MOVIEVU – The Den of a Self-Proclaimed Over-Opinionated Underpaid Film Critic

WE’VE FINALLY GOTTEN THE QUINTESSENTIAL COMIC BOOK MOVIE WITH “THE AVENGERS”

Rating: A-

It’s been nearly 50 years since Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created one of the greatest comic book titles ever to grace the shelves of bookstores worldwide. The comic book for the Avengers has been a bestseller ever since its release and has gone strong ever since with a sterling reputation as any Marvel Comics fanboy’s wet dream. And now…? I believe a massive kudos is in order. The world’s mightiest heroes just got themselves a movie worth a rousing standing ovation, and it’s all thanks to the Ultimate Geek King himself, Joss Whedon (the mastermind behind “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “X-Men,” and “The Cabin in the Woods”).

Following the events set in motion in 2008 with “Iron Man” and continuing on with “The Incredible Hulk,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” and “Captain America: The Last Avenger,” we are met with a massive threat to the globe when the otherworldly Loki (Tom Hiddleston) comes to Earth armed with a powerful army supplied by a mysterious alien benefactor in order to both rule the Earth and steal a powerful artifact called the Tesseract. The covert U.S. Government agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D., led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), decides to secretly enact his now-defunct plan to engage the Avengers initiative – which would bring together all the major Marvel Universe heroes together as a team to stop this global threat. This list includes Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), with Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) being along for the ride as S.H.E.I.L.D. agents. As the heroes clash with both their enemies and one another, the threat to the world grows ever stronger.

Deftly combining and meshing established solo characters with one another is a cinematic feat not seen too often. The “X-Men” films are well-known for succeeding in that type of event, but they didn’t truly try balancing all the heroes (choosing instead to have Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine play the main role). And let’s not even discuss “The Fantastic Four” or “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” With “Avengers,” this scale is unprecedented and yet – somehow – it works. Each character is astoundingly given a full plot arc matching feature length treatment, which is a huge step in making this film stand out as much as it does.

The story is what fascinates me most in how much it is able to accomplish with its characters and its pace. While “The Dark Knight” moved extremely well for being around 140 minutes, this perhaps moves even faster with the same consideration for its characters. Every character got a genuine moment to shine and wow us without ever feeling like the writing or the directing is hurrying onto the next character or the next moment. It is surprisingly relaxed and fun amid explosions and confrontations.

With the acting, I was greatly satisfied with how everyone got their “voice” intact from their solo films. Tony Stark’s Iron Man is still just as witty and charismatic as usual, but with a lot more to play with considering he has to play with others. Thor keeps his Shakespearean diction and likable arrogance. Captain America keeps his old-fashioned coolness. Basically, their acting is just as good as their solo runs and if you liked them then, you’ll love them now. Everything appealing and original about them remains strong.

But of the heroes, it’s the one that previously had mixed cinematic responses that gets to be the showstopper. The Hulk. First placed by Eric Bana in 2003 and again by Edward Norton in 2008, the Hulk has always been harder to show in film due to his Jekyll/Hyde persona. It’s hard to tell an action-packed superhero story where your superhero is only “super” when he fails. The two films before now (although I loved “The Incredible Hulk”) didn’t quite get the character as he’s supposed to be in the comics. They show, in their own way, their own version of the Hulk. But here, we finally get the Hulk as he was meant to be. Although I wish Norton could have returned to the role, Mark Ruffalo abounds in this role with his nervous energy and forced “everyman” demeanor. He gets who the Hulk is supposed to be, and the CGI is the best it’s ever been. It makes perfect sense why he’s been offered to replay the role an additional six more times.

What I liked most of all is everyone had “the line.” You know, that one line either they say or is said to them that perfectly conveys that character. Hulk perhaps gets the best, although Iron Man isn’t far behind. The main reason I believe “The Avengers” works as well as it does is because Joss Whedon totally understands these guys. He isn’t basing his movie on the previous films – he’s basing them on the comics, and sometimes even on his own level of observation. Things I’ve considered but never really put into concrete thoughts, Whedon finally says. He calls these characters out on their crap and makes both them – and us – really see them as they are.

Where “The Avengers” falters ever so slightly is in its villain and his role in the grand master plan. Now Loki was an absolute revelation in “Thor” with his tragic Shakespearean undertones and masterful performance by Tom Hiddleston. It was, by my count, the showstopper that made “Thor” such a fascinating and gripping film for me. Considering his streak of menace and growing hatred for his brother Thor and all things under Thor’s protection, it makes sense that he could easily take on the entire Avengers team with an army at his command. Yet, for some reason, Loki feels reduced in the villain meter for “The Avengers” in being demoted to little more than the leader of his army. While he has some decent action scenes and dialogue, he never conveys the threat the character promised in “Thor.” Maybe I was setting myself up for failure in hoping to get a Jokereque villain of manipulation and power. It’s not really fair, I know, but I was hoping for the God of Badassery more than the God of Mischief. Still, he served his purpose and Tom Hiddleston was great at everything he did.

Ultimately, “The Avengers” proves to be the grand spectacle I honestly never thought possible with Joss Whedon perfectly balancing the characters, the action, the humor, and the delirious sense of fun that have made the comics popular for so long. While I will always love the gritty realism of the DC Batman films, this is the first true “comic book” movie that got everything right. For its specific intents and place in Marvel lore, “The Avengers” is indeed the greatest film in the Marvel roster.

“THE HUNGER GAMES” IS A THRILLING WELL-TOLD STORY WORTHY OF A FRANCHISE

Rating:  A

If cinema has taught us anything, it’s that totalitarian futures suck to the Nth degree. “The Hunger Games,” the newest science-fiction film to deal with a future where the government has complete control over everything “1984”-style, has an even bleaker outlook.

The world is known as Panem. Panem’s government is led by the higher class community known as The Capital, who lord as the 1% over the poor 12 districts of commoners. Apparently, centuries ago, the commoners tried to revolt and failed miserably, resulting in massive casualties on both sides. In payment for the rebellion, the Capital demands tribute from each of the 12 districts every year: one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18. These children are chosen via lottery. These 24 children are then taken to participate in a reality television show known as the hunger games, where they are sent into a digitally-controlled wilderness to kill one another by whatever means necessary until only one tribute survives. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a teenaged hunter from District 12, becomes our hunger games avatar in this dangerous and monstrous world of the future.

“The Hunger Games,” based on the first book in Suzanne Collins’ bestselling trilogy, is the first attempt in the last decade of failed novel adaptations (a list including “Eragon,” “Golden Compass,” and most recently “John Carter”) that actually has both the story content and the talent necessary to succeed in landing itself an envious film franchise. This is made all the more current by the franchise gap left behind by Harry Potter and (by the November release of the final film) the Twilight Saga.

The gimmicks of a great franchise include being universally appealing to all ages, incorporating as many genre elements as possible, and having outstanding characters (especially the hero and the villain). Franchises also need to succeeding in desperately making you want to see more of these characters. For this, you need characters who go beyond your average action flick or drama. “The Hunger Games” has all of this and much, much more. As someone who hasn’t read the books (but will assuredly do so now), I found myself stuck to my seat as if glued there in avid attention.

The core of this story is its most fascinating virtue: children being forced to kill children for the amusement and the superiority of the higher class. Now of any PG-13 film I’ve ever seen, this has to rank amongst the darkest of mature thematic elements. Thankfully, director Gary Ross took obvious care in how there’s isn’t a single moment onscreen where we feel that the maturity of the material is not given the full weight it deserves. The PG-13 rating, outside of a few specific killings being changed in their graphic nature, doesn’t shirk the source material’s dire tone or ugly social world.

Now I expected briskly-paced action and blunt violence. What I didn’t expect (and what rises this film far higher in terms of raw quality) was some honest emotional moments that sometimes hit harder than the violence. Certain moments ring with such grounded reality that we cannot help but relate to Katniss’ anguishing and overwhelming struggles. From her hopeless relationship with her sister to her fragile alliances made during the games, we feel every emotional cord struck within Katniss. From a protagonist avatar perspective, we couldn’t ask for more. Katniss Everdeen is the quintessential action heroine with heart, courage, and virtue that makes her truly a character we root for. She is effectively brought to life by the ever-dazzling Jennifer Lawrence, who couldn’t have been more perfect for the role.

There are dozens of memorable aspects of the film that I want to include with glowing description, but I must reign myself in a bit. One element that simply blew me away was just how deep of an immersion experience Gary Ross made the film. The opening is slow enough to establish Katniss as regular and show us what “regular” people do with themselves and how they survive. Then, from the moment she is chosen as a tribute, we enter this new reality with her that is almost just as foreign to us as it is to her. The strikingly alien way Ross directs the scenes in the Capital are so extreme in their grotesque perversion of life and entertainment that it almost casts a spell in a way experienced only by great films.

Yes, I do consider this a great film. Not a masterpiece, at least not yet. For me to judge this in all its glory, I need to see how the future of the series is handled. I would be judging certain characteristic intents and storytelling focuses slighter harder if I knew this was all we are going to get. But from what we DO have right here in front of us, “The Hunger Games” is well-executed genre filmmaking.

These characters and their relationships are delightfully complex for a genre film, with Katniss, mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and television personality Caesar (Stanley Tucci) taking center stage. Peeta (Josh Hutchinson) isn’t bad, but I don’t think he sticks out as much as he should. An actor of more depth might have tackled this complicated role seem as complicated as it is, like Andrew Garfield, Aaron Johnson, or even Aaron Paul. Someone who I’m supposed to really be questioning their motives the entire time. But overall, I really enjoyed everyone’s performance, as even the smallest role had an effective actor. But of all the performances, the ones that continue to stick with me as being extraordinary are Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Stanley Tucci. Haymitch is just ridiculously cool to me for some reason, in both his rather tragic presence in the film (he is a drunk due to how he’s haunted by his experiences as a previous hunger games winner) and in how Harrelson brings such a brilliant degree of harshness and vulnerability to the role.

I haven’t seen a film with a 140+ minute runtime flow with such a breakneck speed since “The Dark Knight.” On the contrary, I wish the film had been a bit longer so that the film could let some smaller moments breath a bit more, especially the scenes involving Katniss and Peeta in the cave. I saw a few missed opportunities in moments like that where characterization could have taken a slight more prominent role rather than going right into getting to the next plot point. This isn’t a complaint, really. It never felt “off.” It just felt like there could have been a bit more (sometimes, maybe even a sentence more) that would have brought it all together.

We don’t get stuff like this very often: high-quality entertainment that truly is a wonder to explore its depths and crevices. It’s fresh, exciting, intelligent, edgy, and full of imagination. I understand that this could be viewed as simply as “Future Gladiators Teens,” and it very well could have become something as trite as that, but both the book and now the film measure this plot with such a social conscience and emotional core that it surpasses the apparent limitations of its general premise. This isn’t just smarter than most science fiction; it’s more epic and emotive. This is what people go to the theaters to experience. I was with it every step of the way and I enjoyed every moment of it. This whole new world to explore is one well worth visiting.

So here we are, one film done with two more possibly to come. When it comes down to whether or not “The Hunger Games” will succeed in acquiring a trilogy franchise where many other adaptations have failed, all I can say is I truly hope the odds will be ever in its favor. Where its source material is concerned, I can’t think of a worthier candidate. “The Hunger Games” is a sure winner that I hope I can revisit its world soon.

“21 JUMP STREET” IS A LAUGH-WORTHY COMEDY BUT SHARES LITTLE OF WHAT MADE JOHNNY DEPP’S SHOW ENDEARING

Rating: B

Phil Lord and Chris Miller’s “21 Jump Street” is a crude, unmemorable, and pointless comedy that is about as faithful to its source material as Guy Richie’s “Sherlock Holmes.” Now does that mean I think it was bad? Not at all. On the contrary, there was quite a bit to like about the film in and of itself. But just like my issues with “Sherlock Holmes,” my liking is tainted by the fact that this is a step down rather than a revamp of the source material.

Rookie police officers Morton (Jonah Hill), and Greg (Channing Tatum) used to know each other seven years ago in high school when Morton was the nerd and Greg was the jock. Now, as best friends, they show that they are not fit to be your “average” officers (like Greg not knowing his Miranda Rights and Morton not being able to shoot his gun). So they are sent packing to a defunct 80′s police program on 21 Jump Street where officers who can pass off as being teenagers infiltrate local schools as students in order to bust any illegal activity going down. On their first case, they are sent inside to find the distributor of a killer drug. They quickly learn that a lot has changed in the last seven years when it comes to school and they will now have to adapt in order to complete their case.

“21 Jump Street” does nothing new in either of its key genres. It’s not daring enough to effectively use its R-rating (don’t expect “Hangover” quality), it’s not funny enough to make use of its charismatic leads, it’s gratuitously vulgar to the point that it feels ridiculously overzealous (we’re not seeing “Good Will Hunting” here!), and it’s not pumped enough to do anything interesting in terms of action. In short, we’ve seen all this before done much better.

As an average February comedy release, devoid of honest emotion or memorable action, it’s above-average if that’s your thing. The by-the-numbers screenplay written by Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall (co-writer of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) is admittedly funny when it wants to be but misses key opportunities that the premise should have been able to use. It doesn’t succeed in either extremes of being Woody Allen – intellectual humor or Judd Apatow – universal humor. It’s not quotable or unforgettable. But in saying all this, I must offer kudos for the film for not being as tasteless as I thought it would be.

The best scenes that make this whole thing worth watching are the drug scenes and the fish-out-of-water moments where Morton and Greg see how much things have changed. These were definitely funny and sometimes even smart and snappy. The tastelessness of some of the humor is almost saved by moments like these, that adapt the cliches and surprise us. In these moments, we see just how effective of a comedian Jonah Hill can be, and I think that this is some of the funniest stuff he’s ever done. Same goes for Channing Tatum. But the best scene is one I can’t spoil. Trust me. Even if you hate the film, you’ll notice this scene.

Now, speaking purely as an avid fan of the 1980′s television show starring Johnny Depp, I missed the fun and entertainment the show held. The camaraderie of the characters and the smart ways they dealt with their cases never feel dated even as the hairstyles and clothing does. This movie didn’t have any of those appealing qualities. It was just too vulgar and sometimes just too mean to pull off that vibe. Basically, I figure if you’re going to title your film based on a television series, at LEAST try to capture the tone (which “The A-Team” did perfectly).

I did laugh. I did have a good time. I went along with it. It did what it set out to do. Unfortunately, I can’t ignore the fact that this is supposed to be a modern take for both newcomers and old fans of the series. This isn’t the “21 Jump Street” I remember so fondly – and I don’t mean that as a compliment. Instead of relying on strong characters and intelligent humor, it continuously falls into vulgar slapstick that is funny but in an entirely different way.

I’m not going to lie, this is a decent movie and most people should enjoy it. I’m probably being far too negative and unfair in my view. As I’ve said, this just isn’t what I expected or wanted from a 21 Jump Street film – whose focus was always its characters. Or maybe I just expected too much. After all, Jonah Hill will never be Johnny Depp.

“THE ARTIST” LOVINGLY ADVANCES THE ENCHANTING AURA OF EARLY CINEMA

Rating: MASTERPIECE

Even with all its obvious missteps and downright pratfalls, 2011 was still the year Hollywood rediscovered the everlasting appeal of its roots. From Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” (in my top two favorite films of the year) to now “The Artist,” we are reminded of the origins of cinema with all its timeless magic and passionate innovation. These two cinematic phenomenons are something we deserve more often. We need to remember, especially the joy that can be created from nothing more than electrifying imagery.

Directed by Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist” deserves its lofty praise and its Academy Award frontrunner position. Hazanavicius is an absolute genius as both a filmmaker and a writer in how he reinvents how black-and-white is viewed by my generation. This isn’t just a resurgence – this is also the best b&w silent film I’ve ever had the pleasure of coming across. An innocent, delightful, entertaining movie, “The Artist” could easily stand alongside the timeless work of Chaplin and Fairbanks.

Anyway, the plot is simplistic enough to work without massive dialogue and yet deep enough that the characters speak to us – even without words. Silent film superstar George Valentin (Jean Dujardin; the OSS 117 spy parody series) is the world’s talk of the town in 1927. If in reality, Valentin is a masterful character blend of Clark Gable, Cary Grant, and Errol Flynn. Be he a secret agent on the run or a swashbuckling pirate, audiences come in droves. But silent films are already beginning to fade amid the more ‘exciting’ prospects of talkies. As silent films – and therefore Valentin’s fame – begin to give way, the future – in the hands of the girl with the golden voice and beautiful face, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, channeling Bette Davis) – begins to rise. Peppy and George, who met one another right at the crossroads of their changing situations, can only watch each other and the world of film as the very fabric of the cinema system changes forever.

Under Michel Hazanavicius’s stirring direction, the massive part of the appeal of “The Artist” lies in its universally-understood approach to storytelling and language. From America to China to France, anyone can understand by seeing the smallest of gestures and a flair of musical expression. All too often, we get fed the emotion we’re supposed to have through dialogue. People seem to have forgotten how critical the visuals can be, which another film this year – “Shame” – succeeded at doing. A person lying in a corner crying can be more gripping than that same person sitting at a bar pouring out his feelings to the bartender. The subtle nature of visual emotion has never been this clear.

Now never let never further be said that silent actors don’t truly act. Trust me, I know silent era actors didn’t always quite grasp the subtleties of acting. But armed with today’s studies of acting realism, the actors in this film have the best of both worlds. No grandstanding, and frequently funny, modes of exaggerated expression will be found here. That’s why the film feels almost more superior than the many that came before it.

Jean Dujardin has it all. He can play the romantic lead to the swashbuckling Zorro to the super spy. He fades so well into his role that I could completely see him as a gem from the golden age of acting. He has an infectious smile and a larger-than-life zeal in performing that provides such a timelessly classic and outstanding screen presence.

Playful and innocent, Berenice Bejo starts at the perfect note and ends on the perfect note. Of all the characters, we see her attitude and personality transformation the most and, as such, it makes us appreciate her talent. Starting with nothing, we watch in rapt attention as her confidence becomes so natural that she dives into it by the end. It is a masterful performance that reminds me of the greatness of the female cast in “All About Eve.” She has a real Marilyn Monroe quality to her that makes her grab the screen.

James Cromwell and John Goodman are always great to see, and never more so. Cromwell (as George’s loyal butler) giving a brief yet outstanding original portrayal. His scene with Dujardin is one of the very best of the film and it’s the same scene where Dujardin nails it for us. In that moment, watching his life crumble became heartbreaking.

There is something in their very essence – their stance, their smiles, the way they can envelop a camera and therefore an audience – which prove that Dujardin and Bejo have the stuff of legends in them. I’ve always looked at Clark Gable, James Cagney, Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Katherine Hepburn and thought, “They just don’t make them like that anymore.” I stand corrected.

I love this movie. Really, what’s not to love? I haven’t felt this deliriously satisfied with a film since “The King’s Speech.” Black-and-white or not, we fall into its world. The nuances of cinema shine with their best substances when seen like this. In a way, it expands on the past. I never connected so deeply to the characters and stories of other silent films. It wasn’t until the talkies – the Errol Flynn films, to be exact – where I became enamored. Yet here, I was so utterly invested that it surprised me.

One thing I’ve never liked in the majority of silent films I’ve seen is the title card dialogue bits. They always struck me as stupid and juvenile. Yet here is a silent film that uses the medium in the best way possible, combined with today’s precise idea of characterization, story arc, visual beauty, and dialogue with yesteryear’s unique style, look, and pattern.

“The Artist” is a surprise gift from the past that we never thought we needed or wanted. But in the end, I think it will become as immortalized as the film era it portrays with such love and adoration. If this wins Best Picture, I can’t think of any film in the last decade that would deserve it more. What could be better than an unfading tribute to everything film has built itself up to be in the last century?

I keep thinking of the moment where George Valentin realizes the world of silent cinema is about to pass him by and take everything that matters away from him. Yet there he stands, not willing to give up his dream that silent cinema still has something to say to the world. I’m sure there were many silent film stars who felt the same way. “The Artist” shows they were right: silent films still have something unique to offer the world.

MICHAEL FASSBENDER’S OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE ROCKETS “SHAME” INTO GREATNESS

Rating: A

Disturbing, heartrending, haunting, and breathtaking in every way, Steve McQueen’s “Shame” is an soul-churning triumph where the timely subject and flawless story are easily matched by its two showstopping stars. This is the very definition of Oscar-worthy.

The film is about Brandon (Golden Globe-nominee Michael Fassbender; “X-Men: First Class,” “Jane Eyre”), a solitary man in his 30s who buries himself in constant sexual gratification (porn, prostitution, masturbation, you name it) in order to not fall into any sort of privacy or intimacy. For him, sex is nothing joyful or beautiful: every woman is an object and a target and every date is nothing but foreplay. Due to his good looks and disarming personality, most women find him utterly charming and charismatic, yet we know that his confidence stems from not caring about anything or anyone. He has nothing to lose. But Brandon’s life changes when his depressed, suicidal sister Sissy (Oscar-nominee Carey Mulligan; “An Education”) disrupts his life by barging into his penthouse and invites herself to live with him. For the first time in a long time, Brandon must step away from his own additions and be the brother his sister needs.

“Shame” is Steve McQueen’s sophomore directorial outing, with the first being the powerful “Hunger” in 2008. “Hunger,” a film also starring Fassbender in a boldly complex role, was an outstanding debut that effectively introduced the world to two extraordinary talents. While “Hunger” was a brilliant introduction, “Shame” is a definitive masterpiece. It captures its characters, its world, and its message so fluently that you’d expect this to be a project from a veteran like Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese. Mark my words, we’re looking at the next Sam Mendes.

When the majority of people think of the NC-17 rating, the only movie they seem to think of is the 1995 monstrosity known as “Showgirls.” An NC-17-rated film barely, if ever, gets universally recognized as a work of art, with me only being able to come up with three notable exceptions (Darren Aronofsy’s “Requiem for a Dream,” Gregg Araki’s “Mysterious Skin,” and David Cronenberg’s “Crash”). But as good and effective as these other NC-17 films are, McQueen’s “Shame” is the best.

Steve McQueen’s screenplay, co-written with “The Iron Lady” writer Abi Morgan, is as magnificent as its star performances and just as worthy of an Oscar nomination. Always brutal, unrelenting, and never falling into cliché or convention. Dealing equally with the brash violence and subtle torture, this is the kind of screenplay that should be taught at writing schools. This isn’t even mentioning the incredible musical score by Harry Escott, which was frequently as perturbing and unforgettable as the film.

Now we get to the best part of the film: the performances. There have been some massive talents this year that I can’t get out of my head. Jean Dujardin in “The Artist.” Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter.” Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte in “Warrior.” Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But of all of them, none struck me at my core by delivering such unique, phenomenal, and seemingly effortless performances as Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan.

Rarely have I seen an actor like Fassbender who is so willing to go the distance, be it emotionally or physically, and carry the massive screen presence of veteran heavyweights like Pacino or Brando. The unique thing about Fassbender is he can convey that presence almost exclusively through his eyes. For the role of Brandon, Fassbender delves so deeply into the dark life of meaningless and self-loathing that every look, every gesture, is viciously authentic. He makes us believe no one could have done this role better.

The biggest surprise was Carey Mulligan. I knew Fassbender and McQueen were masters of their craft, but Mulligan proved just as worthy of accolades. Her torture and anguish is so present in everything she does that we have no doubt of her having lived a life of pain. As good as her range was in “The Greatest” and “An Education,” this is her tour de force.

Together, they great some truly spellbinding scenes, two of which were among my favorite scenes of the year. One is of Sissy singing a slow, soulful rendition of “New York, New York” which brings a tears to her brother’s eye, and the other is of them suddenly exploding with all the raw anger, frustration, and shame they have in their lives.

McQueen, Fassbender, and Mulligan fully embody and personify a social problem Hollywood has rarely – if ever – fully aimed its critical eye towards. This is as bold as “Requiem for a Dream” and perhaps just as memorably tragic. This is a story and two performances that stick with you far after the credits roll.

“Shame” is a surreal cinematic experience you shouldn’t ignore because of its NC-17 rating. The rating is what makes it so powerful. Not a single shot is gratuitous. Every single moment of sexuality/nudity is used, not for erotic reasons, but for compounding this disturbing look into the psyche of those who lose themselves to the meaningless motions of addiction and abuse. It’s a misfortune that this film will not be seen by more people, especially those who it could actually mean something to.

It would have been so easy for this to fall into the realms of soft-core porn or cliched Oscar bait, but “Shame” never does. While I won’t say I ‘enjoyed’ watching Brandon’s downward plunge into depravity, I can definitely say I have the utmost respect for every facet of the film, especially in how far everyone was willing to go in making every single scene heartrendingly genuine and savagely honest.

“TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY” IS UNDERWHELMING, BLAND, AND DISAPPOINTING

Rating: C+

I’ve come across my fair share of movies that escape immediate classification. It’s easy when you come across great movies like “The Shawshank Redemption” or horrible movies like “Troll 2.” But then you come across something you want to like, and could – in fact – give justifiable reasons why you should, and yet still, in the back of your mind, hear a voice going, “Don’t delude yourself. This isn’t something you like.” That is the case between me and Tomas Alfredson’s “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.”

George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is a high-ranking member of British Intelligence during the Cold War of the 1980′s who is brought out of retirement when the agency (known by its agents as “The Circus”) begins to suspect it has a mole feeding intelligence to the Russians and hires him to flush the rat out. This spreads out before our eyes a world of spies – not of James Bond, but of George Smiley. Real spies who can’t solve their problems with gunfire and poison. Here, the side with the most intelligence wins. This chronicles the British agency trying to win that fight. As dark and gritty as America’s War on Terror has been, our generation has no idea the permanent state of panic we were in during the Cold War. All sides knew atomic holocaust could come with a single mistep, and everyone on each side wanted to make sure – if that ever happened – that they’d be on the right side. This is a story all about that battle of panic – and how the best people were the ones who didn’t succumb to the national panic.

This movie has a lot going for it, so much so that I feel a bit stupid in going against it. The incredibly talented British cast and the pristine cinematography are among the better elements of the project.

Unfortunately, at least for me, great mystery isn’t so much about the mystery itself as as it is about its procedural of explanation and ultimate reveal. The major fault of “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is neutering the mystery element so consistently that, in the end, we really couldn’t care less when the culprit is revealed. Why? Because we have little to no idea about the stakes and inner details of the plot itself. It has been stretched so thin of its full power that we get little more than breadcrumbs of what we should be seeing. I can say this because I knew of the full story due to the novel and British miniseries before it. The mystery as it is presented here just seems too inconsequential, as so much of the full story has been cut.

Far too many people have tried to sell this as the latest “Inception” situation: if you didn’t like it, that means you’re just stupid. No. This movie is a miscalculation of what makes visual cinema entertaining and worthwhile. If we can’t follow the mystery, we can’t connect or care about anything else. What we needed is a Hastings. Or a Watson. Someone with whom can personify us – the audience – as we follow these people (who are admittedly much smarter than we are) around just so he can ask the stupid questions and the hero can answer with great wit and aplomb.

I wanted to like this movie. I still do, to a certain extent. The cast, the director, the writer… all the parts are there. But like David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” there were just some mistakes that were impossible to outmaneuver. I can’t say I enjoyed it, regardless of how much I appreciate and respect the talent involved.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” boasts a memorable cast of actors and characters, led in the capable hands of Gary Oldman and followed very closely by Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, and John Hurt. Colin Firth and Mark Strong are around, but have little to do. Still, these actors are magnetic, each delivering with such effortless skill that it seems almost too easy, but unfortunately none have anything substantial to do. All dressed up and nowhere to go.

Perhaps the grossest waste is Gary Oldman, who will forever remain one of my top 10 favorite actors and one of the most underrated actors to ever live. It seems odd that Oldman hasn’t headlined a film since “Romeo is Bleeding” in 1993 and has NEVER received any Oscar recognition. Sadly, while the role itself was juicy when Alec Guinness made it his own in the British miniseries, all that complexity is nowhere to be found in Bridget O’Connor’s screenplay. Here, Smiley is downplayed to a silent observer with almost nothing to say. Now I’ve never seen a bad Gary Oldman performance out of his 44-film body of work, and this one does have some fascination to it, but it does nothing to surpass his performances in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” or “Immortal Beloved.”

The actors give it their all, especially Oldman and Hardy (who is an incredibly interesting character to watch and has the better storyline of anyone else), but I can only be so interested when I haven’t the foggiest on what the hell is going on. And again, I know it’s not me not getting it, as I know what the story is supposed to be. But the film messed up the story in making it never connect to us as viewers.

Now “12 Angry Men” is one of my favorite films of all time, so I am perfectly fine spending two hours just on a bunch of people talking – so long as I find that talking worth my time. This film didn’t do that for me. The procedures of discovery is even more murky and unrelentingly elusive than I found “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” to be. The constant game of who’s-doing-what-and-why becomes frustrating and the jumps in logic are jarring. While the story does make sense upon further reading and research, but everything we see here is extremely complicated. I love complexity, but there is such a thing as taking too much upon your plate.

Ultimately, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is too large of a story to fit into this medium. The original story needed a full miniseries to tell it with any justice, so trying to force a 7-episode miniseries into a 2-hour film is going to obviously present structural narrative problems. So there are answers out there for those who leave confused, but this also means that the film doesn’t stand on its own. A sad fact, but a fact. I just wish Gary Oldman received a grander return to starring roles.

EVEN ROONEY MARA’S PERFORMANCE CAN’T SAVE “DRAGON TATTOO”

Rating: C+

Most critics are going to like – if not love – David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” They will have their credible reasons, as there is a lot to appreciate. Where I am going to differ with them is how I judge and prioritize the merits of a story. For me, it all comes down to whether or not that story is able to keep me continuously invested through well-crafted pacing that leaves me satisfied at the end. This film and this story doesn’t give me any of those qualities. Now I’ve read Stieg Larsson’s novels and seen their Swedish adaptations. My problems for the first installment of the trilogy remains the same, as none were fixed in this adaptation. I was interested only in random spurts rather than ever feeling continuously invested. Instead of enjoying myself, I can only use the word “wading” to describe how I felt in getting through the story. Any worthwhile scenes are deluded by a convoluted nature and atrocious lack of pacing. Most importantly, the mystery’s “finale” is anticlimactic and leaves us without any genuine payoff or satisfying conclusion. It merely ends with a clink instead of a boom. Ultimately, as much as I hate to say it, what we get is part unwatchable gruesome and part bland indifference. Neither of which are traits I’d have expected from Fincher.

They story is a concurrent tale of two people’s journeys into the other one’s life. The first is Mikhail Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a disgraced journalist who is given a change to fix his reputation when a wealthy recluse (Christopher Plummer) hires him to come to a private island and investigate a murder that occurred 40 years previously – and where the murderer is someone still living on the island. The second is Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a brilliant asocial surveillance researcher with a photographic memory who is dealing with the sexual sadism of her state guardian while finding herself interested in the case Blomkvist is working on. Their paths cross when they join forces to solve the case before the killer gets to them first.

Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a film of shocking extremes. Extremes of sexuality. Extremes of cruelty. Extremes of uncomfortable topics. “Men Who Hate Women” was the original title for the Swedish novel, and it is especially appropriate. The misogynistic nature of the perverted sexual violence inflicted on the women in the story does its absolute best to unravel and skewer every single taboo American cinema still has, and, boy, does it succeed. I can name at least half a dozen moments the likes of which I’ve never seen before in a mainstream American film. This is as close to NC-17 as R can possibly get.

I can’t imagine many other American filmmakers getting away with material like this, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing. There is a fine line between tasteful/artistic depravity and gratuitous depravity, and – while I can see why certain scenes are included – I just can’t see why we need to see quite so much of something so horrible, from animal mutilation to forced sodomy. The camera lingers longer than it should on these scenes. This film is practically unrelenting in its brutality and you almost have no choice but to look away. Any scandalous aspect of the book is uncut and is made as visually horrifying as possible. Whether that’s a positive or a negative is up to you. For me, I appreciate the ambition but I can’t help but feel disgust for what I am seeing. For American cinema, this is bold and ambitious but feels unmerited, even with an artistic standpoint. No matter how much it shows me about a character, I don’t need to see a rape scene frame by frame.

The unraveling of the story – which I’ve already said I dislike – is an additional problem, as this version seems a bit worse in how murky and just plain confusing it is. Now I know the plot from reading the book. I know what I’m seeing and what happens. Or at least, I know what I’m supposed to be seeing. But for newcomers, I can’t imagine how they could possibly follow the jumps in logic the film constantly takes. I like complicated films that don’t cater to audiences, but this is ridiculous. Yeah, we get the ending well enough when faces are shown and motives are explained, but if we don’t get the names and understand the precise steps of the investigation, the climax means next to nothing because we weren’t able to follow the plot’s impenetrable maze.

But even so, Fincher does present an odd frenetic aura of darkness that pervades the entire film and increases the growing dread we know it fast approaching. This, I did enjoy. Say what I will, Fincher does know how to tell a dark tale about the depravity of the human soul. Sadly, atmosphere isn’t enough to elevate uneven material, which switches from a break-neck speed to excruciatingly dreary. Add this to how surprisingly pedestrian the directorial style is.

The story’s one major claim to fame – the reason that separates it from all the other action mysteries like it – is its female protagonist, Lisbeth Salander. She elevates the inferior mystery and pacing with her inherent brilliance and stark attraction. From the guarded-yet-rebellious way she presents herself to the reigned ferocity that steams behind her eyes, Lisbeth is one of the greatest female characters in recent times.

It is always an extremely special experience to watch great actors play great characters. We get that experience with Rooney Mara. With the eyeful solace of a younger Tilda Swinton, Mara is a revelation as Lisbeth. Her sharp responses and eerie intelligence that always promise a wrathful violence just waiting to get out fit the character perfectly, where every single day is a struggle. We can tell that this is a girl who could easily have become a serial killer if she had taken one step in another direction. She has the mentality and the narrow focus. Instead, she channels it for better purposes. That’s just one of the reasons she’s so interesting. We rarely get strong female characters like this and it is a joy in how great of one we get here. This is an award-worthy actress acting her heart out in an awards-worthy role.

Daniel Craig, unfortunately, suffers from unideal casting. I always pictured Sean Penn or Aaron Eckhart fulfilling all the qualities of Mikhail Blomkvist as the normal guy who loves a good chase but gets way over his head. We need to feel that this guy has no idea how to deal with this. Craig, however, is far too emotionally unavailable or – for lack of a better term – James Bond-like to really fit into Blomkvist’s shoes. He has one face – bold and unfazed. He’s too comfortable. This is not the kind of character Blomkvist is.

In the end, there is only so much one can do with an adaptation like this. As I didn’t find much in the novel that I found particularly memorable outside of the shocking brutality and the outstanding characterization and story arc of Lisbeth Salander, I was never going to love this film. The story just doesn’t work for me. In this way, the film is too much of an adaptation.

I truly held a deep hope that director David Fincher and screenwriter Steve Zallian would fix the inherent pacing problems of the story, as both are masters at fascinating pacing. Just look at Fincher’s “Panic Room” and “Se7en” or Zallian’s “Schindler’s List” and “Gangs of New York.” But somehow, I feel like they dropped the ball and the result is a complete lack of coherent pacing and storytelling. It is almost exactly as it was in the novel and in the Swedish film. No more. No less.

Now if you, unlike me, like the story of the novel and the Swedish film counterpart and want to see it given an American turn, you won’t be disappointed. In regards to film-making itself, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is pretty slick. It is a very good adaptation to the novel and a better film in general than the Swedish one is. It has better actors (Mara especially) and a better ominous mood to it. But nothing, a least for me, can save it from the woeful pacing inherent in the story, the anticlimactic ending, the befuddled plotting and names, and the unsatisfying nature of the mystery, the investigation, and the characters arcs. Those are deal-breaking qualities for me, no matter how much I adore Rooney Mara’s Oscar-worthy performance or Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s musical score. The characters and their personal struggles are worth a movie, and a great one at that. What we get is a semi-good film with maybe two great scenes where everything else is worthless filler or gratuitous shock. We see glimpses of genius, but by the end those glimpses have disappeared in disappointment.

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE” PUSHES ACTION TO NEXT LEVEL OF CINEMATIC IMMERSION

Rating: A-

Action films need to have two qualities in order to become great: showing us things we haven’t seen before and having a main hero (and preferably villain) who we can follow. For sequels, there is a third quality. You need to up the stakes for not just the world, but for your hero. You need to have an evolution.

“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” the fourth in the franchise and the live-action debut of director Brad Bird (“The Iron Giant” and “The Incredibles”), follows all these rules with a precise and rather surprising panache. This film has action sequences I can honestly say I’ve never seen before (one of which approaches “Inception” in sheer awe mode) and characters, both old and new, who keep my interest and make me want to know more. Where I’m standing, this is the most enjoyable and spellbinding of the series. For a live-action directorial debut, this is downright impressive. Brad Bird, you are my new hero. Under Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, of course.

Now when you’re dealing with this franchise in particular, there’s only so far you can depart from the basic procedural premise. Ethan Hunt is given a mission. He accepts. He meets some buddies. He goes on the impossible mission. Some of his buddies will die. He’ll succeed. The end. Because of the expectations of this film and what it does, I will not discuss the plot. Going in with no idea of what you’re going to get is a pleasure, considering that there are a few surprises and deviations.

So while a chief portion of the story itself is only as good as your average weekly TV procedural (“Chuck” and “Burn Notice” come to mind), the success of a film like this depends on characters evolving and the new tricks of the impossible mission occurring. The mission makes sense. The mission actually does seem impossible and the ways in which they make it possible are, in a word, genius. Everything works. While the story mostly resides in the usual well-trod familiarity of expectations, it’s uniqueness as both an action film and as part of the Mission: Impossible franchise is how it goes about its mission. There isn’t too much to predict, thankfully. Just sit back and enjoy.

“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is an outstanding action spectacle that enthralls and captivates with Brad Bird’s frenetic directorial energy and Tom Cruise’s star power. I’m usually not a fan of Tom Cruise, but I really enjoyed his performance this time around. Alongside him, I loved the casting of Jeremy Renner (one of my new favorite actors) as an “analyst” who takes part in Hunt’s operations. Renner is an already-established leading man and I love his screen presence, from “The Hurt Locker” to “The Town” to “Thor.” The man has an exciting career ahead of him and being able to match Cruise head-to-head in not an easy feat.

The action sequences are almost universally original and mesmerizing, with the greatest one is the bit I’m sure you’ve seen in the trailer involving a massive skyscraper. This sequence has to be the best example of action immersion I’ve ever seen – the setup and cinematography is flawless in every detail, with everything coming together for us to actually “feel” the suspense. For the first (and only) time of the franchise, we truly forget that the franchise would never kill off Ethan Hunt – and all we see is a 120-floor drop with malfunctioning equipment. I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. My heart was pounding. I was literally leaning all the way forward in my seat. This never happens to me. This was an experience you can only get from the greatest of movies.

In the end, even though the story is kinda what you’d expect and nothing was mind-blowing with the characters or the plot, I’d still say that this is my favorite in the franchise, and in terms of action films of 2011, I would only put it behind “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” in terms of sheer entertainment value and unpredictable delight. This is a very fun movie and it boasts of some of the best action sequences since Christopher Nolan reinvented what action means with “The Dark Knight” and “Inception.” The scenes are so good that I want to see the film again in theaters JUST so I can see those scenes again. What better compliment is possible for action film?

THE PERFECT SEQUEL AND CHANGE OF COURSE FOR GUY RICHIE’S ”SHERLOCK HOLMES” FRANCHISE

Rating: A

Now this is what I love getting when I go to the movies: being absolutely and delightfully surprised. Superior in every way from its menial predecessor, “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is engrossing, smart, and fun all the way through without a single hitch in tone or plotting. Director Guy Richie has officially changed course here, turning what appeared to be a workman action romp into a genuinely riveting adventure a la Steven Spielberg. This is fun without being brainless. I don’t feel guilty or ashamed saying I loved the film and that it blew away any and all expectations.

The plot is simple in its main mechanics. Enough time has passed since the first film that Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is right at the heels of his elusive chief antagonist, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Holmes, seeing the personal and global costs of Moriarty’s continued planning being far too great to ignore, picks up Dr. Watson (Jude Law) for one “last” grand adventure before Watson’s impending nuptials hat spans the globe in an effort to stop Moriarty before his plan can come into play. Oh, and this plan? It is really a plan big enough that it could, as Holmes puts it, “lead to the collapse of Western civilization.”

To understand my feelings on the sequel, you must first understand my thoughts on the first film of the franchise in 2009. My main problem with the first “Sherlock Holmes” was how it wasn’t just a mediocre version of the famed Victorian sleuth – it was also a mediocre action romp altogether. Barely passable without being particularly memorable in the slightest. I can’t remember anything about the film outside of Mark Strong’s presence, Moriarty’s lack of presence, the interesting-though-unrelenting directorial style, and the witty banter between Holmes and Watson. It was also far too safe. We knew that nothing would happen to Holmes, Watson, or the girl-of-the-week. We knew they would win out in the end and everything would go back to normal. Ugh. I hate safe movies. It felt more like a weekly serial than a big motion picture. Holmes was never truly challenged and that made it feel like the film catered to Holmes’ own narcissistic hype – he was always the smartest man in the room. Now tell me: where’s the fun in that?

That’s why I love “A Game of Shadows.” What “A Game of Shadows” does that “Sherlock Holmes” failed to do is relinquishing predictability, upping the stakes, and acquiring a far greater foe worthy of Holmes’ intellect. Things actually get serious and personal. The best decisions “A Game of Shadows” makes include two especially brilliant storytelling choices – one near the beginning and one huge one at the end that avid Doyle readers should be able to guess – that make the film as at-the-edge-of-your-seat-worthy as possible. There are three sequences in particular which elevate it to a whole new dimension for me. These sequences were, without question, visually and emotionally flawless. From a fast-and-furious forest chase to Holmes letting Watson take the lead on the Method to the outstanding final 15 minutes (one of the greatest scenes to involve a chess game outside of “The Seventh Seal”), the memorable moments keep on coming. The ending alone is worth a standing ovation. It proved that we haven’t seen anything yet. In fact, things get so wild and out-of-hand that we truly don’t know for sure whether Richie is gutsy enough to kill some very important characters off or not. When you get to that point for a franchise, it’s a magical thing.

Where sequels are concerned, we should already “get” who our main characters are – only more so. We get what we expect and like from our main duo. Robert Downey Jr. is appropriately manic and witty (only this time actually seems as smart as he should be) while Jude Law boasts the very best of straight-laced gentleman with a sly caustic wit. They work far better together now. As for the film’s main newcomers, they are without complaint. I applaud the casting and the characters.

Professor Moriarty (“The Napoleon of Crime”) is, of course, the most recognized name in Holmes’ rogues’ gallery for a reason. Jared Harris makes us believe the hype. Cold, calculating, and malicious, this is a Moriarty where we believe he’s capable of making good on his threats, no matter how grand or unlikely. He’s a genuine threat who is able to hit Holmes right where it hurts the most – both mentally and physically. He even gets to join in on the Holmes-planning-fighting-moves-out-before-he-does-them thing (which is especially cool). Where Mark Strong was more of a cartoon caricature, Harris is as menacing as he should be. From what I’ve seen of Harris in “Mad Men” and now seeing him here with a far bigger role to play, I’d say his abilities before now have been vastly underestimated. I see the makings of a Gary Oldman-level antagonist in Harris and I’d love to see it further explored. I must say, though, that I’m a bit jaded on needing every “brilliant” villain to have a master plan on par with the Joker from “The Dark Knight.” Don’t go in expecting that. Christopher Nolan has no equal.

All other aspects… the action is more precise and viewer-friendly without being as oppressive to the viewing experience as the first one, while the characters are allowed far more time to breathe and banter. There is a far better camaraderie between Holmes and Watson this time around. Han Zimmer’s music is magnificent as usual (especially and most noticeably at the end). Basically, I have no complaints. I can’t think of a better way the film could have gone. I enjoyed every single minute of it.

Armed with far better plotting, banter, and choice of villain, this is what I had hoped the first film was going to be. While mediocre would be my choice word to describe “Sherlock Holmes,” “A Game of Shadows” is a surprisingly extraordinary film that doesn’t even have that word in its vocabulary.

“HUGO” IS A WONDERFUL ODDITY OF AN ACHIEVEMENT IN SCORSESE’S IMPRESSIVE REPERTOIRE

Rating: MASTERPIECE

Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” is something very special and unlike anything he’s made before. A bold statement, I know, but valid. The film shows us a side to Martin Scorsese we’ve never seen before – and that side is absolutely fascinating. Deep inside of the man we all know as the master of capturing the darkness and depravity of the human soul is the unbridled curiosity and purity of a child when it comes to his passion: cinema. There is no brutal death scene. There is no sudden violence. There is no fascinatingly-placed vulgarity. This is as pure and unadulterated as a Disney film, yet it has the unwavering eye for humanity and observation as any of his greatest films. This is a side to Scorsese I wish we saw more often, as I doubt we’ve even hit the surface of its potential.

Based on the 2007 novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” the story’s style and plot is as odd as its directorial choice. In a way, it reminds me of an expertly-done amalgamation of the joyful imagination of “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” and the peculiar little microcosm of “The Terminal.” The story occurs in 1930′s Paris and is about a boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who, since his father (Jude Law) tragically died, has been living inside the walls of a train station, maintaining the many large clocks the station has. He is a lonely boy, but one full of imagination and determination. Aside from his daily self-imposed chores and attempts at hiding from the steadfast station inspector (Sasha Baren Cohen), Hugo spends his time trying to finish the last part of his father’s legacy – fixing a broken automaton that his father had found. But the automaton begins to become far more important than Hugo knows, especially when he meets the aloof Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley) and his book-and-vocabulary-loving granddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and begins to pursue unlocking the ultimate mystery behind who created the automaton and what its purpose is once it works.

What Scorsese ultimately gives us with “Hugo” is the best PG-rated film is recent memory and absolutely the best use of the 3D platform I’ve ever seen. Even James Cameron couldn’t get enough of it. Shot after shot, this is 3D that truly immerses us into 1930′s Paris. From the opening zooming shot through the train station that had my jaw drop to surrealism moments of dream-like exaggeration, the cinematography and the 3D show us that, even two years after Cameron’s “Avatar,” we still haven’t seen everything. Perhaps the 3D platform isn’t as care-worn as I previously thought. And as for the rating, here is a film that isn’t diminished by any lengths by a rating many assume to be the calling card of a deluded mess. Even with how the film doesn’t really get itself moving in the first-hour mark, there is so much to look at in every shot that we are never bored. This is a movie I highly recommend seeing in 3D – it revolutionizes the use.

The acting all-around is powerful, again especially considering the rating. Scorsese has always been able to get the best from his actors, especially with children (from Jodie Foster in “Taxi Driver” to Juliette Lewis in “Cape Fear”). Here, he gets two great performances from Asa Butterfield (whose eyes are so expressive that most of Scorsese’s shots are focused on them) and Chloe Grace Moretz (who further cementes herself as one of the greatest young actresses working today considering “Kick-Ass” and “Let Me In”). Aside from them, Kingsley is as compelling as usual, while Cohen is extremely good in the surprisingly-nuanced role as the station inspector. But for all the characters, their prospective actors make us completely care about this world and these people. By the ending climax, we are genuinely engrossed in the movie to the point that we are, indeed, on the edge of our seats.

Unfortunately, there is little I can gush about that I REALLY want to gush about because it would ruin the mystery. But what I can say is, as a lover of the origins of cinema, there is a lot to love when it comes to what the story does with established history and particularly a specific characters’ lengthy flashback. Here is where I found myself in love. The film is a glowing reminder to how our expectations for film are too high today. We’ve come to a point in history where we’ve become undeservedly complacent with cinema. It doesn’t hold the same power and majesty that it once did. But here, Scorsese reminds us of the breathtaking and magical quality that film can have over us. “Hugo” took me back to when I saw my first films. That wide-eyed astonishment of how, in the words of one of the characters, I could watch what I dream in the day. That’s what film used to be. Dream-like. It captured the power to access dreams. But now our perspective is all off. We don’t see that part of it anymore. But when one really sits and thinks about what cinema means and what it does to us, who can help but be amazed?

But I digress. Ultimately, “Hugo” is outstandingly great, beautiful to behold, and a true delight for everyone – from the oldest of veteran film historians to the youngest of children. From the 3D to the story to the acting to the writing, everything hums with the precision of a pristine grandfather clock. This film proves that imagination will never go out of style, especially when it comes from the filmmakers who still have it. Where Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Drive” was a love letter to those who make movies, “Hugo” is a love letter to those who watch movies. It reminds us of why, so many decades ago, we fell in love with the new technology of watching an imitation and recreation of life dramatized. It is, truly, the stuff that dreams are made of.

“WAR HORSE” IS A SUPERIOR SPIELBERG MASTERPIECE

Rating: MASTERPIECE

Ever since “Saving Private Ryan” (or arguably “The Minority Report”), director Steven Spielberg has been hit-or-miss. I would be among the first to say that the brilliance evident earlier in his career (with “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T.,” and “Jurassic Park”) has been sadly lacking recently. Considering that Spielberg will go down in history as being one of the most iconic cinematic visionaries in American film’s history, I – and others like me – have hoped for the last decade that we haven’t seen the last of that classic Spielberg touch. Finally, our wait is at an end with “War Horse,” which is both a model of cinema done right and – even more importantly – the epitome of Spielberg done right.

Based on a beloved children book and a Tony-winning Broadway play, this story is a great one. We start on a rented farm in Devon owned by the Narracott family – a father (Peter Mullan), a mother (Emily Watson), and their son Albert (Jeremy Irvine). When the father gets too caught up in an auction and buys a beautiful horse for three times its work value, Albert becomes enamored with the animal and trains it, naming it Joey. Their bond becomes as strong as possible between a human and an animal. But right at the outbreak of World War I, the English army arrives in Devon and buys the horse along with many others in the county. Albert promises Joey that they’ll find each other again one day. In four years during the war, the rest of the story is Joey’s amazing journey; from being the mount for a brave English official (Tom Hiddleston) to a German workhorse to a gift from God for a dying little girl. Albert ultimately enlists just to find his friend. Joey gives us the unbiased soul of war in all its waste, showing us just a glimpse of all the soldiers, both young and old, who never deserved to die so young.

With the last five films of Spielberg’s career being middling at best, “War Horse” is not only a return to form for the iconic director, but also one of the finest films in his illustrious career. Of all the masterpieces in his career, I would say that – in terms of raw humanity and epic grandeur – it is only surpassed by “Schindler’s List.” I can’t imagine any scenario where this film isn’t in the top two films during awards season.

The film is everything an iconic film should be: genuine in its emotion, unflinching in its reality, epic in its grandiose, effective in its performances, and imaginative in its storytelling. John William’s beautiful score, Janusz Kaminski’s stirring cinematography, and Spielberg’s earlier style of directing only enhance these qualities.

The battle sequences (especially two large ones in particular) are easy rivals to those we’ve seen in “Saving Private Ryan.” What makes them that way is how Spielberg is able to still capture the violence and horror he needs us to see while still sticking to the PG-13 rating. Peter Jackson couldn’t have done a better job.

The performances are comparable to “Lord of the Rings” in how no one stood out from the others due to how great all of the actors are – including “Breaking the Waves”’s Emily Watson, “Thor”’s Tom Hiddleston, “Sherlock”’s Benedict Cumberbatch, “Harry Potter”’s David Thewis, “Tyrannosaurus”’s Peter Mullan, and newcomer Jeremy Irvine. Of these, Hiddleston and Mullan sound out the most (especially Hiddleston’s final shot), but there is no denying that Irvine has something special about him.

My single complaint is a lack of compelling storytelling during the beginning of the film. As a viewer who deems the opening as a super-crucial aspect of a film, I was initially disappointed in how utterly ordinary and rather mediocre the beginning of the film was. Just another “emotional” horse movie. But as soon as the war began, my worries were erased and I reveled in the rest of the picture. The film is around 150 minutes long, with its slow beginning only taking about 20 minutes of space. And trust me, what we see in the remainder of the film completely makes up for it by sweeping us up in a tidal wave.

What it all comes down to is “War Horse” is as flawless a film as we’ve ever seen from the director. Seeing something as brutal, terrible, and human as war through the innocent eyes of a noble horse is an ambitious form of storytelling, and Spielberg completely pulls it off as being something honest and authentic. I felt each emotion as if I was a marionette, manipulated by Spielberg’s strings. It’s odd. This isn’t the work of the Spielberg we’ve come to know in the last decade. This is back to basics. This is the Spielberg we had from the 70′s to the early 90′s: powerful, gutsy, honest, and effective.

This film holds a very fascinating concept as its primary theme that I found wholly absorbing – for soldiers during war, there is rarely good and evil. There are just scared individuals, each trying to survive the horror they witness around them. There is goodness and humanity on all sides. The best example of this is evident in what is my absolute favorite Spielberg scene of all time. In No Man’s Land, the Germans and English fight; the Germans hidden in one trench, the English in another on the other side of the battlefield. The area in the middle is filled with barbed wire. In this scene that involves a German soldier, an English soldier, a pair of wire-cutters, a horse, and a casual conversation of home, we see what drew Spielberg to this incredible story. We see what makes us love this story. We see exactly why this is a film we won’t soon forget.

That, my friends, is the mark of a true master creating yet another priceless artifact in the annals of cinema. This is the kind of movie that is watched generation after generation, with each one crying and cheering in all the same places. Spielberg has officially found one of the greatest stories he’s ever tackled and tells it with the perfect supply of visual panache and raw humanity. This is a story told in such a way that we can’t take our eyes off of it for even a second.

When all is said and done, “War Horse” is beautiful to behold in its celebration of the good in people through its aura of simplistic-yet-authentic humanity. What makes it all so utterly fascinating is how Spielberg captures the humanity of war: through the entrancing black abysses of a majestic horse’s eyes.

“DRIVE” IS THIS GENERATION’S “TAXI DRIVER”

Rating: A

In the same unrestrained fashion of “Taxi Driver” and “Reservoir Dogs,” “Drive” is an realistic, intense, and stylized character study about inherently violent people trying to cope with the world around them. Creatively and visually, this is a quintessential example of why I love movies as much as I do.

Our main character, known merely as the Driver (Ryan Gosling), is a mystery. Like Clint Eastwood’s the Man with No Name, the Driver doesn’t talk much. He speaks mainly through silence and looks. But when he does talk, we listen. He lives in an L.A. as unglamorous as Gotham City; cruel, dirty, and corrupt. The Driver hides behind a hard exterior and impressive driving abilities to try fitting in, working as both a mechanic for Shannon (Bryan Cranston) and a Hollywood stunt driver. He starts getting into trouble when he meets his next door neighbor, a young mother named Irene (Carey Mulligan), and Shannon gets into business with violent local gangsters Ross (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Perlman). Saying any more would be criminal.

I can’t call this an action film, per se, because it really isn’t. And if you’re going into this expecting an action film you won’t find what you’re looking for. It’s an art experience that tries mixing aesthetic film noir, 80′s music, and a relaxed realism which uses vicious brutality to further enhance its characters. “Taxi Driver” is a worthy comparison in how, like voyeurs, we view this man’s existential reality. The universal themes of loneliness and morality are subtly and effectively injected into Gosling’s Driver; so well so, in fact, that no words need to be said for us to understand his actions. That is, in itself, a great mark of quality.

There is so much to love here, whether you’re a hardcore film student or a casual action buff. But the more you love film as a creative form of expression, the more you’ll appreciate Hossein Amini’s layered characters and the general uniqueness of the film itself. I’ve never seen a film quite like this before. There is something so precise about every frame, prop, gesture, and word that indelible images are literally popping off the screen in rapid succession. These are the types of scenes homages are designed for.

The mark of fame the film takes upon itself is its grasp of reality. Here we have a film that doesn’t try making excitement or action. This is the real world, with real people, and we’re just following them around. Things happen like they would here, without any flying cars or miraculous escapes. That is what makes the violence feel far more swift and vicious than it is. We’ve seen violence like this before. But not like this. The movie sets itself into our world, and – somehow – gets us to see the world through the eyes of real time. We feel emotional stakes. When characters die, it means something to us. When cars crash into one another, they look and move like real cars. The realism is distinctly defined.

Chilling performances abound across the board. Of the stellar cast, two stand out the most. The first is Ryan Gosling. The second is Albert Brooks. Gosling outdoes himself, easily surpassing “Blue Valentine” with the Driver’s difficult part. He effortlessly conveys a sense of irresistible hardness that hides a haunting past and a dark side we never quite see. There are so many little moments where we feel the violence behind his eyes just itching to kill someone before he pulls back. Brooks memorably sheds his comedic roots like Robin Williams did for “Insomnia” in creating what could become the latest iconic villain. His performance is as stunning onscreen as Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurgh or Chrisoph Waltz’s Hans Landa. He easily deserves an Oscar bid for this.

But as spellbinding as the performances consistently prove to be, the real stars are director Nicolas Winding Refn (“Bronson”) and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel (“The Usual Suspects” and “X-Men”). The cinematography is so utterly riveting in every single scene that, in a sense, it becomes its own character and Refn provides a focused vision that brings it all together.

Some will write this off as an intelligent “Transporter” with far less action. Don’t make that mistake. It’s much more than that. I’ll concede to the prospect that there will be a large portion of viewers who will dislike this movie and find it utterly boring to sit through. After all, silence and looks make up a large portion of what we see. It’s a minimalistic film. And when we do get action, it has that suddenness where it’s over before most action scenes really begin. Everything happens in a practical way, even when – visually – it seems rather anticlimactic. But that’s the world of the film. That is why we feel a deeper connection. This feels genuine. Unfortunately, our society has become predisposed in its judgment of such movies by how ridiculously complex and rousing the action scenes are. Naturally, the scenes in “Drive” don’t hold the same epic satisfaction of action films like “Die Hard” or “First Blood.” It’s simplistic and seemingly ends before it should. But that’s real life – and real life in L.A. is what “Drive” is trying to show.

But when it comes down to it, “Drive” could be just the thing cinema has needed to inspire imaginative writers and innovative directors to do exciting things with a long-thought-stale genre. This is the kind of movie that stimulates people to become filmmakers.

“MONEYBALL” AN AMBITIOUS AND PASSIONATE MISCALCULATION

Rating: C+

For a sports movie, “Moneyball” is a peculiar curiosity. Packed with the impressive creative power of Oscar-nominated director Bennett Miller (“Capote”) and Oscar-winning screenwriters Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”) and Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”), the film tries being wholly unique by focusing on statistics rather than playing, skipping the rousing climax we’re so used to, and not hitting any of the traditional sport beats. By doing this, it challenges why we watch sports films in the first place and tries penetrating the genre as being a movie ABOUT baseball rather than simply being a movie OF baseball. Sadly, while it does deliver one of the more intelligent cinematic tributes to baseball since “Field of Dreams,” “Moneyball” mainly fails at being enjoyable, emotional, or even particularly memorable.

Based on Michael Lewis’ book, weary Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt in an average performance) is faced with creating a championship team with $39 million against the Yankees’ $125 million. Things look hopeless until Beane meets Yale graduate Peter Brand (a surprisingly solid Jonah Hill), who tells him that changing the conventions of how teams evaluate players’ potential could save the A’s, Beane attempts to build one of the most unorthodox baseball teams of misfits ever assembled.

Like the 2002 Athletics, “Moneyball” may be ballsy in its ambition to change the way we view baseball, but it’s also highly erratic in how its main goal succeeds and fails in turn. When things are running smoothly, the result is undeniably appealing and we find ourselves wanting to enjoy ourselves. But when things get rough, it gets almost painful to watch. Finally, we get no payoff – as this is a true story. The A’s don’t get to win a World Series. The story just ends with a team of losers winning a couple big games without ever getting much better. Rags to slightly cleaner rags, as it were.

Now this isn’t a bad movie. It simply underwhelms considering the raw talent and aspiration involved. So many ill-timed, boring, or downright bad moments occur that they hinder us from establishing a genuine emotional core for the characters or the film. From an atrocious musical score that viciously detracts from every scene it enters to the bland and sluggish variety of filler scenes, the film has its blah moments. Even stranger, nothing remotely resembles the memorable Oscar-worthy brilliance of Sorkin’s writing. There is nary a discourse I remember enough to write down.

The scenes that remind us why we’re still kinda enjoying ourselves are the ones when Beane is putting his maverick negotiation tactics on overdrive, remembering his engrossing past, or raptly listening to Brand’s exposition. These scenes are funny, witty, engaging, and not nearly as often as I’d like. All other scenes only succeed at canceling out these good parts.

Ultimately, “Moneyball” isn’t so much about Billy Beane or the Oakland A’s as it is about the elusive integrity of baseball. Its moments of greatness occur when it asks tough questions no other baseball movie has asked, like Beane’s final monologue. Other films may show baseball, but “Moneyball” tries observing baseball’s iconic stature and asking why it means so much to so many. It asks a seemingly simple question: can the magic of the game be based on statistics rather than intuition?

The question is relevant. If you’re someone whose reverence of the game approaches an understanding impossible to express, “Moneyball” might just be the baseball film you’ve been waiting for. But for me, the film is oddly never as engrossing as it should be. Since its creation, the term ‘moneyball’ has entered baseball lexicon as an alternative way of viewing baseball. It may not have changed the game, but it has become something worthy of remembrance. Unfortunately for this film’s creators, their obvious passion just doesn’t pan out as being worthy of the same benefit.

“DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK” IS AS BEAUTIFUL AND PRIMAL IN ITS VISCERAL TERROR AS “PAN’S LABYRINTH”

Rating: A-

Sally Hirst is a well-cast child character who automatically gets believability points regardless of how stupid her decisions may be. That’s one of the biggest positives “Don’t be Afraid of the Dark” has considering how good it is. For a horror like this to work, the inherent choices the characters make must be – at least partly – understandable, if not believable. In many ways, “Pan’s Labyrinth” can be used as a fascinating companion piece because of this, as both have young female protagonists who look at their new-found fantasy realm with a wide-eyed hope that the creatures they find will take them away from their unhappy home life. Unfortunately for Sally, her other-worldly creatures aren’t so innocent.

When Sally’s father, Alex (Guy Pearce; “Memento”), and his girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes; “Batman Begins”) move into a large unused mansion with the hope of renovating and selling it for a fortune, Sally (Bailee Madison; “Brothers”) is sent to live with them by Sally’s partying mother. Kim is well-played by Holmes as a woman who desperately doesn’t want to take the role as the evil stepmother, yet she can’t help but want to intervene at how distant and off-putting Alex is with his daughter. Sally is a sad and quiet little girl, who feels unloved and alone by everyone she knows.

The family finds a hidden basement stairwell behind a hollow wall which leads to one of those uber-creepy dungeon basements that always seem to be chosen for such films. It seemed to have been used by the last owner, who mysteriously disappeared decades ago, as an art room of sorts. A bolted-shut old-fashioned fireplace (which leads down into a deeper part of the mansion’s foundation) lies dejectedly in the corner. Sally is fairly quickly drawn to this fireplace, where she hears hissing voices that intrigue her. They call out from the darkness, asking her to free them and to be their friend.

It’s right around here where “Pan’s Labyrinth” is helpful. For most audiences, we assume that, if a little girl really heard creepy voices from a fireplace, she’d run screaming and never come back. If she had done that, none of this crap would have happened to her. True. But we forget what kind of character Sally is, her age, and her issues. She is alone. And when anyone that young feels that alone, I could easily see that child putting far too much faith in even the possibility of escape. Like Ophilia from “Pan’s Labyrinth.” In Guillermo del Toro’s mind, the faith of a child can lead to monstrous things.

Anyway, once these creatures are free, we slowly learn just how terrifying they can be, what they did to the inhabitants who lived there a century ago, why they hate the light, and what their truly eerie plan is for the poor three individuals who live in that house. The light gives some small weakness, so that gives our threesome something to do in order to protect themselves, but these creatures are dang crafty and know how to keep the ball in their court by turning off all the lights. And so goes the story. On the surface, it’s a very average premise, I’d say. Not one that is really original or unique.

What IS unique is Guillermo del Toro.

Written by del Toro (“Pan’s Labyrinth”) and first-time director Troy Nixey, “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” has lofty ambitions. It takes a tired, overused trope of the horror genre (the “creepers in the haunted house” gimmick) and reinvigorates it with that Guillermo del Toro’s style of hypnotic discomfort you feel right in your gut.

We enter an unsettling darkness that feels far more unmistakably chilling than any other horror similar to its plot. An engrossing tidbit worthy of mention is how this film has no language, no gore, no blood, no sexuality, and no nudity. Yet we get an R rating. Originally, the MPAA passed down the unprecedented rating as “pervasive scariness.” So here we have a horror film that got slapped with an R rating just for being too freaking scary. Does it deserve that uniqueness? In many ways, it does. The terror inflicted on our senses is almost invasive with nightmarish imagery and Madison’s jarring performance.

Speaking of performances, here we get acting performances – especially from Holmes and Madison – that are consistently better than horror films traditionally get. Instead of “Final Destination,” we get “Frailty.” Madison – who is easily the greatest part of the movie – ups the game we saw in “Brothers” and promises future greatness that may surpass Dakota Fanning. She outshines Pearce and Holmes with raw emotion.

The Gothic art design (especially the house itself, basement mural, and the Blackwood paintings), unforgettable cinematography (Oliver Stapleton is a certified genius with his transformation of darkness as the movie’s greatest menace), imperial writing (del Toro’s precise ear for terror) and perfect music (Oscar-nominated Marco Beltrami) always overshadow the bare-bones premise – which is a huge compliment. Film-making wise, I don’t think del Toro himself could have directed this better.

Ultimately, the film’s components make themselves far more majestic than the premise deserves. The components alone easily make this one of the most guttural horror experiences I’ve had in years. The unflinching infliction of fear upon us approaches primal ferociousness.

I only felt slight disappointment with how the nightmare didn’t remain without a face. The film had masterpiece potential if we never saw the creatures other than the terrifying artwork. It’s an unfortunate reality that we tend to stop fearing the things we can put a face to – and the CGI creatures are rather underwhelming.

The greatest success of this film is a small miracle considering how numb we’ve become to a genre filled with fake scares and clumsy killers. This movie produces that irrational kind of fear that paralyzed us as children. We remember what made us so squeamish about going down in the basement when all the lights were off. We remember why we were afraid of something particularly hungry lived beneath our bed. We remember why we hid our heads beneath the sheets, as if that would protect us from the approaching carnage. Where horror films are concerned, what more could you possibly want?

“FRIGHT NIGHT” A SURPRISINGLY GREAT HORROR REMAKE

Rating: A-

Remaining in the same vein as many recent horror outings, “Fright Night” is more of an eerie action comedy than a straight-out scare fest. Good. That’s my favorite type, especially considering scares in and of themselves hardly garner a pull anymore. Also, with a title like “Fright Night,” we have an understanding with the filmmakers that we’re getting one of those throwback horror flicks. You know, the ones that gave the horror genre that fun movie-going reputation it had in the 80′s before tasteless gore and tiresome predictability defiled the genre? This film succeeds on that promise, quickly turning itself into the quintessential “fun” horror flick perfect for Friday night.

Styled after Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” (which inspired its own modern retelling, “Disturbia”) with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; “Star Trek”) is a ex-nerd who has joined ‘the cool crowd,’ dropping his oldest friend “Evil” Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; “Kick-Ass”) for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; “28 Weeks Later”). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend “the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you” is… well… a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; “The Sixth Sense”) takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; “Horrible Bosses”). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don’t cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed’s attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; “Doctor Who”), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.

The choice to modernize the original 1985 “Fright Night” doesn’t like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.

From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, “Fright Night” boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie’s (the outstanding director of “Lars and the Real Girl”) imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi’s (scorer of “Iron Man” and “Mr. Brooks”) jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.

The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.

Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).

The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn’t like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He’s modern without being “Twilight.” He’s a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the “transformation” to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell’s menace.

David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10^th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can’t think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant’s scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He’s about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.

In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a “Reservoir Dogs” character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on “Twilight” and comparing Jerry to the shark from “Jaws” – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, “Fright Night” is that perfect Friday night scare.