Originally Reviewed – 3/3/2012

In preparation for this review, I’m typing this from an underground bunker. Six hundred feet below the earth’s surface, hunkering down from an impending storm. Water is scarce, food is scarcer and despite the waning battery on my back up laptop, I remain defiant. A single light bulb hangs lightly from the cement ceiling and while I realize sunshine is just an open door away, once this is done, I can never go back. But I don’t care if this bulb burns out and I care even less if my actions cause a tidal wave of retribution. My resolve is firm and absolute. I know what I must do. Despite the poor reviews, critical panning and Michael Bay’s direction, I kinda like the movie Armageddon.

OK. I kinda love it.

Now, before the negative tides rise to swallow me, let me make one thing clear. This is a bad movie in nearly every way you can be one. This overblown tale of a group of oil drillers turned astronauts, led by cliché American name # 52 (Bruce Willis as Harry Stamper), is ludicrous. Harry and his band of misfits need to land on a speeding asteroid, drill a hole, drop a nuke and take off before the rock reaches the ominous Zero Barrier. If they fail? The Texas sized meteor will slam into our waiting planet, ending mankind as we know it. In the meantime, small bits of the asteroid destroy major cities, the cast members make tampon jokes and Liv Tyler falls in love with Ben Affleck. Obviously, all things in this film are exaggerated.

Armageddon, at the core, is a silly action movie and director Michael Bay follows every beat of the genre, including the bad ones. The script is silly, the editing is manic to the point of confusing and the moments where the film slows down are the points where I get a refill on my snacks. And yes, there’s even that God forsaken Aerosmith song that bleats through the film like a young child afflicted with the rickets. At nearly every turn, the critical portion of my brain screams to my irrational side, saying, “Stop watching this movie! Don’t you know The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is playing again on AMC”?

But I never listen. To me, the film’s biggest strength is the simple likability of the characters. And while I use the term loosely, the main cast is genuinely enjoyable, Ben Affleck aside. From Steve Bushemi as the sex crazed geologist to an affable Owen Wilson to the teddy bear charm of Michael Clarke Duncan, the cast is well chosen and seems like an offbeat family. Not to mention the film features the best bad Russian stereotype ever put to film in Peter Stormare’s mad portrayal of a society removed cosmonaut. While the situation the crew finds themselves in defies all semblances of logic and sense, it’s a nifty roller coaster ride featuring people you can easily care about it. Yes, these cookie cutter personalities never grow beyond caricatures, but they’re witty and enjoyable enough to pull you through the silliness.

But it’s not just good casting that pulls Armageddon along. The film is injected with a genuine sense of fun with a script just dopey enough for us not to care. The movie doesn’t try to be a scientific theorem on the destructive potential of asteroids. It’s a semi serious action flick that provides explosive set pieces involving quip happy protagonists you can easily root for. Unlike Bay’s other film atrocities, Armageddon manages to be camp you can care about, even if you completely forget the experience five minutes after the screening. If you need a dumb movie that somehow, someway draws you in, Armageddon is an easy choice. And if you really like it, head out to the weeds of East Rutherford, New Jersey. Walk three hundred paces south of Giant’s Stadium, turn left at the Texaco and head for a small, windowless shack in an abandoned parking lot. Knock three times and come on in. There’s plenty of room down here in the bunker.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 2/19/2012

Here’s a shocker for you. Meryl Streep is one of the finest American actresses to have ever graced the silver screen. Even in lackluster films, her work shines through the muck. Julie and Julia anyone? At this point in her career, if Streep were in a Volvo commercial, somebody would be handing her a trophy. Celebrated for good reason, she’s one of those performers that can literally do no wrong. Holding the record for most nominations in both the Golden Globes (26) and the Academy Awards (17), Streep is also well recognized in the film industry. Basically, if she’s in a movie, it’s going to get some Oscar buzz. Care to take a guess on what’s going to happen when you take Meryl Streep, put her in some makeup and have her play Margret Thatcher in a British biopic? If you answered “awards pandemonium”, you get five points, two and a half happy faces and a gold star. Luckily for Meryl, The Iron Lady supports her acting chops with some good direction and a well written screenplay that humanizes the controversial Prime Minister while working within the staid biopic genre.

The Iron Lady, directed by famed British theater director Phyllida Lloyd, follows two separate paths. The first one, a standard tracking of Thatcher’s rise to Prime Minister in the sexist world of British politics, follows the usual biopic rhythms. Peppering in live action footage with Streep’s mesmerizing performance, the effect is interesting yet uninspiring. We’ve seen this type of film before with different figures plugged into the roles. The second path, however, is what gives the film a pulse and elevates the experience beyond the rules of the genre. In this path, we see Thatcher in 2008, long removed from her political life and struggling with dementia. Here she converses with her long dead husband, efforts to maintain strained relationships with her grown children and struggles with a life where she no longer has an impact. These scenes do a great job of giving the character depth and feeling, surprising if you know anything about Thatcher’s ultra-conservative public image.

Streep takes this ball and runs with it, filling the screen with her usual brilliance. The Oscar nominated actress disappears into the role, not only nailing the vocal cues of the former Parliament leader, but the emotional cues as well. The real life Thatcher was a Randian figure, a politician who believed everyone should work for their way in life and despised those who took without giving back. In a film adaptation, this one noted character would have been intolerable, but Streep, with the help of screenwriter Abi Morgan, delves deep into the motivations of Thatcher, creating someone we can care for, even if we disagree with her politics. This depth alone makes Streep’s performance one of the finest of the year .

The rest of the cast does a great job of giving the film historical accuracy and genuine color. High marks need to be given to Jim Broadbent who plays Dennis, the now deceased husband of Margaret. The direct result of Thatcher’s dementia, Dennis haunts our lead character with equal parts whimsy and accusation, pulling Margaret between the extremes of comfort and self regret. The result is the main source of tension in a film that desperately needs it. The film also utilizes some interesting shot selection and cinematography, again elevating the experience beyond the standard beats of the biopic genre. The film also ends symbolically, giving the movie a very nice bookend that rewards viewers paying close enough attention to get the reference.

As I said in my Week With Marilyn review, biopics are almost a direct road to Oscar nominations and can be seen as an easy one. Problem is, you still need to play those parts well in order to get on the highway. Meryl Streep again reminds us why she is a national treasure in The Iron Lady, filling the screen with a pitch perfect portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in both style and personality. Unlike the aforementioned Michelle Williams film, we leave the movie knowing a bit more about the central character than we did arriving. That in itself, is worth the price of admission. Carefully crafted and thoughtfully directed, The Iron Lady surpasses expectations by giving viewers a candid and well balanced look into the life of a controversial political figure. And no, it doesn’t hurt that it stars one of the finest American actress to have ever graced the silver screen.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/16/2012

If there’s one certainly in the world of cinema, it’s that we love going to space. A place few of us will see in our lifetime, film gives us a window to a mysterious world where gravity fails, stars shine bright and, no matter how hard you try, nobody can hear you scream. Every imaginable genre has taken trips to the great beyond. From Georges Méliès groundbreaking A Trip to the Moon to the surrealistic nightmare of 2001, filmmakers have been fascinated with the skies above since the beginning of the art form. Hell, even Abbot and Costello went to Mars.

Problem was that space had always been situated in the realm of science fiction. Fantasy tales of thunderous rockets, starship battles and grotesque aliens, nobody ever bothered to simply get it right. Depict space travel as it really was for the brave men and women who stepped into a tiny capsule strapped to 800,000 pounds of rocket fuel and blasted into the heavens. Not quite Wile E Coyote strapped to an Acme rocket, but close. Luckily for us, director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks had that a singular vision to bring the real life drama of space travel to the screen. The result was 1995’s Apollo 13, an emotionally stirring story of tragedy and triumph wrapped in the real life drama of a doomed NASA mission.

When I first saw this film in the late nineties, I had no clue of the real Apollo 13 mission. My dad brought the VHS home one day, we popped it in and I was blown away. The story tracks the strange set of circumstances that took the voyage of Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) and turned it into a fight for survival. Not satisfied with simply tracking the mission, the movie also tells the story of Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise), the astronaut left behind, the mission’s gruff flight director, Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) and Jim’s wife (Kathleen Quinlan). The movie boasts an extraordinary accuracy in not only how they deal with the science, how they handle the relationships between the different players. Simply put, the film feels real from performance to blast off.

Tom Hanks stars as the captain of the doomed vessel and you can tell he loves every minute of his portrayal. A self-professed space nut to begin with, Hanks hurls himself into the role with surprising restraint, getting every beat of the eagle eyed captain down to a tee. Harris is also noteworthy in the role of the flight director, giving a grounded and restrained performance. The film also boasts the most accurate depictions of the science of space travel ever put to film. From the inside of Mission Control, to the interiors of the spacecraft to the launch itself, Apollo 13 set a standard for space realism, a benchmark no film has exceeded since.

The story itself is treated with the same attention to detail, sometimes to the detriment of the film. Side stories like Jim’s wife losing her ring in the shower or the networks not running the crew’s TV broadcast may come off as emotionally leading but actually took place in the real life events. These scenes may come off cheesy to the viewer but they never dull the impact of the events that took place. Viewers who are unaware of the actual story may find the suspense artificially enhanced but the effect is downright riveting. Every element of the movie, from the sound design to the score, are all perfectly pitched to heighten the drama and creating genuine suspense.

As I said in the outset of this review, if space movies are a dime a dozen, Apollo 13 is the statistical outlier. While it may not have any standout performances, the film is a well-mixed combination of acting and directing. Standing on the bedrock of historical accuracy and providing more than enough suspense, Apollo 13 is an entertaining docudrama that holds up even today. Suffice to say, when NASA astronauts not only approve the production but use scenes from the film for historical purposes, you know you got it right. A fine film in nearly every regard.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/1/2012

In the opening scene of Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation, a modern Iranian couple sits before a judge, explaining why they need a divorce. As an audience, it looks as though these two characters are talking to us, explaining their case as if we were judge and jury. She wants to flee to America with her family intact, he wants to stay to care for his Alzheimer’s addled father. Tempers flare and words exchange, but the conversation never turns bitter. Never turns harsh. The love is there but it’s being torn by time and circumstance and as an audience, our hearts start breaking from minute one. This first scene sets the tone for the entire film, a tone that elevates the film beyond the subtitles and low budget camerawork. A heart-rending combination of acting, writing and directing, A Separation is a perfectly made movie, one that film fans need to seek out any way they can.

The upper middle class family A Separation examines consists of Nader, his wife Simin and their eleven year old daughter, Termeh. When Simin moves back in with her parents, leaving the exceptionally bright Termeh with her father, Nader hires a devout woman to care for his ailing father. This leads to a series of circumstances and little lies that escalate beyond anybody’s expectation. The film has a number of fascinating themes running through it, all dealt with honesty and emotional integrity. From the white lies one tells to keep a family together to the minor deceits inherent in keeping your ego intact, the film creates tension from insight, not plot contrivance. This is a personal film at the core and the effects are immediately palpable.

The film also benefits from having one of the best casts you’ll see this year. From the stern nature of Nader (Peyman Moaadi) to the emotionally torn Simin (Leila Hatami), the entire cast is perfectly pitched, creating relatable characters that are easy to root for. Most impressive, however, is the work of Sarina Farhadi as young Termeh. Vulnerable yet wise beyond her years, Farhadi pushes herself to the limit in her performance, creating a sad little center the rest of the cast storms around. The movie is also bolstered by an Oscar nominated screenplay that never wastes a line of dialogue or a second of screen time in telling the story.

When the Oscars roll around, most people go to the bathroom during the Foreign Language awards. These films rarely get to American theaters before the ceremony and the ones that do are relegated to limited release. Two years ago, it was The Secret In Her Eyes, last year it was In A Better World and this year it’s going to be A Separation. Shame too, as most audiences never get a chance to see these remarkable movies unless they hear the winners over the flush of a toilet and think to throw it on the Netflix queue. The sad thing is that A Separation is not only the best foreign language film released this year, it happens to be my second favorite film of 2011, bar none. A wonderfully made film that examines the little lies and deceptions inherent in the unnatural tearing of a relationship, A Separation is a triumph of international filmmaking.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 1/26/2012

Note: Being this is my 100th review on Rotten Tomatoes, I decided to write a piece on one of the films that helped spur my love of cinema. Luckily for me, one of those films, Apocalypse Now, just happened to be next on my Review My Collection list. While this follows the traditional review format, I look some liberties in talking about my personal connection to the movie. Also note, this is a review of the original 1979 film, not the Redux edition from 2001. Thanks for your continued readership!

—-

I’m not quite sure when I first ran into the subject of review #100, but my first sharp recollection was a viewing for my Literature in Film class, junior year of college. The opening scene struck me from the get go. The glaze eyed stare of Martin Sheen as helicopters juxtapose with ceiling fans to the drive of The Doors marked a manic, perfect beginning to a manic, perfect film. Like Martin, I was beginning a journey of sorts, his a slow river ride into the surreal world of Vietnam, mine a struggling step into the world of film criticism. I had already brushed against this film once or twice thanks to my father, but this time was different. My goal was to take a scene and dissect it bit by bit. Take a classic piece of a landmark film and break it up into a series of pans, tilts and pulls.

The scene I chose was the first landing of the PBR on the shores of a Vietnamese colony, the scene where Willard first meets the manic Colonel Killgore (Robert Duvall). The scene always fascinated me but this time it was different. Separated from the drama of the moment, I looked for the first time beyond the story, beyond the frame and understood exactly why it was engaging, why the entire film is brilliant. Technique. Director Francis Ford Coppola treated every shot with a meticulous eye and perfect composition. No shot wasted, no line of dialogue squandered, this five minute scene told me everything I needed to know about how filmmaking could be approached given the hand of a master. Suddenly, it all meant sense.

The plot itself is a deceptively simple one. Captain Willard (Sheen) is on a secret mission to “terminate the command” of one Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly decorated officer who has gone rouge, fighting his own brand of warfare in the Cambodian jungle. Escorting the captain on his slow cruise down the Nung River, is a tidy cross section of the US forces in Vietnam. From a no nonsense boat commander to a professional surfer just looking for his next tan, the crew captures the random nature of the US occupation. Most of these draftees were bottom feeders, souls nobody gave two ticks about and Coppola perfectly illustrates the dichotomy between the men on a mission and the boys who just want to go home.

Coppola also gives his actors plenty of room to work and build engaging characters. No one cast member, from Sheen on down, is given the short end of the dramatic stick. Be it Chef’s wild ramblings about a tiger attack or Lance’s slow metamorphosis, the cast is well directed, bringing small snippets of life to the somber journey. Sheen himself is near brilliant in a career defining role, teetering between unhinged and dutiful throughout the feature. As Sheen rolls down the river, he learns more and more about the mysterious Kurtz and with every passing page of the dossier, starts to respect him. The journey is both a physical and emotional one and Sheen does a great job in balancing both sides. Brando is also fantastic as the brooding Kurtz, chilling in voiceover, tape recordings and in the final reveal in the Cambodian compound.

In writing this review, I find myself feeling connected to this landmark picture in a way I didn’t expect. From the patient photography, to the unorganized madness of a bridge embattlement, Coppola poured his heart, soul and finances into a film that can only be called a masterpiece of 20th century filmmaking. From my perspective, the movie is more than a surrealistic ride down a Vietnamese river. It’s a statement of human nature, a piercing look into change, progress, and our baser impulses. In Apocalypse Now, Coppola took a short novella written in 1903 and adapted it into one of the most complete Vietnam films ever made.

My connection is a more personal one. Back on that day in 2002, I looked at a movie beyond the gun fire and explosions, the pure entertainment of it all. That day I discovered a world of art and beauty, a place I felt closest to with a notebook in hand. A journey of my own started that afternoon, a trip that’s taken me through a hundred reviews, some glowing, some scathing but all of them honest, heartfelt and a joy to write. Like Captain Willard in Coppola’s Vietnam epic, I started out with dim expectations of what was to come and while I’ve yet to reach my credit roll, I know I’ll be infinitely surprised when I get there.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 1/15/2012

An orange glow washes over a boy and horse, framing them in silhouette against the late day sky. The thunder of hooves and hilts as an equine legion gallops towards an infantry unit. The giggle of a small girl as she tries to teach our protagonist how to jump. Two rivals become friends in the oddest of situations. War Horse is filled with glorious moments, expertly crafted by one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, Steven Spielberg. The classic book turned award winning play has been getting a lot of attention this year, culminating in this Oscar season film. Gloriously shot and filled with the filmmaking flourishes only a master like Spielberg can muster, War Horse is a visual marvel. Unfortunately, looks can only get you so far as this film misses great by a number of small missteps. War Horse is worth a watch but don’t expect an experience that ranks among the director’s greatest work.

War Horse tells the story of a boy named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) and a horse named Joey. Albert was witness to the birth of Joey and when his father randomly purchases the colt at auction, Albert takes up his training. However, things take a turn for the worse when a little thing called World War 1 breaks out and an attempt to save the farm (yes…that old gag), Albert’s father is forced to sell Joey to the English army. The film then chronicles the adventures of Joey as he travels in and around the war, touching a number of people along the way.

Remember what I said about the movie being beautifully made? Wow, is it ever true. With the help of long time collaborator Janusz Kaminski, War Horse is painted in the award winning cinematographer’s signature style. While some may find the textures over bright and unrealistic, I found them to be emotionally stirring. The film is also punctuated with the little directorial flourishes that make Spielberg a master storyteller. From a the turn of a windmill hiding a somber moment to a little girls shocking discovery as she crests a hilltop, War Horse is an easy film to get swept up in based on the visuals alone.

Oh yeah. Remember what I said about the film being very flawed? Wow, is it ever true. The film suffers from a lackluster first half that’s predictable and episodic. While things pick up considerably in the second half, right around when Joey meets a farmer and his granddaughter, the film has already lost momentum due its inherent lack of tension. In a film called “War Horse”, it’s not too much of a spoiler to say that the horse is going to succeed throughout most of the film. Or course one could say the story is really about the relationship between a boy and his steed but even there the film doesn’t quite work. While the movie goes to great lengths to show you the relationship between Albert and Joey, I never quite felt it. To further the issue, Albert disappears from the film 45 minutes in only to resurface towards the end. By the time you pick up his story again, I didn’t even recognize the character, a bad sign for a film about a human/equine relationship.

Through all of the film’s faults, there does remain one glimmer that pushes us through the predictable tale. Steven Spielberg loves the material and loves making movies. A perfect example of a director giving his all, War Horse survives solely on the breath of its director. If somebody else had helmed this film, it would have been a clichéd disaster. With Spielberg’s direction, War Horse gallops above the contrivances of the plot, and provides an easy to enjoy film that everybody can find something to enjoy in. Just don’t expect to get caught up in the tension, rooting for the characters or discovering something you didn’t already know. Just sit back, grab some munchies and let the stunning visuals take you above and beyond the plot points. You’ll enjoy the movie much better that way.

Score – 75%

Originally Reviewed – 1/10/2012

One word: NC-17.

Kinda freaks you out, doesn’t it. The Scarlett Letter of film ratings, NC-17 has the potential to doom a film to obscurity. Major theaters won’t pick it up, Walmart won’t sell the DVD and the film gets looked at with a crooked glance, as if you’d have to go to a creepy place with “viewing booths” to watch it. Usually given for explicit sexual content, the lines for warranting an NC-17 are ridiculously blurry. Industry pressure causes filmmakers to cut, crimp and tone down their work just to avoid the damming label. Even last year’s Blue Valentine was at risk of falling victim to the NC curse. Luckily it was saved at the last moment by an appeal from the Weinsteins and received the R without any additional editing but imagine if you had to go to Helga’s Adult Emporium to see an Oscar nominated film. Despite the stigma of the rating, British filmmaker Steve McQueen (Hunger) decided to pull no punches with his latest film, Shame, an unflinching look into the world of sexual addiction. Unfortunately, nearly every jab misses the mark in one my biggest disappointments of the year.

Michael Fassbender plays Brandon, a thirty something New York sex addict who spends his hours surfing scandalous websites and spending time with various women of the evening. Despite his life consuming desires, Brandon is functioning quite well. He just landed a big deal with his firm, he has the money to satisfy his urges and life isn’t too shabby. That is until his sister (Carey Mulligan) comes knocking on his door. She needs a place to crash while restarting her singing career and just like that, Brandon’s routine of decadence is thrown out of whack, forcing him to examine the lifestyle he’s created.

First the good and despite the low score, there are some positives. Director Steve McQueen does a very good job at setting the right tone for the film. Although the movie deserves every letter of its NC-17 rating with some very gratuitous sex scenes, McQueen never does so to titillate. Instead, the trysts are somber and joyless, perfectly conveying the compulsion of sexual addiction. Fassbender also does the best he can with a terrible script (more on that later) and delivers a performance that has flashes of brilliance, except when he starts crying or tries to hide strong Irish brogue. Again, not the fault of the actor as this is a pitch nobody could hit.

And what a hollow pitch it is. Supported by a god awful script, Shame languishes in dialogue that goes nowhere and one cut scenes that drag on indefinitely. The script is twenty minutes worth of ideas stretched out to ninety and the filler drags the pacing to a crawl. Scenes such as a long jog across midtown Manhattan and a funeral dirge version of New York, New York sung by a sleep inducing Carey Mulligan do nothing to further the story or give us insight into the characters. What the film calls ambiguous, I call lazy writing, the mark of a filmmaker who isn’t aware that having people suffer isn’t enough to make an audience care. While I did like Fassbender in the difficult lead role, Mulligan again disappointed as his eccentric sister. Playing more a caricature than a character, Mulligan flips from manic to depressive with little insight into her characters true motivations.

All that aside, Shame can be best described as a well-meaning mess, a film that does its best to take viewers on a cringe inducing journey into the heart of sexual addiction. The premise is good, Fassbender has some amazing moments and the film has a nice ending twist that highlights the central theme beautifully. Problem is, you need to give us characters we can care about and a story to pull us through their pain. Shame fails at both those goals, instead filling the screen with fluff and filler. Featuring banal dialogue, pretentious film techniques and boring scenes that chased people out of the theater, Shame offers much but, in the end, provides very little. A good try at pushing the envelope, Steve McQueen’s latest is a cold, desperate and utterly painful film to sit through. Not since Showgirls has NC-17 been so boring. Tsk, tsk. What a Shame.

Score – 40%

Originally Reviewed – 1/2/2012

Two years ago, on a random evening in January, I popped into the AMC on 34th Street and saw the original Sherlock Holmes. Being a chilly night with a nothing to do, I figured why not. Robert Downey Jr is an enjoyable actor, Guy Ritchie has a fun visual style and I had ten bucks left on an AMC gift card. The result was an entertaining but convoluted effort, full of energetic fight sequences and high octane sleuthing. Sure, it had next to nothing to do with the novel series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but it was a fun go-round, highlighted by a charming performance by Downey and some explosive Victorian era set pieces. Upon seeing the trailer for the sequel, the same old action would have satisfied me and to my delight, I got quite a bit more. The second iteration in the detective series tightens up everything in the first film, providing a movie that delivers even more on the promise of the original.

Game of Shadows takes place one year after the events of the first film. Watson is about to be married and Holmes is investigating the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria, with all the clues pointing at the great Professor Moriarty. Deducing that the killing is just one piece of Moriaty’s master scheme, Holmes pulls the reluctant Watson away from his honeymoon and throws him in the quest to stop the evil doctor’s nefarious scheme. The plot is just as silly as the first movie but has a more streamlined script, giving the film more room to revel in the swashbuckling we’ve come to expect from the franchise. If you hated the action from the first movie, you’ll despise the second but being that I found it to be over the top fun, I had an absolute blast.

Before you balk at my enjoyment of the action, know one thing: I don’t give a turkey about Sherlock Holmes. I’ve never read the stories nor have I never seen any of the many screen adaptations, so my knowledge of the character is limited to his cunning and his trademark pipe. Many critics have been blasting the new series for having little to do with these classic stories and to them I say, “So what”. One of the biggest improvements this film makes over the first is the introduction of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Harris’ Moriarty is cunning and devious, a perfect foil to Holmes’ charming genius. The film benefits greatly from this strong antagonist, making the sequel more about a match of brainpans than the video game style fisticuffs of the first movie.

Game of Shadows also benefits from a larger focus on the relationship between Holmes and Watson, again played by Jude Law. The chemistry between the two sleuths was the highlight of the first film and this movie amplifies the back and forth between the duo. While the dialogue does have some cringe moments, the two actors are genuinely having a good time and, in this situation, it works just fine. Watson’s preference of settling down with his new wife in favor of adventuring with Holmes also adds some much needed tension between the twosome. This allows the relationship to feel more real and less like a buddy cop movie. The supporting actors all do a respectable job, including a fitfully funny turn by Stephen Fry as Holmes’ elder brother, Noomi Rapace as a hard fighting gypsy and Kelly Reilly as Watson’s newlywed wife. The cast is appropriately colorful and just fine in support of the dynamic duo. As for the rest of the movie, if you got a kick out of the first film’s kinetic filmmaking style, you get more of the same this time around. Be forewarned, however, that this version does slightly overdo the slow motion effects but I didn’t find it overly distracting.

The world of Sherlock Holmes is a long revered franchise that spans centuries of classic stories and films. While Guy Ritchie’s interpretation may rub long time fans the wrong way with its hyper fist fighting and loud gun battles, the crux of the character is intact. Holmes is an investigative genius, has a dear friend in Watson and together they solve near impossible mysteries. The second film in the series focuses more on the investigation and the Holmes / Watson relationship while maintaining the modern pace of the first movie. Director Guy Ritchie refines everything that made the original so divisive yet so entertaining, creating a nicely balanced action spectacle. Sure, the plot has some head scratching moments, and the premise is almost too over the top for its own good, but the focus of this film is fun and fun is what it delivers. A marked improvement over the original, Games of Shadows is a fine choice for those looking for a vapid yet entertaining time at the movies this winter.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 12/30/2011

At the core of the medium, the movie business is pure magic. From the pan of a far off vista to the intimate close up, films have the ability to pull you into a story like few other art forms can. Or at least they used to. These days, market research has replaced imagination, especially in the realm of family films. Movies made for mom, pop and the little ones tend to be noisy affairs, full of 3D spectacle, cartoonish slapstick and annoying rehashes of decade old pop tunes. Luckily for all of us, Hugo, the latest film from director Marin Scorsese, is none of those things. A cinematic mash note to the world of early filmmaking wrapped in the simple tale of a boy, a girl and their clockwork robot, Hugo is not only the best film you will see this year, it’s the best film Scorsese’s made since Goodfellas. In short, it’s an instant classic.

While there are a number of interwoven themes in Hugo, the central story is a relatively simple one. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is a young street urchin who spends his days living in the walls of a Parisian train station, tending to the building’s many clocks. Being the son of a renowned clock maker (Jude Law), Hugo has a natural knack for fixing things. One of those objects is an “automaton”, an intricate mechanical man, left to him by his father. However, after an abrupt meeting with the owner of a toy stand (Ben Kingsley) and his literary daughter Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), Hugo finds himself in a race to fix the broken automaton and discover what secrets, if any, the machine may hold.

The forefront of any Scorsese film is the look and feel and Hugo is one of his most intricate and beautifully shot movies. From the mechanical world Hugo lives in to the bustling train station, Scorsese gives the film a brilliant sheen that embraces the fairytale nature of the story. With the help of cinematographer Robert Richardson, Scorsese’s camera dances and swoops throughout the film, creating an energetic yet patient tone. Hugo also utilizes 3D technology in a way that actually enhances the storytelling instead of detracting, a first for the style. In a way, the film is a mixture of old and new, combining cutting edge technology and decades old film making techniques in way that can only be described as magical.

But what would all this technical wizardry be without compelling actors living in it. Hugo is perfectly cast with the highest marks going to Ben Kingsley as the shopkeeper with a secret and Chloe Moretz as his plucky niece, both of which deserve at least some consideration for Oscar nominations come January. Scorsese also fills the film with colorful side stories in a way that’s more Amelie than Casino. From the station inspector constantly on the lookout for thieving orphans (played wonderfully by Sasha Baron Cohen) to the flower girl he falls for to the lady with the little dog, the world of Hugo feels alive and vibrant. These characters aren’t simple window dressing as they all help amplify the central theme of the film. Add to the mix a coy wink to the movies that helped pioneer the art form along with a number of jaw dropping set pieces and you get an experience that works on every level.

It’s a cliché, but it’s true. Hugo is a film literally everybody will enjoy. Kids will love the adventure, adults will laugh at Isabella’s expanded vocabulary and film geeks will swoon from the turn of the century film references. Using a deceptively simple mélange of styles and cinema, Martin Scorsese does his best remind us that film is still magic, despite what our internal cynics tend to think. Upon leaving my first viewing of this movie, a group of To Cool For The Room hipster types were doing just that. Lamenting the “kiddie nature” of the movie and complaining that IMDB let them down again, I imagine these were the people Scorsese was trying to touch most of all with his film. Hugo is a message to all of us that sometimes the best stories are the ones told simply, with good characters, good writing and great heart. Hugo is all of those things and for this critic, the absolute best movie of the year.

Score – 100%

What’s the first thing you think when you hear the word, “biopic”? Oscar bait. And why not? Out of the last ten sets of Best Actor nominations, eight of them have included an actor playing a historical figure. Five of those eight nominees won the award. The ladies have fared even better, with a whopping thirteen actresses nominated in that span of time, another five taking home the gold. So, when I saw that one of my favorite modern actresses was going to play the amazing Marylin Monroe in a November release, my interest was piqued. Would Michelle Williams deserve another Oscar nomination for Best Actress, her second in as many years? The answer is an easy yes in a film that’s lacks a bit in energy and drive but more than makes up for it in pure acting gold.

The story is a basic one: a young English aristocrat named Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) travels to London to pursue the lower class craft of filmmaking. The year is 1956 and Colin’s first job is one of a “third director’s assistant” on the film The Prince and the Showgirl, starring Laurence Oliver and the most famous woman in the world, Marylin Monroe. Colin is instantly smitten by the American starlet, not only by her stunning beauty but by her vulnerability. Monroe is a stranger in the stuffed shirt world of British film acting and immediately finds herself the focus of distrust and ridicule, dragging her deeper into her own depression. Connecting with the actress on a number of different levels, Colin starts to befriend Marilyn, setting forth a number of improbable events that changes the life of the young filmmaker forever.

In films of this type, you go for the portrayal of the historic character and everything else is just gravy. In this respect, My Week With Marilyn succeeds in every respect. Michelle Williams not only masters the beats and rhythms that made Monroe the queen of American pop culture, she digs deep to find the star’s insecurities as well. William’s Monroe is conflicted and confused by the strange world she finds herself in and when she meets the kindly young Colin, finds herself a merry distraction from the pressures of being her. Redmayne also does a great job as the eager young filmmaker, perfectly balancing British politeness and genuine care in a performance that is wonderfully restrained. The two have a pleasant yet spark-free relationship, which causes the film to stall a bit halfway through. The supporting cast is also wonderful, including a great cameo by Dougray Scott as Monroe’s third husband, Arthur Miller and some fine work by Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier, the films main antagonist. The scene stealer of the film, however, has to be the lovely Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike. Dench exudes sweet charm as Marilyn’s supportive co-star and is a treat every time she makes an appearance. Dench is a lovely woman and her zest for life jumps off screen in what I hope is an Oscar nominated role for Best Supporting Actress.

All that said, the film is not without a few bumps in the road. While well shot and featuring some good direction, there is no tension to speak of. Like I mentioned earlier, the relationship between Colin and Marilyn is sweet one and while there is some obvious attraction between the twosome, the film never develops any genuine spark, despite a few scenes that obviously tries to do so. The result is a movie that sags in the middle and tends to drag, despite the great acting on display. Also, there is a strange side romance between Colin and the wardrobe girl, played by Emma Watson. While designed to show the consequence of having a fling with a superstar, the relationship is never cemented nor is the Watson character developed, making it strangely awkward every time the two are on screen. Despite these flaws, good acting by a great cast wins out, making a My Week With Marilyn for fans of both Michelle Williams and the starlet she perfectly portrays. Sure, playing historical figures can seem like a quick ticket to Oscar night but in the end, you have to play those people well. Williams more than does so in what is sure to be a nominated role, and one of the best female performances I’ve seen thus far this year.

Score – 80%