The Adventures of Tintin

Dir. Steven Spielberg

Few directors have that instant name-recognition like Steven Spielberg. My mom can probably name at least one or two of his movies which is quite a feat. Also, I think Spielberg is very assured in all the films that he does. Themes, set-pieces, even music flow through all of his works and tie them together. When Spielberg makes a movie it can usually be classified in one of two groups: Important “message” type films (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, this year’s War Horse) and Rollicking adventure films (Indian Jones movies, War of the Worlds). The Adventures of Tintin is firmly in the latter category. In fact, other than the search for a lost treasure, and maybe touching on some themes of vengeance, The Adventures of Tintin is almost all straightforward action with little subtext.

We’re introduced to our character Tintin (Jamie Bell) while he is shopping in his native Brussels. Most of the world is familiar with the titular hero, as he is star of his own long-running comics by author Herge. After purchasing a mysterious model ship, Tintin is suddenly thrust into a treasure-seeking journey that takes him across the globe and where he meets future partner Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). That’s pretty much all there is to it. Tintin and Haddock follow clues and trail a meanie played by Daniel Craig who, like Spielberg, is making his second appearance of the holiday season following The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

The action scenes are bright and lively and cartoonishly over-the-top. In particular, a dizzying chase through the fictional Middle Eastern city of Bagghar that begins as a simple “follow that man!” scene and results in the decimation of the entire city. I admired the way the camera loops and flies and swivels around the action in a way that would be nearly impossible in live action. Every action-packed segment is thrilling and jaw-dropping yet ultimately feels hollow because the plot is so thin.

This brings me to the topic of the motion-capture element. Motion capture has its fair share of detractors, most of which lie in the “uncanny valley”, that is that no matter how good the animation, the characters will always have a lifeless, eerie, robotic quality. I can firmly say that Tintin boasts some of the most impressive computer animation of the year, yet it’s true, there is something oddly disconnecting about the characters. I mostly noticed it in the way Tintin’s face never quite emoted like a real person, his forehead was always a little stiff. I think, however, this didn’t affect my enjoyment of the movie, and as motion capture becomes more and more prevalent in films we become more and more adjusted to the off-kilter quality of the characters. Actor Jamie Bell does a fine job capturing the optimistic and sunny Tintin and veteran motion-capture actor Andy Serkis fits easily into the role of the alcoholic Captain Haddock.

All said and done, The Adventures of Tintin is an interesting combination of newfangled, modern cinema blended with an old school yarn about treasure seekers. Though the movie is entertaining enough, I left the theater with a sense that I might have been satisfied with the meal, but not necessarily wanting more.
Grade: B

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Dir. David Fincher

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one of the most highly anticipated films of 2011. The novel, published posthumously by author Steig Larson, ignited with American readers and has resulted in a trio of films in the author’s native Sweden. It was only a matter of time before the American film rolled into theaters. Questions flared up, however. Would the American version shy away from the brutal violence and explicit sex? The answer is, mostly no. The film is a movie for grown-ups and never placates to the audience.

At its heart, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a murder mystery. It’s one that is about on par with a really good episode of Law and Order: SVU. The hunt for a serial killer of women, though, is only a small portion of the pie. Another slice is Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), the shamed reporter of a tabloid magazine looking for vengeance and an opportunity to clear his name. Elsewhere, punk/sleuth Lisbeth Salander (Roony Mara) is trying to survive/kick ass despite the obstacles, um, obstacles placed by her sleazy guardian (Yorick van Wageningen). The two heroes, for lack of a better word, team up to untangle a mystery involving a dysfunctional family that includes incest, Nazis, and pretty much all things unsavory.

So we have all the pieces of the pie. Rooney Mara’s daring portrayal of Lisbeth Salander is the whipped cream that makes the dessert so delicious. The role of Lisbeth is one that caused quite a lot of input from fans. Many believed that Noomi Repace’s Lisbeth from the Swedish films was perfect; some even calling her to take on the role in the American films. Natalie Portman was an original frontrunner, whispy, beautiful, Natalie Portman. I must say that Mara’s Lisbeth is a nuanced, complicated, and thoroughly rich performance. Fierce and strong yet damaged, she commands the screen with her icy intensity. The supporting characters, including Craig’s Blomkvist, turn in strong performances as well, though in my mind I pictured Mikael as a little more doughy and everyday, not the James Bond-ian hero embodied by Craig.

David Fincher brings a dark, cold atmosphere perfectly set in the frigid Swedish landscape and proves most effective when the characters are trying to figure something out or in mortal danger. Some of the quieter, emotional moments feel a bit uneven amidst the dreary industrial feel of the film.

I liked Lisbeth and Mikael’s partnership although at one point, the tone of the relationships shifts and becomes sort of clumsy. The film rapidly loses steam after the tense climax and is punctuated with a mini Oceans 11-type caper that really seemed a bit silly.

In the end, though, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a deft, dark and well-crafted mystery supported by strong performances.
Grade: B+

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Dir. Brad Bird

It’s amazing to think that the first Mission Impossible movie starring Tom Cruise came out 15 years ago. Back then, Alanis Morissette was at the top of the charts and the O.J. Simpson trial was just warming up.

The first movie in the series, directed by Brian De Palma, was, despite some iconic scenes, a labyrinthine plot that focused more about canted angles than coherency. The next movie, appropriately titled Mission Impossible II (or MI: 2 for you cool kids), eschewed the twisty-turny plot for a more straightforward action film with John Woo’s signature balletic action scenes. 2006’s film (MI: III, surprise), took the film into J.J. Abrams land meaning complex, emotionally turbulent scenes and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one bad-ass villain. Despite the strength of MI:III (which was the strongest film to date, I felt), the film struggled at the box office and the franchise was in question.

Five years later, however, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made it off the ground under the watchful eye of director Brad Bird, Pixar animation wunderkind responsible for such lauded films as Ratatouille and The Incredibles. As an animation director, Bird has an eye for the absurd. Ridiculous, over-the-top action scenes set atop towering sky-scrapers, in whirling sandstorms, and a daring escape from a Hungarian prison. Preposterous, yes, but it is called Mission Impossible, not Mission Plausible. The action scenes are set up with dizzying aplomb. Several members of the audience were gasping just at the notion of Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt climbing the outside of the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, but he was going to do it with, basically, one hand tied behind his back! The film certainly has some of the best action of the year, and in glorious IMAX no less.

Ghost Protocol represents a shift in tone for the MI series. Abrams had set up his film with a very complex emotional undertone, the home life of Ethan Hunt, if you will. That film saw Ethan settling down and getting married and the difficulties that can bring to an international spy. Though this complication is present in Ghost Protocol, in surprising ways, the film is more about good, old fashioned action. The MacGuffin this time is a set of codes that a megalomaniac wants to control in order to unleash nuclear war on the world. Not the most original, for sure and even Michael Nyqvist as the film’s main antagonist has very little presence in the movie. Similarly, Tom Wilkinson shows up as the secretary of IMF but basically phones in his role as the "Basil Exposition" character. Instead, the team, comprised of regular Simon Pegg and newcomers Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton, hop from locale to locale always just a step behind the bad guys meaning a daring chase to catch up.

Let’s be honest. The action movies of late have been tiresome. Yes we all marvel at the cosmic hammer of Thor; we all coo over the ambulatory simian Caesar, but for my money, the best kind of action is the one of an ordinary man, try to get the bad guys before they blow up the world. And if he has to jump down an empty elevator shaft only to stop a few millimeters before being eviscerated by a large spinning fan – so be it.

Grade: A-

Movie Review

The Muppets
Dir: James Bobin
Hollywood is no stranger to the reboot. Nothing invigorates a floundering franchise like new talent in front of and behind the camera. As soon as The Muppets movie was announced several years ago, I had already cast my doubts. I had grown up with The Muppets and had quite a soft spot for them. I remember watching reruns with (obscure to me) celebrities and not quite getting a lot of the jokes. A recent trip to Disneyworld and watching the Muppetvision show (largely unchanged since my childhood) had me pining for the Muppets again. It seems as though the same nostalgia radiated through Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother) as he has imbued his script for the new Muppet movie with the same warm, glowing reverence.
Segel stars as Gary, a grown man in a long-term relationship with schoolteacher Mary (Amy Adams). Gary’s brother Walter is one of the biggest Muppet fans you’ll find – and he’s a Muppet himself but doesn’t quite realize it. On a group trip to Los Angeles, Walter discovers a nefarious plot to shut down the old Muppet theater so with the help of Kermit the Frog and all the Muppet pals, the group attempts to put together a show that will save the theater.
The premise is familiar and has a equal parts road trip and Busby Berkely, “putting on a show” vibe to it. Throughout, cameos come fast and furious from the likes of Rashida Jones, Jack Black, Selena Gomez and that kid from Modern Family. The cameos, though, are really the only modern thing about the Muppets which turns out to be a good thing. There are no winking jabs at Disney or nudging references to the “industry”. Snark, sarcasm and a cynical attitude are eschewed in favor of silliness. That’s not to say that some of the jokes aren’t aimed at adults (we can clean up the theater much faster through montage!), but it always comes from a heartfelt place that just wants to make the audience smile.
Despite all the laughs (and there are many), much of the movie deals with nostalgia in a difficult way. Kermit, in particular, finds it difficult to revisit the past and (until convinced otherwise) is mostly content with leaving things the way it is. He, in many ways, is very modern in that he’s not just a bounding source of optimism, but seems to understand that the sometimes history can be painful. That being said, sometimes I wanted to just smack him and tell him to snap out of his funk, but luckily we have Miss Piggy to do just that. Speaking of, Miss Piggy and all the Muppets, display very interesting and funny quirks. Almost the way that ensemble superhero movies have so many characters that you’re bound to connect with one of them, The Muppets all have something about them that is individual that you can connect with. Miss Piggy has been hurt romantically in the past and is fiercely guarded; Gonzo has compromised his individuality and “sold out” as the head of a large corporation -- heady stuff for a blue furry creature.
Ultimately, The Muppets is a movie that will probably appeal more to adults who have missed the Muppets for the past 10 or so years rather than 6 year olds (though everyone can enjoy the chicken rendition of Cee-Lo’s Forget You). Plus, if this movie isn’t a success you can expect a reboot in 4 years starring the Moopets, and that’s something you definitely don’t want to see.
Grade: B+

Hugo

Hugo
Dir. Martin Scorsese
I frequently wonder what it’s like to be a child in the world we live in. Some might scoff at this and say how young I am and how I basically grew up in this modern world. But at 26 years old, when I was a kid, we didn’t have cell phones or the internet or 3-D. Animation was still done by hand and a singing, dancing Lion King was enough to keep kids and adults entertained.
Now, it seems as though childhood is loud, brash, and painfully ADHD. Lights flash, robots explode, and everything needs to literally jump off the screen. This brings me to Martin Scorsese’s newest film, Hugo. Based on the young adult novel by Brian Selznick, Hugo tells the story of a young boy who loses his father in a fire and is forced to fend for himself in a Parisian train station. Everyday he watches and observes the lives of those that exist in the station all the while feeling a deep sense of loss and a loss of purpose. He then comes in contact with (I’m careful to not use the word ‘befriend’ because the two are definitely not friends) and young girl and her godfather, an old toymaker with a secret.
Ultimately, Hugo is a rich cinematic experience that touches on themes of loss, responsibility, growing up, and finding out your place in the world. All the while the story unfolds in glorious 3-D. Now, I’ve seen my share of 3-D and there is good, there is bad, and there is woefully unnecessary. When Martin Scorsese makes a movie in 3-D, you see it. You shell out the extra 4 dollars and you see it in 3-D. Above all, Martin Scorsese has made a film that is a love letter to all films and his command of the medium demands you see it the way he intended. The use of 3-D in Hugo creates a world that is deep, and engrossing. It pulls you into the world and creates a sense of wonder and mystery around you. Mythical dragons never fly in your face, swords are never pointed at your nose, but you see deeper into the dangerous, yet common world of the protagonist Mr. Hugo Cabret.
Effects aside, you feel the love and passion for film that Scorsese pours into every minute of the story. For someone who has studied film for years such as myself, I felt a very deep and personal connection to the story he was telling. I wonder, though, that for children who are so used to having their entertainment flashed and crammed down their throats, will they also delight in the film as I have? I think many children will respond to some of the more adult themes of loss and acceptance as well as the central mystery around the metal automaton, but I fear some children will be bored to bits.
For me, however, Hugo was a beguiling, magical journey. One that harkens back to the days when family entertainment could be a simple story about a boy trying to find his way in the world – and the magic of the movies.
Grade: B+

Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots
The equation for good family entertainment is tricky. Too loud and cutesy will alienate paying parents, too snarky and topical and kids will get bored. What is the happy medium for family films? Hollywood knows a winner on its hands when it generates sequel after sequel to capitalize on that kernel of success. Shrek was such an immediate success that, certainly, parts 2, 3, and 4 would be produced. As the returns started to diminish, executives probably started to panic. I imagine a roundtable session to go something like this: Quick – let’s grab a cute character from the movie and give it a chance in the spotlight. Hmm – Donkey? No (Eddie Murphy is too expensive). Fiona? (Nope – that last Disney princess movie flopped). Uh – howsabout that cat then, you know, the one that talks funny.
And thus Puss in Boots was created.
I admit that when I heard about this movie I rolled my eyes and dismissed it as a cash grab to capitalize on a floundering franchise and, well, it is. But – surprise, surprise, if it isn’t a buoyant, lively, funny, astute cash grab. The premise is familiar to anyone who’s seen the Shrek films, but doesn’t require any prior knowledge. Characters from oft-told fairy tales interact with one another in a twisted, modernist way. Puss (Antonio Banderas) is an anthropomorphized cat that is wrongfully accused of robbing his hometown, all the while working with his old pal Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifinakis), evading the murderous Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) and wooing a mysterious femme fatale, Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek). Puss’s lively backstory is told as a Spaghetti Western with swordfights, outlaws, and wagon chases. Contrasting this, Puss’s current quest for the Goose that lays golden eggs is a bright, vibrant fairy tale with beanstalks, giants, and one angry mama goose.
Whereas Shrek was about wink wink references for adults, Puss is a rather straightforward action/adventure starring a suave little kitty. The movie is funny without being sarcastic, exciting without being dumb, and just weird enough to distinguish itself from other talking animal pictures. I credit the voice casting with carrying a lot of the film (particularly Banderas and Hayek) as well as an assured, if somewhat heavy hand from director Chris Miller (who co-directed Shrek 3). At times, some of the requisite “lessons” can feel a bit forced and he tells a whopper of a backstory that clocks in at nearly 1/3 of the runtime – even Kitty Softpaws, to whom puss is telling his history, drifts off a bit.
I’m both impressed and a bit wary of the success of Puss in Boots as now movie studios can feel more confident churning out un-original original material (Dreamworks already has its eye on Puss 2); Pixar also has Planes on the schedule for next year (an off-shoot of its popular Cars franchise). How long before we see Slinky Dog: The Movie? It’s true, some of the most successful, both critically and commercially, animated films are sequels (Toy Story 3), but it’s the original material that most excites me. So while I will be waiting in line for How to Train Your Dragon 2, it’s films like next year’s ParaNorman and Wreck-It Ralph (both original ideas) that are marked on my calendar.

Grade for Erica: A-

Late Movie Review

Contagion
Dir. Stephen Soderbergh

Contagion is not Outbreak. Though Contagion does share the same basic premise as the 1996 virus action film starring Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo, the two movies are actually quite divergent. Whereas Outbreak was an explosive action movie hiding behind a virus, Contagion is an astute commentary on modern social culture…hiding behind a virus.
The film opens with Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) already infected. We don’t know with what or to what extreme, but the profuse sweating and flush skin are dead giveaways. We’ve all been in that sort of situation; felt sort of crummy so we decided to wait it out, drink some tea, stay in from work in our bathrobe and see what happens. Unfortunately, a mere three days after infection, poor Ms. Paltrow is writhing on the ground, foaming at the mouth and, well, dead. Then, the infection spreads. Through surprisingly accessible scientific speak, we are told the virus spreads from any form of contact. Picking up a glass, passing along a cell phone, a hug, a kiss, anything short of looking at someone will pass it along. From here, the movie diverges into multiple story arcs. One stays with Paltrow’s grieving widower (Matt Damon) as he tries to come to grips with his loss while protecting his remaining daughter. Scientist Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) is dispatched by CDC bigwig Dr. Ellis Cheever (Lawrence Fishbourne) to Minneapolis to discover the origin of Beth’s disease. Meanwhile, World Health Organization viruologist Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) is sent to Hong Kong to see if she can find clues in the last place Beth was seen healthy. All the while, batty blogger Alan Krumweide (Jude Law) is spreading dangerous theories on how the government is keeping an antidote simply for profit.
The stories ricochet off one another, but most of the characters interact with only the two or three people in their storyline. Matt Damon’s character never even knows that Marion Cotillard’s character exists. The cast is admittedly large and these types of hyperlink narratives (a phrase referencing the multiple-storyline structure popularized by Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inaritu) are tricky. Usually the audience becomes invested in one or two stories and the others feel underdeveloped and, certainly, some of the narratives here are more engaging than the other, but thanks to the strong acting by most all of the cast, we remain invested in their storylines. Jennifer Ehle as a driven scientist trying to find a cure is a standout for the deep sense of concern and duty she conveys in her simplest of glances.
I think Contagion stands as a very powerful movie for its honest approach to social disintegration. In Outbreak, the virus was Hollywood action. Dustin Hoffman must sprint to find the monkey that will save Rene Russo’s life! Earth-shattering bombs destroy an infected village in an orgy or pyrotechnics. Yet the virus was never contended with on a human level. Contagion, on the other hand, generates tension and, arguably, horror in its genuine approach to the degradation of society. When you look at modern societal horrors such as the riots in London, the earthquakes in Haiti or the floods of Japan, they don’t arrive with explosions or singular heroes dashing in to save the day, but escalate so slowly and severely that the ordinary citizen can’t help but be swept in. Contagion also makes the very strong connection to hysteria and our fascination with social networking. Jude Law’s Alan Krumweide takes to his video blog to champion the homeopathic quasi-cure forsythia while decrying the corruption of government and its commoditization of its citizens. Rather than dismiss Krumweide’s claims, the public labels him a profit and the movie makes it clear that these sort of polarizing claims can be as quick and dangerous (if not more so) than the disease itself. Ultimately, and I think again what points to the movie’s honesty, no one person saves the day and even the heroes make bad choices that could have saved millions of lives.
Contagion is an intelligent and socially relevant film that, thankfully, eschews explosions for real drama.
Grade for Erica: A-

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Genetically enhanced apes revolt and run amuck thanks to geneticist, James Franco. The notion alone is enough to elicit snickers and eye rolls. The entire premise of the Planet of the Apes franchise is entrenched in Sci-Fi giggledom. Humans dressed up in simian makeup, riding horses and subjugating primitive human-culture led by Charlton Heston is best known as kitschy, 60s camp. Hollywood most recently took a stab at a remake with Tim Burton’s (mostly) straightforward, if oddly generic, retooling in 2001. Wisely eschewing continuity with Burton’s film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a 100% reboot, starting from scratch and rewriting the primate history as a sort of cautionary tale of a scientist’s noble intentions gone, well, ape.
The film builds with a restrained attention to pace. There are very few mindless action scenes, no on runs through crowded streets jumping on cars or dodging traffic. Instead, the relationship between Franco’s Will and his chimp/adopted child Caesar. As Will continues to develop a cure to his father’s Alzheimer’s, his bond with Caesar grows. Eventually, due to a rather violent accident, Caesar is shipped to a primate holding facility where the seeds of revolution are planted.
Eventually, the premise washed over me and took me away, in part due to the nifty CG ape, Caesar. Filmed using motion capture and brought to life by Andy Serkis, Caesar is one of the strongest characters in the movie. Alas, as the premise builds, the apes finally attack on the Golden gate bridge. The action felt at once overdue and underwhelming. They jump, they climb, they YELL, they throw things. The humans shoot their guns, they sling their batons. I didn’t know who to root for. The apes in revolt or the dumb humans – knowing the trajectory of the franchise, you know the outcome before the movie even starts.
Of course, a new franchise is in mind and the film has a rather clever way of setting up the next film. Rise was made on a (relatively) modest budget, but given the financial success I’m guessing the subsequent films will receive a bigger budget. This usually equates to more apes, more fights, more scope, more scale, but probably will lose the emphasis on relationships that makes this movie so successful.

Captain America: The First Avenger

The summer of Super Heroes continues. Quick refresher: Thor, X-Men, Green Lantern. Some hits, some misses, some so mediocre I can’t remember what happened during them. And now we have the First Avenger – technically speaking I think Iron Man beat Cap to the punch but that’s neither here nor there.
Steve Rogers is a literal 90-pound weakling. He’s small and frail, but scrappy as hell. He may look like you can snap his neck but he has determination like no other! It’s that spark that draws Dr. Erskine to enlist Rogers in an experimental program turning him into a Supersoldier. Soon, a villain known as Red Skull appears and threatens our freedom – not if Captain America has anything to do about it.
The concept itself is nothing far off-base from your usual superhero pages. Captain America, however, has a different feel to it that sets it apart from other films in the genre. Everytime I see a superhero movie, I expect to be wowed from start to finish with explosions and effects. I practically crave having my breath taken away – yet Captain America has the plotting and staging of a smaller film. There are explosions and fights and computer generated effects out the wazzoo, that’s for sure, but there is also time talk, to plan, to reflect and to interact. There really is no big aw-gee setpiece that knocks your socks off, but instead the action happens in fits and starts. When you adjust your expectations accordingly, you’ll find a more rewarding experience.
Joe Johnston, who most recently directed the gory, effects-laden Wolfman, has imbued the film with an old-school 1940s feel. Had he not balanced the tone between campy and earnest, the whole film could have been and slipshodden, patriotic mess. Making sure the audience really feels like they are in the 40s, however, makes Rogers’s unwavering dedication to his country more digestible.
Chris Evans, in the title role, has a very wholesome, steely all-American look that makes him perfect for the role. He pants, he runs, he smacks bad guys with his shield with aplomb. Hayley Atwell as his British female partner is plucky and feisty and does her best to not be a damsel in distress. Hugo Weaving, however, steals the show whenever his red-skulled Johann Schmidt struts on screen. Weaving has a way of taking his dialogue and coating it in molasses – drawing out words and growling them with frightening menace.
Going into Captain America I had reservations: a grown muscled man draped in the America flag throwing a red, white and blue shield at Nazis? A bald, walking skull dipped in Firetruck red paint? Luckily, my fears were assuaged by the care and respect and touch of winking wit in the film.
The sequels have been all but guaranteed. In fact, production on The Avengers, the Marvel super team that includes Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and the aforementioned Captain, is well underway under the guidance of Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon. It’s hard to say whether future films starring Cap will be successful – we all had high hopes for Iron Man 2…until it came out. I, for one, will be crossing my fingers and holding my breath until May 2012 rolls around and we see if Marvel’s efforts pay off.