Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Shame.
Directed by Steve McQueen.
Written by Abi Morgan & Steve McQueen.
Review #151
MPAA Rating: NC-17 for some explicit sexual content.
Runtime: 101 min
Cast
Michael Fassbender ...Brandon Sullivan
Carey Mulligan ...Sissy Sullivan
James Badge Dale ...David Fisher
Nicole Beharie ...Marianne
Sibling rivalries. Whether you have one or not you know of them. Some are playful and some are unfortunately malicious. The thing that makes a sibling rivalry unique are the many forms they take combined with how it was created in the first place. Regardless of the reason, a sibling rivalry can drive a wedge between family members that can't be broken. It's sad but an undeniable side effect. It's even sadder when 1 sibling is responsible for driving the wedge between the other. Is this the main story point of Shame?
Yes. No. Maybe. That's why it's a great movie.
Plot
In New York City, Brandon's carefully cultivated private life, which allows him to indulge his sexual addiction is disrupted when his sister Cissy arrives unannounced for an indefinite stay.
The chatter surrounding this film revolved around 2 things. Both involving the same person. Michael Fassbender's performance and his very talked about frontal nudity. Let me clear the air for everyone here. Yes there are full frontal nude shots of him in the film but in NO way are they lingering. Reviews and audience opinions of the film compare his "exhibition" to a porn film and that's simply not true. Are the shots gratuitous? You can make a very valid argument. What they are more importantly are part of a very clever, well exectuted opening montage that introduces his character and his sex addiction.
It also establishes the relationship he has with Sissy.
It's this opening montage that sets up what was a very intense, complex but powerful performance. Fassbender achieves something with his dramatics that I haven't seen in a while. He conveys more saying nothing than with any syllable he uttered. He effectively gives us a man who is perfectly damaged. On the inside he's the total antithesis of what he portrays on the outside which is a Handsome, charming, sexy, confident man. Fassbender gets even better when he has to deal with Sissy's arrival. It's established pretty quickly that Brandon is comfortable living his life the way he is. Sissy comes in and upsets the established order and here is where the film gets good.
The relationship between Brandon and Sissy is in a word complicated.
This is possible by the equally wonderful performance by Carey Mulligan. She's the yin to Brandon's yang. Sissy is a free spirit that represents everything that Brandon isn't. Right from the moment he first sees her in his apartment which is a pretty "telling" scene, you can see immediately that Brandon doesn't want her there. He knows what her presence will do for him and his lifestyle. Mulligan does a masterful job pushing Brandon's buttons just enough to drive him to the edge but never over it.
Until......
Thought I was going to give something away huh? Just messing with ya.
The biggest asset to this movie is Steve McQueen. His only other directorial effort was the 2008's Hunger. Another pretty good film I would recommend also starring Fassbender. Coincidentally. McQueen's next film Twelve Years a Slave will also star Fassbender so a pretty nice tag team has been formed here. McQueen pulls no punches with the material. However, contrary to other reviews, critics and especially the MPAA, with exception of possibly 2 scenes, I didn't see anything here that warranted an NC-17 rating. I realize that the MPAA are a bunch of misguided conservative fools who have no clue how to properly rate a film but the reaction outside of the MPAA's bubble was surprising to me after I saw this movie.
Shame primarily concerns a man and his addiction to sex so that's what we get.
That's why I don't agree with the rating. Especially it's description. I have to reiterate that there are a couple of scenes that do toe the line between a hard R and and NC-17 rating but "explicit sexual content" doesn't jive with me. The supposed explicit content is IMPLIED but never fully exposed. I'm afraid this was another case of the stuffy suits at the Motion Picture Academy of America tagging a film because it's main subject is something they have historically been uncomfortable with.
Enough about my MPAA rant. Back to McQueen's mastery.
McQueen does a lot with so little. There's not much dialogue so character and plot development is acquired through the performances of the cast. This is why the praise for Fassbender and Mulligan is so high and rightfully so. McQueen let's his stars own their characters while maintaining their complexities created by him and co writer Abi Morgan. He also masters pacing and timing. There are several scenes that are filled with tension and anticipation. He achieved this using much more subtle techniques that I wished were in more films. Instead of using predictable music to set up what will eventually happen. He relies on the performance of his talent to drive the scene. He also doesn't cut away too soon. He let's a shot hang just long enough to create the feeling that the scene is supposed to give you. Then he gives you the break you need to breathe. This is expertly done in the very first scene of the film.
McQueen's greatest achievement comes at the film's climax (no pun intended). When the tension between Brandon and Sissy comes to a boil the predictable outcome ensues. What made it so awesome was the way it was executed. I won't say how but if you're paying attention you will see it. Then something happened after that scene that I didn't expect. McQueen pulled a fast one on me. I started to realize that the film's title has multiple meaning's for the film itself and for Brandon. Shame obviously applies to Brandon's sex addiction. It also applies to his lack of attention he gives Sissy. Instead of seeing her as his sister he sees her as a burden on his existence. To think that one can regard another family member like that for no other reason than the feeling of inconvenience is "Shame"ful. It was this realization that brings more weight to a film that seemed very matter of fact at the outset.
BRAVO!
On the 5 star scale. Shame gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
This was a hidden gem for me this year. I'm glad I was able to catch it before it disappeared. It definitely makes my top 10 films of 2011 list.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Welcome to a special episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
Directed by David Fincher.
Written by Steve Zaillian.
Based on the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Written by Steig Larsson.
Review #150
MPAA Rating: R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.
Runtime: 158 min
Cast
Daniel Craig ...Mikael Blomkvist
Rooney Mara ...Lisbeth Salander
Christopher Plummer ...Henrik Vanger
Stellan Skarsgård ...Martin Vanger
Steven Berkoff ...Frode
Robin Wright ...Erika Berger
Yorick van Wageningen ...Bjurman
Joely Richardson ...Anita Vanger
Geraldine James ...Cecilia
First off. I hope all of you had a very Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
Now on to the business of reviewing my 150th film which also happens to be one of the years best.
By now we all have heard about this film via the book or it's Swedish predecessor. History has told us that adapting films from books is very tricky. Only a handful could be considered true success stories. The others were colossal failures on every conceivable level. The team of Niels Arden Oplev, Nikolaj Arcel & Rasmus Heisterberg were able to capture the feel of the book with their film. To some, the critical acclaim is justified. To others like me the film was a disappointment. Not because of it's poor entertainment but due to it's potential. I however, seem to be in the minority of said opinion so with the great old USA taking a crack at it. We now have 2 versions to choose from.
Plot
This English-language adaptation of the Swedish novel by Stieg Larsson follows a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch's niece from 40 years ago. He is aided by the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander. As they work together in the investigation, Blomkvist and Salander uncover immense corruption beyond anything they have ever imagined.
A film of this nature can only be handled properly by a few people. It's a story filled with intrigue, mystery, suspense and violence. It's a story that's both entertaining and detestable at the same time. It's a very delicate balance that wasn't adhered to by Oplev's version of the book. He stayed faithful to the source material as did this version with 1 exception. The violence is scaled down here. The Swedish version of the book is far more gratuitous in depicting the brutality. That doesn't mean that Fincher's version is light. Not by any means am I saying that.
It just has a "cleaner" feel to it.
This is precisely why David Fincher was the PERFECT choice to direct this film. He has an amazing imagination and and uncanny ability to keep it real. In a manner of speaking. You look at his resume and with the exception of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Alien 3 there isn't a stinker in the bunch. Now before you Ben Button fans come after me let me clarify. The film wasn't bad when it comes to the technical aspects. It was for me dreadfully boring and an insult to every other film that had to compete with it for Best Picture. Now Alien 3 is an entirely different story. I'm actually wrong putting this film in his bad filmography because it's technically not his film. Creative differences between him and 20th Century Fox forced him away from the lens and out of the edit room thus losing the integrity of what his vision for the Alien universe should have been. Looking back on what he's accomplished since then I would be shocked if those idiots at FOX aren't kicking themselves.
And if they're not, they should be.
Fincher did the same thing with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo that he did with The Social Network. He took the source material. Respected it but made it his own. Because of that this version is FAR SUPERIOR to the Swedish version. There were some liberties taken from both the original film and the book, especially the ending which I will get to in a minute. The main point is that despite the little tweaks, the film stakes it's claim as it's own. In no way does this movie play like a remake, reboot or re-imagination. Fincher does mess with the chronology of events a bit but in my opinion it was a smart way to present, deal with and finish secondary storylines, leaving the rest of the time dedicated to the core plot. This was something I was pleased to see happen. The book has so many other side stories that it was going to be very difficult to manage them all in a film version. Fincher stripped them down to their very core and didn't waste time with semantics. As a result the film plays smoothly, smartly and quite nicely even at 2 and a half plus hours.
My only gripe would be with the ending which I mentioned earlier. I won't say what happens. Let's just say the final shot wasn't necessary for the story's sake. Having said that I realize why they ended the film the way they did.
I just didn't think they had to.
The ending is a nice segue to the cast. The all star cast I should say. This movie is loaded with some pretty impressive names. Leading off with the top 2. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Craig plays Blomkvist with a greater definition than Michael Nyqvist's interpretation of the character. Of course nobody really cares about Craig except for some of you ladies maybe. The real story here is Ms. SalanderNoomi Rapace's rendition of the famous hacker was too cool for school. She was a woman that was not to be messed with. Her character was so perfectly cast that you could compare it to the casting of Wolverine in the first X-Men film. If they got that wrong, the whole movie is done before it even starts.
This was the challenge for Fincher and his crew. They had to find their "Rapace" since she was not going to take part in this version. Nor should she. There were feelers out to everyone from Angelina Jolie (who would have made a pretty good Lisbeth by the way) to Scarlett Johansson (who would have been a TERRIBLE Lisbeth by the way). Fincher's choice was Rooney Mara. Needless to say she was a head scratching pick at first. A relative "unknown" in the film world, her biggest name film's were The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Instant buzz negative and positive were flowing after the announcement. Many felt she was not the right choice and it caused quite a stir. My feeling on this was pretty simple. It didn't matter who they got. They weren't going to be better than Rapace anyway. Why bother with the comparison's. So does Rooney make you forget about Noomi?
HELL NO! But that's OK because that wasn't her job. It was Mara's job to make Lisbeth right for THIS film.
Mara does the same thing with the character that Fincher does with the film. She respects the source material but makes Lisbeth her own. Her own person. There is a pretty noticeable difference between the Salander's. Rapace's Lisbeth is far more closed off and emotionless than Mara's Lisbeth. Mara plays Lisbeth with a hint of helplessness that you don't feel when you see Rapace's Lisbeth. This is clearly a byproduct of the script. Zaillian and Fincher humanized Lisbeth a little more in their version and it actually worked. I enjoyed Mara's Lisbeth as much as I enjoyed Rapace's Lisbeth. Each woman did a great job making the character their own.
The rest of the cast was superb. I can't say why because some of their descriptions would give a way plot info if you haven't seen the film yet or the original or read the book.
As a result I will call it a wrap for fear of accidentally spilling something I shouldn't.
On the 5 star scale. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie for a while now. They got the right people to play in it and most of all they got the right man to make it. Fincher does it again. I just hope he comes back to make The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Adventures of Tintin.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
Directed by David Fincher.
Written by Steve Zaillian.
Based on the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Written by Steig Larsson.
Review #150
MPAA Rating: R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.
Runtime: 158 min
Cast
Daniel Craig ...Mikael Blomkvist
Rooney Mara ...Lisbeth Salander
Christopher Plummer ...Henrik Vanger
Stellan Skarsgård ...Martin Vanger
Steven Berkoff ...Frode
Robin Wright ...Erika Berger
Yorick van Wageningen ...Bjurman
Joely Richardson ...Anita Vanger
Geraldine James ...Cecilia
First off. I hope all of you had a very Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
Now on to the business of reviewing my 150th film which also happens to be one of the years best.
By now we all have heard about this film via the book or it's Swedish predecessor. History has told us that adapting films from books is very tricky. Only a handful could be considered true success stories. The others were colossal failures on every conceivable level. The team of Niels Arden Oplev, Nikolaj Arcel & Rasmus Heisterberg were able to capture the feel of the book with their film. To some, the critical acclaim is justified. To others like me the film was a disappointment. Not because of it's poor entertainment but due to it's potential. I however, seem to be in the minority of said opinion so with the great old USA taking a crack at it. We now have 2 versions to choose from.
Plot
This English-language adaptation of the Swedish novel by Stieg Larsson follows a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch's niece from 40 years ago. He is aided by the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander. As they work together in the investigation, Blomkvist and Salander uncover immense corruption beyond anything they have ever imagined.
A film of this nature can only be handled properly by a few people. It's a story filled with intrigue, mystery, suspense and violence. It's a story that's both entertaining and detestable at the same time. It's a very delicate balance that wasn't adhered to by Oplev's version of the book. He stayed faithful to the source material as did this version with 1 exception. The violence is scaled down here. The Swedish version of the book is far more gratuitous in depicting the brutality. That doesn't mean that Fincher's version is light. Not by any means am I saying that.
It just has a "cleaner" feel to it.
This is precisely why David Fincher was the PERFECT choice to direct this film. He has an amazing imagination and and uncanny ability to keep it real. In a manner of speaking. You look at his resume and with the exception of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Alien 3 there isn't a stinker in the bunch. Now before you Ben Button fans come after me let me clarify. The film wasn't bad when it comes to the technical aspects. It was for me dreadfully boring and an insult to every other film that had to compete with it for Best Picture. Now Alien 3 is an entirely different story. I'm actually wrong putting this film in his bad filmography because it's technically not his film. Creative differences between him and 20th Century Fox forced him away from the lens and out of the edit room thus losing the integrity of what his vision for the Alien universe should have been. Looking back on what he's accomplished since then I would be shocked if those idiots at FOX aren't kicking themselves.
And if they're not, they should be.
Fincher did the same thing with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo that he did with The Social Network. He took the source material. Respected it but made it his own. Because of that this version is FAR SUPERIOR to the Swedish version. There were some liberties taken from both the original film and the book, especially the ending which I will get to in a minute. The main point is that despite the little tweaks, the film stakes it's claim as it's own. In no way does this movie play like a remake, reboot or re-imagination. Fincher does mess with the chronology of events a bit but in my opinion it was a smart way to present, deal with and finish secondary storylines, leaving the rest of the time dedicated to the core plot. This was something I was pleased to see happen. The book has so many other side stories that it was going to be very difficult to manage them all in a film version. Fincher stripped them down to their very core and didn't waste time with semantics. As a result the film plays smoothly, smartly and quite nicely even at 2 and a half plus hours.
My only gripe would be with the ending which I mentioned earlier. I won't say what happens. Let's just say the final shot wasn't necessary for the story's sake. Having said that I realize why they ended the film the way they did.
I just didn't think they had to.
The ending is a nice segue to the cast. The all star cast I should say. This movie is loaded with some pretty impressive names. Leading off with the top 2. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Craig plays Blomkvist with a greater definition than Michael Nyqvist's interpretation of the character. Of course nobody really cares about Craig except for some of you ladies maybe. The real story here is Ms. SalanderNoomi Rapace's rendition of the famous hacker was too cool for school. She was a woman that was not to be messed with. Her character was so perfectly cast that you could compare it to the casting of Wolverine in the first X-Men film. If they got that wrong, the whole movie is done before it even starts.
This was the challenge for Fincher and his crew. They had to find their "Rapace" since she was not going to take part in this version. Nor should she. There were feelers out to everyone from Angelina Jolie (who would have made a pretty good Lisbeth by the way) to Scarlett Johansson (who would have been a TERRIBLE Lisbeth by the way). Fincher's choice was Rooney Mara. Needless to say she was a head scratching pick at first. A relative "unknown" in the film world, her biggest name film's were The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Instant buzz negative and positive were flowing after the announcement. Many felt she was not the right choice and it caused quite a stir. My feeling on this was pretty simple. It didn't matter who they got. They weren't going to be better than Rapace anyway. Why bother with the comparison's. So does Rooney make you forget about Noomi?
HELL NO! But that's OK because that wasn't her job. It was Mara's job to make Lisbeth right for THIS film.
Mara does the same thing with the character that Fincher does with the film. She respects the source material but makes Lisbeth her own. Her own person. There is a pretty noticeable difference between the Salander's. Rapace's Lisbeth is far more closed off and emotionless than Mara's Lisbeth. Mara plays Lisbeth with a hint of helplessness that you don't feel when you see Rapace's Lisbeth. This is clearly a byproduct of the script. Zaillian and Fincher humanized Lisbeth a little more in their version and it actually worked. I enjoyed Mara's Lisbeth as much as I enjoyed Rapace's Lisbeth. Each woman did a great job making the character their own.
The rest of the cast was superb. I can't say why because some of their descriptions would give a way plot info if you haven't seen the film yet or the original or read the book.
As a result I will call it a wrap for fear of accidentally spilling something I shouldn't.
On the 5 star scale. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie for a while now. They got the right people to play in it and most of all they got the right man to make it. Fincher does it again. I just hope he comes back to make The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Adventures of Tintin.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.
Written by Michele & Kieran Mulroney.
Based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Review #149
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.
Runtime: 129 min
Cast
Robert Downey Jr. ... Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law ... Dr. John Watson
Noomi Rapace ... Madam Simza Heron
Rachel McAdams ... Irene Adler
Jared Harris ... Professor James Moriarty
Stephen Fry ... Mycroft Holmes
Paul Anderson ... Colonel Sebastian Moran
Kelly Reilly ... Mary Watson
Geraldine James ... Mrs. Hudson
Eddie Marsan ... Inspector Lestrade
William Houston ... Constable Clark
At this time last year we were introduced to a new breed of super hero. Sherlock Holmes. Some of you may debate the super hero label but make no mistake. Sherlock Holmes is a super hero. What defines a super hero? The official definition plays too much to comic books and cartoons so I'll define it myself.
Superhero - Someone who possesses extraordinary abilities beyond that of the normal populace.
If you go by this logic then Sherlock Holmes was the ultimate superhero because he was grounded in reality. His power was his uncanny ability to out think the out thinkable. It didn't hurt that he was a bad ass fighter too boot. This is what Guy Ritchie's 2010 Sherlock Holmes gave us. An entertaining and refreshing look at the ever popular detective. Of course the success of the first meant naturally that a sequel was on the way.
Does this one live up to the reputation it's predecessor set?
Plot
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.
If you recall the end of the first film. It obviously sets up the premise of this new entry to the franchise. This time Sherlock is matched up against someone of equal intelligence in the form of Professor James Moriarty. It's here where the film excels. It was a lot of fun watching these 2 savants goat at each other tooth and nail. Each man at one point would best the other and so on and so forth. This rivalry was well crafted and executed by Downey Jr. Jared Harris and Guy Ritchie. The fact that Holmes was up against someone who could match him with wits was a nice change up to the first film. There was no real sense of failure on Holmes' part because everyone else in the film including Watson was not on his level.
With that not being the case here Holmes was broken. In fact the journey his character takes against Moriarty is quite akin to how The Joker tore Batman down in The Dark Knight. The seemingly unbeatable was in fact fallible. It was a dark turn for a very popular literary character whose exploits fare more on the adventure side. Speaking of adventure. There was quite of it and it was rather impressive and entertaining. We get more of Holmes rather stylish sleuthing, mixed with some pretty good fight choreography. Ritchie employs his trademark over cranked footage cut sharply between live takes to give that bullet time look only on steroids. He's used that style in many of his films and it's served him very well. It gets the job done nicely here and it's not overused.
This was the good. Here's the not so good.
This film impresses and entertains with it's 2 main characters. That of course is a great thing. The problem is the need to have other characters essential to the mythology be present to contribute to the narrative. The other characters including Watson weigh the film down. Their only purpose is to be around for Holmes to protect or save. Noomi Rapace's character is a waste of time. Her only reason for existence is to play exposition girl. That's really too bad because such a talented woman doesn't deserve to play 3rd or 4th fiddle to anyone. The reintroduction of old characters coupled with the addition of new ones also inflate the film's run time. At a shade over 2 hours, it plays a lot longer than that. This is the film's biggest problem. It's not an over saturation of characters like in say Spiderman 3. But it was getting close. Fortunately that was avoided.
Just barely.
On the 5 star scale. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
I have been looking forward to this one since I heard that Fincher was directing it. I can't wait to see how he manages to make this film his own since the Swedish version was so amazing. More importantly, this upcoming review will be my 150th.
I finally made my goal for the year. 50 films. And not soon enough as we approach 2012.
Until Next Epiode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.
Written by Michele & Kieran Mulroney.
Based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Review #149
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.
Runtime: 129 min
Cast
Robert Downey Jr. ... Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law ... Dr. John Watson
Noomi Rapace ... Madam Simza Heron
Rachel McAdams ... Irene Adler
Jared Harris ... Professor James Moriarty
Stephen Fry ... Mycroft Holmes
Paul Anderson ... Colonel Sebastian Moran
Kelly Reilly ... Mary Watson
Geraldine James ... Mrs. Hudson
Eddie Marsan ... Inspector Lestrade
William Houston ... Constable Clark
At this time last year we were introduced to a new breed of super hero. Sherlock Holmes. Some of you may debate the super hero label but make no mistake. Sherlock Holmes is a super hero. What defines a super hero? The official definition plays too much to comic books and cartoons so I'll define it myself.
Superhero - Someone who possesses extraordinary abilities beyond that of the normal populace.
If you go by this logic then Sherlock Holmes was the ultimate superhero because he was grounded in reality. His power was his uncanny ability to out think the out thinkable. It didn't hurt that he was a bad ass fighter too boot. This is what Guy Ritchie's 2010 Sherlock Holmes gave us. An entertaining and refreshing look at the ever popular detective. Of course the success of the first meant naturally that a sequel was on the way.
Does this one live up to the reputation it's predecessor set?
Plot
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.
If you recall the end of the first film. It obviously sets up the premise of this new entry to the franchise. This time Sherlock is matched up against someone of equal intelligence in the form of Professor James Moriarty. It's here where the film excels. It was a lot of fun watching these 2 savants goat at each other tooth and nail. Each man at one point would best the other and so on and so forth. This rivalry was well crafted and executed by Downey Jr. Jared Harris and Guy Ritchie. The fact that Holmes was up against someone who could match him with wits was a nice change up to the first film. There was no real sense of failure on Holmes' part because everyone else in the film including Watson was not on his level.
With that not being the case here Holmes was broken. In fact the journey his character takes against Moriarty is quite akin to how The Joker tore Batman down in The Dark Knight. The seemingly unbeatable was in fact fallible. It was a dark turn for a very popular literary character whose exploits fare more on the adventure side. Speaking of adventure. There was quite of it and it was rather impressive and entertaining. We get more of Holmes rather stylish sleuthing, mixed with some pretty good fight choreography. Ritchie employs his trademark over cranked footage cut sharply between live takes to give that bullet time look only on steroids. He's used that style in many of his films and it's served him very well. It gets the job done nicely here and it's not overused.
This was the good. Here's the not so good.
This film impresses and entertains with it's 2 main characters. That of course is a great thing. The problem is the need to have other characters essential to the mythology be present to contribute to the narrative. The other characters including Watson weigh the film down. Their only purpose is to be around for Holmes to protect or save. Noomi Rapace's character is a waste of time. Her only reason for existence is to play exposition girl. That's really too bad because such a talented woman doesn't deserve to play 3rd or 4th fiddle to anyone. The reintroduction of old characters coupled with the addition of new ones also inflate the film's run time. At a shade over 2 hours, it plays a lot longer than that. This is the film's biggest problem. It's not an over saturation of characters like in say Spiderman 3. But it was getting close. Fortunately that was avoided.
Just barely.
On the 5 star scale. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
I have been looking forward to this one since I heard that Fincher was directing it. I can't wait to see how he manages to make this film his own since the Swedish version was so amazing. More importantly, this upcoming review will be my 150th.
I finally made my goal for the year. 50 films. And not soon enough as we approach 2012.
Until Next Epiode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Directed by Brad Bird.
Written by Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec.
Based on the television series Mission Impossible created by Bruce Gellar.
Review #148
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Tom Cruise ... Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner ... Brandt
Simon Pegg ... Benji
Paula Patton ... Jane
Michael Nyqvist ... Hendricks
Samuli Edelmann ... Wistrom
Anil Kapoor ... Brij Nath
Léa Seydoux ... Sabine Moreau
Josh Holloway ... Hanaway
Miraj Grbic ... Bogdan
Hello everyone. After a few months away. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! And with a vengeance! So without any further adieu. Here we go.
Movie franchises are in many ways fun, entertaining, engaging, complicated, expensive, controversial, risky and most of all DANGEROUS! The popularity of a film can at times turn the creative wheel into a printing press for the almighty dollar. The perception that dominates the minds of Joe Hollywood is that if a good film makes money then 4 or 5 more will do the same. Does that sophomoric thinking actually work?
Sure it does. But there have been countless failures that outnumber the successes. Why is this the case? It's actually quite simple if you break it down to the very core of the issue. The blueprint that made the first film of the franchise is rarely if ever followed with it's subsequent sequels. The end results end up being flat, underwhelming retreads that may do well at the box office but fail to deliver what we true cinema fans pay our hard earned money for.
ENTERTAINMENT!
The point of this ramble is to bring it to the Mission Impossible franchise. This particular group of films illustrate my argument. The first film was a masterpiece in espionage and mystery. The follow up was an abomination of epic proportions. After several years. The powers that be felt it necessary to revive the IMF force. Enter uber-geek J.J. Abrams and his rejuvenation of the Mission Impossible mythology. He did the smart thing and took elements of the previous installments and made a fluffy but entertaining film. And so we now come to this. After appearing to be done with the exploits of Ethan Hunt. We have been invited to once again see if the world's craziest super agent can save the world.
Plot
The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name.
The first thing to take away from this film is the direction of Brad Bird. If the name sounds familiar it's because it should. But not for the reasons you may be thinking. Bird has directed 3 very critically acclaimed, popular and not to mention high grossing films. The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He was also a writer on The Simpsons when it was in it's heyday. So the announcement of Bird being hired to take over for Abrams in the chair for the latest Mission was odd to say the least. His ability to delve into live action was questioned almost immediately. Well people the questions have been answered. Bird nailed this film at almost every level. The one he didn't excel at is the film's biggest problem.
The story.
It's in a word flat. The plot is very to the point and vague at the same time which I thought was impossible. But the script pulls it off. Please don't confuse my comments to suggest that the story sucked. It didn't. It just didn't impress. At least not for a Mission Impossible film. I do realize that the series both TV and film is known for it's hyperbolic tendencies. High octane action with some intricate spy stuff mixed in with a little character development to top it off. But these last 2 features rely too much on the eye candy and not enough "intelligence." You get just enough espionage to remind you that you're not just watching car chases and bullets flying for 2 hours.
Shame.
On the plus side however, the action showcased in Ghost Protocol is top notch and very suspenseful. This is one of the areas that Bird knocked out of the park. Every single fight, chase, recon assignment carried a sense of over the top fun that reminds you why you like action films in the first place. The scene where Ethan scales the hotel in Dubai would make Spiderman piss in his pants. It was one of the greatest action scenes I've seen to date in recent memory. The suspense is magnified 100 fold when seen in IMAX. This is the best complement I can give that scene. It's on par with the scene in the original film when Ethan breaks into Langley and steals the Noc list. In terms of the danger and suspense it exhibited, there's no greater praise.
The film as a whole is very entertaining. I enjoyed it a whole lot. The issue I have after seeing it is, was it necessary to make this one in the first place? The answer is yes and no. Which we all know is the dilemma we all face as movie goers. As long as these films continue to make money. More films are going to be made.
Your mission....should you choose to accept it. Is to decide if these sequels are worth both your time and money.
I've already made my decision. What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Directed by Brad Bird.
Written by Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec.
Based on the television series Mission Impossible created by Bruce Gellar.
Review #148
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Tom Cruise ... Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner ... Brandt
Simon Pegg ... Benji
Paula Patton ... Jane
Michael Nyqvist ... Hendricks
Samuli Edelmann ... Wistrom
Anil Kapoor ... Brij Nath
Léa Seydoux ... Sabine Moreau
Josh Holloway ... Hanaway
Miraj Grbic ... Bogdan
Hello everyone. After a few months away. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! And with a vengeance! So without any further adieu. Here we go.
Movie franchises are in many ways fun, entertaining, engaging, complicated, expensive, controversial, risky and most of all DANGEROUS! The popularity of a film can at times turn the creative wheel into a printing press for the almighty dollar. The perception that dominates the minds of Joe Hollywood is that if a good film makes money then 4 or 5 more will do the same. Does that sophomoric thinking actually work?
Sure it does. But there have been countless failures that outnumber the successes. Why is this the case? It's actually quite simple if you break it down to the very core of the issue. The blueprint that made the first film of the franchise is rarely if ever followed with it's subsequent sequels. The end results end up being flat, underwhelming retreads that may do well at the box office but fail to deliver what we true cinema fans pay our hard earned money for.
ENTERTAINMENT!
The point of this ramble is to bring it to the Mission Impossible franchise. This particular group of films illustrate my argument. The first film was a masterpiece in espionage and mystery. The follow up was an abomination of epic proportions. After several years. The powers that be felt it necessary to revive the IMF force. Enter uber-geek J.J. Abrams and his rejuvenation of the Mission Impossible mythology. He did the smart thing and took elements of the previous installments and made a fluffy but entertaining film. And so we now come to this. After appearing to be done with the exploits of Ethan Hunt. We have been invited to once again see if the world's craziest super agent can save the world.
Plot
The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name.
The first thing to take away from this film is the direction of Brad Bird. If the name sounds familiar it's because it should. But not for the reasons you may be thinking. Bird has directed 3 very critically acclaimed, popular and not to mention high grossing films. The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He was also a writer on The Simpsons when it was in it's heyday. So the announcement of Bird being hired to take over for Abrams in the chair for the latest Mission was odd to say the least. His ability to delve into live action was questioned almost immediately. Well people the questions have been answered. Bird nailed this film at almost every level. The one he didn't excel at is the film's biggest problem.
The story.
It's in a word flat. The plot is very to the point and vague at the same time which I thought was impossible. But the script pulls it off. Please don't confuse my comments to suggest that the story sucked. It didn't. It just didn't impress. At least not for a Mission Impossible film. I do realize that the series both TV and film is known for it's hyperbolic tendencies. High octane action with some intricate spy stuff mixed in with a little character development to top it off. But these last 2 features rely too much on the eye candy and not enough "intelligence." You get just enough espionage to remind you that you're not just watching car chases and bullets flying for 2 hours.
Shame.
On the plus side however, the action showcased in Ghost Protocol is top notch and very suspenseful. This is one of the areas that Bird knocked out of the park. Every single fight, chase, recon assignment carried a sense of over the top fun that reminds you why you like action films in the first place. The scene where Ethan scales the hotel in Dubai would make Spiderman piss in his pants. It was one of the greatest action scenes I've seen to date in recent memory. The suspense is magnified 100 fold when seen in IMAX. This is the best complement I can give that scene. It's on par with the scene in the original film when Ethan breaks into Langley and steals the Noc list. In terms of the danger and suspense it exhibited, there's no greater praise.
The film as a whole is very entertaining. I enjoyed it a whole lot. The issue I have after seeing it is, was it necessary to make this one in the first place? The answer is yes and no. Which we all know is the dilemma we all face as movie goers. As long as these films continue to make money. More films are going to be made.
Your mission....should you choose to accept it. Is to decide if these sequels are worth both your time and money.
I've already made my decision. What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)