Skyfall

James Bond is the star of the ultimate film franchise. 22 movies that have adapted with the times, unable to be killed when a poor film is released (or a series of poor films). What’s that, MGM? You don’t have the money to make the latest installment? That’s okay, we’ll wait. And now the wait is over. Skyfall has Daniel Craig return to the tuxedo for the third time to battle a cyber-terrorist (Javier Bardem) targeting MI-6 and more specifically, M (Judi Dench). Many of the classic Bond motifs are present for the die-hard fans. Ben Whishaw stars as a Q, a certain Aston Martin makes an appearance, and Bond is forced to introduce himself in the well-known format- Last name, first name, last name.

The film’s opening sequence results in Bond’s apparent death by gunshot, then falling off a bridge. I don’t entirely understand how he could have survived that, but there has never been a more obvious fake-out than this. Sure he “dies” in convincing fashion, but he’s James Bond. He obviously isn’t going to die, so why even pretend? I suppose it’s to blend into the stunning opening credits accompanied by Adele’s theme for the movie. But what the apparent death actually does is build some tension with Eve, (Naomi Harris) who shoots him and M, who gives the order. It’s possible there has never been a more layered Bond movie than Skyfall with the range of emotions and depth of characters presented.

Among all the old Bond references and updated excitement that is expected, the film actually gives the audience something very new, a look into Bond’s past. Avoiding any spoilers, the film’s title refers to an aspect of the spy’s past that proves very interesting. It amazes me that 50 years since the original incarnation, Dr. No, the audience is learning so much about the character, much more during these Daniel Craig chapters. Compared to its counterparts, Skyfall is possibly the best of the 23.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Argo

Last year when The Artist and Hugo took home tons of trophies on their way to big Oscar nights, it became clear that Hollywood is a big fan of movies about themselves. Sure both are quality movies, but since when does that get a movie Academy votes? If this trend continues this year, there is no doubt that Argo will have a full trophy case in its fake office. Both Directed by and starring Ben Affleck, Argo follows the true story of the CIA’s very stressful and odd maneuver to rescue six displaced American diplomats during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Staging a fake movie, the Americans are presented as a Canadian film crew looking for shooting locations. Only the slightest bit of research tells me the film is highly dramatized and fictionalized, but it still covers the basic facts.

I can’t recall another film that is able to cut between such intense drama and witty comedy like Argo does. Alan Arkin and John Goodman, who play Hollywood big shots, prove to be a great distraction from the rioting masses portrayed in the Iranian scenes. But when it is time for that drama, it’s done incredibly well. Affleck’s calm confidence in the role of leading the escape shows a cool restraint in his acting that not only comforts the characters but also the viewers looking for some type of reprieve.

Americans love watching movies about classified, behind the scenes sort of stuff and Argo fills that want. There is always that moment in espionage thrillers that presents the common citizen as gullible for believing the untrue reports, but now we’re in on the secret. If Argo teaches us anything it’s that the government definitely has weird stuff going on in secret. It’s as if this story is straight out of the President’s “Book of Secrets.” I’m not talking about the movie with Nicholas Cage. I’m talking about the REAL “Book of Secrets.”

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Flight

If the main focus of Flight was the dramatic plane crash where Denzel Washington’s character, a pilot, saves the lives of his passengers, then the movie would be accessible to wide-ranging audiences. However, after that very exciting sequence early in the film, the story unfolds as the tale of an alcoholic drug abuser, whose problems finally catch up with him. Of course during that miraculous plane crash he was under the influence, so he must try and find a way out of legal trouble. It’s all very stressful.

Washington gives a strong performance, but he’s one of those actors who have become so iconic that he always seems to be playing himself with a twist. He sounds like Denzel always sounds, moves like Denzel always moves, but he’s an alcoholic. The supporting cast offers a bit of reprieve. Kelly Reilly plays another drug abuser, who becomes a love interest for Washington’s character. But since she has an easier time making good choices than her counterpart, she becomes a more sympathetic character. Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood also add touches of responsibility that prove important to keep the audience from the constant cringing and disappointment.

Ultimately, Flight relies almost entirely on the talent and likability of Denzel Washington. His acting ability is very strong and he’s able to carry the movie squarely on his shoulders. But what often happens with movies like this, the attempt at depth restricts the audience from caring enough about the character. I suppose it’s meant to be a cautionary tale of the dangers of alcoholism, but the underlying theme of the drugs and alcohol complimenting each other to make the habit possible to live with is just odd. There is of course an attempt at the end to denounce the whole ordeal, but over two hours of chasing boos with cocaine isn’t quite resolved with the last 10 pages in the script.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Cloud Atlas

If one were to ask me what Cloud Atlas is like, the first word that comes to mind is dense. Based on the novel of the same name, the story follows a number of different timelines, which loosely intertwine and come back to themes of life, death, love and all that stuff. In order to better illustrate the connections, the film employs the use of the same actors as many of the leads spanning different lifetimes. It becomes an Easter egg hunt to find out who is playing who as the film goes on. The use of prosthesis often makes it difficult. Plus race, sex and age prove unimportant as the cast changes through all of them with ease. While I enjoyed this innovative move, it could be construed as gimmicky to distract impatient audiences from how long the film is.

In order to give each story its due, it makes sense that the length approaches three hours. I wonder if Cloud Atlas would have been more accessible as a mini-series. There are just too many story lines for a movie. Cutting one out would have gone a long way. But of course, which one would get cut? It’s impossible to choose. The Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer direct with pinpoint precision to the point where each arch could stand on its own. Trying to choose a favorite, I switched between three different stories before realizing I couldn’t decide.

Cloud Atlas reaches its political heights in Neo-Seoul, pulls on the audience’s emotions in 1936 Scotland, gains our sympathy in the 1849 South Pacific and gives some comic relief in modern day England. Each member of the cast is given their moment to shine as a lead, which is welcome allowing for strong players like Jim Broadbent and Ben Whishaw to get their moments in the spotlight opposite the better known stars like Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. The movie was definitely long and doesn’t have the tie together ending big Hollywood has led us to expect, but this is the kind of project that will push film making to the next level.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Alex Cross

I keep referring to this movie with different names. First I call it Alex Perry, then Tyler Cross. But those are wrong. It’s actually Alex Cross starring Tyler Perry. The film has Perry take over the lead role from Morgan Freeman who played the part in the 1997 film Kiss the Girls and 2001’s Along Came a Spider. This time the title character must track down an assassin (Matthew Fox) going after high ranking business people. But after a face to face encounter, Cross and his partners, played by Edward Burns and Rachel Nichols, become the killer’s target.

The film uses an interesting and extremely creepy villain, referred to as Picasso, in order to build tension. Fox went through a major physical transformation for the part and is rewarded by being the only memorable part of what appears on screen. Perry, who also lost weight, though in a less drastic way than Fox, for the film, falls flat as a predictable revenge driven cop. I don’t necessarily blame Perry for this. That’s the character in the script.

Trusty Wikipedia tells me there are 19 Alex Cross novels written by James Patterson. Fans of the series may discover some predictability in the books since there are so many, but there is no reason the first movie in a rebooted film series should be so obvious. The characters are mostly archetypes that are able to elicit the proper emotion from the audience, but very few are at all layered. For those looking for an exciting crime drama, Alex Cross fits. One problem (besides the script, which is definitely the main issue) may be the fall release of the film. Sandwiched between dense award-season films and fall/winter blockbusters, there really isn’t space for this kind of project. It would have done better in January or February.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Here Comes the Boom

When Kevin James made the jump from television to film, he actually did much better than you may have realized. His first four starring roles grossed north of $100 million. That impressive streak ended in 2011, but the actor has already been cemented as a viable lead for comedies and family movies, which is a good thing since he’s such a likeable guy. His latest, Here Comes the Boom seems destined to fall short of his box office’s high standards. The likely reason is the divisive presence of mixed martial arts in what could otherwise be categorized as a family film.

James plays a high school biology teacher who takes up mixed martial arts in order to make enough money to save the school’s extracurricular activities from budget cuts. Henry Winkler plays an unnaturally kind music teacher, who would lose his job, which is the reason the unlikely fighter gets in the octagon. As the second film in two years that has a teacher fighting MMA to make more money (Warrior), you’d think fighters at all levels of success were rolling in cash. But that’s obviously not the case. We’re meant to think that James has this amazing hidden talent for the sport, but it’s a bit difficult to buy that people who train full time wouldn’t get the opportunities over him. It is a movie though and when you get by the little issue of realism, it’s quite fun to watch.

The comedy in Here Comes the Boom outweighs the inspirational moments, which is important. The characters are written well with Bas Rutten and Mark DellaGrotte adding just enough MMA credibility next to the Hollywood regulars James and Winkler. Like previously mentioned, the movie is actually family friendly. The controlled MMA violence is less than many video games and is often meant to be funny. If we can’t laugh at Kevin James falling down and hurting himself, then the three stooges truly failed in their comedy innovations.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.