By Kenneth Whitney III & Jon Olsen
As if having Ken fly down to LA to see an amazing MuteMath show with me on Thursday wasn’t enough, we also had the fortune of seeing The Grey while he was here! Enjoy our audio review!
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
By Ken Whitney III
Rooney mara & Daniel Craig
I feel more and more every year that it’s getting harder and harder to actually look forward to a movie release. It’s the same dribble, isn’t it? It’s either some poorly-constructed remake or an ever poorer-written original work. Independent films shine hazy and clouded light in a cave of forgotten treasures but even they bring about a hesitance from their intended audiences- content, story, credibility and grounded tales are what people look for and sometimes those nuggets of gold can’t quite meet the ‘need’ of it’s intended crowd (whether that be because of the filmmaker or the budget, only the viewer could say for themselves). So when a movie like THIS comes along; both an adapted work plus being made and released on the heels of an already created work- and it’s GOOD? The light comes through a little brighter, I’d say.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a… complicated tale. Humiliated and disgraced leftist journalist Mikael Blomkvist (played plainly and smartly by Daniel Craig) takes a job researching and uncovering the truth behind the murder of a young girl 40 years in a sleepy cut-off town’s past. He is aided by a gifted and even more volatile young woman named Lisbeth Salander (chillingly and powerfully portrayed by a powerful young Rooney Mara). A savage computer hacker, Lisbeth has a past all her own and who she is in this story is just as important as the truth behind the mystery that brings her and Mikael together.
THE PROS: Ladies & gentlemen: meet Rooney Mara. Only 26 years old, she exudes a dangerous authority on camera that should not be taken lightly. Mara brings something really dangerous to the role of Lisbeth: Believability. The talented and mysterious Ms. Salander was played previously by Noomi Rapace in the Tattoo Trilogy of the original Swiss text. A solid achievement on it’s own ground, The Swedish version pales in comparison to the Americanized one (and do not be confused, this is not a ‘remake’, this is a reTELLING). This depiction steps into Salander’s world in ways that were not delved into in the original. Mara brings vulnerability and sharp teeth to a complex character that she has, as of now, only scratched the surface of. Like any role such as this, both Rapace and Mara dove into the character of Lisbeth and became different people. But while Rapace brought a dangerous side to the role, Mara brings added texture and depth. Mara’s Salander hints at the desires of her heart and yet leaves us out in the cold like all the rest. When given the opportunity to trust she recoils and remains guarded. By the end of the film you don’t pity Lisbeth… you want to stand at her side and face her demons along side her. Credit goes where credit is due. Rooney Mara has given us one of the strongest female characters (and performances) in 25 years.
Behind every great film there is an even greater storyteller. Nothing truer could be said of David Fincher. Weaving together a story as detailed and layered as this one is difficult enough in itself. But to encompass the darkness, the hopelessness of so many scenes and moments, the emotions of characters without overplaying who they are and how they feel and/or react; Fincher has a gift. The ‘coldness’ of his execution behind the camera has been a blessed factor for many films such as Se7en, Fight Club, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button & The Social Network to name a few. The thing is, though – that coldness sometimes isn’t evident at all. In films like Button, Fincher brings a romantic sheen to the screen and convinces us of the love we all share in the fantasical. Still in others, we see the visceral angst and psychological strain of this generation’s male populace spilled onto the pavement in Fight Club. With Dragon Tattoo, It’s about 2 things: the mystery and the girl. Fincher brings a mechanical drive to Blomkvist’s case, keeping things urgent and never letting a detail go unnoticed by the audience. Providing chilling and chillier settings thanks to his cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth, Fincher Lets you feel the conditions of his characters and you can’t help but shake in the cold winter alongside Lisbeth and Mikael. When facing the life of Lisbeth, there is a subtle and yet faintly evident difference. He wants you in her head, behind her eyes, walking in her skin; and when the horrible happens (and it happens, I assure you) you feel as if it’s happening to you. Without your permission and without hesitation. The awful things that happen in this film (which I feel the need to defend as not to let anyone think that I found them unneeded to the film’s final cut) serve as a lens in which we understand the characters that endure them. I’m not one who enjoys or looks forward to the graphicness of sexuality or violence; but the inclusion of them in this film serve to express who characters are at their core that cannot be explained through simple words or narrative. You feel sick, beaten, and wanting to leave. But you can’t. Fincher and Mara have you by the neck. They won’t let you turn away. That is a dangerous and powerful tool for a filmmaker and actor to wield.
Fincher teams up once again with the musical duo of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (first working together on The Social Network and earning an Oscar for original score to boot) and it is corrosive, audible magic. Reznor’s skills behind the sound board provide minimal music that wraps itself around a dark story. Not wanting to overpower a scene with a score that overrides its intended purpose, Reznor and Ross keep the story at the forefront of their musical writings and allow the sounds they produce to simple settle in your spine and tingle the back of your neck; never letting you grow comfortable and never allowing you think it’s alright to BE alright with what you see and hear.
The script was another gem I couldn’t help but give praise to. The task of condensing such a dark and detailed book is not an easy one (plus, it’s not like they let the current state of audience-desired film formats deter them from their final product; this film runs only minutes shy of 2 1/2 hours), Steven Zaillian does a fine job adapting Stieg Larsson’s novel. Both unflinching and unapologetic, Zaillian’s screenplay does not let word’s go silently into the night. Dialogue is used only when necessary and beyond that, Fincher takes the wheel to move the story forward. Zaillian also made the decision (along with Fincher’s desire to do so) to tweak the ending and give some closure to Dragon Tattoo’s final few minutes.I found it a pleasant change in that Fincher is able to leave his mark on a fantastic story and feel he’s completed the journey should he not desire to return to the expected sequels.
Daniel Craig
THE CONS: Almost none, I feel. Daniel Craig’s Mikael Blomkvist is only hindered, I thought, by Craig’s flippancy with bringing a Swedish accent (or any accent other than his own) to the table. Daniel Craig has a well-known style to him and when not enough care is taken with his change from one character to the next it can feel… clunky to the feel of the piece.
Rooney Mara
THE BOTTOM LINE: Far and away one of the best films of 2011. Telling a story like this takes a lot of guts and a tortured mind to get the words on paper. Larsson’s death in 2004 may have forever taken the only chance we have to understand a literary mind such as his. Thankfully, The Millenium Trilogy books bring us a little closer to seeing through his eyes and finding truth in a darker world than many of us will ever know. Fincher & Mara have crafted together a vision that would make Mr. Larsson proud of what’s become of his unfinished tale centered around a journalist, a girl, and the tattoo she carries like a scar.
GRADE: A
Audio Review: We Bought A Zoo
By Kenneth Whitney III and Jon Olsen
Ken and I were fortunate enough to see each other this past weekend and we seized the opportunity to see a movie together! Enjoy the audio podcast review of: We Bought A Zoo.
The Descendants
By Ken Whitney III
George Clooney, Shailene Woodley & Amara Miller
“Paradise? Paradise can go f*** itself.”
This movie has definitely altered the view of my future honeymoon.
Alexander Payne is a director that supposedly goes against type in Hollywood. He doesn’t make big, box office smashes. There are no CG-heavy action sequences or explosions. High-speed chases and erotic, sexual sequences between gorgeous individuals are a foreign premise. He makes movies about people. Real people. And for some reason? I find that to be the most normal and wonderful thing.
Meet Matt King. A normal, everyday kind of guy. He’s married. Has 2 daughters. Oh, he happens to open like Half of Hawaii… but that’s not important. King (played with new emotional gravitas by the simply wonderful George Clooney) is having a rocky time. His youngest daughter is the outsider of her age group. His eldest has some… ‘authority’ issues. He’s in charge of the biggest land deal in the history of Hawaii that could either make him and his family rich or could leave them with nothing (which is where they are to begin with, weirdly enough). To top things off- His wife had a boating accident a little more than 3 weeks ago, fell into a coma, and they’re not sure if she’ll come out of it.
Feeling like i’ve told you too much? That’s the thing: What happens AFTER you find all this out is the thing that drives this little ‘slice of life’ drama.
THE PROS: George Clooney. George Clooney. George Clooney. Holy Crap. Clooney’s King semi-narrates this film and from the opening monologue to the closing shot you’re hooked by this broken man. Clooney has hit the stride of all strides in these past few years. From an upswing in his acting abilities (which were always there; he’s only just now found the many films that showcase his skill), to writing provocative and timely scripts to helming the projects himself as a director that actually brings something to the table every time, George is reminding us why he’s more than just that ‘sexiest man alive’ he got back in ’06. King isn’t just a narrative anchor for us, he IS us. Struggling to maintain some normalcy for his family considering their ever-looming opportunity for fortune, Matt does what any man does when it’s all on him – he forgets to prioritize the family he’s looking out for. Being the dad that’s never there is hard enough. Being the dad that’s never EXPECTED to be there is another crap-shute altogether. When our film’s revelatory twist comes along, Matt King becomes something else. He embodies the proverbial ‘man on a mission’. Not in that action-y kind of way though. He realizes what he needs to do and doesn’t let anything stop him. Attempting to bring his family together in the wake of the unfortunate incident surrounding his wife, Clooney helps King physically realize his inability to be a father again by simply snapping two fingers. From grief and sorrow to frustration and rage to humorous conundrum; Clooney shapes a man that is exactly what he’s supposed to be: normal. In all his painful (and humorous) glory.
One cannot forget the players that make up the supporting cast of this great film. Patricia Hastie, Robert Forster and Beau Bridges are just a few of the small and truly important pieces of this oddly fortunate and inevitable journey. Everyone has a part to play and successfully emulates the feelings we want to feel for each moment they’re up there on screen. The most notable though has to be Shailene Woodley. As the aggressively defiant eldest King daughter, Woodley isn’t just angry. She’s troubled. And she should be. As anyone from a torn or troubled household would know, the most unfortunate thing that can be thrust upon a child caught in the middle of a family divided is the responsibility to grow up faster than they should. Woodley’s Alexandra hates so much. Her parents. Her exile to ‘boarding school’. The way her life has turned out. Behind that true and honest exterior though is an even truer pain of realizing you’re just like your parents and wishing you could understand them and why they are the way they are. Woodley brings Alexandra to life in a brilliant way. She doesn’t try and make her cute or slutty. Just honestly messed-up and with a little bit of charm.
Alexander Payne cannot be left off this lengthy explanation of pros. It’s just impossible. Payne doesn’t let his best scripts fall in the wrong hands. He keeps them in his. Nothing needs to be showcased more in his stories than the characters and the writing. Election brought us the humor. Sideways brought us the heartache. Descendants brings it all together. His best work to date, Payne finds the time in an already deep and complex script of many characters to find humor in the weirdest and yet, most appropriate places. One of them being Matt King himself. Yes, he’s going through a very difficult time and nothing will lessen that truth. But no one can deny that sometimes, the way a person brings out that pain can be pretty silly to watch (keep your eyes open for Matt’s ‘furious run’; it’s cinematic gold and Clooney pulls it off). The writing is straight forward and Payne is all over it. I think the thing that finally and really works for his writing in these last few outings has been his use of language. It really fits into the circumstances they are deployed into. You’ll find the language in this film coarse and constant but what you won’t find is any of it being used inappropriately. As an outlet for frustration, it works it’s way into places that it couldn’t fit better into. As a grieving husband laments the mistakes of a marriage he attempts to cling to, as a daughter unable to understand the gravity of the situation surrounding her attempts to force herself into adulthood, and as confrontation’s pleasure and pain collide into a mess of words and honesty never expected but hoped for, the lines of this sorted tale ring true.
Shailene Woodley
THE CONS: The one thing I wish could have been more carved out was the youngest daughter, Scottie (Amara Miller). Hers is the voice of circumstances like these that is always unheard or misunderstood. Payne was on a roll when he got this story going and he finished it with class, but Scottie was the one element in his telling that didn’t get the proper attention I felt she rightfully deserved. Her reactions and choices in the film are understandable and funny, but you get the feeling that Scottie has something more to say and every time she makes her way on screen you’re hoping for a tidbit of her take on it all.
George Clooney
THE BOTTOM LINE: See this film. For the sake of seeing one of the best films of the year hands down, Make the choice to see a film that understands you. I know we see movies to escape or see the side of something we think we never would, but let this be a time for a movie that gets us and wants to share in your pain, your frustration and your inability to keep from laughing at it all. The one thing I left off the list of Pros that I wanted to make sure was heard: This film does everything you want it to. Every decision that is made, every word spoken and every action taken is what you want to happen. It’s a beautiful kind of adventure that feels like you have a choice in it’s direction. And I know the subject matter and language are a thing to be weary of for younger viewers, but this is a film about family. Whenever you feel the family is ready to hear what this film has to say, watch it with them. I don’t think you’ll regret the discussions and laughter that follow.
GRADE: A
The Adventures Of Tin Tin
By Ken Whitney III
Tin Tin & Snowy
Spielberg decides to team-up with another filmmaker on his very fist venture into digital animation; some guy who directed some films about a ring and some dwarves, I think?
Peter Jackson, Director of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy and the upcoming Hobbit films takes on a producing role behind Spielberg; telling the story of a young british detective journalist named Tin Tin and his adventures to uncover mysteries of all kinds. For those of you uneducated in graphic novels or never seeing the wonderfully cute cartoons of the 90’s, Tin Tin is a character created by Belgian cartoonist Herge (real name Georges Remi). Tin Tin’s adventures are some of the greatest cartoon works of all time; translated into over 50 languages and famous in every country (except for the United States…?). The very first in a supposed installment of three (the two agreed that Spielberg would take the reigns on the first film, Jackson would helm the second, and as of now no one has been confirmed for the final chapter), our story begins with Tin Tin buying an old model ship which turns out being more than that. Soon he finds his apartment broken into, people shooting at him and trying to kidnap him as he discovers that the ship he is in possession of could lead to a historic treasure hundreds of years old.
THE PROS: It’s about TIME Spielberg took charge of an animated film! With his experience of telling stories as magical and grand in scale as he has, Mr. S has the opportunity to tear down any directorial wall that might impede him from telling the story exactly how he wants. The camera is able to sweep under cars, wrap around characters with speed and smoothness, shots are able to transition seamlessly from one location to the next and the feel of the book is always there. With an appreciation for every detail and an eye for the angle many of us can’t see until he shows it to us, Spielberg creates a magical portal for us to view an adventure so large that the third dimension is a format that would logically follow suit (this is also Spielberg’s first full length 3D film).
The story is a fun one, to say the least. Taking us from England to the high seas, the scorching deserts to Morocco and back again, Tin Tin, along with his humorously intelligent and witty-in-his-own-way pup Snowy, have the best perspectives in this adventure. ‘The Raiders Of The Lost Ark‘ feel of this film is not lost on this writer, either. And it benefits the narrative. The quest for the unseen and the tales from the past brought into stark, visual narrative by Captain Haddock bring some of the best visuals and humor midway to this tale. With motion-capture technology being the weapon-of-choice for our storytellers, it only makes sense that Andy Serkis (Gollum from Lord Of The Rings, Ceasar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes) would be somewhere in the thick of it all. And thankfully for us all he is being given his due as a central character (Cpt. Haddock) that moves the story along at a jaunty pace. Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Jumper, King Kong, The Eagle) also joins the fray playing the title character, and he gives just the right amount of urgency and intrigue to the role to keep him from being over-played.
Captain Haddock, Snowy & Tin Tin
THE CONS: I think one of the most overlooked points in many animated films is the script. Sure, light-hearted, childish fare can survive off of silly potty jokes and 5-year-old intelligent dialogue. But when you’re attempting to bridge the gap between age groups and (especially in the case of Tin Tin) tell a mature, adult subject that meets the needs of audience members looking hard to appreciate every detail, you have to treat the story with maturity. And honestly? Tin Tin falls flat. From the get-go, the dialogue serves only to make sure you haven’t missed what’s already being PLAINLY told to you on the screen. And this goes on for over half the film. 10 minutes into the film, I thought to myself, ‘boy, for a renowned and awarded investigative journalist he sure can’t keep his internal monologue internal.’ That alone makes the film sluggish and amateur.
Another flaw that can’t be ignored is Captain Haddock’s antics. Because of elements in the story that build throughout the film, Haddock has a drinking problem. A serious one. The problem is that he can’t keep it in check. Really. The guy should have died or been captured about 5 different times throughout the film. Now don’t get me wrong, a clean and fun adventure having to do with escape and racing against the clock benefits from some humorous happenstance. But scenes where the CAPTAIN OF A SHIP LIGHTS A FIRE INSIDE OF A DINGY BOAT just can’t be ignored. His drinking is not only a crutch, it’s a knife; stabbing the film’s progress right in the pacing.
The final note, and this only became apparent about an hour in, was the movement of the film. A story like this makes for great transitions and even greater crosscuts to move the story along. Sadly, though, I felt this worked against the telling of this venture. I cannot remember one transition that wasn’t a simple straight cut. Spielberg takes advantage of the animated format to weave each scene together without pause to breathe. There’s a point where a girl needs a breather between dates to think about whether or not she’s even having a good time, ya know? The audience isn’t given the opportunity to soak in scenes as the next location or act comes barreling at you non-stop. The whole time you’re watching, you feel the need to lean back and it’s then that you realize how much your eyes hurt because you haven’t had a chance to blink them.
Captain Haddock & Tin Tin
THE BOTTOM LINE: With a wonderfully, timeless tale and actors truly enveloping the characters they inhabit, Tin Tin makes for a wonderfully cheerful time. Sadly, the construction itself becomes apparently weak the deeper and deeper we are taken along the journey. Spielberg and Jackson have there hearts in the right places, and for that, I truly commend them. Bringing about this animated classic is no easy feat (let alone bringing it to the States where Tin Tin is off the pop culture radar). I just hope the further they delve into this piece of fandom lore the more they come back with enough loot for us all… without the whole thing falling on their heads.
GRADE: C+
War Horse
By Ken Whitney III
Jeremy Irvine
The next two days’ reviews are dedicated to unarguably one of the greatest filmmakers and directors of all cinema history. Mr. Steven Spielberg decided to run double duty this year and produce and direct two much-anticipated films this year. Both with Oscar buzz, solid reviews and great word-of-mouth, Spielberg’s films carry with them an anticipation and show he is still great at what he does and loving every minute of it.
War Horse is an adaptation from a book and play by the same name following the story of a horse named Joey and the caring young man named Albert who raises him and searches for him when he is bought by a soldier in the beginning days of World War I. Joey travels across Europe and becomes the lens in which we the audience are able to see not just a conflict of people but the survival of life in all it’s perspective.
THE PROS: I just want to personally say how happy I am that a WWI film has finally been made on this scale. The first great struggle across the globe has always been a topic few have dared tackle and who better than the man who has made the best WWII epic to date (Saving Private Ryan, for those born in the mid to late 90’s). Spielberg’s handling of weighty and honestly dark material can rarely be matched. His use of emotional and human characters in situations that call for the dehumanization of all is the ‘trick’ that can be over/misused. From the villages of rural England to the fields of France, from the graveyards of ‘No Man’s Land’ on the frontline to back home again, you can expect nothing less than great cinematic beauty, lush (and appropriately muted) colors, strong performances and camera work that brings the charm we have come to appreciate in Spielberg’s repertoire. Lush landscape notwithstanding, Spielberg’s real weapon of choice is the early-film-era stage settings he uses for close-ups and familial drama that bookends this grand story. with heavy colors cascading along a background as actors are lit by luminescent colors from lights off camera we’re transported back to those films of yesteryear that have become staples of times such as these. From All Quiet On The Western Front to Gone With The Wind, it’s evident where Spielberg gets his inspiration and desires to take us.
The center of this film, of course, is Joey the thoroughbred. from his infancy on those same rolling hills as young Albert, Joey is able to connect with us in the true nature of want and need. His desire to remain with his mother becomes a weight and reminder throughout as he finds comfort and care in Albert and a companion in another horse of war named Topthorn met early on in his journey. The strongest points War Horse has to offer, as I mentioned earlier, is it’s perspective. Joey’s journey takes him across a land ripped by the trials and choices of war and as it costs many their lives, our central steed is moved from one owner to the next. As a battle takes a turn for the worst, Joey is brought to the hands of young German private who tends to the horses left from the skirmish as well as his younger, enlisted brother who he promised to look after. A young French girl carries the baton around the middle of the story and she and her grandfather bring a ‘caught in the crossfire’ sight to the War that can so easily get overlooked when dealing with this kind of material. Then, back in German hands, Joey and others like him are forced to pull artillery on the frontline until the end of the war or their expected deaths. When things start to reconnect and come round, it’s there that we finally get our true view of the frontline and the massacre of forces too numerous to count. barb wire & trenches, blood and rain, bodies and bombs litter the ground where once lay grass and trees, greens and fields too beautiful to survive. When a German and English soldier are at a crossroads in the battlefield we gain a pure and honorable perspective of the nature of conflict and it helps illustrate a war we never really take the time to understand.
Benedict Cumberbatch, Patrick Kennedy & Tom Hiddleston
THE CONS: At the same time that a film can be beautiful and tell a story that is vastly overlooked, it can also be left a little short in it’s full ability to be the film it could. At a runtime of 2 1/2 hours, War Horse takes the time to tell perspective of people from all walks of life… too much time, at times. Albert being the obvious necessity of backstory, almost 40 minutes of the opening is brought to a snail’s pace to tell of a drunk war-vet father who’s relationship with his son is lukewarm at best. Joey’s value to this farmland family, while evident through his learning of the plow and strength to do what those around him underestimate is commendable, it takes too long to get there. The timeline in which we watch a family grow to appreciate Joey’s qualities is muddled in a way that time is unspecified and unreadable. To watch Albert truly grow up alongside Joey in some way would have given greater weight to there relationship.
And as the battle rages on, the glimpses we get of the first great war are only backdrops to the human dramas that never truly flourish to begin with. Two brothers cannot be understood through the exchange of 80 seconds of dialogue about there lives before the war. Nor can a hardship of disease be understood for a girl that shows no signs of sickness. A grandfather’s love is easy enough to show but his need to overprotect what he has been charged with needs more than just a small bottle and some vague references to parents lost in the struggle of times past. The value of such characters are really brought in the connections of those around them (as mentioned before, Saving Private Ryan does the commendable job of, while giving us little to understand in the past of our characters, educates us in the bonds of war) and War Horse misses the mark on that one.
Jeremy Irvine & Steven Spielberg
THE BOTTOM LINE: Through my constant and undying love of the works of Mr. Spielberg; Spanning from The Color Purple to Indiana Jones and Schindler’s List to Jurassic Park and Minority Report, His works will continue to have a place in my cinematic heart (old and soon to come). However, love set aside, One can always come alongside with words of constructive criticism to help a fellow along. In that Spielberg can never set aside his passion to direct he must also try not to set aside the creative realities he places in every one of his tales. The scope of gritty realism that helps illustrate the stories he takes on helps Spielberg make films into more than just great movies but great adventures. Though War Horse, beautiful in its gestures and grand in its approach, falls a little flat at times, I will be waiting eagerly and patiently for what he has in store next.
GRADE: B
The Artist
Jean Dujardin & Berenice Bejo
By Ken Whitney III
Well. You don’t see THAT every day.
It’s simple: We are at the peak of cinema. The silent kind. It’s 1927 and George Valentin (played with suave sincerity and restrained emotion by Jean Dujardin) is the superstar the world wants to see every weekend on the big screen. When a chance encounter with a beautiful young girl (a mesmerizing Berenice Bejo) at a premiere brings her to the spotlight, Valentin couldn’t be happier or more supportive. But when she becomes the new face for something called ‘talkies’ (movies with sound – it’s the FUTURE, people!) George begins to see his world fall apart as he is left behind clinging to a lost and wonderful art the world once loved.
THE PROS: What ISN’T awesome about this film? Dujardin and Bejo are charming and simply mesmerizing as two people from opposite ends of the Hollywood spectrum slowly sliding to the other while subtly attempting to hold onto the friendship they form during the transition. The beauty of silent film in itself is it’s basic nature of storytelling: in order to help a story transcend the screen it’s on, the actor must communicate even beyond the physical and into the emotional without pandering. In that, and so many other ways, the film succeeds. Dujardin plays a happy-go-lucky man of art and passion but doesn’t overdo it. He isn’t ear to ear smiling in every shot. His laughter doesn’t cause a convulsion of the body that can’t be ignored. In each decision to express himself, Dujardin makes it honest. Bejo is no different. Though emotionally more relatable to an audience by taking her journey alongside; Bejo is careful not to overact and over RE-act to the elements she interacts with. Her pure and innocent dream of being a part of a world of glamour and big-screen escapades takes believable steps and the result is a thing of beauty.
Let’s not forget the gaggle of actors that pepper this already vibrant and entertaining piece. John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller & malcolm McDowell are wonderful in every way. Though we know them from so many colorful and louder-than-life roles, the silent form of their skills highlights what we also love about them but forget to remember. Above all though, this film brings to the table an international cast in a way that is universal. With no words spoken, no one is categorized by ethnicity but by skill. Skill to tell the story, entertain the audience and remain true to the character.
Michel Hazanavicius should not be left off the list of responsible parties either. Hazanavicius takes the time to put his own touch into this work while respecting the source in which he pulls his references (similar to his work on OSS 117). From bright staged sets to dark, smoky rooms of brooding revelation, every shot is important whether we wish to recognize it or not. To have it absent from the story would be a crime to the audience. The Artist itself is one big homage; from Ford to Wilder, Hazanavicius doesn’t apologize for his references but embraces his decision to include them and that, in itself, brings that much greater amount of light to a film celebrating the beauty of a simpler time. A simpler desire. To entertain. With that, the story is incredible. From it’s main plot points to the sidebars of Valentin’s dwindling marriage and friendship to a lovable dog to an allegiance to steadfast driver and a hearty producer who’s just trying to make a living, The Artist is as full as any dialogue-heavy cinematic tale.
Berenice Bejo
THE CONS: It’s beautiful to say the least, but, like the story it tells, it resonates a truer statement to where we are in viewing film. Sound bounces through our ears, colors tantalize our eyes, special effects bring our imaginations to life. To take things back to where it all started is to slow things down. Way down. For those who aren’t prepared for the time jump, the story can seem slow and simple. This takes away from what the film presents so be weary. Drink some coffee or come to this film fresh and ready to absorb.
Jean Dujardin
THE BOTTOM LINE: Everything has become so loud. So much. To bring us back to the basics helps us remember where it all began. To the smile of a dashing lead to the unsuspecting beauty across the room to the dramatic turn our hero can take when faced with the reality of his or her situation. We can’t forget how important story really us. How important the performance is. Dujardin, Bejo and hazanavicius take us to places we thought long forgotten. I couldn’t help but feel as if I’d been transported to a classic nickelodeon; seeing something so new that I have to see it again and again. Reliving the adventure of a talent that has inhabited my mind and shown me a journey I never thought I’d ever experience. If the artist cannot convince us… then what’s it all about?
GRADE: A
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
By Jon Olsen
No plan. No backup. No smiling.
Mission Impossible has always been a great film franchise to me. The first was a classic and paved the way for films like the Bourne trilogy; Tom Cruise was a force of nature in that movie and anyone who disagrees simply doesn’t know much about acting. The sequel was a John Woo-directed slow-mo affair (PIGEONS EVERYWHERE) that felt so different from the first film, they may as well have been completely different properties. The third film, in a surprising upturn, is my absolute favorite of the series; from the tension-filled, armrest-gripping opening to the brilliant script and direction (J.J. Abrams is responsible for both), it earned it’s place as one of my favorite films of all time. MI:3 also spawned an inside joke me and my Cinephiles co-author Ken Whitney, for which I will always be grateful. BANG BANG!
Now, the fourth has surfaced with a well-known director attached (Brad Bird, The Iron Giant, Pixar’s The Incredibles), a great supporting cast, and wildcard Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, untitled fourth Bourne film). Fresh out of prison, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is tasked with infiltrating the Russian government for the IMF with a ragtag team and minimal equipment. But when it all goes horribly wrong, Hunt & company find themselves utterly alone with the fate of the world resting on their shoulders. No plan, no backup, no choice: So begins Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
"Suck on this, Tobey."
PROS: The plot here is excellent. You never feel belittled by the turns the story takes, and it’s clear a great deal of love and care went into the idea(s) behind MI:4. While not all of it is plausible (more on that in the CONS section), it’s highly enjoyable and as long as you remind yourself beforehand that this is meant to be entertainment and nothing more, you’ll have a blast watching Cruise and his costars do wild and utterly ridiculous things. Ethan’s cool and collected attitude goes a long way in leading his team, and you can tell Cruise played a similar role on set; everyone seems to be following his cues and the actors all have a lot of respect between them. Simon Pegg (Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz, Paul) reprises his brief role from MI:3 as witty computer guru and all-around “tech explanation” guy Benji, who seems to be carrying a lighthearted torch dedicated to Emilio Estevez’s two scenes in the first film. Pegg is just plain fun to watch onscreen, and brings an “eager to prove himself field-worthy” vibe to the scenes he’s in. Renner’s Brandt is definitely hiding something, and I was legitimately wary of him throughout the film, even after his “secret” is revealed; this is rare and speaks to both his acting ability and my phobia of being tricked by movies. Josh Holloway (Saywer from LOST, my favorite TV drama of all time) makes an early appearance here, and one I wish had been prolonged; seeing him onscreen brought back fond memories but he is seldom in the main plot. The set pieces, of which there are several, really make this movie feel larger than life without the cheesier-than-cheese feel of MI:2’s opener (Let me climb this massive rock with my combustible Oakleys on, no big deal… oh crap how do I get down?). When the film shifts to the happenings in Dubai, the IMAX ticket I bought instantly paid off; watching Ethan climb the tallest building in the world with sticky gloves is nail-biting cinematic gold that is very worthy of your hard-earned cash. The music, though not as stirring as, say, The Dark Knight, was very good and served the film well, although it sounded too Incredibles-y for my taste in some parts.
"Go put a dollar in the douchebag jar, Brandt. No one talks about L. Ron Hubbard that way."
CONS: The villain is dumb. I mean really, really dumb. His motivations are scarcely touched upon, and when they are, you won’t care because they aren’t new/interesting. The threat he poses feels real, but he himself is no threat at all and is laughable compared to the jaw-dropping Phillip Seymour-Hoffman in MI:3, who is one of my favorite movie villains of all time. Also, the villain outruns Ethan while injured at one point. The dude is like 65 in the movie. Ridiculous. I understand IMF isn’t backing up Ethan and his team in this film, but almost every piece of equipment the team uses breaks at a crucial moment, and it starts to become predictable after a while. You’d think the team would just say, “You know what? This equipment isn’t reliable. Screw it. Let’s just do this ourselves.” I know the writer saw the need to include fun gadgets for the team to use, but for myself, and most of the audience, it’s a waste of screen time if we don’t see the cool gadgets do what they’re designed for. Write in fewer gadgets and let the ones that make it into the final draft actually help the team. One more gripe about the gadgets: Some of them were massively overcomplicated and were clearly put in the movie for audiences to say, “Wow, cool technology!” Example: creating an artificial hallway image for a security guard to look at that self-projects onto a screen and changes perspective perfectly to match his eye level and visual pattern so Ethan and Benji can move closer to him while undetected. Much easier solution: Tranquilizer dart to the back of the neck while guard’s back is turned. It’s only one guard. Sheesh. Lastly, Carter (Paula Patton, Déjà Vu, Precious) brings nothing to the table (or really Hunt’s team) here, even when a lot of the plot revolves around her. Without a backstory or real motivation for her, she feels one-dimensional and it’s easy to dismiss her altogether. Last con: the title sequence tries to emulate Bond’s (a CGI fuse burns instead of CGI bullets flying around with naked women straddling them, however), and in the process shows us clips from major scenes in the movie before they happen. Major party foul. I almost looked away because I didn’t want anything ruined. I shouldn’t have to worry about a movie spoiling itself.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is not a perfect film, as my CONS section clearly proves, but it’s so fun you probably won’t notice or care. Like I said, if you remember this is supposed to be entertainment and that the characters do things in a more complicated way because it’s more fun to watch, then you’ll have a great time. Ethan and his team still have some tricks up their collective sleeve, and although it isn’t as tight or well-written as the third film, it’s an excellently told and directed spy movie. If you liked any of the first three, it’s worth your time and money.
GRADE: B+
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL – TAKE TWO by Ken Whitney III
I’ll admit it. I’m guilty of liking films as pure ‘guilt pleasure’ fodder sometimes. The cheesy lines, the epic over-the-top action, the non-stopness of it all… with that said, I am happy to defend my reasons for defending this fantastic piece of cinematic action deliciousness. Let’s admit it: this year has been pretty lame. Movies have come and gone with nary a memorable moment that would stick with you. The box office backs up the argument that the cinemas are getting harder and harder to fill. Yes, ticket prices will cost you those beginning, precious years of your firstborn- but let’s face it: we’re not being tantalized like we used to. It’s sad. And in some ways? Straight-up offensive to our intelligence. So when M:I:4 rolled it’s first frames onto that large screen, I knew it’d have to impress me…
THE PROS: I haven’t leaned back more in tingly-induced frenzy than since the last Mission Impossible installment over 5 years ago. Brad Bird has entered live-action directing like an unexpected slap to our faces. Not toying around with creative little turns and director-cliches that would otherwise seem pretentious, Bird keeps it light and user-friendly by taking us to a simpler time of action fare. Letting the actors and the script bring it all to the table, Bird simply follows and lets the story unfold. That is a credit to a director not asking to take the reins as much as knowing that everyone else is really pulling the sled while he guides the expedition.
And who better to lead the charge than our favorite alien-controlled, scientology-spewing hollywood powerhouse Tom Cruise! You can argue your disdain and pure dislike of Mr. Cruise to me all you like: The man is one of the best actors around. His personal life aside, he brings his best to almost every role he inhabits. I couldn’t agree with Jon more- Cruise has paved the way for the ‘secret agent, race-against-time’ franchises we see coming out every few years. His boldness to take us to the limit (and by take us there I mean ‘hang out the window a 120 stories up’!) is what keeps people coming back (again, Jon hits the nail on the head: the Dubai building-climb in IMAX alone is worth the extra price in surcharge). Simon Pegg is as charming and fidgety as ever reprising his role from M:I:3. Giving some levity to a very intense film, Pegg lets us exhale between those moments when we don’t feel like we can catch our breathe. Jeremy Renner also steps up to the plate in a big way by playing a key role in the film; standing toe-to-toe with Tom and yet, at the same time, making sure to keep to the side and let Cruise drive the ball all the way. His inclusion in the series is a welcome one; giving Ethan a player in the field to bounce dialogue and choreography off of.
I’m gonna have to disagree with Jon on one issue: the villain. Michael Nyqvist’s Kurt Hendricks is what a series sometimes needs in a franchise before it uses up the stock it already has- a rogue antagonist. Hendricks plays an honest-to-Bejesus psycho. A genius who once worked for Russian intelligence, Hendricks has a revelation when he asks himself: “How do we truly protect ourselves from the next threat? How do we grow as a civilization? How can we as a people become better than the destruction we cause?” In his quest for the answer he finds a twisted idea that out of the ashes of unexpected and massive destruction and death (9/11 anyone?), a beautiful rebirth will occur bringing us to a place of true harmony (don’t blink: ALL of this info and character build-up is told to you in the train-bunker scene before Dubai). The one thing that never comes quietly is the villain that can’t be negotiated with, can’t be understood, and can’t be convinced of anything other than what he has put in his head to be right. There is no logic to the character. That can be maddening to witness; especially as an audience member trying to outthink the villain along with the hero… and THAT’S the point.
THE CONS: The three that stick out like bleeding ulcers are ones that my fellow author has already mentioned but I have to reiterate because – HOLY CRAP – what was happening with these things?!
1.) Paula Patton. What happened between this film and Precious? From a subtle and strong performance coated in control and emotion as your character Ms. Rain was in that amazing piece of cinematic social commentary to this shallow, overly-touchy and emotionally chaotic TEAM LEADER in M:I:4… I just didn’t understand what her problem was. Was she in love? Does the threat of literal NUCLEAR WORLD WAR 3 take a backseat to your inability to keep your crap together?! Utter nonsense, I tell you.
2.) As most action films will undoubtedly tell you: the more gadgets you have on hand the better prepared you are for the task you don’t know is coming around the corner. Though nothing could be truer than our new IMF team’s challenge in this chapter; one thing is for certain: Obama’s budget cuts are hurting our chances of beating fictional terrorism. I, like Jon, get what the writer is trying to say: that through all adversity and malfunctions, the people you trust at your side are the ones who will not let you down. But to have every. single. piece. of. equipment. crap out on you at the most inconvenient time is not just repetitive: it’s boring. It tells the audience not to trust what it’s being told. In a plot-sense that can be beneficial. In a plot-DEVICE sense? It causes you to sigh in disapproval.
And 3.) Party foul INDEED, brother Olsen. Who puts key scenes from the entire movie you’re about to watch into the first 5 minutes credits sequence?!?! I was flabbergasted at such an offense! I warn thee fellow movie patrons: When that fuse is lit at the end of the opening scene, just look down. Check your e-mail. Text your cousin and see if they’ll be visiting soon. Don’t let yourself be cheated out of the enjoyment of the unknown in what you paid good money for because someone didn’t have the common sense to think before splicing. It’s like watching an episode of 70’s television where every wonderful piece of those 22 minutes is brought to you before the plot is even established. That is exactly why it’s just not done anymore. The 21st century audience has evolved into a one-step-ahead monster wanting to be outsmarted. You have to leave the twists for the film to reveal.
*SLAP* bad movie. BAD.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Unlike Ethan who didn’t have a choice when scaling the Burj Khalifa; we as an audience are asked to simply let go. Don’t over-think what you’re about to see. Don’t try and squeeze out and overanalyze characters and their decisions (What makes them put their hand in their pockets rather than cross them?). Just take the ride. As more and more films are trying to impress us with their ability to out-twist and outsmart us before we even sit in our chairs, It’s refreshing to be reminded that simple popcorn action affairs can still meet the standard we subconsciously desire for ourselves: just wanting to be taken out of the norm. In the words of Mr. Hunt himself: “Mission: ACCOMPLISHED!!!”
GRADE: A-
Image
Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows
By Ken Whitney III
Robert Downey Jr., Noomi Rapace & Jude Law
‘Are you sure you want to play this game?’
It’s a funny thing. Our desire to be led on (or take) a journey can be driven by so many things: Love. Power. Even Knowledge. For Sherlock Holmes it isn’t any of those things. It’s a test. An exercise of his intellect that he can’t turn off. And the things and people that are close to him feel the pain of that gift (and burden) firsthand.
‘A Game Of Shadows’ picks up relatively where we left off at the end of the newly-invented 2009 original box office smash. Holmes (played with charm, drive and boldness by Downey Jr.) is on the case of all cases: To stop the mastermind Professor James Moriarty (coldly portrayed by Jared Harris… and the ‘cold’ part? that’s a compliment). Mapping clues from crimes seemingly unrelated, Holmes is able to deduce a grander scheme that could very well lead to a war larger than one even Sherlock himself could anticipate. His ever-faithful brother-in-arms Watson (Jude Law) at his side (though, as per this storyline, reluctantly) and the aide of a gypsy named Simza (The Dragon Tattoo Trilogy’s Noomi Rapace in her first major American role) round out the team that runs through London, bouncing from Brighton to Paris to Switzerland and back on the trail of one of literature’s most pronounced villains.
THE PROS: The most ardent and iron-clad thing of any Sherlock Holmes adventure is the story. The writing. The interweaving of the case and the deductive mind solving it. Thankfully that isn’t lacking for this sequel. The stakes are seamingly higher and the challenge (though hard to believe, I’m sure) is even greater for our deducting hero. Moriarty is Holmes’ greatest nemesis not because of his contacts or his strength – his intellect is a weapon of double-edged sharpness. And unlike Holmes who attempts to bring justice and the answer to every puzzle to light, Moriarty seeks only control of the chaos that is his own making. Where Holmes finds the greatest challenge is not where they are similar but where they are different: Our evil professor has no qualms of ending the lives of however many is needed to seek his own ends.
The look of ‘Shadows’ remains stylistically dated properly but is given it’s familiar contemporary style by director Guy Ritchie. Many found his first outing with the great detective an offense to the original material but I personally beg to differ. Author Arthur Conan Doyle described Holmes extremely well from page to page of his classic series. The one thing he lacked as a writer (and this is not meant as a slight to his immense talent) was his ability to bring action to life in his words. Holmes was a tormented genius. His skills were not only mental. A cadre of combat skills had been recorded over his years honing body and mind. But with gift comes addiction; written ever-so slightly (and sometimes ever-so bluntly) was Holmes’ addiction to opium and other drugs that, in his opinion, brought order to the chaos of his ever-observant mind. Ritchie’s style in storytelling simply brings the facts and depth of the character Doyle created in his bodies of literary works to life on the big screen in a way that entrances the audience of today to sit in wonder. Showing us the world of yesteryear through the eyes of a man who sees everything in it’s smallest and largest context is exciting and addicting in itself. You want to understand Sherlock and how he sees things and the ‘slight of hand’ with Ritchie behind the lens doesn’t disappoint.
The action is beautifully orchestrated. Paced in such a way that brings meat with the grand flavor of adventure, ‘Shadows’ doesn’t slow down even when simply organizing the illegal crossing of borders and infiltrating weapons factories. Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal is given a burst of force in this chapter and Downey doesn’t let off the gas. Law keeps Downey’s Holmes’ weighted to the ground in a way that allows us to keep up. His friendship with this brash and unapologetic genius is one that straddles an impressive line of narcissism and brotherhood. Pushing the limits of their friendship seems to be Holmes’ true personal hobby and Watson seems to allow it; almost in a way that helps Sherlock get a taste of the humanity that he would otherwise deny (all the more evident in the gambling rooms of London’s nightlife the night before Watson’s wedding day and the nuptials that transpire the next morning).
Jared Harris
THE CONS: As a story as complex as this one moves, it runs the risk of moving too fast; sometimes pushing us when we’d like to cherish the moment. This one moves like a freight train at times it seems. Just as we are able to connect with where we are at with our characters, we’re thrust into another location, another exchange of quick-witted and lengthy dialogue or an action sequences that moves so fast we have difficulty keeping up for all our efforts. The iconic nature of Holmes’ mind through the eyes of Ritchie are brought back and it’s become a staple of the series. The use of it in excess, though, hurts the feel of the movie, if ever so slightly. To see Holmes’ mind structure his plan of attack is both enthralling and wonderful. Bringing that same visual to an escape through a war-torn forest, however visually thrilling and vibrant, felt a bit out of place.
Rapace’s Simza is left a bit thinner than you’d expect as well. From her mysterious entrance into the story to her dolled-up appearance at a summit on a wintery slope, Rapace seems unsuited for the elements she’s led into. Stephen Fry is also brought cleverly into the adventure but for who his character turns out being, a lack of history between his character and Holmes becomes a much-desired snippet that we are never offered or given the opportunity to enjoy.
Also, and this doesn’t spoil anything but should be noted: the ending, though smartly undertaken, takes a turn that is… out of character for the way Doyle had left it all in his novels. Where we seek to find closure and an end we are in a way left with a mixed bag.
Robert Downey Jr.
THE BOTTOM LINE: I feel a sequel such as this is a welcomed treat among so many droll remakes and sequels that have come and bombed the past few years. Seeing Downey take the reigns of such an entrancing character is not only a compliment to the wonderful actor we all know him to be, but also to us as an audience who desire to see the actors we not only love but stand in the corner and defend get the roles they outright deserve to inhabit. You almost want a taste of what Holmes sees and is able to deduce but can understand the effects of such a talent and are grateful for the wonderful seat you have to his life and obsessions. Though not a part of the world he is always burdened with seeing for what it is, we can take solace in knowing Holmes’ is just right for a civilization he inhabits; on the cusp of the 20th century coming to terms with it’s growth and faults. That burden may be the detective’s to bear; but we as viewers are better for it I think.
GRADE: B+
The 12 Reviews of Christmas #3: A Muppet Christmas Carol
By Jon Olsen
Review #3! A Muppet Christmas Carol is a movie I watched growing up, first on VHS tapes, then later on DVD. It’s a staple in my family, and as such I will not be giving it a negative review. As part of an honest review site however, I will do my absolute best to critique it as a film. In case you need a plot synopsis of A Christmas Carol, which this movie stays completely faithful to, here you go:
Ebenezer Scrooge is a cold, calculating money lender leading a lonely and miserable life in 19th Century London. He is famous not only for his uncharitable heart but for his absolute hatred of Christmas itself, believing it to be nothing more than a way for lazy people to avoid work. On a snowy Christmas Eve, after begrudgingly giving his hardworking employees the holiday off, he is visited by the apparitions of his now-dead business partners who foretell three more spectral appearances and warn Scrooge to change his heart lest he be bound in agony by spectral chains of greed in the afterlife. Will Ebenezer finally learn how to keep Christmas the whole year round?
PROS: The Muppets are a brilliant property, as the 2011 world recently rediscovered with the theatrical release of The Muppets, which has made nearly 67 million dollars worldwide. Although I hear it’s amazing, I haven’t seen it yet, which is why I feel comfortable stating that A Muppet Christmas Carol is the Muppets at their absolute best. Gonzo, as Charles Dickens, debating about the omniscience of storytellers with Rizzo the Rat is pure self-aware comedic gold. Michael Caine (Alfred in the new Batman movies, kids) plays Scrooge here, and gives a heartfelt performance while still letting the Muppets shine. Rightly so as well, for they are what make this version of the classic story so special. Kermit as Bob Kratchet, Fozzy Bear as “Fozzywig,” and Statler & Waldorf (the two critical old guys who sit in the balcony) as Jacob & Robert Marley really makes you feel like these two properties were made for each other. As a twenty six year-old adult, I still laughed out loud at this movie numerous times, affirming Jim Henson & Co’s knack for comedic timing and snappy, yet tame, writing. Speaking of writing, the musical numbers in this movie are smile-inducing and very fun. All in all, it will be very difficult for anyone with emotions to not at least moderately enjoy this film.
CONS: There aren’t many cons in this movie but they do exist. I understand it was made in 1992, but there are some distractingly bad set pieces (the Ghost of Christmas Present’s musical number in particular), though these are liable to be noticed only by adults. The movie is also surprisingly short, clocking in at only 85 minutes. I felt they could have more fully fleshed out Scrooges change of heart with even another five minutes, but instead the movie tells us that his transformation takes place in the middle of a musical number and is evidenced by Caine starting to dance near the end of the song. It’s a pivotal point in the story that, in my opinion, was mishandled.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This is a classic Christmas movie that deserves to become a tradition in any home. It’s story is universal, it’s humor is perfect for every age, and it’s an excellent cinematic reminder that, at it’s core, Christmas should be about generosity and thankfulness. Children will love it because furry puppets fall down a lot and there’s singing, adults will love it because it’s smartly written and faithful to Dicken’s classic novel. A Muppet Christmas Carol is more than worth your holiday time.
GRADE: A
hushvinyl
Jon
Cinephiles 