts from attacking the workers during their shifts.  Ottway seems distraught about his life, but the film quickly gets to the fateful plane trip, which ends in a terrifyingly tragic way, as it crash lands in the middle of the snowy Alaskan wilderness.  A handful of survivors, including Ottway, make it through the crash, but are now forced to contend with the environment.

Despite the initial survival, it is made clear that these men will die if they do not stick together, stay warm, and find what they can to live off of for the time being.  Making matters much worse is the arrival of a pack of vicious wolves.  With Ottway surmising that wolves will continue to attack, because the men are in their territory, the group eventually works to trek away from the wolves with hopes of making their way towards shelter or possible rescue.  Ottway’s survival knowledge may be able to get the men moving forward, but it will take a lot to keep them surviving through all the elements, with these deadly wolves lurking close behind.

The Grey is much more in line with the tone of Narc, the breakout film (2^nd overall feature) from writer/director Joe Carnahan, than his follow ups (Smokin’ Aces and The A-Team).  The film is very much rooted in the realm of survival in harsh environments, under harsh circumstances and features a lot of testosterone at play, with men fighting against wolves and each other at times; but it also serves as a quiet drama.  Neeson is setup as a conflicted character (to say the least) with a lot on his mind before given the ultimate challenge of trying to keep himself and others safe in a battle for survival.  Room is provided for the other characters, later on the film, to dig into their handle on the situation and their lives as well (though, in a lesser detailed sense).  It is the way the film balances the action and drama that made The Grey so compelling to me.

There are certainly two misconceptions about the film that will not work in its favor.  One revolves around its early-in-the-year release date.  This is a near-negligible element, but the fact is that The Grey exists in a weird sort of limbo that doesn’t fit the mold of a summer release and has been shuffled around due more to production delays than anything.  It is unfortunate, given that Neeson is award-worthy in this role (more on that soon).  The other misconception is how I feel The Grey’s marketing may be promising too much for people, given its focus on one iconic moment.  All I can say is that The Grey is intense, but it is quieter than one might expect.

Now, as it is Neeson who commands most desires in seeing this film, he is simply fantastic in this role.  The film has a very minimalist approach to its plotting and setup, and within that is Neeson who is allowed to maintain his natural accent and delve into an emotional area that would almost seem to close to home.  With that said, Liam Neeson truly puts his all into this performance that manages to combine the elements that have made him into the recent, well-loved action hero-type, as well as what has previously afforded him high regard as a strong screen actor.  As various layers about who Ottway is are revealed throughout the film and as he is forced to contend with the deadliness of his situation, Neeson’s skills as an actor turn this into a performance that I would easily rank as one of his best.

There is something to be said about the rest of the cast as well.  Though only two or three characters are fleshed out more significantly than the others, I still got into the de facto bond that was created between them, as they struggled to survive.  Actors like Dermot Mulroney and especially Frank Grillo got the chance to make a bit more of an impression, with the latter being the one to question Ottway’s role as the leader, but even in the midst of heavy testosterone and group face-offs against wolves, there was room for pathos in this film.  The level of tension involved in watching this group try to keep each other alive becomes crucial and also serves as a way or portraying some of the most affecting scenes.

From a production standpoint, there is some great filmmaking at work in terms of keeping the film tense and convincing me that these men are trapped in an impossible situation.  The chilly and somewhat grainy cinematography by Masanobu Takayanagi is very effective throughout, and this atmosphere is appropriately aided by the score by Marc Steinfeld that is both harrowing and poignant at times.  A lot rides on the look of the wolves as well and whether or not they are convincing, but thanks to a number of cinematic tricks involving practical effects, CGI, and real wolves, I can safely say that their presence was felt in this film.

I was really into The Grey.  Even with a marketing choice that was intent on setting up a certain kind of film, the film that this turned out to really be was one that I found to be quite gripping, very well made, satisfying on a number of levels, and especially well performed by Liam Neeson in the lead role.  If it is going to come down to intensity vs. credibility in what these men face, I believe the film did enough for me to have me much more concerned with how everything was going to play out.  This was an effective survival horror that kept me tense and worried, even with Neeson their trying to keep others from being taken…by wolves.

John Ottway:  …Live and die on this day.  Live and die on this day.

Note:  Stay until after the credits.

Kevin:  Just because you’re used to something doesn’t mean you have to like it.  You’re use to me.

While the film manages to clue you into what is going on, I will tread lightly on what the basics of the plot are.  Tilda Swinton stars as Eva, the mother of Kevin (played as a teen by Ezra Miller).  Eva is currently living on her own, in a small, run-down house, and working a meaningless job near the prison where her son is now located.  The film flashes back and forth between two timelines. One is this present time where we see Eva visit her son and attempt to continue living her life, despite those familiar with who she greeting her with utter disdain.  The other is more or less a depiction of various memories Eva has of Kevin, as he was growing up.

Nothing suggests that Kevin was ever a regular child and all of his actions seem to revolve around making Eva miserable.  As a baby, he would never stop screaming while in her care.  Getting older, he refused to speak, let alone become potty-trained, for quite some time.  As he grew even older, everything about his attitude towards his mother seemed to suggest something more nefarious than just simple, possibly meaningless, foreboding glances.  Of course, only Eva was witness to these actions, while her husband, Franklin (John C. Reilly) and younger daughter Celia seemed to think the world of Kevin.  Given that we are aware that Kevin is in prison early on, something sinister is definitely lurking underneath.

Part of what always gets to me about creepy kid-type movies is the way that only one character is clued into the strange and foreboding situations that are afoot, while everyone else writes off the signs (which is especially tough to take when the kid seems so obviously evil).  Tilda Swinton is really put to task in this film, putting up with everything her insufferable child makes her go through, let alone the mental state we are all witness to, following the events that lead her to her current situation.  It is because of this that I must praise the work done by Swinton and Ezra Miller as Kevin (to an extent), because such a strong reaction was brought out of me while watching this film.  The frustration of not being able to do anything about the mental anguish that one’s own child is putting you through, especially once it is too late, is truly soul crushing and the film is very effective in that manner.

Eva: Why would you have something like that?
Kevin: I collect them.
Eva: Doesn’t it a weird thing to collect?
Kevin: I don’t like stamps.
Eva: Then what’s the point?
Kevin: There is no point. That’s the point.

Frustration aside, my compliments for this film mainly stem from the unnerving atmosphere created by the vivid photography seen throughout, the intense close-ups of certain details, some fancy editing, and the score by Johnny Greenwood.  The fact that Swinton is not afraid at all to really portray a deeply affected character definitely helps.  Watching her stress out and deal with Kevin in various other ways is quite interesting, particularly since Kevin is at his most sincere (creepy as that may be) around his mother.  It is a unique type of relationship and chemistry that occurs on screen that creates a weird sort of unsettling balance for the film.

Issues I have with the film basically revolve around a lot of what comes with the premise.  I was incredibly depressed after having seen the film, with appreciation only coming after the fact in regards to what I can step back and admire about the film as a whole.  But while engaged with the film, it was mainly a fixation on the story rooted through so much frustration against what Kevin does.  The length/pacing of the film did not really factor in as a negative for me, but the fact that the emotional response created was rooted in anger more than anything does not make me want to automatically champion the film, regardless of how good the performances by Swinton and Miller are.

Now, keeping all of these anger-related feelings in check (and trust that I really am trying to do so, as the film’s overall rating should really not be based around how much I wanted to cuss out a child), it is still a good film as a whole.  It is well constructed in a sort of art-house psychological thriller sense and certainly features strong performances by the cast.  We Need to Talk About Kevin is just also a film that did not create the enjoyable kind of stress that one has when watching movies that try to be another iteration of The Bad Seed or The Omen (and yes, I am aware that this film is an adaptation of a book, which is constructed quite differently).  It is a domestic horror story that makes one uncomfortable, but induced lots of frustration as well.

Franklin: Hey, Kev. Listen buddy, it’s easy to misunderstand something when you hear it out of context.
Kevin: Why would I not understand the context? I am the context.

Red Tails

Lightning:  How do you like that Mr. Hitler!

The film follows the exploits of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of African American servicemen during World War II.  Rather than depict any sort of training or build up to who these men were or where they came from (you know, character development), we arrive right in the midst of things, with a particular crew growing tired of going on boring flight missions in broke-down, second-hand planes, and seeing no action.  Two key characters to stay focused on – Martin “Easy” Julian (Nate Parker), the squad leader, and Joe “Lightning” Little (David Oyelowo), the hotshot fighter pilot.  As these two squabble over following their mission parameters vs. actually taking on the enemy, work is done back at base by Col. A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) to ensure a chance for the Tuskegee Airmen to finally be able to prove themselves and not be written off as a failed experiment.

A chance is finally given, with the Airmen proving themselves to be quite capable in the air, leading to more missions.  Easy continues to lead, despite making some questionable choices, while Lightning continues to go along for the fight, while also taking some action on by himself and getting the glory.  All of this occurs while a pipe-chomping Major Emanuel Stance (Cuba Gooding Jr.) cheers his men on from their base back in Italy.  As more war drama unfolds, both in the form of the Germans shooting down fighters and in terms of (very) mild racism, it will be up to the work of some underdogs to make some kind of a difference in the skies.

This film has been in development for quite some time.  It has been a passion project from executive producer George Lucas (who actually handled the directing duties on reshoots), as he has been wanting to make a film about the Tuskegee Airmen since the 80s.  Unfortunately, long production process and good intentions aside, the story told in this film is a mess.  The prospects of this film maybe achieving a possible victory or mild recommendation pretty much flew out the window in the opening minutes of this film, once a character started to speak.  It really is the dialogue that killed a lot of this movie for me.  But the film has plenty of other misgivings as well.

Strangely not working to the film’s benefit, Red Tails was scripted by John Ridley (Three Kings) and, curiously, Aaron McGruder.  McGruder is a cartoonist best known for creating The Boondocks, which is focused around African American culture and providing satirical insights and social commentary about racial and political issues.  This brings me back to why I think the film plays almost like a comic book.  Rather than seeming intelligent, the dialogue (among other script-based areas) is broad, very stilted, almost rooted in a pulpy 1930s serial, except it all falls completely flat.  If the film had a more stylized tone or look, this may have passed, yet there is no evidence of that.  Red Tails plays everything very straight and as a result everything feels routine to the point of irritation.

The fact that there is really no effort done to bring meaning to the importance of the Tuskegee Airmen beyond some opening and closing text bookends and a scene or two involving a crusty racist colonel played by Bryan Cranston (good thing he has Breaking Bad and Drive) really does not help matters either.  Oh wait, we do get the two-part subplot where one white man calls a black man the N-word in a bar, but later on, after proving their worth, everyone gets together in that bar and has a fun-loving discussion about racial epithets (progress!).  How about anything regarding who these men were before the war, how difficult it was for them to rise through the ranks and become pilots, or anything related to what it means for them to be a part of a significant cause for black culture.  I have heard that various iterations of this film have involved delving into this subject matter, but based on the results and other reactions regarding this film, it seems unlikely that any of this will come into fruition.

Oh yeah, the dogfights and aerial combat stuff.  It looks nice.  If there was anything I was sure of going in, it was that Lucasfilm would manage to pull off a number of good looking action sequences that take place in the air.  Hell, as long as I didn’t focus on the close-ups of the pilots wearing masks and spouting more horrendous dialogue, I was mostly ok with the action on screen.  I am not sure how involved director Anthony Hemingway was with these sequences in the film, but the way the virtual camera utilized to move in these action scenes was effective enough to keep everything clear and actually exciting.  My only real issue is how much these scenes felt like watching CG madness, with no real dramatic weight attached to what I was watching, given that the various characters I have been following do not have much to them, beyond the one defining characteristic to distinguish them.  I could have also done without the unintentional hilarity created by having the film manifest itself a German villain in the form of the one pilot who seems to hold a grudge and easily identifies his pilot target from afar.

So Red Tails has not landed safely into theaters.  I haven’t even touched on the actors, but suffice it to say that there was very little in the way of admirable authority coming from either Howard or Gooding Jr. (and his pipe).  I wanted to remain as open-minded as possible, which seemed like a difficult task, given the years of post-production and January release date, but alas, pretty dogfights was not enough for me to be able to stand by the film.  It is certainly not insulting in anyway, but it certainly becomes laughable in spots and irritatingly plain in others.  There is nothing very on point about its message that seems relevant and as an action film it is still subpar.  For me, Red Tails has been grounded from further takeoff.

Easy:  Fancy trick flying will only get you killed.
Lightning:  Or make me an ace…

Haywire’s

Here’s the best screenwriter Lem Dobbs could come up with: The best secret agent in the world, this time a private sector contractor, is framed for murder and must trek across Europe and the U.S., from Barcelona to New Mexico, to clear her name and get back at those who wronged her.  These dastardly gents include Channing Tatum –taking a break from his side gig as a Hollister mannequin – as douche bag spy Aaron, horribly underutilized Michael Fassbender as MI-6 operative Paul, Ewan McGregor collecting a paycheck as Mallory’s sleezy boss/ex-boyfriend Kenneth, and Antonio Banderas as Sadaam Hussein pretending to be a Latin American politician (that’s the only plausible excuse for his beard).

It is essentially Kill Bill if Quentin Tarantino had no imagination or respect for his audience.  The reason for the company betraying Mallory gets lost in all the flashbacks and locale changes.  And if you really want the best spy in the world dead or captured, try a more subtle tactic than hand-to-hand combat.  Furthermore, if hand-to-hand combat doesn’t work after four tries, maybe try a new approach.

That’s not to say the movie is all bad.  Despite wooden acting and a plot thinner than the paper it’s printed on, the brisk action flick remains engaging throughout because of all those gritty, teeth-rattling throw downs between sexy super spy Mallory and her former colleagues.

Round One begins at a cozy upstate New York diner.  Mallory’s opponent is Aaron.  He’s supposed to bring her back to Spies R’ Us headquarters, even though later we find out through flashbacks her bosses tried to have her killed a few days prior.  He should have just said, “Come with me if you want to die.”  Of course she refuses his offer, allowing Carano and Tatum to show off their admittedly impressive fighting skills.  One can only hope Christopher Nolan’s fight scenes are half as engaging in The Dark Knight Rises.  Director Stephen Soderbergh wisely sticks with tight medium shots putting the audience right in the action, never averting the camera even as Aaron pounds his fists into Mallory’s pretty mug.  Needing no stand in, Carano takes every intensely believable body slam and elbow herself.  She also expertly delivers her own counter attacks, such as a socket-wrenching armbar. I t’s like she never left the octagon.  At least Soderbergh plays to his actors’ strengths.  Visceral brutality will always overcome even the most vapid plot for the first few weeks at the box office.

You would expect the guy who directed Ocean’s 11 to inject some fun and wit into the action spy genre.  Soderbergh had a good enough cast, even with Carano’s inability to emote anything other than aloof bitch.  She found some honest, comical moments with the kid she carjacked, Scott (Sky High’sMichael Angarano).  If their escape from law enforcement and super soldiers had been the focus of the movie, Haywire could have been a prefect late summer blockbuster.  Instead it languishes in January, Hollywood’s Island of Misfit Movies.

The biggest problem is that every piece of dialogue exists only to advance Mallory to her next fight.  The moments with her Tom Clancy-esque father, played by Bill Paxton, had all the dramatic weight of a CSI:Miami episode in which David Caruso had been lobotomized.  Carano’s smoky, monotone inflection, by the way, was created in post-production to make her sound more intimidating.  So essentially she’s the exact opposite of Andy Serkis.

The only real reason to check this out in the theaters is the fighting.  Otherwise, wait two months until it comes out on Blu-ray.  In the meantime, you might as well play Mortal Kombat while listening to jazz funk, which permeates the soundtrack as nauseum.  Soderbergh’s music choice might be his clever way of showing how hip and different his movies are.  They usually look great, sound pretentious and feel hollow.  It’s exactly what you’d expect from the guy who directed Ocean’s 12 and 13.

Mallory Kane:  You can tell me right now why you sold me out, or you can tell me in ten minutes, when I have my hands around your throat.

Carano stars as Mallory Kane, an independent contractor of sorts, who is hired out by a handler (Kenneth, played by Ewan McGregor) to take care of various…discrete jobs that the government would rather not pull off themselves.  The film begins out of order, but the plot revolves around the results of a rescue mission in Barcelona that sort of leads to another mission for Mallory in Dublin.  She is teamed with a partner (Michael Fassbender), but learns that all is not what it seems and is forced to get out of her situation on her own terms.  While an international manhunt is after her, Mallory now needs to get back to the U.S. and get revenge on those who double crossed her.

I tend to bring up the score a lot in regards to various films.  A particular highlight for me regarding Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight and Ocean’s Trilogy was the soundtrack, which was handled by DJ and composer David Homles.  Holmes has teamed up with Soderbergh again for Haywire, which was something that became immediately apparent to me as the film started.  Because of this, I feel I was properly tipped off to what kind of movie this was going to be.  It may have the premise of a Bourne-like film, with a female protagonist (and it kind of is), but this is more like a Lee Marvin-style 70s revenge thriller, with martial arts.  The up-tempo, jazzy score set the mood for me and I enjoyed the film all the more, because of it.

The screenplay by Lem Dobbs, who collaborated with Soderbergh twice before (Kafka and The Limey), is streamlined of most of the extraneous details and stays focused on what matters.  The story is partially told in flashback, but the film’s plot is pretty serviceable (and ridiculous in a lot of ways), acting more as a way to establish the setting and the lead character of Mallory.  Dialogue is fairly sparse, save for the scenes involving mostly the older pros like Douglas and Banderas, but when characters do speak, it feels a lot like a David Mamet screenplay, with very matter-of-fact/in the know-type lingo.  Because of all of this, the best scenes in the film do not involve characters speaking.  Haywire is at its most effective when we find the characters inching closer to bloodshed and then finally getting down to fisticuffs.

I was not all too familiar with Gina Carano before seeing this film, beyond knowing that she was a tough MMA fighter, but after this film, I would be happy seeing more of her.  Being new to the world of acting, it shows in scenes played against people like Michael Fassbender, but when it comes to the action, Carano nails it.  The fact that her face-offs with the other actors in the film were done without doubles makes it all the more exciting, as Soderbergh shoots these fights very effectively.  The action is never muddy and the hits feel like they land.  Fights go on as long as they have to, which is sometimes brief, but often results in more than just headaches for the losers.  It should also be noted that the score, which I talked about really digging earlier, drops during the action to really maximize the impact.  This may not be a traditional action film (come to think of it, Haywire is pretty traditional, just not in a modern cinema sort of way), but Soderbergh’s offbeat style gives this lightweight film a bit more freshness.

Regarding the other actors, not a whole lot is required from anyone, but it is at least nice to see that a lot of talented people enjoy working with Soderbergh.  A key player I can point out is Channing Tatum, who is going to be around a lot in 2012, but demonstrates here just how effective he can be.  What once seemed like a bland male actor has turned into someone whose presence I genuinely enjoy on screen.  People like Michael Douglas and Bill Paxton have all the cool they need just to be around and go through their roles with the subtle touches that make them fun, older actors to watch.  Ewan McGregor is good enough at approaching the sleaziness required in his roles, even if his American accent never quite clicks (has it ever).  Still, this is Carano’s film and she brings plenty of screen presence on her own.

Similar to last year’s Contagion (also from Soderbergh), Haywire does not do a lot to paint a portrait of deep characters.  It instead gets down to basics, establishes the plot of a fairly well-worn story, but delivers in being a solid genre exercise.  The action is well filmed and exciting, the actors involved bring what is required, and the film as a whole is a stylish diversion that serves as a decent break from heavier films.  Soderbergh films tend to come in a few different flavors and Haywire feels like an appropriate entry in his adult-oriented mainstream films with a touch of artistic flare.  Oh, and don’t get in Carano’s way.

Paul:  I’ve never done a woman before.
Kenneth:  You shouldn’t think of her as a woman.  That would be a mistake.

Chris Farraday:  You think you’re the only guy with a gun?

The film stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris Farraday, a former cargo smuggler (one of the best in fact), who left that life of crime in favor of going legit and raising a family with his wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) in New Orleans.  He and his best friend Sebastian (Ben Foster) have managed to stay out of trouble for quite some time, but things get complicated in regards to Chris’ brother-in-law, Andy (Caleb Landry Jones).  Despite better advice, Andy has chosen to delve into some crime business of his own, smuggling drugs for a ruthless gangster, Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi).  Andy botches a deal, putting himself in debt in harm’s way.  It’s a good thing Chris is such a good guy at heart.

In an effort to stop Briggs from killing his brother, let alone keeping his own family from getting hurt in the process, Chris arranges to pay Andy’s debt by jumping back into the smuggling game for one big smuggling scheme.  He assembles a crew on board a cargo ship and has to head down to Panama in order to pull off the job.  Meanwhile, Briggs is getting restless and makes his presence known to Kate and her and Chris’ children, with Sebastian being the only one back at home who can possibly keep things subdued for the time being.  Chris only has a limited amount of time to bring back enough contraband to get everyone in his corner out of debt.

I had low prospects for Contraband going in, not to the point where I would recommend everyone to keep their expectations low in order to get the most out of it, but given the nature of this story and, again, the January release date, I was basically hoping that the strength of the cast would be enough to have me salvage enough entertainment out of it.  Given that Ben Foster and Giovanni Ribisi are talented character actors, who always manage to bring something interesting to the table, having them in the same movie was a large part of my interest as well.  Fortunately, in addition to the cast, there was enough going on within this film to keep me engaged throughout, regardless of the amount of suspension of disbelief involved in watching various heist and smuggling aspects play out.  I think the film does a good job at using movie logic to add enough complexity, while being sure that everything works out.

The thing I appreciated most about the film concerns how every part and every minor plot detail feels like it was introduced and appropriately used in the film.  It does not feel like anything has been wasted.  Characters are introduced and serve very specific purposes.  Small details involving the cargo ship, its crew, or things occurring in Panama all manage to come back into play over the course of the story.  The film, which I can’t imagine had a huge budget, overall has a fairly stripped down approach to its proceedings, which leaves it up to the filmmakers to make use of all that they have.

Contraband is in fact a remake of an Icelandic film, directed by the star of the original version, Baltasar Kormákur.  What he does with the film in its direction is commendable enough.   Kormákur balances a lot of handheld and digital photography work in order to deliver the oh so desirable gritty edge that the kids love these days, but the action and more tension-filled scenes are choreographed well enough to not make one feel lost.  The film has the added bonus of incorporating heist elements, which means audiences can get the “aha” moment, as soon as certain reveals come into play.  The real gripes I have mainly concern the opening, which is a bit slow compared to the surprisingly well-paced second act, as well as some issues with the ending, which revolve around how tidy things end up being.

As far as the actors go, I enjoy seeing Mark Wahlberg in films like this, where he can both bring a level of intensity in one second and turn a scene to a more humorous direction in the next.  Given that this film is R-rated, he does not have to hold back much, even as he goes through dialogue that would seem much sillier in a lesser film.  Foster and Ribisi are reliable as ever, with Ribisi adding an annoying accent fitting for the setting and character, but all the more effective in having us hate this man.  Kate Beckinsale does not have a whole lot to do in the film, besides act threatened, but if I really wanted to call back to my Gone in 60 Seconds opening, it’s funny how she dyed her hair blond in this film, just as Angelina Jolie did in the former (oh these little connections I’ve made).

Contraband does not set out to be a great film, but it is a solid genre film.  It is a gritty-ish crime story that works well and efficiently enough.  The premise is given a sort-of fresh take and Wahlberg and company seem game enough to make everything worthwhile.  Don’t set your expectations to low necessarily, but go in on a medium and you will probably be satisfied on an escapist fun level.

Chris Farraday:  I would love to help you but I don’t know what the f**k you are talking about.

A Separation

Termeh: Didn’t you say it’s not serious?
Nader: It got serious.

The story revolves around an Iranian couple going through a difficult time in regards to moving abroad.  Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to live abroad, hoping for a chance at better opportunities for herself, her husband – Nader (Peyman Moadi), and her daughter – Termeh (Sarina Farhadi).  Nader refuses, because he needs to stay in Iran and take care of his father, who has Alzheimer’s disease.  Because of this, Simin wants to get a divorce, in order to be able to go abroad with Termeh, but Nader does not approve, Termeh is on her father’s side, and the family court judge does not find enough in the situation to approve of the divorce.  Due to all this, Simin moves in with her parents, causing the titular separation.

As the separation makes it incredibly difficult for Nader to work, look after his daughter, and take care of his father, he goes with a recommendation from his wife to hire help.  This help comes in the form of Razieh (Sareh Bayat), a deeply religious, pregnant woman, who comes from a poor district.  Despite a long commute and having to bring along her very young daughter, Razieh takes on the job of taking care of Nader’s father during the day, but quickly finds it to be much too difficult in her condition.  From there, a number of specific occurrences happen, which leads into the film becoming much more complex.

It is interesting how well this film was able to keep me engrossed in its story.  From the outside, it seems like a very simple film and even as it started out, I was curious as to how a story like this, entertaining or interesting as it may have seemed early on, was going to find its way into becoming something that communicated why this, of all films, was receiving so much great praise.  Eventually, none of these thoughts really factored in my mind as I was watching the film.  I was gripped by the story, which was thanks to the number of ways different aspects involving the characters, minor plot points, and various thematic notions all came about and held my focus on what really mattered – the film on its own.

With foreign films, there is sometimes a struggle for me to really commend the actors, because for all I know, their portrayal of a certain type of character may not be accurately portrayed in the eyes of those from that same country or maybe the dialect is misused in some way, etc.  In this film, I want to say I can put that past me, because despite reading the subtitles, as opposed to hearing and understanding the words coming out of the characters mouths, I feel like I saw everything in the performances that stemmed beyond words.  Watching the character of Nader struggle in the way he does with the various amounts of drama that seems to be attacking him from all sides, before having to rethink about his behavior, given how the story unfolds, is just one example of how effective I think the performers are.  The back and forth between the characters, the presence that each performer brought, it was all well played.

The way the story unfolds makes up a lot of how effective I think this film is.  A Separation does a lot with providing ways for the viewer to attach themselves with certain characters or justify a certain perspective, based on how the film chooses to reveal specific plot points.  The way one hears a story be told versus the way it is gone over from a different angle keeps the viewer on their toes, while also keeping them keen on maintaining a proper sense of understanding for all of the parties involved.  Given that much of this film involves the law and the Iranian court system, the way opposed individuals explain and react to various plot points also keeps a particular grey area over matters throughout the film as well.  It is not that the film purposefully hides anything; it is the way it rightfully approaches how to show the audience what is needed effectively.

On top of all of this, there is a level of social drama occurring as well.  Nader and his family come from a middle-class lifestyle, while Razieh and her hot-tempered husband, Houjat (Shahab Hosseini), come from a lower class and are separated by religion.  The way these elements factor into the various arguments all manage to further propel the story and my own interest in it.  These are not elements that are taken for granted, but instead feel applied in an authentic manner, better serving the story in a way that deals with my initial wonder as to how a film like this could stand to garner so much praise.

All of this has basically led to me saying that this film is pretty fantastic and I have very little to say in the way of minor exceptions.  Writer/director Asghar Farhadi has put together a feature that is very well made in a very non-flashy manner.  There is next to no music in this film and everything is portrayed in a fairly straight-forward sense.  There is an incredible amount of subtlety in how the film sets up scenes, especially when some are called back to later on.  And adding to everything is the strength of these performances, each one very key to the film, with strong work from the child actors as well.  A Separation is a great film that balances a strong story with moral complexity, while the filmmakers show complete control in how everything should come together.

Nader: What is wrong is wrong, no matter who said it or where it’s written.

Albert:  What is it?
Soldier:  It’s a horse they found wandering about in No-Man’s Land.

War Horse begins in Devon, England, 1914.  We witness the birth of a part-Thoroughbred horse, which is eventually purchased by stubborn farmer Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan).  Ted purchased the horse basically to spite his landlord (David Thewlis), but also needs an animal capable enough to plough his fields.  Ted’s son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), takes an immediate liking to the horse, which he names Joey and trains him to be suitable for riding and work.  Despite finding success in Joey’s capabilities with a plough, Ted is forced to sell him to the war effort, in order to make his rent payments.  Albert is of course heartbroken.

From there, we follow Joey’s journey through World War 1 and all of the various individuals he goes under the care of.  This includes a Captain (Tom Hiddleston), who is lead into battle, while riding Joey, by his major (Benedict Cumberbatch); two young German soldiers trying to stay safe and protect each other; an elderly French man (Niels Arestrup) and his young granddaughter; a sympathetic German artillery soldier, forced to make Joey pull heavy equipment; and eventually a squad of British soldiers fighting in the trenches.  Along with being a horse with amazing luck, Joey manages to be a part of the lives of many who all see the strength in him.

War Horse is based off of a children’s novel, which has also been adapted previously into a very involved and award winning stage play, which utilized mechanical horses.  The film plays up many qualities that seem bring out people’s best and worst reactions when it comes to Spielberg.  It is a very sentimental film, but it is constructed in a way that one does not see often anymore.  War Horse is very much assembled like something from the John Ford/David Lean School of Epics, though the scope is not quite as large.  Following Joey around, during his years of travel, serves as a way of providing vignettes that look at the times around and during World War I.  Despite having a through line, the separated nature of the story does slightly take away from the film, given the bounce around between human characters.  The thing that really pulls this all together is the wonderful cinematic approach to the feature.

War Horse is a beautiful film to watch, which is definitely served well by having a widescreen film like this be seen on a huge theater screen.  There are wonderful shots in this film that come from all over.  From early scenes surrounding a farm, to the battlefield charges with tons of people and horses all over, to the sweeping landscape settings, and then to all out trench and No-Man’s land warfare.  Spielberg’s regular cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, does great work with camera placement, finding the right lighting, and figuring out places for he and the crew to effectively capture the emotion of a scene as well as keep things oriented around Joey and his journeys as much as possible.  The knack that Spielberg has for directing action and large scale war sequences is a great bonus as well, as adding his touches to World War I (a war not as well recognized as others – namely WWII, which Spielberg has alone made 6 films about it already), does well to expand upon what could have been routine battle sequences.

The movie is fairly long, clocking in at over two hours and twenty minutes, but I did really enjoy myself during that time.  It is not necessarily quick-paced, but it felt appropriately paced in terms of the story it was presenting.  Given the structure of the film and how it moves around between time and characters, I think it is a credit to what was involved in the filmmaking, how interested I was in enjoying the production values of the environments and various other details, along with the what the story was at the moment that I was able to appreciate how the film played out.  The fact that the film does play on one’s emotions (and I would imagine a lot more so for those who are horse or animal lovers), seems like it certainly would play a role in this as well, as far as involving one in the story goes.  Of course, given that the film seems to know that it is trying to stir one’s emotions can go either way for the viewer.

Finally, something I found interesting about War Horse was how it seemed to be uninterested in really addressing any sort of agenda.  Given that the film revolves around WWI as opposed to WWII, which seems to contain more universal themes beyond “war sucks”, it was neat to see the film basically tackle the idea of how war can be pretty ugly, despite having the film set in a PG-13 environment.  The focus of the film always stays close to people finding hope and inspiration because of Joey, for the most part, but the few instances where Spielberg does move into the horrors of war and how warfare is evolving from men on war horses to machine gun encampments provides for scenes that are quite harrowing.  Again, the film takes more pride in finding humanity in its story, based around how people involve themselves with Joey, but it still finds the time to fit in the war element, without going too dark.

I really enjoyed War Horse.  It was not a matter of being a sucker for Spielberg or the amount of heart that it had to offer.  If anything, some of these elements were detrimental to the film, but when all was said and done, I found myself really engaged with the film throughout, admired the construction of the film (especially on a visual level), and got what I wanted out of it.  I barely even mentioned the assortment of British and French character actors present in this film, but many parts were well played in the varying amounts of time that they had.  This was a film that was deliberate in its intent, as heart-tugging as it may try to be, but is still quite well made and had much to be admired.

Albert:  …What kind of a horse?
Soldier:  A miraculous kind of horse would be my guess.

[Actual Dialogue]
Emile Hirsch’s Character: They must be able to sense us through our bio-magnetic shit!
Rachael Taylor’s Character:  That almost makes sense!

Emile Hirsch and Max Minghella star as a couple of twentysomethings traveling to Moscow on business.  They created some kind of social networking app and are looking to expand, only to find that their Swedish backer, played by Joel Kinnaman, has sold them out and taken everything.  Upset, but not disillusioned from spending a night out at the clubs, Max and Emile head to a nightclub and meet up with some American girls played by Olivia Thirlby and Rachael Taylor.  Shortly after they all hit it off, the power goes out…everywhere.  Everyone heads outside, only to notice lots and lots of bright gold lights descending from the sky.

As one of the curious looking light entities touches down close to our heroes and the surrounding group of people, we instantly find out that they are deadly.  War of the Worlds-style disintegration starts to occur, and everyone runs.  Max, Emile, Olivia, Rachael, and Joel all manage to find shelter in a storage room under a bar and hideout for a few days.  Deciding finally to make a move, the group heads onwards, through a deserted/destroyed Moscow.  They eventually learn that the invisible aliens make themselves known when around electricity-based objects and have a connection to microwaves.  The fight for survival ensues.

Movies like this tend to either devote far too much time to “developing” characters (Independence Day, which I love), before letting the chaos ensue or spending a very small amount of time establishing what it needs to, in order to get to the good stuff quicker.  It is the mark of a well written/constructed film (Attack the Block), when the second option works out.  I can give a good amount of credit to The Darkest Hour for spending only fifteen minutes or so, before having the aliens arrive.  It helps that the male actors (y’know – Emile and Max) are likable enough, so it is not too much of a chore to go through the perfunctory details of who everyone is, before settling into a sci-fi disaster tale.  Of course, this doesn’t stop the film from have plenty of other issues, such as idiotic decisions made by characters, a bad switch from a survival story into something that feels like Ghostbusters meets Mad Max, and then more idiotic decisions made by characters.

The aliens should of course be discussed in any movie like this, so here are my two cents on their creation – cheap.  The concept is “invisible aliens”, whose presence is only known by the triggering of street lamps, among other electrical objects, as they approach, and once they do, there is some gold, flickering light.  There is something to say for taking a different sort of approach (which would ideally lead to lower costs, but this movie still cost a pretty penny to make), but nothing interesting is really done with the ideas and it actually made me more curious to see the film dailies, where the actors (y’know Emile, Max, Olivia, and Rachael) would be screaming and running away from nothing, with great vigor.  The vague forms of exposition explaining why they are here are of course unnecessary, but hey, nice try.

This film was shot in 3D by the way!  Yes, in addition to getting your attention by… existing, The Darkest Hour also costs more to see because of its need to really immerse the viewer by adding an extra dimension to the story; not with characters, but in viewing experience.  It is just too bad that this 3D film could have been post-converted and I probably would not have known the difference.

So obviously I loved this movie…No, no I didn’t, but kudos to those who found entertainment value in it.  I actually did to an extent, but not in a way that compliments the movie.  I guess it is neat that they set the film in Moscow (the film was produced by visually-stylish, Russian director Timur Bekmambetov), as it gave the film a more distinct quality, kind of, but overall, this film is just as forgettable as many of the uninteresting sci-fi horror movies that both hit theaters and go direct-to-video.  One last note:  “The Darkest Hour” is one of the more bland titles to have come out this year; better titles – “Lights Out, Bitch”, “Moscow Invasion!”, or “Dos Vedanya, Baby”.

Emile’s Character:  We’re gonna fight the hell back.
[I know I could have looked up their character names, but why?]

We Bought a Zoo

Rosie Mee:  We bought a Zoo!
(these quotes are clickable!)

The film stars Matt Damon as pro journalist and grieving widower, Benjamin Mee.  Benjamin (as he likes to be called), is having a tough time raising his two children, little Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) and teenage Dylan (Colin Ford), in their Southern California hometown, given that everywhere he goes reminds him of his deceased wife.  Dylan is having trouble adjusting as well, given his recent expulsion from school.  This all leads to Benjamin quitting his job and deciding to movie somewhere else, somewhere in the countryside.  After some shopping around, Benjamin eventually decides on a pretty expansive piece of property to sink his life savings and inheritance into.  It has a large house, plenty of outdoors exposure…and is also a zoo.

Rosie Mee:  We bought a zoo!

Benjamin has decided to move Rosie, Dylan, and himself out to a struggling zoo, with intentions to bring it back up to code and reopen it.  This was against the advice of his older brother, Duncan (Thomas Hayden Church), but Benjamin thinks it will do well for him and his children’s spirits.  Helping out with this entire project are the remaining employees of the zoo; including Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson), the most dedicated of employees and animal caretakers; Robin Jones (Patrick Fugit), the caretaker who comes with a monkey on his shoulder; Lily (Elle Fanning), the youngest employee who takes a liking to Dylan; And Peter MacCready (Angus McFadyen), the experienced zoo architect.  In order to have everything work out, which includes having a handle on his family, his employees, and the 200 animals that need caring, Benjamin will need more than just money to get everything in order.

Rosie Mee:  We bought a zoo!

If there was an award for earnestness and precociousness, this movie would certainly be recognized.  As evidenced by a quote I am using, which isn’t just repeated by me, the movie’s lightheartedness and sentimentality can be properly represented in the form of young Rosie.  Her presence in this movie serves as a constant reminder that we are all here just to have a warm and loving time.  You do not have comedic actor John Michael Higgins serving as the “villain” of the film because you want the audience to worry about Benjamin’s livelihood.  But again, despite the adherence to a formula, it does come down the way writer/director Cameron Crowe manages to handle his characters, which does generally turn out well for the most part.

Matt Damon is completely solid in his role.  This is not much of a surprise to me.  Damon proves again and again that is he is pretty capable anywhere.  Here he does a pretty great job at playing the central figure of this film, dealing with so many various matters.  I think it works because you believe that this man wants to do the best that he can in order to please everyone, even in the face of dealing with his past tragedy.  The scenes between him and his son are among the most important, especially the encounters late in the film and it is these moments of drama that are handled well enough without feeling too sentimental.  I think the same can be said for the way he has to deal with some of the older animals within the zoo.  With all of this, Damon does well at working in the same territory as Cusack or Cruise have in past Crowe films.

Benjamin Mee: You know, sometimes all you need is twenty seconds of insane courage. Just literally twenty seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.

Not quite as successful is the supporting cast, despite a few highlights.  If the character of Rosie has all the precociousness she needs, then Scarlett Johansson certainly has all the earnestness.  Given that she plays up her habitual need to do all that is right for these animals, it does not feel mannered, but there is a slight awkwardness in her chemistry with Damon, given the doe eyes she can’t seem to help but give him at many moments throughout.  Thomas Hayden Church was a lot of fun here, playing a caring but not overbearing older brother and scoring a decent amount of laughs.  McFadyen’s work as essentially the brashly poetic zookeeper was fun too.  And Elle Fanning continues (after Somewhere and Super 8) to give affecting performances in films.

As far as the whole zoo angle is concerned, that was again a nice touch.  This film is based on a true story, for whatever that is worth, but the concept felt enough like a novel one to not have me caring either way.  I liked how the zoo was incorporated into this story.  And staying in line with how things were incorporated into this story, Cameron Crowe has a way of writing dialogue that can sometimes stick out, but beyond some of Benjamin’s dialogue towards the beginning and end and Rosie as a character in general, it did not really stick out in a bad way.  It is a Cameron Crowe film for sure, which is highlighted by the soundtrack (easily noted by those very familiar with the man) among other things, but in an even lighter way…and with a lot more animals.

If this was 2007, at a time when No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood were becoming big successes, it would be nice to have a refreshingly light film like We Bought a Zoo to serve as counter-programming.  However, as it stands, there actually are plenty of very accessible films currently in theaters to check out.  And even without that context, it still feels more like a film that is trying to be really special as opposed to one that actually is.  All of this and still I did actually like the film and would recommend it for families.  Damon is as solid as ever and the genuinely sweet nature of the picture is nice to see mixed with some of Crowe’s filmmaking sensibilities.  It may not have matched up to Crowe’s greater work, but it is a pleasant diversion.

Rosie Mee:  We bought a zoo!

For those unfamiliar with the late Stieg Larsson’s crime mystery novel or the subsequent 2009 Swedish film, the less you know the better.  You should dive into this case questioning everything and everyone, like Craig’s character Mikael Blomkvist, the disgraced investigative journalist from Stockholm hired to solve a 40-yearold murder.  In short order, he lost a libel suit, his savings and the most sacred thing a journalist has: his reputation.  To earn it all back, he must find out who killed the teenage niece of his wealthy 82-year-old financier, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer at his best).  Harriet Vanger disappeared in 1966 during a party on the family’s island, and Henrik has spent half his life trying to uncover which rotten fruit on his family tree is responsible.  They’re mostly Nazis and alcoholics, so it could be anyone of them. Luckily for Blomkvist, all the suspects still live in mansions spread about the island. It’s almost as if he’s playing a giant version of the board game Clue.  His only allies are a stray cat, the old man and Martin Vanger (native Swede Stellan Skarsgard), Harriet’s brother and current CEO of the family business.

So what does this have to do with the titular girl?  Her name is Lisabeth Salander and she too is an investigator of sorts.  She performed the comprehensive, albeit invasive, background check on Blomkvist for Vanger, using hacker tech that seems Bondian, but is all too real.  She’s more likely to be at a discotheque than an Apple Store Genius Bar, though.  As a former employer tells Vanger’s assistant, “She’s different.” He asks, “In what way?”  The boss responds, “In every way.”  She’s essentially the grown-up Euro version of Kick Ass femme fatale Hitgirl, and she’s by far cinema’s most interesting character this year.  Credit goes to Rooney Mara (The Social Network) for completely giving herself over to the character.  Any actress can sport body piercings, goth locks and bleached eyebrows, but it takes true talent to nail Salander’s simultaneous self-assured confidence, seething rage and repressed vulnerability.

Before inevitably teaming up with Blomkvist to unravel the whodunit, Salander also experiences humiliation beyond comprehension.  In Sweden, Larsson’s book translates to “Men Who Hate Women,” and Fincher never shies away from depicting that hatred.  As Salander is still a ward of the state, she is at the mercy of the world’s skeeviest lawyer (that’s saying a lot) to get her monthly allowance.  The “jobs” he has her do don’t exactly help her rage issues.  What does help is the graphic revenge she releases upon him, which in a perfect world, would be what happens to all rapists.

As the plot hurdles forward, it’s a bit difficult to keep tabs on which Vanger is which, but it doesn’t really matter.  You know there will be twists and turns, sleights of hand and so on.  True crime noir fanatics can predict much of the ending after 30 minutes in.  The story has been told twice already, anyways.  This is still a must-see movie, primarily for Craig and Mara’s onscreen chemistry.  Speaking of chemistry, the Fincher/Reznor mash-up works even effectively here than in The Social Network, setting the mood and scene without overpowering it.

The actor known for overpowering everyone in his other films, Craig, proves he’s not just an expert in badassery.  Here he exudes the humanity and charisma that can only be found after hitting rock bottom, not the bottom of a martini glass.  And for the first time, when he gets shot at, he runs like hell.  And he must rely on a 23-year-old self-professed psychopath to get his life back on track.  And he in turn helps her overcome her hatred of men.

For as insane as both their lives are, the relationship develops naturally and quite believably.  As odd as the pairing is, you root for them to find happiness in the end.  (Spoiler Alert: This is Fincher’s universe. Here, happy endings only exist in seedy massage parlors.)

To reach the ending, happy or otherwise, you’ll speed through about 135 minutes of an excellently crafted crime thriller and have to sit through about 20 anticlimactic minutes of wrapping up loose ends.  It’s not as egregious as “Return of the King,” but it does slightly tarnish another wise efficiently paced story.  Despite its runtime, the graphic visuals and compelling suspense of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo leaves an indelible mark that will leave audiences hotly anticipating the next chapter: The Girl Who Played with Fire.

Nancy:  Why are we still here?
Alan:  I hope you’re kidding.

After a brief prologue that shows, from a distance, an indiscretion involving some kids, the film moves into a Brooklyn apartment building.  We learn we are in the house of Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Jodie Foster and John C. Reily), who are currently meeting with Nancy and Alan Cowan (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz).  It seems that their sons were the ones who got in a fight in the opening, with the young Cowan boy hitting the young Longsteet boy with a stick, which required medical attention.  The parents are now dealing with the situation, as responsible adults should.

However, things are not as simple as that.  The nature of each individual comes out over the course of this long afternoon, where all the participating individuals cannot seem to leave the apartment.  A key proponent of frustration is Alan, who did not want to come in the first place and continues to interrupt things by taking urgent phone calls in regards to his job.  Penelope is a perfect match against Alan, as she is an idealist and most likely one who tends to over-parent her children, given the frustration she has with much of the world.  Meanwhile, Michael does plenty to try and be the most reasonable throughout, while Nancy tries to stave off impending sickness in a number of ways.  The introduction of alcohol only makes things worse, but it is the attitude and cynical tone of everything that really exacerbates things further.

I was pleased and amused by this dark comedy.  I had only heard of the play, but not the details concerning the actual story.  The premise turned out to seem pretty ingenious to me in its simplicity, regardless of how appropriate it may be for a film adaptation.  The idea of watching two purposefully different groups (mainly separated by class) have an extended debate about one particular matter, only to lead into increasingly frustrating discussions about a number of different topics related to societal issues is quite entertaining in its own bizarre way.  The comedy is handled with a sharp sensibility, which makes for cringe-inducing character actions and interactions that cut incredibly deep in their insulting nature, despite the supposed proper intent, initially anway.  The movie had me laughing quite a bit, but never without realizing how biting the whole thing was.

Nancy:  You think our son is a snitch?
Michael:  I don’t think anything.
Nancy:  Well if you don’t think anything, then don’t say anything.

The actors chosen to portray these characters are all a perfect fit.  Sure it does not present much of a challenge for these particular talents to play roles that they can easily nail, but with that said, they do easily nail their roles.  Particular credit goes to Jodie Foster and Christoph Waltz.  So far, since his Oscar win for Inglourious Basterds, Waltz has only popped up in major film roles that emphasize his talents for being a well spoken and precise villain.  Here takes these talents and has them fitted to the role of a cut throat lawyer who is a straight shooter in his delivery.  Foster becomes more and more outraged throughout the proceedings, which in turn grants her the chance to become more and more hilarious.  I do not want to short change Winslet or Reily either, as they both are well-suited to matching up to the others and becoming hysterically hysterical at the same time.

Clocking in at a fairly fast-paced 80 minutes, with credits, Carnage certainly does not have a whole lot to offer in the way of carefully constructed story arcs, but it makes up for it by utilizing the location and having a lot of fun with fitting these characters into a small space and having plenty for them to do and discuss.  Polanski enlivens this film with his directorial touches, which amount to more than just letting the actors sit in a room together and argue.  Camera placement and how the setup and geography of the apartment is handled works well to maximize the comedic tension in this film and it very much works as a play-turned-movie.

As there is not a lot to the film, I find that I don’t have much else to say.  I was happy with this film overall, as I had a very good time laughing at all the ensuing chaos that emerged from what should have been a simple meeting between two relatively understandable groups.  It is not really a challenging film for various reasons, but it doesn’t need to be.  Carnage is an entertaining divergence for a more adult crowd, despite its occasional dalliance into the immature nature raw human reactions under duress.  Bring a skewer and have some fun.

Penelope:  Why are we still in this house!

Henrick Vanger:  You will be investigating thieves, misers, bullies, and the most detestable collection of people that you will ever meet; my family.

The film features two lead characters.  One is Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a publisher and part-owner of a popular Swedish magazine, Millennium.  As the film begins, Mikael is in the middle of a lot of libel-related trouble involving published allegations he made against a billionaire financier.  In an effort to get away from his troubles for some time, with promise of a way to get his life sorted as a reward, Mikael takes on investigating the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch’s (Henrick Vanger, played by Christopher Plummer) niece.  She disappeared forty years ago, but Henrick is convinced she was murdered and is tortured by her memory, as he receives a token every year from someone he believes to be her murderer.  Mikael is allowed to stay in a small cottage within Henrick’s estate to investigate the various other members of the Vanger family, who may have information to offer.

The other lead in this film is Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), an independent surveillance agent, who was hired to do a background check on Mikael.  To say Lisbeth had a troubled past would be an understatement.  Currently, she is anti-social, dresses in all black, and adorns herself with piercings and tattoos.  Lisbeth is also a gifted computer hacker, with a photographic memory, making her perfectly well suited for research and problem solving.  Following a detour that revolves around her personal troubles with a legal guardian, Lisbeth eventually teams up with Mikael to help him in his investigation.  Things, to say the least, wind up not being as simple as finding out what happened to just one young girl.

I really do not want to play the comparison game, but it seems like that may be a lost cause.  As one who has only read some of the book series by Stieg Larsson, but has seen all three Swedish films and enjoyed them all (more or less), it is only natural to approach this film within a certain line of thinking.  I really did enjoy the first film a lot, mainly due to the performances from the leads, Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist (who are both currently starring in American blockbusters, which I’ll refer to as Impossible Holmes: A Game of Protocol).  I also admired the way that film served as a compelling thriller, brought forth by the moody atmosphere created by director Niels Arden Oplev, which seemed to owe a lot to filmmakers such as David Fincher (Se7en, Zodiac, Fight Club).  Now we have the American version of the film, which has been directed by, surprise surprise, David Fincher.

Given that Fincher is a director who I would name off the top of my head as one of my favorite currently working directors, I was completely ready to accept a new film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, regardless of its proximity to the American release of the original film versions.  With Fincher coming straight off of the success that he met with The Social Network, putting him back into the dark and atmospheric place of a murder/mystery film seemed like a fine choice.  What came as a bit of a surprise is that despite how well put together this film is, it feels like there is a lack of Fincher’s own emotion in the direction.

I would not go as far to say that the film feels like perfunctory work from someone I consider one of best current working filmmakers, but there was a lot more of a style that seemed fitting to what someone would expect from a Fincher film, as opposed to being hit with a film full of creative stylistic flourishes to further amplify the experience. I would equate this more to Fincher’s Panic Room as opposed to Se7en in terms of the type of handle he had on making this film his own, although even Panic Room is more visually inventive.  I am putting a lot on to one person, when there are plenty of people to distribute reasoning to regarding my impressions, but maybe it just has to do with my level of expectations at this point when it comes to Fincher.

Mikael Blomkvist:  I want you to help me catch a killer of women.

The film was scripted by notable screenwriter Steven Zaillion (Schindler’s List, Moneyball), who seems to have really treated the source material with a lot of respect.  I say this based on how close I understand the original film to be to the book, along with other things I have heard, such as how the ending of this film plays out.  This new version of the film definitely does not try to trim the fat, which seems to be a problem in all three versions now, as it still clocks in at over two and a half hours; however, thanks to the superb editing work by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, I thought this film managed to fly by pretty smoothly, considering the subject matter.  I noticed a lot of differences in the details here and there and while the film’s story may not contain the greatest of mysteries, I still believe it to be a compelling enough narrative that I appreciated more based on all the tangents that it takes on the way to resolving some of the core plot threads.  It certainly helped that the film did not back down from the hardcore nature of the subject matter and embraced the dark nature of the story being told.  I also really enjoyed the ending, which has a tone fitting of my new favorite T-shirt.

Casting is a bit of an issue, but in interesting ways.  As Lisbeth, Rooney Mara does a very admirable job with what she is required to do.  This is a performance that requires a very strong and independent individual, who has emerged from such a wounded past.  It also requires a level of intimidation, despite existing with a slight body frame.  Given that Rapace’s performance in the original films is their most notable asset, these were big shoes to fill, which Mara almost completely nails.  There is a level of confidence that is not quite the same, but it is still a very good performance that matches well to rightfully being the titular character.  Daniel Craig has the low-key, straightman role in all of this, which he pulls off quite well.  It is a strong performance, which makes up for the fact that he can’t really play down the fact that he is probably the most handsome newspaper investigator in the business.  I did find the chemistry between these two to be a bit forced, which is both something that seems appropriate in who these characters are, but also a problem that may be more due to how the build up to their collaboration had been handled.  Still, these two play well in their roles, as does the supporting cast, which features a serviceable list of character actors.

Before trailing off into too many details, I’ll wrap up with the work of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who have reteamed (after winning an Oscar for their work on The Social Network) to create a score for this film.  While their work here may not have the same inventiveness as on their previous film (similar to my thoughts on Fincher’s direction), the score manages to establish a very particular mood throughout, which helps keep the film fitted together quite well.  Despite my thoughts on the film not having enough to say in order to distinguish itself as something really special, I cannot emphasize enough how this decidedly long features manages to feel very well put together thanks to technical aspects such as its editing, cinematography, and tone appropriate scoring.

My main take away from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is that this film exists as pure cinema.  Despite being of a very specific type (Hard R for strong violence, torture, nudity, language), this is a spectacle film made to stimulate movie goers with a desire to see an adult mystery thriller.  It does not feel like a passion project from the filmmakers involved, which is not a bad thing, but it does give me more appreciation for the original, which seemed to have more of a heart for the source material.  This still doesn’t take away from the fact that the American version is a well made feature and one that I am very curious to see how unfamiliar audiences will react to.  Who knows, maybe giant creature tattoos on people’s backs will become all the rage.

Henrick Vanger:  Soon you will know us all too well, with my apologies.

Captain Haddock: You do know what you’re doing, right?
Tintin: Relax. I interviewed a pilot once!

This particular Tintin adventures is an adaptation of The Secret of the Unicorn.  It centers on Tintin (Jamie Bell), the renowned young boy journalist and his highly intelligent dog Snowy.  While browsing through a market in a European town, Tintin spots the model of a particular sailing ship, with a unicorn as the figurehead.  After buying the model, Tintin is immediately accosted by two individuals with high demand for it as well.  One of these men is Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine (Daniel Craig), a name that could not seem more evil and he has the facial hair to match.  True to form, a foreboding mystery surrounds Sakharine’s desire for the model and Tintin later learns from him that two of the same model ship exists, each containing a hidden scroll, with a coded phrase that requires all three to properly decrypt.  In search of a story and seemingly embroiled in an adventure that has already led to some danger, Tintin has the desire to press on with finding out the truth.

Believing that he is purposefully hiding the scroll, Sakharine kidnaps Tintin and imprisons him aboard a ship.  Naturally, Tintin manages to escape his room and meets up with the also imprisoned Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), who has a major connection with Sakharine and the secret of the unicorn-headed sailing ships.  Tintin and Haddock (along with Snowy) must now team up in an effort to reveal the secrets of the unicorn.  This will involve traveling and getting chased across exotic locales, Haddock recalling the stories of his ancestors, and using a lot of quick thinking and coincidences to aid in the trio’s success.  Always unintentionally exciting times for Tintin it seems, but he always seems to land on his feet.

Along with Spielberg, there is quite the impressive pedigree of filmmakers that were involved with bringing this new version of Tintin to the screen.  Producer Peter Jackson and Weta Digital certainly aided with having a shared passion for the character and the abilities to make an impressive looking mo-cap film.  Famed television writer Steven Moffat (Dr. Who, Sherlock) and filmmakers Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish (Attack the Block) were all involved in crafting the screenplay.  Together, I think each participant involved managed to succeed in bringing the exact sort of tone that is required to successfully adapt a Tintin story.

Tintin: We’ve got bad news. We’ve only got one bullet.
Captain Haddock: What’s the good news?
Tintin: We’ve got one bullet.

An interesting point to bring up is that this is actually Spielberg’s first film since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  Many will claim that this is the movie that ‘Indy 4’ should have been and I can see why.  When Raiders of the Lost Ark first came out, it was compared to the Tintin comic books by some reviews, which confused an unfamiliar Spielberg at the time, but he has since become a huge fan of the series.  Now, having made several Indy films and making subtle references to the style of Tintin, it is very easy to see how the two can connect.  There is an old-fashioned serial vibe that is contained within both series’ that allows for a lighthearted sense of danger, combined with humor, and a good amount of slapstick.  Yes, Indiana Jones is a much cooler person, but Tintin’s quick thinking and determination make him a proper adventurer as well.

To add another point about Indy 4, I had issues with the cinematography in that film.  As much as I admire Janusz Kaminski’s work in Spielberg’s other films, his attempt to retrofit his style on top of the work done by Douglas Slocombe in the previous Indy films, mixed with the unfortunately ample amount of CGI present did not sit well with me.  With Tintin however, similar to how Pixar uses other master cinematographers as camera and lighting consultants, Kaminski managed to assert himself in this world and it paid off, as the look and visual style of this film is perfectly handled, given the variety of elements present – from swashbuckling adventure to touches of noir.  And better yet, the 3D is quite good.  It is not as fantastic an experience as Hugo, but it is certainly well utilized.  2011 had me most curious about how well 3D could be employed by Spielberg, Scorsese, and Bay and I have been very pleased with the results and how well it speaks for the format’s future, were it to be further handled in proper ways.

Getting back to the visuals and how wonderful the animation is, Tintin does have a whole lot of wow moments.  Two highlights include a fantastic flashback sequence that involves what could be some of the best pirate action I have ever seen as well as another sequence, which is one sustained 5-minute long take of a downhill chase through the streets of a town to the harbor.  It is these moments of visual splendor, along with several other fantastic action beats and cleverly constructed sequences that really highlight the detailed level of animation that really emphasize how wonderfully freeing motion capture filmmaking can be.  I love getting to use forms of the word “whimsy” when it truly applies and Tintin really seems to have a whimsical sense about it, which has allowed Spielberg to have a lot of fun messing around with creative ideas that are not quite possible with live-action filmmaking.

Tintin: How’s your thirst for adventure, Captain?
Captain Haddock: Unquenchable.

The actors involved in this film all bring enough to the proceedings; given how the characters are handled in Tintin adventures (I’ll get back to that soon).  Jamie Bell manages to provide the youthful determination that is needed for Tintin.  Daniel Craig’s work makes a good argument for why I don’t need mo-cap models to resemble the actors portraying them.  Craig manages to bring the right amount of villainy to his character, without having to look like an evil version of Bond.  Andy Serkis continues to have a great list of mo-cap performances to call back to.  The eccentric Capt. Haddock is wonderfully realized by Serkis, who manages to be all sorts of fun in the way he approaches a character that is part alcoholic, part foolish, and part genuine hero (it’s in his genes, after all).  And among a number of smaller supporting roles, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost manage to appear as a couple of identical bumbling detectives who wish to help Tintin.  Special mention also must go to the completely CG performance that was Snowy, the amazing dog, who constantly helps Tintin and Haddock during their journeys.

I think the easiest thing to associate with this film as a problem is with its title character.  Tintin is decidedly vanilla when it comes labeling his personality.  This ties it very closely to the comics, as Tintin is never really a character that develops a fascinating backstory or even evolves much as the series progresses.  Tintin is simply a young reporter, with generally very little at stake, but is full of youthful exuberance and determination to do what is right.  This may make him register as a flat persona overall, but something about his well-meaning nature keeps me happy to follow his story.

The other issue may be the story’s reliance on conveniences and coincidences that manage to get our heroes out of various instances of danger.  This is again something that is very true to the original stories, with less emphasis on Tintin being able to handle himself in action (which he can, when needed) and more so on quick-thinking and the helpful nature of suitable environments that tilt favor towards the good guys.  The film’s reliance on the greater good prevailing and sticking with slapstick humor may be a crutch that the film leans heavily, but as a fan of the source material, I was plenty pleased.  If there was an issue that I would want to take up with the film, it’s how I think it peaks early and feels anticlimactic; however, the overwhelming sense of fun I was having for the majority of the runtime made up for it.

I had a lot of funfun with Tintin.  The movie is very likable, lighthearted, and made with such a sheer sense of joy for the motion capture film format.  It may have presented an interesting challenge to see how a live-action version of this film may have played out with today’s technology, but I think it was a much wiser decision to go with motion capture.  Despite his love for shooting on film, Spielberg seems to have easily embraced what shooting in a digital world had to offer; as he is allowed to pump up his Spielbergian filmmaking touches to a high degree throughout the feature.  Add to that the superb quality of the animation, combined with the fun score by John Williams, and its overall breeziness, and you have a dazzling adventure film fit for everyone.  What it lacks in thematic complexity, it makes up for in friendly earnestness and I’ll be curious to see if American audiences embrace it as much as the rest of the world.

Tintin:  We can’t go back.  Not now…not now.

Ethan Hunt:  The secretary is dead.  The four of us is all that remains of IMF.  No safe house.  No support or extraction.  Everyone connected to this person is an asset with valuable information.  We come back with our target or we don’t come back.

Ethan Hunt’s (Cruise) latest mission, should he choose to accept it, involves him and his team attempting to stop a war between the U.S. and Russia.  I’ll back up; after a fantastic cold open to the film (complete with an awesome intro credits sequence), Ethan and his team, which includes IMF operatives Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), attempt to capture a person of interest, code-named “Cobalt” (Michael Nyqvist).  To do this, the team must infiltrate the Kremlin and retrieve secret files from its archives.  The plan backfires however, as Cobalt also breaks into the Kremlin, steals Russian nuke codes and covers his tracks by blowing up the Kremlin.  In the process, Cobalt has also managed to pin the blame on IMF.

In order to prevent retaliation from the Russians, Hunt and his team must stop Cobalt, which will have the bonus reward of stopping Cobalt from nuking another part of the world.  Of course, this will be an impossible mission, given that Hunt and his team are acting under “Ghost Protocol”, which serves as a black ops contingency that disavows all of IMF.  However, some help may be provided by the latest addition to the team, Agent Brandt (Jeremy Renner), who quickly proves he is very capable in the field, despite possibly having secrets of his own.  With the old school threat of nukes serving as the high stakes end game for the bad guys, Hunt and his team will have to travel to exotic locales such as Dubai and Mumbai in an effort to stop them.  This plot summary will self destruct in five second.

To get right to it, there is an amazing sequence set in Dubai on the tallest building in the world.  More specifically, it is set outside of the tallest building on the world, with Tom Cruise running around the building, while being filmed on IMAX cameras.  The way the film captures the extreme challenge this presents, providing an understandable mix of great suspense and, frankly, awesomeness is pretty fantastic.  Seeing this sequence on a huge IMAX screen is worth the price of admission alone, and this is just one of the many great spectacle sequences that are littered throughout the film (as well as captured on IMAX cameras).

‘Ghost Protocol’ was directed by Brad Bird, the Oscar-winning director of such films as The Iron Giant and The Incredibles.  Given that this is the man behind a few of my favorite animated films, I was greatly looking forward to seeing what his live action feature film debut would be like.  Without a doubt, I think Bird has established himself as a filmmaker who can tackle any format.  This is an incredibly slick, well-paced, well made film.  The action is kinetic and wonderfully captured on screen, never seeming confusing and always functioning in tandem with character actions.  It is a small set of action films, these days, that get away with properly setting up a clear rhythm to the action, and Ghost Protocol is very much one of them.  Additionally, story moments, character beats, and the espionage-related twists and turns, all function well in a film that is fairly straightforward, but always exciting to watch.

I also appreciated how this film wanted to stay fairly true to the original TV series.  Yes, for those who don’t remember, there was a very good TV series that this mega-blockbuster series was originally based off of, and much like the first film, Ghost Protocol makes an effort to stay somewhat true to its roots.  Now of course this film has a much larger scope, given the nature of the blockbuster and the advancing of technology since the 60s, but many of the hallmarks of the series (such as fancy gadgets and masks) are still present.  This is most notable in respect to the teamwork aspect.  As opposed to Bond movies, which is where the first sequel went wrong, Mission: Impossible was very much about assembling a team with a variety of specialties to accomplish their goals.  This film does that effectively, making every character feel important.  This brings me to the cast.

I have never really taken to separating Cruise from Ethan Hunt in this role in terms of a true character, but I have always admired the determinism that this character portrays.  So with that said, along with the amazing physicality of Cruise (given that he’s done the majority of his own stunts), I continue to be a fan of him playing this role, even if it doesn’t feel like too much of a challenge from a character standpoint.  Jeremy Renner is quite good at reigning in the rebellious nature of his past few characters and playing a sort of action movie star in training here.  Simon Pegg scores a ton of points at providing plenty of levity throughout the film, while also factoring in as just as important as everyone else.  It was also nice to see Pegg looking quite fit, after appearing noticeably on the paunchy side in other recent films.  Paula Patton is perfectly fine…and she’s good in the film too.  I appreciated her mini character arc in this film, along with how she handled herself in action.  And on the villain side of things, not a lot is required of Michael Nyqvist (who was also in the original ‘Dragon Tattoo’ movies and apparently facing off against Noomi Rapace in Sherlock this coming weekend), but he gets to look intimidating enough and blends well into the world of espionage.

Enhancing the experience further is the dynamite score by Michael Giacchino, who previously worked on the third film in the series along with Brad Bird on his other films.  Along with providing his riff on the original theme by Lalo Schifrin, the music provided throughout the film always feels appropriate, with the right little beats and instrument usage that suggest that we are watching a fun spy/action movie, which we are.  It supplements the movie well, especially given that in the midst of all the suspense and excitement, the film is also quite funny and the score can, at times, be somewhat playful.

It is hard to find things to nag at this film about.  Given that this movie is called ‘Mission: Impossible’, it should come as no surprise that a large amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary, regardless of how well constructed the action scenes are.  The plot does not attempt to be convoluted in any way, but I did somewhat miss the sense of misdirection that works well for these types of stories.  There are surprises, yes, but the plotting does not try to challenge the audience with too much complexity.  With that said, there were a lot of moments that toyed with expectation and the notion of being another action film (in the sense that things don’t always go as planned), which I much appreciated.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is a fantastic blockbuster summer action film, which happens to be coming out during the winter.  It fits well as another entry into the franchise and does so without requiring the viewer to have much knowledge of the previous films.  And regardless of this, it is just a straight up, great action adventure, with fantastic stunts and special effects work.  The use of the IMAX format only ups the magnitude of how effectively well made this film is.  Ghost Protocol disavows all knowledge of sub-par action films, sets its sights high, and scores a mission accomplished.

[Discussing sticky gloves, which will be used to scale the tower]
Benji Dunn: Now remember:  Blue is glue.
Ethan Hunt: And red?
Benji Dunn: Dead.

Mavis:  Here’s the deal; Buddy Slade and I are meant to be together and I’m here to get him back.
Matt:  I’m pretty sure he’s marries with a kid on the way.
Mavis:  No, kid’s here… I’m cool with it.  I mean look, I’ve got baggage too.

Theron plays Mavis Gary, a beautiful and somewhat successful author who is also lonely and somewhat of an alcoholic.  After getting a brief image of what Mavis’ life is like living in the big city, Minneapolis, we see her hatch a new plan of sorts, following the notification that her old high school boyfriend, Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson), has just had his first child.  Mavis packs up her things, including her purse-sized dog, Dolce, and heads back to her hometown of Mercury, Minnesota.  Her plan is to reclaim Buddy, oblivious to the problems that this idea presents.

Upon arriving, Mavis avoids going to her own home with her parents and instead gets a hotel room.  She immediately tries to make a rendezvous with Buddy, only to schedule a date for the next day.  In the meantime, she goes to one of the old bars in town and strikes up a friendship with Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), a former classmate who was crippled in high school and has since remained a resident of Mercury.  Matt is the only one who learns of Mavis’ plan, but once Mavis begins to reconnect with Buddy and interact with his wife, Beth (Elizabeth Reaser), things move down a dark and awkwardly comedic hill.

I have been a big fan of director Jason Reitman, who previously made Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up In The Air.  Each of those are films that I love to revisit, so in my mind, it seemed apparent that Young Adult was going to have to work hard to be able to match up.  While I would say that Young Adult is a good film overall and works well in not compromising its characters for the sake of a touching, Hollywood ending, I would also put it at the bottom of list, when ranking Reitman’s films.  That is almost a way of complimenting the film, as this reaction of mine is mainly due to its lack of a certain charm that the other films have had.  Young Adult does not feature a lead I would really want to continue to hang out with, regardless of how strong Theron’s performance is.  This movie is basically the opposite of Bad Teacher, not copping out on its lead character, going the route of a sitcom-style plot and instead embracing her level of narcissism and the overall cynical tone that is resolved in a fairly haphazard sense.

The film was scripted by Diablo Cody, who previously won an Oscar for Juno.  Hipster dialogue be damned, that’s a well written film, but the stylized nature of that screenplay is very much dialed down in favor of a much more retrained type of story.  The humor is very dark, very dry, and embraces the Ricky Gervais style of making things as cringe worthy as possible.  The central story is essentially smaller in scope, focusing on the train wreck occurring, as Mavis tries to shoehorn herself back into the life of her old boyfriend.  The best decision was to add the character of Matt, played by Oswalt, who serves as an appropriate outlet for Mavis, while also being able to voice discerning reasoning as to why her objectives are so abhorrent.  Given the tragic nature of Matt’s back story (and other tragic revelations), it is all these additional details that really add to the film overall.

I have noted a few times that Theron is great in another role that requires her to really ugly herself up.  Not Monster-style ugly, but ugly in the sense that she is stripped of actor pride for the sake of portraying a mean, narcissistic, and very vulnerable persona.  The way Mavis must glamour herself up before going out, hiding the sad, lonely, distraught woman underneath says plenty.  More revealing scenes, in more ways than one, arrive later in the film as well, further indicating the strength of this performance.  It is a well crafted performance that is never overplayed and rightly establishes all the necessary qualities to make it work, regardless of how much respect we end up having for the character.

Additionally, there are a few notable supporting roles that work as well.  Oswalt, who I have seen do great work in a smaller film, Big Fan, gets another chance to shine here, establishing pathos for his character as well as easily highlighting his own idiosyncrasies.  Patrick Wilson deserves a good amount of credit for playing not really a dolt, but a man who acts oblivious to Mavis, in hopes of not having to relive whatever it was that pushed them apart in the past.  Keeping it together in the midst of heavy come-ons from an ex, while the wife and newborn factor in was a good enough challenge for Wilson to have.  I also enjoyed Reaser as Buddy’s wife quite a bit.  She does not have a prominent role, but there was a lot to take away from her expressions in the wake of Mavis’ presence.

In the past I would say that Reitman, as a director, has done a good job at applying a clever visual style to his films, sometimes more overtly than others.  In this film, much like the script and performances, his visual touches seem dialed back for the film.  It is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seemed more apparent that this is a film made based on desire to re-collaborate with Cody again, as opposed to really adding a personal stamp to the film.  Still, there is a lot to admire in the way the film comes together.  It flows fairly well, up until the third act, which is a bit rushed, but definitely does not outstay its welcome.  There are also some good soundtrack choices, which has been another good staple of Reitman’s films.  The tracks heard in this film are quite fitting both in tone and in how they are rooted to the times from the past that Mavis is revisiting in her mind.

I wanted to like this film more, but in a way that is similar to The Descendents, I found the film to be good enough for a watch, but not one that I need to really revisit anytime soon.  The writing and acting in this film is very good.  I have especially high regards for Theron and Oswalt, who both manage to reveal enough about themselves and show how vulnerable they are when you get right down to it, but without having any of that drama register as unreal.  I was also pleased that Cody’s script did not feel like another version of Juno, but instead seemed like a good sign that there are many shades of what her writing has to offer.  It is a fine character study about a person I don’t really want to root for and would just rather see grow up.

Buddy:  Mavis, I’m a married man…
Mavis:  I know.  We can beat this thing together.

Dr. John Watson:  Oh, how I’ve missed you, Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes:  Have you? I’ve barely noticed your absence.

A Game of Shadows picks up a year after the events of the first film.  Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) has become obsessed with trapping the criminal mastermind Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Moriarty has proven himself to be the intellectual equal of Holmes, while also hiding in plain sight as a well respected man, despite his nefarious deeds.  The latest of these deeds has included a number of random bombings and assassinations of important individuals.  The revelation of Moriarty being willing to personally harm Holmes in more ways than one, after an early confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty, makes Holmes’ push to stop the professor even more significant.

In the middle of all of this, John Watson (Jude Law) is about to be wed to his fiancée, Mary (Kelly Reilly).  Watson had previously moved out of the London flat he shared with Holmes (on 221B Baker St., respectively), but has still come to Holmes’ aid from time to time, despite Holmes’ reclusive state.  Watson becomes drawn into Holmes’ affairs more heavily, following an incident on the night of his supposed bachelor party, which leads to knife fights, chases, and the introduction of a gypsy named Simza (Noomi Rapace, of original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo fame).  As Holmes deduces more about the various individuals and situations he comes into contact with, it leads him, Watson, and Simza across Europe, with hopes of stopping the cunning Moriarty.

Even before the initial trailer for this film, which suggested a “samesies” approach, I was a bit worried that as much as I enjoyed the first film, fast tracking a sequel could imply something along the lines of The Mummy Returns, where the film is basically a duplicate of the first, but bigger (and with annoying children).  Fortunately, while the film is larger in scale, it does not feel like a rehash of similar beats from the first film.  The style created by the first film is still present, but also expanded upon.  We get more “Holmes Vision” with an added twist at one point, as well as a few incredibly stylish action/effects sequences, and of course plenty of the banter between Holmes and Watson.  There are similar problems that this film shares with the first as well, but I was happy to see that this film felt more like another adventure in the Holmes story, rather than that same adventure with a fresh coat of paint.

Once again Robert Downey, Jr. gets to have a lot of fun playing the titular character.  His approach to the role once again has him at the height of his wits, as others play catch up.  He gets to exhibit plenty of wild behavior that always ends up servicing his overall purpose, while being an entertaining person to watch.  Add to that his handle on the dialogue, fighting talents, and approach to various disguises, and you continue to get a broad, but witty performance.  Jude Law as Watson was also a welcome return.  I was a big fan of the choice of his casting last time around and I continue to enjoy what he brings to this film.  His chemistry with Holmes and the way he serves as gateway into the film for audiences is very appropriate.  Seeing him in action is also a lot of fun, especially during a moment that had me thinking back to his role in Enemy at the Gates.  Between Downey, Jr. and Law, it was also quite rewarding to see the depths of their relationship, in the midst of what is a fun time to spend with them.  The film continues to be a solid bromance at its core.

Dr. John Watson: I see your web of conspiracy has expanded.

Also faring very well is Jared Harris as Moriarty.  It would have been easy to gun for a really huge movie star for this role, but a great choice was made to have an accomplished character actor (best known for his work on Mad Men) play the anti-Holmes.  In the film, Harris is very good during his screentime and fantastic in his scenes played opposite to Holmes.  The two have a wonderfully respectful rivalry that plays to their strengths as intellectuals, with sinister underpinnings as far as Moriarty’s intentions are concerned.  There is enough to Harris’ performance that positions him as an effective threat, without a need for overdoing it or underselling his presence.

In supporting roles, Stephen Fry has a comedic role as Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft Holmes, who adds nothing but laughs and exposition; not a bad thing necessarily.  Kelly Reilly also gets to do a bit more, besides be fed up with Watson’s relationship with Holmes.  And Rachel McAdams does return for a small portion of the film.  The other new addition, Noomi Rapace, is unfortunately given very little to do.  Besides her involvement in an early action scene, she mostly has the task of following a long with the dynamically dapper duo, before sitting out during their fun activities.  Given the strong work that Rapace was able to impress many with during her stint as Lisbeth Salander and the fact that she’s another talented, but mostly unknown actress as far as blockbuster movies go, yet chosen to be in this film, it is a shame that she’s relegated to this position.  Still, she wears a gypsy wig well.

Ritchie’s work as a director continues to be a selling point for this film as well.  The first film gave him the chance to solely focus on his talents as a man with a keen eye for dynamic visual filmmaking.  Having set up the foundation and style with the first film, which did feature some exciting set pieces, this sequel really gives him a chance to dig into some fun.  Moving out of London and into other European cities leads to a few really fun and thrilling set pieces, including an action set piece aboard a train, another set in a weapons depot, and a really well done chase through the woods.  I enjoyed that there was a lot of variety to the action, while also making sure to establish an effective level of peril throughout.  Holmes and Watson really take a beating during this film, which is a nice way of keeping the film’s stakes above the level of lighthearted fluff.

In terms of production and costume design, this is a great looking film.  There is still a stylized nature to the world that Sherlock lives in, which feels appropriate, especially given that the first film set up the tone so distinctly.  For every attempt to keep a level of authenticity to the surrounding characters and locales there are also elements such as a castle in Switzerland, which is practically equivalent to a Bond villain lair.  Helping this further is Hans Zimmer, who once again provides a score that did not necessarily catch me off guard like the first film, but continues to provide the inventive score that fit well with the character and tone of the film.

The problems that people found with the first, I believe, relate to the length of the film and the way the character of Sherlock was handled.  I’ll still maintain that despite the obvious adjustment to a blockbuster film world, the portrayal of Sherlock is quite fitting, but I would like to think that the same justice is done this time around as well and with better results.  As far as the length, it is still a problem.  I honestly saw no real shape of the actual plot of this film until around midway through.  The threat of Moriarty was apparent, but the story could have been tightened up without losing much at all.  However, once the pieces started to clearly fall into place, everything really gelled together for me.

Overall, big fans of the first film should dig this sequel, fans ok with the first may like this one more, and those not taken at all by the first will probably still dislike what Ritchie and company have to offer here.  I seem to take away a great deal of enjoyment out of these films and my feelings are supported by the fun performances from Downey, Jr. and Law, the very welcome addition of Harris as Moriarty, and the engrossing, large spectacle scenes seen throughout.  I was happy that the film did not seem to be an enlarged copy of the first and will be happy to see where this series goes next.

Professor Moriaty:  Are you sure you want to play this game?
Sherlock Holmes:  I’m afraid you’d lose.

George Valentin: “ “

Starting off in 1927 Los Angeles, Jean Dujardin stars as George Valentin, a very popular silent film star. As the film begins, we see just how responsive the audience is to George, after his latest film premiere. As George moves outside to be photographed by the press, a female admirer stumbles into him and decides to play along, becoming a mystery beauty. We quickly find out that this admirer is Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), an aspiring actress and dancer, who manages to use her little bit of newfound notoriety to gain a small role in one of George’s films. Despite the distraction she seems to be causing in the eyes of producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) and to a lesser extent George’s wife Doris (Penelope Ann Miller), George is happy to have Peppy around on set.

As time moves forward and Peppy becomes higher billed in the opening credits, another change begins to occur. The advent of “talkies” begins to take hold and becomes the craze for both audiences and the film industry. This is big for Peppy, as she becomes a major star and has enough charm and talent to become a viable romantic lead, suitable for this new era of cinema. It is unfortunately bad news for George, as his stardom begins to fade, given that he does not take the move away from silent films lightly. George is not ready to embrace the move forward, which leaves him far down on his luck. With any chance, the admiration and affection Peppy has for George may be enough to overtake George’s stubbornness and lead to a way for both to fully realize their talents as true artists.

While the films Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Martha Marcy May Marlene have the best titles to say out loud this year, writer/director Michel Hazanavicius is certainly the most fun name to say. Most notable known for his French spy spoof film series OSS 117, Hazanavicius has now managed to achieve one of his big dreams of producing a silent film in black & white. The fact that he was able to do so and make it incredibly accessible in a time that features films that have been successful based on being at the polar opposite end of the silent film genre is all the more impressive. Whether or not the film has been finding so much success (it has won many awards on the festival circuit and is a front-runner for the Oscars) due to the fact that it calls back to an older time not seen at all anymore, I can personally say that I was engaged with the film based off of the performances and how it treats the style needed to make a silent film.

The cast of this film is quite good and capable of pulling off the tricky nature of playing characters in a silent film, who must do a lot more physical work, without having it come off as overacting, but still emoting appropriately. This is especially impressive when watching the actors playing actors who are acting in their respective silent films, within the film (reading that sentence backwards is just as much fun). There is quite the list of supporting characters in this film, along with the leads, which includes James Cromwell, Missi Pyle, and Malcolm McDowell. Everyone here seems appropriately suited for this film, even as many have much less to do than others. Seeing the expressiveness of Pyle’s face, as an actress pushed aside by George’s initial spotlight hogging, is just as effective as the presence that John Goodman’s big smile or exasperated reaction moments.

As far as the leads go, both Dujardin and Bejo put forth wonderfully endearing performances. Bejo is quite lovely, perfectly living up to her character’s name of Peppy Miller. She shares the right kind of chemistry with everyone she interacts with, shows a knack for a variety of talents, and presents a wonderful sense of caring in the way her crush on George manifests itself throughout the film. In a truly wonderful way, Dujardin manages to put forth a great performance that is both comedic and dramatic, as the film switches gears in its regard towards his character. These characters may be “speaking” to each other within the realm of the film, but watching Dujardin communicate to the audience so much about who his character is and how he develops throughout the story, while in the guise of a silent film actor, is quite the impressive display of talent.

Hazanavicius certainly does wonderful work behind the camera, creating a visually pleasing film that very much resembles the feel of a film from this era. Without getting to technical about how the look of this film was achieved, it is quite apparent that many filmmaking tactics were used and appropriately adjusted in order to give this film the look that it has. And it doesn’t stop there, as The Artist is rife with visual motifs and small nods to the time it pays tribute to. Additionally, without revealing too much, it is not just the soundtrack by Ludovic Bource that makes the use of sound in this film so effective.

As The Artist is incredibly likable by design, it is hard to find things not to like about this film. The only element I could pull out of this line of thinking is recognizing that it doesn’t take long to know what this film is. I would not say that creating this film in the style of a silent film is a gimmick, but the sense of nostalgia created by this film is merely supplemented by themes and motifs that are presented pretty outright and keeps the material pretty light. As a counter, I would say I can admire Hugo more for the way it presented a story expanded upon by the ideas it presented by capitalizing on technical innovations to make the film all the more clever. However, I was still taken away more by The Artist, as so much of the joy I had came from the warm nature of the performances and the fine craftsmanship of the film.

It may stand as a film that would have been deemed unlikely to be made, given the absence of dialogue and color, but The Artist has been made, has been distributed, and has found an (expanding) audience that supports it. This film may not be calling for a revival of the silent film genre, but it stands as a fantastic exercise in calling back to a past era and is boasted by exceptional performances and filmmaking. The Artist is an entertaining film, with enough warmth and talent on screen present to appropriately fill in the silent sounds of the audiences within the film with sounds of joy and delight from the audience watching.

Peppy Miller: “ “

George Smiley:  I need you to do something for me.  You have to assume they’re watching you…

Based on the bestselling novel by John la Carre, who informed much of the spy genre in general, when dealing with that subject matter in popular media, the film adaptation is set in the 1970s and stars Gary Oldman as George Smiley.  George worked for British Intelligence (referred to as “the Circus”), serving as the right hand to Control (John Hurt), before being forced into early retirement.  His retirement was the result of an international incident based on an operation gone wrong in Hungary, which lead to an agent, Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) getting shot, while attempting to buy Soviet information.

Despite his retired status, George receives word from a government figure that he should investigate the claims of a supposedly rogue agent, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy).  Tarr believes that there is in fact a mole working with the Circus and it is someone very high up.  Among the suspects there is Tinker (Percy Alleline, played by Toby Jones), Tailer (Bill Haydon, played by Colin Firth), Soldier (Roy Bland, played by Ciaran Hinds), and Poorman (Toby Esterhase, played by David Dencik).  With the help of an agent inside the Circus, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), George will do all he can to find the information he needs that will lead him to the truth.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was directed by Tomas Alfredson.  This film serves as Alfredson’s follow up to the much praised Swedish film Let the Right One In, and similar to that film’s somber mood and quiet efficiency, ‘Tinker’ gets a lot done by placing emphasis on character reactions and subtlety in the various detailed moments.  Also in similar fashion, the film’s both have bursts of violence that are not so much flashy as they are effective in conveying the appropriate story beat needed to move things forward.  However, while ‘Tinker’ is a spy drama, the most suspenseful sequence in this film does not arrive via rival agents armed and hunting each other, but rather during an intense scene that involves the theft of reading materials.  It is not that this film is attempting to deconstruct the genre of a spy thriller, it simply exists in a real world setting, which is well captured by Alfredson’s direction and the story that has been crafted by la Carre and then adapted for the screen by Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Connor.

I can only try to pull highlights out of this cast, since it is so expansive, but everyone truly does great work here.  I was particularly excited to see Cumberbatch, having recently watched the BBC series Sherlock, and was quite pleased with how well he handled his role.  In particular, he is involved in the aforementioned incredibly tense sequence of the film, which he pulls off wonderfully.  Mark Strong has been a favorite character actor of mine for some time and I was quite pleased with the way he was embedded with so much pathos here, this time around, as opposed to playing another villain type.  Tom Hardy has a number of good scenes to play with as well, being utilized just enough to create some foundation for the central plot.  So many other great actors are here as well and it is quite impressive to see a cast like this pull things off so successfully, without feeling like they have overshadowed one another.

Of course a true notable amount of praise goes to Gary Oldman in the lead as Smiley, a man much different from a character you would come to expect Oldman to play.  While Oldman’s roles in the past have been typified with a sort of unhinged nature (not including his wonderful work as Jim Gordon in Nolan’s Batman series), the role of George Smiley is much different.  George is a character who internalizes almost everything and keeps the information that he gathers very close to the vest.  Oldman, being the chameleon that he is, pulls this off quite well.  While the characters all have lots of dialogue throughout this film, much of its success comes more from their physical actions and the way they deliver their lines.  Oldman is quite aware of this, as he manages to move through this film while keeping his cool throughout and absorbing plenty of information to make his character a quiet, but effective force.

The film looks great as well.  Given that it is set in the 70s, not only do we get to observe the wonderful haircuts and suits of the times, we get to observe all of the older methods of covert government operatives at work and how they have their organization setup.  Regardless of the accuracy in regards to the Circus, it was interesting nonetheless.  Helping matters is the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema, who makes this film practically look like it came right out of the 70s.  The score by Alberto Iglesias helps this further by sounding quite fit for the genre being portrayed, as well as adding a bit of a jazz riff to the proceedings as well.

As informed as the performances may be and as pleased as I was with the overall look and feel of the film, it can be challenging at times to completely grasp.  It does move at a specific pace, which at times can be bothersome if one does not stick close to the plot that is presented.  The plot itself does become quite complex itself due to the way it has no desire to pander to the viewer.  Facts are presented to characters in the way they would speak, without pausing to relay the information in obvious dialogue.  It is nice this way, but it once again requires the full attention of the viewer, but even then, not being well versed in spy jargon could lead to some moments of feeling left behind.  I was never particularly unengaged by the film, but it was notably challenging to make sure I had everything straight.  There is also the issue of seeing within these characters and not feeling too left out due to their stiffness, which I would relate to the time they are living in and the professions they have.  And finally, I am curious to hear what others thoughts are on how the film reaches its conclusion.  I felt it to be fitting, given how the rest of the film played out, but I can imagine some being let down.

One of the compliments that comes to mind is how, despite the tricky nature of the story, in terms of requiring the viewer to keep up with the plot, I do want to check the film out again to both absorb more of the story and to continue to admire how much went into the making of this film.  I found it to be quite good overall, aided largely by the great work from the ensemble cast, with a number of highlights among them.  The 70s atmosphere was certainly a positive for the film as well.  Given the sexy nature of many spy thrillers in more modern times, it was quite interesting to observe the way this film acted as a throwback.  Although it does make sense, given that the material comes from a man who’s work essentially evolved into the sexier spy thrillers of today.  With that said, I’ll continue to welcome a retro spy thriller if it is as assured as this one.

George Smiley:  We are not so very different, you and I.  We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another.

Brandon:  Slowly.

Fassbender stars as Brandon, a successful New York business man who tends to live a private life in the eyes of many.  What Brandon actually does at his work, in the big office building his desk is located in, is apparently unimportant, but we get that he’s good at what he does.  More important is how he presents himself versus who he actually is.  Signs come early as we see Brandon react worried in regards to his laptop being taken for a surprise IT check.  One thing is for sure, Brandon is lonely.  His nighttime activities (and at times during the day) may involve various ways for him to engage in sexual activities (regardless of whether he has a partner or is alone), but he is always alone in his bed, quick to take off, or quick to usher away anyone else who was involved.  It is not about fun for Brandon, it’s about scratching an itch.

Things become more complicated with the arrival of Brandon’s sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan).  After arriving home and alarmed to find that his sister has entered his apartment (to the point of being worried of a burglar and grabbing his trusty baseball bat), Brandon now finds himself with an unwelcome roommate.  Sissy has waywardness about her, but similarly shares a quality of loneliness seen in Brandon as well.  While basically homeless and in need of shelter through Brandon, Sissy does have some prospects in the form of serving as a cabaret singer in fancy night clubs.  Despite this, Sissy still manages to get in the way of Brandon’s life, as far as Brandon is concerned.  The rest of what follows is similar to a downward spiral, as Brandon’s lifestyle starts to unfold.  Fittingly, consequences arrive as well.

In their previous collaboration, Hunger, about the 1981 Irish hunger strike, Fassbender and McQueen achieved a powerful film through the use of bold, raw performances and an unflinching look at a rough situation.  I guess one can almost be thankful that this film is a bit lighter, but not by much.  In similar fashion, Shame is not a movie that cuts away from the heavier moments and lets one make up their minds.  The film is very much about showing extended sequences of emotion (yes, the downer emotions) and providing a lot of time for the viewer to really examine its lead character and the turmoil of his addiction.  At this point I will make the one mention of the fact that this film is NC-17 because of the sexual content.  A lot is certainly shown, but certainly not in a gratuitous manner; more so in the provocative, “pretentious” art house manner.

The admiration for this movie is mainly due to the two key performances.  One is obviously Fassbender, but I’ve typed “Fassbender” a lot so far, so I’m going to focus on Carey Mulligan first.  Her work as Sissy continues to show me how well she can transition into different roles (this woman really needs a comedy at some point though, to lighten things up a bit).  One spotlight scene has Sissy singing a heartbreaking rendition of “Theme from New York, New York”.  Shot in close-up, it’s a great sequence that suggests enough about who this person is.

Moving back onto Fassbender, he literally goes all out for this part.  So much emotion comes out in the way he has to play the role of a man who can successfully charm some women, while also portraying coldness in his regards to those he is simply wishing to use and disregard immediately after.  The turmoil he faces as he tries to reach his personal sense of momentary ecstasy is also well balanced against the scorn he has for himself, which manifests itself as anger towards Sissy at many moments.  The obligatory back story sequence involving these two in their younger days is not shown in this film, but there is enough implication to know that they did not have it easy.  With this in mind, it is Fassbender who emerges most successful in delivering the portrait of a troubled man in the form of a good-looking yuppie.

Despite the nature of the story and characters, director Steve McQueen does seem to get a lot of mileage out of the making of this film by having a lot of fun inserting his style into it.  McQueen is a fan of long takes, which is made clear by several scenes that are played for several minutes without a cut.  One of these sequences is set around Brandon jogging for a few blocks in New York, as he listens to classical music, another scene watches Brandon and a date interact at a restaurant.  From a technical standpoint, it is pretty interesting to watch some of these sequences (many set to a score that can be quite intense at times).  From a cinematic standpoint, there is a fitting level of rawness to the way this film has been shot.  The film manages to have an interesting type of intensity that revolves around enduring one man’s difficult struggle.

Shame was not so much a film that I embraced and more one that I found myself continually engaged in.  I would not say that there is a whole lot of depth present in the film overall and at times felt like there was a bit too much sensory overload, but with that said, it is still a very solid exotic drama of sorts.  Fine performances from the two main co-stars and a nice handle on the direction and look of the film strengthened its overall results.  Not a film I think all can view and be pleased with and not one I have to see again, but still quite good.  Additionally, I’ve seen plenty of Fassbender during 2011, but this film certainly maxed out the quota.

Sissy:  I’m trying to help you.
Brandon:  How are you helping me?

Hugo:  Can we fix him?
Father:  Of course we can fix him.

The film is set in 1930s Paris and revolves around the main railway station.  Within the station lives a young orphan boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield).  Hugo spends his time adjusting all of the clocks in the station (quite talented with a set of tools he is), observing familiar faces around the station, swiping small parts from a man operating a toy shop (Ben Kingsley), and avoiding the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who quickly rounds up any orphans running around unsupervised.  Hugo is eventually caught stealing by the toy shop owner, who takes a curious item from Hugo – a small notebook with designs for a mysterious device.  In order to get it back, Hugo teams up with the eccentric girl in the old man’s care, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz).

Isabelle is interested in helping Hugo, because she likes the idea of joining in on an adventure.  The adventure in question revolves around Hugo’s past.  When Hugo was younger and living with his father (Jude Law), the two discovered a broken automaton.  A tragic accident lead to Hugo being orphaned and living in the train station, but he still seeks to complete the uniquely designed automaton.  As Hugo works towards this goal, the film also begins to reveal its story about the toy shop owner, who is in fact George Mêliés, one of the earliest pioneers in cinema.  So as things continue to unfold, it becomes a story of both discovery and re-discovery for two characters linked in a most serendipitous way.

Hugo:  Why would my key fit into your father’s machine?

I honestly did not know what to expect from this film.  My biggest interest was in seeing what a film shot in 3D by director Martin Scorsese would look like (and I’ll refer back to that soon).  I have not read the Brian Selznick book that the film is based on a, but given the look and style of the film and the fact that it is rated PG, I did not really expect it to have a much more obvious appeal towards older audiences.  As it turned out, this was a film that one could have easily expected Martin Scorsese to make, given his love and respect for the film medium.  It very much revolves around the notion of nostalgia and paying tribute to where cinema emerged from.  The film is in no way a history lesson about film, but it is very much channeling a lot enthusiasm towards those early filmmakers and what it meant to them to be creating movie magic.  All of these things, yet the film still finds time to be both an adventure story filled with discovery for two children and an ensemble character film set inside a specific location.

Both of the lead children characters feel much like ones you would find in a Dickens novel.  In the lead role, Asa Butterfield is wonderfully capable of pulling off what is needed of him in terms of having a beyond belief type reaction to learning more during his adventures, as well as emoting as it comes time for him to reflect on what he has lost and the positions he gets himself placed in as an orphan.  Moretz is also good at playing up the characteristics of a plucky young girl (with an English accent), who gets all her enthusiasm from the many books she reads.

As far as the supporting cast goes, Sacha Baron Cohen does a lot of good work at playing up the physical comedy aspect of the film.  Equipped with an injured leg that requires a squeaky contraption to keep him walking, his gangly nature and idiosyncrasies make him a fun character to watch and a goofy foil for Hugo.  Other wonderful actors like Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone, and Emily Mortimer pop up as well, but Ben Kinglsey is the true standout.  Kingsley has certainly been quite active over the years, but while many of those roles have felt like him slumming, this is a film where he seems to have truly stepped up.  It is a heartfelt performance that becomes just as important as Hugo’s, and is deserved of awards recognition come that time.

To refer back to how much of a technical accomplishment this film is, Martin Scorsese has managed to create a film shot in 3D, which has turned out to be the best live-action use of the format that I have seen.  The 3D use never feels like a gimmick or as a way that simply looks fitting enough and has you forget that it’s happening.  Instead, Scorsese and his production team have put together sequences that feel completely immersive in a way that is somewhat hard to describe, but altogether effective nonetheless.  A beautiful shot that goes from out in Paris and flows into the train station and arrives inside of a big clock opens the film.  A later scene involves Cohen’s character being shot at a low angle and has his head literally feeling like it is in the theater with you (very nice!).  Hugo makes reference to one of the first films ever, which featured a train headed towards the camera.  The concept was so foreign to people that the audience literally jumped in shock as the train reached the screen.  It seems appropriately fitting that Scorsese chose this story to have used the 3D format so effectively with.

The film is a visual feast as well in terms of the art direction, costume design, and wonderful use of special effects.  I do not expect this movie to do gangbusters at the box office, as it is honestly too weird of a film for whole families to really go out an embrace by the masses, but the quality of this film and its look justify its higher budget nonetheless.  The film suffers a bit from a being a bit overstuffed, coming in at a little over two hours, but it is made up for given the eventual payoffs that occur throughout the second half of the film.

I felt like this year was going to be a big test for the value of 3D films.  In particular, I wanted to see how auteur filmmakers such as Spielberg with Tintin and Scorsese with this film would push the boundaries of the format.  If more filmmakers were able to truly embrace the immersive nature of shooting this way, as Scorsese (and select others…Cameron) has, then I would be fine to see the trend continue.  In any case, Hugo is a wonderful adventure that works as an ode to cinema, while embracing a sense of discovery as well.  With both The Muppets and Hugo, the holiday season of 2011 is a good place to find some feature films that utilize nostalgia well.

Mama Jeanne:  You’ve tried to forget the past for so long; maybe it’s time for you to remember.

Matt King:  I’m just trying to keep my head above water.

Clooney stars as Matt King, a resident of Hawaii, who begins the film by addressing the idea that people who only visit Hawaii are wrong in assuming its nothing but a place for people to relax.  Matt’s life seems to revolve around few non-stressful situations.  His wife, Elizabeth, recently had a boating accident, which has put her into a coma.   Matt is now forced to pay more attention to his two daughters, having not been as involved beforehand.  His youngest daughter, Scottie (Amara Miller), is acting out in school, leaving Matt with few ideas as to how to handle her.  His eldest and more rebellious daughter, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), was away at boarding school, but has been brought back home so she can be there with Scottie and her father.

Along with dealing with his own immediate family, Matt also has his extended family and the state of Hawaii, in fact, to contend with as well.  Matt is a descendant of one of the last white land owners of Hawaii and given his standing, amongst his other family members, he is in a position of deciding whether to broker a major land deal for an untouched area of Kauai.  While many, including his cousin Hugh (Beau Bridges), want Matt to sell the land, which would benefit the rest of his family greatly, there are now second thoughts about the deal, given Matt’s situation.  Exacerbating matters further, Matt soon learns that the reason Alexandra and his wife were fighting is because she was having an affair.

The strong performances were the main thing I enjoyed about this film.  Clooney and Woodley both deserve the most recognition, which I’ll refer back to soon, but there is a great supporting cast here as well.  Robert Forster shows up for a few scenes as Matt’s father-in-law, Scott.  What Forster gets to do in a small amount of time is pretty great.  His dialogue delivery is strong and he delivers one of the film’s best moments, but there is also a lot in what he is not saying.  Beau Bridges does some solid work as a guy who could easily be laid back, but is also not afraid of becoming the villain of the film if the time calls for it.  Relative newcomer Nick Krause is in a lot of this film as Alexandra’s boyfriend, Sid, who comes off in a very particular light at first, but manages to alert us that there is much more to him at heart.  Even the young actress portraying Scottie is quite good at playing a character dealing with a very difficult situation, as well as showing how her sister is rubbing off on her.  There is also a role from Judy Greer here, which I don’t want to spoil, but she is very solid as well.

Getting back to the two more noteworthy characters; starting with Woodley, this is really strong work.  I think it is very effective mostly due to how she does not have to betray her age for the sake of the writing.  By this I mean that she plays a 17-year-old, but never sounds wise beyond her age.  Woodley acts rebellious, swears, and is standoffish at times, but all in a sense that is fitting and feels real.  Her emotions ring true.  Clooney, as I mentioned, does something different here by not playing his role with any sense of cool.  He is dialed down, actually similar to the way Jack Nicholson was very dialed down in another Payne film, About Schmidt.  In The Descendants, Clooney feels as if he was charting new territory by dealing with grief, insecurities, and significant responsibilities in the manner of a regular guy.  There are still the elements of being likable and confident, which Clooney always excels at, but he adds some touches, which truly makes it some of his best work as an actor.

The film was based on a novel, but scripted by Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash (the Dean on Community).  It is a well written film in terms of giving the characters a lot to work with.  There are a lot of great scenes that don’t revolve around significant monologues, but instead having characters playing off of each other.  The opening voiceover block felt a bit more like a dump of information to quicken up the first act, but overall I appreciated the way things moved.  I do consider this film a pretty clear drama, a fact that will get by some, given the way it is portrayed as a mix of comedy and drama, yet I do acknowledge that the film has some pretty funny scenes.

My biggest issue that holds me back from appreciating the film more is its straightforwardness.  I appreciate the story and the characters and maybe asking for something that the film isn’t, but there really was not much more to this film beyond the story that we are told to put me in more of a position to really be grabbed by it.  It is a very strong character drama for sure, but I don’t feel I really grasped it in the same way I did with Sideways, due to that film’s poignancy, or my favorite of Payne’s films, Election, due to that film’s sharp, dark wit.

As it stands, The Descendants is a film that I can easily recommend based on the performances and the writing alone.  It does not hurt that it is wonderfully shot, as Hawaii is frankly a pretty great looking place to shoot a film.  Despite this setting though, this is not an easy relaxation film, where you can forget your troubles and watch the Cloonster play it cool.  It is an assured drama with some comedic elements, which gets by based on its strength in treating the characters with respect and playing out appropriately.  And no, we don’t get to see Clooney surf.

Matt King:  Paradise? Paradise can go f*** itself.

Statler:  I always dreamed we’d be back here.
Waldorf:  Dreams? Those where nightmares!

The film starts out in Smalltown, USA, where we meet two brothers, Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a Muppet).  As they grow up, Walter discovers The Muppets on television and becomes their biggest fan.  A planned anniversary trip between Gary and his longtime girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles really gets things underway, as Walter is allowed to tagalong, hoping to visit the legendary Muppets Studio.  Upon arriving, Walter is disheartened to find that the area has been deserted.  The plot thickens as he discovers a plan by rich oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to buy the Muppet Studio, tear it down, and drill for oil.

With no desire to see the Muppet memories truly wiped off the planet, Walter, Gary, and Mary set out to set things right by finding Kermit the Frog.  They alert him of Richman’s plan and the fact that the Muppets can save the Studio and the Muppet Theater if they were to put on a big show and raise $10 million.  Now it will be up to Kermit, with help from his new friends, to reunite the old gang, hopefully finding away to restart the music, relight the lights, and get all of the Muppets together for the Muppet show tonight.

Veronica:  I’m gonna shoot straight: you guys aren’t famous anymore.
Fozzie Bear:  Yeesh. I wish she’d shot a little more curvy.

The film was co-written by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller who previously collaborated on Forgetting Sarah Marshall.  Those familiar with that film should be aware of the obvious love that Segel has for Muppet characters, which has now lead to what must have been a dream come true.  Staying very true to the spirit of the Muppets and their previous adventures, Segel and Stoller have crafted a very clever story that places the characters in a world where the TV show and the various movies all existed.  Basically, Muppets and people co-exist, no questions asked (because a world with Muppets is a better world to live in), and the Muppets did actually once star in feature films as themselves.  True to form, the movie is very aware of itself and the silliness that goes into it.  And because of this, I was able to fully embrace the tone of the film and smile and laugh all the way through.

An admirable quality that I did appreciate is how the human characters do not overshadow the Muppets.  Kermit the Frog and Walter (the newest Muppet) are the true lead characters in this film, with Gary and Mary having less to do.  With that said, the balance between all of the different characters was quite nice to see, including the villainous Tex Richman character, who Cooper seemed to be having a blast playing.  I also appreciated the various ideas and morals brought into play, which involved things like friendship and staying true to oneself.  There may be weirdness along the way, but the Muppets were never about being cynical, which stands as true here.

As far as the musical element of this film goes, I was able to continue smiling in that regard.  The Muppets was directed by James Bobin, who co-created and directed many episodes of the HBO series The Flight of the Conchords, a quirky comedy that incorporated frequent musical numbers.  Conchords star Bret McKenzie also served as music supervisor for the film.  Combing these two with the songs that Segel and Stoller developed, there seemed to be a wonderful sense of synergy in putting together the big musical numbers within the film.  While not the most expansive in terms of overall filmmaking cleverness, there were a few great gags, commentary surrounding the idea of people randomly singing, and a familiar sense of Conchord-style quirkiness that fit right into the Muppet universe.

The actual Muppet characters continue to be a blast to watch.  We get a lot of great call backs and homages to old jokes, sketches, etc., while also seeing these characters being updated in a sense for the era they are now living in.  Additionally, Kermit and Ms. Piggy continue to have the strangest/funniest romantic chemistry on screen, Fozzie Bear still tries to tell jokes, Gonzo still attempts to live up to greatness, and everyone else is along for the ride.  Actually, Animal has a pretty humorous arc, which involves dealing with anger management issues.  And of course, this film is packed with celebrity cameos throughout.

I may not be the super fanatic like Walter in the film, but I have made it pretty clear to others that I cannot resist being excited by the Muppets.  This film did such a great job at making me think about little else but how much fun I can have with these characters and this type of humor.  It is less a matter of the jokes being very clever and more just the idea that they are so quick to double-back on themselves and call out their own ridiculousness.  Regardless, all it adds up to is a lot of fun, which could be appreciated by practically anyone.  Other movies can try to be the best of the year, The Muppets aims at being the most fun and pretty much succeeds.

Fozzie Bear:  Wow! That was such an expensive looking explosion! I can’t believe we had that in the budget.

Justine:  Life is only on Earth.  And not for long.

Melancholia opens with an 8-minute prologue, utilizing the music of Richard Wagner’s Tristan und Isode juxtaposed with very slow motion imagery of various figures and objects going through dreamlike motions.  At the same time, there are also images of space, with a giant planet eventually colliding with and destroying the earth.  The film is then divided into two parts.  In the first part, titled “Justine”, Kirsten Dunst and Alexander Skarsgard star as Justine and Michael; a couple having their wedding reception at the expansive home of Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland).  During the reception, Justine becomes more and more sad and desperate, as she deals with the presence of her divorced parents (John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling), her stern advertising-executive boss (Stellan Skarsgard), and even her new husband.  While the night goes on, Justine also notices a very specific star that appears to be shining brighter than the others.

The second part of the film, titled “Claire”, takes place weeks after the wedding, with Justine now in a state of serious depression and staying with Claire, John, and their son Leo.  At this point in time, everyone now realizes that the brightly shining star is actually a rogue planet, Melancholia, which is very close to approaching earth.  John, an astronomy enthusiast, is optimistic that Melancholia will pass earthy by and also present the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness the “fly-by” of another planet.  On the other side of things, Claire has become very worrisome over the possibility of Melancholia actually colliding with the earth, ending all life as we know it.  As Melancholia continues to approach, Justine also has interesting reactions, bringing her away from her depression.

I was not prepared to find this movie as fascinating as I did and I can very much understand why this won’t grab as many people in the same way it has grabbed me.  Past films from writer/director Lars Von Trier have always left me feeling the same way as many of the characters he creates in his films, cold and depressed.  With this film, while characters are presented in the same sort of way, I was intrigued throughout the duration of the film.  It will be way easier to praise the opening prologue and the last 20 minutes or so of this 135-minute film, given the stunning way imagery is presented and what it means for these characters, but I did admire the human portions of this film, which could be described as an exercise in stress.  I believe it is thanks to what are a handful of very good performances, some more understated and some more, surprisingly, humorous than others, which makes the film quite watchable, even as the ominous impending doom lurks in the background of the story.

Anyone still reading this that has not yet seen the film should note that I do not actually believe I have spoiled anything beyond what the film is basically about.  However, what I appreciated about the story was the way it approached its major reveals.  The film basically cuts out focus on the bigger issue by setting up a resolution early on, giving audiences a chance to keep all of the characters as the main focus.  How well you appreciate and want to stick with these characters may be a different story, but pushing the sci-fi-ness of this film into the background was a well handled approach, which also pushes forward the humorous notion of Melancholia being an avant-garde disaster film.

As far as these characters are concerned, the actors portraying them are all doing great work here.  In particular, Kirsten Dunst, an actress I never really cared for, has managed to do some fantastic work in this film by essentially playing an exaggerated version of what I considered her to be like in real life.  I am aware those are harsh words, but I have much enthusiasm for Dunst’s performance in this film and am quite happy that she won Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival for it.  In addition to Dunst, I was really pleased with the work by Kiefer Sutherland.  While I could watch Sutherland play badass Jack Bauer all day, he was surprisingly low key in this film, with a way of handling situations that felt true followed by an eventual realization that gives him a great moment to play without using any words.  These two are among a number of actors, who I think are all quite good in this film (John Hurt also gets points for making things slightly humorous and slightly heartbreaking).

A last point I want to address is the method of filmmaking seen here, or more specifically, an attempt to draw from why I could have attached myself to this film so readily.  I stated that I believe this film to be quite accessible and I think that is true.  While there is an extended prologue to the film that could throw some off, were they not to know what they are getting into, the story presented is very human for the most part.  As I’ve mentioned, the concept of the rogue planet is pushed into the background for a good portion of the film, with focus on the characters.  Now while the film does essentially present many unpleasant people to be around, I do think some well planted humorous moments and the way the dialogue flows keeps it somewhat entertaining.  It is, of course, deliberately paced, which would mean slow in some respects, but there is something there that kept me enthralled.  And finally, the imagery, which does open and close the film, is pretty extraordinary.  Shot in and around a castle in Sweden, combining the location with some eerily fantastic special effects made this a great film to look at.

No film is flawless, a statement I always need to write out to justify my obligatory star rating, but considering how to rank this film, the supposed “flaws” others can attest to, I don’t seem to recognize as detrimental to my viewing experience of Melancholia.  I also did not immediately jump to how positive I feel about this film.  I took some consideration but am happy to acknowledge how much I really do love this film.  It is certainly cold, dark, and depressing in ways, but I also found a lot of chilling beauty in the imagery of this film and in how these characters are portrayed and what some of them have to say.  I was on board with the film, which did not seem to have as much baggage as other “obscure art films” that have come out over the course of past few years.  My resoundingly positive response afterward made me look forward to looking back on it and discussing it in times to come, always the marks of what I consider a great film.

Justine:  Hold my hand.  Close your eyes.

And now here we are at the beginning of the end. Part 1 of the 2 part bittersweet conclusion of the Twilight Saga that started back in 2008.

Breaking Dawn is the fourth book in the series written by Stephanie Meyer. And is my favorite book of the series. I started reading the books a few years ago and I still can not put them down. I have to reread them every few months. I miss the characters, I miss being apart of their world. I have to check in on them. It’s the same with the movies. My children tease me when they come over “Twilight’s on again!?!”

If you are not a Twilight fan by now, you’re never going to be, and this movie is not for you.

I guess I am a romantic at heart. Who doesn’t want the kind of love Edward and Bella share? Isn’t that what everyone is searching for? Someone to love us so unconditionally, to protect us from danger, and to stand by our side no matter what. To be their reason for existing. To live happily ever after for as long as you both shall live.

Growing up we dream of marrying our prince charming, who would have guessed that prince charming would turn out to be a sparkling vampire.

If you are a devoted Twilight fan you are going to love this movie! There is so much that happens, so let’s start with the wedding. Bella looks gorgeous; she has a beautiful satin gown with lace going down the back of the dress. She is very nervous, a very human reaction. She’s young, her best friend Jacob is not there, and her parents are divorced after marrying so young. As she is walking down the aisle you can see how nervous she is. But once she sees Edward face, his eyes saying I have waited a century for this moment, and I love you, she calms down. Hold on a second I need to catch my breath, and yes I cried. It was beautiful.

There was a lot going on with the reception, it did seem a little drawn out, but they had the time to spend on it. There was a lot of humor mixed in. I loved the toasts; Charlie’s (Billy Burke) toast was hilarious! Jessica (Anna Kendrick) said Edward’s nickname was “Hair” in school.  And yes Jacob does show up. Before I forget, those of you who are Team Jacob, he only has his shirt off for a few seconds at the beginning of the movie so if you are looking for those abs that is all you’re going to get this time.

Bella and Edward leave for their honeymoon right from the reception. And now we get into the part that everyone has been waiting for including Bella and Edward “The Honeymoon”. The moon light skinny dipping is very romantic and very sweet lots of kissing. You don’t see them in bed much. Edward feels he hurt Bella while making love to her that first night so he doesn’t want to do it again. Let’s just say Bella tried everything in her power to persuade him. There are a lot of hilarious moments during the honeymoon I can’t tell you everything but they will make you laugh.

I am pretty sure everyone knows by now that Bella ends up getting pregnant on their honeymoon. They make a mad dash back to the states because Edward is flipping out over it. Bella is keeping this baby no matter what and there is no one that will change her mind.

I have to say Kristen Stewart owned this movie, she did a great job.

Her transformation from healthy girl to having the life sucked right out of her was awesome. They did such a great job on her. When you see her going through the pregnancy it is going to break your heart. I love that Bella, whom at the beginning of this series you would have never imagined to be a Mom, fights to keep her child. She is willing to give up her life to give her child life. And Edward is against anything that will take Bella away from him. He hates the thing in her because it is killing her!

See I told you there are so many important events that happen in this movie. And I don’t want give to much away. I think the last 45 minutes of the movie are the best. The birth and Bella’s transformation are done so well.  After Bella dies Jacob goes outside and just falls to his knees and cries, this is a good time to get your Kleenex out again. I have to say Robert Pattison really shows us Edward’s anguish and desperation to get as much venom in her so that she will turn into a vampire and not leave him. Edward’s efforts payoff and the transformation begins. As the venom is surging through Bella’s body they show a montage of Bella’s life, it is so moving. Oh my gosh why are you still reading this and not at the movie theater already? LOL! Did I mention Jacob imprinted on Renesmee?

I haven’t even mentioned the music yet. The music fit so well, even the words to the songs fit in the scenes. They play Bella’s Lullaby.

Breaking Dawn is not going to be a critic’s favorite. You have to love this series in order to get these movies. But if you are a true fan you are going to love this movie. A few parts are drawn out a little but that’s ok with me. The only problem I have is how am I going to wait a year to see part 2? I can’t wait to see Bella as a vampire, little Renesmee, and the cottage they move into.

Just a head’s up, stay after the credits, there is something you will want to see!

Well I am off to the theater again. I am going to see all 4 movies today. 10 hours of Twilight! There is nothing like seeing a movie on the Big Screen!

Final Thoughts 

Jacob:  What are we gonna do after we graduate?
Anna:  Don’t think about it.

Anton Yelchin is Jacob, a college TA who catches the eye of Anna (Felicity Jones).  Anna decides to move on her feelings and writes Jacob a lengthy letter expressing her feelings.  Jacob accepts the offer for a date and the two quickly hit it off.  Both are nearly finished with college.  Jacob wants to go into furniture design and shows off his artistic design frequently (which includes building a desk chair for Anna).  Anna is from England, wants to be a writer, and upon completion of school, she will have to go back to her country, before she can return shortly after.  Given that these two have since fallen in love, Anna makes the decision to extend her stay illegally.  Following the summer after graduation, Anna returns home for a family obligation.  Upon returning to America, Anna is detained in the airport and eventually banned from re-entering the country.

This situation puts a huge block of frustration on Jacob and Anna’s relationship.  Their relationship becomes an awkward, long-distance one, as the two have little time to see each other.  Jacob has developed his own company in the time since graduating, making it difficult for him to travel to England.  During all this time, with the time apart that they have, the two do eventually try on new relationships, including Jacob’s relationship with Sam (Jennifer Lawrence).  However, as the two do seem to genuinely love each other, making it work out is a challenge that they seem willing to continue to tackle.

So right away, my problem revolves around what this story hinges on – Anna’s decision to stay in America, which basically ruins this relationship for the majority of the film.  There were no extenuating circumstances, beyond the fact that Anna would have simply have to go back to England for a couple months before being able to return, yet she deliberately chooses to violate her student visa and is punished accordingly.  Given that Anna is a very bright girl, a college graduate in fact, the feelings of young love should not have been enough to throw into jeopardy all that she and Jacob had together.  Alas, that is what occurs and the situation supplies a very deliberate type of drama because of it.  It is manufactured drama, which I did not respond well to and the rest of the film stood on shaky ground for me because of it.

Getting away from that aspect, one thing that seemed notable to me is the fact that Anna was definitely more into the relationship that Jacob.  If these two truly were in love and had been hurting too much to be apart, Jacob could have 1. Been more direct in getting Anna to go back to England in the first place and 2. Maybe make the effort of trying to start out a life in England with her.  Now this second point isn’t a flaw of the film, it is more related to his character.  He is a loner of sorts, who really does love being with Anna, but has little in the way of friends or family coming to his support in all of this.  Jacob does seem like a good guy, but it also seems apparent that he may actually know the limits of young love.  Anton Yelchin’s work in this role is very good.  I believed him here, as he had to deal with this relationship, along with the one he tried to maintain with Sam, the other girl, who puts up with a lot during all of this.

Felicity Jones has more to work with here as Anna.  Her character is the one who is obviously in love and would like nothing more than to have been able to remain in America with Jacob forever (or at least as long as her young desire would carry her).  Jones was fairly unknown to me beforehand, but I did like seeing her in this film.  Getting past her fatal error in decision making, I saw a young woman not knowing how to deal with a relationship, once it became tested.  The distinct persona that she had was interesting to see develop, especially after seeing the relationship she had with her parents in the film.  The way this changes over the course of time and how the eventual resolution of the film plays out speaks well to Jones’ performance as an actress.

The film was directed by Drake Doremus and scripted by Doremus and Ben York Jones.  The two have said to have incorporated elements from their own personal experience into this film, which seems apparent.  In regards to the production, it is fitting of its indie status.  There are some stylistic touches visually and editing-wise that give this film its own nice identity and the scoring and soundtrack choices were fitting enough.  None of the directorial choices felt too overbearing and I am aware that the scripting managed to incorporate a lot of feedback and direct decisions made by the actors involved, so there was a natural sense to how a lot of scenes played out.

I do recommend this film overall and I know others can look past the flaw that I hold up with such high cause.  Regardless of what I feel is too much of an annoying plot device, I think the lead performances are quite good.  I did not really mention Anna’s parents in this film, but they brought a pleasant warmth as well, which was a nice touch.  I also did like the way scenes tended to flow.  While the film is a drama, I did not feel as if there was too much melodramatic aspects to the proceedings that made the film suffer for it in the way many conventional romance dramas can.  As it stands, this is a little indie romance that works well enough.

Anna:  I thought I understood it, but I didn’t; not really.

J. Edgar:  Sometimes you need to bend the rules a little in order to keep your country safe.

DiCaprio stars in the film as J. Edgar Hoover, the face of American law enforcement for nearly 50 years.  J. Edgar was a man who, as my title suggests, was feared, admired, reviled, and revered.  He was known for having an incredibly dedicated public persona, where he sought glory and presented himself as tough and proper, while serving as the director and founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The other part of his legacy revolves around what happened behind closed doors, as J. Edgar was known for allegedly hording secrets over many men in high places over his incredibly expansive years in the FBI.  And then there are the rumors of his more closeted nature, revolving mainly around his relationship with fellow FBI associate Clyde Tolson (portrayed by Armie Hammer in the film) and his overbearing mother (played by Judi Dench).

This film spans J. Edgar’s entire career with the Bureau.  While the film uses a framing device to cut back and forth between his younger years and his final days, there is a lot of focus spent around key moments of his career.  Topics such as the Red Scare “Palmer Raids” early on around 1920, the Charles Lindbergh Jr. kidnapping, his relationship with the Kennedy’s, and the hunt for John Dillinger all come up on occasion.  There is also plenty of focus behind the scenes as well in regards to J. Edgar’s mother, his relationship with the woman who would becomes his lifelong personal secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), and his relationship with Tolson.

J. Edgar:  I don’t know who I can trust anymore.

This is a Clint Eastwood produced and directed film and all of the hallmarks of his movies are present here.  Most noticeably the cinematography, which manages to call attention to itself, while also providing the distinction of being a film from a specific director through its look, which not many director’s can accomplish so simply.  It also features a familiar score by Eastwood, who adds some piano notes here and there to account for the prim and proper tone of the film, even as it handles the more questionable aspects of J. Edgar’s secretive personal life.  I make mention of these various Eastwood elements, as I think the film would have even less of an identity if it were not for his familiar style.  There is a confidence here in how the film has been made and the transitions back and forth between decades are mostly well handled.  However, I don’t quite think it has leant itself to being entirely engaging over the course of its 137 minute runtime.

The most notable aspect of this film is how DiCaprio fully embraces his performance as J. Edgar.  I am not saying he is absolutely remarkable in this film (it would be very tough to do that, given how distracting at times the old age makeup tended to be), but I will say he tries his hardest to properly represent J. Edgar’s persona throughout his life and in various ways, as we learn more about what made this man tick, what his priorities and agenda’s seemed to be focused on, and how he wanted to conduct himself both publicly and privately.  Sure it is incredibly Oscar baity, but that does not mean DiCaprio isn’t the best thing about this film.  The supporting cast is good enough as well.  I can’t say that Dench, Watts, and Hammer don’t try hard to match up to DiCaprio’s intensity, but they all more or less fit into the mold of what they are simply required to do here as supporting characters for the lead character to interact with.

I would have liked to have been more insightful in regards to approaching discussion of this film; however, I don’t feel like it left me with much to say.  There is almost an obvious sort of positive regard I can have in commending its production values (Eastwood has enough goodwill in the right places to have an accurate looking period film get made), but I am still on the line of thinking archival footage and interviews would have left me with just as much regard for the information provided in this film.  As I have said, DiCaprio is a strong lead here and the various directorial touches make the film tolerable enough.  The secret nature of J. Edgar’s life might have been more interestingly handled if Black’s script decided to really play around with speculation or if Eastwood wasn’t so willing to play by conventional standards of the biography genre.  As a whole, I found J. Edgar to be a slightly dull history lesson, with a fine lead performance and some interesting notes to have taken, just not enough to be more compelling.

J. Edgar:  Even great men can be corrupted.

The Skin I Live In

Robert:  I have performed three of the nine facial transplants in history and nothing has given me more satisfaction.

Antonio Banderas stars as Dr. Robert Ledgard, a plastic surgeon based in Toledo, Spain.  As the twists and turns pile on in this story I will tread lightly, but there are some mild spoilers coming up.  Robert informs fellow doctors that he has succeeded in cultivating a skin that cannot be easily damaged, using mice as test subjects.  In fact, Robert actually has a young woman being held captive in his villa, whom he has tested this skin on.  Robert’s villa also doubles as an operating and recovery facility.  We know very little about who this woman, Vera (Elena Anaya), is, beyond the fact that Banderas has her locked in a room with several surveillance cameras and she is dressed in a full, form fitting body suit.  We are also aware that Marilia (Marisa Paredes) works in the villa as a servant, but is very skeptical about Robert continuing to hold this woman captive.  While Robert is away one night, a break in occurs, which only leads to some disastrous occurrences.  Following the events that take place in this situation, the film moves back in time to fill in the blanks surrounding the mysteries of Robert’s past and the nature of his relationship with Vera.

Writer/director Pedro Almodovar describes this film as, “A horror story without screams or frights.”  I find this statement to be perfectly adequate, as it is the kind of film that I could have easily seen a director known more for body horror, such as David Cronenberg, make this film just as well in their own style.  As this is an Almodovar film, it has a fitting sense of how to incorporate his stylistic and story tendencies into a film that is in fact quite twisted.  While at its base level, this film could be categorized in the same realm as the dastardly Human Centipede films, which Why So Blu proudly promotes; there is a strongly acted tale of tragedy running throughout The Skin I Live In, which makes it all the more effective and engaging.  It is also a very well made film from a technical standpoint.

I found the whole look of this film to be fantastic.  There is a beauty that is easily captured by Almodovar in the way that he films Spain and the country villa, where most of the action occurs.  It is also very present in the way he treats the more…graphic sequences that could have been portrayed as cold and clinical, but are in fact expressive and even sensual in a way.  Make no mistake, this is subject matter not easily watched if I were to describe it in detail, but the way it is captured in implication is very well handled.  Even the imagery of Vera, as she is held captive in her room, watched over by Robert, and forced to create her own ways to pass the time are quite striking.  And then there is always the use of color, which I find to always be bright and expressive when it comes to watching the work of artful European directors.  For a movie that I have thus far implied so much in terms of its body horror elements, it is a very good looking film.

As far as the performances go, while this film is in Spanish, thus making it somewhat harder for me to really accurately judge the actors, I did find the cast to be quite good in their respective roles.  Banderas, who hasn’t worked with Almodovar in over 20 years, is wonderfully cast as a man we can believably acknowledge as a respected surgeon as well as someone who has a terrifying dark side.  Anaya has an incredibly tricky role, which is so much easier to acknowledge, after having seen the film and understanding her character completely.  Suffice it to say that I think she gives it her all, going through a multitude of different experiences in order to play this character.

The most intriguing aspect of this film, I find, is what we are supposed to make of the various themes that are introduced and how they play out as the story twists and turns along the way.  I hate having to be such a tease in vaguely describing the overall story, but concepts regarding identity, loneliness, what one would do out of love, and what one does out of revenge all makes for a very interesting way to read this film, once all is said and done.  Understanding some of the implications and revelations that occur, while the story becomes clearer keeps the film very engaging, all while using a genre-film based construction in a lot of instances to have a way of telling this story.  It’s kind of fascinating how it works so well.

The Skin I Live In fits into the very satisfying category of an original, twisted tale that accomplishes what it sets out to do.  It is an engaging story, strongly acted by its main leads, and also incredibly unique.  It certainly earns its very hard R rating, but there is a lot of wonderful imagery present, significant themes explored, and a disturbingly engaging sense of vision.  Not like many other films is certainly a good compliment here and using “Hitchcockian” as another way to describe it is certainly appropriate as well.  Deliberately paced, but different and twisted, this was a good time at the cinema.

Marilia: The things the love of a mad man can do.

Old Man:  Only in numbers do they have courage.  You have it while standing alone.

The film begins with the virgin oracle, Phaedra (Freida Pinto) having a vision signaling great distress in the world.  She envisions King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) declaring war on the Olympian Gods, with plans to free the imprisoned Titans from Mt. Tarturus.  This vision is very much true, as Hyperion is in the process of marching through Greece in search of the Epirus Bow, the only weapon that will grant him the power he needs to carry forth his plans.  While Hyperion’s plan is in motion, the Gods are bound by ancient laws to not interfere with humanity until truly drastic measures need to be taken.

Enter Henry Cavil (future Man of Steel), who stars as Theseus, the chiseled peasant living in a village carved into the side of one of Ancient Greece’s many giant cliff faces.  Having been trained by an old man (John Hurt, who is actually Zeus (Luke Evans) in disguise) since childhood to be an efficient warrior and leader, Theseus may be humanity’s only hope.  Following the raiding of his village, which leads to the death of Theseus’ mother, he is exiled to the salt mines.  Once there, Theseus joins forces with the oracle as well as a master thief (Steven Dorff) in an effort to stop Hyperion.

Beyond the intense level of visual satisfaction that this film was dedicated to providing me with, what seemed quite noticeable was the decidedly slow pace of this film.  This is fitting with the style of Tarsem, as it allows us to get all we can out of seeing the various production values associated with each scene, but the lack of excitement in between the various kinetic action sequences and intense Mickey Rourke brooding moments gave me too much time to think about what’s not really happening, such as learning anything interesting about the characters or taking time to care about the story.  I am all for an over-the-top spectacle and by the time the film arrives at its last act, which is filled with cool bloodletting moments, some of these issues resolve themselves, but getting to that point, I saw a lot of uninteresting down time.

There was a forward momentum issue I had with this film as well.  Once again, while it looked fantastic, for being a film that essentially wanted to capture the spirit of an epic, it really felt like I was continually in the same couple of locations again and again.  Given that there is so little to the story, it didn’t really help that the characters felt like they were backtracking quite a few times.  With that said, I did admire a lot of the ways they incorporated these various locations into the story, such as a labyrinthine temple and the inner sanctum of Mt. Tartarus. At this point, I will mention that I saw Immortals in 3D and this is one of the better examples of how good a 3D film (that mixes some real 3D footage and a lot of post-converted 3D) can look (despite the many nighttime scenes, making things frustratingly dark at times).

Zeus:  If there is one human who could lead them against Hyperion, it would be Theseus.

An interesting approach I thought this film took was its attempt to both ground the humanity aspects in reality, while also going the complete opposite route by having Gods actually exist in this movie and do very God-like things.  This film deconstructs various legends of Theseus, such as his battle with the Minotaur, by having him face off against a large man with a horned helmet; but then goes to the lengths of having Poseidon plummet from Mt. Olympus and create a tidal wave on earth.  While a film like 300 (the obvious comparison, as the poster for Immortals boasts this is from the same producers) goes gloriously (and fittingly, given that it is being told as a story and not presented as reality) over-the-top and is stylized as hell, Immortals seems to want to achieve a sense of grandeur from its spectacle by having things both ways.

Besides Rourke, there really are no characters in this film worth noting.  Cavil does what he can as Theseus, certainly looking good while wielding a sword and shield, but the film doesn’t supply him with what he needs most – compelling words to say when it comes time for the supposedly rousing speech he is required to give to his fellow soldiers.  Pinto is certainly a beauty in this film, but she mostly fades into the background, as does Dorff, when he is not adding an aside.  Getting to Mickey Rourke, this is the kind of film where Rourke can basically step in and do whatever he wants and it seems totally appropriate.  I am more convinced that setting up shots and editing around what he decided to do on his own is what made him so intimidating in this film.  While little is done to really expand on who he really is, watching him kill his own men frequently and adorn himself with ridiculous helmets was enough to keep me satisfied with his performance.

The action in this film is fine.  Tarsem constructs a number of good action moments for his characters, even if this film does borrow from many others.  I never had a problem following the action, which is the biggest issue of today’s action films.  The two most notable scenes revolve around the aforementioned “minotaur” sequence and the final battle, which pits gods against titans.  While Immortals has a rough time finding ways to make its dialogue work in between the action, let alone having a sense of humor about…anything, there was plenty of wonderfully filmed action and bloody good body dismemberment to keep those scenes alive and engaging.

I had higher hopes going into this film, which makes the results a bit disappointing.  I did have an overall fun time with this film, but I wish the film had a little more fun with itself.  Admiring the beauty of this film is quite easy to do, given how every frame of the film has been digitally manipulated in some way to look fantastic, but I honestly can’t really think of memorable scenes that are going to stick with me down the road.  My knowledge of Greek Myth didn’t much help matters either, but that is an easier aspect to let slide.  As it stands, Immortals is a silly film that takes itself too seriously; but once it really goes for the jugular the fun gets shot around like the arrows from this film’s magical bow.

Zeus:  I have faith in you.  Prove.  Me.  Right.

Harold:  I shot Santa Clause in the face.  He’s real and I shot him in the face.

As opposed to the last film, which took place mere minutes after the first film, ‘3D Christmas’ picks up with our heroes several years later.  Harold and Kumar (Jon Cho and Kal Penn) have gone their separate ways after college.  Harold now has a nice job and lives in his nice house, with his nice wife, Maria (Paula Garces).  Kumar lives in the same old apartment, still getting the same old kind of high, and lost his old girlfriend (Danneel Harris).  On the day of Christmas Eve, Kumar heads over to his estranged pal Harold’s house to deliver a package that was mistakenly brought to Kumar’s apartment.  Things quickly take a bad spin, as Kumar accidently burns down Harold’s father-in-law’s (Danny Trejo) Christmas tree, which he had been growing for eight years prior.  Hoping to fix the problem before Maria, her father, and the rest of her family come back home from Midnight Mass in the city, Harold and Kumar set out on a journey to find another perfect Christmas tree.  Plenty of raunchy, yuletide shenanigans ensue, including encounters with mob bosses, interactions with the perfect Christmas gift, and another visit from one St. NPH.

I went into this film fairly optimistic.  I did enjoy the first film in this series.  Not as much as some, but I did find it quite funny and appreciated the surprising amount of layers it had with regards to race relations of all things and the intelligence of the characters, while still serving as a stoner comedy about getting hamburgers.  The second film, while I found some moments pretty amusing, was pretty terrible in a way that kind of ruined the goodwill set up by the first.  Hearing the announcement of a third film did not really excite me, but the initial trailer managed to get me back into the fun spirit of watching these characters, along with simply providing a pretty solid two minutes of laughter.  Once again, critiquing a comedy like this will come down to what I thought made me laugh versus how well I thought it managed to sell us on the adventures and growth these characters have.  I certainly did laugh at a good number of scenes, but the problems with this film stem less from anything it is trying to say or be “cutely” offensive towards and more with the fact that a good amount of the humor falls pretty flat.

To say more about the positive.  I did laugh quite a bit during many scenes.  The film takes a while to really get going, but once it does (basically once Harold and Kumar are back together) I appreciated the duo’s chemistry, a lot of their interactions with others, and some of the ways they address having gotten older.  The film has a lot of obvious callbacks to the previous films, but some of those moments stick pretty well.  It also takes some time to point out how self aware it is of being a 3D film, being another sequel, and referencing the actors real life personas (White House, Sulu), which is sometimes humorous.  Putting the plot aside and observing a lot of the comedic set piece moments as separate entities, I did appreciate some moments a great deal.  The two most notable of these moments involve a claymation sequence and, of course, Neil Patrick Harris.

With the claymation scene, despite having seen sharper and more hilarious takes on this format in other recent Christmas-themed comedic media (Community and It’s Always Sunny in Philidelphia), it still gave me a chuckle to see the stars imagine themselves as claymated  and be chased by a monstrous snowman.  Regarding Neil Patrick Harris, it is basically the expected, obligatory showcase moment for him to return to the story that serves no real purpose besides being funny, but I did find it funny.  Harris has come out about being gay in the time past, since the last film, and now we have him here (after surviving two shotgun blasts to the back in the previous film) playing himself as a person pretending to be gay.  Regardless of his relevance to the film, his filthy take on his own persona continues to make me laugh.

Where Harold & Kumar stumble is in its various attempts to keep other less important plots moving.  During the early part of their journey, Harold and Kumar are joined by two of their new friends, Todd and Adrian (Tom Lennon and Amir Blumenfeld).  Todd also has his young daughter on hand and a running joke involves her using various types of drugs.  There is just something that never seems funny, every time the film cuts back to this joke.  There are also plenty of race jokes that, for me, still range from mild chuckle to groan inducing.  The lack of any commentary in regards to this humor just makes it stand out as jokes done in poor taste in an attempt to be offensive, but since it attacks many different targets, it’s ok.

Two more issues.  One is in regards to the 3D.  While this film was shot in the format and makes sure to go over-the-top with it, by throwing everything at you, the film does surprisingly little with it.  It feels more like it just needs to remind you every 15 minutes or so that you are wearing those glasses by chucking something your way, as opposed to being clever with it.  The other issue is in regards to making this film matter.  It is nice that these guys are back and having fun, but the film has nothing to say about anything.  Even the second film haphazardly addressed George W Bush’s terms in office.  With this film being set during Christmas, something could have been brought up regarding…well anything really; consumerism, other holidays, more about family.  There are some light dramatic stakes involving the duo’s friendship and the ol’ approval of your father-in-law story, but nothing really registers that significantly.

I would not go as far to say that I don’t care for this series enough to see another one of these films, but there is very little here to make another one feel necessary.  With that said I had a good enough time with a lot of the moments and did continue to enjoy Kal Penn and Jon Cho’s chemistry together.  Cho is a fun straight man to Penn’s vulgar, stoner comic persona.  I guess I just wish this film did more in the way of having meaning.  Given that these films continue to have a lot of success in home media format, I can’t fault its popularity too much, but I don’t think this installment will be becoming a Christmas classic for that many people.

One final note:  I love Wafflebot.

Neil Patrick Harris:  Take care guys.  I’ll see you in the fourth one.

Arthur Shaw: You people are working stiffs, clock-punchers. Easily replaced.
Josh Kovacs: I don’t care what it takes. I will find a way to make it right.

The film stars Ben Stiller as Josh Kovacs, the manager of a Manhattan high-rise.  He has a sense of loyalty about his character, which puts him in the good graces of the building’s richest tenant, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), who lives in the penthouse.  As it turns out, Shaw is in fact a Wall Street crook, who has stolen $2 billion, as well as embezzled the pension funds of all of the employees of the tower.  Not sitting well with Josh at all and eventually leading to his termination as an employee of the tower, he decides to hatch a plan to rob Shaw’s penthouse of all of the money he has possibly hidden there.

Various other characters (standards of the heist film genre) are all accounted for, including Eddie Murphy as Slide, a crook who Josh turns to for help; Casey Affleck as Charlie, Josh’s brother-in-law and the building concierge; Matthew Broderick as Mr. Fitzugh, a bankrupt Wall Street investor willing to participate in the robbery; Michael Pena as Enrique, one of the buildings newest employees; Gabourey Sidibe as Odessa, a Jamaican maid and expert safe cracker; and Tea Leoni as an FBI Agent, keeping a close watch on Shaw.  While the employees posing as criminals are certainly amateurs at this sort of thing, they would all like to hopefully get justice on the man who stole from them.

I believe I mentioned something about this when last year’s The Town arrived in theaters, but there is almost a natural appeal to heist movies that make them easily embraced by audiences.  It must come down to the idea that you always want to root for the group of characters to get away with an elaborate scheme, and the constant obstacles and twists that get in the way make things more exciting.  In Tower Heist those elements are present but are not really handled in a particularly clever way.  There are some neat sequences upon getting to the actual heist, but the film exists more as a way to put funny people together into some fun scenes.  It is not that this is a bad thing, but besides how it utilizes these characters (which I’ll get to), the elaborate plotting of this film’s heist has way too many holes to be taken seriously.  I point this out because the film could have been even more fun if it was taken a bit less seriously or better handled if Ratner’s abilities as a director could have paid off at achieving something greater than simply taking a by-the-numbers story and hoping a funny cast on top would pay off.

Addressing some of what has lead up to this film, which I feel like I have been following for quite some time, Eddie Murphy was originally developing this film as a “Black Ocean’s 11”, where he would have cast a host of the most popular black comedians around.  Things didn’t initially pan out, Murphy left, and the project wound up in Ratner’s hands.  Among the various writers, Ted Griffin (who penned Ocean’s 11), developed the screenplay.  And Murphy eventually signed back on in a supporting role.  What all this development resulted in is a very generic story, hoping to cash in on its big name cast.  What started out as something that could have been edgy, feels much more like a very safe and toned down version of an interesting heist film.  If the film were not content with being a straight comedy, more could have been done with situations like distinguishing the classes between the employees and the building tenants or with how Shaw’s actions are relevant.  Instead, the film basically takes an easy route.  That’s not a bad thing, but the lack of anything else new being brought to the table or not playing out as a laugh-a-minute comedy does not help either.

The cast in this film is good.  I did not find anyone to be exceptional, but I did enjoy the chemistry created between the characters and the presence of certain individuals.  One of the bigger sells is the fact that Eddie Murphy is kind of back from more family-oriented films and is here as a character reminiscent of his 80s films.  I found it surprising that Murphy is somewhat held back from being in this film more.  His character doesn’t really come into play until a good portion of the way through and even later on he only has so much to play around with in the film.  That said, Murphy makes me laugh and I was happy to see that here.  A lot of the best lines actually came from Casey Affleck and Matthew Broderick, who seemed to be having a good time selling dead pan lines and reacting to the others.  Tea Leoni is nearly wasted, despite one fun scene in a bar with Stiller; Alda can play slimy pretty well; and Sidibe has the “crazy” accent to make people laugh.  It is Stiller who gets the most work here, as the lead, and he more or less does a fine job at selling some of the (overly supplied) stakes/drama of the film, while also getting some fun scenes with the other characters to play around with.

There have been many caper comedies in recent years, with one of the obvious examples being the Ocean’s series (namely Ocean’s 11).  With Tower Heist, you have all of the pieces to make a film that does not necessarily need to rival ‘Ocean’s’ sense of very cool fun, but could have at least made better use of two people that can be incredibly funny and a very talented supporting cast.  As it stands, there is a lot of fun to have in this slightly overlong film, but it is not going to leave much of a lasting impression.  It certainly has its moments and I do enjoy seeing the plot of a heist movie come together and reveal the various twists and turns in its climax, but its overall payoff and the journey getting there is nothing overly clever.  It is nice not to hate a Bret Ratner film, but it still stands as merely average.

Slide: A robbery can change very quickly. You have to be ready to adapt to the situation at any moment. Anything can happen. I was on a job a few days ago and my homie got shot in the face!
Josh Kovacs: If you get shot in the face, it’s over.
Slide: If you get shot in your HEAD, it’s over. If you get shot in your FACE, the bullet will go through your cheek and come out the other side! Then, what you gonna do?
Cole Howard: Die! We’re all gonna die!

Henry Hamilton:  If you had as much time as I had, what would you do with it?
Will Salas:  I sure as hell wouldn’t waste it.

The film is set in a retro-future, where the aging gene has been switched off and people now stop aging at 25. To avoid overpopulation after 25 each person is given just one more year to live and stamped on their arm is a running clock of how long they have left, once the clock reaches zero they die. This has lead to time becoming the new currency.  Time is earned by working and can also be stolen or robbed from another person. Of course, within this society, there are the rich and the poor.  The rich apparently live as immortals in a high class society, while the poor live in the ghetto, struggling to survive.

Justin Timberlake stars as Will Salas, a street rat managing to just get by with his 50-year old mom (Olvia Wilde, apparently just as busy this year in studio films as Jessica Chastain is in indies).  One night, Will saves the life of a man, with over a century of time on his arm, from a gang known as the Minutemen, lead by a 75-year old, Fortis (Alex Pettyfer).  The man Will saves is Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who is over 100-years old and is done living in this society.  Henry gives Will all of his time and jumps off a bridge.  This leads to a murder investigation headed up by a Timekeeper, Leon (Cillian Murphy), who is incredibly suspicious of a man who he does not think would just give away all of his time to some kid from the ghetto.  Regardless, due to some other personal reasons, Will heads to the rich society in an effort to bring justice in his own way to those who unfairly get to live as immortals, while others suffer.

By having set up so much of what this film’s future society is like, I have hardly been able to get at the meat of the plot, which involves Will’s character kidnapping the daughter of one of the richest men in the world, Philippe Wies (Vincent Kartheiser).  His daughter is Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), who becomes the Bonnie to Will’s Clyde, as the two join up to rob time from the rich and distribute back out to the poor.

I was intrigued by this film early on and would have been fine with it, were it not so poorly configured.  It is not so much in the unexplained retro-design of the film or the overall look of the world, captured by cinematographer Roger Deakins, apparently shooting with digital photography for the first time, but the writing, which is truly an issue.  All of the dialogue feels really poorly handled, very obvious, and does little to make the film more compelling.  It is hard to find where the blame lies, as some of the performances were rough, some directorial choices were laughable, and many scenes were very uncompelling.

I am a fan of writer/director Andrew Niccol, who has written The Truman Show, created Gattaca and the underappreciated Lord of War, but his work seems off here.  I have heard nothing in the way of studio interference and Niccol has even been credited as writer/director/producer this time around.  Given that his previous directorial outings have been met with little commercial success, it is almost as if an attempt was made to bring more mainstream appeal to this film by essentially lowering some of his standards.  Now this is incredibly presumptuous, but I really have no idea why this film suffered from subpar writing.

Some things register decently enough.  I continue to enjoy Timberlake as an onscreen presence.  His casting in this film as an action lead seemed like something new and despite the problems I have already mentioned, I think his work in the film was fine enough.  I have little to say about the rest of the cast, although I was amused by Murphy’s insistence on wearing a big, black trench coat everywhere.  I also found it humorous that in a world of very attractive 25-year olds, Johnny Galecki (clearly not looking 25) was cast as the ugly best friend character.

In trying to strip away the gripes I had and judge it like a simple B-movie, I still can’t quite say I had fun in that regard either.  I feel like there was a lack of energy in this film to keep me wanting to be involved in the story.  There is a lot of running in this film and the righteous criminal approach is a neat route to take, especially since it evokes a classic Robin Hood-like tale, but I still couldn’t find much to appreciate in its basic action elements.

I found In Time to be a misfire.  I wanted to go in and enjoy the film.  If not on a compelling level in regards to the science fiction that was established, then at least as a fun sci-fi B-movie.  Unfortunately I found neither.  There are a lot of good looking people here and a solid premise to play off of, but it is the poor writing that undid everything for me.

Will Salas:  Just once I’d like to wake up with more time on my hand than hours in the day.

Lotterman:  How much would you say you like to drink?
Paul Kemp:  I’d say on the upper-end of social.

Depp stars as Paul Kemp, an American journalist who takes on a job as a freelance reporter for the The San Juan Star in 1960 Puerto Rico.  Kemp is an unsuccessful novelist himself and has more or less placed himself in his own sort of isolation from America due to his desire to stay away from what he would likely call the “bastards in office, running the country.”  Kemp is a bit of an oddball and easily taken by his hotel room minibar.  The film is not so much about having plot as it is seeing Kemp get into various scrapes with those also accompanying him on the island, whether or not he has gotten a taste of alcohol, drugs, or the addictive rum available.

Among the people Kemp forms some sort of relationship on the island with, there is Bob Salas (Michael Rispoli), the Star’s photographer who becomes Kemp’s closest friend and conscience kinda; Lotterman (Richard Jenkins), the editor of the Star, with a very non-fancy hairpiece; Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi) a drunken journalist who continues to work for the Star, despite being fired on occasion due to his contempt for Lotterman; Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a shady businessman with desires to bring Kemp into one of his latest schemes; and Chenault (Amber Heard), Sanderson’s fiancée, who Kemp quickly becomes obsessed with.  Various adventures between Kemp and these people ensue, as the desire to explore the culture leads to mixed results and bad hangovers.

Following the last two live-action adventures I have had with Johnny Depp visiting beautiful locations, yet squandering away all of the potential for making good films while there (The Tourist; Pirates 4), I was excited to see Depp back in the world of Hunter S. Thompson.  Given Depp’s personal relationship with Thompson and the lack of a big studio financing this project, it seemed like a good way for Depp to be a part of something that he truly felt proud of.  Bringing in writer/director Bruce Robinson (Withnail & I) was an interesting and appropriate choice as well.  Alas, the problem is not really with how Depp performs or how Robinson has shot the film, it is more due to the nature of this story.

Before harping back on these problems, however, I want to sing some of this oddball film’s praise.  Johnny Depp is very good as Paul Kemp.  It is not much of a surprise, even as it is only a distant relation with the Raul Duke character from Fear & Loathing.  Depp’s work as Kemp may seem like one of his more normal characters compared to the costume shop he frequents when it is time to jump on the Burton Train again, but it is all in mannerisms and speech, which make him a fun straight-character and possibly unreliable narrator.

Along with Depp, I have listed all of the supporting players in this film, which is largely comprised of very solid character actors.  This works in the film’s benefit as well, as these other characters are all solid roles to have Kemp bounce off of.  Rispoli, for example, is the sidekick character for Kemp and the two of them have the right kind of chemistry that does not feel forced.  Eckhart is equally good at playing a hot-tempered sleaze, who still manages to exude charm when need be.  Even Amber Heard, the film’s sex pot, brings a playful energy to many of her scenes with Depp.

The production values of this film are also quite solid.  With much of the film having been actually filmed in Puerto Rico, I was very taken by the wonderful cinematography throughout.  It is less about being showy than simply having character be a part of this world, even calling attention to it at various times.  But even during times of night or during stormy weather, it seems like the film wanted to do a fine job of presenting the appropriate look and feel of Puerto Rico.  Even as the tone of the film becomes bleak, there is a good amount of craft and atmosphere to make the visual journey of the film very satisfying.

In regards to the tone of the film, it is the switch over to bleakness that hurts it.  It is not because the film loses a lot of its manic energy and is less fun in the end that made me like it less; it is because the shift makes everything become much much slower in the process.  It also soon becomes apparent that the film has nowhere to go, without tying up the various plot threads with a convenient bow.  And because that kind of resolution would not be true to the spirit of Thompson, which Depp and Robinson more than likely know, the film basically finds itself ending in a fairly realistic manner, letting a text wrap-up clarify some of the rest.  Make no mistake, this film is inherently a comedy, but Kemp does have to face a few dark places during his journey and unfortunately the film’s pacing suffers for it.

In terms of rating a film like this, I will say that I can recommend it overall.  It has a quirky effectiveness, solid performances from the wonderful supporting cast and a fine turn from Depp (who I would rather see nominated for his obligatory Best Comedy/Musical Golden Globe in this role, rather than Jack Sparrow again).  The film is also quite nice to look at, which is the same thing I have said about The Tourist, except that I don’t have the same contempt for The Rum Diary.  It is unfortunate that having the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson in mind both lead this film down interesting and successful paths as well as signaling flaws in its storytelling and pacing, but there is more to gain from this film, even if some of the humor is more dry than a majority of the liquor that the characters are drinking.

Sala:  I’ve got a brilliant idea.

Jill:  Is it true a cat always lands on its feet?
Puss in Boots:  No! That is just a rumor, spread by dogs!

Antonio Banderas returns to voice the courageous cat known as Puss in Boots.  The story is set well before Puss’ days as a loyal friend to Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey and takes the audience back to when Puss worked more or less as a mercenary for hire.  Following some business in a bar, where those who would be quick to make fun of a kitty in big shoes are quickly hushed by his prowess with a rapier, we find Puss headed out to embark on a big score opportunity.  His objective is to steal the magic beans from Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thorton and Amy Sedaris), who are apparently murderous outlaws.

While on the prowl, Puss encounters another mercenary, who screws up his plans entirely.  Following the chase that naturally ensues, followed by an epic dance off/sword fight, Puss learns that his mysterious opponent is none other than Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek).  To make things even more interesting, it turns out that Kitty is working with Puss’ former childhood best friend, Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), who betrayed Puss years ago.  The trio forms an unlikely alliance with the hopes of finding the beans.  Despite this bond however, both romance and past betrayals may become factors that hinder the progress of their plans.

I was surprised the most by how straight forward this film was.  It is presented as an adventure movie that, while featuring the Puss in Boots character that people love, along with a number of other fairy tale characters, does not worry about cramming a lot of forced pop culture humor that littered all of the other Shrek sequels.  Especially given the (humorous) trailers for the film that certainly suggested I was in for a pretty self-aware film, I was happy with the way it was actually presented.  With that said, turning the film into a standard adventure tale that happens to be animated and feature familiar characters seems to have turned down the amount of humor that one would have expected.  There is a level of wit and a good number of chuckles here and there, but not many scenes that I found to be incredibly funny.  However, with the focus on grand adventure themes, it makes sense in an “after the fact” sort of way.

Given that only so much can be stated regarding whether you will laugh at this film or not, there are two other main focuses I will bring my attention to.  The first is the casting of this film.  Banderas once again has a lot of fun bringing what can only be described as Latin sensuality to the glory-seeking feline.  The Puss character, even in a film where he is the main star, has enough charisma without being overbearing, which makes him quite entertaining to stick with throughout the film.  Hayek fulfills the role of the requisite female interest and her friendship/film history with Banderas makes it seem like a pretty natural decision.  The most surprising aspect out of all of this was Zach Galifianakis’ role as Humpty.  Yes, he is an egg and it is silly (and the movie is aware of this), but for whatever reason, the film wanted to bring a lot of pathos to this character and Galifianakis was more than up to the challenge of relating that to the audience through his voice work.  It is hard to describe, but I was quite impressed with how this character was handled overall.

The other area worth discussing is in regards to the animation.  In a nutshell, everything looks great.  This is a big tent pole DreamWorks release; clearly they know what they’re doing at this point and make the whole film look pretty fantastic.  From the little details to how this film manages to capture scale, with a few key sequences in mind, such as the giant beanstalk.  My friend and I decided to not go 3D this time around (does this matter?), but I was pleased just fine with the look of this film.  I was also quite pleased with how this movie handled action.  The various sequences may not have been as spectacular as those seen in Kung Fu Panda 2, but they delivered just fine.

I got enough good out of this film to be happy that my indifference was matched with an enjoyable adventure.  I don’t think anything really stood out in Puss in Boots to make it a film that I want to revisit down the road anytime soon, but it does have a lot of worthwhile aspects that make it fun and enjoyable for many.  This should be especially true to anyone that has not been burnt out on the Shrek franchise.  I do not necessarily want other characters in the Shrek universe to have spin-off films, but if they were to distance themselves in the same way that Puss in Boots does, then I would at least have admiration for the direction taken.

Puss in Boots: My thirst for adventure will never be quenched!

After Hunter’s suicide in 2005, Johnny was committed to bring the story to the big screen and I am so glad he did, it was truly a labor of love for him. Oh and by the way Johnny I have a basement, you can come stay with me anytime you want!

Bruce Robinson (Withnail & I) was chosen by Depp and Thompson to write the screen play and direct.

Even though Hunter is not with us, Johnny made him a spectral producer from beyond, insisting there be a chair for Thompson, an ashtray, a pack cigarettes, and a bottle of Chivas Regal and a glass. Each morning Depp and Robinson would pour a drink for Thompson. Eccentric, yes. Kindred souls, yes. This is the kind of friendship Johnny and Hunter had, partners in crime, pranksters, and will continue to have; even death cannot break that bond between them. According to Aaron Eckhart “Everybody was there for Johnny, and Johnny was there for the love of the man.  That was palpable on the set, between Hunter’s chair and their sacrament to him each day.”

Johnny Depp plays Paul Kemp who is Hunter S. Thompson in his twenties. I know a lot of people are going to say he is too old for this part. Personally I couldn’t image anyone else playing this role. Johnny knows him so well. Rum Diary is not like Fear and Loathing; you’re not on that constant drug trip. In this movie he is drunk most of the time from his new found taste for rum, but they do experiment with LSD, Kemp is hilarious, I love his facial expressions during his trip. I found myself laughing a lot during the whole movie.

In the beginning of the movie Paul Kemp (Depp) wakes up with a hang over, he looks terrible, chews some aspirin and tries to collect himself for his interview at the San Juan Star. Kemp has moved to Puerto Rico to try his hand as a newspaper reporter. Armed with his bogus resume and his sun glasses he lands the job as a horoscope writer. Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) who is the editor in chief is at the end of his rope trying to keep the newspaper going. During the interview Lotterman asks Kemp what kind of drinker he is, Kemp replies that he’s at “the upper end of social.”

Sala (Michael Rispoli) is the newspaper photographer, he and Kemp become friends and offers to let Kemp move in with him. It is a dump of an apartment that Sala shares with Moburg (Giovanni Ribisi) a dirty, drugged out alcoholic who listens to Hilter records.

He was funny, crazy, eccentric and plain old fun to watch.  Oh and did I mention he also works at the newspaper as a crime reporter.

Aaron Eckhart plays an American businessman named Sanderson; he immediately tries to bring Kemp into a big business deal he is trying to develop on a nearby island. He wants to build a hotel and he wants to use Kemps words in the Star to help convince the locals that this is would be a good thing for them and to try to improve the relationship between them. What can I say about Aaron Eckhard’s performance? Nothing except….WOW!  He plays a really great underhanded, despicable creep and some may even say the role wasn’t big enough for him but he was just amazing and truly showed his acting abilities.

Sanderson’s beautiful, young, sexy fiancée, Chenault is played by Amber Heard. The first time Kemp met Chenault, he was in a paddle boat, she popped up out of the water, while skinny dipping. Kemp falls for Chenault instantly, he mutters to himself “Oh God, why did she have to happen?”  Chenault is torn between Sanderson’s money and love of Kemp. Amber Heard was absolutely stunning in this film; she was young and carefree, hard not to like her. Depp and Heard’s on screen chemistry was obvious and made me want them to be together.

The Rum Diary is about America’s corruption of Puerto Rico. It is a battle of the poverty stricken locals and the wealthy Americans who use their land to make money, but treat the locals like they are the intruders.

It is Kemp’s struggle to find his words either to help Sanderson become even wealthier and destroy the beautiful beaches of Puerto Rico or to use his word to take the bastards down. We see Kemp evolve into the writer he wants to become.  We take a journey filled with drinking, cock fights, cops, romance, human flame throwers and a lot of laughs for the audience.

If you are looking for the version of Hunter S Thompson from Fear and Loathing, you will not find it in this film. Both roles are such drastically different performances but both equally engaging in their own right..

Johnny is so sexy, I almost found myself so engrossed in him that I practically missed the dialogue. I love Johnny and this is just another film of his I can watch over and over.

This is a movie you have to watch again and again to catch every nuance and every joke and every awesome Kemp expression. While there were slow parts and one scene that implied a rape but was glossed over tactfully, I HAVE to give this a solid four out of five dogs.

Final Thoughts 

If my research is correct, In Time is actually the third name this science fiction thriller has donned.  It was previously called Now and I’m.mortal.  The film was written and directed by Andrew Niccol.  Lucky man!   However, what’s even more impressive is the star-studded cast of Amanda Seyfried, Justin Timberlake, Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde and many more.

The ambitious movie asks a lot from us.  It asks us to be patient, forgiving and ambitiously willing to suspend our disbeliefs while we switch off the real world around us and exist solely in the alternate universe we are made to surrender to for 115 minutes.  I’m not saying that like its a bad thing, after all, I did love Inception (who didn’t?), but this film is no Inception.

As I mentioned before, In Time is set in an alternate future where, stay with me now, the aging gene has been switched off.  Yep.  You heard what I said…the aging gene.  People stop aging at 25 years old.  That wouldn’t be a bad thing for the many who love the way they look at 25, but there’s a catch.  You see, people live with a digital clock imprinted on their arm.  It dictates how long you will live.  So when I said there’s a catch, here it is.  If the obnoxious glowing green neon clock on your arm wasn’t enough, once you turn 25 it starts counting down and you only have a year left on your life.  Bam!  If that’s not a slap in the face, then I don’t know what is.  In essence, turning 25 in this universe is like turning 50 in ours.  Relax!  I’m just kidding.  Everyone knows that half-life is in our 30’s.  Laugh out loud.

So you all still with me?  I mean, this is all plausible, right?  So people have this seemingly unavoidable death sentence at age 25 to curb the problem of overpopulation.  When you run out of time, your heart just stops and that’s it.  Lights out!  So in essence, another way to look at all of this is that time becomes a currency and it is the way people pay for luxuries and necessities like food, coffee and housing.  I’m not kidding about any of this by the way.  This is the movie’s premise.  Te rich are able to live forever.  One can almost say like a vampire, they are immortal, while the rest of the population does anything the can to earn extra minutes on their clocks, including manual labor.  Yuck!

So here’s the Act One plot point.  A very poor 28-year old man (28 in real years), Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), is accused of murder when he inherits a fortune of time from a man who has lived over one hundred years and seemingly doesn’t want to live a day longer.  He becomes a wanted felon.  He is forced to go on the run from a police force known as, try not to laugh, the Timekeepers.  Also, hot on his tail is a mob called; I hope you are ready for this, The Minutemen.  Who comes up with this stuff?  These names are almost as ridiculous as Unobtainium!  The leader of this mob goes by the name of Fortis (Alex Pettyfer).  He is 75-years old.  But remember…EVERYONE in this film looks not a day over the ripe age of 25-years old, except Cillian Murphy, but that’s a completely different story.  And what would our tale be without a little romance….enter the beautiful Amanda Seyfried.  Every rogue time stealer needs a dame in distress, right?

If I had to rate this film I would give it a 2.5 or 3 out of 5 doggies depending on what kind of mood I was in.  I was happy to have seen it, but unless I’m offered a review copy, I probably won’t be seeing it again anytime soon.  It’s ambitious and bold.  I like that about it.  But it’s all over the place at the same time.  It’s almost like they describe in screenwriting courses as double jeopardy.  We are asked to believe and put our trust in this alternate universe, but he time jumping on the arms was utter lunacy at times, no pun intended with the repeat term.  Frequently, I couldn’t tell who had what time left on their arms during the presentation.  One minute Will would have 100 years and the next he would have five minutes.  It was too much, in my opinion, but nevertheless, it was also very cool at times too.  The stakes were high, but they were only believable if you didn’t allow your suspension of disbelief to be broken.  Beware of distractions at the theater when you check this one out.  You need to concentrate.  No loud popcorn chewing or Twizzlers unwrapping!  If your disbelief is broken, forever will this movie probably suck in your repertoire.  I like how the movie didn’t waste anytime setting up the world we were about to live in.  Its Lord of the Rings-like narrative was efficient in its delivery and hey…worst-case scenario it has something for both the guys and gals, Justin and Amanda.  How can you go wrong?  If you have the “time,” check it out, yo!

Anonymous had no idea what it wanted to be when it came of age in front of audiences in a theater.  It had the look and feel of Shakespeare in Love, enough intrigue and conspiracy for Jason Bourne, enough characters to pass as Altman film, and enough multi-layered flashbacks and flash forwards for Inception to sue for copyright violation.

Anonymous opens with an actor sweeping on stage at the last minute in modern day New York City.  As he completes the prologue, the stage play transitions to film with Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), struggling playwright, fleeing English soldiers while clutching stacks of manuscripts in his arms.  The soldiers are intent on getting either him or the manuscripts.  However, he hides in a theater long enough to prompt the soldiers to torch the venue. He stashes the manuscripts and emerges to battle the soldiers.  This lasts about ten seconds before he surrenders.

Next we find young Ben tied to a chair for interrogation at the hands of some unknown authority figure.  The men knock Johnson around to find the location of the manuscripts.  It is here that we start our first flashback to his chance encounter with the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans).  After agreeing to stage his play, Ben gets cold feet about attaching his name to the plays, which opens the door for an illiterate actor named William Shakespeare to take the credit, much to the dismay of the Earl and Johnson.

If that weren’t enough, we now need to endure a flashback of the Earl back to his younger years, then another flashback even further.  Throw in the flashbacks a murder, an atypical shotgun wedding, incest, illegitimate children, Queen Elizabeth at various ages, various theater people, and strict, evil Puritans, well, you can get lost or just quit caring what is happening and hope to enjoy the ending!

This movie had too many characters for my taste, an unclear protagonist, shifting focus from struggling playwrights and theater purists, a form of name-dropping by bring the young, old, and somewhere in between Queen Elizabeth (Venessa Redgrave/Joely Richardson), and political manipulators.

In the end, again, the filmmakers went over the top with a rushed crescendo with empty emotion.  Only then did I remember the real premise of the movie: that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays ascribed to him.  To me the only thing anonymous in this movie was the plot.

Curtis:  I’m gonna build out the tornado shelter in my back yard and I could use some help.
Dewart:  What the hell you wanna do that for?
Curtis:  Just needs to be done.

Michael Shannon (currently starring in the HBO series Boardwalk Empire) stars as Curtis, a simple man living in a small town in Ohio.  Curtis is unfortunately going through some heavy psychological problems.  Despite living a normal life with his wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain), and their deaf daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart), Curtis has been suffering from incredibly intense dreams.  These dreams are all apocalyptic in nature, suggesting a possible oncoming storm that could be devastating on the world.  In all of these dreams, Curtis is also attacked in some way, practically leaving him physically injured and certainly feeling very ill while awake.

Curtis’ issues lead him to take two different paths.  As Curtis works in construction, he begins to do work in his backyard to build out and enhance his tornado shelter.  He borrows heavy equipment from work and spends an alarming amount of time and money to make the ultimate underground safe haven for him and his family.  Curtis’ other path has him acknowledging his problems and visiting a free clinic psychologist and studying up on schizophrenia, which his own mother (Kathy Baker) also suffers from.  As Curtis’ issues become more known to others, especially his wife, true worry begins, with concerns revolving around Curtis’ mental state as well as the future state of his family.

Curtis:  Is anyone else seeing this?

The most notable aspect of this film that I want to make mention of is how strong I think the performances are.  Michael Shannon deserves lots and lots of acclaim for his work, because I think it is about as good a performance as I have seen in some time.  While I don’t think the movie is perfect, I believe that he is so into this role, with all of his various character traits, emotions, and physical qualities being perfectly handled, that he deserves far more acclaim than I believe this film will end up getting.  The way Shannon handles the quiet build of this film, dealing with these dreams, reacting, discussing his issues with others, and the eventual blow ups he has in front of others and during a storm that comes late in the film is all part of a great performance to have been watching.

Jessica Chastain, the busiest actress of 2011, is also incredibly good in a near equally difficult role as the wife who is challenged by all of this madness that her husband is exhibiting.  She has to balance being understanding, being authoritative, and making it all seem like a real natural performance, as opposed to letting things sink too far into cliché or melodrama.  It is not the intense performance that Shannon is required to give, but a more deliberately underplayed one that works well both for her character and as a way to compliment what her character’s husband is going through.

The story in this film is interesting.  It is not entirely complex and the film ends up being longer than it needs to be, but I did enjoy the intrigue that was presented.  Why is Curtis suffering from these visions?  What is it all supposed to mean?  How can the family get through all this?  While the final resolution does not necessarily wrap everything up with a pretty bow, the film creates a solid foundation of drama and leads into some pretty intense dream sequences early on.  As the film continues, dealing with the frustration and angst that Curtis and Samantha are going through nearly becomes a chore at points, but is mainly kept in check due to how good these actors are.

The film was written and directed by Jeff Nichols, who manages to bring his independent filmmaking style into this (very) slightly higher budgeted project and do some pretty solid work.  While I have commented on the slow pace already, the rest of the film, which revolves around following Curtis as he descends into a sort of madness, is well done.  The dream sequences manage to be tense; as the building of frustration and fear, leading to the eventual release at key moments is done with a nice kind of precision.  Having read a description of Nichols’ next project, I am very curious to see what he is headed in the future.

I have clearly praised the performances the most in terms of what I think makes this movie work and I think that should be enough of a recommendation.  It is very deliberate in how it lets the story unfold and has scant moments of levity to help the viewer follow along with the stress that Curtis is going through, but it is a well done thriller on the obscurer side of this genre of filmmaking.  Apocalyptic visions and the descent into madness can only provide so much entertainment, but the use of actors who do not go over the top, but instead react in a grounded manner really help sell this quiet, little thriller.

Curtis:  I’m sorry.

Dennis:  Katie and Kristi, say hi to the camera.

As I remain very cautious to not spoil myself on the particular details of these films before I see them, I’ll tread lightly around what the premise for this film is.  Following a brief setup taking place before the events of the first sequel in this series (which was also a prequel of sorts), the film jumps back to 1988.  It is here that we observe the childhood of young Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) through the camera lens of their stepfather Dennis (Chris Smith).  Dennis, the girls, and their mother, Julie (Lauren Bittner) live in a two story home in California.  Following some strange activity, Dennis (being a videographer by trade) sets up cameras around the house in an effort to capture these occurrences on film.  Waiting, watching, and “Boos!” follow.

It would be easy for me to get really snarky and nitpicky about the biggest factor in this movie:  the ghost…or whatever.  Given that this is a prequel, what are its intentions?  It seems to keep running into the same situation with the same family line it is messing with, by getting captured on camera.  It must also be very bad at accomplishing its goal, unless it is solely focused on creating mischief and frightening annoyance for the various family members.  Each time it takes about 3 weeks worth of camera footage, before it finally says, “Screw it,” and unleashes all the big moments in the film.  The ghost is apparently just as stubborn as the various family members in this series who make all the wrong decisions.

Putting those thoughts aside, however, I can’t say that this film did not continue to provide an effective level of entertaining tension for me.  I get just as much out of these films as I do with the audience I am sitting with.  In particular, I purposefully bring my adult male friend with me, who tends to scream like a girl no older than the ones seen in this film.  It is an entertaining process to sit with a packed audience in the dead of night, in a dark theater and all at once find the various instances where the subtle movements and sudden changes arouse so much combined stress.

With regards to how the scares are presented in the actual film, I can understand how some audiences continue to not get the appeal and find the proceedings quite boring.  This series has always been just as much a waiting game as it has been a fright fest, with heavy emphasis on the waiting.  Besides a couple fake-outs along the way, the big events of this film only slowly stack up, until reaching their extremes during the finale.  For me, I still get a kick out of it.  Separating myself from the yet unexplained ghost logic, I can get into doors slowly moving, disappearing tables, and other forms of haunted feng shui.

From a production standpoint, Paranormal Activity 3 is both effectively made and too effectively made in terms of capturing scares on camera.  The film finds creative ways to have cameras rigged up.  One particularly great idea was to have Dennis modify an oscillating fan and attach a camera to it, for roving footage.  At the same time, being that this is set in the 80s and the footage is supposedly coming from VHS tapes, it becomes way to clear that these tapes have pretty amazing quality, presented in widescreen.  I can only image a studio meeting between Paramount and the film’s directors (Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, of Catfish fame) resulting in a nixing of the idea to shoot the film in 4:3.  The level of CG manipulation comes into play as well here, but it continues to be well utilized based off of the tension created, which I was already into.

Performance-wise, one of the trickier areas of this series, I did find a level of sincerity present in this film, with one major exception.  Given how Catfish turned out (the jury is still out on its authenticity), I would give credit to Joost and Schulman for being able to handle this family dynamic fairly well.  With that said, based on screenplay requirements, it is the mother, Julie, who goes to great lengths to not want to catch on with all the bad that is really happening in this house.  These are the eye-rolling moments that occur, when you have plenty of evidence needed, but can’t get someone on board to take a little consideration until it’s too late.

My largest concern, having watched this film and considering the others, is where the series will go from here.  A sequel is inevitable, as it certainly hasn’t worn out its welcome on mass audiences (myself included), but what is next?  I think a huge flaw of this film comes from the fact that it seems almost too aware that it has to have a sequel in order to clear up the new information we learn about Katie and Kristi’s family.  Given the status of this film as a prequel, the plot logic remains somewhat of a mystery after getting to the conclusion of this film.

This issue aside, I did enjoy the flick.  It is not necessarily fresh, but it is a horror franchise that I am willing to stand behind for the time being.  Maybe boring to some, but I dig the atmosphere and tension that these films create, along with being a part of the reactive audiences that watch them.  A number of clever scares along the way only help things further.  And once again, having trouble, while trying to sleep, is a good sign that the film managed to effectively get to me.  Count me as looking forward to next Halloween’s entry as well.

Katie and Kristi:  Bloody Mary.  Bloody Mary.  Bloody Mary.

d’Artagnan:  You’re the Three Musketeers.  I came to Paris to be one of you.

Besides the various uses of style, which I’ll get into later, the film’s plot is largely the same as before…for the most part.  The film begins with a Mission Impossible-style action/heist sequence, which has the three musketeers, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos (Matthew McFayden, Luke Evans, and Ray Stevenson) working with the deadly assassin and Athos’ love, Milady (Milla Jovovich) to steal a secret design from an overly elaborate, booby-trapped vault.  After their success, Milady steals the design, betraying them for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom).  The musket