“Mission Impossible; Ghost Protocol” or fun, fun for the fourth time.

Well that was fun.  I liked this, even though it is a fourth installment.  Tom Cruise knows how to deliver on the non-stop action, and Brad Bird’s signature is there to see in the looks of all the action sequences.

As with past MI movies the action sequences have to deliver bigger more adrenaline filled thrills.  This time though instead of using faster cars, trains or automobiles the action is more about individual, physical challenges.  Because of this there are no big impossible action sequences where Tom is hanging from the wing of a jet, or some other improbable location.  This is refreshing; instead they rely on added elements like the big storm in the middle that adds excitement to what would normally be just a car chase.  In this way, thinking outside the box MI4 delivers. 

The locations are exotic and the actors, solid. Though both Michael Nyquist and Anil Kapoor, come off a little clichéd as the Swedish dissident and the Indian playboy respectively.  It is a little as though the casting director was told to find the most visible actor from Sweden and India and automatically cast them.  These are small caveats though, for the most part the story moves along well and the action is the star.  If the ending is a little cheesy, well, Tom has earned his cheese, and it is all in the name of wrapping up a secondary story line, so it plays.

All in all I say yes to Ghost Protocol and to all of those MI movies to come.  As long as they can keep the action solid and the stunts fresh they will have an audience.

“Hugo” or you know how Family Guy starts out with one story but changes to another?

Well, I didn’t know much about this film before I went so I didn’t really have expectations, except that it was a Scorsese film and thus must have some substance.  And I think the film lived up to that, but, I don’t know, something was just a little off.

I liked the initial tone of the film, it reminded me a bit of Amelie, with the nice Parisian setting, musical score, and band of quirky characters.  But it didn’t really develop those stories very well.  The main story line about Hugo, the boy who secretly lives in the walls of the train station, doing a grown man’s job, but stealing food, because he doesn’t get paid for it, seems a little contrived.  The first half of the film especially, seems chock full of clichés.   The story is stuffed with interesting characters with underdeveloped story lines: an awkward station inspector with the creaky leg brace, (which you know immediately Hugo will have to replace to make good) the pretty flower vendor he has a crush on, the café owner, whose little dog keeps scaring off her potential suitor, the news vendor and the cranky toy vendor who treats Hugo badly. These stories contain nothing that you don’t see coming a mile away.

Hugo himself has a standard orphan story; his father has died leaving him only a broken (rather creepy) automaton, which Hugo feels compelled to fix in a futile effort to communicate with his dead father. 

The story moves along in a pretty familiar way, Hugo trying to resurrect the automaton and reconnect with his father and then bam! the movie takes a complete turn, and the second half becomes a commercial for the motion picture academy’s film preservation efforts.  Don’t get me wrong, I think that film preservation is a VERY important cause, but it just jarred me out of the movie.  Following a huge coincidence the story line about Hugo’s father disappears and refocuses on the toy vendor. 

Now don’t get me wrong, the film has beautiful production values, and the actors are all very good, but I left feeling like I had missed something,  The film felt disjointed and unsure of its direction.  In the end I was left saying, mmmmmm I’m just not sure what to make of that.

“Twilight, Breaking Dawn” or why do I keep watching this crap?

Well, for some inexplicable reason I went to see “Breaking Dawn”.  (I blame it on Taylor Lautner.)  And it was pretty much as expected, Bella obsesses, Edward guilts, and Jacob rages.  I hoped for something more engrossing.  But I was doomed to disappointment.

The movie cut straight to the chase, as it were.  Starting right off with Bella and Edwards wedding, then to the honeymoon, and pregnancy.  All of this felt very padded for time.  The entire story could have been covered in a thirty-minute review.  But in true Harry Potter franchise fashion the producers wanted to milk the story for a two-movie deal.

The majority of the movie is spent watching Bella turn in to a human skeleton as her apparently unnatural offspring sucks her life away from the inside.  Even the book’s big moment the “imprinting” is kind of a throw away.

Also, the CGI is bad, a movie this big should be ashamed of itself for skimping on the effects budget.  And the story is nothing, if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn’t waste my time.

“The Muppets” or man, I miss Jim Hensen

Well, I have to give him credit; Jason Segel has managed to capture the sweet, gentle, charming, but ironic tone of the Muppets.   For at fan like me who grew up, first with Sesame Street and later loved The Muppet Show this was a trip down sentimental movie lane. 

The first half hour in particular was designed to tug at the heartstrings of Muppet lovers, as the movie takes you down memory lane with the newest Muppet character, Walter.  Walter and his brother Gary, played with great earnestness by Segel, are long time fans of the Muppets.  Walter, in particular derives much of his self-confidence from his identification with the Muppets and the Muppet Show.  When Gary decides to take his long, long time girlfriend (Amy Archer, in her usual charming form) to Hollywood for their anniversary, he takes Walter along so that they can both realize their dream of seeing the Muppet theatre.

In usual Muppet fashion, a road trip ensues in which both Walter and Gary learn about themselves and their place in the world.

Studded with star cameos (the most memorable being The Big Bang Theory’s Jim Parsons), “The Muppets” follows the tried and true Muppet formula quite successfully.  I left the show a little teary and nostalgic, remembering what made me love the Muppets so much.

“Immortals” or can I get a side of man candy with that?

Well, I really liked this movie.  Honestly I wasn’t sure I would.  These days when so much is sunk into the effects the movie can suffer.  But this movie was beautiful and brutal.  Sometimes it reminded me in atmosphere of the movie “Titus” with Sir Anthony Hopkins (another movie I HIGHLY recommend).  The costumes and the sets were especially superb. 

The story was cohesive and made sense, a real bonus in this kind of action movie.  There were moments of hyper violence, but not at the expense of the story.  In fact some of the violence was quite balletic.  I found myself mesmerized by a Titan whose body was cut in two, as the top and bottom halves of the body spun slowly in opposite directions, it was fantastic.

The actors were interesting too. Often when you have a period film like this and you have name actors, they sometimes take you out of the moment, and do not seem authentic to the period. In this movie Mickey Rourke, Stephen Dorff and John Hurt, all great actors, but not especially period actors (except for Hurt) were all seamlessly believable. 

The lead actor  Henry Cavill as Theseus, was great, as was Frieda Pinto as the oracle.  And of course everyone was beautiful.  The gods were especially well portrayed and costumed.  I definitely recommend this one.  Though, as usual lately, I think the 3D was a waste of money, and detracted more than added to the movie. 

“Abduction” or the baby bourne identity

Well, I don’t have a ton to say about this one.  It was as cheesy as a double cheese pizza, with a stuffed crust.  The dialogue was pretty bad, not funny bad just kind of stiff and obvious. Even Taylor Lautner’s charm was no match for it. You may remember I mentioned in my blog about “Drive” not needing obvious dialogue or exposition, this movie was the complete opposite of that.  All of the dialogue was over explanatory and just, Duh!! That is so obvious!  

The acting in general was kind of flat, but I think that may have been a result of the bad writing.  Sigourney Weaver, and Alfred Molina, both fine performers were not that interesting.  The love interest, played by Lily Collins (Phil Collins’ daughter) seemed to be channeling Lindsey Lohan, or at least she stole her hair.  All of her acting seemed to be done with her eyebrows.  

The actions scenes were pretty good, but the story lacked mystery. They pretty much told you everything early in the movie.  The only thing that was really intense about the movie was Taylor and Lilly making out a bit hot and heavy.  It was actually a little jarring, how hot the kissing scenes were amidst all the rest of the blahness, it made them seem a bit inappropriate, especially if the audience was meant to be the “Twilight” crowd, which is what it seemed to be made for.

In the end everything about this movie was just too obvious, the dialogue, the music, even some of Lautner’s gestures seem overdone or over calculated.  The story was totally forgettable; I had lost most of it before I even left the theatre.  I like Taylor Lautner, he is awfully pretty, but even that was not enough to save this film from it’s bad script.

"Ides of March" or how to win with Ryan Gosling

     Once again, George Clooney delivers a solid political film.  However, Ryan Gosling, my lover boy ; ) steals the show.  The film itself is not a taut political thriller; it is more of a work-a-day guide to political campaigning. 

This cast is a solid troupe of Oscar winners and should be winners (I’m talking about you, Paul Giamantti), and all the performances are very solid.

The story is a very basic indictment of the modern political environment; how the system itself is designed to force candidates into dirty politics.  They only way to win, in our system, is to cheat, seems to be the message Clooney is sending us.

Gosling is wonderful as usual as a seasoned media consultant, who’s slight cynicism has been eclipsed by his enthusiasm for his candidate, whom he views as the real thing; a presidential candidate who really cares about the good of the country and is willing to stand up for what is right.  Gosling’s character really believes in what he is doing and is excited and optimistic about the future of the country.  That part is a bit derivative of the inspiration generated by Obama’s hope campaign.  The not too subtle allusions to Obama are everywhere, beginning with Clooney’s campaign poster straight from Obama’s graphic artist.

Gosling is drawn into a series of situations in which he tries to do the right thing, as he is slowly disillusioned by his candidate’s true behavior.  From there he is blocked at every turn and this leads him to act in desperation, becoming what he thought he was avoiding.  In the end he is willing to do all the wrong things to get his candidate into office, in the hope that Clooney will still do the right thing, despite his feet of clay.

Perhaps the most fantastical element of the story is Clooney’s character; a presidential candidate running, and winning with a platform based on education, no dependence on oil, freedom of choice and a refusal to kowtow to the religious right.  Oh how I wish it were true!