Men in Black III

A decade away from the movie scene has given the Men In Black series a chance at a fresher, newer perspective. Taking its cue from Shrek Forever After, MIB 3 takes on a tired concept (time travel in this case) if only to acknowledge the failure of its dull sequel and take us back to a different era allowing us to view the franchise from an unsullied angle. The result is a film that returns to its roots and gives audiences the chance to relive much of what they first enjoyed – a smart, sci-fi, buddy comedy that embraces everything weird and wonderful about the unknown universe.

In his first cinematic role in nearly 4 years, Will Smith’s Agent J is the usual charming, witty wiseass we expect him to be. Still teamed up with the laconic Agent K (wrinkly Tommy Lee Jones) he is no closer to cracking his older partners deadpan demeanour but their relationship issues take a back seat when a nemesis from Kay’s past, Boris the animal, turns up to exact revenge for having been imprisoned on the moon 40 years ago. His elaborate plan takes him back in the past, to the day he was caught, and sets ripples in the present, where K no longer exists and a different reality results. J has to then literally time jump (off the Empire State building no less) and fix the past for normalcy to return in the present.

Directly Barry Sonnenfeld seems to find his groove once again with the zany and icky shenanigans that put him on the map with the original. Using plenty of the wide angle camera work that gave him fame as the Coen’s favourite lenser, the resulting imagery should work wonders for those who decide to pay extra and catch the film on 3D (converted). Boris the animal is also a return to the series villains being screwball and menacing in equal measure (remember Vincent D’Onofrio?) and Rick Baker’s excellent makeup effects are both incredible and revolting. The big surprise is how well Josh Brolin impersonates Jones in the role of a younger K – which should not be a surprise considering Brolin’s recent, impressive body of work as a bonafide actor, most notably in W. So chameleon-like is his performance that you forget it’s him and actually completely believe it’s just a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones that you’re seeing.

The films primary achievement and a true signal of its return to form though are the scenes set in the past. Not only is Josh Brolin a deadringer for Tommy Lee’s K during his youth, but the hip musical vibes of the late 60’s/early 70’s allow for plenty of playfulness to ensue with a particularly hilarious segment devoted to Andy Warhol. If that isn’t enough, everything very neatly ties into another epochal scientific moment from that time period and ends on a moment of curiously satisfying emotionality that provides not only closure to the film but the series as a whole. If that doesn’t make you forgive all the wrongs that the sequel did and embrace this film as one of the years better movie franchise offerings the only thing that might work on you is a neuralizer.

The Cabin in the Woods

Once in a while, a movie comes along that changes the fabric of a genre completely. The Cabin in the Woods is that movie for the horror genre. After watching it, the experience of horror movies will just not be the same, no matter what country the movie is from or what language it is in. The Cabin in the Woods achieves something singularly iconic that is perhaps applicable only within the horror genre. However, to fully appreciate the movie, it is essential to be familiar with the genre and yet view it without being prior aware of how it accomplishes what it does.

Briefly, The Cabin in the Woods follows a group of five friends who arrive at an isolated cabin to spend the weekend. Their intent is to stay away from technology and contact, surrounded by wilderness and enjoy the weekend away. As may be guessed, things don’t necessarily go as planned. Soon, the boys and girls are struggling to survive the horror that unleashes upon them.

As generic as the plot may sound, the genius of the film’s makers is to take the familiar and do something extraordinary with it. Exploring some of the well-known clichés of the genre, but not being obnoxiously self-aware of them in-movie (like the Scream sequels), the writers pay homage to the best while setting the bar extremely high for film-makers who aspire to make genuinely good horror movies. Expertly crafted and lovingly presented, the passion of writer Joss Whedon and writer-director Drew Goddard is evident right from the onset. The witty dialog exchanges and setup of familiar scenarios mixed with the unexpected sets the tone of the movie early on. Even so, little hint is given of the grand finale when, quite fervently, all hell breaks loose.

Even with all the fun and love The Cabin in the Woods has with the genre, Whedon and Goddard’s movie is neither brainless, nor shallow. The critical statements it makes about the exploitative nature of the genre as well as the audience of the genre’s movies are a part of the combination punch that the movie provides. Combined with the clever writing, the movie has an excellent repeat value, especially for those looking to revel in the details the movie is crammed with. This also means that the movie is mainly targeted to the ardent horror-fan, who recognizes the homages and clichés. Therefore some may find the movie quite bizarre.

The Cabin in the Woods provides for passionate discussions as an after-movie experience, as well as enough reference material to become the topic of discussion after watching other horror movies, past or future. The movie is likely to become a part of pop-culture, and with its iconic-yet-generic name, it is not a movie that will be forgotten anytime soon.

Roughly four years and five prequel films later, we finally see the Avengers assembled. Executed onscreen with a wordsmith’s precision for writing and a big budget director’s skillful handling of incredibly epic action, it is every bit as spectacular, goofy and fun as the graphic novels and comics I grew up on. This is the real deal.

Thanks to Marvel’s shrewd marketing and self-referential movie tie-in’s, the characters in this film need no introduction, even for those who may have never picked up a comic book. For others keeping up, the studio/comic book company had been preparing us for this team’s build up, starting with 2008’s Iron Man. But while you might have known this film was coming, no one could have expected it to deliver the way that it actually does. Picking up the story strands of disparate superheroes that we’ve met and seen before, the films explosive, extended opening sets the tone for what follows – scene after scene of expertly written dialogue combined with striking action that actually moves the story along.

All of the characters in the team are given their due screen time – from bigwigs such as Hulk, Thor, Captain American and Iron Man, to even the lesser known heroes Black Widow and Hawkeye – the balanced portrayal brings a sense of intimacy and cohesion between the team. You genuinely get the feeling that this isn’t just an exercise in filling us in; every setting is carefully tuned to serve a specific purpose, from reintroductions (Mark Ruffalo, the only new actor to join the set, playing Bruce Banner with the right dose of timidity and genius) to classic comic book confrontation – Iron Man vs. Thor, Thor vs. Hulk, Hulk vs. everyone else. Like a dysfunctional, volatile family that simply can’t contain its member’s egos, every time these heroes get together the results are incendiary. To this already engaging mix is added Loki, as prime nemesis and evil intergalactic foe, who channels his Machiavellian nature to cause confusion, in-fighting and an end of the world scenario that results in an eye popping finale that keeps topping itself with every skirmish, making previous films in the series look like board games in comparison.

None of this would work the way it does if there wasn’t something or someone holding it together. That pivotal person happens to be Joss Whedon, a bona fide Marvel comic book writer, who like his fellow TV contemporary J.J. Abrams, only recently branched out into films. Whedon had first flirted with science fiction in his short lived, now cut-classic television show Firefly and its eventual filmic adaptation Serenity. We knew he could write well and direct adequately enough to be a candidate, if not the top choice, to helm a film featuring a superhero team battling it out. What he does here with his modest directorial (though not writing) experience then is nothing short of extraordinary. He completely breaks loose and puts together quite possibly the most balanced sci-fi, fantasy, super hero action drama to date.

True to the demands of tent-pole summer films, the scenes of unified attacks over New York look electrifying, even iconic (wait till the Hulk goes absolutely, truly berserk, taking on fighter jets, aliens even fellow heroes). These sequences are neither nonsensical wall-to-wall action porn ala Michael Bay’s ridiculous Transformers series, nor shallow and silly as say, Fantastic Four. Avengers manages to be just the perfect blend of action, humour and character driven quirkiness to leave you utterly engaged. It does things with scenes I never thought possible in a film made out of a comic book series. Even in the thick of battle, numerous times, something utterly out of place happens; it is sometimes funny, often times thrilling, but always in tune with how your mind thinks it should be, especially if you’re a superhero geek and have actually read or seen any of Whedon’s work.

I had forgotten that big budget summer movies could do this to you. Event films had gone from being big and entertaining to being loud, obnoxious and nauseating. Whedon brings back the joy of seeing and experiencing the big, the audacious, the truly outwardly in films again. This is a superhero film yes, but it is also the very definition of a well balanced, well executed action spectacle that remains universally enjoyable by even those who might think they are not the target audience for it. I thought I wasn’t either – Whedon just proved me wrong.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen has enough tenacity for you to want her to win the menacingly titled sport of Hunger Games. The film though falls short of its lofty ambitions, though it does surprisingly well in setting up the premise and allowing us to get to know its leading lady by slowly and gradually letting the plot advance.

Hunger Games is based on a book targeted at young adults and the film adaptation, by extension, though it tries not to, has both the desire to please this demographic and franchise-building on its agenda. Set in a future world where food is scarce, we are introduced to the concept of Districts (there are 12 in total) from each of which a young boy and girl are annually chosen (as ‘tributes’) to take part in the titular games in a lethal fight where only one survives. When Katniss’ sister is chosen in the draw (they are from the coalmining District 12), Katniss volunteers herself as a tribute instead and is taken, along with Peeta, the male tribute, to prepare them for the games and try to win sponsors who can help them survive by making generous donations when needed (i.e. potential plot contrivances).

The films first half is a neat combo of sports film – Woody Harrelson as their drunk mentor, Lenny Kravitz as their stylist and a barely recognizable Elizabeth Banks as their escort – and mock reality TV. But the cracks soon start to show once we are let in on a romantic subplot which panders to its faithful legion of fans and, once the games have begun, to a blunt, ineffective match. A lot of scenes feel like they are inserted to fill in those unfamiliar with the source – at one point Stanny Tucci’s character, the host of the reality TV show that airs the preparations and the eventual games, actually starts a sentence with “for those of you who don’t know…”.

In actuality, the premise of the film is supposed to be both shocking and ugly but the film never makes this apparent. It is nothing like the brutal Japanese film Battle Royale for example, because its viciousness is severely diluted by its PG-13 rating. Even in the thick of battle, Katniss’ survival is helped by innumerable script or plot coincidences (the rules are changed for example or deaths are purely accidental or mostly off-screen) and the finale is both anti climatic and a letdown. None of this is likely to harm the film’s success; its target audience will ensure this, putting the odds greatly in its favour.

We Bought a Zoo

If you really think about it, We Bought a Zoo and The Descendents are essentially the same film. They both deal with the subject of death, specifically husbands who deal with their wives passing away. Both films also prominently feature children that are thrown into the mix and an affluent family that has to come to terms with this fact and learn not only how to move on, but to live at peace with themselves.

Even if you ignore the obvious Ocean’s 11 connection (where Clooney and Damon co-starred), the films are helmed by directors acclaimed primarily for their writings (Cameron Crowe and Alexander Payne). But underneath and in their approach, the two films are different. While both of them have issues in the way they portray the situations that the protagonists find themselves in, Crowe at least has the good sense to make the situation less cynical and more humane. As a grieving father who has to take on the upkeep of a wildlife reserve that just happens to be in the backyard of the house he purchases, Damon is much too genteel in his depiction (the film is nothing like The Mosquito Cost for example) but he remains one of those rare actors working today who remains watchable in anything he does and here he is no different.

We bought a Zoo is ultimately a better film because it redeems itself with a real sense of adventure (not some quasi, half-baked trip to find the ex-lover of a comatose wife) and also because, it is simply more pleasant when viewed as a family drama. It has no qualms about what it is supposed to be and in between moments of modest reminiscing of the past, flirting with a possible love interest (Scarlett Johansson) and some whimsical moments with animals (which doesn’t entirely go with the films otherwise balanced tone), the film keeps you watching, interested and most of all, connected with what’s happening to these people. While both films are far from perfect, pandering to either script conveniences or Hollywood cliché’s when needed, Zoo at least peppers itself with a fantastic folk soundtrack and tender moments. While it doesn’t rank with Crowe’s best work (Jerry McGuire or Almost Famous) it’s not exactly Doctor Dolittle either.

Take one bad-ass actor. Throw him in the middle of nowhere. Pit him against a pack of wolves. Sounds like the perfect ingredients for a juicy genre film. The Grey is that film, and it is not. Liam Neeson plays the bad-ass who, along with colleagues posted in Alaska, crash lands into a snowy landscape with no hope of rescue. They soon realize that, by their very presence, they have threatened the territory of a pack of wolves, and so begins the survival game.

Director Joe Carnahan, after the stinker A-Team (2010), comes back roaring with a movie that is much more than what the trailers indicate. This is a survival-thriller with subtext. It is not fast-paced nor exploitative. Instead, it is paced rather leisurely (for its genre), and takes its time to explore Neeson’s character’s psychological state. This is a man who starts as someone ready to die, but through the movie, he becomes a man ready to face death — there is a difference and we see that difference. Much like the plane crash scene that triggers the main-plot of the movie, what the movie shows us is not glorified for the audience, neither is it made a spectacle for the visual power it could carry. Instead the movie, and key scenes, are played out for their effect, much of which is based on the audience’s understanding of what’s going on. In doing so, the director shows great restraint, as well as a level of patience hardly seen in present-day mainstream filmmakers.

The Grey is not flawless; far from it. While the first & third act are excellent, it falters in its second act. A few deaths do seem forced, the director/script succumbing to the genre conventions, and these are dealt with in a by-the-numbers way, with little creativity about it. But, even for its flaws, this is Carnahan’s return to form. If riding on the name of Liam Neeson in the lead-role for publicity and marketing The Grey as a genre movie brings the audience into the cinema, to bring such evolved movies to the general populace, so be it. And with a kick-ass ending like that, it is difficult to not be awed by it.

War Horse
Steven Spielberg | USA | 2011
146 min

War Horse is the kind of quaint, old fashioned film that they don’t make anymore. It advocates the virtues of hard work and having faith in the goodness of humanity. Despite being set during the First World War, and having a title that references it as well, it is not as much about the war as it is about the companionship between an animal and its owner transcending all adversity.

Spielberg, a master of staging battle scenes, outdoes himself here, with spectacular scenes of horse mounted attacks and fierce sword fights, but the episodic structure of the tale results in a sprawling narrative that spans many years, numerous locations and half a dozen characters, never letting the film be about the war itself. In this way, the film almost becomes a series of vignette’s, like Cold Mountain, with the journey of Joey, the titular horse, becoming the connecting thread that ultimately leads us back to where it began. It also shares a lot in common with Spielberg’s very own Empire of the Sun in the way it has mainly British protagonists, is set during a great war and is from the point of view of a child (or as it is here, a young man) coming to terms with the effect of the war on the self while trying to survive.

The films setting lets Spielberg’s tender optimism take over. What starts of as a simple story of a family man on a farm trying to plough his field with the help of his son and his newly bought horse (this is essentially the films first and better half) gives way to a heartwarming, intermittently funny, genuinely uplifting tale of survival through bloodshed, suffering and the chaos of the battlefield. The film’s best scene though takes place during its last act and has Spielberg experiment with dark humour, where an English soldier indulges in conversation with his German counterpart in the no man’s land between their trenches. Such moments break the ice for viewers who expect a shallow, banal treatment from a director often mocked for his naivety and child like view of the world. Spielberg’s long time collaborators also perform to their usual high standards of technical perfection, but composer John William’s swelling, sweeping score is a standout. None of them however upstage their director, who lets viewers feast on some of the most gorgeously shot scenes of the year in a film that is as remarkable as it is pure and honest.

Moneyball is a sports movie that’s less about the sports and more about what goes on behind the scenes. A cinematic cousin to Jerry McGuire, it endeavours to explore the commercial and business side of competitive gaming with sensitivity and insight that makes it appealing for anyone, not just sports fan.

Based on a true story and set during the waning years of the Oakland Athletics’ nearly a decade ago, the film deals with a pivotal moment in the history of the sport when the team were able to turn their less than stellar performance into a record setting winning streak after adopting a novel, unorthodox technique of player selection that betted against the established rules of the game. Made in the same vein as last year’s The Social Network (both films share the talents of excellent scriptwriter Alan Sorkin) it features Brad Pitt’s second showcase performance this year (the other, in case you missed the hoopla, was Tree of Life). Pitt imbues  Billy Beane, the Oakland A’s General Manager, with the wisdom of experience on the pitch and the grace that comes with age. At times looking weary and forlorn but shifting into phases of self confidence and poise, his determination and his own past drive his decision to hire Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, stupendously good) a Yale Economics graduate to be his assistant and use number crunching, and not intuition, to put together a winning time against the odds.

Dealing with concepts common in statistical analysis, the behind the scenes look at the world of baseball is fresh and unfamiliar to the genre of sport films. To be fair, sports is just the context here, providing the framework to explore a classic, text book example of the challenges of change management put to practice – Beane has to deal with going against traditional concepts, fighting negativity and the fear of transformation. Despite all the time spent in locker rooms and tobacco spitting offices, director Bennett Miller manages to capture the unbearable sense of anticipation in the games that are played (seen or heard mostly off-screen or as aftermaths, we rarely see any match in its entirety) by way of Beane’s insistence on not being present at any of the games, but still keeping tabs on what’s happening by way or radio or text messages. The fresh execution of the subject is aided by the script, credited to both Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, who make the film topical, serious and witty in a way that only experts could. Few films can get you excited about a subject you don’t care about or even completely understand. Moneyball does just that and this is perhaps its greatest achievement.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is a marvelous movie. It perfectly embodies the beauty of Hergé’s unique visuals with modern animation and motion capture technology, all unfurled on screen with producer/director Steven Spielberg’s master story-telling and child-like energy. Combining their creative genius, Spielberg and co-producer Peter Jackson (whose studio Weta Digital is behind the visuals) make the dream of Tintin fans everywhere come true by presenting the much loved character and his adventures in the best possible way. While the movie does become overbearing at times, owing to its manic pace, it revels in the wonders and freedom of animation, uninhibited by the constraints a live-action adaptation would have imposed.

Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell), a young journalist, and his dog Snowy are cast into an adventure when “The Unicorn”, a model ship he purchases at a market, becomes the object of everyone’s attention. Ivan Sakharine (voiced by Daniel Craig) tries to buy if off Tintin, but when he refuses, it is eventually stolen from his home. As Tintin embarks on a quest to discover the truth about the ship and its secrets, he stumbles into Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) who seems to know more about the mystery than he cares to admit or can even remember. Together, they take on Sakharine in the race to unravel the secret of The Unicorn.

The movie, though it is titled “The Secret of the Unicorn”, is an amalgam of three books: The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn, and Red Rackham’s Treasure. The credited scriptwriters do an excellent job of providing the necessary character introductions while retaining the best bits from the books. In doing so, however, the storyline strays from how the events unfold in each of those three three books. Yet, fans will have little to complain about considering the narrative and pacing are a compliment to Hergé himself. While recent adaptations such as 300 and Sin City have been lauded for how faithful they have been in the transition from comic-book panels to the cinema screens, The Adventures of Tintin takes the next evolutionary step, buoyed by the boundless talents of one of the best directors working in the medium today. Undoubtedly, the biggest reason that Tintin works is the visuals. Weta Digital presents us with a world that walks a fine line between realistec and animated. The texture and backgrounds of this world are photorealistic, while the characters seem like living, breathing 3D counterparts of Hergé’s comic book creations.

It does not take long to be completely taken in by the movie’s love of exuberance. Tintin shares its dynamic sense of fun with Spielberg’s first Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. References to his past movies, most prominently Jaws, and Spielberg’s recurring motifs only serves to make the entire movie experience all the more enjoyable. Even so, the breakneck pacing catches up and the last action set-piece seems a bit over the top. In other instances, the floating camera (that’s Peter Jackson there) is too quick, causing an uneasiness associated with the use of 3D technology. Though the movie is not perfect, its snags are far and few. The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is ample proof of how much fun nearly two hours in the cinema can be.

Is it fair to support a film only because it is different? Another Earth is cut from the same cloth as what is commonly labelled the art house film or as known to the cinematically savvy, independent cinema. It is contemplative and quite, thoughtful and intriguing, very low budget but above all, never unoriginal, which is reason enough to insist on viewing it.

To be fair, the film, about a great loss, a cautious romance and an ironic opportunity at redemption, is good because it constantly feeds you with ideas. Co-writer Brit Marling, who performs double duty playing the lead role of Rhoda, deserves heaps of praise for handling her character’s delicate situation convincingly. As a college student, Rhoda is imprisoned for causing the accidental death of two people in a family during a night of drunk driving after being distracted by the sight of another Earth in the sky. Once released after her 4 year prison term is up, she tries to face John (William Mapother), the only surviving member of the family from the accident.  John never learned of her identify because she was a minor at the time and he now lives in perpetual mourning, but Rhoda’s guilt prevents her from revealing who she really is and their continuous encounters eventually lead to a relationship. The backdrop of this is an effort by scientists to initiate contact and possibly plan a trip to the nearby planet, now dubbed Earth 2, which piques the interest of both Rhoda and John for different reasons.

Director Mike Cahill, who worked with Marling on the script, uses cinéma vérité’s documentary feel to let the film remain natural looking and detached, and while this may be a turn off for some, it augments the script’s mysterious nature. While the performances aren’t always even and Cahill’s direction is sometimes clunky, some of the heavy handed metaphoric motifs – Rhoda feeling alienated on this Earth and wanting to leave it for instance – only makes it more apparent that this is the work of first time filmmakers and therefore forgiveable.

To call the film science fiction is misleading. While it has the elements of the genre, it is never encapsulated by it and remains, on the surface at least, a relationship drama. The film is at its strongest when it is suggesting things to us. Could there be life on this other planet? What if we found out it was exactly identical to our own, right down to having the very same people? If that second question seems intriguing, then know that the film goes places with it, especially during the absorbing third act and also with its metaphysical ending, and because of this succeeds in lingering in your memory with probing thoughts and countless uncertainties. In its own introspective way, Another Earth is moving and delicate and only underscores that as human beings, we are life’s greatest wonder.