Fortunately, another recent film I got to watch without hearing much speculation or news about it. And similarly to what I said about Tintin, Mission Impossible’s definitely a fun movie to watch. I think the main reason the film “worked” lied in its approach to making the mission the star of the show, rather than the characters. Of course, you get Tom Cruise doing his usual thing along with the rest of the cast, but we don’t have to suffer through watching boring personal problems like we did in Mission Impossible III. 

This film feels like it’s to the point. Though interestingly enough, the plot itself isn’t that great. But that really doesn’t matter all that much because the scenes with action or espionage are still very intense and exciting to see. I rarely knew what the McGuffins were, that they were after, yet the stakes still felt high. I also found it funny how director Brad Bird seems to always be about missiles. The Iron Giant is all about one, and even The Incredibles has some of them as well. Was also glad that Brandt, “the other guy”, escaped the cliche of being a double-agent. That seems to happen way too often with movies like these. Watching it in an IMAX (or LIEMAX, rather), the shots that were filmed with cameras specifically made for those theaters, looked very nice. Regular wide screen- which filled the screen, sharp, less grain, and an overall more “engaging experience”. I wish they would’ve shot the entire film like that. 

I think in general the movie didn’t take itself so seriously like previous Mission Impossible flicks, especially the third, and went for the kind of straight-forward storytelling the series should’ve always had. The last scene itself oozes with cheese, but it doesn’t really matter- because it fits the bill of the film. It tops off all the action with a “feel good” ending which otherwise if executed by trying to be ‘gritty and dark’, would’ve in fact, been silly. So if you’re into watching a fun, action-oriented movie, check it out. Mission… accomplished!

★★★

Watched Dec. 28, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before

Wikipedia-Link

While not so much a journey to find how the roles of each Star Trek captain were played, or how each series differs from the other, William Shatner takes a look at each individual, what their personal experiences were, and how the show affected their lives. As I’ve only seen a few of the original episodes, a couple from the new series, and the Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn, I’m by no means a person who knows about Star Trek. However, the idea behind this documentary seemed intriguing, so I decided to give it a go.

Unfortunately the beginning feels like it starts on the wrong foot with an over-use of sentimental music during the first interview with Patrick Stewart. Fortunately, the pacing and editing picks up after that point. Again, a lot of what’s expressed by the actors are their trials and regrets from shooting Star Trek, (I never really knew filming television programs like these took an average of sixteen hours per day, sometimes longer) but of course the merits of their work is also presented. I liked seeing Shatner discuss these types of things with ‘heirs’, if you want to put it that way, because after all he was the first person to develop the role of the captain, and I think for that reason he’s the most memorable. That series started something big. But not nearly as cool or amazingly awesome as Star Wars. Okay, okay, we won’t get into that.

Though funnily enough, a lot of the time Shatner listens to his interviewee, he comes back with a story about himself or simply relates to his career. It’s not necessarily bad, but it can get to a point where you wonder whether he’s really discussing, or rather bringing it back to the subject of himself.

But in all, it’s interesting watch even if you’re like me and have little to no to knowledge about the Star Trek universe. The documentary ends with a bit of an odd combination of serious questions and and Shatner and Avery Brooks making an impromptu song (with Brooks on the piano). But I guess that’s just William Shatner’s style. And I did think the ending felt sincere as “Captain Kirk” shared his personal epiphany. 

★★½

Watched Dec. 17, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before

Wikipedia-Link 

Unfortunately this point of the story didn’t have much to do with the plot.

Tintin’s been in theaters here in Croatia since around November 8th. I went and saw it on the 29th, and was surprised to realize after watching it that it hadn’t been released in the States till December 21st. I guess it has to do something with the original Tintin comics being Belgian, and the studios assumption that since it has ‘European roots’, they’ll show it in the U.S. after they’ve test-ran it across the pond. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, as there have always been new movies released -without being based on anything- and if they were good, people went and saw them. However, I’m glad I got to catch it here first, as I heard little-to-no hype circulating prior to the release of the film. Yeah, I heard about the title being thrown around here and there, and the speculation as to who will be making it. But apart from that, very little. And that was nice to go to the cinema and see it without any predispositions. I do try to ignore what people say about a film before it comes out, but it’s a lot easier when you actually haven’t heard anything.

About the film, now. Without wanting to make an overstatement (or understatement for that matter) my general reaction in seeing Tintin is simply this: fun movie. I don’t want to get hung up on writing all about 3D again, (since I wrote enough about that on Harry Potter) but I have to say that it’s really getting to me these days. But as there was no other choice but to watch it in 3D, I had to go with it. Interestingly enough, with the general consensus today being “3D is more immersive” I actually felt more immersed each time I popped my glasses up to see a bright, vivid, and clear picture.

The film itself has enough of a style on its own, and I definitely wouldn’t put it in the same category as the dead-eye syndrome ridden The Polar Express, or the awful ‘watch actors in CG form!’ Beowulf. In fact, the quality of the CGI was quite good, as were the details. Funny though, how Tintin looked more like Simon Pegg, but was voiced by Jamie Bell, while Pegg played one of the detective twins. I can’t say it has an extremely original plot-line, but it was an adventure story that held my attention throughout the picture while being entertaining. A chase sequence near the end comes to mind, it was quite intense as the scene itself kept going and going, to the point where it felt like it was too much -or too exaggerated- but somehow fit the feel of the movie. The mystery wasn’t the most thrilling, but the characters and the visually intense scenes are what compensates for it.

What I didn’t like so much, as pointed out by my brother, was in the fact that the film never seems to take a breather. Key plot points and dialog seemed rushed and didn’t let you step back and think about things, for even a few moments. The story kept moving forward. For instance, after Sakharine escapes with the poems, and Tintin declares their journey a lost cause and sees no hope in catching him again, The Captain almost immediately tries to pep talk Tintin into continuing their pursuit. There was no room in between losing hope, and Tintin finding a new solution. It didn’t allow the viewer to let what had just happened sink in and perhaps make the journey seem like a plausible failure, before putting it back on track.

Another thing which struck me was the fact that Tintin wasn’t a very fleshed out character. Assuming he’s the main guy (I don’t know anything about the comics, so I could be wrong), he doesn’t have a very large role other than asking a lot of questions, finding clues, and moving the mystery closer to a resolve.

But apart from those aspects, I can say I enjoyed The Adventures of Tintin.

Watched Nov. 29, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before

Wikipedia-Link 

Mr. Tumnus the creepy.

Oh buddy, where to start with this? I’m an admirer of C.S. Lewis’ fiction, namely the Narnia series, but also his non-fiction work especially his writings on philosophy. One of them which I’ve read and definitely recommend, being “Mere Christianity”. Though even mentioning this man in the context of a review about the film version of Narnia feels like an atrocity. The movie is simply terrible. It feels so far removed from the spirit of the books. Characters are awful, main main story points are executed badly, Aslan loves to change his facial expression every millisecond, Peter’s a mega-douche who points a sword like a gun, and there’s really nothing appealing about the movie as whole. 

In fact, even the BBC version of the series is done with more a little more care than this. Actually, if someone asks you to watch the 2005 version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, just tell them you’re going to see the BBC version. It’s cheesy, it’s slower paced, but it’s fun to watch. Just get into a witty mood to crack jokes at everything, and you’ll be good to G.O.

★

Watched Nov. 20 (for commentary purposes)
Seen Before/Not Seen Before 

Wikipedia-Link

Well, I guess I won’t really talk too much about my opinion on what George should (rightfully) give to the people that like Star Wars. I wrote a bit about it in my “Phantom Menace” review, so they’re some links there if you’re interested.  

What can I really say about this documentary? I was honestly expecting to see more of the ‘raging debate’ on George Lucas not releasing the original Star Wars in high quality, since that’s one of the biggest reasons people tend to dislike George. They touched on that a bit, but not in great detail. It seems the film wants to rather show the opinions of various people and how Star Wars affected their lives. It was interesting to see some of the stark contrasts between some folks who are lenient with Lucas -and while they don’t like the prequel trilogy, still let it pass-, and the people who completely hate them. I, for one, don’t think the new movies are good, but they still contain some nostalgia for me, especially Episode I. 

The rest of the documentary also shows the impact Star Wars has made in popular culture, and how things like the Plinkett Reviews have shown up over time, and other fan-creations. All in all, it’s a pretty good watch, especially if you’re not too familiar with the situation of fans of Star Wars.

Watched Oct. 31
Seen Before/Not Seen Before 

Wikipedia-link

When I watched the trailer I thought she was crying because Hogwarts was under attack and all her friends were dying. But no, she’s just sobbing over Ron.

Spoiler: Nothing happens in this film. It’s just how I remember seeing it for the first time. An extended episode of a teenage drama that would normally be shown on television. Barely anything happens to advance the “plot” forward, and most of the time is spent on the minute details of the three main characters. Boring, boring, boring. If you like watching people go to school and race to grab the less-used book in the cabinet, then this is the film for you! Interested in Hermione being jealous of Ron for dating some other girl? Great! You can see that too, all in this masterpiece of a movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. 

If you’re reading this, then I’m sure you’ve seen the movie. So I can’t “spoil” anything for you. What I wanted to say was that that I was thinking there would be a major back-story to not only who the Half Blood Prince was, but what exactly that means, and how does it affect the current storyline. Of course, none of that was addressed in the picture, and if you pull out the old “read the book” card on me, again, I will say that there should never be prerequisites for a viewer when watching a novel-to-film adaptation. Nothing was really accomplished in the movie, and I have the feeling die-hard fans of the books are probably the only people who enjoy this episode of the series. 

If you’re not a fan of the Harry Potter, then watch this with Rifftrax, it’ll boost the watching experience from terrible to great.

Watched Oct. 22, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before 

Wikipedia-link

Now this was a bit of a strange movie. I didn’t, and still don’t, know how to exactly take this film. It starts off on an interesting note and we’re introduced to the quirky, pre-developed, chameleon. As he gets stranded in the desert and subsequently finds a town, he has to overcome his situation and also keep covering up the lie that he’s a ‘tough drifter’. Now, you’d think with this in mind, the story would progress and eventually solve all the problems that are presented. Unfortunately, though, the story goes on and on to different places, and simply spends way too much time doing so. In the end we still don’t know the true character of Rango and things are just ‘wrapped up’ to finish the story.

I also didn’t quite get who this film was intended for. I wouldn’t say it’s for all ages, since I recall some jokes being on the inappropriate side of things. But I think perhaps the movie itself doesn’t exactly know who it’s for. Again, this picture is really, really long. And I have no idea why they chose to go that route. 

However, I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a bad film. It’s pretty decent- there’s action, it’s entertaining, and the CGI is nice. If they’d have gotten the story to be more aware of itself, then I think it would’ve turned out a lot better.

★★½

Watched Oct. 16, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before

Wikipedia-link 

“Have you seen me as a naked werewolf in The Wolfman, Thor?”

The conclusion I came to in watching this for a second time is that it still feels cheesy. It’s a mediocre story-line that’s usually not executed very well. Thor, being the main character, isn’t even the most interesting person to begin with. He’s got a couple of funny lines when he comes down to earth, but in general he never really makes a big inner-change within himself. Natalie Portman is pretty much the typical kind of love interest, and the remaining supporting characters are really just there. 

I suppose if you’re wanting to watch this movie solely for its action, then ok- maybe that’s what it’s all about. But even then, the film’s bogged down with a ton of CGI and makes everything seem like its made of plastic jelly, whatever that is. Things don’t feel very genuine or unique. You can’t forget all those dutch angles as well, man there are a lot! Also, having seen the ‘96 version of Hamlet, by Branagh, I don’t understand why he chose to do so many shaky shots and close-ups. Hamlet is filmed pretty nicely, with an array of wide-shots and good framing. It was even shot with 70mm film, as opposed to the standard 35.

Anyway, that heater-robot looked really bad at the end. Watch Thor with Rifftrax, it’ll make everything more fun.

★½

Watched Oct. 14, 2011
Seen Before/Not Seen Before

Wikipedia-link