The Artist

As a rare (mostly) silent film, The Artist is forced to balance the norms of the almost extinct form with contemporary filmmaking. Jean Dujardin stars as George Valentin, a silent film star in the late 1920s. When talking pictures burst onto the scene, he encounters resistance to the old form and watches a young actress (Berenice Bejo) rise to prominence as he attempts to stay in the spotlight. Since the movie is a silent film about silent films, there is a layered sense that The Artist is proving the point that George is trying to make to those around him. Yes, silent films can be progressive and fresh. Maybe it just took us 80 years of movies with sound to realize it.

The use of over-the-top expressions by the actors can at first come across as campy, though once the film settles in, they are appropriate and necessary. In many aspects there are moments of feeling out the process, since the norm is so different from how things were in the late 20s. With that being said, modern filmmaking proves kind to this silent film, as is seen with sharp contrast in the black and white and the powerful lighting.

Taking out all of the specifics regarding sound and color, The Artist is an interesting story full of strong storytelling and quality characters. The film would likely appeal to moviegoers from any point in the last 80 years. The addition of a heroically loyal dog and dance numbers keep the mood balanced between high drama and comic airiness. This compromise is likely to please the dark minds of award show voters as well as the (usually) more fun-loving common folk. The Artist is a unique film experience. Following Hugo as a movie addressing the goings-on of film history, there is a case to revisit the silent form on occasion after the stunning success in this instance. (9.4 out of 10)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Giant 70’s glasses have never looked as cool as they do in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Taking place in the appropriate decade for those glasses, the story is about a retired British intelligence agent (Gary Oldman) who is hired to find a well-placed mole inside MI6. With an impressive collection of British actors starring in the film, there was little doubt about the integrity of the project and the quality of the script. In addition to Oldman’s strong showing, it’s hard to pick out which of the support was strongest. From Colin Firth and Toby Jones to Mark Strong, the star power is impressively balanced, with all characters developing well. Benedict Cumberbatch also deserves mentioning as his name is growing in popularity after a string of impressive roles.

Tinker has the strong sense of classic espionage thrillers. There is no need for fast-paced chase scenes because the tension is already there. All the characters have a seedy sense to them that gives credit to how authentic the film comes across. Even when Oldman’s character goes for the first twenty minutes or so without a line, there is a strong sense of personality and a look into how the job impacts people. Thumbing through files and research has never been so intriguing.

After being introduced by an extremely compelling trailer, there is a case of misleading identity with Tinker. This is not a James Bond film. It takes a while to understand the twists and turns, and there is even the potential that some will need a second viewing in order to be followed. But for those willing to put in the work, this view into realistic, character driven espionage is a rewarding experience. I will now come up with cool code names for all of my friends. But I’m thinking they’ll probably end up sounding more like Transformers than MI6 agents. (9.3 out of 10)

War Horse

Following a resilient horse and his journey from farm life in rural England to the trenches of World War I, War Horse is Stephen Spielberg’s entry into the award season shuffle. The horse called Joey experiences a number of episodes, which coincide with the difficulties of war. But even though the horse is the lead, he mainly acts as a marker to bring the audience to different sets of characters and different perspectives. It is a fairly ambitious idea that comes across as well developed and genuine at all times. Plus, who knew that a horse’s actions could provide so much emotion?

A long film, War Horse is a story that needs that time to build up the audience’s emotion. There are so many casualties in the film that this horse becomes as much of a morale boost to the viewer as he is for the characters he interacts with.  I have never seen a grown man weep openly in a movie theater like I did near the end of this film. No it wasn’t me, but I was choked up and everyone else likely was too.

This definitely has the feel of a depressing Oscar nominee, but the difference is that there is always a sense of hope hanging around War Horse. The visuals are stunning; culminating in Joey’s run through the barbed wire filled “no man’s land” with explosions as the backdrop. It could come across as cheesy and thinking back it may have been, but at the time it is quite powerful. War Horse is a dense movie-going experience that takes some real work from the viewer to commit emotionally to the characters and the historical context. But it proves to be worth it in the end. I’m curious as to how puppets can be as layered in the stage version. (9.5 out of 10)

We Bought A Zoo

I didn’t realize how awesome it would be to purchase a fully functioning zoo until I saw this film. Luckily for the animals that would be involved, I don’t have enough money. But Matt Damon’s character does as he moves his family to a house on a zoo’s grounds in order to get a fresh start after the death of his wife. With the help of the zookeeper played by Scarlett Johansson, he figures out that the zoo is very similar to dealing with the difficulties of real life. I was under the impression zookeepers could speak to animals, but apparently Kevin James’ film from the summer wasn’t entirely truthful.

Damon has become like George Clooney in that his mild mannered approach to acting makes it so most of his characters come off as the same. Since Zoo is a light-hearted family film, this is no problem. Maggie Jones who plays the young daughter of Damon’s character is more refreshing than the familiar faces of the leads. She is mostly comic relief, but pulls the film together from something that could very easily become a mope fest.

There is a strong sense that the “all is well” type ending may not be exactly how this whole series of events would end up. Nonetheless since there are those words before the credits describing where the real-life versions of the characters are now, I guess it is at least based on fact. The film is paced well, but a bit long by family film standards. I suppose some of the son’s scenes where he gets angry and draws creepy things could have been cut. Overall We Bought a Zoo is a fun movie for the holidays. I think there’s probably more poop scooping than was portrayed in the movie, as well. Minus one for lack of realism. (8.7 out of 10)

The Darkest Hour

Under the guise of a Christmas blockbuster, The Darkest Hour ends the year in alien encounter films on a low note. Starring Emile Hirsch and a cast of others who you would vaguely recognize from their other films, The Darkest Hour has a group of tourists in their early 20s encountering an alien race attacking Earth in order to drain our energy supply. The concept is interesting enough. The aliens can’t be seen and they disintegrate people in an instant. But it’s too much of a lost cause from the get go.

Having seen so many of these apocalypse type movies, there is a certain need for the actions of the earthlings to be genuine. Now if what seems to be 99 percent of the entire population were killed in an instant, I can’t believe this group of lucky survivors is only slightly upset about it. I’m all for keeping a level head but come on. Then on a performance level, the acting is adequate, but the dialogue is weak and the plot development predictable. When the group encounters the renegades wearing vests made of keys, and they gain the use of what can only be described as proton-pack from Ghostbusters, the predictable turns into the cheesy stuff of a straight to DVD release.

The has been a ridiculous amount of alien movies in 2011, and that may have something to do with the public’s total impatience toward a campy release like The Darkest Hour. Disaster movies are successful for a potential hope they provide when people fight back. But the world is dead in the first half hour. The half-hearted attempts at resolution in the final scene are only good for the audience to roll their eyes at. There are a handful of successful scenes scattered throughout, but the problem is that I knew they were coming before the happened. (5.5 out of 10)

Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol

I rarely run into people who consider themselves “fans” of the Mission Impossible films. Though there have only been a handful of action franchises that have been as successful as the Tom Cruise lead series. The fourth film in the sequence, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol has Ethan Hunt (Cruise) emerging from a foreign prison just in time to be set up for a bombing at the Kremlin in Russia. His small team is all that’s left of the once expansive IMF and they are forced to clear their names by finding the true culprits.

The reach of this film is massive. After five years since Mission: Impossible 3, this fourth installment goes for it, pushing the limits of a film that looks like it cost significantly more than its $145 million budget. For example, instead of climbing any old building, Cruise scales the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world’s tallest building. Instead of driving any old sports car, the characters roll up to a party in a BMW i8 concept car, which looks more like a spaceship than something from a manufacturing plant on Earth. But don’t get me wrong, these moments don’t come across as overkill, just impressive.

Amid talk of whether or not Cruise is still able to handle the lead role in a blockbuster, he puts another feather in the cap of what has become one of his most iconic characters. So there is no question he deserves the hype his name brings to a project. He even outshines one of the biggest up and coming action stars in the business, Jeremy Renner. Now that the M: I series has been revived, it will be tough to outdo the scale of Ghost Protocol. But surely there is a way. Should I make a reference to it being impossible? I, unlike the film, am very predictable. (9.2 out of 10)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

After the critically acclaimed success of the director Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr.’s first take at the legendary detective, the quality of its sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was almost a foregone conclusion. Though this take has a different focus, which deals heavily with Holmes’ arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty, played by Jared Harris. The film begins with Holmes having connected the dots of many crimes to Moriarity. But in an attempt to get rid of the detective, Moriarty targets Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law, during his honeymoon. Then ensues a barrage of quarrels as the two try to mentally one-up each other in the wake of global war.

A Game of Shadows has a much bigger emphasis on explosions and chase scenes. Though that is common of sequels in popular franchises. Something to do with film executives opening their pockets a little more when there is promise of a return. While the explosions do get to be a much after awhile, there is an incredible chase scene that is likely the best shot bit of action in 2011. While attempting to escape Moriarty’s goons, Holmes, Watson and a group of ally gypsies dash away through the forest with bullets, cannon fire and enemies chasing them. It’s similar to that which appeared in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. But it is by no means less effective since Warner Bros. has used this technique before.

Even dealing with critical and box-office disappointment, the Sherlock Holmes franchise should receive a third film because of the quality of character Robert Downey Jr. has built. The audience learns a bit more about what makes the legend tick in this second film. It may not be as fresh as the first, but people can’t fault Ritchie for being consistent with his over-the-top look at English street culture. And next time, don’t push the footage of Holmes dressed up as a woman in all the trailers. It just made the film look… elementary. (7.4 out of 10)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Based on the bestselling novel, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo stars Daniel Craig as a journalist attempting to find a long missing girl. After employing the help of a skilled computer hacker, played by Rooney Mara, the pair find themselves in danger, a sign the perpetrator is still close by. The much hyped and feared scenes establishing Mara’s character, Lisbeth, come off as gruesome and realistic as is acceptable in an R-rated film. Though in the midst of these vivid abuse scenes, the mystery of the missing girl from a family of former Nazis and creeps looms as a very intriguing case.

Running a bit long as to include as much of the source material as possible, the first half of the film drags in contrast to the riveting second half. Craig’s consistent performance is welcome because of the intensity Mara is forced to deal with. But she is of course the star of the film and the one whose performance is integral to the film’s success. Then there’s the post-production side of things where director David Fincher again reveals how he can even creep out an audience in a mere dialogue exchange. His new wing-man, Trent Reznor, who won an Oscar for his score from The Social Network, is possibly even better in this film. There is rarely a score more memorable.

Even with all the hype surrounding The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, its release in an oversaturated two weeks for the movie industry could cause it to suffer a bit. Though I think the graphic sexual abuse scenes will probably keep more people away. While The Social Network was too white collar for some and Fight Club too creepy for others, Fincher has blended his constant Oscar potential with his eye for recreating the undesirable dark side of human interaction. The help of great story doesn’t hurt the process either. (9.0 out of 10)

The Adventures of Tin Tin

The hype on The Adventures of Tin Tin is mainly to do with its celebrity director, (Steven Spielberg) producer, (Peter Jackson) and the fact the England seems to generally love the adventure-seeking cartoon. But since the character is so well known in international markets, there is a lack of introduction for us yanks who don’t know anything about it. The film follows Tin Tin (Jamie Bell,) a reporter, who pursues a mystery after buying a model ship containing a clue to hidden treasure. Along with his dog Snowy and the dim-witted drunk Captain Haddock, (Andy Serkis) Tin Tin uncovers the result of a legendary fight between pirates that brings them all around the world.

For the first twenty minutes or so, I was under the impression that the title character is a child. This really made for some odd situations in my mind, but once I figured it out that this guy is apparently an adult reporter, it made more sense. His veritable lack of a family or a paycheck is overlooked when he vanishes for weeks without a trace. But I guess since it started out with him trying to “get a news story,” nobody would come looking for him. None of this is essential to the plot, but the advertising making it seem like a true action adventure for kids and adults makes me ask questions that are overlooked by the lack of development in tune with children’s animation.

But before you write the film off, realize that The Adventures of Tin Tin is one of the most epic animated features I’ve ever seen. The motion capture animation succeeds where other films of this type have failed. The voice acting is outstanding, with Serkis being the best in the business. To approach the film as an animated film, it is exceptional. What’s the likelihood that US families will flock to this unknown family-friendly treasure hunter? Not great. (8.5 out of 10)

New Year's Eve

After the commercial success of Valentines Day, a similar holiday film makes sense. Starring more actors than I would care to list, the film tells a number of interweaving stories regarding New Year’s Eve in New York City. Now as far as fun romantic comedies go, this film has some flaws. First and foremost is the fact that at least half of the storylines are boring, shallow or just plain annoying. But with Christmas dominating most December holiday movies, focusing on the less important week after is a fun alternative.

So let’s take a look at what works for New Year’s Eve. With so many actors, there are a few who can seemingly make any script work and do well with underdeveloped mini-stories. Josh Duhamel’s expedition to try to get back in the city after a car accident works only because of his likeability. In contrast, Zac Effron’s attempt at giving Michelle Pfeiffer a memorable holiday tour through the city is the most entertaining and developed story. If more time was spent on them and less on the script dregs, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Ashton Kutcher, the film would be much more fun. Katherine Heigl and Sofia Vergara also helm some fun moments.

As we’ve learned time and time again, star-power can very rarely carry a film single-handedly. If there were a tighter focus on some romantic-comedy regulars, the story would develop smoother. Fans of lighthearted films will probably laugh a few times and enjoy the resolutions (pun intended) at the end of the film. Unfortunately, there was very little attention spent to the quality of the overall story being delivered to theaters. And how did action star Til Schweiger and Jon Bon Jovi find themselves alongside teen heartthrobs? These are the questions that never get answered in New Year’s Eve. Also, why is Ashton Kutcher so unlikeable these days? (6.8 out of 10)

My Week With Marilyn

As far as Oscar contenders go, My Week With Marilyn is easily one of the most accessible. Focused on a very specific time in the life of Marilyn Monroe, Michelle Williams stars as the influential actress during the filming of The Prince and the Showgirl opposite Sir Laurence Olivier, played by Kenneth Branagh. During this time, Monroe befriends Colin, a young employee for the film, played by Eddie Redmayne. That begins a short-lived relationship, which provides some reprieve from the tension filled film-set. While a good amount of the movie is devoted to the Olivier-Monroe dynamic, the latter is the real focus with help from an incredibly well layered performance from Williams.

But the impressive acting doesn’t stop with the lead. Branagh, with a prosthetic chin in tow, gives a spirited take as the British legend. The layers he peels back on a character that is written to be seen mostly in a professional setting is impressive. There are a few glimpses at Olivier’s personal life, but with the focus on Monroe, Branagh is given limited context and excels. As for the character who participates in the “week with Marilyn,” Colin, there is no drop off in talent. It’s not as complex a character as others, but that proves to work well as a contrast to Monroe. Emma Watson’s bit part also provides strong moments throughout.

As the votes start to come in for the award shows in early 2012, My Week With Marilyn should come up a number of times. It is the best-acted film of the year. Even with sad moments and high drama, the film is a pleasing cinematic experience. The pacing is reminiscent of mid-century romances, and even though the boy doesn’t get the girl in the end, it isn’t that important. Colin was never going to win over Marilyn Monroe. The movie is too real for that type of fairytale ending. (9.5 out of 10)

Melancholia

Occasionally I have found myself in the following situation. I invite a friend to see a new movie with me. This movie is much less mainstream than the friend is used to. They repeatedly turn to me and say, “What the hell kind of movie is this?” Well that is my best way to describe Melancholia. It is that kind of movie. In the film, Melancholia is a planet that has been hiding behind the Sun. After close encounters with Mercury and Venus, there is talk that it may collide with Earth. Kirsten Dunst stars as new bride, Justine, who suffers from a mystery ailment, which may or may not be linked to the approaching planet.

The film is split into three parts, the first being 10 minutes of slow motion imagery depicting the moments of truth later in the movie. While the exact same pictures aren’t seen again, these moments really set the tone for Melancholia and expose the answers to some of the most important questions that will be asked in the final act. Justine’s wedding reception is the second part and the first main narrative. This section is a drawn out look at a few main characters in a number of awkward situations. Through the abundance of individuals displayed, the few main characters are established with strong writing that fleshes out key attributes for later in the film.

The second half is the real event. With less characters and more drama, it is the meat of the Melancholia story. With the planet approaching, Justine and her sister Claire (Justine Gainsbourg) unravel what is going to be more than just a unique vision of a planetary flyover. Kiefer Suterland’s performance as Claire’s husband, John is a surprisingly fresh look at the talents of the actor. But the two women are the real stars here, providing a powerfully real look at how emotions would take hold in this kind of situation. Melancholia is heart-breakingly sad, but somehow the viewer can walk away with fulfillment because it is such an intense study of human emotion. (9.3 out of 10)

Young Adult

For a movie that looked like it would be very awkward and unpleasant, I must admit that Young Adult exceeds my expectations in those categories. Charlize Theron stars as a writer of young adult novels, who receives a birth announcement from her old flame, played by Patrick Wilson. Reading this as a sign that he’s unhappy with his life, she returns to her home town and attempts to win him back. While she attempts to woo this happily married man away from his family, she develops an unexpected sort of friendship with a former classmate, played by Patton Oswalt.

Theron plays her character well, even though she is essentially both the protagonist and antagonist of the film. Written to make the viewer question the mindset of the character and her grip on reality, there are tons of questionable moments that border on cringe-worthy. But I guess that is the point of this movie. It’s the presentation of a terribly flawed individual and her fall from normalcy, all the while disguised as a self-empowerment story. Written by Juno scribe, Diablo Cody, there are strong moments of a-typical dialogue. There are even instants, which could possibly show how Cody gets some of her material. Theron’s character overhears a pair of teenage girls speaking in hyperbole on multiple occasions. These prove to be some of the film’s best moments.

Young Adult is a fairly tough movie to solve. The initial reaction is one of immense dislike. The lead is so screwed up that it’s not entertaining to watch. Then when you dig past that character there are performances like Oswalt’s. Who knew that the comedian could portray such complex emotions in playing a fairly complex character? Apparently the casting people did. As a supposed comedy, I would have liked there to be more comedy instead of awkwardness passed off as jokes. This is just another film in the line of potential award contenders that seek to take all the fun out of going to the movies. (7.5 out of 10)

The Sitter

You know how sometimes an old movie will be re-released on DVD after an actor in it has become famous? That was the feeling I kept getting while watching The Sitter. The movie is apparently new, but Jonah Hill looks completely different now. I suppose that isn’t really important to the movie. In The Sitter, Hill’s character volunteers to babysit three kids so that his mom can have a night out with her friend, the mother of the children. Then when he gets a call from a girl he wants to date, he gets caught up in a series of awkward events involving drugs and such. All of this of course happens with the children, who are equally screwed up in different ways, are with him.

The concept has been done before. Everything from a babysitter who is out of their league to a night in the city where every event leads to something worse, it’s played out. But as with all movies like this, the comedic level is what is most important. Unfortunately, the movie is not very funny. There are some moments here and there that are chuckle-worthy, but for the most part the clearest emotion is fear that these awkward moments will get worse.

The acting is adequate, the pace is fine and to be honest if it ran any longer than it does, (80 minutes) it would be too long. Hill plays the typical lazy character with a heart he’s used to playing. But the overall film doesn’t hold up to his more memorable titles, so this one can be considered a throw away. I wonder if he’ll play this kind of role now that he doesn’t fit that stereotypical look. I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough because even when the movie stinks, Hill knows how to handle a comedy. (5.0 out of 10)

The Muppets

It seems odd to me that kids and teens these days didn’t know about the Muppets. I kind of thought they were like Mickey Mouse in how they are always popular but apparently not. Jason Segel wrote and stars in the new film appropriately named The Muppets. After his big screen puppet debut in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, his involvement makes sense. The story follows Segels’s character, his brother Walter (a puppet) and his girlfriend (Amy Adams) as they go on vacation in California. While there, they learn a plot to destroy the Muppet Theater and must reunite Kermit and the gang to stop it from happening.

To be honest, most of the previous Muppet movies have premises much more ridiculous than this, so the simple concept works well. As this is essentially a re-introduction into pop culture, each character is given a scene to show what they are all about. That process makes the film very episodic, but still funny. That is why The Muppets is successful; the script never loses sight of the main objective, witty comedy. I don’t think the film toes the line of risqué as much as the characters used to in their heyday, but they’re just getting their feet wet again.

Possibly the funniest parts of the movie hails from celebrity cameos, but some of them are too obscure. In one scene it is revealed what Segel would look like as a Muppet and alternately what Walter would look like as a human. I found this to be the most effective cameo in the film. Unfortunately, I am going to make you see the movie to find out who it is. But overall, The Muppets is great return for the iconic characters, even if the last third of the film is one giant episode of The Muppet Show. If there are going to be countless franchises directed towards children, I don’t see why The Muppets shouldn’t be one. Welcome back. (8.2 out of 10)

The Descendants

It’s probably safe to say that George Clooney’s character in The Descendants is going through some of the toughest situations anyone can go through. After his wife is injured in a boating accident and lands in a vegetative state, he must accept the fact that she will die. And to make matters worse, he learns that his wife was cheating on him for a substantial period of time. It’s not really a movie to go see as a pick-me-up after a stressful week at the office. But when you get by the initial depression of the storyline, there is a lot of positive stuff happening here.

Clooney gives such a typical Clooney performance that it almost isn’t impressive anymore. He does all the right things by being likeable, and sympathetic, but the fresh faces come off as more compelling. Shailene Woodley, who plays the oldest daughter, gives a complex performance seesawing between an out of control jerk and a strong role-model type. When the audience learns more about why she acts the way she does, the Jekyll and Hyde act becomes an important theme in the film and a lightning rod to bonding with her father and sister. But when a script includes excessive cursing, it better come off naturally, and Woodley’s does not. It’s like when little kids throw it out there to test their parents.

In regard to the more important aspects of the script, The Descendants does much better. The depressing elements give way to strong family moments. Drama emerges from the most innocent exchanges between friends, and who knew that cousins could have such animosity toward each other. While The Descendants definitely carries enough weight to be placed in the award season shuffle, some odd attempts at humor could count against it. And I still can’t get over why there would be pointless swearing when it pushed the film into an R rating. Oh well. (8.8 out of 10)

Hugo

For those who have not seen Hugo yet, I think it may be a bit of a surprise when/if you do. The story follows the titular character (Asa Butterfield) and his friend Isabelle (Chloe Moretz) as they try and solve a puzzle, which they are both linked to. Hugo, an orphan living inside the walls of a train station possesses an automaton, which can only be activated by Isabelle’s heart-shaped key. From there the audience is brought on a journey through early film-making, which I really didn’t see coming. As I was familiar with some of the work being discussed in the film, I was interested but mass appeal is likely less than mine.

One thing that different demographics will agree on is how a unique feel is created from the visually stunning elements. Martin Scorsese directs the film, which makes sense given that there is an equal emphasis on story-telling and visual excellence. With that being said, the film drags a bit at times. My best explanation for this is because the first and second halves essentially act as different stories. Part one is the mystery and part two is the revelation where the audience figures out what is going on.

Those who have studied film or are interested by such things will likely swoon over Hugo. That’s why it has received such critical success. Not many movie-haters review films. The best thing Hugo has going for it is that the film is different. It doesn’t fit into typical categories and that is always a welcome sight. It may not be as appreciated by children, who are supposedly the target audience, but it is family friendly. There are messages about the relationships between social classes, but nothing too scary for kids. It is actually a very intriguing mystery. (9.1 out of 10)

Happy feet Two

Just like the first Happy Feet, the second installment begins as wholesome family fun with toe-tapping renditions of popular music. But then once you let your guard down it becomes a human hating ode to environmentalism. In case you haven’t seen the films, I’ll let you know that it turns out that all humans stink. Maybe I should take a step back for a minute.

The film follows Mumble (Elijah Wood) and his son Erik (Ava Acres,) as they try and help save all the emperor penguins from being trapped in a giant crevice. With help from Ramon (Robin Williams) and a mysterious flying penguin (Hank Azaria) they try a number of ways to get all of the penguins out, but it proves quite difficult.

With themes centered on being unique and overcoming your fears, Happy Feet Two does well speaking to the malleable minds of a child audience. That is until we get the oil tanker involved. Don’t get me wrong, oil spills are a tremendous ordeal and I wish they never occurred, but a song and dance number about it is completely unnecessary. In addition to that, there is a significant dig at humans eating meat even though penguins eat fish. Apparently fish don’t count? Then when humans actually do try to help in the film they are depicted as uninterested quitters. You don’t put these things in a film advertised as cartoon penguins singing Justin Timberlake.

If you are able to block out the overt political messages long enough, then Happy Feet Two is funny for both kids and adults. Williams and Azaria carry the comedic weight throughout, but small roles from Common and Sophia Vergara also work well. And I almost completely forgot about the krill played by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, which really should be a separate movie. They only indirectly interact with the characters and they essentially echo what the rest of the movie is already saying. It’s almost as if the film ran short so they added the krill to pass time. The movie has promise but ends up going too far. (6.3 out of 10)

Arthur Christmas

By my understanding, any Christmas movie that people enjoy seems to become “a classic.” Maybe we’re a bit lax with this designation. But if this holds true, Arthur Christmas is now a “Christmas classic.” In this tale, Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) is essentially a military leader who runs the operation of delivering presents each year. Arthur (James Mcavoy) is Santa’s youngest son, who is a bit dim while also being very caring and enthusiastic. When it is learned that one child has been missed on Christmas, Arthur goes on a mission with his grandfather, known as Grandsanta (Bill Nighy) to get that final child her gift.

This isn’t the first time the North Pole has been presented as a military base, but I’ve never seen it on quite this scale. The animated format allows for the script to run wild with many aspects including a massive spaceship type sleigh. While it may not be terribly difficult to follow in concept, the film contains a number of details that would likely be lost on children. The concept is so well done and thorough that it is often easy to forget that this is originally intended for kids.

Arthur Christmas is heavy on the kind-hearted ideals that are associated with the holiday. It’s not surprising though that the event is viewed as religiously ambiguous and heavy on the importance of gifts. The story means well. The Arthur character is likeable, even though he isn’t very deep. If some of the focus used on creating a military of elves went into the handful of main characters, the movie would be that much more meaningful. I’m no Christmas expert, but playing Santa Claus as an uninvolved boob, whose power hungry son (Hugh Laurie) runs the show seems a bit risqué. Luckily Arthur is nice enough to cancel out the tyrannical themes. (7.8 out of 10)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I

In addition to the records it is breaking at the box office, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I also brings about the first time I’ve reviewed three movies in a franchise. What an honor. This fourth film in the vampire/werewolf series brings about some answers that have been asked over the sequence. Bella (Kristen Stewart) marries Edward (Robert Pattinson), while Jacob (Taylor Lautner) broods alone in the woods, shirtless. Then when a complication arises after the honeymoon, the vampires and werewolves must decide where they stand and the validity of their long-standing treaty.

At risk of repeating myself, the main problem with the Twilight films is the actors. Stewart continues her run of approaching every scene with the disinterested air of a slug. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure lots of men would swoon over someone without a unique thought in their head, and a whine that is never too far away. This personality is partly written in the script and partly in Stewart’s dismal method. Pattinson is better, but when real people speak, they don’t sound like they’re reading off cue cards. Then there’s Lautner, who can stare at the camera like the best of them, but just don’t make him say anything.

It’s a shame the fanatics took such a liking to that trio because re-casting could make the series very good. So, after the bad acting is on display for most of the movie, there is a tension filled battle. It’s well done, though quick editing prevents the audience from following what exactly is happening. It just seems to be vampires pushing werewolves and werewolves standing on top of vampires. That’s not very good choreography if you ask me. I am not opposed to the idea of Twilight. In theory the themes and concepts are interesting. In execution they’re tedious and unexciting. (7.0 out of 10)

Tower Heist

Tower Heist may boast a famous cast, but it is one that would have had more pull in the late 90’s than it does in 2011. Ben Stiller stars as a hotel manager who falls victim to a Ponzi scheme, losing the pension money for his entire staff. In a desperate move to regain the money, he assembles a team of everyday guys to steal the money back from his mogul boss, who perpetrated the crime. Stiller’s team consists of a convicted criminal (Eddie Murphy), an evicted resident (Matthew Broderick), a concierge (Casey Affleck) and a bellhop (Michael Pena). The best way I can describe the group dynamic is Oceans 11 with idiots, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for audiences.

For the most part, the comedy never goes too far beyond the family-friendly category. These are rarer now with the success of The Hangover and Judd Apatow comedies, but they are still relevant. Murphy does well as the comedic lead giving an edge to his performance while still being likeable. Stiller, who plays the lead character is more of a straight man on the comedy radar, but he still has his moments. Of the supporting actors, Pena is the most successful at bringing about laughs. His clueless character starts off on the annoying side, but quickly becomes the focus during some of the funniest moments.

After running smoothly for most of the film, the script slows a bit during the final act. Tower Heist never tries to reinvent comedy or push the boundaries, but it keeps in mind that it is possible to be funny without causing others to be grossed out. The comedy pairing of Stiller and Murphy keeps the film on track. So even when the audience isn’t laughing, they tend to be smiling. If the budget was smaller the film could have been a home run for the studio. (7.5 out of 10)

Puss In Boots

Dreamworks animation is a pretty strong representation of how I like my animation, funny, with no agenda and some adult innuendo thrown in there. Puss in Boots has some Shrek-sized shoes to fill being a spin-off of the ogre’s franchise. Antonio Bandares voices the lead, in this origin story of Puss, who grew up in an orphanage with his pal Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifanakis). He is then forced to live as an fugitive after a run in with law. Selma Hayek also stars as the new character, Kitty Soft Paws.

Although there is Humpty Dumpty and a strong use of the “Jack and the Bean Stalk” story, the film doesn’t have the fairy-tale immersion the Shrek series does. The first half plays quite slowly with the story hardly progressing. Banderas knows this character well after playing him so many times, but the usual wit isn’t as strong when the focus is entirely on him. With that being said, there are a number of funny moments, but they aren’t as common as they should be. The script seems to be more focused on making an epic cartoon than a family comedy. It doesn’t reach either goal.

Another issue is how unpleasant the characters are. Even the villains in Shrek are likeable. That’s not the case here. Besides Puss, every other personality is untrustworthy and wishy-washy. It may be unfair to compare Puss in Boots to Shrek, but spin-offs draw that association. The reality of it is that this had the opportunity to draw on the popularity of another franchise for less money. While I list the many flaws, I still find this brand of family film more beneficial to the target audience than Disney’s depression first, happiness later approach. If I had never seen Shrek this score would probably be higher. (7.0 out of 10)

Immortals

I find it interesting that there is now a whole sub-genre of special effects filled realistic fiction based in Ancient Greece. And because of the success of 300 and Clash of the Titans, there will likely be more of this very specific category. Immortals fits that bill as essentially a combination of those two films listed above. Henry Cavill plays Theseus, a peasant who becomes involved in a fight against a tyrant (Mickey Rourke) after his village is slaughtered. But don’t worry; the gods help him on this journey. They have a special interest since Rourke’s character plans to release the mortal enemy of the gods, the titans.

There has been much hype regarding the violence and gore in Immortals. Yeah, it’s there, but I’ve personally become desensitized to the stylized war aspects of films like this. There is a moment including a giant hammer that had the men in the theater cringing though. That is the one really awful bit of violence. This is a strong introduction for Cavill to blockbuster movies. He is, of course, the new Superman. In Immortals he finds a balance between old Greek mannerisms and a more modern approach. The script also does this throughout the entire film. We’ve learned that if you force actors to use phony accents at all times you could end up with something like Nicholas Cage in Season of the Witch.

The effects driven camera work and unconventional transitions add an interesting aspect to the film. But at times these effects outweigh the story, which can’t happen. The supporting cast is written to be a horror movie like massacre. Each big scene is complemented by a character getting killed, and it’s predictable every time. I understand it would be unrealistic if all the characters survived this huge war, but they likely wouldn’t be killed to accompany a convenient timeline. Though the awesomeness of the scenes featuring the gods makes the viewer forget the predictability. (7.7 out of 10)

J. Edgar

In J. Edgar, the story of former FBI director J. Edgar hoover is told starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the controversial figure. Using prosthetics and makeup, the film is able to use the same actors to play the characters over a large period of history. I wouldn’t say that the technique necessarily looks realistic, but it’s pretty close. The film chooses a number of intriguing points in Hoover’s life to focus on. From his battle with communism to his relationship with his mother (Judi Dench) and his long time number two, Clyde Tolson, (Armie Hammer) there is no shortage of material for the film to use.

A major disappointment with J. Edgar lies in the fact that there is a great deal of speculation. No one knows the truth about the events depicted except for the eye-witnesses. Because of this, the drama needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Plus, (spoiler alert) the most interesting mystery of all, Hoover’s secret files, go unrevealed. From the bits that are public knowledge, they consist mostly of tabloid facts of who slept with who in Washington DC. But it would of course be interesting to know what is in them.

The film moves right along filled with powerful scenes and interesting moments. Hoover was such an interesting man that the character’s highs and lows are both deserving of sympathy from the audience. DiCaprio stretches well to fit the part and Hammer continues his run of strong support to potentially Oscar worthy films. He played two parts in the 2010 film, The Social Network. The transformation for the title character is so drastic between his younger and older years that it would make sense to question his personality traits. Though since the real story of Hoover is such a mystery, the film contains holes, and not all the answers are revealed as to why he ended up the way he did. (8.5 out of 10)

Jack and Jill

I like many others, have doubts regarding Adam Sandler movies. Often they end up being pretty funny regardless of how stupid they seem. Then there’s Jack and Jill. In most critics’ minds this spectacle already failed once the premise had been explained. But I will do my best to be objective. The film’s titular characters are both played by Adam Sandler. Jack is a successful businessman, who lives the life in California, with his wife and children. Jill however lives alone in the Bronx with no family after the passing of her mother and seemingly has no friends. But when Jill comes to visit, the two get in many fights because of how annoying Jill is. Though every time she’s about to leave, Jack feels bad and invites her to stay longer. It really is quite the premise.

One of the first things I notice about Sandler’s Jill voice is that it’s quite similar to the one he uses for the monkey in Zookeeper. After that it becomes quite apparent that an actual actress would never have played the Jill character. It would be too rude to subject someone to that kind of torment. So it makes sense Sandler does it himself.

An aspect overlooked when judging the stupidity of Sandler films is their potential appeal to younger audiences. Jack and Jill has many moments intended for kids (fart jokes.) Then for adults, there are a number of celebrity cameos that bring about some chuckles. Johnny Depp has a funny scene with Al Pacino, who is actually a main character in the film. Then everyone from Regis Philbin to former football player Michael Irving is given a line or two. Don’t ask me how they do it, but the audience actually feels sympathetic toward Jill in the film. Yes, that is the character played by Adam Sandler in drag. The movie is by no means good, but I dare say there’s been worse. (5.0 out of 10)

Anonymous

Shakespeare a fraud? After the years I endured in high school and college trying to decipher his texts, that’s a concept I can readily support. Anonymous tells of a theory that Shakespeare was actually just an in between for Edward de Vere, 17^th Earl of Oxford, played by Rhys Ifans. The purpose was to get de Vere’s plays seen and subtle propaganda to the masses without revealing his personal feelings. Since the film never claims to be complete historical truth, there is a significant amount of dramatization and inference involved. That surely peeves scholars, but for movie fans it adds extra excitement.

For those who lack knowledge on this time period, everything seems realistic enough to buy it. In addition, those who are fans of the texts commonly attributed to Shakespeare should be intrigued by the context that makes it into the plays. It’s like looking for the hints of unrelated characters in Marvel movies, but on a way more academic level. The film’s sets are very well done and provide scale, which movies of this genre don’t usually have. With the king of disaster movies, Roland Emmerich directing, the film’s scope is hardly surprising. Though most wouldn’t be able to draw much connection between this and Emmerich’s other works. Most notably there is a lack of Godzilla and aliens blowing up the White House.

The cast, which includes three Harry Potter alumni, Ifans, Jamie Campbell-Bowyer and David Thewlis, give sincerity to the film that deals with such a controversial topic. The script may not be in Shakespearian verse, but it is spoken as if it were a possible counterpart to that age. Though it must be said, the many scenes portraying staged productions of famous moments in Shakespeare weigh down the story. As in any case, the language is dense, but when sandwiched between clearer dialogues it is too much. Plus they add many minutes to a film that could profit from being a bit shorter. (7.8 out of 10)

In Time

When a film consisting of a unique concept rolls along, I can’t help but get excited about it. In Time certainly fits that bill. Justin Timberlake stars as a lower class, everyday guy, who lives day to day not knowing where he’s going to get the funds to survive. The unique part is that the currency in this future is time. Each person has a built in clock on his or her arm that counts down. When your clock hits zero, you die. When Timberlake suddenly finds himself rolling in time, he decides to see what life is like on the other side. Enter the rich entitled love interest in the form of Amanda Seyfried. The idea is pretty intriguing. The final product is not as strong as one would hope.

The high concept story continues to impress with interesting thoughts like Alex Pettyfer’s gang, the Minutemen and Cillian Murphy’s cops, known as Timekeepers. Though the pun filled script wears on the audience after the first few minutes. Everyone understands the film is a metaphor; don’t waste the time you’ve been given. That’s all well and good, but the dialogue should actually further the story and not kill the pace.

Since people don’t age beyond 25 in the film, all the actors are young. Good, I’d hate to have ugly old people. I’m kidding, but apparently that would be an issue with audiences? So in the future old men look like Pettyfer and mothers with 28-year-old sons look like Olivia Wilde. That wouldn’t be an issue if the dialogue didn’t call for people to announce their ages left and right. But with that being said, the cast is quite strong and it’s fun to infer character ages from their differences in style. There was such promise that In Time could become a sci-fi classic, or timeless if you will. But puns have proven to be their downfall. (7.5 out of 10)

The Three Musketeers

Some actors seem to have a habit of winning roles in movie franchises that are unable to take off. Logan Lerman is one of them. As D’Artagnan in The Three Musketeers he could lead a number of films as the daring protégé to the swordsmen, but box office numbers so far put those sequels in doubt. It is disappointing since Musketeers is a fun family action film in the vein of other successful period flicks. The plot follows the four leads as they tread the line between two separate enemies, played by Christoph Waltz and Orlando Bloom, and try to keep France from an impending war with England.

The film was never going to be revolutionary or a trophy contender because of the grand scale. So that points the movie toward a family release. However, the violence is a bit too graphic to get parents on board. So ultimately the film is labeled a flop. It’s not that simple though. There are a number of ridiculous technology moments with blimps and wheels of automatic canons. These scenes are campy, but not unbearable as they lead to dramatic battles. The characters are fun with adequate actors and a few high quality performances. Matthew MacFayden, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson, who are the musketeers, all do well even though their characters have little development.

So the common person seeing The Three Musketeers will likely find it fun, dramatic and exciting. Though digging in to it will reveal weaknesses in the script, overblown theatrics and one fight scene too many. Ending on a cliffhanger, a sequel would be welcomed to right the ship a bit and develop the characters. Though I know I’m a little more lenient with the studio’s money than they are. And I must not be the only one who found it odd had having Christoph Waltz play a Frenchman. (7.4 out of 10)

The Rum Diary

In between his duties as Jack Sparrow and the lead in every Tim Burton movie, Johnny Depp has picked up this habit of making fringe sort-of comedies that are a bit strange. The Tourist was last year’s entry on the list and this year, The Rum Diary. Based on the novel by Hunter S. Thompson, who Depp was famously friends with, the movie follows a journalist (Depp) and his move to Puerto Rico and a struggling newspaper. He subsequently becomes involved in a real estate scandal, fumbling through while drinking heavily. The most important part of the story is the last one, alcohol.

The story weaves in and out, leaving the audience anticipating a climactic end, which never comes. Facts are spewed about through heavy dialogue that proves inconsequential as time passes. While there is something to be said about the realism associated with not having a final showdown or reveal, it brings about a number of unnecessary scenes that could have helped pick up the pacing. The handful of full-fledged jokes prove to be successful, and even some of the dark humor gains some chuckles so The Rum Diary has that working for it.

Depp’s strange style makes him a likeable actor in most roles. Even though this character is highly flawed, he has a social conscious and comes across as fairly genuine. What isn’t believable is that people living in such squalor would choose to operate in a state of perpetually being hung-over. I can count the scenes where alcohol isn’t present and there aren’t that many. I guess the title makes sense then. The ultimate verdict on The Run Diary is that the film never stood a chance of being successful. Such an obscure storyline would have done just fine as an indie film in limited release. I know Depp was a fried of the late author, but there was certainly no need to bring in the other big names. (7. 0 out of 10)

Ides of March

Ides of March is a political drama about a candidate (George Clooney) seeking the Democratic nomination for President while his campaign managers (Phillip-Seymour Hoffman and Ryan Gosling) try to lock up an important state race and a key endorsement. At least that’s what happens in the first 45 minutes. After that drama ensues in the form of problems you would expect a political candidate to have (no spoilers). But even though the film is full of big actors like Clooney, Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Evan Rachel Wood, the film focuses mostly on Gosling. Already having success with Crazy Stupid Love and Drive, Ides of March is a strong vehicle, which falls somewhere between the comedy and intense drama in the spectrum.

Since this is a movie and not the story of a real political candidate, there cannot be too much focus on the talking points the characters make. But come on, there is no way a candidate so close to the white house would speak in such extremes. Outlawing the internal combustion engine? He might as well outlaw cars and demand a horse-only transportation system. It just gets weird there for a while. The film would do better to leave real-life politics out because that’s not the point of the feature.

But that is the ultimate question: what is the point of the feature? There is an interesting glance into how political campaigns run, but the drama that ensues weakens any claim at authenticity. The development of Gosling’s character is far and beyond the best aspect of Ides of March. The character is well written, even though it deals with extremes in personality. He may not look like a real campaign manager, but his talent allows him to drop seamlessly into the role. Another important question: Is George Clooney more believable as a soon to be President or Batman? (7.9 out of 10)

Footloose

Can Kevin Bacon’s famous frolic through an abandoned factory in Footloose hold up in 2011 when break dancing has become the cinematic dance of choice? Well yes, I suppose it can. The reboot of the 1984 film, is a modernized remake, which mirrors the original in most instances. Kenny Wormald fills Bacon’s sneakers and at times it seems like he was cast because of his resemblance to the actor. He isn’t half bad though when he makes the part his own. Julianne Hough and Dennis Quad also star.

For those not familiar, the story is centered on a city teen, (Wormald) who moves to the rural south with his uncle after his mother dies. He understandably has a hard time adapting to the change. But this isn’t a typical town. Loud music and dancing are outlawed after a group of teens were killed in a car accident on the way back from a drunken line dance. It’s not the soundest concept. Obviously lawmakers would be more concerned with the drunk driving and drugs than the dancing, but it comes off as believable in the film.

There are a number of expendable scenes that likely make the cut to be a slice of nostalgia for fans of the original, though the pace zips right along after some early dragging. The biggest issue with the film is that Hough’s character comes across as too skanky for the main love interest. She is rude to everyone, including her supposed best friend, though everyone stays by her side. Besides her good looks there is no reason these rational characters would be drawn to her, but alas they are.

And what of the factory frolic? It’s still cheesy, but cooler with the use of a rap song in the remake. The conflict seems realistic enough and the dancing is modern enough where the common person can be impressed and entertained. So those are really the main goals for a movie like this. It could have had a more sound script or some less cheesy plot points, but then it wouldn’t have been Footloose. (7.4 out of 10)

Real Steel

Everyone seems so surprised that a movie starring robots could actually be good. I expect robot movies to be good… I suppose I expect all movies to be good. Real Steel stars Hugh Jackman as a retired boxer who now works as a pilot for fighting robots, the premiere fighting sport of the future. When an ex-girlfriend dies suddenly, Jackman’s character must look after his estranged son for the summer until the boy’s aunt can take him permanently. Thus begins the building of a rocky relationship between the separated father and son.

Jackman gives a steady performance like usual. His ability to carry a film is the main reason Real Steel is a quality movie. It’s quite difficult however to view him as washed up or unlikeable as the film intends him to be early on. The charm that gets people to see his films outweighs his attempt at being a jerk of a character. Then there’s Dakota Goyo, who plays the son and does a pretty good job. There are moments where I get flashbacks to Jake Lloyd (“I’m a person, and my name is Anakin!”) from Star Wars Episode One, nevertheless Goyo is much better.

The percentage of screen time leans about 65% to 35% in favor of the human relationships over the robot fighting. This may be the only review you read where the author would prefer more robot fighting, but the way the script is structured the audience looks forward to every fight so they can see the different robots. That’s a good stance to take instead of mindless hours of brawling. The script borrows a lot from other boxing movies, but I suppose there’s only a handful of ways these underdog stories could go. There’s a level of predictability throughout all aspects of the film, which does remove a bit of the tension. Although, as family friendly, sci-fi, action, underdog stories go, Real Steel is probably as solid as you’re going to get. (7.8 out of 10)

50/50

50/50 stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an average guy, who receives a surprise cancer diagnosis and must come to grips with the ailment. Seth Rogen plays his best friend, who tries to keep a happy spin on things with his poop and weed jokes. The film has such a strong pace that after a relatively slow start, the viewer has no idea how emotionally attached they have become to the lead and his impending death until the end. While someone who knows the realities of this type of battle first hand may disagree, the script gives an incredible amount of attention to the realism of it all.

Gordon-Levitt’s rise to super stardom has been a bit slower than I expected, but there is no doubt that he can act with the best of them. I don’t begin to understand what the Academy blowhards are thinking, but I’d like to see Gordon-Levitt’s name come up in the award conversations. Rogen does well when compared to his other performances, but his counterpart is on a whole different level. There is the overdone moment of characters getting high together and becoming instant friends, though I must say eating weed filled macaroons with old guys during chemo therapy just isn’t as offensive as the usual way it plays out. I still find it unnecessary though.

50/50 is a fairly sad movie. There’s no pretending that it’s not. But it’s just as inspiring as it is depressing. The script allows for a reasonable amount of comedy to complement the drama, but it’s subtler than the advertisements would have you think. The strength of the script and the convincing acting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt place 50/50 among the top films of the year so far. At the end of the day some awkward jokes and under developed characters may keep the door shut on its trophy cabinet. (9.0 out of 10)

Abduction

Abduction boasts Twilight star Taylor Lautner. Is that enough to get people in the theater? Probably not, but the trailer is exciting so let’s give it a try. The film stars Lautner as your average high school douche who drinks himself silly while riding on the hoods of cars and yelling like a doofus. I think that’s supposed to show he’s a thrill seeker. But after he finds his own face on a missing persons website, and his parents get killed, he goes on a journey to find out who he really is. Good thing his dad (Jason Isaacs) has been training him in hand to hand combat since he was a child.

Next it’s a big mystery with Lautner’s character finding clues and such, but the final answer is that he isn’t nearly as important to the situation as they make him seem. It’s quite a letdown. Luckily there are some adequate fight scenes throughout. They may be generic, but they’re interesting nonetheless. In trying to recall memorable scenes there aren’t that many. The final battle takes place at PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates. But after realizing that the villain is more likeable than Lautner during their exchange, the only thing I got out of it were the Mets cameos, as they were the visiting team in the game.

Putting continuity issues aside, (long train rides and drives that somehow never get the characters out of Pittsburgh) along with the fact that this is an odd job choice for successful actors, (Alfred Molina and Sigourney Weaver) Abduction just never comes together. It’s not unwatchable. There are moments of fun action, but Taylor Lautner isn’t enough to carry a movie. He can yell, “Who am I!?” all he wants, it won’t make a movie good. Plus, I may have missed something, but when does any kind of abduction occur? (5.5 out of 10)

The Debt

The Debt may sound like a made-for-TV John Grisham movie, but it’s actually a post-World War II thriller about undercover Israeli agents hunting a Nazi war criminal. The film seesaws between the three lead characters in their 20s or 30s and them in their later years dealing with the events of their most important mission. Jessica Chastain and Helen Mirren split time as the female in the spy triangle and they fill the protagonist role throughout the film. While Mirren rightfully receives top-billing, it’s Chastain who gives the strongest performance. Then there’s SamWorthington of Avatar fame, who does very well in the film that’s of a much smaller scale than much of his best known work.

One of the most profound strengths of The Debt is the script’s ability to balance the story so well. There are the two time periods during which the story takes place, and then more importantly there is the emotion and action that must complement each other. All is down well, though it must be said that the male characters don’t pass as seamlessly through time as their female counterpart does. It’s just not as easy to distinguish which of the actors are supposed to be the same character in the past and more recent scenes.

The drama of interactions with the Nazi enemy is enough to keep the audience on the edge of their seats without the discomfort of watching a war film. While I have no idea if the Israeli accents were accurate, they add a level of authenticity that makes all the other actions of the actors more believable. The subtlety of the action and the lack of a neat resolution can possibly be attributed to why some men in the theater were trying to convince me that The Debt is based on a true story. It’s not, but it is realistic. There’s a difference. The film’s cast and crew would likely take that false claim as a compliment though. (8.8 out of 10)

Moneyball

The only thing that seems odder than pairing up Brad Pitt and baseball is pairing up Brad Pitt with Jonah Hill. Well, both of those combinations appear in Moneyball, the story of Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane, played by Pitt, and his attempt to compete with wealthier teams. With the help of Hill’s character, they build a team of cheaper players, who excel at less recognized aspects of the game. Throughout the film, there is an underlying tension that keeps the audience interested in what could be considered a boring aspect of front office baseball. For sports fans, the film is sure to be a springboard for many hours of Wikipedia research on the Moneyball concept and the real life people portrayed in the film.

While some events were altered for dramatic effect, the reality of the process the A’s used after the 2002 season is an impressive underdog story. The pacing is so perfect that one would hardly notice you’re watching men sit around and talk about baseball statistics. Sure there are other things that happen, but the numbers are central. Pitt’s portrayal of Beane is understated and believable. I find that more impressive with Pitt than other actors because he’s so famous. If the audience can forget his red carpet status for the duration of a movie, then he’s done a good job.

The film has a similar feel to The Social Network in how interesting it is while dealing with potentially boring subject matter. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since Aaron Sorkin was one of Moneyball’s writers and won the Oscar for his work on The Social Network. The non-baseball scenes, which include Beane’s interactions with his daughter, are very well done and give context to the world these sports execs are living in. These father-daughter moments are as simple as browsing a music store. But their just another example of how Moneyball makes the most typical conversation insightful and interesting. (9.1 out of 10)

Warrior

While some may see Warrior as a way for Tom Hardy to build up his street cred before The Dark Knight Rises, it’s actually a pretty gritty look at an estranged family tied together by mixed martial arts. The similarities to last year’s Oscar nominee, The Fighter may be too much for the general movie-going public to get behind, but Warrior has a longer leash due to its fictional premise.

Hardy plays a Marine who returns to his native Pittsburgh and picks up fighting after years away from it. He employees his once abusive father (Nick Nolte) as his trainer, but never forgives him for the past offenses. Meanwhile, on the other side of Pennsylvania, Nolte’s other son (Joel Edgerton) is a school teacher who returns to MMA in an attempt to win enough money to keep his house, which is facing foreclosure and to provide for his wife (Jennifer Morrison) and two daughters.

With the exception of the fight announcers, who don’t really count, the acting in the film is near flawless. Nolte provides the most depth as he is able to range from the most subtle nervous tick all the way to over the top theatrics. The sympathy the audience feels for the character is truly a measure of this performance. It’s quite painful to watch the way he is treated. That doesn’t mean Edgerton and Hardy’s characters are unlikeable, it’s quite the contrary. They just have good reason to be so brutal. But both the leads do very well with the unyielding script. Picking who does better is almost like predicting the winner of their fight in the movie, it could go either way.

Even the supporting characters go above and beyond. Kevin Dunn, who plays Edgerton’s principle, is so convincing while watching his colleague’s fight on TV, the audience can feel the nerves he has. Then there’s Morrison, who I feared would provide a cheesy reproduction of the Adrian moment from Rocky. The writer never gives in to that temptation though, even when we want it to. She does quite well.

So I think it’s quite clear this is a character (and actor) driven film. There is also a lot of actual fighting though. While I personally have no problem with that, I can understand why some would. In addition, I know it’s fun to use the gritty hand held camera look that Warrior often employs, however the slow inconsistent focusing really brings the audience out of the story. But that can’t take away from the movies impact as a good, sad, inspiring, happy movie. It’s just chock full of adjectives. (9.0 out of 10)