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

Image via The New York Times © 2011

The New York Times recently conducted a short interview with Steven Spielberg about his new movies coming out, The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse. Here’s the link to the full interview. They asked him one question that I’ve wondered about him myself, how he decides whether to direct or produce a given project.

Q. How do you choose which films to direct and which to produce?

A. I’ve often wondered what gets me to direct and what gets me to produce. I’ve never been able to answer the question adequately even for myself. When something gets a stranglehold on me and compels me to direct it, I don’t question why. I don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. No pun intended vis-a-vis “War Horse.” I just know what it feels like to be overwhelmed with a desire to make a movie. And I also know as a businessman what it means to be overwhelmed with a desire to produce a good story. But there’s a great difference between production and direction for me. And I may often question choices I make as a producer. But I’ve never questioned the choices I make as a director. Whether in success or in failure, I’m proud of every single movie I’ve ever directed.

What’s interesting about his answer, to me, is the implication that he is not proud of some of the films he has produced, while he is “proud of every single movie [he's] ever directed.” The Lovely Bones and Men in Black II come to mind as possible low moments in his production career.

In any event, check out the interview. It’s not too long and worth at least a quick read.

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

“What do you do?” Irene (the beautiful, inimitable Carey Mulligan) asks the character known only as the Driver (Ryan Gosling). He responds: “I drive.” And drive he does. The film is relentless, itself driving the action and the characters forward, gaining an unstoppable momentum until it reaches its climactic, ineluctable end. A combination of Robin Hood, Batman, and Grand Theft Auto, the Driver is a man – played expertly (dare I say perfectly?) by Gosling – whose quiet intensity about everything he encounters is unsettling, his confidence alone unnerving. The relationship between the Driver and Irene develops organically, at first without any dialogue (as is much of the film), blossoming into a potent sexuality in which the most physical acts are hand-holding and a single kiss. The writing, direction, acting, cinematography, scoring, costume design, and 80′s-inspired art direction work seamlessly, flawlessly creating a grim world of darkness, death, and, of course, driving.

THE BAD

Because this film is nearly an embodiment of perfection, I will gladly use this section to say exactly that. But, if one must find flaws, there is a moment of dialogue between Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks’s characters that seems a touch lazy. Cranston’s character attempts to convince Brooks that he should invest in his racecar, devolving somewhat into a rather uncreative stock exchange better suited for a Lifetime made-for-TV movie than one of the best films of the year. That being said, the dialogue still remains true to the particular character in question. Other than that, it is quite difficult after one viewing to spot much that is less than sparse, intentional, brilliant film-making.

THE CONCLUSION

Exciting, riveting, engaging (and a host of other similar words), the multifarious levels of artistic actualization and heart-pounding entertainment that this film achieves under the masterful direction of Nicolas Winding Refn (who is slated to release a new film with Gosling next year, which is cause enough for celebration) are worth pages of consideration and countless hours of appreciation and enjoyment. But, suffice it to say that it is worth seeing if you see nothing else. Fin.

Rating: 4/4 Stars

SAG

• Ceremony: Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Golden Globes

• Ceremony: Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Academy Awards

• Announcement: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

• Ceremony: Sunday, February 26th, 2012

P.S. Additionally, I will update as soon as I am able to see a sizable number of the films, which will hopefully be very soon. It’s been too long since last I sat alone in a darkened room watching an inordinate number of movies.