THE GOOD

At this point, we know exactly what to expect: international intrigue, high-tech gadgetry, heart-racing plots, and beautiful people. In a word: 007, with Tom Cruise. In fact, that’s exactly what it appears they are creating, another never-ending espionage/world-saving saga, suggested by the fact that this fourth film no longer bears a titular numeral as did the initial three offerings. Surprisingly (or not), it works. Tom Cruise (who both acted in and produced this one) delivers a very Tom Cruise performance, which is to say, exciting and effective if not exactly award-winning. The rest are likewise: Pegg serves as comedic relief, Paula Patton as attractive accomplice, and Renner as enigmatic tagalong. Interestingly, neither the director nor the writer on this project had any previous experience in full-length live-action films; Bird (director) is known for animated features such as Ratatouille and The Incredibles, while Applebaum (writer) has worked solely in television (Alias, Life on Mars). Even so, it works. The team creates a very entertaining, high-adrenaline film packed with explosions, at least a dozen chase scenes, and, well, Tom Cruise doing what Tom Cruise does best.

THE BAD

For all the excitement that it offers, the film lacks some clarity in its plot. There are moments when it is vague about what is being sought, who is being chased, and/or why. Additionally, pretty much every character is rather two-dimensional. The acting is, as mentioned, quite serviceable, but it isn’t exactly memorable; Patton (or is it her character?) is mostly annoying at first, but she grows on you. In this way, much of the film functions in a Bond-like capacity, providing thrilling entertainment without really attempting to cater to the art house crowd (though the most recent Bond films are an arguable exception to that rule). As such, it may be criticized for lacking political or philosophical weight; but let’s be honest with each other just for a moment, shall we? It doesn’t intend to. There is certainly an argument for nuclear deproliferation to be found here, but that’s about as far as it goes. That being said, I am hoping against hope that the next M:I film is able to wrangle the impossibly wonderful Christopher Nolan. Darker? Probably. Better? Absolutely.

THE CONCLUSION

If you like high-octane, edge-of-your-seat, I’m-about-have-a-heart-attack-because-that-guy-is-literally-scaling-a-skyscraper-with-high-tech-glue-on-his-hands films, then Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is for you. If you don’t enjoy Tom Cruise running, diving, jumping, driving, or swimming after (and/or away from) villains, then skip it. Because that’s really all this movie claims to offer. And if you do decide to skip this one, please don’t complain about the rest of us having a really good time.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

THE GOOD

Bad Christmas movies show up just about every year. Just look at Four Christmases. And the good ones are hard to match; we come back to them each December because of their story and their holiday spirit. Just look at The Polar Express or Christmas Vacation. Arthur Christmas, thankfully, fits itself firmly in the latter camp. Hilarious, touching, inspirational, this Christmas movie is enjoyable for everyone. The animation is creative and fun, and the writing (Peter Baynham, of Arthur, Borat, and Brüno fame) is literally laugh-out-loud funny; I personally guffawed countless times throughout. And the voice acting (most notably, Bill Nighy as Grandsanta) only makes it more entertaining and hysterical. At the end of the day, the film’s focus is on the importance of the individual, the consequences of quantity over quality, and, of course, its version of the “true meaning of Christmas,” a much welcomed and appreciated message.

THE BAD

Though very good, there are still moments (and a character or two) that seem to have unrealized potential. Steve, the next-in-line Santa, is clearly motivated by his desire for the red suit. Unfortunately, he isn’t quite “evil” enough to serve as the film’s villain; he skirts the line, flirting with his antagonistic tendencies without fully embracing them. Santa himself only frustrates the situation by also lacking the positive qualities he needs to be, well, Santa, adding another kind of half-antagonist. Grandsanta, whose zaniness is matched only by his selfishness, serves as a third kind of adversary, in opposition to Arthur’s magnanimous goals. Together, though, these three halves do not exactly a whole villain make. Arthur’s personal ethic is strong, and he overcomes his own personal demons somewhat easily. While funny and poignant, the film’s lack of true villainy may suggest the final goal is too easy, its difficulties too easily overcome. The journey itself, however, as well as the end, do leave us on the edge, wondering “What if?”, succeeding in keeping us invested in Arthur and his quest.

THE CONCLUSION

Arthur Christmas is a very enjoyable holiday movie for the whole family, and it is one to which I will almost certainly return in the future. Its fun nature, adorable characters, and unashamed love of Christmas are engaging and addictive. Definitely see this one if you have a hankering for a good new Christmas movie to add to your shelves. And take the kids. They’ll love it, too.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

THE GOOD

As the Year of the Gosling rolls on, another entertaining film featuring the actor hits the screen. His performance is again quite good, as is everyone else’s. Clooney brings his characteristic good looks and dark charm; Giamatti and Hoffman play their parts equally well, mirroring one another throughout; Tomei and Wright’s roles are strong, though small; however, it is Evan Rachel Wood who turns in what may be the best performance of the film. Her character’s baggage and inner conflict are the stuff of any soap opera, yet she compels the audience to sympathize with her, while potentially criticizing some of her choices. On the whole, the movie is entertaining and intriguing, both for its timely portrayal of modern liberal leanings and the life of politicians, as well as its questioning of behind-the-scenes politicking and the role of loyalty in any political endeavor.

THE BAD

Though there is certainly a comparison to be made to the tragic Julius Caesar, this film does not live up to the original. This isn’t to say the movie intends to mimic Shakespeare’s play, but the title is too suggestive to ignore the connection. Unfortunately, while the acting is good all round, the writing and direction are nothing to write home about. Unembellished yet largely uninteresting direction is coupled with relatively strong yet rather lengthy dialogue at times, leaving one to wonder whether this might work better on the stage – again reminding one of the play. A smaller cast, fewer locations, and the same compelling narrative. Just a thought.

THE CONCLUSION

While often quite good, this film leaves one wanting, at turns, both more and less. More compelling direction, less loquacious characters, more intentional cinematography, and, lastly, simply more screen time. The film ends abruptly, suggestively, which works, yet leaves one wondering if the reel was cut short by an intoxicated editor with a pair of scissors. All said and done, it’s a good movie, and you should see it to judge for yourself. But it almost certainly won’t take home a bag of statues. Not a chance. It’s simply not strong enough.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

THE GOOD

Harkening back to a simpler time and place, in some sense, Super 8 reminds us why we go to the movies (and why some of us make them): to enter and create another reality, to imagine. At a time when the country is acutely aware of the imminent threat of Soviet Russia, weird things begin to happen in a small town. A band of movie-making kids attempts to take advantage of the events and, if they can, stay alive. The parallel reality of the kids’ filmmaking attempts with the plot of the film only makes the movie better, as the audience is both made aware of the act of filmmaking and the experience of enjoying films at the same time. This Goonies meets War of the Worlds is at times funny, often nail-biting, and nearly always entertaining.

THE BAD

The movie’s advantage is in some sense its undoing. One, it is another in a long series of extraterrestrial stories; and two, it has children for protagonists. We as an audience immediately connect with alien movies; in a time of constant scientific and technological innovation, it seems only a matter of time before we contact other lifeforms (if they’re out there). However, we weigh this movie against those others: is it creative, compelling, etc. This movie is indeed creative (the alien is not exactly what we’ve seen before), and it is mostly compelling. But, the nature of the film is on the whole very campy, and the ending is just too cheesy not to mention. As an audience, we’ve seen a lot of this before, and we know it. In fact, we seem to experience a kind of open manipulation: the sappy score, the kitschy dialogue, the two-dimensional relationships. In two hours, one would hope that the film might be fleshed out a bit more, focusing less on explosions and (seemingly random) lens flares, and more on the relationships between the characters. As one of the kids says to the other (more or less), relationships make a story, not death scenes. It would behoove Abrams to heed his characters’ advice.

WORTH SEEING?

Super 8 is fun, self-aware, campy, well made, but has a rather horrible ending (I actually laughed audibly). It’s an enjoyable alien flick replete with well crafted suspense and plenty of explosions. If you didn’t see this one in the theatres, you should certainly see it on the small screen. It is a very good movie, even with the above issues. Who knows, you may disagree with everything I said. Regardless, though, you should definitely stay for the credits.

RATING: 3/4 Stars

THE GOOD

The funniest laugh-out-loud movie since Bridesmaids succeeds for many reasons. The cast is spot on, including Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Kevin Spacey, and Jennifer Anniston (as well as numerous extended cameos). The script is hilarious, and the film is genuinely funny throughout, which is a nice departure from the laughably horrible movies cranked out by Happy Madison Productions, including Grown Ups and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, two of the worst movies this reviewer has seen in the last few years (and probably ever). Director Seth Gordon knows how to do funny, having been at the helm for TV shows like The Office, Parks & Recreation, Community, and Modern Family. This film was in good hands all around, and it shows. It’s laugh-til-you-can’t-breathe funny.

THE BAD

Let’s be honest: the plot here is pretty silly. Three guys’ bosses are, indeed, quite horrible, and they decide their lives would be better if said bosses were no longer living. The development of the story is also fairly absurd, unravelling rapidly out of control for the main characters. Other than a somewhat slow start, the movie is pretty enjoyable from start to finish.

GO, WAIT, OR SKIP

You definitely need to see this one. Whether you spend $10 on a ticket is more difficult to recommend. This one won’t be any worse for wear on a smaller screen; in fact, it might be even more enjoyable if you watch this one with a group of friends. If you just have to see a movie at the theatre this weekend, and you aren’t in the mood for superheroes, then shell out the money and see Horrible Bosses. It just might be the catharsis you need to get through the week.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

If it’s true that superheroes and their stories are the epic tales of our time, then Iron Man (and Iron Man 2) fit the bill. With such obvious Greek elements (not to mention Greek words) as hamartia and hubris, superheroes possess some requisite characteristics suited to telling the engrossing story of a lone man on a mission, fated for greatness against all odds. Conflating these ancient measures with the Medieval distressed damsel, our heroes must also get the girl. And, if that wasn’t enough, some, at least peripheral, social commentary becomes necessary in this current epoch.

Tony Stark and his alter-ego, Iron Man, are not only suited to this type of story, they excel at it, culminating in a trilogy in the making, a story of epic proportions. The triadic structure of the epic in current filmmaking suits the comic book, as its heroes have multiple adversaries, a textured and variegated history (or back story), and a depth of character that extends beyond a two hour departure. Here, Stark is confronted with a number of opponents, not the least of which is himself. Battling Pepper, Col. Rhodes, his late father, Justin Hammer, Ivan Vanko, the government, his own body, and, naturally, his ego, he has his work cut out for him.

Amidst all the conflating plot lines, however, is Stark the man, a product of democracy, consumerism, the arms race, and the American Dream, and Jon Favreau, having directed the original film in this series, has a firm grip on this man and his story. He and Justin Theroux (who penned this one) effortlessly draw together numerous story lines into a coherent whole with surprisingly fluid dialogue, while Downey, Jr., Cheadle, Rockwell and Rourke (who might as well have stolen the show), and Paltrow perform their roles superbly (Johansson and Jackson, on the other hand, ultimately come across as a touch silly).

An ensemble cast surrounds the nucleus of the film, weaving meaningful narratives both through and without the protagonist. Strong visuals and expert CG fill out the rest in sequences of explosive and much needed eye candy. The final hoorah lacks a bit of the charge and exhilaration expected at such a crescendo, but it is certainly entertaining.

It isn’t a perfect film, but it does precisely what it aims to do. Nothing more. It sells itself as an enjoyable, action-packed joy ride in the superhero universe, and it delivers on nearly all counts. Compared to other contemporaneous films in the superhero genre, such as Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, Spiderman (1-3), and Hellboy, to name just a few, the Iron Man saga is near the top, excelling in nearly every area we’ve come to expect from these modern epics.

If Favreau and Downey can stay on board and on track, this series may ultimately pass with flying colors the test that all works of art or popular culture must withstand: time. One can only hope that the third and final installment of this series will be as entertaining, as humorous, and, above all, as engaging as the first two. Only time will tell.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

Idiosyncratic, eccentric, and unconventional? Perhaps. Enjoyable, charming, and timeless? Absolutely. This newest take on the enchanting Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass stories by Lewis Carroll is an endearing film, full of delightful characters, equal parts nostalgia and originality, and another beguiling performance from Johnny Depp. The combination of vibrant visuals and a timeless story of a seeming loss of artless childhood, the limitless power of imagination, and the wellsprings of creative life, Alice in Wonderland succeeds.

The story is known well, to say the least. Alice slips into a hole and into another world, with size-altering potions and cakes, talking rabbits, and a disappearing cat with a very large grin. In this film, Burton’s Alice returns to Underland, or Wonderland, only to think herself in another of a series of elaborate fantasies, repeatedly musing aloud that she is just dreaming. We follow her as she discovers the world of Wonderland to be all-too-real, a fascinating land of adventure where she plays the heroine. Or she’s supposed to anyway. She thinks. Maybe. Meeting the Mad Hatter (Depp) and the Queens (Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway) along the way, Alice finds herself in the midst of one fateful encounter after another. In the end, she will have to face herself and her fears and “believe in impossible things.” (Something her father did six times before breakfast, and we could all do well to learn from his example.)

That great storyteller and thinker C.S. Lewis once wrote, “Sometimes fairy tales say best what needs to be said.” In Alice’s case, what needs to be said? Well, for starters, the truth of the land of imagination. We create and inhabit and learn from the universes we call into existence, and we are hopefully better for it. Alice inhabits a world in which the impossible occurs quite frequently. We soon discover this world is no dream; it is as real as she is, and lives are at stake.

Tim Burton clearly understands the power of the imagination, that faculty of inspired creation, and in this film we are privy to his ability to transform the screen into another world, and to transport us as well. Alice is played simply and sensibly with the guileless guile of a girl coming of age by Mia Wasikows (Defiance). And with the help of faithful Burton companions Depp and Bonham Carter, the other-wordly aspects of Wonderland are magically brought to life before our eyes. Geared towards children, Burton at times leans too heavily on stereotypes here, and the finale could have used more oomph, more complexity, if not more uncertainty. On the whole, though, this film is another wonderful reprise of Alice’s enviable adventures.

This film is certainly catered to a younger audience in many ways, but, to some extent, the beauty of the story is its ability to shine through for exactly this reason. In his dedication to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis wrote to Lucy Barfield, to whom he was Godfather, “Someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again.” If you are old enough, then see this film. If not, wait a few years, “take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think.”

Rating: 3/4 Stars

It’s said that the worst possible trauma a parent can experience is outliving their children, and, therefore, burying them, mourning their loss, and living out the rest of their lives with a gaping emotional wound, wrapped with new tourniquets each day, never completely healing, never fully returning to that approximation of wholeness towards which we strive. Stasis is broken, and the psychological anguish never quite subsides, like a vengeful tide bent on wreaking havoc on the unsuspecting shore. This film tells this story, replete with all the vulnerability and instability that such trauma leaves behind it. More or less one film split into two hour-long segments, Antichrist succeeds in spades for the initial half, then unfortunately devolves into a series of painful sadomasochism.

A couple loses their child while they make love (in the first of several truly pornographic sex scenes). In the midst of an orgasmic experience, their toddler son makes a fateful descent, ending whatever semblance of normalcy that may have existed for this disturbing couple. Willem Defoe plays the husband, a therapist who turns his work on his wife (played unsettlingly well by Charlotte Gainsbourg), a woman struggling with the loss of her son and, essentially, her own sanity. This story is constructed in successive chapters, each taking its name from successive levels of grief coping mechanisms. By the close of the credits, as a fox says during the film (oddly, the only anthropomorphized animal in the film), “Chaos reigns.” At times, it seems, quite literally.

The director, Lars Von Trier, was apparently struggling with bouts of severe depression during the creation of this film, and it could not be much more evident. The woman evolves from a seemingly normal individual coping with the loss of her son into a sadomasochistic being, like Jekyll permanently becoming Hyde. Von Trier creates a surreal, subtle world in which these two (and only two) characters swim through the sea of grief that has swallowed their lives. With hints of expressionism, he forms a fairly brilliant series of scenes with pitch-perfect dialogue. During the first half.

The second half of the film continues the trend of the preceding hour momentarily, before running as far from subtlety as possible, in a sequence of events that are as painfully unnatural as they are unnaturally painful, a convoluted cycle of torment and mutilation. Though almost certainly intentional, this retreat from subtlety and nuance is also a retreat from the art created in the first hour of the film, ending in blatant exhibitionism, a form of psychological and emotional public masturbation.

If the film had maintained the coherence and form of the first half, Von Trier would have created one of the best films of the year, a psychological film, with equal parts tragedy, thriller, and expressionism. Unfortunately, he takes a tragic story with fantastic performances and wonderful cinematography and twists it into an indulgent example of performance art gone horribly wrong. The excellent first half is the only aspect that makes this film worth watching; after that, it’s best to turn it off and leave the film at its best. A kind of tragedy in and of itself.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

A middle-aged, weathered performer who’s down on his luck, strapped for cash, and reaching for the bottle. Haven’t we seen this before? We have. This film wishes it was The Wrestler from 2008. It can’t be The Wrestler for one very simple reason: it tries way too hard to please everybody. Nothing is that hard to handle, it pulls punches throughout, and each ache is quickly bandaged with laughter or sentimentality. Cooper puts together a pretty decent film, with good writing and straightforward cinematography. Ultimately, though, it’s Jeff Bridges’s performance and several doses of feel-good country music that make this film a mass-market win.

Bad Blake (Bridges) is a country musician who has run his course, riding in on fumes from a career that ended a decade earlier. He drinks like a fish, and his shows suffer for it. While on his armpit of America tour, he meets Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a single mother who quickly shows she’s more than just another tour junkie looking to get laid. They are smitten, and a romance separated by tour miles and a generation gap buds and attempts to bloom. Following a few missteps, Blake comes face to face with questions he must answer if he wants to live a meaningful life.

Bridges is very good, in touch with his character in a way we have come to expect from silver screen vets. His Blake is everything we expect him to be. He is certainly believable, and he reveals the pathos that has been welling in Blake’s soul for years, but, though it may be one of Bridges’s best and one of the year’s best, if we’re honest, it probably isn’t the best performance that we have seen this year.

Bridges is complemented well by Gyllenhaal, who seems to be channelling Renée Zellweger, circa 1996. However, the floodgates are opened in almost every scene, causing her to lose emotional honesty and the audience to care less about her than we might have had she shown some restraint, some personal character, an attempt to quell the tears which gnaw at her eyes, begging to be set free. Instead, we are coerced into caring, a current running rampant through much of this film.

The music is mostly kitschy, the writing fine but incredibly safe, and the whole story a bit too easy to come by. Cooper’s directorial debut shows much promise, but he needs to find a voice detached from the crowd, something we haven’t seen, or, perhaps more importantly at times, something we don’t want to see. The Wrestler was able to pull this off with dignity and candor. Then again, we are comparing Darren Aronofsky with a first-timer. At least a pinch of lenience is due.

All in all, much could probably be forgiven in this one if the credits had rolled about ten minutes earlier than they do, when we see Blake alone, guitar in hand, singing to himself the song that resulted from his life-changing experiences. Instead, the film rolls on, and everything is wrapped up nicely – with a sunset to boot. Cooper needs to remove the gimmicks and just tell the story. Because he doesn’t do that here, Crazy Heart is ultimately just one more above-average feel-good film that could have been so much more.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

We know the writings, but few of us know the man behind them, the pen that wrote some of the most beloved and respected books in the Canon of Humanity, among them, War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, the man was caught between two worlds late in life, his family and his Movement, the Tolstoyans. Michael Hoffman (Emperor’s Club, A Midsummer Night’s Dream) puts together a film worthy of Tolstoy’s epic status in human history, almost entirely due to the performances from his leading pair.

Rife with controversy, Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lived out his last years in a tug-of-war between his wife (Helen Mirren) and his Movement. The former wanted his affection, while the latter, or their leader in any event (Paul Giamatti), wanted his estate. For his wife, the estate was a synecdoche of his love, the part that, in the end, would offer her many more years of living the life of luxury to which she had become so accustomed. When a young prodigy, Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy), comes to live with the Tolstoys, he, too, is thrown into the middle of the storm that would ultimately send Tolstoy to his grave.

The Movement desires the estate, or more specifically the placement of his writings into the public domain, “for humanity.” As his wife, Sofya, says, however, “I’ve never met humanity.” The struggle for his favor is aptly summed up thus, and the film tells the story very well. A subplot emerges, the romance between Valentin and Masha, played by Kerry Condon (HBO series Rome), and it provides the story with a bit more tension, creating another struggle within Valentin. We see the story mostly through his eyes, and it engenders a war of conscience in the viewer, as well, as we argue within ourselves over the rightful placement of the Tolstoy estate.

Plummer and Mirren are a perfect pair, with a dynamic chemistry indicative of seasoned veterans as themselves, certainly worthy of recognition. McAvoy and Condon furnish another spark in the film, working together deftly. Giamatti is appropriate for the role of Vladimir Chertkov, the veritable leader of the Tolstoyans; however, I have personally always found him to come off a bit strong, like a stage actor who never learned to tone it down a notch, and most of this film is no different. Hoffman’s direction is adequate, mostly conventional, which allows the stars to shine. And shine they do.

At heart, this film succeeds for one reason and one reason only: the acting. Plummer and Mirren are a tour de force, bringing all the wisdom and honesty that, at times, only a lifetime of experience can truly provide. This is a good one, but it isn’t great. It seems to soften some of the blows, goes the humorous route in nearly every scene (even some heated ones, where it seems dually unnecessary and even inappropriate), and provides just enough romantic subplot to keep interested those who might otherwise check out during the opening credits. The acting is of utmost importance here, and it’s evident throughout the film. However, in the end, it is the acting that makes this film worth seeing.

Rating: 3/4 Stars