The Descendants Review

The Descendants (2011) Review

When you look at the films of 2011, especially those who were competing for Oscars  there is nothing quite like The Descendants. The Descendants is a simple film, very straightforward in plot and execution, and it contradicts the general theme of this year's films. However, simplicity is not a bad thing in a movie like this, because the earnestness and sincerity of this film is one of the many things that makes it excellent. That, alongside great acting, writing, and visuals. I couldn't see this film winning Best Picture, but there were awards it got that it definitely deserved to win and in this review, I will tell you why.

The Descendants is about Matt King (George Clooney), a real estate lawyer who lives and works in Hawaii. At the beginning of the film, his wife gets in a boating accident and ends up in a coma. It turns out their marriage was not in the best shape, as Matt was working all the time, whether at his law practice or dealing with the fact that he is the  trustee to a large tract of land split between him and his many cousins (who are all descendants of Hawaiian royalty, hence the film's title). The issue with the land is that Matt has decided to sell the land to a developer, giving him and his cousins all the money that the trust was worth (the money which he didn't want to use) that would expire in seven years.

See. This guy and the charmers that Clooney normally plays are completely different people. Which is why this may be his best performance

The first act of the film is just Matt trying to keep his head above water and trying to take care of his mischevious younger daughter Scottie (Amara Miller), who he learns has been acting out since the accident. Upon receiving news that his wife's coma is permanent and as per her living will, they will be taking her off life support in a few days time, Matt goes to get his eldest daughter Alex (Shailene Woodley) from her boarding school to help with Scottie and help him tell all of his wife's friends and family the news, which they do fairly early on in the film, before the main plot kicks off.

To say that Alex is messed up is a bit of an understatement.

We learn that she is in the boarding school due to her drinking and drug problems, and she seems to have a penchant for older guys and fighting with her parents, much to the disapproval of her father. It's pretty safe to say that all the women in Matt's life are pretty screwed up, and it is those characters that make the film so interesting, especially Alex, who is just as interesting a character as her father, if not more so, thanks to Shailene Woodley's fantastic performance (which we'll talk about later). It is also through Alex that the main plot for the rest of the film is set up.

Their faces are because of Sid. I won't tell you why, but it is one of the film's cringe-funny moments

In one of the film's key scenes (which comes after another of the film's key scenes), Alex tells her father the news that will drive the rest of the film, which is that her mother was having an affair prior to her boating accident. The rest of the film is spent tracking him down and quite frankly, that's all I want to say, because the beauty in this film is how the events unfold on eachother, like an array of carefully placed dominos. Character traits are revealed, connections are made, and it all plays out brilliantly in the film's magnificent ending, which is certainly emotionally satisfying and speaks to the acting ability of George Clooney, and which I won't spoil for obvious reasons. But what I can say is that the end to this film was one of the best endings of any film this year.

The film has three fundamental conflicts, the wife in a coma and her affair, Matt struggling to bond with his daughters, and of course, the issues with the land. Of course, there's also the issue of breaking the news to Scottie, where they had kept her oblivious yet hopeful before due to her young age and already bad behaviour.  All of the issues are equally interesting and coexist very well, and though we have seen the family-bonding-in-light-of-absentee-parent storyline before, the story is brought up by the fantastic writing and acting. The characters are all interesting and finely shaded, all flawed yet very human people dealing with difficult circumstances as a family, albeit a very dysfunctional one that, by the end, is hopefully on the way to being a bit more functional.

Don't fuck with Mr. Thorson. He will hit you.

These characters speak to the brilliance of the screenplay of Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash. They imbue each character with some likability and some flaw, and there isn't a single flat character. Even Sid, who starts out as a total ass, ends with some likability as we get to know him better. However, a good script isn't just about good characters, it's about writing a good story and writing good dialogue, and the film does both of those things extremely well. However, I don't get why everyone says this film is funny because aside from a few scenes, it was a very serious film and I would definitely call it a drama as opposed to a dramedy. Needless to say, the film had one of the best scripts of the year and it definitely deserved to win the Oscar it just won.

However, the script is only one element of the film's greatness. It would just be a brilliant script without a movie if it weren't for the film's brilliant acting. The first performance to gain acclaim was that of George Clooney, and rightfully so, because Clooney's performance was terrific. Though Dujardin deserved the award 100%, Clooney was a worthy runner-up and he deserved the nom nonetheless. He embodied the character of Matt King fully and perfectly, portraying the quiet stoicism and emotional complexity of his character extremely well. The role works because the normal self-deprecating charm that Clooney oozes is turned off, making this performance extremely outside the type of character he normally plays. Matt King is not a charming guy, he's not supposed to be, but he's still a likable enough guy and we do sympathize with him as the film progresses. I have not seen enough of Clooney's work to deem this the best performance of his career, but I can say that this is definitely the best thing I have seen him in and this is certainly a performance for the ages in terms of Clooney's career.

You know what, don't fuck with cousin Hugh either. As Clooney says in the film, some of the most threatening people in Hawaii look like bums and stuntmen. Don't worry, that's not spoiling anything

However, the true star of the film (in my opinion) is Shailene Woodley as Alexandra. She was absolutely phenomenal, and considering that her character's return is the catalyst for the rest of the events in the film, I'd say that the film would not have been as good if it did not have her in it. I can see why she was considered to have been snubbed for an Oscar, but I am extremely happy that Melissa McCarthy was nominated because she gave a truly awesome performance. However, if there were a sixth slot for Supporting Actress, Woodley would certainly be in it. I feel similar to her snub as I did with Andrew Garfield's the year before, except I was much more pissed about his. Needless to say, she was brilliant, one of the best performances by a young actress of the last ten years.

A few more standouts in the cast are Amara Miller as Scottie, who does a good enough job alongside Clooney and Woodley, though there were times where I found her character too annoying to bear. The same can easily be said for Nick Krause's performance as Sid, though I warmed to him eventually. Namely, after his key scene with Clooney. But the two I was most impressed and surprised with out of the supporting cast were Matthew Lillard as Brian Speer and Judy Greer as Julie (to reveal her last name would be to spoil). They didn't get much screentime, but I was thoroughly impressed by each of their spotlight scenes, especially since I only knew Judy Greer from her roles on Two and a Half Men and I only knew Matthew Lillard from Scream and the live-action Scooby-Doo films. Needless to say, they were both phenomenal in their respective scenes.

That picture could be used in a tourism ad

The last thing I want to talk about with this film is the cinematography. The film was filmed on location in Hawaii, and it shows, because even the most simplistic shots are absolutely gorgeous. So gorgeous that they could be used in a Hawaii tourism commercial. It's not just the landscape shots either, there is not one single shot in this film that is ugly, even during some of the film's uglier moments. The film was nominated for editing and it definitely deserves it, as the film was very well put together. The only way I can really describe how excellent the cinematography was is to say that the scenes in the movie are exactly as good-looking as the scenes in the trailer (which is rare, because trailers often lie and mislead nowadays).

All in all, The Descendants is my fourth favourite film of 2011, and it has made me want to explore Alexander Payne's work, because he is a director I have not seen much of. In fact, this is the only of Alexander Payne's films I have seen. This film is not without flaw, but it is extremely well-acted, well-written (well worth the Oscar) and well-filmed and it is an overall worthwhile viewing experience. I wouldn't call it essential viewing just yet, but it has the potential to become a classic and a bright spot in George Clooney's body of work. Plus, it will hopefully get Shailene Woodley more good roles outside of playing a pregnant teenager on television. So in short, if you haven't seen this film already, I suggest you do, as it is one of the best of the year.

9/10-  Highly Recommended

An interesting poster design



** I have decided, since I found a website full of minimalist posters, that I would put one up at the end of each of my reviews, since there's pretty much one for every movie.

*** Also, let me know if I get too long-winded in my reviews. 

Hugo (2011)



When you think of Martin Scorsese, what kind of films do you think of? I think of films like Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, and The Departed, some of the more popular entries in his body of work. Who'd have thought that the director of such crime classics could direct a 3D G-rated family film and do it so goddamned well. Hugo is a truly unique film and as Scorsese's love letter to silent cinema, it may be the film that he would connect with most as a filmmaker (of course, I don't know, I can't see into the man's mind). Hugo reaffirms Scorsese's status as one of the greatest directors of all time and the film itself is one of the best films of 2011, if not one of the best films of all time. There is nothing really wrong with it, plain and simple, and there's nothing that I can see anyone (especially a film buff) disliking. It looks great in all aspects, it's extremely well acted, the story is told brilliantly, and it is a worthy film in what I call the Nostalgia Trilogy of 2011 (the other films being Midnight in Paris and The Artist, two fellow Best Picture nominees). Also important, it was nominated for a fuck-ton of Oscars, many that it has the possibility of winning, and it is my second choice for Best Picture behind The Artist.

Hugo takes place in 1931 in a Parisian train station, where our main character (Asa Butterfield), an orphan named Hugo Cabret, has lived and worked since his father (Jude Law) passed away. The story proper begins when Hugo tries to steal a toy mouse from the grumpy old man that owns the toy shop in the train station (played by Ben Kingsley). He makes Hugo empty his pockets and comes across a notebook filled with drawings of some sort of robot. The old man takes the notebook, claiming that it belongs to him, and is adamant in his threats to burn it. Hugo cannot have that happen (for reasons that we will find out) and he desperately begs the man for the notebook to minimal avail. He even goes so far as to go to the man's house and beg.

Asa Butterfield and the adorable Chloe Moretz as Hugo and Isabelle respectively

Why, do you ask, is Hugo so desperate to get the notebook back? Well, the notebook belonged to his father, as well as the automaton that the drawings depict. Hugo and his father were trying to fix the automaton, but all that was missing is a key in the shape of a heart. That key is around the neck of the old man's goddaughter, named Isabelle, (Chloe Moretz), who is our secondary protagonist. Hugo and Isabelle try to activate the automaton, and the actions of the automaton drive the second half of the film, where Hugo and Isabelle find out more about her godfather (hereafter referred to as Papa Georges) and his past. That's all I want to say. I don't want to spoil anything because quite frankly, there's a ton of stuff to spoil about this movie and you should honestly see it for yourself instead.

This film is based on a reasonably popular novel by Brian Selznick entitled The Invention of Hugo Cabret. I was semi-aware of the book's existence before an adaptation was announced, but I had never read it and when I had seen it, I dismissed it as another young-adult fiction book. However, I considered this a good thing while watching the film, as it allowed me to view the film objectively and look at it as a movie rather than just an adaptation. Seeing the film doesn't exactly make me want to read the book, but I will say that the film tells its story very well. It is a relatively simple story, but it has not been done before and it is refreshing to see an assurance to the fact that movies somewhat aimed at children don't have to have labyrinthian plots filled with pop-culture references to be good. The story may be told from Hugo's perspective and he may be the main character, but the film is really a loving tribute to the life and work of one of the geniuses of early filmmaking.

The automaton that drives the first half of the movie, or why the film got a visual effects nomination

SPOILERS BE PRESENT IN THIS PARAGRAPH

That filmmaker is none other than Georges Melies, one of the pioneers of early film and one of the masters of old-timey special effects. The film states that Melies was in his heyday before WWI and made over 100 films during that time, enjoying phenomenal success. However, once the war was over, nobody was interested in his films and he retired in shame, destroying all of his sets and all the copies of his films. People also thought he died in the War, so there was no question as to where he was or what he was doing. As far as I know, this story is pretty accurate. However, more negatives were found of his work (being found in the film through a film buff and huge fan of Melies played by Michael Stuhlbarg) and Melies gained a whole new fanbase. Seeing this film has made me want to check out some more of his work. It is this tribute to Melies' life and work that makes Hugo truly special, as there has not been a film about the director and I'm guessing that Hugo is the closest we are ever going to get.

END OF SPOILERS

You can tell that Scorsese has great respect for the filmmaker I mentioned in the spoilered paragraph, so much that Hugo can be considered as a whole film of Martin Scorsese fanboying for the directors and the films of yore. This love for old cinema is more prevalent in the second half of the film. The first half is merely about a lonely boy trying to fix a machine in the hopes that it contains a message left to him by his father. The movies are not mentioned that often, but the film sort of transitions over in the second half. May I say, I loved it. I loved the idea presented that films had the power to make dreams come true, which is what, in my opinion, films are all about. This is best shown in the scene where Hugo and Isabelle sneak into a movie theatre because Papa Georges won't let Isabelle go to the movies. This could be considered the film's turning point and it demonstrates what the film is trying to say very well. It is likely the most important scene in the film, and it is basically where the plot switches. It works because Isabelle had never seen a movie before and when Hugo takes her to the movies, she goes through the experience that I think everyone should go through at least once in their life. That is, the joy of watching an old movie. I felt that with The Artist, and I definitely felt it for Hugo.

Scenery Porn Exhibit A. Just look at the background.....

The film is considered Scorsese's "love letter to silent cinema", and it is through that idea Hugo is truly special. I loved the clever ways this idea was executed, I loved the flashbacks towards the end, I loved the use of footage from some of the popular films of the time, I just loved it. However, the other main thing that makes this story special is it's innocence. These days, people don't like innocent. They like cold, hard, and cynical, and Hugo delivers an innocence that is unfamiliar in children's films nowadays. Hugo is a genuinely likeable and interesting boy, as is his companion Isabelle, and there is not a single unlikable character. Even the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), the film's antagonist were it to have one, is a reasonably sympathetic character with the help of a few humanizing character traits. This shows the genius of John Logan's screenplay and it is probably the reason why Hugo nabbed an adapted screenplay nomination, because the dialogue is admittedly not spectacular. But I think I've talked about the story and characters enough, so let's talk about the rest of the film.

First of all, the film looks fantastic on all counts. It looks so fantastic that I consider it the film's greatest strength. Everything about this film is visually perfect, and it could very well be one of the prettiest movies I have ever seen. First of all, the scenery is fantastic, so much so that I am absolutely certain that this film will win Best Art Direction come February 26th, as there is not a single film in that category that was more visually brilliant than Hugo. It all looks fantastic, especially the train station and the clocks. I would say that they are not fake enough to be CGI but not quite real enough to be sets. Regardless, they look fantastic. The costume design is also excellent, though I don't see much chance of it winning, and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. I don't think it will win for either, but the sets look fantastic. Since I asked for a few adjectives to describe the visuals, I will say they are mesmerizing, enchanting, sumptuous, and vibrant. I think I've said enough though, so I'm going to move on.

One of the images from what is certainly one of the most beautiful openings in recent memory.

The film also boasts a phenomenal cast, all of whom give good performances. Asa Butterfield is pretty good as Hugo, not to mention utterly adorable. Anytime he cried, it was incredibly distressing and any time he was happy, I was happy. I think the crying thing has to do with the fact that he has eyes so big and so blue that he could easily be mistaken for the kid brother of Elijah Wood. Chloe Moretz  gave a decent performance as well, working well alongside Butterfield and capturing the bookworminess of her character very well. Her accent also seemed to be channeling Hermione (a three-way accent, seeing as she is an American actress playing a French character with an English accent). Ben Kingsley is also excellent as Papa Georges, and he displays the character well, holding up the biopic sections of the film. Even as comedy relief goes, Sacha Baron Cohen gives a fantastic performance (probably one of his best) as the Station Inspector, who, though a villain, is just as human as Hugo and the other characters. The rest of the cast includes the likse of Helen McCrory (Narcissa Malfoy) as Mama Jeanne, Michael Stuhlbarg as Rene Tabard (a movie buff and kind of a surrogate for the audience, at least the audience of movie buffs), Christopher Lee as a kindly librarian, and Jude Law as Hugo's father (who does extremely well considering how little he is in the movie). Needless to say, it should have received a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast because though the acting was not the strongest element of the film, there was no bad performance amongst the A-list cast.

Hugo is a brilliant film, and it is apparently one of the best of Scorsese's oeuvre. It is definitely one of my favourite films of 2011 and one of my top 30 favourite movies of all time. Hugo could easily be described as an experience, and it is an experience that all film buffs should go through, especially those who are knowledgable with regards to silent movies, because there are a ton of references that even I, one who hasn't seen that many silent films. Hugo is a masterpiece, through and through, it has brilliant and exhilarating visuals (which I could imagine would look amazing in 3D, judging by the opinions I have heard on this site), a great cast, and a great story. I don't know how many Oscars it will win, and I don't know how it would work for kids, but I know that it deserved every single nomination it got and if I were to have children, I would definitely show them the film. So in short, see it. See it before the Oscars if you can, as it was the film with the most nominations and it is one of the best films of the decade.


10/10- Instant Classic, Must-See

Jude Law and Asa Butterfield.

Midnight in Paris Review

Midnight in Paris (2011)

My Oscar countdown continues on, this time with Midnight in Paris, which also happens to be my first film of Woody Allen's. This film is a particularly interesting entry into Allen's long body of work, as it is a surprising success after a series of misfires. What I mean is, depending on the person you ask, Allen hasn't made a good film since either 2005's Match Point or 2008's Vicky Christina Barcelona. I have not seen either of those films, so I am looking at the film objectively, and for what it is, it's a pretty damn good film. It was also a surprising commercial success for Allen, in fact, his highest grossing film to date (surpassing Hannah and Her Sisters). But enough about how it rejuvenated Allen's career, let's talk about the film itself. Midnight in Paris is in no way a perfect film, but it is a solid one, and it has its moments of inspired genius as one of the best films of the year. It has its weaknesses, but rises on the strength of its original concept and its array of brilliant supporting performances. For Allen fans I'm sure it will satisfy, but for a newbie like me, it served as a great introduction to a director I hope to explore further in the year to come.

One of the many examples of gorgeous Parisian scenery in the film.

Midnight in Paris is about Gil (Owen Wilson) an American writer who is vacationing in Paris with his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents. Inez and her parents are thoroughly shallow and unlikeable characters (who I will talk about later), and they all think Gil has a screw loose for the following reasons. Inez dreams of living in the Malibu suburbs and bores easily in Paris, whereas Gil dreams of living in Paris and giving up his Hollywood script-writing career (for which he calls himself a hack) to write actual literature and become one of the literary greats, such as Hemingway or Fitzgerald. From the moment we meet him, we learn that Gil longs to live in a different world, namely, 1920's Paris. Any other film would likely paint Inez sympathetically, but Allen does not do that. His script paints her as a shallow unlikable spoiled bitch, so much that we sympathize with Gil where we would not otherwise.

Example #2 of Parisian scenery

The story proper kicks in when Gil goes out for an evening walk and gets into a strange car that leads him to a strange place. This strange place happens to be the very place he's dreamed about, 1920's Paris. It is there where he meets such legendary figures as the Fitzgeralds, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, Luis Bunuel, and Salvador Dali, and he gains inspiration to finish his book. He goes back night after night and distances himself day after day, much to the chagrin of Inez and her parents, who are as jerky as she is. He also meets a woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard), Picasso's mistress and muse, who he finds himself instantly attracted to. Gil and Adriana are very similar characters, in that they are both unsatisfied by the present and wish to live in a rose-coloured view of the past. Whereas Gil would rather live in the 20's, Adriana would rather be a costume designer in 1890's Paris.

Marion Cotillard, Allison Pill, Owen Wilson, and Woody Allen respectively

The message of this film is not exactly subtle, but it is one that needs to be stated. Everyone has felt, at least once, that they were born in the wrong time and that they may have been happier in another decade. Wilson states the film's message in a speech near the end of the film in a speech that I'm sure will become somewhat memorable (especially the bit about novocaine at the dentist). The lesson that Gil needed to learn was that although past may be home to artistic legends, there was no penicillin (until 1928), no modern medicine, to prevent the many diseases of the time, and life would pretty much suck for anyone who is not a white man (which Gil is). Not to mention, France would be torn apart again in about twenty years with a little thing called the Second World War. Also, the twenties were only one decade. I'm not sure how badly the Depression affected France, but the twenties were fleeting and unless Gil was living in a stable time loop that went back to 1920 on New Year's Eve '29, history would march on, with or without him. However, accepting the present for what it is doesn't mean one has to live in misery, like Gil certainly would with Inez, and the ending definitely enforces that (though I won't spoil).

Ladies and Gentlemen, the second-greatest thing about this movie. Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway

One of the film's greatest strengths is the series of segments that take place in the past, where Gil meets all the creative greats of the time. The present-day segments aren't really that interesting until Gil's visits to the past start to affect the present and change him as a character. Inez and her parents are not very interesting characters, but that is kind of their point, to provide foils for Gil while insulting him at every turn and just being jerks. They are the film's antagonists, were the film to have clear antagonists, and it is them that make Gil a sympathetic character. Adriana is also a foil for Gil in the results of their characters, which I shall not spoil. The film also introduces the idea that nobody is satisfied with their present and everyone is drawn into the allure of another time. It is these things that show the true genius of Allen's script, and the reason why it will certainly be walking home with Best Original Screenplay come Oscar time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the most memorable thing about the movie.

 

Speaking of original, another one of this film's strengths is its concept. Although time-travel has been done before, and jumping into another world has also been done before (in Allen's own Purple Rose of Cairo in fact), Midnight in Paris manages to maintain some sense of originality simply because it hasn't been done this way before. Simply put, there has not been a movie where a writer travels back in time through a magic car and meets the artistic and creative legends of the time. It is not a remake, sequel, or reboot, and it shows that there is still some original thought in Hollywood nowadays. This film is truly one of a kind and a film that deserves to be rememebered as one in the filmography of an (allegedly) classic director that needed a really good movie.

The other element of this film that will no doubt turn this film into a classic is the performances. Owen Wilson does a decent job as Gil, providing a sympathetic and interesting lead in a role that I'm sure Allen himself would have played if he were not...say, forty years too old for the part. Wilson plays the nebbish writer type, but Allen mercifully downplays the neuroticness in favour of nostalgia and constantly being annoyed by the shallow people he is surrounded by. Instead of being an insufferable starving artist like he very well could have been in the hands of a different writer, Gil is a reasonably entertaining character and a likable protagonist, though this is exacerbated by the horrible people he has surrounded himself with in the present day. I am not a huge fan of Owen Wilson, but I can't deny that he gave a good performance that was worthy of the Golden Globe nomination that he got. The other present day characters are Inez and her parents, who are played with supreme jerkiness by Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller, and Mimi Kennedy. I may hate their characters with a burning passion (because Allen wrote it so I would), but I can't knock their performances, which are pretty good. The only other present-day character worth noting is Paul (played by Michael Sheen), a pseudo-intellectual friend of Inez's, whom she is enamored with but Gil (rightfully) can't stand. He gives a good enough performance, one of the many in this film.

I wish I could crack witty jokes that go along with pictures....

However, the acting that really makes the movie is that from the supporting characters. They are the main reasons why the past segments are more interesting, more witty, and generally more awesome. Some of the more famous members of the supporting cast include Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, Tom Hiddleston and Allison Pill (of Thor and Scott Pilgrim fame) as Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Corey Stoll (of Law and Order LA) as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali. Those are the recognizable past characters and the ones that are seen most often, but there is a whole slew of unknowns playing various denizens of Paris. All that I mentioned did great jobs, but the two standouts are definitely Corey Stoll's Hemingway and Adrien Brody's Dali. Stoll was worthy of a Best Supporting Actor nomination in my opinion, as he captured the commonly perceived image of Hemingway perfectly while being downright hilarious...in an abrasive kind of way. He could have easily been nominated in Max von Sydow's place because though he was in the film very little, he totally knocked it out of the park and gave one of the film's most memorable performances. The other extremely memorable performance is Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali. He was in the film even less than Stoll and he is easily the most memorable character to come out of this film. I won't spoil his awesomeness, all I will say is..."rhinoceros". The one original character in the past universe is Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard, and while weaker than the rest of the actors, she definitely did okay. Needless to say, the film was packed with solid performances throughout.

Wilson, McAdams, and Sheen as Gil, Inez, and Paul respectively.

The film also has brilliant visuals, having also scored a nomination for Art Direction alongside Director, Original Screenplay, and Picture. The film opens with an array of shots of gorgeous Parisian scenery (similarly to how Manhattan opens so I hear, except Manhattan is with New York) and it is an utterly perfect beginning to the film, signifying the warmth and joy that this film has to offer. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous, providing some great shots of Paris both past and present, and the sets are impeccably designed. I don't see it taking home the Oscar (which will probably go to either Hugo or The Artist), but it is as visually sumptuous as it is intellectually satisfying. It could have easily scored a nomination for cinematography, but art direction is good enough.

Exhibit A: Why this film scored an Oscar nom for Best Art Direction

 

All in all, Midnight in Paris is a terrific movie, and I have praised it to death for a reason. Though it does have flaws (albeit very minor ones), it was one of the best films of 2011 and one of my new favourite films of all time, which I look forward to watching again. It features dazzling Parisian scenery, an original concept accompanied by a brilliant script, and a series of fine performances with Owen Wilson giving the single greatest performance of his career. Those who are fans of Allen will love it I'm sure, but it served as a good introductory film for me and I'm sure it will do the same for other Allen newbies. Regardless, I give this film my strongest recommendation, especially around Oscar time. I can't wait to watch more Allen films in the future, and this one has certainly convinced me to do so.

P.S. Personally, I don't long for a past. I'd rather be an older version (by older, I mean early-mid twenties) of myself in the present day. That way, I would have a bit more freedom and I would have the means to travel (namely, to go to England and see Les Mis on the West End).

 

9/10- Must-See,  Instant Classic 

The Artist Review

The Artist (2011)

The Oscars certainly feel nostalgic this year, don't they? I mean with films like Hugo, Midnight in Paris, and The Artist all heavy hitters (the first and last more so than the middle) for the Oscars, it seems pretty obvious. This is why The Artist truly feels one of a kind, although its story is nothing really new. It feels one of a kind because it came out this year, yet seeing it on the big screen made me feel like I was back in the twenties, back when silent films were the huge thing in Hollywood and before the dawn of the talkie. In the wrong hands, The Artist could have felt gimmicky, like they were making a silent movie just for the gimmick as opposed to a genuine throwback. However, it is in the hands of Michel Hazanavicius that this film is a true gem and a must-see for all film buffs. It has everything that a silent film should have. It has the comedy, it has the seriousness, and most importantly, it has a sense of joy and nostalgia even in its most melancholy moments. As of now, it is my personal pick for Best Picture and Best Actor, and I can bet that the filmmakers will be taking home many more awards come Oscar night. Out of all of its ten nominations, there is only one that I feel the film doesn't deserve, but we'll get to that later, onto the review.

The Artist centres around a silent film actor named George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). Valentin is the reigning star of the silent movie world and adored by both the studio and the public. One day, through a meet-cute where she drops her autograph book and accidentally bumps into him while getting it, Valentin meets a young woman named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) who is amongst the screaming fangirls and initially acts towards him like any young woman who has a crush on a movie star. She shows up to the studio where Valentin works to audition as an extra for one of their films, and through more circumstance, she and Valentin end up working on a picture together and he helps her get her start in the movies, which quickly escalates into superstardom.

Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo in the scene of their first meeting.

What I have described may seem like a plot for an old-fashioned screwball romantic comedy, but there is much more to this film than that. Like Singin' in the Rain dealt with the transition to talkies in musical format, The Artist deals with a similar topic, except it deals with it very differently. In Singin' in the Rain, Don Lockwood adapted very easily to talkies. In The Artist, George does not adapt so easily. In fact, it is his unwillingness to adapt that results in Peppy's star rising (although it rose with his guidance) and his star fading. This rising star/fading star conflict is what drives the movie and what makes us feel sympathy for our protagonist. As Peppy's life gets better, George's life gets phenomenally worse and for him it's just one humiliation after another, so much that the only companion he has left (besides Peppy, whom it takes him a little while to warm up to after an incident that I'd rather not spoil) is his utterly adorable dog.

Berenice Bejo and Malcolm McDowell in his brief cameo

Although it is through his stubbornness and insistence that sound is merely a fad that made those things happen, I can't help but feel sorry for him. There could be several reasons why he was so resistant towards the dawn of sound. It could be simply that he is afraid of change, or it could be insecurity about (maybe) not being able to speak English very well. If the last was true, it is a perfectly realistic insecurity and it gives the character a bit more humanity. However, Dujardin himself is such a phenomenally attractive man that he could pull it off. Seeing as Dujardin is French and French is his native language, this is one of the great examples of the actor's nationality influencing the character for the better. However, it's not like he was hiding a high shrill voice or a thick Brooklyn accent like Lina Lamont in Singin' in the Rain. Quite the opposite in fact, his voice is not unpleasant at all and being in the talkies would not damage his ability to play a romantic lead.

I don't want to spoil any more of the plot for you, but I will say that it borrows many plot and character elements from Singin' in the Rain, not enough to call it copying but enough for me to consider the two films companion pieces. First of all, George Valentin reminded me a lot of Don Lockwood, the king of silent films who has to deal with the transition to talkies. They are both noted for their talent, they are both pretty damn good dancers, both adored by the public, and both incredibly charming. Plus, Dujardin looks like he could be Gene Kelly's french son (or, judging by their ages, grandson). But whereas Lockwood adapts to the talkies, Valentin instead goes through what I presume to be any actor's worst fear (namely, becoming a forgotten has-been and losing the fame and admiration they once had). Peppy Miller also reminded me a lot of Kathy Selden, even in a direct scene where she is one in a group of showgirls that even wore costumes reminiscent to Debbie Reynolds' in that particular scene (those who have seen Singin' in the Rain know what I'm talking about). Plus, there's the whole showgirl becomes actress and rises up through the ranks of Hollywood that their characters have in common, though Selden rises up in a different way. They even make the film actress played by Missi Pyle look like Lina Lamont at the beginning, though she is not an antagonist and has no bearing on the plot at all. The last act of the film also resembles Singin' in the Rain in a way that I'm not going to spoil. However, this borrowing does not make me like the film any less. In fact, it makes me love it more because Singin' in the Rain happens to be my favourite film of all time.

Seriously. French grandson.

The story is not particularly original, and yet the film maintains some sense of uniqueness and originality in that it is the first silent film to come out in wide-ish circulation since Mel Brooks' Silent Movie in 1976, and it will likely be the first silent film to win Best Picture since the twenties. It also has an element of uniqueness in its nostalgia, how it's a throwback to the classic films of the twenties, and how films like this normally wouldn't be made in this day and age. This, however, brings me to the one Oscar nomination that I felt The Artist did not deserve. That nomination was for Original Screenplay. Seeing as this film was completely silent, title cards were used to express dialogue. However, they weren't used very often and although they did get some good deadpan one-liners in, the rest were rather unremarkable. Not bad, just unremarkable. The Academy could have easily given Diablo Cody a second nomination in The Artist's place, or any other original screenplay in general. I don't think it'll win though, and though I feel The Artist is undeserving for that one Oscar, the rest of the nine awards it was nominated for were wholly deserved.

First of all, the performances were phenomenal, so much that this film has my personal choice for Best Actor. I am sincerely hoping that Dujardin will win the Oscar come Oscar time and I have a feeling he will, as he has received a tad bit more praise than Clooney (who is the other popular choice for Best Actor) and though Clooney is a bigger name in the States, Dujardin's performance is generally looked upon to be the better one. Of course, I haven't seen The Descendants, so I can't be a fair judge, but I still hope that Dujardin wins the award because he truly deserves it. He embodied all of the emotions of his character, all the flaws, all the likability, and all the charm. Seriously, there is so much that he can convey with just a smile, which is so irresistable in itself that it can melt hearts, my own included. He's also a throwback in and of himself, which is one of the many things that makes this film unique. He's the old-fashioned leading man. He's the Errol Flynn, he's the Douglas Fairbanks, he's the Gene Kelly.  Plus, another reason why he will likely take the award over Clooney is that he had to convey the thoughts, feelings, and interactions of his character without words, entirely through his actions and his facial expressions, whereas Clooney had the advantage of being able to speak. In that, Dujardin's performance is the most substantial (both in the happy and sad moments of the film) male performance I have seen this year and one of the greatest things about this film, thus making him my personal pick for Best Actor.

One of the funniest scenes in the movie. You wouldn't be able to tell by the picture though.

However, his performance was not the only good performance in the film. Berenice Bejo also received an Oscar nomination for her performance in the film and though she doesn't have much chance of winning, she gave a great performance nonetheless. She had the flair, the pizzaz, and for lack of a better word, the pep (funny, because her character's name is Peppy) necessary for this performance, and she makes an excellent foil to George with her star rising and his star falling. She's a fundamentally good person, and though her rise to the top could have made her conceited and ungrateful, she does not forget Valentin and how he gave her her start, and she sticks by him the entire course of the movie when she could have abandoned him (not in a romantic sense, but in a friendly sense). She and Dujardin worked extremely well together and they were backed up by decent supporting performances, such as John Goodman as the cigar-chomping studio exec and James Cromwell as Clifton, Valentin's driver. Another humourous albeit brief turn is the one by Missi Pyle as Valentin's Lamont-ish costar. Needless to say, a slew of solid and delightful performances all around, one that will be taking home the Oscar.

But the slew of great performances is just one of the fantastic things about this movie. It also got nominated for a ton of Oscars below the line (by which I mean below the line of the screenplay awards in the technical section) and it deserved them, being an overall visually pleasing film. The film's cinematography is excellent, making good use of each shot and embracing the old-fashioned by filming in 4:3 as opposed to the standard widescreen, and the film on a whole is presented beautifully. I don't see it taking home the award (which will likely go to Janusz Kaminski for War Horse judging by the photographs I have seen), but the film was definitely well-shot. It has a chance at winning for editing, and there is a definite chance that it could win for art direction because the sets were superb, from Valentin's colossal mansion to Miller's mansion to the shops in the city. For now, it is still my favourite for Art Direction. The one award I am absolutely certain it will win is Best Original Score (Kim Novak controversy aside), because with no dialogue, this film is entirely dependent on the music because if there was no music, there would just be dead awkward silence. The music is simply delightful, probably the best score I have heard all year and though the film used little sound, the uses of sound were extremely clever. I won't spoil them for you, but they are extremely clever. Overall, The Artist is a visual delight as well as a delight in many other fashions.

Dujardin again and the film's second brightest (and certainly most adorable) star, Uggie the Dog

In short, The Artist is truly a phenomenal film and a gem, considering it came out in today's society. It is a must-see for all film buffs and though it may decrease in popularity when the Oscars are over, it will be remembered amongst the film buffs as a classic. The Artist is an utterly perfect film and has the honour of being my favourite film of 2011 and my personal pick for Best Picture and Best Actor amongst other things. It is a sheer delight through and through, featuring beautiful visuals and black-and-white cinematography, excellent performances through and through, and a refreshingly old-fashioned (though not entirely original) story. I recommend a viewing before Oscar time, especially if you want to formulate a good Oscar ballot and I recommend seeing it just for the experience, as there is nothing in this for a movie fan to dislike.

10/10- Must-See, Potential Classic

SO.MUCH.ADORABLENESS



The Iron Lady Review

The Iron Lady (2011)



I suppose it can be said that any politician who has ever held office can be considered divisive. No matter how likable they are, there will always be a camp that loves them and a camp that hates them. One of the most divisive and controversial politicians of all time is Margaret Thatcher, England's first (and to this date, only) female Prime minister. Making a movie about her would be tricky because the real Margaret Thatcher is still very much alive. However, they pulled the film off really well, and although the film has its problems, I genuinely don't understand why it only has a 55% score on this very website. I personally thought it was very good, and although it was hampered by an uneven narrative (which wasn't even due to the flashback structure), the film is chock-full of fine performances and generally one that is worth watching, especially before Oscar time.

The Iron Lady explores three periods of Margaret Thatcher's life, all told intertwiningly, which may throw some people off with the rather unsubtle transitions. However, if one pays attention, it gets easier to follow. The framing device is the time period when Thatcher is no longer prime minister and is instead a senile old lady (which is fact, as Thatcher currently suffers from either Alzheimers or dementia) being cared for by her daughter Carol (Olivia Coleman) and a team of helpers. It is during these moments where we see just how far gone Thatcher has become, as she is hallucinating images of her dead husband (Jim Broadbent) and is reluctant to get rid of his things, despite Carol's urgings.

Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. It is here I pride the makeup because they really did make Streep look like Thatcher.

Over the course of the film, we explore Thatcher's memories and the rise and eventual fall of her political career. We see bits of Margaret's teenage life (where she is played by Alexandra Roach), growing up as a grocer's daughter, listening to her father's political speeches and trying to make her way into parliament, which is frought with difficulty even when she does get elected into parliament, what with her being a "lady member" of an otherwise male parliament. This is also how she meets her husband (played by Harry Lloyd and later Jim Broadbent). Various flashbacks show Thatcher during her political career, including her stint in parliament, her run for prime minister, and everything that happens while she is prime minister. Some examples of the things that happen are the Trade Union Strikes, some nasty stuff with the IRA (which is why it is likely best not to mention Thatcher's name around some Irish), and the invasion of the Falkland Islands, which seems to be one of the main plot devices of the film's last act.

The film plays like a checklist of important events in Thatcher's life and career, and it bounces back and forth to the framing device of her as a senile old lady. It is in this story structure that the movie finds its main flaws. The film is not sure what it wants to say about Thatcher herself, and for those who don't know much about the real Margaret Thatcher, this does the film a bit of a disservice. I would have liked to see the film explore one of the three factions of Thatcher's life presented in the film. Instead, the film kind of wanders around aimlessly, touching on several important events as opposed to giving a definitive picture of our leading character. A possible theory to this story structure is that we are looking into the mind and memories of Thatcher, and that mind and those memories are none too reliable. Either way, the story is what drags an otherwise excellent movie down, and it is what prevented the critical reception from being better and the film being eligible for more awards.

Quintessential British character actor Jim Broadbent as Denis Thatcher, with Streep again as Margaret.

However, for all narrative problems, the script is okay, getting in some moments of sly humour like all British political dramas seem to. In fact, there is a very King's Speech-esque moment in the film where Thatcher's campaign managers are trying to teach her how to speak because, quite frankly, her voice is too high and commands no authority. The three incarnations of Thatcher are decently developed, but none of them get enough time on screen to provide a definitive picture of Thatcher as a leader. The topic of a woman in a man's game has been done to death, but that element of the story is mercifully downplayed. What the story really gets right is the portrayal of the nature of Thatcher's dementia (or whatever mentally degenerative disease she has), which is brilliantly portrayed through both the script and Streep's performance (which I will talk about later). A particularly notable scene where the audience notices her mind starting to go is when she humiliates her deputy (played by Anthony Head of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Repo! The Genetic Opera fame) at a cabinet meeting and rants aggressively at her cabinet. Thatcher's hallucinations of her late husband are handled very well, which gives the ending a bit more power. I won't spoil anything, so let's move on. Overall, despite my complaints about the story, it was a lesser part of the film and there was more than enough good stuff to balance out the narrative issues.

The first good thing to come out of this movie was obviously Meryl Streep's performance as Margaret Thatcher. Her performance is the most acclaimed part of the movie for good reason, even scoring Streep her seventeenth Oscar nomination. In fact, it might just get Streep her third Oscar. I'm not placing any bets on the Best Actress race simply because it's so close. It'll be either her of Viola, that's for sure. Streep is typically excellent in her role, mastering the two facets of adult Thatcher, as well as Thatcher's physical appearance and weird accent. Will it get her the Oscar? Who knows, but she definitely deserves all of the praise that she's been getting. She once again proves that she may be the greatest actress working today and this is another great performance to add to her resume. Plus, she may have a leg up on the Oscar because she's playing a real person, unlike Davis. Again, it's a very tight race.

Harry Lloyd as young Denis Thatcher

However, Streep wasn't the only one who gave a great performance. The supporting cast in this film is wonderful, although they all pale in comparison to Streep. The first is Jim Broadbent as the ghost of Denis Thatcher, and I thought that he gave the second best performance, worthy of award attention in its own right, and he could have easily gone in Von Sydow's place for an Oscar nom. Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd also give good performances as young Margaret and Denis Thatcher for what little they are in the movie. In fact, I would have liked the film to spend a little more time on them. In fact, I would have generally liked to see more of Thatcher's past. The rest of the supporting cast did okay as well, turning in average, relatively unremarkable performances. The last I would like to talk about is Olivia Coleman, who played Thatcher's daughter Carol. While her performance certainly wasn't great, she did capture the frustration of a daughter dealing with her senile mother very well. Needless to say, the most memorable performance to come out of this movie will be Streep's, especially if it wins the Oscar, but she is backed up by a solid supporting cast.

The film is solid on a visual level, providing some decent British scenery, nice shots of parliament, and splendid art direction. The costume design was also good. In fact, it was likely worthy of an Oscar nomination. Some of the clothing they put Streep in was simply amazing. My personal favourite is the blue silk dress that young Thatcher wears to the meeting where she meets young Denis. I also liked some of the hats that she wore, but moving on. The only other nomination that the film received besides for Streep's performance was for the makeup, and I can definitely say that the makeup deserved to be nominated, because it is nigh impossible for Meryl Streep to look old under her own power. I don't think it will win the award, but it was worthy of a nomination nonetheless.

Alexandra Roach as young Margaret Thatcher

In short, though The Iron Lady is extremely flawed, it is standardly entertaining historical drama fare and for those who enjoy that sort of thing, I would highly recommend this film. For those that don't, you probably won't like it much, but if you want to see it for Streep's performance to see if she could take home the Oscar, go right ahead, don't let me stop you. Though Streep is definitely the best thing in the film, there are several other great things about The Iron Lady, making it an overall solid film. The film merely suffers from doesn't-know-what-it-wants-to-say-itis, not providing a definitive picture of the person it is about and leaving the viewer a bit confused as to whether the filmmakers love her or hate her. It also suffers from an uneven narrative and things that could have been expanded upon to make the movie better. But that won't stop me from recommending the film because for all its flaws, I did really like it.



7.5/10-  Recommended

My Review of Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Out of the three Marvel movies to come out in 2011, Captain America is often considered a lesser film compared to Thor and X-Men First Class, which got better reviews and generally better reception from audiences. This is entirely understandable, as Captain America was the last superhero film to come out in the summer and by the time it came out, many were experiencing superhero fatigue and simply didn't want to see another Avengers buildup movie. I, however, was hyped up for this ever since I heard it was being made, and it moved to the top of my to-view list when a release date was set for The Avengers. For what it's worth, Captain America is a supremely entertaining and atmospheric period piece, capturing WWII very well. It also has excellent visuals, an array of fine performances, and some great action scenes (although they are kind of rushed in the second half).

The film starts out with a team of researchers in the Arctic coming across a huge aircraft (which will come into play later in the movie) and a shield frozen in a block of ice. After the foreshadowing, the story proper begins as we are introduced to our main character. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a patriotic young man who wants to enlist in the army but is constantly turned down due to his skinniness and poor health. However, he is able to make it in with the help of a kindly doctor named Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci). Erskine has a slightly alterior motive in that he wants Rogers to be the recipient for his super-soldier serum. Rogers is not faring well in the physical training, so it takes a lot of convincing for Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) to allow the program to go ahead with Rogers instead of any other soldiers.

Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark

After the procedure, Rogers is much larger, taller, and much stronger, capable of fighting in battle and doing what he always wanted to do. However, he is mostly used as a propaganda figure, doing stage shows in order to get people to buy more victory bonds. I like this part of the movie because it satirizes wartime propaganda with a montage of USO shows, as well as the silliness of the original costume design of Captain America. Steve is dissatisfied with this life and longs to actually be in battle, to do what he wanted to do when he signed on. He gets this chance when he is called to face the film's villain, Johann Schmidt (AKA Red Skull, played by Hugo Weaving). Schmidt was chief of Hitler's science and weapons division, and the super soldier serum was tested on him as well. Unfortunately, the serum only amplifies the ugliness of those who are not pure of heart, so while Rogers gets transformed into the epitome of human perfection, Schmidt gets...... well, I don't want to say for fear of spoilers. Oh, and he had an imperfect version of the procedure, so that makes his condition worse.

Schmidt is looking for a tesseract that is believed to have come from the gods. Possession of said tesseract would fulfill Schmidt's own plan of world domination. This is a relatively unoriginal motivation for a villain to have, and in any other movie, I would dismiss it as rote and silly. However, this film is a throwback to pulp-adventures and serials of the 1940's, so to have a villain with the objective of world domination is not at all out of place. The climax of the film is Rogers attempting to stop the launching of WMD's that Schmidt plans to use to destroy the major American cities. A relatively simple climax, but an exciting one nonetheless. Schmidt is an interesting villain, and despite the war effort against the Nazis being a huge part of the movie, you definitely get the message that Schmidt is a much larger threat. He is an interesting villain, despite being the typical rogue agent gone mad with power, and he is played awesomely (as per usual) by Hugo Weaving. Like I said, his characterization may have bothered me if he was in any other movie, but here, Red Skull is a great villain, one of the best non-Batman villains adapted to film.

The much less ridiculous-looking costume for Captain America

As for our hero, Steve Rogers is a very well-developed character and he is played brilliantly by Chris Evans. I enjoyed him in here much more than I did in the Fantastic Four movie and that says a lot because he was the only thing I liked in the Fantastic Four movie. Steve Rogers is a nice guy, and all he wants to do is serve his country, but his physical condition prevents him from doing so. It's nice to see that he remains his normal self after his transformation, showing that getting taller and more muscular doesn't have to make a person a jerk. The thing that makes Steve Rogers relatable is the exact same thing that makes Peter Parker relatable. It is that Steve Rogers is a huge dork. He's awkward, he's bullied, he's not good with girls, but he's a nice guy and we root for him. People like an underdog story, and this is an extremely well-played underdog story. In fact, since Captain America was published before Spiderman, it could be the first major underdog superhero and perhaps a prototype for some elements of Spiderman. Like I said, Evans' performance is pitch-perfect, one of my favourites in a superhero film. I would be blind if I didn't mention his fantastic body, and how much respect I have for the work he did to obtain it. In reality, all of those chorus girls in the victory-bond show montage would not be able to keep their hands off of him. Hell, nobody would be able to keep their hands off of him.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by Haley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Dominic Cooper, and Sebastian Stan, who play Agent Carter, Col. Phillips, Howard Stark and Bucky respectively. Atwell gives a good tough performance as both a military woman and a love interest for Rogers. Although in reality, a woman likely would not have been in that high standing in the military. She was a decently developed character instead of just being a damsel in distress (like Mary Jane Watson in the Spiderman movies) and she is played by a pretty good actress. Tommy Lee Jones is awesome and cynical as always, and I find that he gives his best performances when he plays authority figures (like in The Fugitive or Men in Black). He definitely has the voice and deadpan delivery for it. That was what made his turn as Agent K so great and that is what makes his performance in this great. Dominic Cooper was amazing as Howard Stark (who draws parallels from his fairly obvious namesake Howard Hughes), and his performance is obviously meant to be very similar to Robert Downey Jr's in Iron Man, seeing as they are father and son. He is enjoyable, snarky, and fun, and it seems like a love triangle is going to be set up between him, Captain America, and Agent Carter. I won't tell you how that plays out, but I will say that Cooper's performance was probably my second favourite besides that of the Cap himself. As for Stan, I appreciated the change of the character of Bucky from kid sidekick of Captain America to loyal friend and fellow soldier. Stan's performance was pretty good for how little he is in the movie, and I was definitely surprised by the quality of his performance considering that he is most well known for Gossip Girl.

Atwell and Evans as Peggy Carter and Steve Rogers/Captain America

The film is also solid visually, and the excellent art direction gives the film a real atmosphere to it. The sets are excellent and the visual effects (for how little they are used) are excellent. 2011 was the year the blockbuster went retro, with Super 8, X-Men First Class, and especially Captain America. I love films about this time period and this one is no exception. Each set is highly evocative of the time period and although it takes extreme license with history, you feel sucked into the time period. Most of the film's effects were done through practical means and not through CG (sparing for the shrinking down of Evans, which was obviously CGI). I could actually see this picking up a nod for art direction, although not for visual effects, because it is more dependent on the set details rather than flashy special effects. I love films that suck you into their time period and make you feel like you are there, and Captain America is certainly one of those films.

Now I know I have heaped undying praise on this film without giving it a perfect score. I should definitely explain why. The main problem with this film comes with the pacing. Like The Matrix, the first two thirds of this film are set up brilliantly. However, in the last act, they seem to forget that this is supposed to be a summer blockbuster and they cram all the action into one act, making the action scenes confused and repetitive. Some are good, but I could not keep up with most because they were too poorly paced and too close together. This would only be a minor problem if it weren't for the fact that the first two thirds are set up so well. After such fine buildup to a mediocre payoff, I couldn't help but be disappointed. However, the buildup is still great, and the second half doesn't make the movie unwatchable, it just makes it flawed. There is one action scene worth paying attention to in the second half, but after that it's just a flurry of action where it is acceptable to just turn your brain off because the action scenes are still well-choreographed and fun to watch, just not well paced.

Hugo Weaving as Johann Schmidt/Red Skull.  Don't worry, I'm not spoiling anything.

Flaws in the second half aside, Captain America: The First Avenger is one of my favourite films of last year. The film has impeccable visuals with lots of atmospheric retro touches, as well as excellent costume design. I definitely give credit to anyone who can make a better costume for Captain America while satirizing the one from the comics at the same time. The direction from Joe Johnston is solid, and the film offers a different interpretation of Steve Rogers/Captain America, making him a sweet and sympathetic protagonist, as well as one with an absolutely fantastic body (sorry, I had to point that out again). I can see those who wouldn't like it and that is entirely cool, I don't laud it as a masterpiece or anything. However, the film is entirely worth watching and essential to watch if you want to bone up on your knowledge before The Avengers, because this film has a ton of sly references to the other buildup films, from the obligatory Nick Fury appearance down to the fact that Howard Stark speaks at an expo very similar to the one Tony speaks at, except obviously retro. In fact, just the presence of Howard Stark  Fans of WWII movies might like it, and fans of the superhero will definitely like it because after numerous crappy adaptations, Captain America has finally gotten the movie he deserves. One of the best of 2011 and it has one of the best first halves I have seen in any movie.

8.5/10- Strong Recommendation

Maybe its just the teenage girl in me talking, but DAMN.



My Review of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)

I have not seen any other Mission Impossible films before this one, but when I had heard news of a fourth film, I merely wrote it off as another unnecessary sequel that Hollywood was playing it safe on. But when I saw the awesome trailer, I wanted to see the movie, completely disregarding the fact that I haven't seen any of the other films in the series. So I guess you could say that I dove headfirst into this film almost completely blind Well, I suppose that's not entirely true, as the film had excellent word of mouth during its initial release, saying it was the best of the series. Now obviously I can't say if it is, because I haven't any other films to judge it on, but on its own, I'd say that Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is one of the best films of the year. I have only a few basic expectations of action films, one of which is that they entertain me and another is that they have some brains behind them. MI4 definitely fulfills those expectations and then some, providing some fun spy thrills and exhilarating action. I did not see it in IMAX due to the fact that there is only one IMAX theatre in my town, so there was no Dark Knight Rises prologue, but regardless, this is a movie entirely worth watching for what it is, not just what comes before.

This film starts in Budapest, where an unknown agent is shot at by several people and then eventually killed by a female assassin. We then cut to a Russian prison, where several prisoners manage to break out of their cells and attack the guards. It turns out this prison contains Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and the prisoners were let out by Benji (Simon Pegg), a lab tech from the other films (so I hear) who was promoted to field agent between films who will serve as comic relief. The mission is successful and it is after the mission where we meet Agent Carter (Paula Patton) one of the agents that we will be seeing throughout the course of the film.

Agent Carter was involved with the mission at the beginning and her demon to battle over the course of the film is that she feels responsible for the death of the agent in the beginning. The mission that failed was an attempt to get nuclear launch codes, which is the main mission for the rest of the movie. To do so, Hunt and his team have to infiltrate the archive room of the Kremlin. I suppose I should specify about the launch codes. Hunt and his team have to get the launch codes to take them out of the hands of a nuclear extremist known as "Cobalt" (Michael Nyqvist) who feels that the weak must die for the strong to survive and that nuclear war is the next necessary stage in human evolution.

Unfortunately, I won't tell you how, but this mission ends in the exploding of the Kremlin. This is basically Russian 9-11, and the team is blamed for it. After escaping from Russian agents at a hospital, Hunt is rescued by IMF's secretary and his chief analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), who will play a big part later. The secretary invokes the titular ghost protocol after the Russians consider the attack an unprovoked act of war. Ironic, considering the secretary was there to deliver some sort of official act of frienship. This means that the entire IMF is disavowed and Hunt, as well as Benji, Brandt and Agent Carter are on their own. The attack will be pinned on them and they will be allowed to "escape" government custody to solve their case and defeat "Cobalt". So, it is up to Hunt, Carter, Dunn, and Brandt to get the launch codes out of "Cobalt"'s hands and prevent total nuclear war.

That's all that I'm going to tell you about the story because quite frankly, that's all that needs to be said. The film sets up a simple objective and drags that objective across the globe, creating one hell of an exciting film with some absolutely gorgeous scenery that I'll talk about later. Part of the excellence of this film is due to the immensely talented director, Brad Bird. Mission Impossible has run the gamete of directors over the course of the series, Brian DePalma, John Woo, and J.J. Abrams directing before Bird. Abrams is still producing this film and it has his signature touch, especially in the way of special effects. I adore Abrams' style and it definitely comes through in this film, as well as the kinetic style of action that Bird uses in The Incredibles, an equally thrilling film with some awesome set pieces.

I was unsure how a director that has worked almost entirely in the field of animation could handle a live-action movie, but after seeing this film, I was thorougly impressed and now I can't wait to see how Andrew Stanton will do with John Carter come March. Not unlike The Incredibles, Mission Impossible has some dazzling action scenes that take place all over the world, from Dubai to Mumbai. Having international set pieces means the audience has some truly amazing scenery to feast their eyes on. The sets are so well put together that I would not be surprised if the film picked up an Oscar nomination for art direction (as well as editing, sound mixing, and maybe score).

Out of the three main locations where the action takes place, my favourite is Dubai, where the team has to divert a meeting from Cobalt's right-hand man and the lady assassin from the beginning of the film. Perhaps the most notorious scene in Dubai was that of Tom Cruise hanging off of the world's tallest building (which I'd like to visit someday as it looks really damn awesome). This image has graced the trailers and promotional materials, and if you see the movie for any other reason than to see the Dark Knight Rises prologue, see it for that scene. But fair warning, those who are frightened of heights may get slightly nervous by proxy seeing Cruise hanging off of that tower. I have a heights thing sometimes and although I did not see the film in IMAX, my palms got sweaty all the same. It's still pretty awesome though, and I can't imagine how awesome and suspenseful it would be in IMAX. There is also a sandstorm chase scene in Dubai (inspiration for the poster design), and a parking garage chase in Mumbai, amongst other things that I don't want to tell you because you should see the movie for yourself. 

There are also some very interesting gadgets, like Jeremy Renner's magnet suit and  Tom Cruise's adhesive gloves  which he uses to scale Burj Khalifa amongst other things (you'll know after seeing the movie)  being a spy movie and all, and although some of the tech could not possibly exist in real life, you don't exactly expect realism coming out of a spy movie like Mission Impossible, do you? That reminds me, MI4 is probably the best spy movie that has come out since Casino Royale, or at least the most entertaining. It feels like a spy movie through and through, and although it may not be Bond or Bourne, it doesn't need to be. What it is is thoroughly entertaining, and a lot of the mission scenes provide the film's humour. One particular example is when Pegg and Cruise are infiltrating the Kremlin. There is no dialogue, and yet the scene is hilarious just with their facial expressions and nonverbal cues. Pegg, the rest of the cast too for that matter, manage to get some funny one-liners in there, but the majority of the film's humour is situational, through malfunctioning equipment and the like. It's nice that a spy movie can have a sense of humour, proving that not all of them have to be deadly serious.

Usually when a film focuses on action set pieces, it can get repetitive and occasionally too fast-paced. Mission Impossible (just like Tintin before it) doesn't seem to have that problem. There is enough time put in each location and the two-and-a-quarter hour runtime is enough time to flesh out all the sub-missions. Things move fast, but not too fast, enough to keep the audience entertained but not keeping the audience confused. The action may be the best part of the movie by far, but unlike a lot of action movies, there are solid characters and decent performances to back it up. Once again, Tom Cruise plays Ethan Hunt, and while I am still not a fan of Cruise as an actor, I will briefly concede and say that he is a viable action star. He gives a decent performance as Hunt, and the fact that he does most of his stunts is simply amazing. The rest of the team consists of Paula Patton as Agent Carter, who gave an excellent performance besides being just blatant fanservice (although she does wear a rather sexy green dress in Mumbai). It seemed that they were setting her up as a new love interest for Hunt but I'm still not sure what will come of that. Simon Pegg made awesome and funny comic relief as he always does no matter what genre of film he is in, and the last of the main performers is Jeremy Renner as Brandt. The trailers kind of made it look like Renner was going to take the reins from Cruise (much like Hollywood wants him to do with the Bourne movies). I don't think he will, but he gives an amazing performance (probably my favourite of the bunch) as the mysterious Brandt. It won't get him his third Oscar nomination, but it as action movie performances go, Renner was really good. All I can say is I can't wait to see him in The Avengers next summer.

Mission Impossible is definitely the best straight-up action movie this year and probably the best spy movie since Casino Royale. The action is exhilarating, suspenseful and well edited, the stuntwork is crazy, and it has some of the best set pieces that I have seen in any movie, let alone an action movie. Don't believe me, go to the theatre and watch this movie yourself.  This movie makes me want to travel, especially to see that hotel in Dubai, and it makes me want to see the rest of the Mission Impossible movies. If you've seen the other Mission Impossibles and liked them, then chances are you've made plans to see this or you've seen this already. Chances are you'll like it too. For those who go into it completely blind like I did, it'll be up to you as to whether or not to see it, but for those who do, you'll end up watching one of the best films of the year, IMAX or no IMAX.

8.9/10-  Highly Recommended, Worth Seeing in Theatres