An Original Film...What a Novelty These Days -- Reflections on "Chronicle" (2012)

Peter Parker's Evil Twin...

Some people think I have high expectations, and that I’m hard to please. Many say that when it comes to movies, I’m too harsh, too cynical, and too unwilling to just sit back and enjoy the show. My response to that is simple:

All I ask for is a little originality.

That seems like a lot to ask for, but I don’t think it is. I’ve been fortunate to see lots of movies over the years, and I tire of having the same plot lines, same production values, same everything shoved in my face with the expectation from movie studios that I must like it merely because their buzz machine says I have to. It bothers me that last year, nine of the top ten highest grossing films of the year were all sequels; this is symbolic of the death of originality, implying that the safe bet is the only bet worth making at the movie theater. Hollywood is aware that people are struggling financially out there right now and with limited dollars to dispose of, most people are looking for sure fire entertainment. After all, who wants to drop $12.50 on a turd, right? It’s much safer to give that money to The Hangover brand, or the Twilight brand – even if they suck, they’re a known quantity, like McDonald’s and Marlboros.

So far, 2012 has started with a little kick, though, as if the tide is beginning to change. I was incredibly impressed and satisfied with The Grey, and apparently Haywire has done well both commercially and critically. Out this week is the old school haunted house thriller The Woman in Black, which is also getting solid reviews and should do well in the box office on the shoulders of Harry Potter. Usually, January/February is where Hollywood’s flops are buried in the midst of the Oscar season, but this year has been an exception.

And this brings me to the film I am reviewing, Chronicle. All I ask for is a little originality, and with this movie, director Josh Trank and screenwriter Max Landis (son of director John Landis) give us originality in spades, throwing an unique spin on both the superhero and found footage genres. Both of these genres have seemingly hit their tipping points, but Trank and Landis have put together a little gem of a film that breathes life into both and manages to resonate with viewers as well.

Three high schoolers, Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan) make a strange discovery in the woods one night after a rave party and soon find themselves with telekinetic powers. It’s a very traditional superhero premise involving an alien source, but for the first half of the film it is used as a starting point for a character study. Andrew is a withdrawn, angry young man with a dying mother, and a drunk, abusive father. He’s picked on at school, and finally finds solace in videotaping the goings-on in his life, as if doing so makes everything feel like it actually matters. One critic said Andrew is like Peter Parker if Uncle Ben had been an asshole, and that’s about as good an analogy as anyone could make. Matt is more level-headed, but philosophical and trying to deny the fact that popularity is important to him; he is Andrew’s cousin, and their relationship is hot and cold. Unlike the others, Steve exudes confidence, runs for class President, and serves as the glue that holds the group together.

At first, the powers are fun and games for the boys. They play, and test themselves. Eventually they pull some practical jokes that are as funny as they are immature. These are teenagers. But the power they have grows stronger, especially in Andrew, who seems to need it more than the others, and begins to enjoy using it in darker ways.

That’s as much as I’ll spoil, although if you’ve seen the trailer for the movie, you’ll get as much. What makes this movie so fantastic is that it is willing to go down dark avenues, allowing the characters to dictate the action, rather than pulling plot strings to get us to a big climatic showdown. We still get that moment – as is expected from superhero films – but even it does not happen the way we expect. Chronicle earns its grandiose moments in a way many superhero films do not.

Besides the attention to details and characterization, perhaps the film’s most impressive feat is the way in which it incorporates the found footage, shaky-cam aesthetic. Usually, in shaky-cam films, one of the main characters is always outside the action because they are required to hold the camera. This sometimes makes for a stilted narrative, and often – as was the case in Cloverfield – creates some unbelievably illogical moments. Josh Trank effectively turns the camera into a fourth main character in Chronicle, and as Andrew’s powers increase, he begins to use them to move the camera around so he can be in the shot. During sequences such as when the boys discover the joys of flying, this trick turns a cliché scene into something exhilarating. In addition, the camera’s usage also serves as a commentary on the characters. As Andrew becomes more disturbed, he films himself more often, finding a narcissistic streak lacking in the film’s opening scenes. Other camera’s perspectives, from video cameras to iPhones and security cams, are also employed, not always to perfect effect, but definitely more often than not.

There is little to criticize about Chronicle. One of the major subplots gets dropped in the third act, but it’s not critical to the film’s endgame. The characterization of Andrew’s dad sometimes feels a little cartoonish, too, but this is a superhero film – cartoonishness is in its DNA. Any of its faults are immediately erased by what it gets right, and it gets so much right.

So, I might be a bit harsh on films from time to time. My expectations aren’t that high, though. All I ask for is a little originality. Thankfully, Chronicle is an original.

No God Among the Wolves -- Reflections on 'The Grey' (2012)

Liam Neeson: Existentialist Superhero!

Years ago, I used to be a Christian. I came into the faith right before my second year of college (typically the time in life when most people walk away from theirs), and I remained a Christian for 13 years. I do not regret my time as a believer, nor do I consider it a waste of my life. While I eventually stepped away from the faith, I made a lot of friends, learned a lot about the world, and ultimately learned a lot about myself. I needed to be a Christian for those years in order to be the man I am today, for better or worse.

But step away I did. I walked away for many reasons, but mainly because I could no longer trust talking to an invisible man whose divine powers were supposed to be assisting me. One of the defining characteristics of most Christians is the ability to look at a setback, or a failure, as part of “God’s plan.” If you get cancer, or a child dies unexpectedly, or you lose your job and become homeless, it is all because of God’s design for your life. If you suffer, it is because he loves you, or – if you go to the wrong churches – because you don’t have enough faith. Despite the fact that life is often full of misery, frustration, and challenge, it is taught that God has the power to solve all of your problems and make the world a better place. Yet, it seems he seldom uses this power to benefit anyone specifically (except celebrities, athletes, musicians, and Republicans).

The Grey is a movie about the absence of God. It is an existentialist film in which all that matters is survival. We begin with a man named Ottway (Liam Neeson in a career-defining performance) who is on the brink of suicide the eve before he is set to hop on a plane taking him and a group of oil men to Alaska to drill oil. The plane crashes, Ottway and a few others survive, and quickly discover that they are hopelessly alone in the snowy Alaskan wilderness. Not completely alone, though; there are the wolves. Hungry, angry wolves are on the prowl, and the men find themselves facing a cunning and violent threat. The men mostly embrace Ottway as their de facto leader, and he tries to steer them in the right way to survive. Suddenly, in surviving, Ottway decides that life – no matter how awful – is worth clinging on to.

The movie’s trailers make it seem like a non-stop battle between men and wolves, and while the action in that regard is well shot and edited, the film spends more time developing the relationships between these men. Each has a history, a belief system, a reason to live, and their experiences together test their fortitude and will. Of course, several die, and it is a credit to director Joe Carnahan that he makes each death matter. This is not a horror film; these deaths stay with you, and are not fun.

While the men talk about God, and reflect on his plans, it becomes evident that there is no God to be found in the wilderness. Ottway realizes that if he wants something done, he will just have to do it himself. There will be no invisible hand, no deus ex machina to save the day and rescue him and his fellow survivors. The world is a cold and desolate place, harsh and violent, and there are wolves everywhere, hiding and ready to spring at a moment’s notice; The Grey captures this idea in the wintry landscapes, the glowing blue eyes of the wolves, and the worn, snow-speckled faces of our heroes.

Neeson’s performance is a stand-out, and had this film been distributed just a few weeks earlier, I have no doubt he would be on the Oscar ballot this year. His Ottway is tormented, yet finds strength in fear. No other actor could handle this role.

As I watched the film, I was constantly reminded of my own life, my own journey into dark territories, and my final resolve to walk away from faith. Like Ottway, I came to the realization that I had to do this by myself since no one was coming for me. He is truly an existentialist hero; a man who lives to fight and die on his own terms.

This is a powerful, gut-wrenching film. Like its villains – if you can really call them that – The Grey goes for the throat.

An Interesting Year -- My Favorite Films of 2011

2011 in film? Depending on the critic, it was either a really awful year, or a phenomenal one. I do my best to see as many new releases as I can, but always manage to miss a large number of movies (this year, notable misses are War Horse, The Artist, The Descendents, and Jack & Jill), so it’s hard for me to say whether it was really good or bad. My impression was somewhere in the middle. Only a handful of movies seemed to distinguish themselves as great, a whole slew of films were good to excellent, and there were several diaper loads of turds as well.

In essence, 2011 was like most other years.

Based on the 70 movies of 2011 I’ve seen (as of this writing), I present to you my top 10 films of the year. The order is alphabetical, like my previous year’s entries, mainly because I hate trying to rank movies of different genres. These were the 10 movies that spoke to me and entertained me more than any others this past year.

50/50

Films about friendship hold a soft spot in my heart (The Fisher King, Lord of the Rings, and Superbad come to mind), and 50/50 immediately made room for itself. It takes a dead genre (the dying of cancer genre) and breathes – cough! – life into it by turning it into a buddy movie. Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) discovers he has a rare spinal tumor and a 50% chance of survival; instead of the cancer being a jaw-dropping, manipulative twist, it becomes an opportunity to discover how a person deals with grief. Adam’s journey is tumultuous, dark, and funny. Kudos to Seth Rogen, who finds more than stoner raunch in Adam’s best friend, Kyle.

Attack the Block
I’m a sucker for kids’ adventure films, like The Goonies and The Monster Squad. Attack the Block, though, goes deeper than its roots in kid adventure would lead you to believe. It gives us seemingly unlikable protagonists, a gang of street thugs in London’s South Side, who begin the film by mugging a defenseless young lady. But as the movie progresses, the boys reveal themselves to be true heroes – especially Moses, played by John Boyega in a career making performance – by standing up against an alien menace. The movie’s tagline reads “Inner City vs. Outer Space,” but don’t let the exploitative, goofy vibe fool you: Attack the Block is one of the year’s best films.

Bridesmaids
I could try to convince you that this movie has cultural importance because of the way to takes the typically male dominated raunchy comedy and puts a unique feminine spin on it. I could try to convince you that Kristin Wiig and Annie Mumalo’s script is Oscar-worthy and that Melissa McCarthy’s performance is one for the ages. But I don’t need to. Bridesmaids was this year’s Hangover, not because of its content, but because of its invention and widespread appeal. It also happens to be a hell of a great movie, with outstanding performances and comedic set pieces. I laughed harder at this than any other comedy this year.

Drive
This was Ryan Gosling’s year, wasn’t it? He was in Crazy, Stupid, Love, Ides of March, and Drive. Drive was, by far, his most challenging role. Not many actors are able to command the audience’s attention in every single scene of a movie while uttering a bare minimum of dialogue, yet Gosling does it here with such ease that at first glance his performance would seem non-existent. That’s the movie’s greatest strength, though. By giving us such a silent, contemplative hero, we become aware of craziness of the plot – which is strong and powerful, punched up by some of the most frightening violence in any movie this year. This is a modern noir, a hard boiled narrative with an existentialist twist.

Hugo
Martin Scorsese pulled a fast one on us with Hugo. We expect the master to make movies about society’s outcasts, punctuated by brilliant violence, foul language, and masterful montages. Instead, we got a movie about one of society’s outcasts, filmed in 3-D, made for the family, and composed as a love letter to movies and movie lovers. Hugo is a great film. No other film this year made me feel as powerfully as this one. I felt like a kid again, re-discovering why I go to movies in the first place…because they are so damn magical!

Midnight in Paris
It’s hard to say Woody Allen has made a comeback this year, since he has made a movie per year since 1968. Yet, he has made a comeback in terms of public awareness and critical acclaim. Midnight in Paris is his best reviewed film since 2000s Match Point, and his highest grossing film since 1987s Hannah & Her Sisters. Not that any of this matters to Allen, who pretty much disavows all of his work once it’s completed. Midnight in Paris is one of his Woody’s best films, period. It’s funny, poignant, and smart. Owen Wilson is the best stand-in for Woody’s nebbish persona since Woody hit his sell-by date. This movie deserves multiple viewings.

Super 8
J.J. Abrams got Steven Spielberg to produce this movie and channeled the spirit of Spielberg’s past glory. Super 8 is a darker version of E.T., in which the kids are seeking a legitimate monster holding their small town in the grip of panic and despair. Of course the special effects are top-notch, but the real surprise of this movie are the performances of the kids (Joel Courtenay, Elle Fanning, and Riley Griffiths). They make us believe the sci-fi happenings going on around them. In addition to being a good sci-fi/horror flick, Abrams makes it personal, as his characters are all budding filmmakers. The joy of filmmaking is evident here, and gives Super 8 all the pathos and warmth other notable 2011 pictures like Hugo and The Artist were trying to achieve.

Tree of Life
A masterpiece. Malick’s film has everything: stunning cinematography, iconic characters, grand themes, the history of mankind, and dinosaurs. He takes a small town family in 1950s Texas and shows their significance in the great scheme of things. It’s pretentious, yet heartfelt and extremely personal. No other film this year dared to do so much and succeeded so powerfully. One of the reasons I love this movie is simply because it has sparked debate among the people that see it. Those that love it, like me, are passionate about it, while those that don’t are equally passionate. Is that the hallmark of a great film? I’m not sure, but it certainly must be one characteristic.

Warrior
I was interested in this film when I saw the trailer for it earlier in 2011, but never imagined that it would ever be on this list. But like both of its protagonists, Warrior was my underdog pick for the top 10. This movie succeeds because of the performances by Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy, but especially Hardy, who is right up there with Gosling and Bale as one of the best actors of the new generation. These two brothers follow a very predictable road to a final fight, but they make getting there both relevant and emotionally riveting. There was no better ending to a movie this year.

Young Adult
This is a small film, so it will go unnoticed by most awards committees who are looking for sexier movies to lavish with praise and baubles, but it’s every bit as good as any film receiving “Best Picture” consideration. Diablo Cody’s screenplay, about an alcoholic teen fiction writer dead set to destroy the marriage of her high school sweetheart, is dark and daring. Somehow Cody, director Jason Reitman, and actress Charlize Theron found the heart beating in the protagonist’s bosom and made her live, while never sacrificing the venom dripping from her lips. Theron’s performance is flawless, and she is matched by the breakout performance of Patton Oswalt as the geek still trying to deal with high school’s worst torments and humiliations.

What I've Been Watching -- December 2011

Here's a run down of films I've watched over the last couple weeks that I just couldn't find the time to write full length reviews for. This batch has been a pretty good one for the most part.

Attack the Block (2011) dir.: Joe Cornish ****

Like District 9, Attack the Block gives us a sci-fi story that takes place in an unlikely location – this time, South London, lovingly referred to by its residents as “the block.” Our heroes are a group of teenage thugs, led by the quiet, angry Moses (John Boyega), who discover what appears to be an alien fallen from the sky shortly after mugging a local resident. On the heels of this discovery, the boys find themselves being chased down by a horde of savage aliens while also dealing with cops and the local drug kingpin, Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter). Made on a comparatively low budget, Attack the Block gets the most bang for its buck, mostly out of its clever staging of action scenes and the use of its fine ensemble of young Brit actors. Especially good is Boyega as Moses, whose world-weary eyes communicate more about life in the urban area of London than any documentary could. Like the great genre films, Attack the Block uses its idea to shine a spotlight on more important social issues – my favorite moment takes place during a moment of reprieve from the action, when Moses, very soberly, hypothesizes that these creatures are government created because the all the drugs and crime in the ghetto aren’t killing its residents fast enough. “Cult classic” was a term made for movies like this one.

Beginners (2011) dir.: Mike Mills ****

I imagine it’s because I can sort of relate to this film on a personal level that makes me love it so much. Ewan McGregor plays Oliver, a professional graphic design artist, who discovers after the death of his mother that his old man, Hal (Christopher Plummer), was gay all those years of marriage. Rediscovering his father in the aftermath of tragedy is hard enough, but to also learn that his father is dying of cancer, too, is devastating. Mike Mills’ film could have been a lame, melodramatic soap opera if handled the wrong way, but with this talented cast he is able to craft a film of considerable weight and truth. I love that he begins the film after Hal is dead, causing Oliver to look back as he looks forward and attempts to begin a romantic relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent). The flashbacks bring resonance to Oliver’s present struggles in a way that is both surprising and inspiring. While my father was not homosexual, I, too, got to know him better after the death of my mother. His subsequent death a few years later left much unsaid and unresolved, but those years we had reconnecting were as important to me as they were to Oliver, and left me just as conflicted. But even if this weren’t a personal movie to me, it would still be one of the year’s best, simply on the performance of Christopher Plummer alone, who shines brightly as Hal. Hal’s liberation and free spirit are inspiring, even as his death sentence looms, reminding us that life isn’t about death, but about being.

Hanna (2011) dir.: Joe Wright ***1/2

This is what action films should be. Cerebral, surprising, and badass. Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is 16-years old and has been trained by her father (Eric Bana) to be the perfect assassin. Her world is shaken when she finds herself being pursued by government operatives, led by a sinister Cate Blanchett, who are trying to take her into custody. Hanna's escape leads her into the care of a vacationing family, whose presence brings out many repressed feelings and desires in the developing girl. And there's a character twist that I doubt anyone will see coming. This is a fast-paced thrill-ride of a film that gives both Ronan and Blanchett lots of scenery to chew. The action sequences, as directed by unlikely action director Joe Wright (Atonement), are fantastic and gripping. Unlike many action films made these days, the focus is on the actual action, not merely the editing techniques designed to make them seem intense. This is like The Bourne Identity for girls … girls who like to kick the shit out of people.

Margin Call (2011) dir.: J.C. Chandor ***1/2

If Inside Job was the overview exposing Wall Street’s corruption, excess, and blatant disregard for the trust of the American public, then Margin Call is the lacerating example of what went wrong. In the spirit of David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, it is a closed room story of financial executives under pressure to swindle the American public to save their own skins. A junior analyst is entrusted by his recently fired boss with a file that upon completion reveals that their financial firm will be going belly up as of yesterday. Meetings are called amongst the big wigs and decisions must be made. The tone of the film is dark, the dialogue intentionally ambiguous and philosophical, and the performances sharp and convincing. The film has an all-star cast, including Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Stanley Tucci, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany and Zachary Quinto. Spacey, in particular, stands out as Sam, a Risk Management specialist who is having one of the worst days of his life, which begins with having to put his dog down and ends with him having to put the American people down. The film would be a tragedy if it wasn’t so goddamn realistic.

Terri (2011) dir.: Azael Jacobs ***1/2

High school is hard, but it’s even harder for a freak. Terri (Jacob Wysocki) is a very fat boy who comes to school in his pajamas. For all intents and purposes, he is a freak; to him, though, they just fit. Regardless, his behavior puts him on the radar of Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), the school’s Vice-Principal, who decides to take Terri under his wing and mentor him along with other misfits in the school population. Terri’s conflicts deepen as he becomes involved with a popular girl who has fallen from grace. The story is unpredictable and always rings true. This film’s power comes from its honest performances, especially the newcomer Wysocki, who embodies Terri with a wisdom and keen insight I’ve never seen from a teenager in a film. Terri could easily become a type, but writer/director Azael Jacobs goes to great lengths to ground him in a believable world. Terri is a breath of fresh air.

Straw Dogs (2011), dir.: Rod Lurie **

This remake of Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 film stars James Marsden doing his best Dustin Hoffman impression, and Kate Bosworth as his nagging wife doing her best impression of paint drying. He’s a writer, she’s a TV actress (which would be an improvement for her), and they have come to her hometown in the deep south in order to repair the old homestead after hurricane season, give Marsden time to write a screenplay about the battle of Stalinsgrad, and give the local hicks a chance to revisit their teen lust and rape fantasies set to some bitchin’ Zydeco music. Not much of anyone’s motivations make much sense, meaning that we have to rely mostly on blatant stereotypes to understand everyone. The rednecks are salivating, ignorant, religious zealots in love with football and Southern hypocrisy. Marsden is a Hollywood leftist type, and Bosworth is…well, Bosworth. As I watched this film, I found myself feeling very sorry for Alexander Skarsgaard, who is obviously in this film because of his role as the hot vampire, Eric, in HBO’s True Blood. He is horribly miscast as a good ol’ Southern boy; it is as if the producers didn’t even watch the show, just assuming he’d be a good fit since he is in a show set in bayou country. Regardless, Straw Dogs is forgettable entertainment, as needlessly violent as it is patently dumb.

A Tale of Two Movies -- Reflections on "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (2011)

Don't fuck with Lizbeth Salander!

Having read Stieg Larsson’s novel, and having seen the 2009 Swedish film, I went into David Fincher’s version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with an equal measure of high hope and dread. Unlike last year’s remake of Let the Right One In, this movie I had been looking forward to all year. Granted, it’s annoying that Hollywood executives think any successful foreign film needs to be remade for unexposed American audiences (with an underlying assumption that American productions are better), especially since the Swedish film was already terrific and featured a career-making performance by Noomi Rapace as the tortured savant Lizbeth Salander, but I was excited nonetheless because of the people involved. Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, The Social Network) and screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Schindler’s List, Gangs of New York, American Gangster, Moneyball) are two of the best talents in the industry, and the casting of Daniel Craig (a.k.a. James Bond) and relative unknown Rooney Mara seemed inspired. And, of course, the reimagining of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” by Trent Reznor and Karen O. that played over the teaser trailer earlier this year whet my appetite like the scent of a Christmas ham.

As I left the theater, though, I found myself just as conflicted as when I sat in my seat. On one hand, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an expert mystery/thriller with wonderful performances; on the other, it is cold, frustrating and choppy. I liked it, but I didn’t love it. I wanted to love it, and there is much to love about it, but as I reflect on my experience I realize that I wanted something else. But what, exactly?

While the particulars of this story are very complex and convoluted, it is pretty straightforward. Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a gifted investigative journalist who finds his world crumbling when he loses a libel case brought against him by a multi-national businessman. Blomkvist finds a chance at redemption when a rich old man named Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) asks him to use those incredible investigative skills to uncover the truth surrounding the 1966 death of Vanger’s beloved niece, Harriet. Blomkvist takes the case and finds himself snared in a labyrinthine mystery.

Help comes in the form of Lizbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a misanthropic computer hacker and private investigator. Lizbeth is one of the most interesting heroines you will likely ever see on screen. She is rude, ugly (yet remarkably sexy), and angry, but also shrewd, insanely intelligent, and vulnerable. Mara plays her with the restrained anxiety and ferocity of a caged animal, her eyes constantly darting and surveying, her arms and body clenching in anticipation. Lizbeth always appears ready to spring into action. For as independent as Lizbeth is, though, she isn’t. She is a ward of the state, and when her beloved guardian has a stroke, she is forced into the care of a new guardian, Bjurman, whose intentions are not especially pure and noble. If you’ve read the novel, or seen the 2009 film, you know the dark territory this story explores; if not, just know the movie earns its ‘R’ rating.

The best parts of this film involve Lizbeth. It’s obvious David Fincher feels the same. The movie sizzles when Mara is on screen, and her scenes are loaded with intensity and passion. Lizbeth is so interesting on her own that had Blomkvist not been a part of the story, I doubt I would have minded. The weakest parts of the movie are the sequences involving Blomkvist investigating the death of Harriet Vanger. So much of the story is devoted to exposition that the movie often gets bogged down in names, dates, and times. Fincher does his best to deal with these elements by giving us dramatized snapshots of the past, and by using similar techniques to the ones employed in The Social Network that made computer use feel compelling. Nonetheless, in contrast to the more immediate and darker material of Lizbeth’s story, Blomkvist’s tale feels detached and conventional. I really think if Fincher could have found a way to remove the mystery story without offending a rabid fan base for the book that has made it an international bestseller, he would have done so in a heartbeat.

So, basically, what we have is two separate movies. One is a traditional mystery, the other a dark crime story about an intriguing character. Once the two intersect, the mystery story takes over and Lizbeth no longer feels like a main character, but more of a supporting cast member. As frustrating as that is, Mara’s performance is stellar. She disappears into Lizbeth Salander, and her evolution over the last act of the film is startling in its rawness and vulnerability. This is a star making performance.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo definitely frustrated me, but I imagine it will be successful. Most people will go into it not knowing much about the source material – sometimes having less information can make a movie far more enjoyable – and will benefit from it. Fincher’s work is the work of a master craftsman, and the story is thrilling. The performances will be what most people take from it, especially Mara’s, and that is fitting. The movie belongs to her.

A Definite Thrill Ride -- Reflections on "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" (2011)

Crazy, man, crazy...

Does any actor have bigger balls than Tom Cruise? Is any actor crazier? My guess is no. In the best action set piece of the newest Mission: Impossible film, Ghost Protocol, Cruise does his own stunt work as he scales the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Hanging over a mile and half above the ground, Cruise – and his character – seems to be testing the limits of his courage and devotion to the job. It is an extraordinary moment, iconic even, in which reality disappears, the heartbeat accelerates, and the “oh shit” factor increases exponentially. Despite seeing Cruise doing press tours and promoting the film with his typical zeal, there’s a moment as he dangles from the glass tower that life and death might actually hang in the balance.

While I didn’t love Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, I can’t help but smile as I remember the thrill.

A lot of critics use the term “thrill-ride” to describe action films, and it seems to be the best way to describe this one. Ghost Protocol is a thrill-ride from start to finish, devoting its time to some expertly well-directed and choreographed action pieces. While the Burj Khalifa sequence is worth the price of admission in and of itself, it is by no means the only great one. The film opens with a cleverly staged prison break, features a riveting chase scene through a sand storm, and concludes with a shocking duel in a futuristic parking garage. This film definitely took a kitchen sink approach to the material and the result is inventive and fun.

Tom Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt, full of charm and intensity. He and his team, comprised of the comic relief (Simon Pegg), the multi-talented hot chick (Paula Patton), and the mysterious analyst (Jeremy Renner), are hot on the heels of a Russian terrorist (Michael Nyqvist) looking to save mankind by destroying it with stolen nuclear weapon codes and satellites. Is it just me, or has it been a long time since we’ve seen a Russian villain in an action film? This one, of course, is operating independently of his nation, is a mad genius, and the film wisely stays away from letting us hang out with him in his secret lair as he concocts his evil plans. It’s good enough to know he’s a Bad Guy. This film is more about the crazy lengths secret agents will go to in order to save the world.

The only knock against the movie is the way it clumsily handles exposition. The film spends so much time setting up the action that the characters often feel pretty two-dimensional, so in order to give the characters some depth, most of the characterization has to be done through expository dialogue. Characters spend an inordinate amount of time in the movie’s second act discussing their pasts and laying their motivations on the table for everyone to see. The result is some plodding scenes that bog down the propulsive rhythm of the plot. This is no one’s fault – unnecessary exposition is a chronic issue plaguing many action films – and it’s a rare action film (i.e. The Bourne Identity) that is able to effectively balance character development and high-octane action.

Credit director Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Ratatouille), in his first live-action film, for keeping things moving along. His experience with animation shows here, especially in the action sequences, which have a fluidity not hampered by excessive editing. The framing and sequence of his shots revs up the tension and suspense, even though the thin characters haven’t necessarily earned any excessive concern. I’m looking forward to what Bird can do with scripts of a higher caliber.

Nonetheless, if you are looking for a solid, exhilarating action film to enjoy with your family this holiday season, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the film for you. This is a film that hits you like an adrenaline shot, as stunt sequence after stunt sequence do more to put you in the middle of the action than any action film I have seen in recent memory. Like Fast Five earlier this year, Ghost Protocol is a sequel that doesn’t require you having seen the previous movies, amps up the cartoony elements of action and violence, and gives you a hell of an enjoyable ride.

I saw this film in IMAX with the 6-minute trailer for the new Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises. Two thoughts: 1) IMAX makes everything better. Watching the Burj Khalifa sequence on a 72-foot high, 52-foot wide screen was one of the most immersive experiences I've ever had when watching a film. 2) The Dark Knight Rises is going to be one of the best films of 2012 if those first six minutes are any indication. Christopher Nolan has some incredible tricks up his sleeve, and watching an airplane being turned vertical during mid-flight was something I'll never forget.

Death of a High School Queen -- Reflections on "Young Adult" (2011)

Why do geeks always have to ride shotgun, huh?

Have you ever wondered what happened to all those people you used to know in high school? The popular ones who paraded down the halls like royalty, encouraging the worship of lesser mortals? Maybe you were one of those people – what happened to you? Social networking has sort of eliminated the need for high school reunions to a degree because we can “friend” all those people now, and take a peek into their lives. As cool as that is, though, I’m curious how much social websites encourage and reinforce those myths.

Screenwriter Diablo Cody and director Jason Reitman seem to be wondering this, too, and in their hilarious, scathing new comedy Young Adult, they deliver a movie that makes it clear all those members of high school royalty are just as fucked up as you are. This is a film about how, in many ways, life after high school is even tougher for those Prom Kings and Queens. It must be difficult to go from being worshipped – or at least considering yourself worshipped – to becoming a regular joe. Graduation is the great equalizer, though, and getting the largest ovation during the ceremony does not necessarily constitute a better life.

Case in point: Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron). She was the prom queen, the hot girl, the football captain’s main squeeze. No doubt at one point during her high school life she was the envy of all the girls who had yet to embrace their inner beauty, and the masturbatory fantasy of geeks who couldn’t believe they had anything to offer girls like her. Her post-high school life seems promising. She moved to the big city of Minneapolis and started ghost writing books for a series of young adult novels about teen girls. To the outside observer, Mavis’ life is one of luxury, fame, and mystery – she’s still as unattainable a celebrity as she was when she graced those hallowed halls.

We know differently, though. Mavis, as played by the revelatory Theron, is an alcoholic adolescent. Her career as a writer is about to end, as the series of books she writes have lost favor with teen girls (no doubt replaced by stories of co-dependent teen girls in love with emotionally unavailable vampires), and she is a middle-aged divorcee, seemingly with no friends except her cute, oft neglected toy dog. This is a woman looking for an excuse to matter again.

Mavis gets her excuse in an email from Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson), her high school flame, in which he announces the birth of his daughter. While most would see this as a celebration of life, Mavis sees it as a cry of help from Buddy, and she convinces herself that they are destined to be together. Her life is a miserable train wreck not because of false expectations, bad decisions, and alcoholism, but because she and Buddy broke up and went their separate ways. So, Mavis, desperate and crazy, heads back home to her small Minnesotan town with the hopes of winning back Buddy’s adoration, even if it means destroying his home and family like a Midwestern tornado.

Of course, things don’t go according to Mavis’ plans. The most interesting obstacle comes in the form of Matt Frehauf (Patton Oswalt), the invisible geek that had the locker next to Mavis’ all four years of high school, but whom she can only remember as “The Hate Crime Guy.” In his Senior year, Matt was attacked by a group of homophobic football players who wrongly assumed he was gay and beat him so badly that not only does he walk with a cane, but his cock doesn’t even stand right. To Mavis, this is an amusing anecdote, and her lack of sympathy, combined with Matt’s own eternal adolescent worship of beauty queens make them unlikely allies in Mavis’ quest.

Reitman and Cody manage to take this story, which could become a clichéd mess, and make it a bittersweet character study. Mavis is a wholly unlikable character – vain, selfish, oblivious, judgmental, delusional, and just plain mean. Yet, she is sympathetic – a flawed woman on a quest for redemption. It’s this contradiction that gives Young Adult both its bite and its heart. We, like Matt and all those high school kids, equally worship and revile her. For every moment we feel for her, find ourselves on her side, Mavis reminds us why she is such a bitch. Credit Theron for being brave enough to play this character without a shred of irony or pathos. She won’t win an Oscar for this performance – it’s too subtle and nuanced, and too dark in a non-showy way – but she will win admiration and fandom.

And while Mavis is unlikable, Matt Frehauf is her total opposite. Patton Oswalt gives his “I’ve arrived” character actor performance in this film. Matt hangs over this film as a moral conscience, providing the audience with an “in” to the story, yet the irony of his feelings towards Mavis is not ignored. He thinks she’s a delusional idiot who can’t let go of the past. Yet, like her, he is trapped in the past, obsessed with what his life could have been had he not been nearly beaten to death. They are natural foils, and this movie is at its most riveting in the scenes featuring Theron and Oswalt.

Mavis’ journey is familiar, yet unique. Because of the film’s structure, we’re supposed to root for her to destroy Buddy’s marriage, but of course we can’t do that. Rooting against marriage is like hating puppies, or wanting kids to fail in school. So, we root for her coming to an understanding. The movie provides many moments of epiphany – my favorite being at a bar when she is forced to listen to Buddy’s wife dedicate a song to him, that just so happens to be the same song Buddy put on a mixtape for Mavis during their glory days – but never caves under the pressure to provide an easy release. The ending is unexpected because it is exactly what should happen – the sort of ending crowd-pleasing filmmakers would be incapable of making.

For me, Young Adult is one of the year’s best films. It is full of rich, complex characters in a story that eschews convention for something more real and enlightening.