Review: Damsels in Distress

Whit Stillman is one of four working filmmakers that I would argue has an excellent grasp on crafting good dialogue. His latest effort, Damsels in Distress, goes above and beyond to prove just that.


The film is titled Damsels in Distress, though, there are no male, macho protagonists to aid the fraught co-eds in their plight. No, it is up to Violet (Greta Gerwig), Heather (Carrie MacLemore) and Rose (Megalyn Echikunwoke) to aid everyone else as they campaign to empower their fellow woman on the campus of Seven Oaks College.


The film's opening credits advertise Gerwig, MacLemore, Echikunwoke and Analeigh Tipton (as Lily) as "The Damsels." It then goes on to say that "Their Distress" are Adam Brody (as Charlie Walker), Ryan Metcalf (as Frank), Hugo Becker (as Xavier (pronounced "Zavier")) and Billy Magnussen (as Thor).


Stillman has stylized the film as a series of linearly constructed vignettes chronicling Violet et als attempts to aid the clinically depressed (some might say suicidal), their struggles to find a nice, average looking, mentally mediocre fellow from one of the campus's many Roman Letter houses (they're like Greek fraternities, but Roman), and Violet's journey to debuting her hit new international dance craze.


Each chapter/vignette comes aptly titled including the gems like "The Algebra of Love" and they all feature the witty and charmingly hilarious dialogue that Stillman has been famous for since his very first feature, Metropolitan.


An old Hollywood adage states, "They're called motion pictures, not people talking," but Stillman is one of those very select few who can violate this non-rule. Much of this film, indeed, much of most of his films, is just people talking. That's the joy in it, though, because people talking is how character's are best developed and who doesn't love a little character development (that's a trick question because there is an actual answer and his name is Ehren Kruger, look him up, see what he's done).


See this film for the dry hunk of humor that it is. Stillman does with each successive film evolve the current state of film writing and proves that he is one of the great dialogue magicians of our time, on par with the likes of Leo Tolstoy, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Woody Allen.


Damsels in Distress - 4/5 

Review: The Cabin in the Woods

The horror genre is perhaps the only genre in need of a constant rejuvenation. It seems that every fifteen years a new kind of horror film emerges to breath some fresh air into the stale genre. The problem is that breath of fresh air is then repeatedly tainted by pretenders at the genre like Eli Roth or Rob Zombie.

The Cabin in the Woods is the most recent breath of fresh air, but before we continue, let's take a moment to discuss the one thing this film doesn't do that many critics claim it does.

This film does not, in any sort of capacity, "redefine the genre." Now, I'm not saying this to be the one dissenting juror, I'm saying this because it is a literal impossibility. A genre is a specific kind of story that adheres to a strict set of conventions. A story doesn't need to acknowledge each and every convention, but there are a few basic ones that are necessary.

Now, when you redefine something, you take what is already there and completely change it to something else. For instance, let's say we change the definition of the word "shelf" to "a portable light source." We have now redefined the word "shelf," but since we have, we are no longer talking about a shelf. The same applies to genres. If we take the conventions of a specific genre and redefine them, we are no longer working within that genre. Therefore, you can not, in any imaginable way, redefine a genre.

You can, however, add conventions to a genre (which is not a redefinition because you're still working with the basics) or creatively weave the available conventions into something that seems unfamiliar (which is what The Cabin in the Woods really does). Also, adding elements of other genres to a specific genre doesn't change it, it only creates sub-genres (like horror-comedies, political thrillers, romantic comedies, etc.). So by now you're probably saying, "Who cares? Why does it even matter? Aren't being a bit pretentious?" I get it, not everyone cares about the semantics, but I do and this is my review so let me have my moment.

Now, on to the heart of the matter. The Cabin in the Woods is the brainchild of cult favorite Joss Whedon and long-time collaborator Drew Goddard (who also directed it). It stars Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz and Jesse Williams as five college students venturing forth on a weekend excursion to a cabin in the woods. It's the basic set-up for all great (and not-so-great) horror films.

Each of the five students represent a specific archetype of character present in just about every horror movie. There's Dana, the virgin (Connolly); Curt, the athlete (Hemsworth); Jules, the whore (Hutchison); Marty, the fool/stoner (Kranz); and Holden, the scholar (Williams). Also along for the ride are Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford as two white-collar office employees who are the cause of much of the chaos that ensues.

Based on the trailers, it's obvious that this is no run-of-the-mill cabin in the woods story... well, really it is, but... the whole thing is just one big self-referential... think of it this way. You may think you know the twists that will occur in The Cabin in the Woods, but chances are you won't nail them all.

The film's greatest victory is its attention to detail. Whedon and Goddard really combed through the script and tailored it so precisely. Don't take any line of dialogue for granted, for there's something significant to character and plot in almost every word.

In the end, this is film will go down as a horror fan favorite, much like Scream and The Evil Dead before it. And despite any arguments to the contrary, The Cabin in the Woods (along with last year's Tucker & Dale vs. Evil) is just the kind of film that the horror genre needs right now. See you in five years when the whole thing goes stale again.

The Cabin in the Woods - 3.5/5

Review: The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games, based on the novel by Suzanne Collins (who also co-wrote the script), is an excellent example of how a book-to-film adaptation can work so well. The film takes many departures from its source material, which is for the best, considering the book is told entirely in first-person POV by the heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence).


The biggest departure does away with the first-person POV and takes a more third-person omniscient perspective. This allows for the film to explain certain things that aren't explained verbally in the book. Another major departure, most likely due to the new POV, is the various different characters explored in the film.


In the book, it is almost 100% Katniss' story, but in the film, we are given more of characters like, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley). While some purists will say that changing the POV was a bad thing, it should be noted that first-person POV works much better in a book than in a movie. If every scene were of Katniss, then we in the audience would get overwhelmed, seeing pretty much the same character scene after scene. The change in POV also helps to variate the different locations seen in the film. It would get pretty monotonous seeing the same forest over and over.


One of the biggest departures revolves not around structure, but theme. In the book there is a pretty clear and concise social criticism, but that has been toned down in the film. Instead, writer/director Gary Ross and Co. have decided to make it more of a love story between Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), with Gale rounding out (pointing out?) the triangle. This is not necessarily a bad decision, however, as the filmmakers were tailoring the film to a wider audience. How often do you get a bloody and violent action film with a pretty decent romance? Now, one could say that toning down one theme in favor of another limits the film, but that would require an analytical review all its own.


Now, down to the nitty-gritty. The Hunger Games, at its core, is about overcoming the odds and fighting for what you love (specifically, family and a potential soul mate). Katniss is developed well, with two major character development points revealed through flashback (one of which also develops Peeta). Other than those two, however, the characters in this film are relatively static and flat. The major exception would be Seneca Crane, who has an increased presence in the film (I believed he's only mentioned in the book). It could even be argued that Seneca deals with as much conflict as Katniss (again, that would require its own write-up).


The Hunger Games is an admirable film and Gary Ross handles the material well. He's no stranger to adaptations, having written and directed the Oscar nominated Seabiscuit in 2003. Its major flaw, however, lies in its execution. While the film is favored by its style and structure, it is this same style and structure that holds the film back. One of the major thematic developments in the book happens when Katniss begins looking after District 11 Tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg). Their relationship is reduced to a few curt scenes in the film and therefore reduces the emotional power brought on by a scene that occurs soon after.


And it isn't isolated to that one incident. In the book there's a greater sense that Katniss and Gale have a romantic connection. In the film there is none of that. Sure, we see Gale's longing looks at Katniss while she is fighting for her life, but she never returns the courtesy. What develops as a conflicting triangle in the novels is nothing more than a third wheel situation in the film. The filmmakers are really limiting themselves in terms of the personal conflict that Katniss will endure in the coming films.


I will end on a bright note, however, and say that The Hunger Games is one of few book-to-film adaptations that has impressed me these past few years. It definitely helps that none of the irony is lost in phrases like, "Happy Hunger Games!" Despite its flaws, the film certainly achieves something big, big, big.


The Hunger Games - 3.5/5

Review: Haywire

Steven Soderbergh is one of those directors who, 20 years from now, film buffs will revere and study much the same way we currently do Hitchcock or Godard. He is one of those directors who will sign on to multiple projects and give equal amounts of dedication to each one.


Haywire is the second of two films of Soderbergh's released within five months of each other (the first was a hypochondriac's nightmare, the biological thriller Contagion). It is an action thriller starring MMA fighter Gina Carano as Mallory Kane, a privatized special ops agent betrayed by her boss for unknown reasons.


The film also stars several big names including Ewan McGregor as Kenneth, Carano's boss and former lover, Channing Tatum as Aaron, a fellow agent of Kane's, and Michael Fassbender as Paul, an associate of Kenneth's. Michael Douglas, Bill Paxton and Antonio Banderas are also in the mix.


The film is everything that as a classic Soderbergh film should be: evenly paced, retro in style and a minimalist's dream. He is one of very few filmmakers who has a gift for not being confined to a specific genre. He has tackled heavy drama, experimental, the heist/caper film, thrillers, comedies and so on. As stated above, Haywire is an action thriller and it is probably the most purely shot action film of recent memory.


The problem with most of the Hollywood produced action films coming out in this day and age is that they pander to impatient and borderline ADD audiences. The action sequences in these films are beyond awful because one can never tell what is going on. Shot cuts to shot every half-second and what could be an excellent action sequence is devolved into a mess of unintelligible punching sound effects.


Haywire takes its action sequences and does the exact opposite. Soderbergh sets the camera back and captures the fight as it is, with the cuts far and few between. What sets these sequences far above the competition is the absence of music. The score, done by David Holmes (The Ocean's Trilogy), lends an ambient and '70s inspired feel to the film, but Soderbergh has left the fight scenes empty of music, giving them a sense of intimacy and heightened realism.


Not everyone is going to like this film. In fact, there is a greater chance that a majority of audiences will dislike it. This is because audiences still aren't used to Soderbergh's rogue style of filmmaking. It doesn't help that he's always tweaking his system with each new film. Go into this film with patience and don't focus on the why of it all. Just enjoy the ride.


Haywire - 3.5/5

2012: A Year in Preview

As this year winds down we begin, as we always do, looking to the next one. 2011 saw the release of several big films and the summer blockbuster season was a notable improvement over 2010. Looking ahead to 2012, I see a few films to be excited about, but many more that cause me to question my continuously wavering faith in American cinema.

The following is a list of some of the biggest and most anticipated films coming out in 2012. They are listed in the order they are scheduled to release in with the expected release date and a small write-up containing my opinion of how each film will perform and be received.

Underworld: Awakening - The fourth film in the endlessly disappointing franchise, Awakening marks the return of Kate Beckinsale as vampire Selene. This time, however, she and her fellow vampires are teaming up with their mortal enemies, the lycans, to take on the humans threatening to eradicate them. I guess when you've exhausted all other sequel options (including the ever annoying prequel), having the two opposing forces team up to take on a third opposing force is your one remaining option. Given that these films have never been anything special I expect this to be no different. Release date: Jan. 20

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1011654169/

Haywire - This film might not be hot on anyone's 'to watch' list, but I'd advise you to reconsider. Director Steven Soderbergh has never confined himself to one genre and this has both worked for and against him. His most recent film, Contagion, was well-received critically and did O.K. for itself at the box office. Haywire is the story of a female CIA operative who is betrayed by her superiors and vows to take them all out. Pretty well-tread stuff, here, but if the trailer is anything to go by, we're in for some innovative action and the chance to see a total unknown actress waste some big names like: Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas and Channing Tatum. Release date: Jan. 20

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi405511705/

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island - I'll keep this short and sweet. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson is shipwrecked on an island with, among others, Vanessa Hudgens and Luis Guzman. Weird things happen. Michael Caine shows up. It's a sequel to a film that starred Brendan Fraser. Need I say more? Release date: Feb. 10

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4230192665/

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Three things: it's a sequel, it's a sequel to a Nicolas Cage movie, it's a sequel to the worst Marvel superhero movie ever made (including The Punisher and Ang Lee's Hulk), which once again stars Nicolas Cage. It's like they are actively trying to make you not want to watch this movie. Release date: Feb. 17

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2556337689/

Wanderlust - This is more of a personal entry. Wanderlust is a film from David Wain, the director of the sleeper comedy hit Role Models and the cult comedy hit Wet Hot American Summer. On top of that, he cowrote the film with Ken Marino, a fellow member of the sketch comedy troupe The State. The film stars Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston as a work-obsessed married couple who are thrust into the unfamiliar world of communes where they meet a harum of interesting characters like hippies, experimental drug users and nudists. If the trailer doesn't sell you then you should see a doctor about replacing your funny bone. Release date: Feb. 24

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2251464217/

Mirror Mirror - There are two different types of Snow White coming out this year. One has Snow White as a warrior out to conquer a kingdom. That ain't this one. This Snow White is so pure and so G rated it makes any Disney film look like Steve McQueen's Shame. The film stars up-and-comer Lily Collins as Snow White and Julia Roberts as the Evil Queen. I don't actually know what to say about this film other than it's from director Tarsem Singh, who has two completely awful films (The Cell, Immortals) and one O.K. film (The Fall). Mirror Mirror will probably find its way into the former category. Also, if no one else will ask it then I will, why is Julia Roberts still acting? Release date: Mar. 16

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3708919321/

The Hunger Games - Sure, there are other 'kind of blockbusters' coming out before, but The Hunger Games is the first true blockbuster of the year. Based on the first book of the immensely popular fantasy series, the film follows one of today's hottest young stars, Jennifer Lawrence, as Katniss Everdeen, who is thrust into competition with 23 other teens to win food for her district. I have not read the books yet, but people have been expressing excitement over the trailer since its release. Given that film adaptations of books have a hard time grasping what made the book so enjoyable, it's tough to call how this film will turn out. It will, however, dominate at the box office for sure. Release date: Mar. 23

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2402131481/

Wrath of the Titans - It's a sequel to a depressingly bad action film. I think I already did this write up for Ghost Rider. Just replace Nicolas Cage with Sam Worthington. Good night. Release date: Mar. 30

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3846741529/

The Avengers - And here we come to the first summer blockbuster of the year. The last 10 years of superhero cinema have been leading to this. Here we are presented with Joss Whedon's vision of a majority of the Marvel hero collection getting together to save the world from evil. This film looks good and it appears to have a solid story. The only problem: Loki. Why would you pull the villain from one of the bottom five Marvel superhero movies to return in what was supposed to be the superhero movie to end all superhero movies? There are so many more villains out there with so much more potential than Thor's completely unimpressive brother. Release date: May 4

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3488652825/

Battleship - Are you kidding me? We've taken to adapting board games into movies? And as if this isn't bad enough, they are also working on a Ouija board movie and a Monopoly movie. I won't even dignify this movie with a proper write-up. You don't need half a brain to know this will be the worst film of the year. Release date: May 18

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2203360793/

Men in Black III - The third film in a series of underwhelming films. I don't care if it stars Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin. Give it up, Barry Sonnenfield. We know these films are your only source of income, but please, for the sake of the universe, leave it alone. And yes, there is a pun in that last sentence and it was very much so intended. Release date: May 25

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2656345625/

Snow White and The Huntsman - Now we come to the other Snow White. The one played by Kristen Stewart. While I will say this is the more ambitious of the two projects and this one has a higher chance of success, I don't plan for much here. We see Charlize Theron taking a turn as the Evil Queen, but let's be honest, the only people going to see this movie are those who are die hard Bella Swan fans. But, if memory serves, no one jumped to form a Team Bella when people couldn't decide who they would rather get infected by, the vampire or the werewolf. Once again, there's a bit of tongue-in-cheek in that last sentence. I'll probably see it for the action scenes, but be warned, it pairs a director who has done literally nothing else in his entire career (either he's somebody's son or he slept with the right producer) and a writer who wouldn't have this job is he hadn't won a contest. Release date: June 1

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1982242329/

Prometheus - This is the summer film that I am most excited about. Prometheus is the prequel to Ridley Scott's (who also directed this) 1979 thriller Alien. It follows Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron as they look for the origins of man on Earth. It also tells the story behind the mysterious Space Jockey viewed at the beginning of Alien. I'm told the xenomorphs (the aliens) are much bigger and menacing in this film. Given that Scott is so determined to remake his entire back catalog I see this as his test run before trying to do another Blade Runner, which, if I'm counting correctly, would bring all existing cuts up to six. Release date: June 8

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2035129881/

Jack the Giant Killer - It's a retelling of the Jack & The Beanstalk folk tale as told through the eyes of Bryan Singer, who usually hits his mark every time. He wowed audiences with The Usual Suspects and did a justice to the first two X-Men movies (he didn't direct the third). It also stars upcoming British star and Skins alum Nicholas Hoult. I expect this to do well. Release date: June 15

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4081294873/

G.I. Joe: Retaliation - Think of this as my write-up for Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, but instead of getting shipwrecked, The Rock fights the Cobra Commander and his allies. Enthralling stuff. Also, swap out the Brendan Fraser cameo for Bruce Willis. Release date: June 29

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1448713753/

The Amazing Spiderman - This is the first of two July blockbusters and while I expect good things from both, I expect less from this one. With a crazy history battling development Hell, The Amazing Spiderman is a reboot of the film series, which ended four years ago. The timing seems appropriate. Also, that was a joke. This series looks to focus more on Peter Parker the man than on Spiderman the hero and if the trailer is anything to go by, it has a much darker feel than the previous series. Release date: July 3

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2178784281/

The Dark Knight Rises - I don't know if there's anything I could say to make you not go see this movie, and I wouldn't even try if there were. In fact, if I could make you see this movie more intently I would. It is the final chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy and is competing with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for the most anticipated film of the year. The main villain this time is Bane, and if the comics Nolan used as inspiration are anything to go off of, we might see Bruce Wayne either dead or severely crippled, opening the door for someone new to accept the Dark Knight mantle. Only time will tell. Now, if only time would go faster. Release date: July 20

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2823134745/

The Expendables 2 - I mean, the first one was O.K. But, if you think they sold that film on its star power, watch the trailer for this film's line-up. I bet this film's biggest audience will be people looking to gather new material for a slur of new Chuck Norris jokes. Yes, he's in it. Release date: Aug. 17

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi727621145/

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 - A bullshit conclusion to a bullshit franchise. Does more need to be said? Release date: Nov. 16

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - If any film can be said to have experience development Hell, it's this one. First it'sa Peter Jackson project meant to take root right after he had finished up work on The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then, he got bogged down doing a decent King Kong remake and a terrible book adaptation in The Lovely Bones. Enter Guillermo del Toro who had achieved success with Pan's Labyrinth and whose adaptation of Hellboy was all right. He has an excellent eye for the fantastic and seemed like the appropriate replacement for Jackson. Fast forward a fews years. Still nothing. Exit del Toro, re-enter Jackson. Jump ahead about a year. Finally, things are underway and a year from now, the fruits of this labor will make themselves known. The Hobbit might be the most anticipated film of the year, but I'd still give that title to The Dark Knight Rises. Even so, it has the potential to be just as grand as its succeeding trilogy. Be patient, folks. Release date: Dec. 14

Trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1699192345/

Django Unchained - This is more of a personal entry. I've always been a fan of Quentin Tarantino and I couldn't be more excited for this film. It's a spaghetti Western set in the pre-bellum South and stars Jamie Foxx as Django, a slave freed by German bounty hunter Dr. King Schulz (Christoph Waltz). They are on a mission to save Django's wife from evil plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Also in the film are: Samuel L. Jackson, Sasha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Kurt Russell. Expect blood, gore, action, awesome characters and incredibly well-developed dialog, as per usual. Release date: Christmas Day, 2012

Review: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I have received the story of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo on three different occasions. I read the book roughly a year and a half ago and was captivated from the start. It was a complex mystery thriller with some of the most well-conceived characters and a small place in the larger picture that became The Millenium Trilogy (The Girl Who Played With Fire, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest).


Almost as soon as finishing the book, I watched the Swedish film adaptation on Netflix and I couldn't believe how disappointed I was. What I had just seen was not The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. It was hardly a shadow of the source material. Sure, the overall story was there, but that's it. Gone were myriad subplots connecting the whole story. Gone were the well-developed characters. It had been reduced to a simple crime serial. Had I just seen the movie with no context for the actual story, but that isn't the case. As a movie it was pretty good. As an adaptation, well, it was completely awful.


Which brings us to now. The American adaptation started to receive some buzz when it was announced that David Fincher (The Social Network) would be directing the project and has piqued my interest at every junction. First, I learned that Steven Zaillan (Schindler's List, Moneyball) would be adapting Stieg Larsson's work. Then, David Fincher brought Daniel Craig into the mix as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist. The final announcement was that Fincher had chosen Rooney Mara to play social outcast Lisbeth Salander.


Up until this point Mara's most notable screen performances were as Nancy in the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake and in a minor role as Erica Albright in Fincher's The Social Network. This was both interesting and daunting to me at the same time. I was interested because it's always a treat to see a small actress make her big break. I felt daunted because Noomi Rapace was about the only thing I praised when she played Salander in the Swedish adaptation. I felt Mara was up to the task of the character, but Rapace had set the bar very high.


With all that said, let's get down to brass tax. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, as told through Fincher's eyes, is a cold, dark and haunted tale. It follows journalist Mikael Blomkvist, recently disgraced due to a libelous story and hacker Lisbeth Salander, a ward of the state who has been deemed socially incompetent.


Blomkvist is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to find out which member of his family murdered his niece Harriet. Meanwhile, Salander's state appointed guardian suffers a stroke, leaving her in the care of a new guardian, the wholly unsavory Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wageninjen). Blomkvist and Salander don't actually meet face-to-face until well into the movie when Blomkvist realizes he'll need help in solving the mystery.


Fincher's film tackles the source material much better than its Swedish counterpart. For starters, it actually develops the relationship between Blomkvist and his co-editor at Millenium Magazine, Erika Berger (Robin Wright), which adds another layer of depth to the overall story. Second, it approaches the film's conclusion much better. There are three different resolutions in the book and while I won't divulge any of them here, it is safe to say that Fincher and Zaillan succeed at all three. The Swedish adaptation only succeeded at one.


All of this isn't to say that the film isn't without fault. Despite its grandiosity and haunted beauty, the film feels underdeveloped as a whole. I can't rightly put my finger on it, but it felt like something was missing. Fincher does such a good job at creating a feeling of hopelessness with the cinematography and locations, and the score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is so artfully macabre, but it feels like they overlooked something.  That something, perhaps, is silence.


The film is set mainly in the northern Swedish town of Hedestat and the snow, night sky, and overall mood make it seem like such a lonely place, but there always seems to be some noise going on. I wouldn't ask Reznor and Ross to cut their score down, but accentuating the silence may have been the key this film needed to achieve its true effect.


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - 4/5

Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

There is something to be said about Mission Impossible as a film franchise and its staying power. Not many series can reach four films and still maintain the quality it has. Now, that isn't to say they're great films. The most I'll ever say about any of them is that they're pretty good, and that includes the latest installment Ghost Protocol.


The film opens on an action sequence involving former Lost star Josh Holloway running across a rooftop and jumping off, shooting his assailants, and making it to an alley before being offed by an obvious to spot assassin. Enter Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise reprising the role yet again).


Ethan is imprisoned in Russia and is soon busted out by his IMF team made up of Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton). Cue opening credits. Ethan and his team then infiltrate the Kremlin to obtain information on a man code named Cobalt, but are set up by said man and the Kremlin blows up, with blame landing solely on the IMF.


The film's main plot follows Ethan and a now disavowed IMF trying to stop a mad Russian (Michael Nyqvist) from inciting global nuclear war. Along the way, Ethan is paired up with "chief analyst" Brandt (Jeremy Renner), who may or may not have a secret to share about himself and Ethan.


The film as a whole is a commendable project. Being the fourth film in the series it does surprisingly well at not falling into unintentional self-parody. Of course, it does occasionally take a few intentional jabs at the series as a whole, contributing to its overall entertainment value.


Director Brad Bird handles the material well and has an interesting method of building suspense. He also has an eye for creative shots. One sequence involves a car crash shot entirely from the inside of the victimized car and while I've seen this in a few other films, this was the first time I'd seen it in an action film. It's usually a feat to find a single shot that lasts more than a second or two during an action sequence. Kudos, Mr. Bird.


The film is far from perfect, however. There are times when it seems that there is just too much going on. For such a simple premise it certainly progresses in a complex manner. There's also something to say about Cruise, who seems disinterested in the material at times. It's almost as if he disconnects from a scene right in the middle of it.


The film certainly does the franchise justice, though, and certainly surpasses the second and third installments.


Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - 3/5