Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Make a sequel that's actually bigger and better? Not so impossible.

by Hunter Isham

        The Mission: Impossible film franchise, now more than 15 years old, has had its ups and downs as it produced four action-packed espionage adventures. The first film—directed by Brian De Palma, written by David Koepp, Steve Zaillian, and Robert Towne, and starring Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, and Vanessa Redgrave—was a very strong start, both as a fun and thrilling film and as a box office success story (more than $450 million on an $80 million budget). The second film, directed by John Woo, was an even bigger hit on an even bigger budget. Then the franchise lay dormant for six years, an eternity in blockbuster time, until Tom Cruise brought aboard a television writer/director/producer by the name of J.J. Abrams, resulting in the fantastic Mission: Impossible III. Unfortunately for M: I fans, the film was released at the peak of Cruise's couch-jumping zaniness, leading to a mildly successful run at the box office. Mission: Impossible IV kicked around for a few years with rumors swirling that a new character would be introduced to replace Cruise's Ethan Hunt, but then the pieces fell into place, producers Cruise and Abrams hired The Incredibles and Ratatouille director Brad Bird, and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol found its way into theaters with a 93% Rotten Tomatoes score, and an eventual $694 gross. If that's not a Hollywood success story, I don't know what is.
        Ghost Protocol finds Ethan Hunt sprung from prison by the Impossible Mission Force to go after a madman who believes a nuclear winter will give humanity a new start. The team that springs him becomes his squad of surviving agents when he finds out that "Ghost Protocol" has been initiated (I won't spoil why), wiping clean the entire agency and disavowing all of its agents. Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, and a returning Simon Pegg all play off each other very well as the film focuses on their team dynamic rather than Cruise as the sole hero. You may recall that he's always had a team at one point or another in past films, but here his backup is front and center. Making matters worse is that their few gadgets and supplies malfunction more than once, giving their plans unanticipated hiccups along the way as they try to navigate the world and save the day completely off the grid. Constantly having to rely on their own ingenuity and abilities, the four keep things light and fun when things go wrong, and play the more intense action moments with the appropriate focus and quick thinking, not to mention fear and determination.
        Of course, these four characters, as much fun as they are, would be nothing in the Mission franchise without some spectacular set pieces, and Brad Bird delivers in spades. Making your live-action directing debut on a known property could be intimidating, so why not add on the more-difficult-than-usual approach of shooting some moments for IMAX, with the massive cameras that come with the format? If Bird had any trepidation, it never shows, as he's crafted a thrilling romp that has some unbelievably great action. Perhaps the moment everyone knows from Ghost Prtocol is that which finds Ethan climbing up the side of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world. All green screens and stunt doubles, right? Wrong. Cruise was actually up on that building, held on by what was no thicker than a piano wire. Climbing in high places has certainly been done before, but here you absolutely feel the scale and danger of it all here. It's quite simply breathtaking.
        Although the Burj Khalifa sequence is the most stunning in the film, there are plenty of other thrilling moments that keep you on the edge of your seat. In fact, the fantastic action helps to mask some flaws in the film you may not be likely care about. For example, Ghost Protocol lacks a villain with the ferocity of Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Mission: Impossible III, and Michael Nyqvist's nuclear madman is more imposing via his intentions than what he does on screen. However, the antagonists are placed in great action set pieces, such as a chase through a sandstorm and a fight in a multi-level automated parking structure, so there is a constant and immediate threat of physical danger. This film is a rare case when a villain doesn't need to be as fleshed out as Hannibal Lecter to be scary, he just has to threaten our heroes with impossible situations.
        Mission: Impssible - Ghost Protocol is one of the best action films I've seen in recent years. It aims neither for the lofty messages of a Nolan Batman film nor for the B-movie range of The Expendables. This movie is fun without sacrificing its intelligence, but doesn't ask the viewer for anything more than their undivided attention. This is a popcorn film, through and through, and I can't give it higher praise than that. If you're still hesitant, just sit down, and watch the film through its opening credits. If Michael Giacchino's arrangement of Lalo Schifrin's classic theme doesn't put a big smile on your face then I don't know what will. Even if Tom Cruise isn't your cup of tea, or if you see M: I as a cheap Bond knockoff, give Ghost Protocol a chance. Enjoying this film is your mission, should you choose to accept it, and it's hardly impossible. 9/10


*Note: I just thought I'd mention something that's been banging around in my head the past few weeks. When I rate a film like Ghost Protocol a 9/10, I mean that it's a great action movie on par with other great action movies. I don't necessarily mean it's a Best Picture contender; a Silver Linings Playbook or an Argo. You've probably figured out that it's really hard for me to hate a film, and quite easy for me to enjoy the hell out of one. That enthusiasm is how the fourth film in an uneven franchise gets an excellent score.

The Simpsons

America's favorite family. (L-R) Bart, Maggie, Homer, Marge, and Lisa.

Best. Show. Ever.

by Hunter Isham

        Having been running The Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review for almost six months now, Tyler, Harry and I have decided to introduce a little variety into the mix. As you may have guessed, we'll be doing some writing about television from time to time. Unlike our film reviews, we're not currently planning to write about TV together each week, but rather whenever one of us feels like writing about a show. I can't speak for Harry and Tyler, but I myself have several complete series bouncing around in my head without an outlet for expressing my thoughts. If possible I'd like to bring attention to shows that most may not see these days, whether they were a hit during their original run, or if they went (or are going) unwatched. There will be plenty of time for the Arrested Developments and Parks and Recreations of the world down the line, but for now I thought I'd start with my favorite TV show of all time, The Simpsons.
        Matt Groening's unbelievably long-running, animated comedic series is the show I grew up with. The show began its run with a Christmas special in December 1989, followed by a first season in January 1990, which is more than three years before I was born. I didn't start watching the show until the point when most would say it began to decline ever so slightly in quality, in the early 2000s. Running in heavy syndication on the local UPN channel, I saw three Simpsons episodes a day, five days a week (plus new episodes on Fox). 6:00pm, 7:30pm, and an 11:00pm episode that I would record and watch the next morning before school. The Simpsons became a window to popular culture for me, as I was inundated with everything from sharp political references (the Kennedy caricature that is Mayor Quimby) to guest appearances by people I otherwise may not have been aware of (Michael Jackson voicing a man Homer meets in an asylum who thinks he's Michael Jackson). The window in the culture that the show became was a crucial part of informing my interests and taste in humor and entertainment.
        For the uninitiated, The Simpsons focuses on middle aged, bald, overweight, dimwitted and caring Homer Simpson and his dysfunctional nuclear family. Blue-haried bee-hive wearing wife Marge, a loving homemaker and often a moral center for the family; brainy eight year old Lisa, a lover of books and jazz; baby Maggie, the mute but wise member of the family who's far more capable than she seems; and last, but not least, Bart, the smart-ass 10 year old prankster with a heart of gold and an insatiable craving for Butterfingers (not really, but they're fun commercials). Then we have the cast of thousands that inhabits Springfield, USA, the hometown of Simpsons, which includes everyone from the pig-like police Chief Wiggum to the delightfully cynical and troubled children's television star Krusty the Clown. Check out the below image for a wide array of Springfieldians even the most ardent fan couldn't possibly memorize (I'd be lucky to recognize half of them).

        This cast of colorful characters is brimming with stereotypes, parodies, and caricatures that helps to inform the show's central theme as a comedic take on life as a middle class American family, but it also broadens the possibilities of what can be done with the stories from episode to episode. The first few seasons of The Simpsons, especially the first, are really a look at the humorous possibilities of a regular sitcom family in an animated world, such as when Homer buys a cheap RV, accidentally destroys it in the wild, and tries to survive with the family with his limited knowledge of nature. Maggie is practically adopted by a family of bears; try doing that on a soundstage, in front of an audience. As the show grew in popularity and creativity, it branched out into smart cultural parodies, such as the Beatles-style rise and fall of Homer's barbershop quartet, or Bart's dangerous encounters with the murderous Sideshow Bob in the Gilbert and Sullivan-laiden episode "Cape Feare" (a take off on both murder-driven Cape Fear films). The show could also be wonderfully self-aware, as in this potentially clairvoyant clip from 1992 that is hilarious in the face of the show's impending 25th season:

        Despite the fact that The Simpsons did what few shows can do by staying relevant and funny for nearly a decade, it inevitably saw a dip in quality, though most fans (myself included) would likely agree that it was still pretty darn good. Entering the its early teens, the show was more apparently lacking that which made it so successful early on: its heart. This is the curse of the shows sliding timeline, during which the world around the characters changes but they remain the same age. Bart has been 10 since 1987, when the Simpsons first appeared as characters in animated segments of The Tracey Ullman Show, and he's turned 10 many times since. The characters could only learn so many life lessons before they started to repeat themselves in different episodes down the line. The saving grace of the show ever since has been its continuing comedic quality, something that has certainly wavered but never completely died. Though never seemingly ready to wrap up the show for good, Groening (pronounced "graining") and his army of showrunners, producers and writers are well aware of the The Simpsons' sometimes strained run. Season 11 concluded with "Behind the Laughter," a tongue-in-cheek look at how Homer first decided to shoot a TV show based no his life, and how it took off and became a massive success, nearly destroying the personal lives of its stars. The episode pokes fun at the merchandising giant created in the show's wake, proclaiming that, "Simpsons gin was wetting whistles worldwide," while also noting that the fictitious "Simpsons Christmas Boogie" was a triple-platinum hit at the Grammys. What really stands out when I revisit this episode is the closing song, in which a narrator sings that, "Have no fears, we've got stories for years," before citing examples like Homer gets a cellphone and Marge becomes a robot. Although not quite that inane, some plots from the last 13 seasons have been shockingly similar, but I'm sure the irony isn't lost on the Simpsons team.

        I would argue that the best Simpsons story since that time, and the one that affirms just how good the show can still be, is actually the long-rumored and wished for film that arrived in theaters July 27th, 2007. The Simpsons Movie was written by eleven of the show's best writers, and directed by one of its veteran directors, David Silverman. It took a well-worn plot device, Homer does something selfish and stupid, and turned it into a touching and hilarious big screen adventure for fans and newbies alike. Although there's no denying that having watched the nearly two-decade run of episodes that preceded the film would help inform jokes about characters and past events, the movie is funny enough to carry itself as an independent story, and it keeps the jokes flying and the plot moving, making for a nice brisk 87-minute tale that reminds us why The Simpsons has become an institution of entertainment.
        I would be remiss not to mention the many talented folks who put their time and effort into the show. Beginning with Matt Groening, James L. Brooks (writer/director of Terms of Endearment, co-creator of The Mary Tyler Moore Show), and Sam Simon, the original development team, and evolving into a revolving door of comedic and cinematic talents that include Conan O'Brien, Pixar director Brad Bird, and people who have gone on to create and work on shows like The Office and The Larry Sanders Show. Like writing for Saturday Night Live, working on The Simpsons has become an unofficial of a requirement for comedy writers in Hollywood. The show would be nothing without its brilliant scripts, but of course it takes a talented team of vocal artists to bring to life such a varied group of characters, and Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, and Harry Shearer are just that. They have created characters that can be so authentic yet very much caricatures and thinly veiled copies of real-life figures. They know how to sell a joke for all its worth and bring the raw emotion when need be (a particular scene in the movie with Marge bearing her soul to Homer is absolutely heartbreaking, and Kavner nails every second of it). Joining the regular cast members (and semi-regulars like Tress MacNeille, Pamela Hayden, Maggie Roswell, and Marcia Wallace) is a legendary list of guest stars who appear as themselves and as original characters, including everyone from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (the only sitting politician to appear) to Johnny Carson. SNL veteran Phil Hartman was, during his lifetime, perhaps the most valuable guest, appearing several times as a variety of characters, including washed up star Troy McClure and shady lawyer Lionel Hutz.

The Simpsons' cast.

        The Simpsons premiered on the Fox network as a gamble. It was the first animated show to air in primetime since The Flintstones in the 1960s, and it originally aired Thursday nights, against The Cosby Show. It would go on to become the longest running animated series, the longest running sitcom, and the longest running scripted primetime series of all time. Not too shabby. With 528 episodes and counting, The Simpsons continues to endure, having spawned not just a movie but also endless forms of merchandising (Do you own a talking Homer Simpson pizza cutter? I know I do.) and, true to form, a theme park ride that comments on the banalities of theme park rides. The über-nerd character known as Comic Book Guy is quite fond of pointing out when something is the, "Worst. _____. Ever." Somehow, I think he'd find room in his heart to admit that The Simpsons has become one of the greatest television shows of all time. It's an unabashed force of nature that can't be stopped, and every time I catch an episode—new or old, favorite or not—I'm reminded of exactly why it's my favorite show. Homer Simpson may be yellow and stupid, and he may unintentionally subvert your expectations, but you'll never forget that he's a real person (even if he's not).


"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman."

- Homer Simpson, "Lost Our Lisa" (Episode 24, Season 9)

Monsters University

National Lampoon's Monster House

by Hunter Isham

        Don't panic, but Pixar's made another film that revisits old characters. Monsters University thankfully is not Cars 2, although it's not Toy Story 3 either. It's a film that doesn't match its predecessor, but finds some new ground wholly worth visiting. In fact, the only aspect of MU that even approaches the territory of a retread is the fact that it's a college movie, featuring a classic students vs. jocks and students vs. dean structure, but the brain trust at Pixar knows how to creatively milk well-worn story beats by infusing them with the visual charm and wit the animation studio is known for. They even find a way at the end of the film to make far more unique than you'd ever think it could turn out to be, but that's the genius of Pixar.
        The original Monsters, Inc. focused on Sulley (John Goodman) and his protective relationship with a young human girl he names Boo. His pal Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) was always by his side, providing comic relief and nervous exasperation throughout their adventure together. Monsters University, featuring virtually no human characters, focuses on Mike as a smart and precocious young monster who dreams of attending Monsters U and becoming the greatest scarer of all time (because children's screams power the monster world, of course). Though Mike knows the science behind scaring, the short, goofy cyclops is not an inherently frightening creature, causing sparks to fly when his peers are so impressed by the lazy slacker James P. "Sulley" Sullivan who has the physique and family legacy of a world class scarer. Their squabbling gets them into trouble with Dean Hardscrabble, menacingly voiced by Helen Mirren, and soon all bets are riding on the Scare Games, a fraternity competition that sees Mike and Sulley join the smallest and wimpiest of all the frats.
        A story ripped straight from textbook college movie plots might sound like a rehash of things far below Pixar's abilities, but their knack for comedy shines in Monsters University as they have the opportunity to send up college culture via stereotypes (nerds, jocks, slackers, hippies, etc...), common experiences (dreary weather and monotone professors after the winter break), and visual gags (dorm food is literally garbage at MU). The comedy and fun assortment of characters, including Mike and Sulley's fraternity brothers, are what keep the film moving until its final act, in which it manages to break free of college-driven confines of its plot and surprise us with a message that few, if any, big family movies have ever tried to communicate. I won't spoil the ending, but as we all know from Monsters, Inc., Mike didn't become a scarer, he became Sulley's scare coach and partner at work, and Monsters University deftly handles the notion that sometimes our dreams can't quite come true, and our lives are fulfilled when we can do something we love for which we actually have a talent.
        Billy Crystal is key to communicating this eventual revelation in Mike, as he channels young optimism and determination, not to mention a brainy, know-it-all attitude, all of which let him think that his brains can make up for his sever lack of brawn. John Goodman brings depth to Sulley's internal conflict, being a slacker who seemingly doesn't deserve his family name, and he and Crystal together bring to life characters that still have fantastic chemistry, more than ten years later*. Mirren is an excellent choice to play the imposing dragon-centipede hybrid that is Dean Hardscrabble, perfectly inhabiting a role that is more bone-chilling than flat out terrifying, which is perhaps the best way to portray a dean. Nathan Fillion is well cast as the hotshot head member of Roar Omega Roar, the top fraternity on campus, just as Aubrey Plaza and Tyler Labine are smart choices for the disparately enthusiastic Greek Council president and vice-president, respectively. Mike and Sulley's frat, Oozma Kappa (because it's members are just OK), is brimming with fun personalties brought to life by Joel Murray (Freddy Rumsen on Mad Men), Peter Sohn, Charlie Day, and Dave Foley and Sean Hayes as the heads of a two-headed monster with differing tastes and majors. Monsters veterans like John Ratzenberger, Bonnie Hunt, and Steve Buscemi lend their voices once more, as do reputable newcomers Julia Sweeney, John Krasinski, and Alfred Molina.
        Director and co-writer Dan Scanlon, along with producer Kori Rae, have reached an agreeable and realistic middle ground on which future Pixar sequels and prequels can safely land. Monsters University is a Pixar film that falls short of its studio's greatest efforts, lacking the unparalleled emotional depth found in Up and Toy Story 3, but retaining the heart and charm that are Pixar's trademark qualities. The brain trust in Emeryville consistently delivers films that are a cut above the rest, and Monsters University is most certainly a welcome addition to its growing library. As composer Randy Newman's rich, academic alma mater proclaims about MU, "No matter where life takes us, Your light will come shining through," and as someone who's grown up on Pixar movies (and is now quite appropriately in college), no statement could be more true of the animation studio. "Oh, Monsters University – Alma Mater, hale to you." 8/10



*Yes, I'm aware that Crystal and Goodman likely did not record their voices together for Monsters University together, which is quite normal in animation, but they do such great work individually that when the Pixar editors put it together it works seamlessly.

The Heat

(Insert funny title of choice here.)

by Hunter Isham

        The Heat is a very likable and often very funny comedy. It's also a bit ordinary, leaving something to be desired that I can't quite put my finger on. It stars Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy as an FBI agent and Boston police detective, respectively, on the trail of a drug lord. Bullock's agent Ashburn is a type-A, promotion-minded hotshot who isn't shy about demonstrating why she's such a good agent. She's also very buttoned down and by the book, which contrasts strongly with McCarthy's rough, tough, and slobbish Detective Mullins. Two fine comedic actresses can take this premise a long way, and a good script can take it even further, and that's what happens in The Heat, but for everything it gets right, the film still coms up short as the excellent whole it should be.
        A lot of credit must be given to Bullock and McCarthy, as they keep this film afloat. Those of you who've listened to the DMI Review Podcast may know that I've never been a big fan of Sandra Bullock; not because I think she's a bad actress, but because it's rare that I see her in good films (or rather in films that seem good enough to see). She was very good in Speed and The Blind Side, the latter a case where I think she was better than her film, and she is equally good here. Bullock is able to play an abrasive character with charm and a bit of sadness, not to mention a goofy bewilderment when she and McCarthy work on their case. Where Ashburn is uptight and restrained, Mullins is loose, vulgar, and unfiltered, something McCarthy similarly delivers with just the right amount of likability and repulsive tendencies. Together, they make for a team where from scene to scene we can root for at least root for one of them, if not both, when they square off against each other before facing the real bad guys. The rest of the cast is filled out with comic talents who all perform perfectly, including Tom Wilson (Biff from Back to the Future), Saturday Night Live's Taran Killam, Arrested Development's Tony Hale, Marlon Wayans, Veep's Dan Bakkedahl (fantastic as an albino DEA agent), and Jane Curtin, woefully underused but still plenty hilarious.
        Director Paul Feig and writer Katie Dippold keep the jokes and sight gags coming at a quick pace with never a dull moment to be found, but the plot is never particularly compelling, which is really what holds the film back from something more. What they could have added I don't know, as it's already quite entertaining, but I suppose it lacks a sense of invention. Its pieces are all pretty funny, but the whole leaves something to be desired, something that may have only been remedied had this film been made years ago when the buddy cop comedy genre was a bit fresher. The presence of two strong female leads in this kind of film is something of a revelation, one that should have occurred much earlier, because at least providing different gendered versions of familiar characters allows talents such as Bullock and McCarthy to deliver finely tuned comic performances that might otherwise have been a bit hard to come by.
        The Heat is a very funny film in need of more than just a framework on which to attach jokes. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy make the film worth the price of admission, creating a fine comedic chemistry that they can hopefully rekindle in future films. Neither actress is one that I've followed before, but I look forward to seeing what they do next, especially McCarthy, as I know she has a range beyond vulgar comedy, and Bullock herself has proven to be a talent far better than the material she's often given. Comedy is of course a very tough thing to pull off, so I can be thankful that The Heat is as entertaining as it is, not to mention that gives a lot of quality material to two very funny women. At the end of the day, I guess it's a lot to ask that a comedy provide more than just a bunch of laughs, but when the alternative looks like Grown Ups 2, I'll happily take The Heat any day. 8/10

The Heat

By Harry McPhaul

Buddy cop movies tend to come out as cheesy or predictable.  Yes, The Heat can be predictable but it was funny cheesy.  I went into this movie not knowing it was rated R.  Based off what rating I thought it was (PG-13) I was expecting a little cursing to try to make the movie more funny.  Actually the cursing was not how few times they would use those words but more like how many times.  I already knew that Melissa McCarthy can be pretty funny.

This was McCarthy’s funniest movie I have seen.  I was almost crying in most of her scenes.  A lot of cursing is usually a staple to good comedy for me.  Her whole “bad cop” routine through the whole movie never got tiring.  The feel to her role seemed improvised which can work well because it feels more like a actual conversation.  I presumed she was going to funny but not Sandra Bullock.

Bullock had her funny moments but overall she was as mediocre.  I am used to seeing her in more serious or non comedy roles like Crash or The Blind Side so seeing her in this role did not look right.  Anytime she was dancing it felt like a cheap way to get a laugh.  Then again I was not on the edge of my seat hoping for her to comical.  A movie where both characters are constantly trying to be the funniest ones usually does not turn out to well.  That is why I was glad she was not pushing too hard to be funnier than McCarthy.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  I actually was not planning on seeing this movie but because Despicable Me 2 was packed with kids (at 9:30 pm) I ended up watching  it.  In hindsight it was probably a better choice.  If you like vulgar comedies than this is your kind of movie.  Plus it was good see a buddy cop movie featuring two women in the lead roles.  I would recommend this movie.  I would give it a 8/10.

 

Skyfall

Nobody Does It Better

by Hunter Isham

        2012 saw the James Bond film franchise turn 50, an event that called for much celebration. Retrospectives were done, books were released, and DVD/Blu-ray sets were cobbled together for sale, but the one thing every Bond fan could look forward to was the release of the 23rd film in the franchise, Skyfall. This would mark Daniel Craig's third outing as Bond, and the first in four years, what seems like an eternity in sequel-years*. Skyfall would also be a redemption of sorts after the maligned Quantum of Solace took Craig's hardened, realistic Bond from 2006's Casino Royale and pushed him further away from what we know the character to be. Thankfully, Skyfall is not The Bond Identity, but rather a thoughtful, franchise-changing film that rights the course for future films by mixing just the right amount of the old Bond charm with a post-9/11 espionage mentality that doesn't take itself too lightly.
        Unlike Quantum of Solace, which was a direct continuation of the story told in Casino Royale, Skyfall tells an independent story that brings an emotional heft to the relationship Bond has with his profession, his country, and his boss, M, once again played by the excellent Judi Dench. The film opens with a rousing chase through Istanbul, including motorcycles atop the roof of the Grand Bazaar and a fantastic sequence on a speeding train, as Bond and fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris) are hot on the tail of an assassin who has stolen a hard drive containing the identities of every undercover agent from the nations belonging to NATO. M makes a quick call that leads to a terrible accident (those who know the film's marketing likely know what it is, but I'll keep this review spoiler-free), costing her the drive, and as we soon find out, her job. Government official Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) is brought in to oversee M's transition out of power as she herself instructs Bond to hunt down who is targeting her and putting MI6 risk.
        Aside from the Bond actors themselves, the James Bond films have always had good casts, with talents such as Robert Shaw, Diana Rigg Christopher Lee, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, and Halle Berry appearing alongside their respective 007s as friends, foes, or a mixture of the two. Skyfall is no different in this respect, with the returning Craig and Dench joined by Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw (as the new Q), the aforementioned Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem as the film's sure-to-be-classic villain Raoul Silva. Bardem steals the show anytime he's on screen, a bleached-blonde, flamboyant hacker who seeks revenge against the institution, and woman, that betrayed him long ago. Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe make for fine Bond girls, the former playing the field agent 007 works, flirts, and jokes with, while the latter plays one of Silva's pawns, caught in an unfortunate situation Bond could possibly remedy. Although both Harris and Marlohe fit the more traditional mold of a Bond girl, they don't have as much screen time as their predecessors, and that's because it's Dench who is front and center as the woman in Bond's life in Skyfall. The film explores the quasi-maternal relationship she has with 007 (who was an orphan, after all), something that informs Silva's motivations, and Dench and Craig play this relationship beautifully, especially as the film nears its conclusion. Although it likely doesn't need to be stated, Craig continues to inhabit the role of James Bond with a distinct tough exterior and playful attitude that makes the part his own, the latter characteristic being something that the writers sought to restore to Bond after a fairly dower Quantum of Solace.
        The screenplay for Skyfall, written by Bond veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, along with franchise newcomer John Logan, is a key element of what makes the film work. It returns the trademark sense of humor that this film series has long been identified with, all the while adjusting and strengthening the darker tone set by the reboot that was Casino Royale. That film got away with quite a few departures given that it was essentially Bond's origin story, so if all the key ingredients weren't there, we could forgive them, enjoy new and exciting ride, and expect to see those things in the next film. But that didn't happen, and so Skyfall became the reboot of the rebooted Bond, and the work done by Purvis, Wade, and Logan deftly balances paying homage to tradition and forging a new path. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were wise to hire the creative team they did, and perhaps the most important hire of the entire crew was director Sam Mendes. An Academy Award winner for his film American Beauty, Mendes was the kind of non-action director that few would normally consider for a Bond film, but he turned out to be the one person who made it all come together.
        One thing that many hated about Quantum of Solace was its shaky, quickly edited action sequences, something familiar to Bourne fans, so one of the immediately noticeable differences in Skyfall is the steady camera that keeps everything in the frame easy to see and understand. Yet another visual piece of Skyfall's success is its absolutely gorgeous digital cinematography by Roger Deakins, a Mendes and Cohen brothers regular who has created with Mendes a beautiful set of images; from to neon-clad skyscrapers of Shanghai to the fog covered moors of Scotland, everything is stunning. Team Mendes also includes composer Thomas Newman, who delivers a very Bondian score with not just a proper use of the classic theme, but also some electric guitar-infused moments that remind us that this is a James Bond film, not just another spy thriller. Another quintessentially Bond element that is a massive success here is Adele's title song, which invokes the Shirley Bassey tunes of old while delivering some ominous themes for the film's story as it plays over the wonderful opening credits. I can't say whether or not Mendes had a hand in approaching Adele for the theme (I think it may have been the producers), but her work is undoubtedly excellent, and well-deserving of that Best Song Oscar. Overall, watching Skyfall, I could easily tell that a great director was at the helm, because my mind was always on the film, and I was completely wrapped up in the story and spectacle on the screen before me.
        Now, that would seem like a fine place to end this review, but I'm trying to break the world record for longest film review I think it would be a wasted opportunity if I didn't address some complaints I've heard expressed about this film. One concern is that Skyfall is too dark, or even joyless when placed alongside the lighter (but in no way lesser) fair that Sean Connery took part in, and while I can't deny that, I think the James Bond film series is the rare entity that needs to evolve with the times, and with the Bond of the moment. Connery was a winking balance of sly, suave, and powerful, Roger Moore was far goofier yet still refined, Timothy Dalton was cold and intense, and Pierce Brosnan was an action hero blended with a Bond not too dissimilar to Connery's. Daniel Craig gives us a 007 along the lines of what Dalton attempted in the late 1980s, a cold killer (something closer to Bond creator Ian Flemming's original vision), although he adds his own level of charm and wit that brings to mind Connery's work. The Bond franchise has always evolved with time, and with Skyfall it's found the right way to introduce a more serious atmosphere to its inherently playful world. The one other major criticism I've heard voiced about this film is that its action is too big and bombastic, essentially a great deal of noise. Compared to Dr. No, the 23rd Bond film does seem like a Transformers movie, but looking back at the 007 outings from 1987 onwards (I'm less familiar with Moore's films) reveals Bond has been in the middle of an action extravaganza series for more than two decades, and Skyfall handles the action quite artfully compared to some of the recent Bond films.
        I'm sure we'd all like to see Sean Connery back in that classic Aston Martin as his 1960s self, but ever since George Lazenby and Roger Moore inherited the role of Bond from Connery (the Grover Cleaveland of 007s), it's been understood that once an actor leaves the role, their interpretation of the character can never live twice. Daniel Craig has proven to be a worthy successor to the Bonds that came before, and Skyfall only enforces that he's the right 007 for our times. Sam Mendes' entry in the James Bond franchise has set a new standard for this long-enduring series. Following legendary work that's come before is an unbelievably daunting task, let alone altering a tone and formula that's been so successful in the past, but when it comes to rebooting a franchise, charting a new course for the future, nobody's done it better. 10/10



*The first four Bond films starring Sean Connery were released four years in a row, from 1962 to 1965.


The über-mega-length review returns! And I thought my Man of Steel review was long. Well, I suppose a 50 year old franchise demands quite a few words.

Man of Steel

By Harry McPhaul

I realize that saying Man of Steel is the best recent superman movie is not exactly saying a lot.  They succeed in that making this one have a different portrayal of superman.  It felt more like they trying to do what the Dark Knight series did by making the character seem more human.  Another part of the film I liked was the special effects.

I am sure technology has changed a lot since the last superman came out but this one just looked so much better.  All scenes that involved him flying or jumping looked exceptionally  realistic.  The only part that looked fake right away was the people of Clark Kent’s (superman) home planet.  They were wearing protective armor and I could easily see when the head and body were not in sync.  Something as small as that did not change my opinion on the film.  The acting also helped to make this film better than the previous ones.

I have not seen Henry Cavill in anything before this film so I was not sure what to expect.  Altogether I would have to say I did enjoy his performance.  A few times he did have a few corny looks on his face but sometimes its hard not to over act on some scenes. I think Amy Adams is a quality actress but she has reached her limit as to how great she can be for me.  I see her as an actress that will not ruin the movie but can not be the one main reason the movie is great.  I liked her in this role because she was not required to hold the whole weight of the movie but just hold her own piece.  She does perfectly fine in doing that in her role as Lois Lane.  

Overall, Man of Steel is probably going to be one of the best movies to see this summer.  It had a great combination of action and drama. If you like the most recent batman films then you will like this one.  It was a film that I was certainly entertained by.  I would recommend that you see it before it goes out of theaters.  It really needs to be seen on the big screen.  I would give it a 8.5/10.

Man of Steel

Grounding Superman

by Hunter Isham

        It's been seven years since we last saw Superman on the big screen, and that film, Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, came up a bit short where Zack Snyder's Man of Steel succeeds, although the opposite can be said as well. Returns was both a throwback to and continuation of the Richard Donner Superman films that starred the irreplaceable Christopher Reeve, even featuring the now famous John Williams march that helped the audience believe that a man could fly. It's moments of reverence proved to be what held it back from being the smash hit Warner Bros. wanted, and so here we are, with Christopher Nolan's (a writer/producer on this film) Dark Knight Trilogy concluded, a shortage of DC Comics characters on the screen, and the competitors at Marvel riding high on their Avengers-laiden cinematic universe. Superman is arguably a bigger cinematic hero than Batman (or at least he was before Nolan's films), and if Warner Bros. wants to reach Marvel-ous heights without rebooting and retreading Gotham's caped crusader, they need a fiscally robust Clark Kent to propel them forward.
        Reversing directions of the often upbeat Superman Returns, the studio accepted a story pitch from Nolan and co-writer (and sole screenwriter) David S. Goyer that poses the question of how humanity would react if it found an individual as strong as Superman among its own. An essentially indestructible, one-man weapon of mass destruction. We'd probably be wary that his interests lay with our own. This, and the film's non-linear structure, are what give it an interesting edge, and they're what make the film worth seeing. Somewhat strangely, the film begins to stumble as it heads into its massive action climax, but at least they deliver enough story in the first half to make me want to see the next installment.
        That story is a smartly rewritten and rearranged version of the origin story we all know, the one that is prominently featured in Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie. Kal-El, born on Krypton to Lara (Ayelet Zurer) and Jor-El (Russell Crowe), is sent from his soon to be destroyed planet to Earth, home to flawed but potentially capable individuals. After crash landing in Kansas, he's discovered and raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Swap in Marlon Brando for Crowe and we're back in 1978 again, right? Wrong. This Krypton is more than the background for a quick prologue, it's the fuel that keeps the villain crusading against Superman, not to mention a cinematic science fiction marvel to look at. Once Kal-El leaves his homeworld, the majority of the film is spent in the present day, as a grown up Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) lives out his days as a drifter intent on using his world-changing powers as little as possible. The film often flashes back to Clark's younger years, when he learns to reconcile his human home with his alien abilities, all under the guidance of his adopted father. When Clark eventually discovers who he really is (this time under the guidance of a simulated Jor-El), he begins his journey as the Man of Steel, a process that is accelerated as the last survivors of Krypton, a militant group led by the snarling General Zod (Michael Shannon), come looking for him.
        All of this works fairly well, but my enjoyment of the film was suspended as the following action continued. It begins with a good ol' brawl in Smallville (the Kents' hometown), and it continues into Metropolis. But then it ends... until it continues some more. If you see Man of Steel, you'll know what I mean. Part of the problem with the Metropolis action is the sheer scope of damage done to the city (quite a bit is already done to Smallville). Buildings collapse and city blocks are razed, leaving me wondering how the big blue boy scout could allow so much collateral damage. Even forgiving that destruction, the mass-anihilation that occurs during Superman's final confrontation with General Zod will make your jaw hit the floor given that it's just two people fighting. Punching most often, which is another problem entirely; after so much action, the super-sonic punches that the Kryptonians deliver to each other get a bit derivative (there is some human action going on as well, but not as much). Much of the action in Man of Steel is quite spectacular, but don't count on leaving your seat until the last punch has been thrown, not that you should or could keep count.
        As you may have guessed, the character elements of this film are its saving graces, and a lot of that has to do with its wonderful cast. Henry Cavill, though not given as much of the character's trademark levity as Reeve, is perfect for the role of Clark Kent/Superman, providing the proper amount of confusion and solemnity, with just a few sly remarks that inform where this character is headed in the sequel. Crowe is solid as the regal and intelligent Jor-El, although it's Costner who tugs at your heart strings as the young hero's moral center. He brings Jonathan Kent a wisdom and uncertainty that informs this film's take on the character of Superman, guiding his son as to when the right time will be to step up and become the hero he was born to be. Diane Lane, though not given as much to do, is equally good, struggling to help her son deal with his inherent differences. Michael Shannon is appropriately angry and imposing as General Zod, although he lacks the trademark interesting quirks of a Joker, or (as is the case in the Superman mythology) a Lex Luthor. One of the film's undeniable strengths, a character and actress I have yet to mention, is Amy Adams' Lois Lane. Superman's persona of "Clark Kent, bumbling reporter" doesn't really appear until the film's conclusion, so there's no screwball comedy intrigue between the thinly veiled Superman and his whip smart colleague. Instead, Adams gives us an intrepid reporter who is tracking a mysterious, godlike drifter, until their paths eventually cross (this film doesn't waste time by retreading a will they/won't they scenario involving Kent's true identity). Lane has plenty to do in Man of Steel, and we can be thankful for the fact that she will likely have even more in any future films. The rest of the cast is excellent, including Harry Lennix and Christopher Meloni as members of the U.S. military, Richard Schiff (Toby from The West Wing!) as a military scientist, and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Editor in Chief of The Daily Planet.
        Man of Steel is an attempt to ground Superman in a more serious reality, much like Christopher Nolan's treatment of Batman. Director Zack Snyder and his creative team mostly succeed, forging a new path for the character, although they go too dark at times, losing the winking humor the character is known for, and making the action too thunderously derivative of itself to enjoy beyond a certain point. The fantastic cast saves the film, as does an invigorating score by Hans Zimmer that bares no resemblance to the Williams music, making this the rare summer movie that does more right with its characters than it does with its action. If you make it through to the film's climax, its epilogue will hopefully leave you with the notion that Superman is in the right hands, headed in the right direction, even if he faces his share of turbulence on the way there. I'm more than curious to see where Snyder and Goyer take Clark Kent, as I hope we get a few more jokes and a more interesting foe next time. Man of Steel is the Superman film we asked for, if not the one we need, and if the filmmakers keep listening to the audience, we may actually get the Superman movie we deserve. 7.75/10



P.S. I saw this film in 2D Imax (the film already has a drab, desaturated look, so the tint from 3D glasses will likely make for an unpleasant viewing experience), and while it looked great on a massive screen, its very loud soundtrack was too much to handle on the powerful sound system that comes with those 70 ft. screens. It may have just been where I saw the film, but if you value your ability to hear things, you may want to go with a conventional screening.