Movie of the Week – The Incredibles

This week’s movie: The Incredibles (2004)

Superheroes were a big part of our world, but after some bad publicity they were asked to take off their masks and return to normal society. Now, many years later, former superheroes Bob and Helen Parr lead normal boring lives, raising a family – Bob works for an insurance company and Helen is a homemaker. But while family seems to be enough for Helen, Bob still has a yearning for more. This makes him an easy target to be lured into a budding scheme by a super villain to gain fame and notoriety, putting the world in grave danger in the process.

The film is written and directing by Brad Bird, who has made many of the best animated features in recent years, including: The Iron Giant and Ratatouille. He has now moved on to live-action features with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and the upcoming Tomorrowland. He worked with great composer Michael Giacchino on the film.

The film features voice work from Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Jason Lee, Wallace Shawn, and Elizabeth Pena (Bird voiced Edna, a nod to famous costume designer Edith Head).

The Incredibles won the 2005 Oscar for Best Animated Feature. It is maybe Pixar’s best film to date (though, WALL-E and Up are great as well), featuring the right balance of action, drama and comedy. The characters are also very well written, something that is not too common in films made primarily for children in today’s cinema. While it is probably considered a superhero film, it feels much more like a spy thriller in the vein of classic James Bond films. It is a must-see for Pixar fans.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) – Review

Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is visually spectacular and Shakespearian in its story construction, but ultimately feels insubstantial and slow.

Following the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes (first Rise and then Dawn, will the next one be called Advent of the Planet of the Apes?), the film takes place ten years later. Most of the Earth’s human population has died out due to a simian flu and civilization has more or less crumbled. Yet, there are a few small communities still trying to survive. One such community exists in San Francisco. There, the people have a plan to turn things around, start over and rebuild – all they need is power as their fuel is about to run out. This leads them into the neighboring forest to find a dam that once powered the northern area of the Bay Area. They stumble upon a startling discovery: an ape village, ruled by Caesar who now has developed the ability to speak. Caesar has created a community as well, seeing the apes thrive. The men and apes make an uneasy truce as Caesar allows the men (lead by Malcolm) to access the dam, but there are combustible elements on both sides which will surely lead to a war between man and ape.

There is a lot to really like about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Visually, it is quite an achievement. Motion capture technology has seemingly completely blurred the line between live-action and computer animated performance. The performance that Andy Serkis gives as Caesar is just as powerful and visceral as any live-action actor – the technology is so precise in its capturing of the subtle elements that it feels just as real. This alone brings a lot to the film and its narrative and emotional weight, and to some extent is enough to make this film something special and groundbreaking (even more so than Rise of the Planet of the Apes or his brilliant work in The Lord of the Rings series).

Director Matt Reeves structures the narrative in a very interesting manner. First, it draws parallels between the apes and humans, seemingly blending them into a single entity by the end. Apes and humans are both capable of being good and evil; there is not one side that is wholly in the right. Reeves presents Caesar and Malcolm as being the good characters from their respective groups (driven by sound morals and honor), while Carver and Koba are the evil characters (driven by hate). The true leader of the humans, Dreyfus, is a bit harder to pin down (mostly due to his character being minimally explored). His actions seem to be in the service of human preservation and not especially driven by hate or anger – maybe fear. This somewhat mirrors Caesar’s son Blue Eyes as well (mixed with typical teenage angst: wanting to be treated like an adult before it is earned). He fears the humans, and thus he acts in a manner to preserve what he thinks is best for the apes. Reeves does not favor either side, as the parallels show that in many ways they are the same. Yet, the narrative is mostly told from Caesar’s perspective (which sees the human characters fall secondary in terms of character development).

The narrative also feels very Shakespearian as Caesar is betrayed by his trusted friend and number two Koba, who wants to seize control (something that he has always secretly wanted, even when following Caesar he was just always weaker until humans and their guns gave him an opportunity). Caesar is dethroned (and somewhat banished) only to make his triumphant return to try and reclaim the throne. Like most narratives that share story elements with Shakespeare’s work, viewers are very familiar with all the dramatic and narrative beats of these types of narratives. While the emotions and drama of Reeves’s staging of the action and theatrics are seemingly amplified by their basis in classical grand style (there is an added weight to the drama when it plays out in a manner that resembles the classic works because they are ingrained in our collective subconscious), they also run the risk of feeling a bit tired and played out. This is the case with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

In many ways it is miles ahead of the typical summer movie blockbusters we put up with in the name of entertainment (2014 has been especially weak in terms of high quality big films), but as dramatically ambitious as it is the film is lacking in a few key elements. Chiefly, the narrative is wholly unoriginal, which leads to it feeling incredibly slow at times, and it is not helped out by its deficiency of well-drawn characters (outside of Caesar and Koba). It also seemingly fails to really entertain as well, again the main culprits being its slow pacing and many meaningless characters the audience is not invested in.

Maybe it is just that I have seen too many films and television series. Maybe there are just no more innovative ways to tell the same stories over and over again, but I found myself disinterested in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes almost throughout. I recognized the story structure and thus the whole film was laid out, hitting each telegraphed narrative beat; any yet, this is not something new. Almost all films, especially big budget Hollywood films, are this way. The real reasons that this film seemed to lose me stem much more from its characters and maybe its tone, in the face of having poorly drawn characters overall.

In a medium in which all the stories have seemingly been told (at least in their main structural form), characters and/or spectacle are the main elements that make them interesting on a deeper level. From a spectacle and aesthetic standpoint, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is top notch, and thus really it is characters that are the main draw (this could just be for me). Caesar and Koba are strong characters, each with a fluid and satisfying arc; however, there are no other good ape characters (even Blue Eyes is mostly marginalized). Maybe it is greedy to want more. The problem is that Reeves structures the film to split time between the apes and humans (though, overall, the film is mostly Caesar’s); however, the humans are incredibly bland and really have no defining character moments or elements to make the audience care about them (probably because none of them will make it into the sequel – this is not confirmed, but this feels true, and thus why waist the time developing them in a film that is already too long). All the time spent with the humans alone is time wasted, slowing down the narrative momentum substantially. It would be fine for them to be one note characters if they only served the role of being a plot accelerator for Caesar and the apes (that is essentially the purpose they serve anyway), but why waste time with them if there is no intention of drawing them as full characters? Is it because, regardless of how strong a character as Caesar is and how well Serkis’s performance comes through, Reeves and the studio just did not fully believe that the apes alone could engage a human audience – that humans need human characters in live-action films to be fully engaged (forgetting that there have been good live-action films without humans in the past, things like Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, The Adventures of Milo and Otis, and Babe – we can anthropomorphize just about anything if we care about the characters)? I do not know.

Typically, Hollywood spectacle films with bland or thinly drawn characters rely on a lighter tone and comedy to increase the overall entertainment value of their product (mixing comedy and high violence seems to have worked out pretty well for the Transformers series). Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is tonally very dark, which too adds to the film feeling slow because the audience does not have moments of relief from the dramatic strife. This means that the characters need to be all the more interesting or the pacing needs to be tight. Again, the human-centric narrative elements fail utterly in this respect. The tone remains bleak and heavy and the pacing is maybe even slower (but it probably feels that way because the audience is being sidelined from the characters and narrative that they actually care about, instead having enduring characters they do not).

The film also seems to somewhat marginalize its female characters (which is nothing new in big Hollywood films; it is just disappointing). Human or ape, women are only caretakers and followers while men are warriors, leaders, and heroes/villains. Caesar’s wife Cornelia might as well not even be in the film (let alone played by the very talented Judy Greer). Her role is basically to give birth to his sons and be sick, needing human medicine which in turn garners Caesar’s trust of the humans. The film misses a real opportunity to showcase her character and strength once Koba takes Caesar’s throne, expelling him from the ape community. She could have been a voice of descent, loyal to Caesar, but is left out completely. Similarly, the only female human character is Ellie, Malcolm’s friend and love interest. She is never involved the decision-making, aside from wanting to come with Malcolm because she is the only one that has medical expertise (and thus is necessary for a future plot point). She too is primarily solely a caregiver. Thus, females in the film are only shown in their classic gender roles, completely sidelined from the action and dramatic meat of the film, making the film feel a bit narratively archaic (and wasting the talent of the good actresses playing the roles).

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a fantastic film and a disappointing film at the same time. It has wonderful visuals and its use of motion capture technology is astonishing, but its characters outside Caesar and Koba are incredibly boring and seemingly pointless. This very well could have been a two character piece based on ancient Rome’s Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus. The utter lack of strong supporting characters (or leading characters when the narrative switches to the humans) ultimately leaves the film feeling very slow, which is only amplified by its dark and weighty tone. Despite Caesar’s strong and classically-based character arc, the film just cannot invest its viewers fully because its pacing and lack of other good characters loses them along the way.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Matt Reeves with Let Me In and now Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has shown his talent for great aesthetics and capable directing. It is too bad that the script has let him down a bit (though, it is ultimately his responsibility in editing to create a film that works; it is clear that this is paced far too slowly). I look forward to seeing what he does next (which sounds like another Apes film, which he directly has a hand in scripting this time – so that is good).

The aesthetics of the film are phenomenal across the board. Michael Giacchino’s score is a highlight, providing an extra layer of gravitas and excitement to many of the scenes. I loved the little flourishes he adds in key dramatic moments. Michael Seresin’s cinematography is tonally just right for a film set in a post-apocalyptic world. Everything is very bleak and gloomy; yet, Seresin still allows for the actors and animated creations to be fully visible so that the audience can see their full emotional performances play out on their faces. James Chinlund’s production design is also great. I particularly found the central ape dwelling (Caesar’s home) to be aesthetically very interesting. I also think simple things like the overgrown 76 Station are nice touches in creating a world long forgotten by modern civilization.

The cast in the film is good overall, although many have to make the most out of weak characters. Kirk Acevedo plays the caricature “evil human”, personified by Carver (the role embodied by Draco Malfoy in Rise of the Planet of the Apes). He hates the apes, unabated by the reality of the world he lives in. For him it is not fear but unbridled hate and Acevedo does a great job portraying that (giving what is probably the best performance among the human characters).  Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Malcolm’s son but really does not have much to do, but he brings a certain grace to the role (reuniting with Reeves, having appeared as a lead in Let Me In). Keri Russell too does not have much to do playing Ellie. She is not much more than a plot device, and yet she too brings something extra to the role (as well as reuniting with Reeves as well; Reeves was on the main creative people on Felicity). Gary Oldman plays Dreyfus, the leader of the humans. He is an ex-military man who lost his whole family to the simian flu. Oldman like every human character does not have much to do aside from push the plot forward, but as an excellent character actor he still conveys the weight and pain of his decisions. Jason Clarke plays Malcolm, the human who befriends Caesar. He is the main human character and thus for many viewers is more or less the linchpin to whether the film works or not. If he can pull the audience in and make them care about him then the film will play infinitely better, but if he succumbs to the weak writing handicapping his character then the narrative will feel incredibly slow and lose its viewers. While Clarke does his best, I do not think that the writing and narrative structure/pacing could be overcome regardless of how good he is in the film. Toby Kebbell plays Koba and is excellent. He is consumed by hate and envy and his performance is only amplified by the scares and scary visual appearance of Koba. He is always going to be a villain, just look at that face. Andy Serkis is also brilliant as Caesar. He is the master of the motion capture performance (his Gollum is among my favorite performances from the last decade). Caesar, through the animators and Serkis’s work, is able to showcase a full range of emotion, including the nuances of Serkis’s performance. He is also able to emotionally engage the audience to a much greater extent than any of the human-character actors’ performances. It is fine work.

Summary & score: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes should be praised for its storytelling ambition and visual/technological execution; it is just too bad that it is so let down by its weak narrative structure. 6/10

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) – Review

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness is a very entertaining action/sci-fi adventure. The film is about Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and the crew of the Enterprise and their mission to track down a dangerous Starfleet agent (John Harrison) who has viciously attacked the Federation from within. However, not everything is as it seems, Kirk and the Enterprise are going up against a powerful adversary, which they are not quite prepared for and do not fully understand.

Much like 2009’s Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness sets aside many of the normal troupes that govern the TV Series (and its successors) in exchange for a more accessible story and overall feel. While this is sure to again infuriate many fans of the original series and films, the end result is a very entertaining action adventure (made for everyone). However, Star Trek Into Darkness tries to make many references to the original series and its films, taking it a bit too far and essentially turns into Star Trek II: The Wraith of Kahn in the latter half for no good reason other than to reference what is widely considered the best of the prior Star Trek films. For general audiences, this reference material serves no real purpose (and a particular yell will come off fairly cheesy), and for Trek fans it feels kind of insulting (and thus again serves no good purpose). The question then becomes: why not just create an original story? That aside, the film works quite well (again, assuming the logic shown to the viewer in the film actually makes sense within the world of the film – something many can and will debate).

Director J.J. Abrams does a fantastic job, as usual, creating a narrative that is constantly moving forward. The pacing of the film is expertly managed, which keeps the viewer engaged thoroughly throughout. Even with the film proceeding at a quick pace, almost with constant action, Abrams still infuses the narrative with enough character moments and breaks that allow the audience to breathe, both of which are also essential to the film’s overall success.

Abrams is a master of creating great character moments that connect the audience to the film’s leads, which in turn enables each viewer to have a stake in the outcome and care about the characters – thus, the drama is amplified, the action is more engaging (and not just mindless noise on the screen), and the narrative arc actually has meaning. All this is true of Star Trek Into Darkness. The audience cares about Kirk, Spock, and so on, elevating the experience, which is the primary reason that the film works as well as it does overall.

Yet, amidst the seemingly constant barrage of big action scenes and dramatic moments, Abrams still provides lighter moments at key times, which lets the audience have a short break from the action and drama – the tension. Abrams does this to keep the overall tone fun. The film is very funny in these moments and the dialog is snappy and delivered wonderfully. Even in the slower moments, Abrams does not want to waste any of the runtime, still providing some piece of information to the viewer. He is a very efficient director – a big reason why his films are so entertaining (he has a keen understanding of pacing – something many filmmakers lack).

Star Trek Into Darkness has some small sequences that are fantastic as well – in addition to the big, exciting action set pieces. The scene in which Thomas Harewood and his wife wake up in London and leave the city to visit their daughter in hospital is beautiful. It serves as a nice quiet moment in the film.

The narrative structure of the film overall works fairly well, however the third act is somewhat problematic – as if Abrams was not quite sure how to end the film. It seems to come to a conclusion multiple times only to be escalated again into a new action scene with new stakes. The whole thing feels a little muddled. The stakes feel like they are artificially being manipulated as the third act progresses instead of feeling like they arise organically from the natural progression of the narrative. This gives the action a disjointed feel. Still, though, Abrams keeps things engaging and exciting, as the audience is still invested in the characters and visually the action is impressive.

Again, while this is not the Star Trek film that diehard fans may have wanted, Star Trek Into Darkness is a lot of fun and is highly enjoyable to watch (which is the goal of a summer blockbuster).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: J.J. Abrams is a master filmmaker in terms of making engaging and entertaining action/adventure films. Star Trek Into Darkness is his fourth film, and with each he has demonstrated a knack for delivering great, fleshed out characters and brilliantly action-packed films with brisk and efficient pacing. While I am still hesitant to give my full support to his hiring to take on Star Wars (but that is mainly due to me wanting it to be stylistically different than Star Trek), I look very much forward to seeing his next film.

Michael Giacchino’s score is great. It both perfectly bolsters the action scenes and reinforces the drama. Giacchino has also created a very memorable theme for the series (continuing on from his work on Star Trek) that captures the tone of the films well – being one of a thrilling sci-fi adventure. Daniel Mindel’s cinematography is also very strong. The film has a bold color palette and feels glossy and clean, which works well with the tone and overall sci-fi style that Abrams is going for. Mindel and Abrams also seem to not use quite as much lens flare in this film, which is for the best. Scott Chambliss outdoes himself as well. Everything in the film looks great. The sets are one of the strongest aspects. Again, the color palette is striking at times – particularly in the prologue scene. All three provide standout work.

Overall, the cast is very good. The narrative does not give a lot of moments to all the characters (as there are many), focusing primarily on Kirk, Spock, and John Harrison (the villain). Noel Clarke, Alice Eve, and Bruce Greenwood stand out among the small supporting roles. Peter Weller brings a great intensity to Admiral Marcus, while Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, and Zoe Saldana are strong in supporting Enterprise crew roles (Pegg and Urban in particular have a lot of great dialog which they deliver brilliantly). Benedict Cumberbatch is wonderful in the villain role. He commands the screen. He can be devastating and sympathetic all in the same moment. Zachary Quinto is also especially good as Spock. Being that he is not supposed to show emotion, Quinto uses his eyes to emote very effectively. With Cumberbatch, they give the film’s best performances. Chris Pine is good as Kirk. He has the charm and pulls off the swagger (and recklessness).

Summary & score: Star Trek Into Darkness is highly entertaining, with engaging characters and stupendous action. 7/10

Movie of the Week – Star Trek

This week’s movie: Star Trek (2009).

The sci-fi action adventure sees the coming together of the crew of the Enterprise, Starfleet’s flagship. On their first mission, they encounter the most dangerous of threats when a Romulan, having just seen his world destroyed, time-travels into the past bent of eradicating the Federation one planet at a time in revenge for them failing to save Romulus.

Director J.J. Abrams helms the film, resurrecting the Star Trek franchise from the lull it occupied for almost a decade. Basically, he took a franchise that had appealed to a niche and ramped up the action and the pacing creating something that would appeal to everyone (though, this has left some hardcore Trek fans upset, as these things always do). Abrams brings along his frequent collaborators as well – Michael Giacchino provides a fantastic score, Daniel Mindel’s photography rejuvenates the look of the franchise, and Scott Chambliss’s production design is pitch perfect.

Casting the film must have been a very difficult undertaking with Kirk and Spoke having such iconic portrayals by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy respectively. That said, the cast is wonderfully suited to their roles. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin star as the crew of the Enterprise. Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols, Faran Tahir, and Clifton Collins Jr. feature in support.

The film Star Trek: Nemesis and the series Star Trek: Enterprise had essentially brought the Star Trek franchise to an end in terms of popularity and marketability to the masses. But, Abrams’s reboot changed all that. The upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness is one of the most anticipated summer blockbusters (probably in the top three with Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel). While this film is not what Star Trek use to be, it is incredibly fun and exciting, which is what a blockbuster movie should be. It is a must-see for fans of action/adventure oriented sci-fi.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Streaming

John Carter (2012) – Review

Review: John Carter is a grand sci-fi epic, blustering with expansive action set pieces and brilliant visual effects. Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’s story A Princess of Mars, which influenced most of the great sci-fi adventures we all love (like Star Wars), it is about a Civil War veteran John Carter who lost everything during the war. He goes on an expedition to Arizona to find a cave of gold, so that he can be wealthy and thus subject to no man. While out in the desert, he finds the cave, but it is not what it appears to be and he is mysteriously transported to Mars, where he is taken as a slave by an indigenous race. To escape and get back to Earth, he must once again become the hero he was in the war and aid a princess of Mars whose land is being ravished by its rivals. Writer-director Andrew Stanton approaches the film with a definite sense of scale, as every shot on Mars is panoramic. Vast landscapes, towering cities and beautifully shot aerial battles play host to most of the film’s backdrop. Stanton does a great job with the action, which is for the most part very engaging and does not feel tired (which is the case with a lot of action set pieces, as they just feel and look like they are doing what others films already have done). The narrative also is kept moving, which for an epic is quiet important (epically one targeted at families). An issue however rises in regards to the characters. John Carter is likable and does serve as a good protagonist, but it takes the narrative awhile to really establish this – plus the performance given for the role is gruff and uninviting. Stanton does use levity in the place of true connection however, which works well until the audience is ready to accept Carter. The other characters are not as developed (as I would have liked), but are given enough moments for the audience to recognize what motivates them (and connect with them). Sola, Tars Tarkas and Dejah Thoris – all of which are Carter’s closest companions and who the narrative focuses on – work character wise, but the film’s main villains Matai Shang, Tal Hajus and Sab Than are all fairly shallow and poorly developed. The audience is told they are the villains, and thus are accepted as such but their motivations beyond periphery characteristics (and genre stereotypes) are not established near enough. Thus, Carter’s trials are not as fulfilling and his battles against these villains are not as satisfying as they otherwise could be, and this is the primary flaw of the film (but a minor one at that). Stanton has instead structured the narrative as a man being reborn, with a subplot of romance, and thus it seems as his personal struggle against any one villain is secondary (which is why the villains are not as developed, plus the runtime is only 132 minutes, which is not long for an epic). The film is about how John Carter becomes John Carter of Mars (the hero of Mars), and to do this he must first come to terms with himself and his past. Visually, Stanton gets everything right and the film is impressive to behold, but there could have been a few more character moments. And, it is a shame that Disney had no idea how to market it, and thereby sunk the film’s opening weekend (and probably the chances of a sequel), as John Carter is a great sci-fi epic that is funny and filled with well-done action and adventure.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Andrew Stanton continues to do great work with John Carter (coming off Finding Nemo and WALL-E), and is the second Pixar alum to make the jump to live-action with success (following Brad Bird’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol). I do hope Disney moves forward with Stanton writing and directing the sequel John Carter: The Gods of Mars, as it feels like he has a lot more to say with these characters. Michael Giacchino’s (one of my favorite film composers) score works well with the visuals, reinforcing the dramatic points (and sounding a lot like a John Williams’s score for a Steven Spielberg film – here is a sample). Daniel Mindel’s cinematography is top notch as he perfectly captures both the sci-fi and western aspect and visual cues of the narrative. And, Nathan Crowley’s production design really brings Mars to life. His sets/designs for the three main cities we are shown on Mars are all fantastic giving a sense to what each people is all about. The cast is good overall (some given more than others). On a personal note, it was great to see Rome veterans Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy together again (I loved their stuff as Mark Antony and Caesar on Rome). Mark Strong (to all our great surprise) and Dominic West play two of the main villains, but neither is really given much, especially West (who is given practically nothing and plays a shell). Bryan Cranston is good in a small role, and is part of one of best and funniest scenes in the film. Samantha Morton and Willem Dafoe do great voice work playing bigger character roles, with Dafoe stealing most of his scenes (he gives my favorite performance of the film). Lynn Collins is good in the film, but I think it is her eyes (I am guessing she wore blue contacts) that really capture your attention and pull you in, which works well as she plays the princess. Taylor Kitsch in his first big Hollywood role plays Carter a bit like his character on Friday Night Lights (Tim Riggins) – gruff, seemingly disassociated but with a big heart, and it works.

Summary & score: John Carter works well because it both meets and surpasses the sci-fi epic expectations and has good (not great) characters and performances. 7/10

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011), The IMAX Experience – Review

Review: Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is a ton of fun, very entertaining and filled with incredible action set pieces. The film, more so than other installments in the franchise, has emotional connections to the previous sequel (Mission: Impossible III), as the audiences finds Ethan Hunt in a foreign jail with rumors about what happened between his wife Julia and himself. And yet again, Ethan and his team are called on to foil the plans of a madman and save the world. Director Brad Bird picks up where J.J. Abrams (who produces the film) left off in terms of narrative structure. The film is almost a non-stop thrill of escalating grandiose action set pieces, but also has character development and momnts creating an emotional connection with the audience (which is key to its ultimate success). The audience cares about Ethan and the members of his team and thus have an emotional stake in their success, making all the big action all the more intense and gripping. Bird does a great job with the action. The set pieces are intricate and each has their own mini narrative. They absolutely absorb the viewer. The locations are also fantastic. Bird is equally adept at giving the characters moments – be it emotion, humor or levity. These moments are what sets this film apart from most of the action films that have come out this year, boasting the same big action set pieces (though, I would say these are very impressive and sort of blow everything else this year away) but they are merely just spectacle. They lack the same connection that these characters have with the audience. However, an issue that this film has (in comparison to III) is that the villain is not really given much character. He is basically a glorified nameless, faceless entity of evil. Owen Davian (the villain in III) by comparison is a much fuller and more realized character, which makes Ethan’s struggle with him more powerful. Plus, the stakes in that film are more personal for Ethan. It is not just about saving the world. Ghost Protocol lacks both a strong villain and deeper emotional stakes for Ethan. This does not detract from the overall entertainment of the film, but it does not resonate to the same extent. That said, this is the best pure action film of the year to date (and likely will maintain that title through the end of the year). It has the best action set pieces (all the stuff in Dubai and the parking garage scene in Mumbai are incredible), good character moments and humor – all the things Ghost Protocol needed to be great.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: There was never any question that Brad Bird would make a seamless transition into live-action. And given his work on The Incredibles, there was not really any question that he would make a fantastic action film with Ghost Protocol. I am very excited to see what he does next in live-action. Michael Giacchino’s score (as always) is very good (here is a piece). He builds on both the visual thrills and the emotional beats perfectly, while also capturing the flavor of the locations and franchise. His work on the film reminds me of a John Williams’s score at times (one of his main influences). Robert Elswit, whose work is often gritty, shoots the film with a very clean and glossy look, capitalizing (again) on the locations and huge action set pieces, and this is where the IMAX camera comes into play in a big way, amplifying what is already amazing (I highly recommend seeing this in IMAX, plus The Dark Knight Rises prologue is quite astounding). Production designer James Bissell also infuses the film with a lot of color and wonderful sets, which goes hand-in-hand with Elswit’s work. The international cast is very good. Josh Holloway, Lea Seydoux and Anil Kapoor are great in their small supporting roles. Miraj Grbic and Vladimir Mashkov are standouts among the supporting players. Michael Nyqvist is good as the villain, but really is not given much to do. Paula Patton has a potential star-making role in the film (and is good in it), while Simon Pegg is great comedic relief. Jeremy Renner plays his role with a fun skepticism and brings humanity to it as well. And finally, Tom Cruise has charisma and flair and completely owns the role of Ethan Hunt.

Summary & score: Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is brilliantly entertaining with some of the greatest action set pieces, but has heart and character too. 8/10

Movie of the Week – Mission: Impossible III

This week’s movie is Mission: Impossible III (2006).

The action film is about Ethan Hunt, a secret agent who comes out of retirement when one of his trainees is captured by a sadistic arms dealer. Like the first two films in the series, part three is directed by a well-known filmmaker – J.J. Abrams (however, unlike parts one and two, this is actually a really good movie). Abrams co-wrote the script with his Star Trek and Fringe collaborators Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Also frequent collaborators of Abrams, fantastic composer Michael Giacchino, cinematographer Daniel Mindel and production designer Scott Chambliss provide the film with a great aesthetic. It boosts a wonderful cast as well with Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays such an excellent villain), Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q, Simon Pegg, Eddie Marsan, and Laurence Fishburne. While Abrams already had a successful TV career, this marked his feature film directing debut. He structured the film almost flawlessly – the narrative is continuously moving forward, there is never a dull moment, but there are also enough character moments and emotion to keep the viewer invested in the characters, which is rare. It is a very well-directed film (and among my favorites of the last decade). While Abrams is not directing part IV, he is producing it. Kanye West also provided two tracks for the film (the song Impossible and a remix of the theme). It is one of the best action movies of the last decade (and one that is criminally underrated, probably due to Tom Cruise’s public persona) and a must-see for action genre fans. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

50/50 (2011) – Review

Review: 50/50 is just what it sets out to be – a dramedy that is both very funny and dramatically impactful (with some tear-jerking scenes). Director Jonathan Levine does a great job focusing the attention completely on the characters, even the setting (Vancouver doubling for Seattle), plays into the characters. In doing this, he has set the audience up to be fully invested in them, especially Adam – who is played to be a very average guy, but it works quite well in this film because Adam is completely relatable to the whole audience (for the most part), which makes his journey all the more powerful and emotional. The film is actually surprisingly intense (in a ‘wow this is really sad’ sort of way), due in most part to the very good performances and the frank nature of Will Reiser’s writing. However, there is some fantastic comedy that lightens the film wonderfully, and changes the overall complexion of the film as a whole – this probably the hardest thing to get right – balancing the drama and comedy (especially the comedy). Creating tear-jerking scenes is one thing (Lifetime movies do a great job at it, but are any of them really that good?), but creating truly impactful dramatic scenes and scenes that are very funny (some being one in the same in 50/50) that flow together is very difficult, and Levine does it very well. This is the strongest aspect of the film. A small criticism that I have is that I wanted more scenes between Katherine and Adam (though, many directors believe it is good to leave your audience wanting more). Their relationship makes sense and works in the narrative, so that it not the issue; rather I just enjoyed their scenes and would have liked a few more, which also speaks to the lack of a fully satisfying ending. The ending works fine (as it plays a bit like The Graduate’s ambiguous ‘what now’, as many films have done since), but again I wanted more (a sense of closure for the characters’ relationships I guess, though the film does sort of have that, really I just want to see what happens next). However, this is really a minor issue. Overall, the narrative does work very well and Levine’s structure both plays off the drama and comedy while keeping the plot moving forward. 50/50 is both a very well played drama and a funny comedy. It is a film about relationships (with friends, parents and significant others) and how good relationships bring so much to our lives.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jonathan Levine, now three features in, has shown himself to be one of the best young filmmakers working with 50/50. The best aspect of the film is the performances he garners from his actors, and the way he allows them to just play their scenes without big camera moves or tons of cuts. This is also due to the great work of cinematographer Terry Stacey, composer Michael Giacchino (whose scores usually stick out, but here he toned it down to match the mood of the film, I mean this is the composer who scored Lost, Up, Super 8 and Let Me In after all) and production designer Annie Spitz – all three of whom created visuals and music to perfectly fit the tone of the performances and play off and reinforce the characters, which is so important in character pieces such as 50/50. The performances overall were very good. Philip Baker Hall, Matt Frewer and Anjelica Huston provide great work in their small supporting roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is a lot of fun playing the girlfriend in a difficult position. Seth Rogen plays his typical pop-culture referencing comedy self, but in this film he works very well playing against the lead. Anna Kendrick is again fantastic (in really her second real dramatic performance). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just right in his role as Adam – he plays the average guy very well, but also put enough anima into it that the audience not only connects but really feels for him.

Summary & score: 50/50 is much more than just an R-rated comedy or manipulative tear-jerking drama, it is a wonderful dramedy that will have you laughing and probably crying both through genuine emotion. 8/10

Super 8 (2011) – Review

Review: Super 8 is a throwback to the great sci-fi and adventure films of the late 70s and 80s, but with a bit more action. More specifically, it feels very nostalgic (especially for viewers that grew up with films like The Goonies, Stand by Me and E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, three films that seemed to have influenced this one greatly) both visually and tonally. Writer-director J.J. Abrams certainly drew inspiration from the films of Steven Spielberg (who also served as the film’s producer), Richard Donner, Rob Reiner, and other filmmakers working during the late 70s and 80s. The film takes place in the late 70s, featuring some great music cues and references (as well as nice horror genre references, and homage, especially to the work of George Romero). Abrams also exhibits his own passion for filmmaking, which comes out in the scenes featuring the group of friends making their zombie movie (which is awesomely shown during the ending credits), and has stated that many of those scenes are based on his own experiences making films as a kid (and these scenes appealed to me on a nostalgic level as well, having made films with my friends growing up and in film school). His love of the genre, its great films and filmmaking in general give this film charm and his characters sort of an innocence (sort of like looking back to a better time – Abrams’s Golden Age, if you will – taking an idea from Woody Allen’s own summer film Midnight in Paris). The fact that the principal characters are a group of middle school kids in a small Ohio town also contributes to the sense of innocence to the characters. They come off as good-hearted, and the begins of a romance between Joe and Alice is very sweet and harkens back to our own first loves or crushes, which immediately makes these two relatable for the audience. The comradeship, jokes, and dialog between them are really what make the film work so well. Abrams is brilliant at developing good characters, which he again illustrates with these giving each their moments and drama so that the viewer feels connected and understands them (which is so important), while at the same time keeping the story and action moving forward at a rapid pace – the narrative structure is very tight, the viewer engaged throughout. Abrams puts his characters before anything else, which is rare for a big summer movie (many of which focus on the special effects and the action and then seemingly add characters as an afterthought). (As much as I loved the film) viewers that are not fans of this genre (and the pre-mentioned films from the 70s and 80s) will probably find the film too interested in the friendship of the characters and the film they are trying to make (as the action and sci-fi aspects are really the backdrop until the two story elements collide), but I think that is what makes it great. Abrams loves his characters. But do not worry, the action is also good. There are many thrilling and well shot sequences (especially the train crash). But again, without the great character work done, these action scenes would not have the same impact as they do, because the viewers would not care about the characters to the extent that they do. The film definitely puts a lot of effort into paying homage and having a nostalgic aspect to it (maybe too much for some), but it works well in setting the tone (though, I wonder how it plays for younger viewers who may not be familiar with the films it is referencing, as to some extent it seems to have been made for those like Abrams who grew up with and love these films, and filmmaking). All in all, Super 8 is a wonderful addition to its genre and will hopefully influence and be adored by a new group of fans (and filmmakers), as the films that inspired it were to their fans.

Technical & acting achievements: J.J. Abrams is very accomplished in the realm of television, but this is his first original feature film (his first two being Mission: Impossible III and Star Trek). He also oversaw most of the marketing, keeping the story elements (especially surrounding what escapes from the train) a secret (something that I wish more films would do, nothing worse than having the trailers spoil the film, and nice to see Paramount Pictures trust their filmmaker). With Super 8, Abrams has again shown that he is a top director when it comes to making films that are suspenseful and high on action but also have great characters and drama. I think it is safe to say that he is an auteur filmmaker. Working on his ninth project with Abrams, composer Michael Giacchino does great work (as usual). His score captures both the excitement of the action and the wonder of the young group of friends. Cinematographer Larry Fong and relative newcomer production designer Martin Whist (this being his biggest film to date) both have also worked on Abrams’s projects in the past. Fong’s work is very good. He has a lot of experience shooting action (working with Zack Snyder in the past, including this year’s Sucker Punch), which he again does a great job with, but it is the overall look of the film that works so well (being both homagy and nostalgic, and having a quicker more modern style to it). This also has a lot to do with Whist’s great sets and design work as well. While the 70s certainly shine through, his work as has sort of a timeless and wholesome quality to it, which fits the film extremely well. As stated above, the younger members of the cast really make the film special. Supporting work from Kyle Chandler and Noah Emmerich is good, but overshadowed by the funny and addictive friendship shown by Zach Mills, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso, and especially Riley Griffiths. Elle Fanning does not start as part of the group, but she quickly finds a place. She is remarkable in the film, winning the hearts of the characters and the audience. Joel Courtney makes is film debut and is excellent. He is able to carry the film, do the dramatic work and be funny. He has a bright future ahead of him.

Summary & score: Sure there is a big nostalgic aspect to the film, but really this is just an outstanding sci-fi adventure with marvelous characters that pulls you in and great action to keep you on the edge of your seat as the mystery unravels. 9/10

LeapBackBlog 2010 Film Awards – Part 1: Technical Achievements

Film in 2010 was fantastic, full of great performances, great directing and great work behind the camera (or in post-production). More so than the last few years, 2010 had a greater number of excellent films, which made choosing the best films, performances, directors, and technical achievements very difficult. The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done, and 2010 features a lot of amazing breakthrough performances), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 2: Supporting Performances
Part 3: Directors
Part 4: Leading Performances
Part 5: Films

Technical Achievements: 

Jonathan Amos & Paul Machliss – Editing – Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fun film. Director Edgar Wright visually and sonically got everything just right. Technically, the film has a lot to praise from Bill Pope’s cinematography and Marcus Rowland’s production design to the great songs written by Beck. But the work of editors Amos and Machliss really is what stands out. And what is more amazing is that the film was their first feature, both having about a decade’s worth of experience cutting TV series though. So much of the flow and comedy of the film is dependent on the editing, which really needed to be perfect for the film to work – and it was.

Roger Deakins – Cinematography – True Grit

True Grit, much like all the films mentioned in this list, has great work throughout the film. Deakin’s cinematography however is mesmerizing. The prologue to the film features a slow push towards a body lying on the ground outside a saloon, slow falling snow caught by the beams of light escaping the building perfectly framing the body. It is beautiful and interesting – taken out of contest the snow looks a bit like ash, as if this were a shot out of a post-apocalyptic film. That shot alone will have fans of photography enchanted, but Deakins follows it up with well captured and picturesque landscapes perfectly fitting the classic western genre of the film.

Michael Giacchino – Score – Let Me In

Let Me In needed to have just the right mix of tension and love/friendship to work, making the score an essential part. Giacchino’s (who won a LeapBackBlog Film Award in 2009 as well for his score to Up) work is haunting and terrifying, yet in other moments sweet and touching – but still with a lingering sense of dread and tragedy. Certainly, and without even looking at the screen, audiences will be on edge. It is probably the best score of the year.

Rob Hardy – Cinematography – Red Riding: 1974

Red Riding: 1974 (the first of the trilogy) takes places in a cold and dungy Northern England (Yorkshire). The characters and situations are scary and gloomy. The photography needed to be gritty and dark to match the tone. Hardy’s work captures the essence of the tone perfectly. He uses light to its greatest effect in the film as well, mirroring the main character’s emotions – while most of the film is dark and cloudy, there are moments of joy for the character and Hardy is able to visually show that with (though still de-saturated) oranges and other light pastels. Aesthetically, it is the most interesting film of the trilogy and one of the most artistic of the year.

Adam Kimmel – Cinematography – Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is an entire film of subtlety and nuance, and probably the most aesthetically brilliant work of the year. Kimmel’s photography is both beautiful and tragic – capturing the hope, desperation and complacency of the film’s characters, which was no easy task. The most emotionally charged scene is Ruth’s completion (at least from the viewer’s standpoint) – visually it is shocking both from the bright white light and production design juxtaposed to the darker and restrained tones of the rest of the film and from the nature of the scene. However photography wise, my favorite shot is of the lighthouse at dust. As a still, it is a perfect image for the tone of the film and journey of its characters.

Matthew Libatique – Cinematography – Black Swan

Black Swan is a kinetic piece, and Libatique’s camera dances with its players. The film’s prologue – Nina’s dream of Swan Lake – has the camera floating on air, engaged in a beautiful dance with her, whisking and twirling. It is powerful and erotic. That scene informs all that see it, that the film and Libatique’s cinematography (and Aronofsky’s directing) are something special. The film goes in and out of reality into fantasy being completely unreliable, yet the lighting stays steady, intensifying the illusion. Much like Therese DePrez’s wonderful production design, the lighting and look of the film is minimalistic, letting the performances shine, while matching the tempered and cold tone of the film.

Rachel Portman – Score – Never Let Me Go

 As stated above, Never Let Me Go is an aesthetic masterwork. Portman’s score plays with the film’s themes of sadness and despair, but there is also hope in there. Her work represents the emotional language of the film, as the direction and performances (and really the story) are so restrained. This film, more than any other in 2010, affected me and stayed with me, Portman’s score had a lot to do with that. It is desolate yet radiant (and even a little playful despite what is to come) – much like the film.

Atticus Ross & Trent Reznor – Score – The Social Network

The Social Network is a film all about power. Ross and Reznor’s score drives that theme with electronic music. The music feels very modern and cool, which perfectly fits the subject matter of the film – a bunch of kids revolutionizing social interacting in the midst of personal and business power struggles. The character of Zuckerberg is quite cold and cut off in the film, and the techno aspect of the score has the same feel to it, but the genius of Ross and Reznor is there are also moments of emotion and heart, if only for an instant. Maybe the great moment of is their cover of In the Hall of the Mountain King, it is so atmospheric and dramatic.

Eduardo Serra – Cinematography – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a film that is full of moments of torment and anguish. Thus, visually the cinematography needed to fit the tone of the narrative (i.e. dark and gloomy). Serra’s work captures it amazingly well. Muted colors and vast landscapes filled with jagged and uninviting terrain make up most of the photography. However, the sheer brilliance of Serra’s work is in the beauty of his photography. Despite the depressing and dark nature of the piece, it is presented in a stunning manner. The landscapes are breathtaking to behold. The lighting captures perfectly the tension and emotion of the characters’ faces. (In my opinion) it is the best cinematography of the year, no question (and that is saying a lot, both as this year featured tons of excellent work and Serra took over from Bruno Delbonnel, whose work on Half-Blood Prince was arguably the best of 2009 – big shoes to fill indeed).

Hans Zimmer – Score – Inception

With Inception (and building on his score for The Dark Knight), Zimmer changed movie scores forever (or at least for the time being), or more specifically music used menacingly in trailers. The strong notes that indicate impending jeopardy and threat like booming thunder highlight Zimmer’s work on the film and make it unforgettable (just listen to the trailer for examples). The score is also riving with emotion and passion, much like the film. It is big and action-packed on the outside, but what makes it great is the deeper drama within. Everything in the film is spellbinding and stunning, it is Zimmer’s score though that snares the viewer and in accompaniment with the performances and directing taps not just into the need for spectacle but the need for something real and relatable – something to care about and get behind, making this the extraordinary film it is.