Category: Announcement

While I don’t necessarily consider myself a writer first and foremost, I surely do love talking about movies and writing what I think is pretty reasonable commentary and criticism of them.  Some days though, it can almost be like having your teeth pulled…

… and then other days, a gem like Haywire comes around and I just want to scream to the world about it.  To say that I just “liked” this one would be a bit of an understatement.

Now, I admit to a bias on this; ever since I saw the trailer for it in September, I’ve been eagerly awaiting seeing it in theatres. Haywire is the latest movie from the highly prolific Steven Soderbergh, who just happens to be one of my favorite filmmakers.  It’s his first pure “action” film, and so I couldn’t wait to see what he did with it.  Add to this that it’s also the first feature film for Mixed Martial Artist Gina Carano, who I was just entranced with after seeing her as part of NBC’s revival of American Gladiators a few years ago.  And taking it even further, this movie came about when Soderbergh, just by accident, happened to catch one of Carano’s fights on television.  Soderbergh was just as entranced by Carano and stuck the idea of making a movie specifically for her in his mind.  Now take this even further, and I find out later that it’s a reunion between Soderbergh and writer Lem Dobbs, who Soderbergh worked with on another one of his great movies, The Limey. Mix this whole combination together and you get one really slick piece of entertainment starring a woman who should become the next big deal in Hollywood.

Carano plays Mallory Kane, a former Marine who now works as an “independent contractor” for covert operations for the United States.  Mallory’s just been involved in the retrieval of a particular person, and she’s thought that the job went well and is about to move on to the next job provided by her handler, Kenneth.  The thing is, Kenneth has other plans about his future and this job becomes his opportunity to take out the one person who knows just a little too much about him, that person being Mallory Kane.  Now Mallory’s on the run and trying to find out just why she’s been set up.

It sounds pretty simple and it is, but the way Soderbergh has made this and the way Dobbs wrote it, there’s nuance all the way through with a pretty complete picture of just who Mallory is and just what she’s capable of.  This movie doesn’t have the budget of, say Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol but it still delivers the thrills in a big way.  The look of the film is extremely slick and Soderbergh shoots the action scenes the way you want to see them; with his camera pulled back and you being able to see the complete action.  Adding to the slickness of this whole production is a terrific score from musician David Holmes, who’s previously worked with Soderbergh on Out of Sight, Ocean’s Eleven and all of the Ocean’s sequels.  I cannot say enough about just how cool the music is in this film, it really gives this action piece it’s own unique flavor and makes me want to own the soundtrack.

Soderbergh has assembled quite the cast for this production.  You’ve got a great foundation of talent to give Carano excellent support.  This cast includes Michael Fassbender (one of my very favorite actors out there right now), Ewan MacGregor, Channing Tatum (easily the best thing I’ve seen him in in quite awhile), Bill Paxton, Antonio Banderas, and Michael Douglas.  All of these guys do solid work here and even though their parts vary in size, just having guys like this in the film gives it even more substance.

But make no mistake, the real star of this film is Gina Carano, and even with this excellent supporting cast, she does indeed carry the film.  Where to start?  Well, obviously her athletic skills should make her a pure natural for this, but you need more than that to make her a magnetic character and that’s obviously where Soderbergh comes in.  George Clooney was certainly respected before he made Out of Sight, but when he made that film with Soderbergh, he turned himself entirely over to the director and Soderbergh in turn raised Clooney’s game considerably.  Since then, the two have went on to collaborate on more films (including the Ocean’s series, and Clooney’s star has just shown brighter as a result of it.  To me, it looks like Carano is doing the same thing; she’s turned herself entirely over to Soderbergh and Soderbergh in turn knows just how to make her at her very best for the film.  But then you have her natural skills and when you see her in a fight sequence here, it’s totally authentic.  And going even further, Gina Carano is just drop-dead gorgeous.  There’s a couple of sequences in the film which call for her to be dolled-up and dressed to the nines and as far as I’m concerned, she gives someone like an Angelina Jolie a run for her money.  I’m a big comic book fan and there’s certainly been a lot of talk about a Wonder Woman movie being made at various times.  Well, if this movie gets made, Gina Carano would be an ideal candidate for the job.  I really hope this is just the start for her and cannot wait to see what she does next in film.

I just had a blast with Haywire. It’s tightly made and Steven Soderbergh looks like he’s having a blast giving us his version of an action film.  It’s been rumored that after his next three movies, he might be going into retirement, and while I can understand that, I hope he doesn’t do it.  I still think he’s one of the very best filmmakers out there and it’s always nice to see him stretching his wings.  Gina Carano is a star in the making and if her work with Soderbergh is any indication, I certainly hope that this is just the start of a new career for her in movies (and hopefully not just action pieces).  I saw this with a group of four other friends and we all had a terrific time.  Haywire is terrific entertainment and highly, highly recommended.

Chris Farraday is a former smuggler who’s gotten out of his past life and now treads the straight and narrow path.  He now has his own private security company and devotes his life to his wife, Kate and their two sons.  Kate’s brother, Andy starts to follow in his brother-in-law’s path.  After a smuggling job goes awry, Andy now finds at the mercy of a ruthless low-level criminal named Briggs.  Chris now finds that he has to get back into his former life to save his brother-in-law and keep his family safe.  Chris and his best friend Sebastian come up with a plan for Chris to join a shipping crew and head to Panama, where he’ll make a big enough score to get Andy off the hook… or so he thinks.

That’s the basic premise to Contraband, the latest movie for star Mark Wahlberg.  Contraband is an adaptation of Icelandic film called Reykjavik-Rotterdam and is directed by the original film’s producer Baltasar Kormákur.  The original has never been released domestically, so I can’t say that I’ve seen it.  If Contraband is any indication though, I certainly would like to.  I had a pretty good time with Contraband though it’s not a perfect film by any means, with two particular points that get in the way of this being something even more special.  But before I get into those, let’s talk about the good stuff.

Baltasar Kormákur does a great job at building intensity through this.  What he shows us of the whole smuggling trade operation certainly seems believable and authentic.  Kormákur does a great job at engaging us in some simultaneous action at different locations and the entire film is very nicely shot.  In addition, this takes a few twists that I thought were surprising and one in particular really stunned me (this is a scene late in the film involving Sebastian and Kate).

Where this falls though is in the overall tone of the film.  As this is building, it just seems like there should be no pretty way out by the end and yet they find a pretty way out at the end.  This wraps the whole thing up in a conventional “happy ending” way (which especially quells the scene that I mentioned involving Sebastian and Kate) which just doesn’t jibe with the rest of the film.  It’s not a dealbreaker at all, but it does keep this from being more than what it is.  There was an opportunity here to turn this more along the lines like some recent hard-boiled films like Faster, The Mechanic and Drive and instead, this opts for the conventional and safe route.  It’s still entertaining, but more as a diversion than anything else.

The cast is terrific.  Mark Wahlberg excels at this sort of hard-edged part and he’s certainly highly watchable here.  Kate Beckinsale plays his wife does a nice job at playing a character who’s less glamourous than she’s normally been seen.  The always terrific Ben Foster plays Sebastian, and as expected from Foster, he puts a lot of nice nuance into this as he’s not only playing a facilitator for Chris, but also playing a recovering drug and alcohol addict.  There’s some nice supporting work from Lukas Haas and J.K. Simmons and a terrific little bit involving Diego Luna as an old Panamanian associate of Chris’.

But there’s another falling point with the cast as well and that’s with two members.  Giovanni Ribisi plays Briggs and Caleb Landry Jones plays Andy.  Ribisi’s Briggs looks like a cartoon character in comparison to the rest of the cast, it’s obvious from the first moment when he speaks.  Caleb Landry Jones’ (who you might remember as playing Banshee in X-Men: First Class) Andy just has “screw-up” written all over him without a clue as to how to do the right thing.  Though this wraps everything up in a happy way, you still get the idea that this character would be bound to screw up yet again if given the opportunity.  There’s nothing to care about with this guy other than the fact that he’s related to Chris and Kate.

But even with these qualms, I still had a pretty good time with Contraband. Though it’s not as special as it could’ve been, it’s still some nice diversionary entertainment, but not something that you have to run right out and see immediately.

In 1989, Maria Rossi murdered 3 people.  She did this while being the subject of an exorcism and since then, she’s been locked away by the Vatican.  It’s now 2009, and her daughter, Isabella, wants some answers.  Izabella has joined with a documentary filmmaker to travel to Italy and find out if her mother was truly possessed.

That’s the basic premise to The Devil Inside the newest horror film to follow the general style of “found footage” movies like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project. The difference with The Devil Inside is that this presents  itself as a straight-up documentary from the start, complete with prologues using news footage, expert commentary and police video.  It’s a good idea to try something like this, but unfortunately the filmmakers never quite follow through with this as a straight-up documentary.

Basically, the start-up is sound, but then the follow-through goes back to the familiar with just found footage. Now I tend to like these sort of movies, but The Devil Inside makes a few key mistakes that shatters it’s illusion.  The most apparent of these is obvious “acting” by some of the principle players.  One scene in particular stands out for this and that’s a bit of business when Isabella, who’s now been joined by a couple of priests who are experts in exorcism, takes part in an their examination of her mother.  Up until this point, Isabella, has been cautious about getting involved with any of the proceedings.  But when her mother, in the midst of displaying multiple personalities in scattershot ways, starts to beckon her with a childhood memory, Isabella gives in too easily.  It’s just too obvious to the point of looking like it’s forced by the filmmakers as opposed to being something that naturally happens.

It doesn’t stop there.  It’s obviously apparent to the audience that Maria Rossi is the victim of demonic possession and later revealed that she’s possessed by multiple demons all ready to spread further.  This does indeed happen with one of the priests, who after his encounter with Maria, isn’t quite himself.  This priest, David, has to break from the documentary and go perform a baptism where he’s followed by the director of the film.  At this baptism, David performs a pretty heinous act, which one would figure would have him being stopped and subdued by the crowd immediately, but that isn’t what happens.  Instead the film breaks and David is able to make his escape back to the rest of the principle players.  It’s a contrivance that just doesn’t ring true with the set-up.

What would’ve been more inventive is if this movie had followed the initial idea of totally being created as a documentary, say somewhat along the lines that a movie like The Fourth Kind did.  It certainly would’ve been more difficult to do that and get the kind of scares that the filmmakers wanted to get, but it could be done (the earliest of these found footage movies, The Last Broadcast actually does this quite well).

Now, The Devil Inside certainly has it’s good moments as well, the scenes with Maria acting out are really nicely done (with the one exception) and real standout moments for actress Susan Crowley.  The main cast, for the most part, are characters that you want to follow, in particular the two priests Ben and David, played by Simon Quarterman and Evan Helmuth respectively, and that’s even taking into account the forced bit that the director, William Brent Bell, puts David through.  Fernanda Andrade plays Isabella, and again, except for the forced stuff she has to do, she does just fine (though she sort of comes off to me as Mila Kunis-lite).

Though I have these problems with The Devil Inside, I’m also willing to chalk up some of this to the environment that I saw this in.  This was a packed house with a lot of people there who’s main concern was entertaining themselves more than watching the movie.  If I see this again through home video, then I might come away from it a little bit differently down the road.  For now though, there are certainly better examples of this kind of film that I can more easily recommend.  If you must see The Devil Inside I’d suggest waiting another week or so for a less interactive audience.

Swedish investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist has made some serious allegations against a powerful business magnate that has backfired on him.  Blomkvist’s reputation is shattered and the magazine that he writes for (and co-owns) is facing a tremendous legal battle. Simultaneously, Blomkvist is being investigated by another business tycoon as part of a background check with the main investigator being a brilliant young woman with her own demons named Lisbeth Salander.

Henrik Vanger, the man having Blomkvist wants to hire Blomkvist to investigate the disappearance of a woman who has been missing for forty years.  BlomKvist agrees and starts to make headway, but needs more help.  Through Vanger’s resources, Blomkvist comes into contact with Lisbeth Salander who proceeds to help him with the mystery.

That’s the premise to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo the latest film from director David Fincher adapted from the novel by Stieg Larsson, as well as from a Swedish film production of the same title.  I’m totally new to this whole thing.  I’ve had the opportunity to watch the Swedish original thanks to Netflix Instant Play, but have decided to hold off, just to see Fincher’s version first.  There will be no comparisons to either the book or the original movie here simply because I have not seen or read either.

But I am a huge fan of Fincher’s and have seen all of his movies.  Fincher makes movies designed to provoke and all with a distinctive visual style.  If there’s any of his movies that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo most resembles, it has to be Zodiac. Both movies take their time in uncovering their facts and both are meticulous about their methods of investigation.  Both also lean back a bit with Fincher’s visual style, though they are still very good-looking movies.

I found the story and characters of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to be thoroughly engrossing and I was surprised by just how fast this 2 hour and 40 minute movie seemed to fly by.  Fincher makes every scene count whether it’s in uncovering the mystery or adding more to the characters of Mikael or Lisbeth.

Speaking of those characters, much has been said about Rooney Mara’s performance as Lisbeth, and it really is a terrific performance.  After seeing this and also seeing Mara’s sister Kate as part of the cast of FX’s American Horror Story (she played Hayden on that show) there’s a part of me that would never want to be in the same room as the Mara sisters.  Lisbeth, to me anyway, is not a likable character, but she’s still fascinating to watch and Rooney Mara’s performance is absolutely compelling.  When she’s on-screen, she commands it, even when she’s playing opposite of Daniel Craig.  She is possibly the most disturbing character I’ve seen in any movie all year and huge praise goes to Mara for investing so much of herself in this part to make her so compelling.

Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist and it’s in no way near  his character of James Bond.  He’s a terrific counter-point to Mara’s Lisbeth and brings a great balance to the course of the investigation.  Near the end of the film, Mikael is in really deep trouble, and the fear that Craig projects is certainly palpable.

Both are backed up with some terrific support.  Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Geraldine James all do great lived-in work with the standouts being Plummer and Skarsgård (who’s certainly having a good year in film with this, his work in Thor and in Lars von Trier’s Melancholia).

But, I do have one minor quibble with the film and it occurs near the end.  There are a few spoilers here, so consider yourself warned and if you want to dodge them, then proceed to the next paragraph.  As part of his agreement with Vanger, Blomkvist has been promised help in reclaiming his good name and getting back at  Wennerström, the man who sent Blomkvist’s career spiraling.  As part of this, Lisbeth has also chosen to help Mikael due to the relationship that has developed between the two throughout the film.  Up until this point, while Lisbeth has certainly been an extreme character, things happen here that stretches credibility quite a bit.  Basically, Lisbeth assumes an entirely new identity complete with a drastic change of appearance and character that goes a little beyond what we’ve seen of her skills up until now.  This whole identity change that she goes through is on the same par as watching Tom Cruise do his disguise work as Ethan Hunt in the Mission: Impossible films.  It seems totally out of place for this whole thing and as such, it put me off of this just a little bit.  Now this isn’t part of the main story though, and it helps wrap up some things with Mikael outside of the main story.  So while it is off-putting, it’s not by any means a deal breaker.

That aside, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is terrific entertainment brought to us by a true master director in David Fincher.  The performances are all outstanding and Rooney Mara will leave an indelible mark after seeing her in this film.  There are some intense sexual and violent situations in the film and it certainly does earn it’s “R” rating.  If that’s off-putting to you then you may want to avoid this.  For all others, then go out and see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

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.