Author: Darren Goodhart

Sean and Ben are two young hotshot software developers hoping to make a killing with a new internet venture with Russian financing.  After getting shot down by a rival, they hope to drown their sorrows in a trendy nightclub where they meet a couple of girls also traveling abroad, Natalie and Anne.  They’re all having a great time and then a huge blackout occurs.  Everyone in the bar assembles to the outside streets where they see something like a Northern Lights effect over the sky dropping globes of light to the ground.  It looks beautiful but it’s quickly revealed that they’re very deadly and in actuality… are aliens from space here to strip mine the planet!!

That’s the premise to The Darkest Hour the second movie from director Chris Gorak (Gorak’s first movie was called Right At Your Door which unfortunately I haven’t seen and prior to that he’s served as Art Director and Production Designer for a number of films including Minority Report, Fight Club and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).  One of the film’s producers is Timur Bekmambetov who’s better known for his directorial efforts; the Russian-made Night Watch and Day Watch, and the comic book adaptation of Wanted. With a pedigree like that and the promotion this has been getting, one would certainly hope for the best…

… keep hoping (said by my inner smart-ass).  Actually, it’s not as bad as that would imply.  There’s some good ideas here, a terrific locale (you don’t necessarily think of Moscow as a location for an alien invasion film) and an amiable cast.  The visual effects are serviceable as is the 3D (though more for depth than anything else).  Where this falters is with a disjointed second act that gets pretty flat in it’s pacing, some pretty listless bits of dialogue and some acts by some of the main characters that are just stupid but move the story forward.  It’s all of the hallmarks of a “B” movie and there’s nothing wrong with that necessarily.  But considering the major push this film has been given and the fact that it’s been released right alongside new movies from Tom Cruise, David Fincher and two releases from Steven Spielberg, it has a lot to live up to.  I can certainly understand a studio wanting to give their film a major push and make as much money as they can, but there’s a part of me which thinks that The Darkest Hour could’ve been better served as a smaller release and not competing with bigger films but acting more as a bit of a palette cleanser.

Emile Hirsch plays Sean and Max Minghella plays Ben and they’re certainly likable enough and have good chemistry together (which is something that I couldn’t say about the leads in the movie this most resembles, Skyline)  Olivia Thirlby plays Natalie and Rachel Taylor plays Anne and unfortunately for them they’re the two major characters who get to do the stupid things that drive this forward.  Of course that’s not really their fault, but other than that they don’t really do anything that special or memorable and really just the “girls” of this film.

The Darkest Hour ends with the idea that this could be the first in a series of films and I almost hope that happens just because there are some good ideas here that could certainly be expanded upon.  I don’t expect that to happen though considering the film’s poor box office performance domestically.  As it is, The Darkest Hour is pretty lackluster compared to what it’s being released against right now and I can only really recommend to those that will appreciate it’s “B” movie aspects.

Famous boy reporter Tintin is having his portrait drawn in a town square, when an object from a vendor catches his eye.  The object is a model of a sailing ship from days past.  Tintin is intrigued enough to buy the model when all of a sudden he finds that there are others who are in pursuit of the very same model.  Tintin, of course smells a mystery and soon he and his trusty canine companion Snowy are off on a big adventure to find out the real secret behind this ship model.

The Adventures of Tintin is one of two holiday releases from director Steven Spielberg (the other being War Horse) and it marks the prolific director’s first foray into both computer generated animation and 3D.  For those that don’t know, Tintin is a comic book character created by Belgian cartoonist Hergé back in 1929.  I’ve never read any of the Tintin stories my own self (something that I should rectify) but I do know that this character and his adventures are a pretty big deal abroad and highly influential in the greater appeal of comic storytelling in Europe.  From what I understand, Tintin is to European comics as Osamu Tezuka’s Astro Boy is to Japanese manga.  His stories have been published worldwide and due to his classic adventure background, one could certainly see the appeal to both director Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson in bringing the character to the big screen.

The Adventures of Tintin takes place in it’s own world and in an undisclosed time period.  Some might have a problem in accepting the fact that he’s this boy who lives on his own, has these jaunts that takes him all over the world (without any parental supervision) and that he uses a gun.  For some in the American audience, I could see this as being a pretty big deal to have get around to accept this story.  It’s not unheard of with a comic book character like this (and to cite an American example, Billy Batson- who says the magic word Shazam to become Captain Marvel- was also a boy reporter who lived on his own and had his own big adventures back in the day), but it’s something that you’ll definitely have to accept going into this.

From what I understand, Tintin himself was more of a device for Hergé to tell stories of other characters.  Tintin is certainly a proactive character, but not necessarily the main focus in each of his adventures.  That’s certainly the way this movie works.

For the most part, I had a pretty terrific time with this, but I do have a few quibbles and it’s mostly with the character of Captain Haddock, who Tintin teams up with to help solve this mystery.  Haddock is the main focus of the film and he’s this boozy sea captain who’s seen better days.  Haddock is the one who has the connection to the model ship and he sees that finding it is a way at some sort of redemption for his family name.  Whenever Haddock starts to go on about his past, it’s not so much about him as it is about his ancestor and these scenes (despite Andy Serkis’ considerable talent in bringing Haddock to life) are pretty laggy and the pace just slows down considerably.

Beyond that though, on a technical level, The Adventures of Tintin is just amazing.  Spielberg and company, in my opinion, go to new heights with this sort of motion capture CGI animated film. The characters look stunning and have a realism to them that fits this world design.  The world itself is bright, colorful and looks like the ideal place for a big adventure.  The action scenes are spectacular, with one chase scene near the end of the film being a huge standout and virtually worth the price of admission.  I thought the 3D was really nicely done, but again, I saw this in a room with great projection.  I don’t think it’s quite to the same level as what Martin Scorsese did with Hugo, and I also don’t think you necessarily have to see it in 3D, but if you’re inclined to it does work (particularly with the action scenes).

As I mentioned above, Andy Serkis plays Haddock and does a great job, though I think that character suffers more in the writing.  Jamie Bell plays Tintin and he’s just terrific, though I could see some seeing Tintin as a bland character (which I tend to think is by design).  Tintin himself is more of an audience gateway to the adventure but when he throws himself into the action, it’s in a way that’s pure Spielberg adventure not unlike Indiana Jones.  As cool as Tintin is himself, his dog Snowy steals the show being even more proactive than his master.

Daniel Craig plays Sakharine, the villain of the piece and in many ways may be the best character brought to life on the screen.  Craig’s performance combined with the animation has some real subtlety and nuance to it.  In some inspired casting, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are cast as Thomson and Thompson, two bumbling detectives who are staples of the series.  Just from their dialogue, you can tell they’re having some real fun with the parts.

But will that fun translate?  That’s hard to say.  I had a good time with this, but not in the same league that I had the previous evening with Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol (I realize that may be a bit of an unfair comparison, but actually the two films have more in common than you think- both are big globetrotting adventures with “big” characters and both are directed by directors who are working outside their normal comfort zones).  I had a problem with Haddock, which might have been a different thing if I’d actually read some of Hergé’s original stories, but technically you shouldn’t have to read them in order to get what the character is all about.  To me, that character wasn’t necessarily worth following, at least by what’s shown in the movie.  What did make this fun though was Tintin and Snowy, both being these great wish-fulfillment characters that harken back to a time when this sort of boy’s adventure was more acceptable.  The Adventures of Tintin is certainly set-up in such a way so that more movies could be coming, and for myself, I hope they get the chance to do so.

Impossible Missions Force agent Ethan Hunt and a small team of agents have been implicated in a devastating explosion at the Kremlin while on a mission.  Now, totally disavowed, Hunt and his team are off to stop a master terrorist called Cobalt (who’s actually behind the Kremlin explosion) from plunging the world into destruction following the theft of Russian nuclear missile codes.

That is all that I’m going to tell you about the premise to Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. There is way more to it than just that, but you really should see it for yourself.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is the fourth film in the series from star Tom Cruise and it marks the live-action directorial debut of Brad Bird.  Bird is better known for his work in animation.  He’s been part of The Simpsons team, his own first movie The Iron Giant is a masterpiece, and his two films for Pixar, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, are two of the very best movies the studio has released.  As terrific as his resume is, you’d think he’d be outside his comfort zone with this huge live-action blockbuster… that’s not the case at all.

I’m a huge fan of Mission: Impossible. I absolutely love the old TV series and for the most part I think the film series has been nicely done, though for me the best of the films has still been the first one directed by Brian DePalma.  Thanks to Brad Bird, we’ve now got another film in the series which is right up there with the first one as far as I’m concerned.

Bird and writers Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec not only give us a rollicking adventure piece, but they also manage to give every agent their due.  Tom Cruise is certainly the lead here, but this is also very much an ensemble piece and this just doesn’t tell us an Ethan Hunt story.  In the midst of some terrific action set pieces, Bird and company also bring back those moments that made Mission: Impossible really special; the tense and quiet moments of actually putting the pieces in their place to pull off these impossible missions.  In addition to that, Bird and company give this entire production a far lighter feel than say what the current James Bond series has.  it’s an almost retro touch that brings back a solid sense of fun to the whole thing.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol looks terrific and is especially charged up during it’s set pieces (in particular the scenes around Dubai’s Burj Khalifa hotel).    It’s tightly paced and all punctuated by a terrific score from Michael Giacchino, who’s no stranger to the franchise (he scored the third film) and certainly no stranger to working with Brad Bird (he scored both The Incredibles and Ratatouille).  Giacchino’s score not only pays it’s respects with it’s use of Lalo Schifrin’s original theme and show music, but in some places, there’s also what seems to me like some nods to John Barry’s work in some classic Bond films.  From a technical and production standpoint, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is as first-rate as it gets.

I thought that the main cast was terrific.  Tom Cruise has always had a great intensity in the part of Ethan Hunt, not just in his delivery but also in his physical presence.  Right from the start, you’ll see that he was totally up to reprising his role and when he says the best line in the movie (at least to me), “Light the fuse,” you just know that he’s here and ready to give the audience a great time.  Simon Pegg returns from Mission: Impossible III as Benji Dunn, who’s now a field agent and acts as Hunt’s tech specialist.  Pegg, as expected, acts as comedy relief for the film, but he’s never annoying as it and he also gets his moments to really shine as a serious member of this team.  Paula Patton plays Jane Carter, an agent who has her own personal score to settle through all of this.  She’s got great presence and just looks stunning.  Jeremy Renner plays William Brandt, the fourth member of this team.  Brandt is introduced as an “analyst” but there’s way more to him than that.  Renner can certainly stand toe-to-toe with Cruise on the intensity side and he’s just a terrific addition to this franchise.

Michael Nyqvist plays Hendricks, the terrorist known as Cobalt.  While he’s not necessarily i the same class of villain as Philip Seymour Hoffman was in Mission: Impossible III he still does a very capable job.  His final fight with Ethan Hunt is terrific and he just has the look of a classic Mission: Impossible bad guy.  For me, the biggest surprise in the cast was right at the start of the film with Lost’s Josh Holloway playing an IMF agent named Hanaway.  His appearances are really brief, but they set the stage and Holloway has real presence.  I always thought he was terrific on Lost and was certainly deserving of even bigger and better roles.  His appearance here proves that and I just hope he gets some bigger opportunities in the future.

Earlier this year, I saw Fast Five and up until now, it was my favorite action film of the year.  Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol hasn’t knocked it off of the top but it does share the space.  Both have a lot in common; they’re late films in established franchises, they have major over-the-top set pieces, engaging casts that make you want to follow their adventure, and they’ve both re-energized their franchises.  Tom Cruise may be the lead actor in this (and he is terrific) but the real star of the film is director Brad Bird and his terrific visual style and sense of pace and most importantly, sense of fun.  Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is a winner and of course, highly, highly recommended.

“Light the fuse.”

Famed consulting detective Sherlock Holmes is hot on the trail of a diabolical scheme from his arch nemesis Professor James Moriarty.  Moriarty plans to plunge France and Germany into a major war from which he will profit from in a heavy way.  Now Holmes and his trusted companion, Dr. Watson set out to thwart these plans.

That’s the premise to Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, director Guy Ritchie’s second outing with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic character with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson.  I enjoyed their first film a great deal (though I wasn’t expecting so due to the initial trailers- those trailers led me to believe that this was going to be a snarky, jokey version of Holmes, yet another instance where movie marketing betrays a movie).

With all of the key players still in place and the able addition of actor Jared Harris in the role of Moriarty the promise was certainly here for a good movie and for the most part it is a lot of fun though I have a few quibbles with it.

On the plus side, the look of the movie is fantastic.  The production design is absolutely first-rate.  I was pleased to see Ritchie still use his “signature” for Holmes with his hyper-kinetic sequences where Holmes sees every important aspect of a scene and Holmes in turn already working out his solutions.  Some already have problems with this sort of slo-mo storytelling, but I think it’s fantastic and these scenes are real standouts for me.  I really enjoyed Hans Zimmer’s score in the first film and was certainly glad to see his return here.

Where this falters… well, it is a little too long and probably could’ve been tightened up by a good 15-20 minutes.  Some might attribute this to Ritchie’s signature scenes, but I see it more for taking a little too much time to hammer in some of their comedic parts, in particular a scene involving Holmes on a horse and another with Holme’s brother Mycroft and Watson’s new wife.

My second quibble is somewhat spoiler-ish in nature, so you’ve been given fair warning (jump to the next paragraph if you want to avoid this),  One thing that I really like about this film is the fact that it does borrow facets of Doyle’s “The Final Problem” which at it’s end kills off both Holmes and Moriarty.  Even though Holmes survives this by the end of the film (which isn’t a big surprise), this didn’t exactly seem to me the way to go with a second film in the franchise.  Considering how Moriarty wasn’t directly shown in the first movie, I think it would’ve been better to build up more to his first full-blown appearance in a Holmes film as the primary villain.  For a second movie, I would’ve rather had seen Ritchie and company take a story like “The Hound of the Baskervilles” as an primary story and still build up Moriarty as a secondary story which could’ve then lead right into A Game of Shadows. It’s still an enjoyable film as it is, but I thought Moriarty deserved more of a build-up rather than going straight to him for the second film.

Downey and Law are terrific though their chemistry is played down a little form the first movie, primarily due to Watson’s marriage.  Downey certainly surprises me at just how good he looks during the action sequences as I just don’t normally associate him with being an action movie guy.  Sure, he’s in the Iron Man films, but even then when he’s in action, he’s in the armor and you just don’t see his face when he’s at work.  I think he’s quite credible in those scenes and Guy Ritchie certainly milks it for all it’s worth.  Jude Law has the harder role of “grounding” Holmes.  It’s nowhere near as “showy” a part, but Law does a terrific job and now it would certainly be hard to not think of him in the part for this version of the franchise.

Jared Harris is probably better known to audiences for his appearances on the TV show Fringe. He was certainly a surprise here being cast as Moriarty, but not an unpleasant one (especially considering all of the bigger names that were first being bantered around).  His Moriarty is indeed the opposite number of Holmes and it’s truly in evidence in the film’s final scenes.

Rachel McAdams, Eddie Marsan and Geraldine James all return as Irene Adler, Inspector Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson respectively, but their parts are nowhere near as large as what they were in the first film and it would’ve been nice to see just a little more.  Considering the nature of this film, there really was nowhere to use them more.  Kelly Reilly also returns as Watson’s wife and fares better.  New additions to the series include Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes and Noomi Rapace as Madam Simza Heron.  Fry is terrific as Holme’s brother, though as I said above, the scene with him and Kelly Reilly does go on a bit long.  Rapace is important to the plot of the film, but mostly in getting things moving rather than having any sort of real character that you can get engaged with.  She looks terrific, but she deserved more than that.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows goes on a bit long and in my opinion, just shouldn’t have been the story used for the second in this film series, but with that said, I still had a good time with it.  That good time is largely due to Guy Ritchie’s terrific visual sense and fun performances from Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Jared Harris.  I no doubt expect this to series to continue beyond this film and certainly look forward to what they’ll spring on us next.

And to think I almost didn’t see this…

I’m certainly a Martin Scorsese fan and look forward to his movies, but to be honest, the initial trailers that I saw for Hugo just didn’t do anything for me.  This looked like another kid’s fantasy film from it’s marketing and there was nothing there other than saying it was directed by Martin Scorsese that made it special.

I should’ve known better…

Thanks to some articles that I read later on (and the review from Ebert Presents At The Movies), I then got the urge to see the movie and thank goodness I did.  I’ve been waiting to see if there was going to be anything that knocked Takeshi Miike’s 13 Assassins off of my top spot for the year and Hugo did just that.  Unfortunately, I’ve been delayed in getting this review written (due to some personal circumstances), but better late than never.

Hugo is set in 1930s Paris and tells us the story of young Hugo Cabret.  Hugo is an orphan who lives in the nooks and crannies of a large train station.  Hugo is trying to complete a project that he started with his father; the restoration of a mysterious automaton.  Hugo does this by stealing parts from merchants around the area, concentrating primarily around a little toy shop run by an old man named Georges.  Georges eventually catches Hugo in the act, and from there, their fates are intertwined.

Now of course there’s way more to this than what I described and part of that includes Scorsese’s love for movies.  This isn’t any real great spoiler (as I’ve seen it turn up in other reviews) but Georges is later revealed to be the great Georges Méliès, the pioneer in visual effects and fanciful storytelling in cinema.  Hugo is a huge salute to Méliès (as well as giving nods to other film pioneers like Harold Lloyd and Jacques Tati) but it’s even more than that.  At it’s core, Hugo sends out the message that it’s OK to dream, to have flights of fancy and a sense of wonder and not get all mired in making everything so utterly real and mired in darkness.

Scorsese, just due to the nature of his past films, would at first not seem like the guy to give out this message.  If you’ve ever seen him in any sort of interview situation, then you know that his enthusiasm for the film is boundless and not just tied to the subject matter of his past films.  He’s a true master at storytelling and I think it’s just fantastic that he’s made this “break” from his past to really show just how engaging a sense of wonder in film can be.

Scorsese embraces a bright and colorful palette for the overall look of the film with only one scene featuring a desaturated look (and it’s a fitting scene for that).  You don’t normally think of Martin Scorsese as a director who’s known for strong visual effects, but with Hugo he goes there though it’s not necessarily in the same ways that other filmmakers would do it.  And then there’s the 3D… Wow.  If there’s any movie that absolutely deserves to be seen in 3D, Hugo is the one.  Sure I think you’ll still get enjoyment from this without the 3D, but with it, it’s even more special.  You’ll see it from the opening scene with huge amounts of depth.  Scorsese is sparse with the more “in-your-face” 3D effects, but when he does it, it’s terrific and effective (who would ever figure that a close-up of a dog barking could be so effective in 3D).

The cast is wonderful, though really the star of this show is Scorsese and his storytelling skills.  Asa Butterfield plays Hugo.  At the start of the film, Hugo is this little urchin character that you just don’t necessarily have that much sympathy for.  Scorsese takes his time in building the character effectively, and before you know it, we’re on this kid’s side and can’t wait to see what he does next.  Butterfield’s given himself over to Scorsese and in turn, turns out a terrific performance.  For me though, the real standout is Ben Kingsley playing Georges Méliès.  When we’re first introduced to Georges, he’s at the twilight of his life, and so suitably playing the part very dark and tired.  The greatest bit in the whole film is when Scorsese recreates what it was like to work on the set of a Georges Méliès film, with Méliès himself being much like Scorsese, this compact dynamo of energy that simply delights in the magic that he’s about to create.  Here Kingley excels but even with the way that he’s playing the character at the start, it all feels right.

Sacha Baron Cohen plays the “villain” of the piece, the Station Inspector who’s on the lookout for orphan children who are disrupting the day-to-day business of the train station.  He’s the “villain” (and those quotes are deliberate, as this is a character who certainly thinks his heart is in the right place) and also the source or comedy relief for the film.  That comedy relief isn’t broad and biting, but very gentle and giving just the right light moments when you need them.  The cast is filled out with Chloe Grace Moretz, Emily Mortimer, Helen McCrory, Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone and Jude Law.  Law plays Hugo’s father and is only seen in flashback scenes.  Though he’s only in a few scenes, he really does shine and embodies the dreamer spirit that he’s trying to pass on to his son.

Don’t miss this!!  Hugo is just a terrific film that sends out a message that’s not just important to children but to us adults as well.  The film is a technical marvel and it’s story and characters are timeless.  The 3D is fantastic and by all means, that’s how I’d recommend seeing it.  I expect this to get remembered in a big way come Oscar time and it should; simply put, for me, it’s the best movie of the year.  Highly, highly recommended.

“Worlds colliding, Jerry!  Worlds colliding!”

After seeing Lars von Trier’s latest movie, Melancholia, I couldn’t help but think of lines that George Costanza uttered to Jerry Seinfeld (of course in an episode of Seinfeld) when two different aspects of his life that he didn’t want to meet were on a collision course.

von Trier’s Melancholia does a similar thing but with literal repercussions, at least from my perspective.

Melancholia tells us the tale of two sisters who are polar opposites in every respect.  Justine is a  free-spirited career woman who’s blond, attractive and just about to have it all marrying a perfect man, and by her nature, rejects it all.  Claire is  dark-haired, gaunt in appearance and his given her life over to her very successful husband and perfect son, and yearns for Justine’s life.  This is literally set against the backdrop of the discovery of a new planet named Melancholia that’s careening through space, supposedly only going to pass by Earth.

That’s the broad description of Melancholia, a movie that I’ve been looking forward to for quite some time.  Danish director/provocateur Lars von Trier wrote and directed the film which has been receiving great acclaim.  That acclaim has been overshadowed by statements made by von Trier during a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival.  Those statements revolved around von Trier expressing some sympathy for Nazis in comparison to what he goes through directing a film.  As a result of those statements, von Trier has since been banned from Cannes and he has actively said that he’ll no longer participate in any sort of press setting.  I’ve seen the video of his making the statements, and from my point of view, it was more of von Trier basically putting his foot in his mouth rather than any sort of real Nazi sympathy.  Anyone who knows von Trier’s work knows that he likes to provoke and push buttons, and that’s all he was doing with this press conference, but at least from my point of view, it was hardly in any sort of malicious way.  Of course, I say this as an American who just doesn’t have the same perspective that the foreign press does, and so naturally, I tend to think this was all unfortunately overblown.

Will this affect how a potential viewer will come into this?  Honestly, I don’t know.  I know it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the film at all and I’d just hope that if you’re of the mind to see it, you’ll certainly give it a chance.

As I said above, von Trier like to push the buttons and it’s evident in all of his work.  He certainly does it with Melancholia with his two main characters who I don’t see as necessarily being “characters” per se, but more the personification of different aspects of woman in general.  Their portrayal can be seen as both sensitive and pretentious and that can certainly come at odds for how you’ll feel about them by the end.  I’ve come to embrace the pretentiousness of von Trier’s work simply because he knows how to balance it all with effective technical proficiency and leaves it all open to lively discussion.  Justine and Claire are at first glance, somewhat simplistic metaphors.  But after post-viewing examination, there’s way more there to go after if you’re inclined.  I’ve described how I see them in broad strokes, but as is the case with all of von Trier’s movies, he invites you to bring your pads and cleats to play and make your own interpretation.

It’s an absolutely beautiful looking movie that brings to play all of von Trier’s visual tricks.  Pristine composed shots that work in tandem with intentionally jittery handheld camera moments all designed to provoke and force the viewer to put together the pieces.  von Trier uses excerpts from Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde to punctuate his scenes and furthers the haunting beauty of his film.

Kirsten Dunst plays Justine and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays Claire.  Dunst has certainly received much acclaim for the work, even winning the Best Actress award at Cannes for her work here.  It’s no doubt her most complicated work, though as a character, she comes off very unsympathetic, but as I said above, I couldn’t just see her as a character alone, but more as an aspect/concept given personification.  It’s a very show-y performance in comparison to what Gainsbourg has to do and so for some, Claire might come out more slighted in the end.  But again, as a concept given personification, Claire is certainly true to how she’s set up.  That set-up is quite literally the polar opposite of Justine, and so it would seem fitting that she’s more downplayed.

von Trier has assembled some capable support for Dunst and Gainsbourg, but they’re strictly support to his concepts.  Stellan Skarsgård and Alexander Skarsgård play Justine’s boss and husband-to-be respectively (though they’re not related in the film).  John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling play Justine’s and Claire’s divorced parents who act more as definition to Justine more than anything else.  Keifer Sutherland and Cameron Spurr play Claire’s husband, John and son, Leo and again, act as definition to her concept.  It’s all good work, but as I said above, it’s strictly support for Dunst and Gainsbourg.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again, I’m a huge fan of Lars von Trier and any new movie from him is an event for me.  I found Melancholia to be mesmerizing, though I don’t think it will be that way for most, unless you know what you’re getting into with a Lars von Trier movie.  His movies aren’t passive experiences and require an audience to bring in their own interpretation.  His bleak outlook on life won’t give you a feel-good experience, but will certainly give you plenty to ponder after the fact, as long as you’re willing to take the ride.  Anti-Christ was von Trier’s “horror” film and now with Melancholia we’ve got his science fiction film, though they only fit the genres in the broadest of ways.  von Trier’s films have worked as trilogies and both Anti-Christ and Melancholia look like they’re the first two parts of a new one (I’d love to see what he’d do with his own version of an “action” film- though I’d also like to see him finish the trilogy that he started with Dogville and Manderlay).  Regardless of what he does next, I’ll be there to see it and I certainly do recommend Melancholia very highly.

J. Edgar, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, tells us the story of J. Edgar Hoover through his nearly 50-year career of building and leading the FBI.  With a script from Dustin Lance Black (Milk), J. Edgar doesn’t give a thoroughly detailed history, but more takes the route of a complex character study.  For the most part, it’s a pretty darn good movie, though it does have it’s flaws.

The framework used involves Hoover dictating his memoirs using various FBI agents through the 60s and early 70s.  Within this, the narrative jumps around through time starting with Hoover’s beginnings with the Justice Department all the way up through his time as FBI director under president Richard Nixon.

Throughout this, we see Hoover defined through his relationships with three people- his right-hand man at the FBI, Clyde Tolson, his mother, Annie Hoover and his personal secretary, Helen Gandy.  The most defining moments occur with Tolson and Hoover’s mother.  These moments are also the ones that most define Hoover’s repressed homosexuality, and show how that repression gave him his drive for power using questionable methods.  The relationships with his mother and Tolson are very strong and defining, but they don’t show a complete picture.  Where it falls short is with Hoover’s relationship with his secretary, who in the end does the most to preserve Hoover’s legacy.

Helen Gandy starts off as an object of desire for a young Hoover before he’s been made the head of the FBI.  She rebuffs his advancements and prefers to keep their relationship on a professional level.  Hoover makes her his personal secretary.  Gandy stays with him up to his death, being (as shown in the movie) the only person who knows what’s in all of the personal files that Hoover kept on people like Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.  She’s loyal to him to the end, but the reason why for that extreme loyalty is never really touched upon and to me anyway makes this a huge fault in the film.  Hoover commanded respect for more than just intimidation with his power, and Helen Gandy would’ve been the ideal way to show that.  Now this can be easily explained away that there just wasn’t too much source material on Gandy to make these speculations and that’s certainly understandable, but without this, this portrait just isn’t as complete as it should be.

The movie covers Hoover’s accomplishments in broad strokes primarily focusing on Hoover’s early days of busting Communists and tracking down the suspect in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindburgh baby.  Little is said of Hoover during the McCarthy era of hunting Communists other than Hoover calling McCarthy an opportunist.  Involvement with John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King is touched upon, but with little depth, with his dealings with Robert Kennedy being the biggest exception.  Thanks to what’s shown around the Lindburgh kidnapping, we are shown the major advancements of the use of forensic evidence in crime investigation and I certainly appreciated that aspect of Hoover’s career being shown.  This is a long movie, weighing in at 137 minutes and even at that length, Eastwood and Black bit off a little more than they could chew.  I’m not necessarily expecting this to be a total history of the FBI, but I would expect that other key historical events would’ve had more to say about Hoover’s character, beyond just his personal relationships.

Now with that said, J. Edgar is still very much recommended to see.  The reason for that is in it’s tour-de-force performance from Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role.  For a time after Titanic I used to roll my eyes whenever I saw DiCaprio in something that had him as a more mature character, but after he made The Aviator with Martin Scorsese that all started to change.  Now, I think DiCaprio’s one of the very best actors out there thanks to movies like The Departed and Inception. His portrayal as J. Edgar Hoover is the driving force of this film and it’s just spectacular.  With deliberate and careful vocal intonation and an intensity in his eyes, DiCaprio’s Hoover isn’t just a man to be extremely despised or thoroughly celebrated.  In my eyes, it might be his best performance yet.

Armie Hammer plays Clyde Tolson and it’s certainly a far cry from his performance as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. He’s way more obvious about his homosexuality in comparison to DiCaprio’s Hoover and he’s the conscience of the film.  Where Hammer’s performance falls a little short is in scenes with him playing an older Tolson.  It’s not so much Hammer’s performance as it’s more with the make-up used to age him, it’s just not as convincing as that used with DiCaprio, and thus weakens the performance.

Dame Judi Dench plays Annie Hoover and next to DiCaprio’s performance, it’s the next best in the film.  Hoover’s drive is certainly well represented thanks to what Dench does with the part.  Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy and because of what I talked about above, she’s the least of our main cast.  It’s no fault of her own, she just doesn’t not have the meat that everyone else has to work with and it’s not only a shame for her, but also for the movie as a whole.

J. Edgar is a complex character study that’s worth seeing for Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance alone.  I came away from this film with more respect for Hoover than I had before even though he had some despicable methods for getting what he wanted.  That respect comes from what Leonardo DiCaprio brought to the table.  There is a man there that thoroughly believed what he was doing was the right thing and the way DiCaprio plays it, you just can’t quantify it as being completely good or evil, but necessary for how J. Edgar Hoover saw that the job needed to be done.

The evil king, Hyperion of Crete seeks to invade Greece and conquer the Gods of Olympus by using the fabled Epirus Bow to unleash the Titans from their imprisonment in the bowels of Mount Tartarus.  Planning for this moment, a disguised Zeus has been giving guidance to Theseus since his boyhood and now hopes for Theseus to inspire the Grecians to thwart the king.

That’s the basic premise of the latest movie from director Tarsem Singh, Immortals. Tarsem’s past movies have included the serial killer movie The Cell (which I really enjoyed) and The Fall (which I haven’t seen, but I’ll have to rectify that), and are both marked by his unique visual style.  That unique visual style is also the real star of Immortals.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t more at work here, there certainly is.  I know liberties have been taken with Theseus’ story for this film which I’m sure will upset the purists.  The myth gets translated into a new version that has a real emphasis on bloody pulp adventure more than anything else.  As I said in my review for The Three Musketeers, I’m a big comic book fan and I’m used to seeing classic characters get new translations, and that’s certainly at play here.  I’m open to this, but can certainly understand that others might be upset by it.  If you’re thinking about seeing this and you absolutely have to see the pure story of Theseus, you’re probably going to be disappointed.

I wasn’t and just had a real ball with this movie.  Oh, I’ll certainly grant that it has it’s holes and that it’s characters are somewhat limited, but for this film, that just didn’t bother me.  As I said above, Tarsem’s visual style is the big star here and oh… this film just revels in it.

There is an artificiality in the look of the film that I just find really appealing and gives the film more the sense of watching it play out on a really big and elaborate stage more than being filmed on live locations.  Last year’s The Warrior’s Way did this with spectacular results and it’s also in evidence on Starz’s terrific Spartacus TV series.  Of course, many comparisons are being drawn to what Zack Snyder did with 300 which is inevitable, but Tarsem steps that up a bit with a few of his own tricks, in particular a little twist on the slow-motion fight sequences that occur at the end of the film between the Gods and the Titans.  These sequences have the Titans falling in battle in slow-motion while simultaneously having the Gods continue their fight in a sped up way.  It’s absolutely stunning watching these play out, even moreso considering the color palette used in the scenes and having the Gods stand out in their gleaming golden attire.

Now that’s not to say that the cast doesn’t do a good job, they certainly do, but they take a back seat to the visuals.  Henry Cavill (the new Superman for Zack Snyder’s upcoming movie) plays the part of Theseus and certainly has conviction to the role, though the character doesn’t have any real complexity, but then for this type of movie, I thought that was just fine.  He absolutely looks the part and after this, I’m even more enthusiastic to see what he’ll do as Superman.  Frieda Pinto (last seen in one of the big surprise hits of the year, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) plays Phaedra, the oracle who sees what’s to come.  She certainly has more to do here than she did in Rise and she’s an stunning beauty.  Luke Evans (last seen as Aramis in The Three Musketeers and John Hurt share the role of Zeus with Hurt playing Zeus as he appears to the mortals and Evans as Zeus appears to the Gods.  Both are a lot of fun to watch, though Evans gets the best of it by being showcased in some of the spectacular end fight scenes.  Steven Dorff (who I wouldn’t have expected to see in a movie like this) plays Stavros, a thief turned sidekick to Theseus, and while he doesn’t quite shine as brightly as others, he stills looks like he’s having a ball with the part.

The real standout in the cast though is Mickey Rourke as King Hyperion.  Rourke is at the top of his game here, not just physically but really giving out this whole atmosphere of threat and sadism.  He’s just magnetic in the part and shines every time he’s on screen.

I saw this in 3D and I thought it was really well done, though not necessarily for in-your-face effects.  Opinions vary wildly on 3D and certainly with good reason, though now I’m becoming more and more convinced that it really does depend on where you see it.  At the theatre that I regularly attend, Immortals was being shown in their newest and most state-of-the-art presentation.  The picture was bright and detailed with the 3D really highlighted things like planes in faces and subtle differences in character placement.  As I said above, Immortals has an artificial look that looks like it’s being played out on a huge stage and for me, the 3D heightened that effect.  I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to see this in 3D, but if you’re still supportive of the gimmick and have access to a room with primo presentation, I’d certainly recommend seeing Immortals that way.

I saw Immortals with 3 other friends and we all came away with this just having a fantastic time with it.  It certainly does have it’s shortcomings with some aspects of it’s story and characters.  But, it’s stunning visuals and pure bloody pulp presentation drive it in such a way that at least for me was just electric.  I’d very much recommend seeing it, though I suspect I’m going to be in the minority for my enjoyment.

That suave and adventurous feline, Puss In Boots has returned to the village of San Ricardo to make one more big score, even though he has a price on his head.  Puss learns of a treasure held by the thieving couple Jack and Jill; magic beans that will grow a giant beanstalk leading him to the goose that lays the golden eggs. But Puss isn’t the only one after the magic beans and now he must contend with another pair also seeking the beans, Kitty Softpaws and Puss’ childhood friend, Humpty Dumpty.

That’s the premise of Puss In Boots, a spin-off of Dreamworks’ popular Shrek movies.  I really enjoyed the first two Shrek films, got sort of burned out by the third and never saw the fourth.  But, I absolutely loved the trailer for Puss In Boots, I thought it was hilarious and so I marked this one down as one to see (even though I’m running a week behind with it).

For the most part, Puss In Boots is pretty enjoyable.  It not only has it’s main heist, but it also delves into the origins of the devil-may-care cat.  It’s certainly technically proficient with terrific animation all throughout and it certainly makes great use of 3D, in particular with a few chase sequences and a terrific bit of business when the beanstalk grows.  For me anyway, it falls just a little short with it’s humor with many of the best gags being in the trailer (pretty much par for the course for most theatrical comedies today).  Now that’s not to say that there aren’t any more funny moments after that, there certainly are.  But considering how funny I thought the trailer was, I was hoping to see that brand of humor sustained entirely throughout the film.  Instead, this takes more time to focus on the past friendship of Humpy Dumpty and Puss and I think a little less of that would’ve been more than enough and a little more cat and egg humor would’ve been more pleasing.  Again, that’s not to say that those moments aren’t in there, there’s just not enough for my own total satisfaction.

Antonio Banderas returns to voice Puss and you can really tell that he has a lot of fun with this.  Puss is totally designed to play off of Banderas’ identity and he certainly plays it to the hilt.  He’s at his best though when this goes for the cat humor, and as I said above, I just wish there’s been more of that throughout the film.  Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Dumpty), Billy Bob Thornton (Jack) and Amy Sedaris (Jill) all fill out the rest of the main voice cast and do respectable jobs, but really this is Banderas’ movie.

Even with my complaint, I had a pretty good time with this, and certainly more fun than I had with Shrek The Third. I just wish that all of the best gags weren’t just seen in the trailer.  Younger children will probably have a terrific time with this, but for adults, this doesn’t quite pack the same punch that you’d get with a Pixar film (the Cars series withstanding).  Puss In Boots is fun, but just not as funny as it could be.

Let’s just get this out of the way; if you’re looking for a faithful adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ classic, you should look elsewhere.  It’s pretty evident seeing the trailer for this latest version of The Three Musketeers that this wasn’t going to be like any past filmed adaptation.

On the other hand, if you’re looking to see something that’s just pure balls-out fun, then you might want to give director Paul W. S. Anderson’s version of The Three Musketeers a chance.  I know just saying the name “Paul W. S. Anderson” to some will automatically make them quiver.  I don’t get it, I’ve always had a good time with his movies and I did with this one as well.

As we get started, it’s 17th century France and the familiar Musketeers (Athos, Porthos and Aramis) have had better days.  They now find themselves obsolete with Cardinal Richelieu’s and Captain Rochefort’s guard replacing them as defenders of the king, though they still hold some favor with the very young and foppish King Louis XIII.  Enter a an eager D’Artagnan, ready to make a name for himself as a Musketeer.  D’Artagnan soon comes into contact with the Three Musketeers and through a conflict with Rochefort’s men, they soon come back into greater favor with the young king and eventually get involved to stop a plan that threatens to plunge England and France into war.

That’s a very broad description of the premise which I think is best said as “loosely” based on Alexandre Dumas’ story and as I said at the top, if you’re a purist and that’s what you want to see then don’t even bother.  I’m a big comic book fan and I’m used to seeing creators come in and give new takes on classic characters.  Some of them take, some don’t and I think the essential successful ingredient is at least maintaining some sort of flavor of the original.  Well, the original Three Musketeers always hit me as being a tale of swashbuckling derring-do with a sense of fun and I think that that’s what Paul W. S. Anderson has achieved here.  He’s taken this classic and given it a facelift as a Jules Verne-ish, steampunk-ish comic book that doesn’t take itself too seriously and I thought it was engaging as hell.  Oh, I won’t deny that it has it’s moments of clunky dialogue and borrowing from other movies (an airship battle that borrows heavily from Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan comes immediately to mind), but it’s mixed together with a great cast, a truly spectacular look and a satisfying fast pace.

The Three Musketeers has a terrific look with lavish production and costume design, and well-shot fight scenes and effects sequences.  I saw the movie in 3D, and personally, I think Anderson’s style is perfect for 3D.  While this isn’t the best 3D I’ve seen this year (that still goes to Final Destination 5), it’s still very well done especially with background depth and how the detailed design stands out.

No actor will win an Oscar for this film, but still I think the cast gives it it’s all in just presenting this in a fun way.  On the Good Guys side, we’ve got Matthew Macfadyen (Athos), Luke Evans (Aramis), Ray Stevenson (Porthos) and Logan Lerman (D’Artagnan).  These four just look cool together and I think they all play off of each other nicely.  James Corden plays Planchet, their servant and offers up moments of comic relief without getting obnoxious.  Freddie Fox as the young King Louis XIII also offers up comic moments that are a little more broad, but he still comes off essentially as a sweet character.  Juno Temple plays his equally young Queen and does a good job of giving off an air of regality.

On our villain side, we’ve got Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz (Cardinal Richelieu), the great Mads Mikkleson (Rochefort), Orlando Bloom (Duke of Buckingham) and Milla Jovovich (Milady de Winter).  I think all of them do a fine job with standout’s being Waltz and Mikkleson.  I have to say I was surprised to see Jovovich play a more villainous part, and pleased as well.  She has some great action moments and of course, she’s just absolutely gorgeous in every scene she’s in.

I had a ball with The Three Musketeers. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, yet it doesn’t laugh at the material either.  It really does have an awesome look that I think works well in 3D, but it’s not essential to your end enjoyment.  Last year, I saw Ridley Scott’s take on Robin Hood and just didn’t like it because it took itself way too seriously and gave off the sense that Scott just wasn’t interested in making something that was remotely fun or inventive.  Paul W. S. Anderson approaches The Three Musketeers in a way that I wish had been done with Robin Hood. The Three Musketeers ends with the promise of an inevitable sequel, though due to it’s poor domestic box office performance I doubt we’ll get to see it.  And that’s a shame, I’d love to see Anderson re-visit this again.  I certainly do recommend this if you’re looking for a fun ride, but if you’re looking for something that’s way more faithful, look elsewhere.