Good day, democratic imbeciles. You first knew him as a Kazakh news reporter, then as an Austrian fashionista. Now, dedicated character comedian Sacha Baron Cohen plays a North African fascist in “The Dictator”. The journey of Admiral General Aladeen is unlike his predecessors in that it’s not done in a mockumentary style. So, how does this change the actor’s shtick?

The use of a traditional story (and those words aren’t being used lightly — it’s cookie-cutter) attempts to mainstream Cohen’s brand of humor, whether that was a conscious choice or not. The pop-culture references are a bit more frequent, the potty humor dialed up and the shock gags not as inspired as say, two grown men wrestling naked and chasing each other through a hotel. All the same, Cohen’s trademarks are still there, from ignorance-based jokes to thoughtful satire.

The writing team that assisted Cohen with the screenplay consists of three “Curb Your Enthusiasm” writers, one of which is Jeff Schaffer, who wrote “Bruno.” These folks are all familiar with a looser narrative style, in which the story builds around the jokes. Even director Larry Charles (producer on “Curb”), who did “Bruno” and “Borat,” has essentially no typical storytelling experience. As with any film with a plot simply meant to string together a necklace of gags, the individual jokes are forced to carry the film and the results are hit and miss.

Aladeen is a great deal more unpredictable than Cohen’s previous characters. You never know if you’re going to get the poor idiot routine a la “Borat” or the strong-willed dictator used to getting his way. It keeps you on your toes, but feels less complete and ultimately less lovable. It also doesn’t help that the plot has him trying to thwart his brother’s (Ben Kingsley) plan to turn Wadiya into a democracy. That said, Cohen most definitely wants make you feel uncomfortable rooting for a character who yearns to oppress his people once again.

Capped off by a simple yet brilliant speech about all the things America could do if it were a dictatorship, Cohen’s commentary hits some strong notes during the film, even if it doesn’t compare to the eye-opening methods of his first two, especially “Borat.” For the most part, however, the script focuses on making sure no minority loses out on some form of a jab.

Yet for all the genuinely creative jokes, like a misinterpreted helicopter ride over New York City, “The Dictator” relies a bit too much on sight gags, like a man yanked out of a bathroom mid-urination or the milking of a woman’s breasts. It’s just stupider than “Borat” and “Bruno”, and with that track record in mind, you’re just kind of stunned when an obvious attempt to get laughs draws silence. Fortunately the hits outweigh the misses, but when your story isn’t all that interesting, the misses start to stand out.

Given the array of recognizable cast members, “The Dictator” is also much more of an ensemble effort, but it is definitely Cohen’s show. The casting of Kingsley proves wasteful unless it was to make the point that Kingsley can play any race or religion, but his collaboration with Cohen on “Hugo” is the likely explanation. Anna Faris tries to add some heart as a semi-butch super-organic shop owner, but she’s drastically underutilized for someone as funny as she has proven to be. The biggest supporting highlights come courtesy Jason Mantzoukas (Rafi on FX’s The League), who plays the perfect foil to Cohen because he’s given every opportunity to call Aladeen out on his stupidity.

Unsurprisingly, the bar Cohen set with “Borat” will sour people on “The Dictator”. You want to walk out of one of his comedies feeling challenged and pushed further than you ever expected (in terms of entertainment), whereas the tone of “The Dictator” is clever, but resonates as mostly silly.

As far as the “traditional comedy” experiment goes, next time (assuming there is one) Cohen and Charles should try working with a story structure at least resembling more of a mockumentary, even—dare I say—found footage. It does not have to go back down the road of roping in real people, but Cohen benefits from that touch of realism.

The results of attempting to translate Cohen’s style to the rise-and-fall format suggest that his brand of comedy needs more space to breathe. The sketches and bits need time to develop organically, without an obligation to a through plot line. Fortunately, there’s enough successful humor here to see Cohen through until the next ridiculous character.

3/5 Stars

• The Dictator
• Directed by Larry Charles
• Written by Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeff Schaffer, Alec Berg, David Mandel
• Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley, Anna Faris, Jason Mantzoukas

It has finally been assembled. Marvel’s decision to make “The Avengers” might seem like the superhero equivalent of the ensemble movie “Valentine’s Day,” or the theory that stuffing multiple popular actors into one movie is an adequate substitute for storytelling and makes it so marketable that no one could pass it up.

While that’s not necessarily not true of Marvel’s super plan five years in the making, “The Avengers” means something more to comic and superhero fans; it is a culmination of a lifetime of anticipation that does in fact have a historical precedent set by Marvel Comics. Essentially, this movie is a collective nerd-gasm, but whether you’re part of it or not, there’s plenty to love about how geek godfather Joss Whedon tackles this gargantuan task.

Still, it’s pretty amazing what bundling seven or so of the most beloved comic characters of all time into one package can do when it comes to creating an entertaining diversion. Many folks will nitpick at “The Avengers” script from now until eternity, but something needs to be said for the experience of being so awe-stricken that you couldn’t care about those things if you tried. There’s no shame in covering up “flaws” with entertainment, especially when you deliver that entertainment with a level of quality rivaled by few blockbusters of this scale.

“The Avengers” is a near-perfect execution of giving the people what they want. If you had to make a list of what you wanted from an “Avengers” movie, Whedon and Marvel would appear to have read your mind. The action sequences blow every previous superhero film out of the air, land and sea, the wit and humor come from more than just a series of punchlines or catch phrases, and all the characters get a chance to shine from an action and development perspective.

Story is secondary to achieving those goals. Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) power-obsessed brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has made a deal with an alien race known as the Chitauri to destroy Earth so he can rule it. He breaks into a S.H.I.E.L.D. facility and steals the Tesseract, an object at the center of “Captain America: The First Avenger” that has the power to open a gateway through which the Chitauri can invade. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), realizing Earth is about to be at war with an unstoppable force, summons Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), a displaced Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor in hopes they can place nice and band together to stop Loki.

So you have high stakes (global destruction), and a force powerful enough to justifiably bring all these heroes together. That’s all you really need. The script properly gives each hero reasons to fight and a personal journey, something to overcome. All this for seven characters in a 140-minute runtime. Even though we’re building up to yet another movie climax that involves the destruction of a major American city by hostile alien forces, it’s still this unique grouping of characters that changes the whole game.

As someone who seems to specialize in creating projects that develop cult followings, Whedon was really a perfect choice to write and direct. Despite what one would assume to be a lot of pressure, you never get the sense that “The Avengers” is trying too hard. The balancing act of all these characters might have seemed too tall an order for any one man, yet with actors really dedicated to the souls of their characters, Whedon and the cast pack in so much into even the smallest of exchanges.

One character the movie excels at in particular is The Hulk. Ruffalo commands the role of Banner as if he was the one who played him in the first two “Hulk” features. The script paints him as the team’s secret weapon, but also as the most volatile link in the chain. Some fear the green monster, others (Tony Stark) try to provoke him. Either way, despite sharing screen time, this Hulk is both more brutal and emotionally accessible than ever before. More than any other character, you’ll end up most curious about what Marvel might do with him next.

In general, the lack of time needing to be spent on plot development gets rationed off to all the characters, allowing the third-act action to pay off in more terms than simply eye candy. Each hero has a personal story arc or obstacle to overcome, whether its Tony Stark proving he can set aside his ego or Captain American understanding that he can be relevant in the 21st Century.

With so many heroes in one film, Hiddleston had to bear a ton of weight as Loki, creating a presence that could balance out all these good guys. Although not much of a physical threat, his The Joker-like move to allow himself to be imprisoned gives him the fuel to be cunning and unpredictable in performance and in actuality.

From a pure entertainment perspective, “The Avengers” should be considered king of all superhero movies. What it lacks in thematic and character depth it makes up for with action and humor. Whedon writes so expertly around cliches and identifies ways to make the film naturally funny, and the way the action scenes are edited together, there’s no confusion in regard to what’s going on despite the chaos of the Chitauri invasion scene.

Marvel deserves all the credit in the world for building to this point and delivering precisely what fans wanted. Although anyone can enjoy this romp, not just those who saw both “Iron Man” films, “Thor” and “Captain America,” there’s no doubt the legwork in those films makes it so much easier to enjoy the entire dynamic of “The Avengers.” What a momentous achievement from a business, filmmaking and audience perspective.

4.5/5 Stars

The Avengers
Directed by Joss Whedon
Written by Joss Whedon, Zak Penn, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (characters)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Renner

The horror genre clings onto and feeds off of audience expectations. From a fan perspective, horror-lovers tend to flock to films that appear as if they will evoke the feelings of previous successes, even to the point of supporting blatant mimicry. From a filmmaking perspective, a horror director’s go-to card is expectation—the audience recognizing those classic audio and visual clues that create the anticipation of a scare.

The entire horror genre is built on the foundation of what we think will happen, so when “The Cabin in the Woods” comes along and utilizes these expectations while also blowing the roof completely off them, it makes for a wildly entertaining success.

Sure, some folks will want a run-of-the-mill “cabin in the woods” story, the one we’ve seen a thousand times thanks to paragons “Friday the 13th” and “The Evil Dead” among others. “The Cabin in the Woods” might let down those purists who rank the scare factor as top priority, but for fans of parody and satire, this is a must-see.

The minds behind the film suggest a certain intelligence you won’t find in horror offerings from amateurs. Drew Goddard, writer of “Cloverfield” and on TV’s “Lost,” and Joss Whedon, one of the most revered names in geek culture, team up on a script that delivers a great deal of wit and at the same time a strong mystery, a combination that makes for an irrepressibly exciting movie.

“The Cabin in the Woods” requires a certain amount of aversion to spoilers in order to be fully enjoyed, though so many unsuspected twists crop up that a few details won’t actually ruin anything. Essentially, five college kids head to a remote cabin for the weekend and predictably ignore some tell-tale signs that something’s amiss. The catch is that despite seeing this setup before, we as an audience don’t even quite know what’s going on this time around. The fact that the film doesn’t open on a cabin, woods, or college kids is your first hint.

Perhaps the biggest surprise has nothing do with the plot: the young protagonists are somewhat likable and the actors portraying them have a good deal of talent. Nearly everyone will recognize Chris Hemsworth (Thor himself) as Curt, but the highlights are unknowns Kristen Connolly and Fran Kranz as Dana and Marty, one an attractive bookworm and the other a clever stoner. The characters fit your horror stereotypes, but each with a bit of a twist that makes them more respectable. Even the “dumb blonde” (Anna Hutchison) isn’t that dumb as she cares about her friends. Heck, the fact that these five would all be friends is kind of a jab at stereotypes.

Strong writing reinforces the fact that these are more developed characters and shows Goddard and Whedon recognize that even though the goal is to turn the genre upside down, their film still needs to do the things good horror films do right in order to succeed.

Without giving anything away, the central idea behind the movie is basically to give a mythology to a typical horror story motif such as the cabin in the woods, to weave it together with a science-fiction yarn that allows us to look at the genre both with humor and a greater reverence.

“The Cabin in the Woods” provides pure entertainment of a brilliant sort, an absolute rarity in any genre, let alone horror. With some pitch-perfect casting in roles best kept a secret, Goddard and Whedon sell their twist with great effectiveness. In hindsight, the whole operation could have backfired had there been just the slightest reason not to stay interested or care about the characters.

Anyone with a keen eye for or love of satire and a familiarity with the horror offerings being played off of will find themselves on the exact same page as Goddard throughout the film. Consequently, these folks will simply love “The Cabin in the Woods.” It’s one thing to poke fun at a genre—anyone can do that, especially in horror. This movie does it without flopping into silly mindless spoof territory, instead entertaining us exactly as a traditional horror riff would.

Although you won’t see critical accolades because genre films get no love, “The Cabin in the Woods” will get its due when it appears on countless Best of 2012 lists—unless more and more 2012 movies that aren’t supposed to be this good soar beyond expectations.

4.5/5 Stars

The Cabin in the Woods
Directed by Drew Goddard
Written by Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Connolly, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Anna Hutchison

It’s fair to say Luc Besson has gotten a bit giddy ever since “Taken.” The man who once upon a time brought us “La Femme Nikita” and “Leon: The Professional” has instead taken  to lighter action fare, in this case recruiting amateurs James Mather and Stephen St. Leger to help write and direct his “original idea.” Exactly—not a “story by” credit, but “original idea.”

That’s not to say “Lockout” isn’t creative, but it’s definitely not original. Some might dub it “Taken in space,” especially considering it borrows that film’s starlet in Maggie Grace, but it’s much more akin to “Escape from New York in space.” Either way, “Lockout” is another simple-concept action film from Besson, only it has a bigger ego that gets in the way sometimes.

“Lockout” is good for kicks, a fact of which it’s very aware. Guy Pearce’s Snow, the morally questionable and reluctant hero written so closely to the archetype he almost transcends it, weirdly. He has a sense of humor best described as abundant (though sometimes quite clever), and Pearce plays him especially wry; most actors (think Nicolas Cage) would’ve hammed it up too much or been unconvincing.

Snow is tasked with rescuing the president’s daughter (Grace), who is stuck on a maximum security prison in space that has incurred a major security breach. These are the world’s most dangerous criminals, plus they have been in stasis for any number of years, which has made them even nuttier. Joseph Gilgun as Rydell, one of two Scottish prisoners trying to run the uprising, is a particularly deranged fellow reminiscent of a demented Groundskeeper Willie.

Both Rydell and the other main baddie, Alex (Vincent Regan), have a cold-blooded edge that could have made for an effective R-rated ransom thriller reminiscent of late ‘90s films like Air Force One, but the devil-may-care attitude of the entire movie ultimately clashes with these darker moments, even though they do make you take the movie more seriously than you would otherwise.

After a little bit of context at the beginning to properly motivate Snow, both he and us are effectively shot from a canon. The story only slows down a bit toward the end, but it mostly plays out as a series of dominoes. The action doesn’t satisfy so much as the pace and the threat of violence (now here’s a good example of how you do PG-13 violence), but it’s well done aside from an opening motorcycle sequence shot on green screen and outfitted with an effects job that really shows the budget.

Aside from that, the futuristic sci-fi elements stay pretty classy—nothing overdone or distracting. The gadgets provide some creativity to a number of the sequences and the script manages to inject some unpredictability into a story that could not have a more obvious trajectory.

Despite the self-awareness at points, with a lot of that credit going to Pearce, Lockout tries especially hard to be entertaining on too many fronts, aspiring to be the consummate popcorn flick rather than just identifying one tone and sticking with it. The final scene on the space prison strangely evokes the original “Star Wars” Death Star run, as if to make sure the audience gets to munch on some sci fi/fantasy before the credits roll.

It’s hard to fault “Lockout” for aiming to please considering that that spirit seems to be the driving force behind the movie’s strengths as well as its weaknesses. Although the number of attempts at humor might catch some folks off guard, “Lockout” offers what anyone interested in the film would expect, if for no other reason than its built upon tons of tropes from previously effective movies. In turn, “Lockout” is effective, but not too much more.

3/5 Stars

Lockout
Directed by James Mather, Stephen St. Leger
Written by James Mather, Stephen St. Leger, Luc Besson
Starring: Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, Joseph Gilgun, Vincent Regan

The hype, the fan base, the skeptics—the skeptics created by the hype and the fan base—all of these make adapting an insanely popular novel anything but easy. Given the breadth of the age and gender demographics that Suzanne Collins’ young adult science-fiction story “The Hunger Games” has reached, there are so many niches to please. You have older males intrigued by the dystopian vision and unabashed violence and the younger females inspired by Katniss Everdeen and moved by the story’s many tender relationships (and vice-versa to be certain).

“The Hunger Games” is without question a success, but a success can be measured in so many ways. An adaptation can be a success through faithfulness to the source material (aka by not screwing anything up) and pleasing the core fans (that would be “Twilight”). It can be determined by box-office success (also “Twilight”) or by taking risks in order to create a unique film experience and widen its appeal. Director Gary Ross’ vision for “The Hunger Games” checks off all of the above, and the secret is the film’s total and undying devotion to its leading lady.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her mother and younger sister Prim (Willow Shields) in District 12, one of a dozen in the nation of Panem, a dictatorship built on the ruins of North America. She’s the family breadwinner, quite literally, as her hunting skills allow her to feed her family and trade for whatever else they need. She’s torn from them, however, when, in order to protect Prim, she volunteers to represent District 12 in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death that serves as an annual reminder of the Capitol’s hold on its people.

In many ways, the role echoes Lawrence’s Oscar-nominated performance in “Winter’s Bone,” and Ross’s camera treats her in ways similar to that drama. She’s fierce, independent yet a bit emotionally volatile, a survivalist as well as a nurturer. Ross recognizes the complexity Collins infused in her literary heroine and approaches the film as a character study. Rather than pristinely framed shots, Ross opts for mostly handheld camerawork throughout the film, especially in the beginning, as if trying to document Lawrence’s performance in order to access Katniss’ emotions and the roller coaster they endure.

The film takes its time in the beginning with this naturalistic approach and it makes the buildup to the games essentially better than the payoff. Those who have read the book countless times and no precisely what’s coming next will still find themselves enrapt by the suspense. The Reaping, the scene in which the District 12 tributes are chosen, is executed breathlessly, especially considering that from the movie’s opening minutes the outcome is about as obvious as putting a match to flint.

During the steady climb to the arena, Ross gives us as much time to get used to the world of the Capitol as Katniss receives in the story. Although our natural curiosity creates the desire to become fully immersed in this world of colorful makeup, bizarre fashion and extravagant dining, Ross refuses us. He aspires to preserve the feelings of total displacement that Katniss experiences, for it to seem as weird to us as it does to her. The choice is a risky one for folks unfamiliar with the book, which delves deeper into Katniss’ makeover, but the script, which Ross, Collins and Billy Ray (“State of Play,” “Flightplan”) collaborated on, finds ways to paint that picture through expertly crafted dialogue delivered by outstanding supporting actors.

Effie (Elizabeth Banks), Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and Cinna (Lenny Kravtiz) are spot-on with their performances, despite being criminally under-explored. We like the honest and gentle Cinna, for example, but we don’t get to understand why he cares for Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). Banks’ bubbly Effie gives us a taste of the Capitol’s ignorance, but she’s otherwise relegated to comic relief. As for Harrelson as drunken mentor Haymitch, he gets some of the best lines in the entire film, ones that somehow weaving together wit with exposition, but in a flash he goes from morally questionable to lovable ally. It would seem these are the sacrifices of making a genre film with such a complex main character.

As for the Games, Ross amps up the guerilla style in order to continue our experience of Katniss’ emotions. Scenes including Peeta, therefore, offer a welcome change of pace, pulling us out of the Katniss vortex. By association, Hutcherson gives a likable performance and Hutcherson’s interpretation is so convincingly like that of Peeta in the novel.

Shaky-cam also offers a great way to distort teen-on-teen violence for the purposes of a PG-13 rating. Although the deaths are still startling, the lack of blood or really any bare-knuckle grittiness makes the action scenes rather uneventful and mostly mutes the emotional impact. Collins’ descriptions in the book are infinitely more terrifying. Although the squeamish could care less, the prospect of facing death in the arena as well as the horrific notion that any world would take pleasure in fashioning and consuming this mass homicide almost never come to conscience. The choice to glaze over death is certainly not an artistic but a financial one, which as a fan is a tough pill to swallow. At least the devotion to character makes up for it.

Violence and supporting character development are the chief sacrifices, but they are not martyrs. They were decisions made knowing the result would bring one of the strongest young-adult heroines (and frankly, heroes) to grace the screen in some time. Even the romance is downplayed (for this movie) in order to set the stakes for the brewing sense of revolution that determines the trajectory of the rest of the series.

“The Hunger Games” proves that one of the few things that books and films have in common—characters—lie at the heart of a successful adaptations. The film’s devotion to re-creating the book’s first-person perspective (without the use of narration) sets it apart. Ross and company bring us into the world of the books with an artistic flair that outdoes every first installment of a high-profile adaptation, a vision that does not succumb to the task’s infinite pressures. Happy Hunger Games indeed.

4/5 Stars

The Hunger Games
Directed by Gary Ross
Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Liam Hemsworth

What was the point of making a “21 Jump Street” movie? No, really, why bother remaking or rebooting re-imagining a short-lived cop series from the ‘80s, especially when you’ve targeted your movie at people born long after it went off the air?

The way writer Michael Bacall along with Jonah Hill, directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller and anyone else with a creative hand in this movie answer this question earns “21 Jump Street” its badge of honor—or dishonor, depending how you look at it.

“21 Jump Street” is as monumental of a sendup as has ever been committed to film. It’s mere existence serves us a refreshing dose of Hollywood self-ridicule uncommon in today’s movies. Oh, and it’s really funny.

The film reveals its intentions early when Nick Offerman’s Dep. Chief Hardy assigns our heroes Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) to 21 Jump Street where they’ll be debriefed on going undercover as high schoolers, but not before rambling about how the higher-ups like to waste everyone’s time reviving dead programs from the ‘80s. Sounds like Hollywood in a nutshell.

Everything from chase scenes to the buddy-cop dynamic to explosions faces the satirical scrutiny of the filmmakers and Lord and Miller play it up to the point at which it can neither be taken too seriously or blown off as immature twaddle.

Hill and Tatum make a good duo, but Tatum’s presence in the film makes it fresh. Unless you subjected yourself to “The Dilemma,” you’ve never witnessed his comic prowess. His combination of bravado, idiocy and deep-seated social insecurity as Jenko make him a real hit. Hill also works the full range of smart and awkward to totally outrageous.

The script uses the brilliant device of having these two accidentally assume the high-school identity intended for the other, so Tatum has to hang out with the dorks while Hill must get in with the cool kids. A spot-on satire of how high-school kids have completely changed in just a matter of five or six years emerges here. Of our two high-school drug dealers, one cares a lot about green initiatives and the other is gay, which is not exactly in line with high-school stereotypes. At one point, Tatum profanely blames “Glee” for screwing up the once-Darwinian nature of the high school social hierarchy.

As for jokes, “21 Jump Street” piles on crude humor, though usually with more effectiveness than most run-of-the-mill R-rated offerings. Seeing as Schmidt and Jenko must track down the supplier of a new synthetic drug, the movie offers more than a couple instances of drug-trip sequences, namely one in which Eric (Dave Franco, James’ little brother) makes the two try the drug so he “knows they’re cool.” Given that the script explicitly states that the drug works in four main stages — one of which is “tripping major ballsack” — it builds up the humor more effectively.

Immaturity abounds in the film, but with a wink and a smile. Except for maybe an older, slightly more ignorant audience, few people will watch this start to finish and not realize the filmmakers are aware of the dumb and silly moments in the movie. You can even see through the awkward quasi-romance between Schmidt and Brie Larson’s character, Molly, because no one would find romantic catharsis in a budding relationship between a 25-year-old and high school senior.

Like most modern comedies, “21 Jump Street” has a number of misses in spite of its many successful laughs, but the majority of them work, especially because in painting this typical picture of high school, it adds a few fine details of what high school is really like these days.

Best, however, for those familiar with the TV show to divorce themselves from anything related to it, as the movie merely leeches off the name and premise, then tosses everything off to the side minus a few obvious in-jokes. It’s typical Hollywood, but the self-awareness of this phenomenally goofy comedy sets it apart from its peers.

4/5 Stars

21 Jump Street

Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller

Written by Michael Bacall, Jonah Hill

Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Dave Franco, Brie Larson

When we think of science fiction, we so often think about the future. We expect it to stretch our imaginations in ways we never thought possible with groundbreaking concepts beyond our current understanding. “John Carter” appears to aspire to that level. Yet in spite of the film’s hefty price tag, use of latest in motion-capture technology, 3D conversion and all the other tell-tale signs of an ambitious blockbuster, “John Carter” is classic, old-school sci fi/fantasy at heart.

And that’s the way it should be. After all, the source material comes from Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “A Princess of Mars,” a pulp story nearly 100 years old. Rather than give us a “John Carter” for the 21st Century, director Andrew Stanton gives us “John Carter” as made possible by the technological advancements of the 21st Century.

It starts with a vision, and that’s what Stanton (and all Pixar disciples) brings to the table. One can imagine the concept art he used to sell this movie to Disney didn’t change much from inception to the film canister. Anyone with unadulterated love for science fiction will be captivated by the “John Carter’s” production design. Especially in terms of costume and the big set pieces, the film has that Roman-inspired sci-fi look reminiscent of “Flash Gordon” and in some cases “Star Wars.”

As with most classical science fiction, the story deals almost exclusively in archetypes. Captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Civil War veteran who at the story’s beginning is dead. He has willed and entrusted his journal to his nephew, a fictionalized version of Burroughs (Sabara), the contents of which explain all that’s happened to him over the years, including how he ended up on Mars. Transported there mysteriously while prospecting for gold in Arizona, Carter becomes a near-prophetic hero to the planet’s race of green creatures called Tharks, but also saves a “red” woman named Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), who is a princess that begs of his help to end a brutal war.

The story and script maintains its composure throughout, something at which science-fiction films often fail. It starts like pulp and ends like pulp rather than aspiring to be above the material. Consequently, “John Carter” does little to appeal to anyone but a true sci-fi nerd; it asks us to embrace this fantastical world on Mars (or I should say Barsoom), just as Carter the character works his way through his interplanetary transplant rather than freaking out about it. Stanton and co-writers Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon (the novelist) spare us all the inane dialogue about how weird everything is on this planet. Carter just accepts it, and fans of this film will be the ones who follow his example.

The scope and scale of the film feels quite close to “Avatar,” as both were about visual wonder and stuck to basic storytelling. “John Carter” only loses points in terms of the quantity and intensity of the action sequences and the depth of character. Kitsch and Collins make for likable leads and you believe the emotions they feel, but they’re undeniably cookie-cutter.

Some of the side characters, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and Sola (Samantha Morton) show potential for some emotional pull, but it’s all short-lived as the story is constantly on the move to the next locale or sequence. The personal moments between characters are reserved for exposition and expanding the lore of Barsoom. Again, great for geeks, but I can’t imagine it will please much of anyone else.

Simply, “John Carter” is for nostalgists. Instead of being your modern science-based science fiction, this is the kind steeped in fantasy. It will make many recall the first time they experienced “Star Wars” or any similar film or television show that crafted its own world or universe. Stanton provides no shortage of things to marvel at, a variety of people, places and vehicles bound to capture the imaginations of younger moviegoers and gratify those who used to be those younger moviegoers.

There was a time when “John Carter” would have been a major hit and blown the minds of everyone who saw it. Science fiction has just evolved to the point that this kind of a story captures a specific time in our storytelling history rather than opening our eyes to the possibility of the future. That’s the difference between “John Carter” and “Avatar,” for one thing. So as much as Stanton and Disney have used the advances in special effects to tell this story in a way that it never could before and does so quite well, “John Carter” offers a very specific type of entertainment best for a niche audience.

3.5/5 Stars

• John Carter
• Directed by Andrew Stanton
• Written by Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon, Edgar Rice Burroughs (novel)
• Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe

The humor of “Wanderlust” and hippie communes share a similar mantra: embrace it or get the heck out. “Role Models” director David Wain and comedian Ken Marino have written a genuinely funny movie, only one that’s kind of pasted together like a spontaneous collage of humorous characters and moments rather than strung together with any notion of a compelling story.

In that sense, it’s almost a miracle “Wanderlust” works at all. A chance encounter with a hippie bed and breakfast and an impulsive decision to live free of social constructs hardly qualifies for conflict-resolution storytelling, but several colorful characters and a pair of likable leads maintain our curiosity as to what might happen next.

George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) have just purchased an apartment in New York City. Days later, George finds himself jobless thanks to an FBI investigation shutting down his company and Linda fails to successfully pitch her hard-hitting penguin documentary to HBO. They then head for Georgia to stay with George’s successful brother (Ken Marino) and his family, but after a night’s stay in “Elysium,” they determine that a little detachment could be a good thing.

Although rarely the source of humor, Aniston reminds us she’s an effortless leading lady that can roll with any kind of comedy. Rudd offers the usual charms and some dynamite improv. A scene where he psychs himself up in the mirror could be considered one of his best ever. It certainly ranks as the film’s most hysterical moment.

As for the ensemble at large, Elysium teems with curious characters, including a nudist winemaker/aspiring author (Joe Lo Truglio), a spiritually virile classical guitar player that everyone adores (Justin Theroux) and a free-love yoga teacher (Malin Ackerman) among others. Rather than being pure stereotypes of hippies and eccentrics, the actors genuinely embody their characters. Not every bit is funny, but few lapse into unfunny territory—that is so long as Wain’s mix of deadpan and obscene humor works for you.

George and Linda’s two-week trial run puts their marriage to the test of course, but little of that matters. In a way it works, because inserting straight scenes with the intent of drumming up the marital conflict would have marred the pacing, not to mention been remarkably unoriginal. On the other hand, it’s tough to feel anything when the couple is at odds over whether they should have a sexually liberated marriage. So long as their attempt to do so yields comic results (and it sure does), who cares?

Oddly enough, “Wanderlust” warrants numerous comparisons to the free-spirited lifestyle it both celebrates and pokes fun at. Although contemporary R-rated comedy techniques abound, (At what point will comedies decide to stop barraging audiences with flopping penises?) they seem less contrived in this movie. Everything feels more organic and care-free. Maybe it’s as simple as the fact that nudists and hallucinogenics make more sense in a movie about hippies, but either way it works.

But more than that, it’s the choice to avoid the obvious contemporary jokes that sit right in front of our noses that earns “Wanderlust” kudos. Not one scene deals with either George or Linda getting frustrated over bad cell phone reception or saying or doing anything to debase or devalue the commune or the lifestyle there for the sake of humor. That fact will go under-appreciated by most viewers.

“Wanderlust” essentially lives and dies with its purposelessness. So many comedies self-inflict their wounds by trying to create and maintain too much of a logical plot, whereas this one spares us the trouble. At the same time, a noteworthy premise—executed well or not—seizes the necessary attention for audiences to feel invested in a comedy.

Like its title implies, this movie meanders spontaneously in search of only laughs. It’s the kind of strategy that will likely divide audiences, but those like myself who feel Wain and company pulled it off will develop a sizable soft spot for this simple but quirky comedy.

3.5/5 Stars

Wanderlust
Directed by David Wain
Written by David Wain and Ken Marino
Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, Justin Theroux, Malin Ackerman

We’re now more than a decade into the modern superhero movie era, folks. At this point, we’ve just crossed the threshold of the “reboot phase,” in which studios have either been forced or decided to re-imagine some of the 2000‘s major superhero properties. We saw “X-Men: First Class” successfully relaunch the “X-Men” franchise last summer and Sony is hoping to do the same in July with “The Amazing Spider-Man.” Even the critical and/or financial flops of the 2000s, such as “Daredevil,” “Fantastic Four” and both “Hulk” films have reboots in the planning stages.

And then there’s “Ghost Rider.” After the first film met a rough reception from critics and audiences in 2007 and a few years passed without a sequel, it seemed that the story of demon-possessed daredevil Johnny Blaze would get a full makeover. Apparently not. 

Five years later we get “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance,” which puts Nicolas Cage in the seat of the Ghost Rider once again, but cleans the slate from the first film aside from a brisk debriefing on how Johnny received his curse. With the directors of “Crank” (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor) assigned to add a boost of adrenaline, this could be considered at least a dedication to improvement, right?

Nope. Although the action could be described as better and the visual depiction of the Ghost Rider improved and more fully realized, “Spirit of Vengeance” suffers from the same plot inanity as its predecessor, if not worse. It’s an exercise in obnoxious filmmaking and warrants a label as the blathering mental patient of all superhero movies.

Johnny Blaze is hiding out in Eastern Europe when a wine-slugging frenchman named Moreau (Idris Elba) comes knocking. He offers to rid Johnny of his curse if he’ll track down and protect a 13-year-old boy being hunted by the devil (Ciaran Hinds) for a specific purpose. Johnny finds the boy and his protective mother (Violante Placido), who also made a deal with the devil in her life, and you don’t need to know anything that happens after that.

When there’s no movement or kinetic energy to this “Ghost Rider,” it falls completely apart. Neveldine and Taylor only seem comfortable when cars go fast, and there’s not nearly enough of that in this script. The tone of the rest of the scenes, ones in which conversations and generic character interactions take place is a complete schizophrenic mess. You never know if Cage will deliver a trademark snarky comment or have a psychotic break. I’d say he hasn’t been this bad in a long time, but snarky/psychotic is Cage’s career in a nutshell.

The film possesses that mad-dog insanity of the “Crank” franchise, but being outlandish and lacking self-seriousness requires a full commitment. “Spirit of Vengeance” tries to be serious on too many occasions that whenever it tries to be crazy nut-job funny, it fails. A scene involving a Twinkie offers the only nugget of humor, but in the context of the film it’s completely useless. The dark, rough and devilish vibe of “Ghost Rider” does not gel with this sense of humor at all. It could, but the story is so horribly bland that it doesn’t matter. Remember that pissing fire scene from the trailer? It makes even less sense in the movie.

I will, however, give one ounce of credit to the depiction of the Ghost Rider. In addition to being more grisly and realistic thanks to improved CGI, he’s truly menacing. Too bad he doesn’t get enough of a spotlight; the real curse is when he turns back into Cage. The idea of Johnny trying to contain the Rider and keeping it from taking over him creates an intriguing “Incredible Hulk”-like dynamic that could’ve worked well in the story, but it only impacts one scene and Cage hams it up so badly that he ruins it.

From a pure entertainment standpoint, “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance” is only good when it’s on wheels, the fleeting moments when the kinetic style of its directors can be effective. Hinds gives a nice performance as a crazy Satan, but the rest of the film fails to commit to the same level of delightful lunacy, and everyone knows you don’t go half-lunatic.

Fox’s blind trust in “The Dark Knight” co-writer David S. Goyer and the others who helped on this script clearly didn’t work out. Keeping the original film’s director, Mark Steven Johnson, on as executive producer doesn’t make much sense either. Their film comes off as a careless effort meant for nothing but to keep the rights to “Ghost Rider” from reverting back to Marvel, where they’d be in much better hands.

1.5/5 Stars

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor
Written by Scott M. Gimple and Seth Hoffman, David S. Goyer
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Idris Elba, Violante Placido, Ciarán Hinds

Since the Golden Age of comic books, folks have been imagining what it would be like if ordinary people came across extraordinary power. But not until 2012 with “Chronicle” has anyone truly attempted to capture this notion with a sense of realism. Josh Trank and Max Landis have done just that with their low-budget found-footage take on superpower archetypes.

Found footage has exploded in the last 10 years. “The Blair Witch Project” just scratched the surface of the storytelling method’s appeal toward the general public as well as the medium’s secret ability to convince people that because it looks real, we for some reason must psychologically react to it as if it’s real.

Creating the illusion is about more than using lesser-quality lenses, however. At just 26 years old, Landis and Trank understand today’s teens better than anyone making wide-release Hollywood movies right now. The trio at the film’s center gets it too, and it results in some believable characters who react to developing telekinetic superpowers in ways you’d expect teenagers to: pranks, general tomfoolery and showing off.

Although three teenagers come across this power, the story belongs to Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a loner who gets bullied at school in addition to a depressing home life that includes a deathly ill mother and an abusive father. He begins recording his life as if to document his misery (not a stretch considering the number of personal YouTube channels out there), and this serves as our only window into the story.

After his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) convinces him to come to a barn rave (kids these days), Andrew, Matt and Matt’s friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan), the most popular kid in his class, discover a hole in the ground. Upon exploring it underground, they find some kind of alien object, and the next thing we know they have telekinetic abilities, powers that grow stronger over time.

The boys’ newfound strength forges a secret bond between them, and Andrew has friends for the first time. He even uncovers some popularity—a loner’s fantasy realized. But Andrew is also emotionally volatile. Unlike his friends, he lacks control over his life, and after an incident in which he pushes a car off the road and into a pond, things change drastically, both in the story and in the tone of the film.

For a good chunk of the movie, Trank and Landis use their unique premise to explore how one’s use of power and control can be dictated by personality, emotional wellness and social status. In no other phase of life do these feelings wield greater emotional consequences than in one’s teenage years.

As much as you want to believe Andrew can step back and look at things logically and communicate feelings rather than bottle them up (as Matt and Steve so often try to get him to do), you know he’s going to pop at some point. Fascinatingly, he is both our main character and our source of antagonism in the story and it actually works. The film plays tug of war between sympathy and outrage at how Andrew handles his situation to keep the audience riveted.

What happens next can only be described as gutsy. Things take a dark and chaotic turn and the scope of the story goes beyond what found-footage movies ought to do. The story remains gripping enough to keep us invested in the outcome, but it’s a wild, wild ride that might lose some viewers in the process.

The found footage gets tough for Trank to keep up in this final act, and it makes one question why it was necessary at all. Security cameras, cell phones and other people’s assorted recording devices document this part of the story because the original documenter is off driving film’s course of events, yet it’s all perfectly edited together. “Found footage” would seem to imply the importance of the story being documented in a realistic manner, but that’s not the case with “Chronicle.” The medium appears to be utilized here solely for that authenticated look and to allow us access to personal moments for the characters. As such, Landis’ biggest challenge as a writer had to be making up excuses for the camera to be in the right place at the right time.

As striking and powerful as the climax of “Chronicle” is, it blows the door way too wide open. What began as such an intimate story to start finishes like a blockbuster. An exciting finish to be sure (on $11 million especially), but one with a cognizant disregard for the tone of the earlier acts of the movie. It’s not a disappointment, but it could have concluded more meaningfully if done on a smaller scale.

Especially when you consider that it’s a rookie effort on multiple counts, “Chronicle” impresses with its unique riff on super stories. It also proves that a $200-million budget is not a prerequisite to making a movie about people with extraordinary powers. Considering it probes deeper into human psychology and power dynamics than those studio tent-poles, maybe those franchises need to take a good hard look at themselves.

3.5/5 Stars

Chronicle

Directed by Josh Trank

Written by Max Landis and Josh Trank

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan

Liam Neeson the gritty action hero. How unbelievable that at nearly 60 years old, an actor can redefine his career and become more bankable. Neeson has somehow re-channeled the seriousness he brought to dramatic roles into creating utterly convincing heroes in decent (at best) thrillers. 

But that’s not “The Grey.” “The Grey” earns marks far above decent, and Neeson’s performance makes it better. I know, the calendar clearly reads January, but that’s a matter of maximizing box-office potential in this case. Writer/director Joe Carnahan (“The A-Team”) has turned a new leaf in this harrowing wilderness survival thriller, a film as dedicated to exploring the true extent of the human will to live as much as shocking its audience with menacing wolf attacks.

Neeson leads the pack in all manner of ways. Paid to protect oil workers from nature’s dangers (especially wolves), Neeson’s character Ottway turns out to be a group of drillers’ best chance for survival when their plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness near a wolf den. He’s far from a boy scout, however, and he’s emotionally wounded by the fact that his wife has left him.

Most of the early indicators in the film give you the sense that Neeson will do his usual solemn-faced hero routine that he executes to perfection, but the way the film unfolds (not in terms of plot, but in terms of the quality of the storytelling) asks him to go beyond that. He definitely responds.

When looked at in its most fundamental form, “The Grey” could be considered just another film in which a group of imperiled people die one at a time en route to finding safety. Carnahan, however, slows down that pace so that we can absorb the extent of the danger and imagine ourselves in it. When death does occur, it’s visually striking, jaw-dropping and/or thought-provoking as compared to standard efforts at the genre that involve only jump-scare deaths or death by character stupidity.

Only one character, Diaz (Frank Grillo) gets a stereotype as the stubborn self-centered jerk who disagrees with Ottway on purpose. Most movies would’ve killed him off before he got too annoying, but Carnahan and co-writer Ian Mackenzie Jeffers (who wrote the short story the film’s based on), have more interesting plans in store for him.

It’s also not just a film about people being hunted by wolves in the wilderness. There’s no bloody man vs. wolf climactic battle, unlike what the trailers would have you believe, so film fans prone to take misleading marketing out on the film itself, be prepared. “The Grey” is much more of a suspenseful drama with high-adrenaline scenes lurking around every corner.

As such, the visual style of “The Grey” asks for something different from Carnahan than the over-the-top high-flying nature of his previous two films, “The A-Team” and “Smokin’ Aces.” The overall tone is gritty and naturalistic, so snow-caked beards without the blistering frostbite makeup.

The action is also more frenetic and gripping. Rather than shooting the action scenes in a traditional sense, he wants the viewer to feel as if they are experiencing them along with the characters. If a character falls from a tree top and hits 20 branches on the way down, that’s exactly what the camera’s doing. This maximizes the intensity of every major sequence. As for the wolves, they’re horrifying, yet never painted as the bad guys. They’re just part of nature.

When it comes to issues of faith and the will to survive, that’s when “The Grey” really jumps up and above the bar for its genre. The story is told in such a way that when people die, it’s not for our entertainment, but to highlight the unpredictable nature of … nature, and life and death. As Ottway wrestles with these same issues, its Neeson’s performance that makes it hit home.

“The Grey” gives its audience the rare gift of genre-film entertainment with some serious food for thought and an ample dose of emotion. Carnahan’s choices on how to tell the story, along with an ending not typical of genre films, only make it all the stronger. Both he and Neeson display the true nature of their strengths. Hopefully we’ve seen only the beginning of Carnahan’s potential, and that nature is kind enough to Neeson to let him continue challenging the norm for the standard heroic performance.

4.5/5 Stars

The Grey
Directed by Joe Carnahan
Written by Joe Carnahan, Ian Mackenzie Jeffers (screenplay and short story)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Dermot Mulroney, Frank Grillo, James Badge Dale

We are most often drawn to two types of great performances: the believable expression of extreme emotions in powerful circumstances and the impersonation. When an actor playing a person for which we have a point of reference convinces our imaginations so completely that this is in fact what the real-life figure was like, we are astounded. 

Yet the challenge of being Marilyn Monroe is something else altogether. Playing Monroe transcends capturing the personality of a global superstar; it’s about embodying pure sex appeal and newly creating her same raw and alluring energy. Throughout the film, various characters comment how they can’t take their eyes off her on screen. This is not something that can simply be engineered in a lab, so to speak. The fact that Michelle Williams recreates Monroe so naturally cannot go understated. Just as the Hollywood icon would to her pictures, Williams so completely changes the aura of “My Week with Marilyn.”

Hollywood’s trend of late to avoid chronological biopics makes a big difference in this film. Colin Clark’s account of his time working on the set of “The Prince and the Showgirl” creates a snapshot of Monroe’s life that gives insight into who she was, but without losing the context of how she is remembered. Told through the eyes of Clark himself (Eddie Redmayne), Monroe remains that enigmatic celebrity to the audience, which makes Williams’ performance all the more captivating.

What a gift Williams is for director Simon Curtis. The two work together to simply mesmerize the audience. As for the intimate moments that take us behind the curtain of Marilyn Monroe, they have a powerful tension as we’re never able to exactly pinpoint who she is at her core. She forever remains a mystery.

The only difficulty with “My Week with Marilyn” is that while Monroe commands the most attention in the film, it’s supposed to be Clark’s story. Redmayne gives the role a nice balance between an ambitious and clever young man a naive boy, but his lesson in love doesn’t hold greater power than trying to understand what’s going on inside the head of Marilyn Monroe.

In addition, the first half of the film focuses on the tension between Monroe and renowned actor Sir Laurence Olivier, played by Kenneth Branagh. Branagh commands the screen almost as well as Williams, so “Act I” is no less interesting than the “Act II” development of Clark and Monroe’s relationship. As Clark perfectly describes it, Olivier at the time wanted to be more of a star and Monroe wanted to be taken more seriously — the opposite of their strengths. Although they don’t come fact-to-face over their issues with one another, the tension runs high.

As that tension shifts to romantic tension when Monroe begins to demand seeing Clark more and more, the on-set conflict never complete dissipates, but it also never holds the same weight. The only constant throughout the film is Marilyn Monroe. Williams never loses her power over the audience. Few performances simply own a film, but this one does.

“My Week with Marilyn” has a strong script, memorable performances, effective direction and that period piece sheen indicative of strong costume work, cinematography and art direction — all the trappings of an award-worthy film. Issues with cohesiveness in the story really hurt it, however, though not enough to question that it’s superbly made.

The way it captures the mystique of celebrity despite peeling back the curtain has no equal, as most films showing us the lives of film or music icons concern themselves with the personal problems and off-screen/stage lives of the main characters. In a scene when Monroe and Clark spend a day together visiting Windsor and they come across photographers, her quiet line to Colin “shall I be her?” captures the mystery of it all, the fine line between the sex symbol who loves being adored and vulnerable girl who would rather be loved.

4/5 Stars

My Week with Marilyn
Directed by Simon Curtis
Written by Adrian Hodges, Colin Clark (book)
Starring: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Watson

In an era when a lot of movies don’t know when to shut up, how nice to have “The Artist.” So much of Hollywood is the search for the next big thing (looking at you, 3D), yet the Silent Era and those who clung to its sinking ship back in the late 1920s understood a fundamental truth about motion pictures: it’s visual storytelling that puts people in the seats and keeps them coming back. Michel Hazanavicius’ film provides that all-important reminder.

“The Artist” is a silent film, but more so an homage to those films. After all, what better way to make a movie about silent movies than to make a silent movie? Yet on top of that, Hazanavicius takes certain liberties with the use of sound to impressively illustrate both the magic of movies on the whole and the conflict of the silent film star at the film’s center in creative fashion.

A pair of French actors in Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo star in “The Artist,” a perfect choice as known performers would’ve taken the mystique out of these leads. Dujardin’s charm and Clark Gable likeness make him an instant winner. Together with the doe-eyed Bejo the two have chemistry literally too good for words. Dujardin plays a beloved silent era star named George Valentin who watches his career flatline when talkies become the rage, and Bejo plays his admirer/an aspiring actress named Peppy Miller who slowly climbs to the top thanks to the same talking pictures.

Interestingly, “The Artist” is less a love story than a character study, which makes Hazanavicius’ feat all the more impressive. He and Dujardin work together to find several ways to portray a man whose fame, purpose and zest for life is slowly sucked out of him. A nightmare sequence in which Hazanavicius decides to stray from “the rules” and include sound effects proves clever and suspenseful in addition to being expertly shot and edited. As the idea of sound begins to torture him, we are treated to another reminder of exactly what makes sound so effective in film.

Silent-era humor also exists through much of “The Artist,” which makes it as much about offering some old school (okay, very old school) cinematic comfort food as it is about being a modern art film with something to say. George’s off- and on-screen companion, a Jack Russell Terrier who would hands-down win best performance from an animal (non-CGI) if such a category existed, almost unfairly boosts the film’s lovable qualities. And despite the statement it makes about motion pictures, “The Artist” relies heavily on winning its audience over with heart.

If a silent film is earning rave reviews this day and age, then the score must also be something to behold. Ludovic Bource provides the best of both contemporary scoring styles and the more classic arrangements of Old Hollywood that follow the mood of the film as it goes from happy-go-lucky to dark and dramatic. True to Hazanavicius’ vision and his incredible awareness for how sound will impact the film, there are also some powerful moments of silence as well. He toys gleefully with what we have come to expect from sound in movies and that’s what makes “The Artist” a work of art rather than a film that simply wishes to revel in and pay tribute to Old Hollywood.

“The Artist” excels in its simplicity thanks to this craftsmanship. The audience doesn’t get much to chew on, so presentation becomes everything. The pristine packaging will leave audiences feeling as if they’ve experienced something clever and unique despite the irony of silent film being a century-old medium. If nothing else, “The Artist” will win admirers as well as supporters come the Oscars for providing such pure and simple entertainment in a time when the mainstream offers mostly flashy, loud and unnecessarily complicated spectacular nonsense.

4/5 Stars

The Artist
Written and Directed by Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell

Historical fiction espionage thrillers have a devoted fan base, as do the novels of John le Carré. These folks are an intellectual lot, stimulated by the secret dealings of the world’s intelligence agencies, which during the Cold War were at an all-time high. And they can keep “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” a film that despite its expert craftsmanship does little to indulge viewers in the simple joys of a spy thriller.

It admittedly sounds pathetic to rebuke a film for not playing to the interests of the feeble-minded general public, but in a film this loaded with talent, one that’s sure to attract moviegoers outside of the select circle for which it’s intended, a cold shoulder seems harsh. Audiences need to be aware the film is unrelentingly slow and completely plot-driven, that little reward comes at the end of the two-hour tunnel.

That’s not to say the filmmaking of “Tinker Tailor” lacks any semblance of quality. In fact, it’s masterfully constructed; the script and Tomas Alfredson’s direction simply choose to be uncompromising in the vision for and presentation of le Carré’s story.

A summary does it no justice (if it can be deemed deserving of justice), but “Tinker Tailor” focuses on former British Intelligence officer George Smiley (Gary Oldman), who’s forced from his retirement to investigate the men he worked closely with for many years in order to determine which of them is a long-standing Russian mole. Among them are Haydon (Colin Firth), Alleline (Toby Jones), Esterhase (David Dencik) and Bland (Ciarán Hinds). Each gives off suspicious vibes, and it’s clear something major is at play.

Other characters drift in and out of the picture, including Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) and Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy), who help Smiley get closer to his answer, but their presence is fleeting and the film treats them and every character as the very chess pieces used to embody them. We get glimpses of emotion and humanity from Alfredson and these remarkable actors, but the script simply refuses us unfettered access to these characters. It basically sucks the performances dry: This might be the most well-acted film you’ll see all year, but you won’t find a soul who’ll go on the record with that.

Slow burn would be the best way to describe the suspense, but there’s no bomb at the end of the fuse. Alfredson consciously mutes any big reveals or moments when culmination seems in sight, and the moments the story sucks you in or gives you a piece of the puzzle, it always finds a way to languish and lose your attention. At least there’s a sense of comfort in knowing this was an artistic choice, not simply the result of ignorant filmmaking. At the same time, apathy — artistically rationalized or not — is not an emotion anyone enjoys leaving a movie theater with.

Regardless, Alfredson, who some would say made one of the best films of the last decade with the Swedish coming-of-age vampire thriller “Let the Right One In,” shows he’s a filmmaking force that will be reckoned with in due time. The shots are framed gracefully and the suspense and emotion powerfully minute and scrupulous — when he chooses them to be. It’s just a shame that he’s a slave to the plot, which runs the entire show.

“Tinker Tailor” leaves an impression of a great film, but if forced to illustrate exactly how, the well is dry. It offers a certain population a meticulous and expertly crafted espionage drama, but it deprives the majority of film’s fundamental pleasures. It definitely could be a film that achieves greatness upon repeat viewings when the plot becomes less of a bear, but as an immediate impact film it simply has none.

2.5/5 Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Directed by Tomas Alfredson
Written by Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan, John le Carré (novel)
Starring: Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong

Never underestimate Martin Scorsese. Just because “Hugo” lacks in F-words doesn’t mean the master filmmaker is so out of his element that he couldn’t possibly put his stamp on this family-friendly film. In fact, “Hugo” might be the most personal of the director’s catalog. 

Based on the novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” by Brian Selznick, “Hugo” begins as a period piece fairy tale mystery and blossoms into a love letter to cinema in unexpected yet charming ways. Brilliant 14-year-old actor Asa Butterfield stars as Hugo, an orphaned boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station in the 1930s. Scorsese portrays this world as a living painting brimming with potential for adventure, and though what awaits behind the door comes grounded in fact more than fantasy, it’s not less magical.

The blue-eyed Butterfield wins hearts instantly as the lonely Hugo, a boy who lost his father (Jude Law), a clockmaker whose only legacy to his son ended up being a wind-up automaton that the two were working on putting back together. With the hope that the automaton will reveal a final message from his father (or psychiatrically speaking, give him closure), Hugo steals mechanical pieces from a toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley) to fix the broken machine. But when the toy-shop owner seizes a notebook from Hugo containing detailed diagrams of the automaton, Hugo begins a quest that will bring him closer to solving the mystery than he ever imagined.

Hugo befriends and teams up with the toy-shop owners goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), a wide-eyed bookworm with a self-proclaimed love of adventure and secrets. Considering this is the same girl that swore up a storm in the action-comedy “Kick-Ass,” the fact that she’s so convincingly pure and innocent is a true triumph. Scorsese chooses to show her and Butterfield as angels only faulted by their unguarded optimism.

The entire film ends up as a successful exercise in sweeping the audience into a heart-driven story and diverting attention from issues with some of the film’s more practical components such as plot cohesion and character motivation. To elaborate would spoil the film, but those unfamiliar with the source material would be interested to know that the story connects to the birth of film at the turn of the 20th Century, which in large part explains the interest of an auteur such as Scorsese.

Ironically or perhaps beautifully, “Hugo” also comes in 3D, and stunning 3D no less. Filmed in (not converted to) the extra dimension, not only does the film avoid issues of blurriness, but Scorsese also uses it to enhance the experience on numerous levels. Considering “Hugo” is far from an action film, the 3D must be utilized more creatively, and who better to experiment with this than Scorsese?

The depth of field that 3D enhances allows him to focus on certain objects in certain ways and do tracking shots that feel as if they’re literally moving somewhere. In one scene, Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays the train station’s inspector, leans over slowly as he verbally reprimands Hugo, and though slow and subtle, the way he inches slightly toward the audiences magnifies the anxiety we are to feel in that scene. As easy as it is to bash 3D for its gimmicky origins, “Hugo” proves that in the right hands, no film technique should ever be shunned.

The story’s picturesque innocence and more importantly heart drive the rest of the film. Hugo’s quest for purpose in life amidst his personal loneliness and tragedy lead him to discover others who in turn prove he’s not alone in these struggles. As he and Isabelle get closer and closer to their discovery, the film also asks us to recall the essence of motion picture filmmaking and reflect on its vitality. Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan beautifully emphasize this through the use of side characters in the train station, including Baron Cohen.

So although the number of physical high jinks as well as dogs and cats might be disproportionate compared to vintage Scorsese, he elevates this simple tale of friendship, discovery, movies and the reinvigoration of the human spirit to a place few can.

4.5/5 Stars

Hugo
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Written by John Logan, Brian Selznick (novel)
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen