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

Be prepared to have your annual “movies are never as good as the books” conversation with family and friends, because Stieg Larsson’s worldwide best-seller “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has come to theaters (this time without subtitles).

Wanting to honor the beloved source material, Sony placed this American version in the hands of serial killer mystery expert David Fincher (“Se7en,” “Zodiac”) and Oscar-winning writer Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”). The move pays off, because “Dragon Tattoo” is about as good as it possibly could be given the challenges of the adaptation.

The multi-faceted story deals primarily with Mikael Blomqvist (Daniel Craig), a journalist being sued for libel who temporarily steps down as his magazine’s editor and quietly accepts an offer from a retired businessman named Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Under the guise of writing Vanger’s memoir, he is to investigate the unsolved mystery of Vanger’s missing/presumed dead niece, Harriet, a case over 40 years old. In need of help, he comes across Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a strange young woman with expert hacking skills who passionately takes up the job due to her own troubled past.

Much like its Swedish predecessor, this adaptation strives to pack the bulk of the novel into a “reasonable” runtime without boring its audience to death. Zaillian compresses the hundreds of complex details of the cold case at the film’s epicenter into easily digested chunks, yet merely having to do so always produces no better than satisfactory results. Oddly enough, saying the script doesn’t derail the film or damage the story and its characters is the highest of compliments one can pay it in this case, and that’s what it does.

But it’s Fincher who elevates this film, with no offense intended toward Niels Arden Oplev, director of the 2009 effort. Fincher is a master of his craft, and that means a considerable amount when dealing with a film so densely filled with plot points that other elements (like character development) can get lost.

Although no adaptation of this novel could possibly convey the lengthy passage of time and the obsessive nature of Blomqvist’s search for the truth, Fincher provides an abundance of tone, especially in reflecting the frigid temperatures of northern Sweden. He and his “The Social Network” and “Fight Club” cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth make it so every golden ray of sunlight on the desolate island feels as warm as it looks. Only directly blasting cold air on you from the back of your seat a la a “4D” theme park attraction would be more effective.

The film’s editing job is also top notch, overlapping audio and video to smooth over the exorbitant location transitions and maximize suspense in the scenes that cut back and forth between Lisbeth and Blomqvist. In fact, the movie finds its best groove in these scenes.

Also crucial to depicting the book are the issues of graphic content, namely violence and sadism. After all, the translation of the original Swedish title is “Men Who Hate Women.” Fincher embraces the book’s sexual and disturbing nature as evidenced most basically in the marketing campaign. He also doesn’t shy away in the film’s most difficult scenes, giving them the brutal and sordid edge they require to honor the message of Larsson’s novel. Although it feels wrong to call them tastefully done given the subject matter, it’s true.

Mara’s performance mirrors Fincher’s vision in many ways. There’s no expectation of pity for Lisbeth, yet neither is she a hollow shell who completely bottles up her feelings. She bares it all in this film in every sense, giving herself to the performance. Rather than ham it up a notch to get some Oscar attention, she sticks with her interpretation of the character and makes for a rather unforgettable Lisbeth Salander.

Craig is also a perfect Blomqvist, though his character lacked something distinctive, perhaps due to the script not giving him many moldable moments. A similar fate befalls many of the characters, which just emphasizes the need for Fincher’s work and the talent of his actors all the more. Stellan Skarsgård as Martin Vanger, the current CEO of the Vanger Corporation, does perhaps the best job of utilizing his screen time to create a compelling character.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a busy movie, and understandably so. Larsson’s story deserves its integrity preserved the way it was in this version (only minor omissions and one major change), even at the cost of something that could have been more emotional and moving. Putting the book down and looking at this as a mystery/thriller, it’s a consummate offering for the genre. Those unfamiliar with its source material will find it a bit slow at points and not as clean as a thriller written directly for the screen, but will still enjoy the payoff thanks to the professionalism of Fincher and Zaillian.

A book and two movies later, rather than saying “the book is better,” it should be said that “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” thrives the most in its original novel form. Some books lend themselves to film better than others — this isn’t one of them. Given this movie took it out of its ideal state, its a good thing it turned out how it did.

4/5 Stars

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by David Fincher
Written by Steve Zaillian, Stieg Larsson (novel)
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård

Let it be known that 2011 was a record-setting year at the movies. No previous year in all of film history has had as many … sequels. Yes, a whopping 27 films either directly following or based on previous movies came to theaters this year.

“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” is the 27th sequel to be released this year as well as the last of a record-setting five “four-quels,” yet rather than poetically epitomizing Hollywood’s pathetic reliance on unoriginal storytelling, this action flick actually provides a blueprint for using a franchise’s familiarity as a tool rather than a crutch.

Like all but one of its 2011 four-quel brethren, “Ghost Protocol” comes after a longer-than-usual hiatus between two films in a series, though this seems to be the m.o. for the “M:I” franchise, which averages 3.75 years between films. Most studios see a franchise-starting film’s success as lightning in a bottle. They sign directors and stars to three-film contracts to be completed within 6 and 9 years. When it then comes time for a fourth film, most studios enter a delusional “mid-franchise crisis mode,” unsure of what to do next. Reboots, prequels, spin-offs and the like all get tossed about and to varying degrees of effectiveness.

But the “M:I” series, whether intended or not, has to this point seen Cruise as the only immovable piece on the board, bringing on new directors, writers and co-stars each time, with just a few exceptions. Heck, with Jeremy Renner’s introduction here as Agent Brandt, you get the sense even Cruise is expendable as he reaches 50. The emphasis is clearly on creativity, not continuity, and the long-time patience has paid big dividends in this fourth go-around.

The entire “Ghost Protocol” script was trusted to two below-the-radar television writers in Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec and a director in Brad Bird who had never made a live-action film (he helmed Pixar’s “The Incredibles”). Fresh ideas, fresh perspective.

The premise of these films has not changed: Ethan Hunt and his team are trying to take down someone with an evil plan that has global consequences and they do so using all matter of gadgets and larger-than-life tactics. The difference is that the executive producers have put this tried concept in the hands of new and innovative individuals. All three names will get lots of phone calls in the days, weeks and months following this film’s theatrical run.

The stories focuses on Hunt and his IMF team of Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji (Simon Pegg), who find the government has disavowed them completely after a bomb obliterates the Kremlin in Russia at the same time they were infiltrating it. The one responsible is actually a man named Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a former Soviet war games expert hell-bent on inciting global nuclear war. Completely cut off and  “non-existent,” the IMF agents along with an IMF “analyst” in Renner’s Brandt must take them down solo in order to clear their names.

“Ghost Protocol” is miles from original in terms of plot — by far its weakest aspect — but it dreams big on the level of action and suspense. The exterior acrobatics on the Burj Khalifa in Dubai might go down as one of the most unforgettable scenes in action movie history, especially with the help of IMAX cameras. At one point Bird simply suspends the camera over Cruise’s head as he prepares to scale the outside of the hotel, which will inspire acrophobia in even the most iron-willed movie-watchers. Even the gadgets manage to stimulate the imagination, and we live in a world driven by smartphones. How we get from one excellent scene to the next is beside the point, but the payoff is exceptional. 27 sequels this year and I doubt any of the previous 26 can claim the same level of pure popcorn-munching, armrest-clenching entertainment.

Such unadulterated fun at the movies (and a willful submission to Hollywood secret-agenting) comes only with strong characters. Cruise wastes no time giving us Ethan Hunt back, an unstoppable force of strength, logic, cockiness and machismo. Regardless of his dwindling favor in the public eye, he can still lead an action film as good as anyone. Renner, Patton and Pegg exhibit perfect team chemistry; there’s not a moment where you feel as if you need to know more about their characters, though Renner’s back story does technically matter to one subplot and could’ve used more oomph.

If “Ghost Protocol” should be called out on anything (aside from the obscene number of head traumas that Ethan instantly recovers from throughout the entire movie), it should be the lifeless villain in Nyqvist who owns no screen time and his obsession with a post-apocalyptic world devastated by nuclear war. Cold War-era plots in 2011 should be completely off limits, but in a thrill ride of this magnitude, these are meaningless details.

Even with the over-the-top flourishes, especially in the final scenes in Mumbai, Bird has crafted something so essentially entertaining that movie-goers will fall in love with the spy genre all over again. Using IMAX cameras as tastefully as he does deserves credit as well; his primary objective with “Ghost Protocol” is the viewer experience and it shows throughout the film’s runtime.

In a time when more and more films are being made solely because of the proven success of existing properties, it’s assuring to know that there are ways this can be crafted into success. It seems hypocritical to say audiences want something both familiar and original, yet as proven here, it’s not impossible.

4/5 Stars

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Directed by Brad Bird
Written by Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec, Bruce Geller (TV series)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg

When Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody struck gold with “Juno” in 2007, they did so with a rare combination of contemporary wit, quirkiness and heart. Their four-year reunion in “Young Adult” won’t be nearly as heralded, but it might arguably be a better film. 

Although ironic when juxtaposed with its main character, a 37-year-old who hasn’t gotten over her high school sweetheart, Reitman and Cody display obvious evidence of maturation. The subject and humor are decidedly darker, and the emotional energy more raw and challenging.

Charlize Theron stars as Mavis Gary, perhaps one of film’s most hopelessly pathetic protagonists. Before giving the opening credit sequence its cue, Reitman puts Theron to work and paints a clear picture of spiraling drunken loneliness, reality TV and apathy toward responsibility. Appropriately, she’s a young-adult fiction writer for a dwindling book series who’s also a former prom queen. Theron is perfect for the role with her combination of in-concealable beauty and dramatic prowess. Mavis never becomes a caricature under her watch.

Unable to get past the fact that her high school boyfriend Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) just had a baby, Mavis flees her depressing cyclical lifestyle in Minneapolis for her home town of Mercury, Minn. with the intention of winning him back.

Mavis’ delusional and deceitful quest to be a home-wrecker proves maddening through much of the film at the slow-burn pace Reitman has dictated, and it becomes obvious that at some point the bubble on her misguided journey will burst into an ugly mess. Yet despite this foreseeable direction, the climax proves stirring and not without a set of surprises.

Adding to the complexity of Mavis reclaiming her past is Matt (Patton Oswalt), a former classmate she barely noticed because they were miles apart on the social spectrum. The two bond over their appreciation for (or dependency on) bourbon, and their relationship allows Theron’s character a chance to blow off steam, albeit irresponsibly.

Mavis eventually remembers Matt as the “hate crime kid” because he was brutally beaten to the point of being disabled in high school at the hands of some jocks who thought he was gay. He serves as a strong comparison point for Mavis’ high school experience throughout the film. Oswalt’s wit also matches well with Cody’s style and Matt actually turns into one of the better depictions of a disabled character probably ever. Other than the incident that caused it, we’re not asked to sympathize excessively with his condition, nor do Mavis’ snarky remarks about it come across as rude.

Cody’s dialogue is much more restrained this time around; “Juno” is eons funnier as a result, but the sacrifice of laughs allows us to focus on the film as a character study of a woman who hasn’t quite learned how to be an adult. The script’s only deficiency comes from a crater-sized hole in Mavis’ history. “Young Adult” deserves praise for being a film about living in the past that contains not a single flashback, but knowing more about Mavis’ divorce and how she came to break up with Buddy the first time could have significantly informed the story, especially as to why Mavis willfully lives her life as the trainwreck it clearly is.

The film’s climax helps a bit in this regard, and Mavis’ epiphany avoids being cliche despite the obvious “appreciate what you have” motif. Part of the message oddly suggests that small-town folks lead purposeless lives for the sake of achieving some kind of blissful stasis, but at the same time the idea that all of us are broken people that need to affirm and trudge forward — not backward — with our various blemishes, will surely resonate.

4/5 Stars

Young Adult
Directed by Jason Reitman
Written by Diablo Cody
Starring: Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson, Patton Oswalt

Forget former child stars and D-list celebrities, The Muppets needed a comeback more than any of them. Heck, we needed them. We live in glum times, people. Optimism seems about as trendy as boy bands these days. Maybe that’s why Jim Henson’s beloved creatures disappeared in the first place: The world disregarded the sense of unabashed silliness that they embodied for 30-some years in exchange for ideals such as progressiveness and “edutainment.”

The wayward trajectory of the Muppets in the 21st Century definitely fueled the fire for Disney’s “reboot.” Art imitates life here as “The Muppets” focuses on bringing the gang back together and ultimately defying those who believe there’s no longer a place for the kind of entertainment and energy they bring.

It only takes moments, however, to realize their place in all-ages entertainment stands eternal. Nostalgia covers this film like a warm — felt — blanket. The Muppets have returned and hopefully for good.

Co-writer and star Jason Segel must’ve realized in no time that the idea of the Muppets drifting apart spoke quite directly to the themes that the various shows and movies of the last 40 years have championed. To represent the lifelong fan spurned by Jim Henson Company’s inability to make the Muppets relevant in today’s age, Segel and Nicholas Stoller create Walter, the first truly humanoid Muppet, though his fuzzy nature is seen as something that simply makes him “different than all the other kids.” When he first sees the Muppets as a child, he becomes their biggest fan.

Walter travels with his older (human) brother, Gary (Segel) and Gary’s girlfriend of 10 years, Mary (Amy Adams), to Los Angeles to visit the old Muppet theater. After sneaking into Kermit’s old office, Walter learns of an evil plan by oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), who plans to knock the theater down to drill for oil. He convinces Gary and Mary to help him warn the Muppets so that they can band together and put on a show to raise the money needed to save the theater.

“The Muppets” features countless easter eggs for those who enjoyed the Muppets as children and now have children, while remaining simple and innocent enough in delivery to be loved by said children. It’s also extremely faithful to the silly and musical nature of the brand, but with the self-awareness necessary to be a hit with folks of all ages of “the Modern era.” One of the funniest bits is when the Muppets learn Miss Piggy currently resides in Paris and determine the fastest way to travel there is “by map.” This, of course, refers to the movie convention of showing lines moving across a map to demonstrate a major change in a story’s location. Where once was a flaw in logic/realism becomes a hilarious joke. Wocka-wocka.

A similar attitude is taken toward the musical numbers. “Life’s A Happy Song,” the first major number, exudes “Muppets” catchiness despite all its corniness, while the simplistic emotionally soul-bearing ballads the brand has been most known for (such as “Rainbow Connection,” which gets its own spotlight) show up too. There’s the hilarious yet deeply felt “Man or Muppet,” in which we see both a Muppet version of Segel and a human version of Walter (a cameo of course … you’ll be amused). Like any musical, the songs work best when they naturally fit in with the story. Also, Oscar nominee Chris Cooper raps. I’ll leave it at that.

The many cameos are befitting a “Muppet” movie, but the humans never dominate; that would not be true to the mission of the entire film. As perfect as Segel and Adams are for their roles, this movie stars Walter, Kermit, Miss Piggy, Animal (hysterical) among the many others. One almost wishes there could have been more screen time given to some of the memorable Muppets not named Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo or Fozzie. Personally, some more Bunson and Beaker would’ve been nice. Hopefully this is sequel fodder.

At the same time, part of what makes this movie excellent is the way it uses nostalgia and rallies around the idea that the Muppets should never be forgotten. The story works perfectly in context, but as such it’s not one that can be replicated in future films. It will take some more outside-the-box thinking to keep the Muppets on this roll, but no doubt “The Muppets” will spur on some kind of long-term plan for these beloved characters whether in more films or back to television again.

4/5 Stars

The Muppets
Directed by James Bobin
Written by Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller, Jim Henson (characters)
Starring: The Muppets, Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper

Often times a change of scenery can make a big difference. Independent filmmaking has become as inextricably tied to relationship and family drama over the years as it has to New York City, Los Angeles and generic Suburbia. So taking place in Hawaii gives “The Descendants a unique presence, not that Alexander Payne’s outstanding film requires a tactical advantage. The venerated filmmaker simply understands how this setting, in all its tropical beauty and paradisiacal allure, has something important to say about this story of life’s many blemishes.

Matt King (George Clooney) is a lawyer and a descendant of Hawaiian royalty, as are his many cousins. A huge portion of land in Kauai has been passed down to all of them, land they ultimately must sell or give back to the state. They plan to take full advantage of their birthright and Matt is the trustee who must ultimately sign off on the sale. But Matt has been having a rough go of it lately: his wife, Elizabeth, has been in a coma for several weeks as a result of a boating accident and her prognosis grows grim. As such, he has become the primary caretaker of his 10-year-old daughter Scottie (Amara Miller). He also has a 17-year-old daughter named Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) at a rehabilitative boarding school on “the Big Island.”

Matt hopes he can weather the storm. He harbors some resentment with regards to being a “back-up parent” thrust into the starting lineup, but realizes his marriage had been growing cold and distant; he’s gotten his wake-up call and he’s ready to make things right. But when bad news from the doctor forces him to fetch Alexandra home from school, she reveals that the big fight she had with her mother before the accident was because she’d caught her having an affair.

At first, Payne and Clooney paint Matt as a father with good intentions but piss-poor tact, but this news transforms him from a bit of a scrooge to a more pathetic individual, albeit one you have to feel a bit sorry for, especially given how his daughters, other relatives, and Alexandra’s beach bum pal Sid (Nick Krause) behave around him. Although its not clear for a while whether Matt simply wants to stalk his wife’s lover, confront him, get revenge or just find peace of mind, it’s an undertaking you sympathize with given the waves of emotion experienced by the character.

Clooney, in by far one of his very best performances if for nothing but the fact that he cannot lean on his charms, expertly embodies Matt’s whirlwind. His portrayal fully demonstrates Matt as smart and rational yet emotionally feeble and sometimes volatile. As he throws on his boat shoes to run down the street and get answers from his wife’s best friend and closest confidant, the awkwardness of it all comes out (most obviously in his bizarre gait). Even in life’s toughest and craziest moments there’s a darkly comic edge, and “The Descendants” hits on that in addition to the full range of other emotions. No doubt Payne’s co-adaptors of Kaui Hart Hemmings’ novel, little-known but highly recognizable character actors Nat Paxon (“Beerfest”) and Jim Rash (“Community”), had a hand in the sharp wit.

But the real brilliance of the writing shows in the characters. Almost every one gives us cause for dislike or even hatred at some point, but each of those characters goes through a redemptive process and surprises us. Whether it’s the daughters being obnoxious, Sid not knowing his place or even Matt’s father-in-law laying thick blame on Matt, somehow they all find their way into our good graces by the end, which isn’t an easy feat to pull off. That’s testament to how much sincerity and humanity Payne brings to the film.

“The Descendants” will hit close to home for many and everyone will connect somehow whether with a character or empathy for the conflict. The very nature of Elizabeth, a woman unfaithful to her husband yet in a coma and on the verge of death, challenges everything we know about right and wrong, good parenting and bad parenting — it will awaken a change in perspective and what matters most in every person who sees it. The rest of the film and its many subplots just magnifies this, to the point that when Matt finally comes face to face with his wife’s inamorato, you might be surprised at how you want it all to go down.

Seeping in the cracks throughout is the Hawaiian setting. There’s something about the tropical backdrop that elicits different emotions, that helps keep things in perspective when the drama ratchets up several more notches. Even something as simple as every male in the film over 20 wearing Tommy Bahama and khaki shorts enhances the story and the film’s message. The beautiful Polynesian acoustic soundtrack can also not be understated in bolstering this effect.

Great films reveal to us truths we’ve always known — whether in our minds or deep in our hearts — in a way that makes us feel as if we’re realizing them again for the first time. “The Descendants” provides that unique light, in this case with some beaches and a few leis. Payne might have taken a long time off after “Sideways,” but he came back with something more palpable, universal and undeniably great.

5/5 Stars

The Descendants
Directed by Alexander Payne
Written by Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, Kaui Hart Hemmings (novel)
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller

There’s little rhyme or reason to anything in the “Happy Feet” universe. If it sings, dances, looks cute and enhances ethnic diversity, it flies. Except penguins of course — penguins can’t fly, everyone knows that. But that doesn’t mean they can’t creatively problem solve through self-determination, tap-dancing and passionate arias. Okay, so nothing makes sense about “Happy Feet Two,” but only a cold soul needs rationalization for adorable singing penguins.

Five years after the original, “Happy Feet Two” requires no previous knowledge of the original, though it couldn’t hurt to be aware that it features penguins apt to break out into any song popular in 2008 or earlier. Mumble (Elijah Wood) has grown up and now has his own social outcast son with no sense of rhythm, Erik (Ava Acres). After the opening dance number ends in embarrassment, Erik and friends Bo and Atticus leave their emperor penguin tribe and head to the tribe of Latino penguins with the silly Ramon (Robin Williams). There they discover Sven (Hank Azaria), the famous flying penguin. When Mumble finds the runaways, they head back home to discover a giant iceberg has trapped their friends and family, effectively cutting off their food supply.

The movie’s main subplot, the story of two krill who leave their swarm voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, far and away steals the spotlight. The two are hilarious and the writing insanely witty as Will (Pitt) suffers an existential crisis when he realizes he’s one of a “krillion” bottom-feeders in a huge ocean. He then drags his reluctant friend Bill (Damon) on a quest to defy the food chain. If only the rest of the script could be as clever and snappy rather than leaning on Williams for laughs.

As those who’ve seen the original might remember, real live-action humans are once again involved in this film. These “aliens,” as the penguins call them, had “captured” Sven and head honcho penguin Lovelace on an oil rig and Lovelace sings some boisterous recitative as to how they escaped. Later on, Lovelace gets the attention of a fishing boat and some human dude comes out to play an electric guitar solo to “We Are the Champions.” Lovelace’s “plan” works, as the humans try and rescue the penguins, but they abandon them when a blizzard roles through. Once again, “humans suck and continuously destroy the natural order of things” remains part of director/creator George Miller’s message.

It would be safe to say after two “Happy Feet” movies that Miller has a hippie liberal quasi-socialist agenda. After Sven proves he’s not what he seems and the flight-determined penguins back off their dream of the impossible, especially poor little Erik, it turns out that the only way they can save these trapped penguins is to generate some karma and solicit the help of other penguin tribes, then all the other species of Antarctica, namely elephant seals, must give of themselves a bit to benefit the whole continent. Meanwhile, it’s clear that global warming is the real cause of the problems, but the film never comes out and says it. Brainwashing? Quite possibly.

The musical numbers in the film range from fun and catchy to random chaos and so does their positioning within the film. During the final act, the penguins and others manage to sing techno hit “Dragostea Din Tei,” as well as “Rawhide” and finally “Under Pressure.” It’s like a non-cohesive “Glee” episode with penguins. Mix the humans into some of the numbers and you might regret not bringing your hallucinogens to the theater.

Visually, the film retains the original’s distinctive style of realism with cartoonish features, but it’s not nearly as breathtaking as it was back in 2006 as most studios have caught up. Some of the ocean sequences might have been interesting to see in 3D just to see if its that layered depth-of-field kind of 3D and not just the playing to the audience 3D (which there’s plenty of).

Miller, the writers and the animation team created knew full well that regardless of whether they had an even remotely interesting story, they could cover up just about anything with cute baby animals and singing/dancing. Sadly, naturally or however you feel about it,  they’re right. The cuteness can’t completely disguise the lack of good storytelling, but it does act as a great equalizer. If you find yourself unable to articulate this feathery exercise in musical chairs to others, Warner Bros. will happily give you license to say “cute” free or charge.

2.5/5 Stars

Happy Feet Two
Directed by George Miller
Written by George Miller, Warren Coleman, Gary Eck, Paul Livingston
Starring: (voices) Elijah Wood, Robin Williams, Pink, Ava Acres, Hank Azaria

When done right, few tales are more riveting than a person’s descent into madness. Alfred Hitchcock proved this time and time again and Jeff Nichols reinforces it in “Take Shelter,” a film likely to have been lauded by the master of suspense himself. Anchored by the performances of Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain, “Shelter” broods and festers but ultimately thrives on the brink between buildup and utter chaos.

Shannon, far from a household name but a favorite of cinephiles since his head-turning supporting role in “Revolutionary Road,” stars as Curtis, a construction worker and father living in a rural town with his wife, Sam (Chastain), and their young daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart). Their daughter has developed extreme hearing loss and Curtis’ job provides them the benefits necessary to afford cochlear implants, but Curtis’ recent slew of horrifically real nightmares seems to be the real issue here.

In his dreams, Curtis experiences premonitions of a near-apocalyptic storm that includes odd bird flight formations, motor-oil-like rain, and twisters, and appears to make everyone that shows up in his dreams eerily violent from his dog to complete strangers. The resulting paranoia and occasional physical side affects leads Curtis to seek medical attention, but also to start renovating the storm cellar in his backyard should his visions come true.

The question of whether Curtis is a prophet of sorts or just mentally disturbed drives the film — not much else does. Nichols tells this story largely through a series of character snapshots depicting Curtis riding the ups and downs caused by these nightmares. A few key moments boil the story to a point, namely a riveting scene when Curtis loses it a social luncheon, but the pensive script withholds from us straight through the end like a well-trained indie film.

As we go deeper and deeper with Curtis — and eventually Samantha and Curtis’ best friend/co-worker Dewart (Shea Whigham) — we do learn some key details about Curtis’ medical history that shed light on the situation, but even in the midst of fact, Nichols never gives us the satisfaction of arriving at any concrete conclusion about his predicament.

With the weight of an immensely introverted character dealing with a mental struggle placed squarely on his shoulders, Shannon proves why you’ll only see him with more and more frequency in the future. He makes sure we care about what happens to Curtis, but beyond that he slips back and forth between deserving sympathy and deserving skepticism. He is not simply some Jobian character to whom bad things are happening, and this makes his challenge all the more challenging for the viewer. Credit as well to Nichols for crafting a protagonist far from the norm.

The winner of 2011′s most ubiquitous actress award, Chastain, gets the more alpha-type role instead. She’s the good-hearted, open and loving type driven entirely by logic and unafraid of confrontation. Many will identify more with Samantha as a result, which adds a layer of complexity to the film to say the least.

“Take Shelter” offers compelling character-driven suspense, though at times it will try your patience. If you can chalk that up to quintessential indie filmmaking, then by all means do and enjoy this complex and challenging character portrait all the more for it. However, the real thrill of this type of film is that at any moment the bottom might drop out on the entire story (aka the shit might hit the proverbial … tornado); the difference between liking that and loving it is accepting when it doesn’t.

4/5 Stars

Take Shelter
Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols
Starring: Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain, Tova Stewart, Shea Whigham

It might not be an election year, but politics never take a break from being cutthroat. “The Ides of March” peels back the curtain on election campaigns, in this case those of two Democrats vying for their party’s nomination. Based on the play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, who had a hand in the screenplay, “Ides” tells you everything you’ve always assumed but chosen to remain ignorant of regarding the political machine. Frank and whip-smart if not a bit esoteric, George Clooney’s latest directorial effort provides ample intellectual fodder bolstered by a terrific ensemble.

Clooney plays Michael Morris, a North Carolina governor and political idealism incarnate, essentially a caricature of Obama rhetoric (though the 2008 play was based loosely on the Howard Dean campaign). But he’s not the focus: Rather it’s his main staffer, Stephen, (Ryan Gosling) who gets the spotlight ,as well as campaign manager Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Morris simply serves as that point of reference reminding us what the polished exterior of a political campaign looks feels like.

The seemingly omnipresent Gosling utilizes his fittingly Clooney-like charisma as Stephen, but without milking it. His character’s “loss of political innocence” and consequent sharp left turn end up much more believable. Stephen is a hotshot who’s far from a rookie in attitude and behavior, but hasn’t been through the grinder like campaign manager Paul and their rival, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti).

Stephen still has his convictions, for example, believing completely in his candidate and the Kool-aid he’s serving. So he finds himself in a bit of trouble when he agrees to a meeting with Duffy and learns some valuable information that could completely tilt a pivotal Ohio primary that’s just one week away. With his loyalty in question after his meeting leeks to their chummy reporter at the New York Times (Marisa Tomei), Stephen also starts an affair with a campaign intern named Molly (Evan Rachel Wood) and later learns a secret that will make him question all of it.

“Ides” takes the viewer behind the scenes into an ugly and somewhat superficial world. There’s a bit of a soap-opera glamorization to various elements of the plot (affairs, back-stabbing, deception, etc.), but the actors hold it down with integrity. Vets Hoffman and Giamatti in particular give the film its backbone as two hard-nosed guys as blunt as the film’s feelings on politics. Gosling and Wood demonstrate as much talent as any young actors working today, though Gosling’s stardom should be a foregone conclusion at this point.

Clooney excels at taking us on Stephen’s journey and creating accessibility where the script lays on thick jargon. Various scenes that simply show Morris out on the campaign delivering a speech seem to meander, but Clooney understands that we must be exposed enough to Morris’ public image to identify with that glitzy side of politics we get every couple years. Therefore, when all the new “info” comes to light, our perspective of Morris transforms so drastically it’s fascinating to track.

“The Ides of March” asks that we accept certain truths about human nature and shows how the nature of politics feeds on some of our darker and more self-serving inclinations. Even as we take up arms along with Stephen’s crusade to correct the (arguable) injustices thrust upon him, we can’t help but to admit he has far from the clean record that a typical protagonist carries. Some might see the film’s end as the beginning of a new chapter cut short, but it holds out hope that cycles of corruption feeding corruption do have the power to end.

4.5/5 Stars

The Ides of March
Directed by George Clooney
Written by George Clooney, Grant Haslov, Beau Willimon (also play, “Farragut North”)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood

Never underestimate robot boxing. Despite reaching for nearly every cliché in the family-oriented sports underdog drama handbook short of titling the film “Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots,” DreamWorks delivers a undeniable crowd-pleaser with “Real Steel.”

Just as Hugh Jackman’s Charlie tells his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo) as they train a rusted-up sparring robot to be a champion boxer, it’s all about putting on a show for the people and that’s exactly what “Real Steel” does. For better or worse, robot boxing is cool, cool enough that should it ever cross into the non-fictional world, people will pay to see it, just as they will to see this movie.

In championing old-school sports movie values with a contemporary video-game-like twist, “Real Steel” is a 9-to-12-year-old boy’s fantasy and one that dads won’t mind taking their kids to see. Other than a script that tosses around the word “ass” like it’s the new way of saying “cool” (or as if the MPAA finally gave PG-13 movies permission to use it), there’s a good heart and moral to the story.

In the not-too-distant future, former boxer Charlie Kenton trains ton-sized robots to fight in the ring for a living, only he’s constantly running up a sizable tab as his bets don’t usually pay off or up. When he learns his ex has died and custody of their 11-year-old son has defaulted to him, Charlie strikes a deal with the boy’s rich uncle to sign custody over to his family for enough money to buy a new bot, but it also entails Max staying with his “dad” for the summer. As it turns out, Max is a bit of a robot boxing fan with twice the stubborn charisma of his father. Together they uncover an old bot in a junkyard named Atom who helps them put aside their ill will and get back in the game

Yes, “Real Steel” is 100 percent cookie cutter — an old blind hound could sniff out what’s coming next — but when sports montage comes to uplifting Danny Elfman score, a cookie cutter still makes cookies. In this case we’re talking giant-sized robot cookies, and it’s that shape that makes all the difference.

The likable qualities of “Real Steel” all come down to presentation, from the unique premise of robot boxing (ok, unique enough) to the charm of the lead actors to director Shawn Levy’s sound and instinctive storytelling style. Jackman and former “Lost” star Evangeline Lilly try to create a chemistry from a subplot that’s barely accounted for (her dad trained him, they’ve always been sort of on-again-off-again), but they make it work, mostly because they’re beautiful people with a decent measure of likability and talent.

Levy makes the whole mold come together with an eye for what casual moviegoers like most and the presence of mind to know just when to say stop so that the script’s pouring of sap doesn’t make the whole thing soggy.

The robots though, they steal the show. (I initially typed “steel,” which I thought was worth mentioning.) If I had at least 15 fewer years I’d already be out buying my Atom and Zeus action figures — maybe Noisy Boy too. The bots are well-conceived and expertly branded with unique names and appearances.

Speaking of branding, product placement runs rampant in this film. Max downs three Dr. Peppers before teaching Atom some dance moves, the robots are controlled by HP hologram computers and ads in the boxing arena rep XBox 720. If that kind of excess turns you off in a film, well, it’s not like you could call it surprising.

The heart comes from the father-son relationship, which evolves over time after starting out maddeningly immature. Charlie treats Max as a mere pawn at first and Max oversteps his boundaries as an 11-year-old. The script puts them on equal footing: Son seems to know just as much as father and youthful optimism seems a force as powerful as logic. Of course the optimism wins; we’re at the movies after all. Hope could definitely last five rounds in the ring against even the fiercest robot.

“Real Steel” can be counted among the rare films that offer an argument for the perpetuation of the Hollywood machine, but if all formulaic movies could handle the characters this well it wouldn’t matter. Truth is, it’s as easy to despise the movie in principle as it is to just enjoy it at face value — provided you dig giant fighting robots.

3.5/5 Stars

Real Steel
Directed by Shawn Levy
Written by John Gatins, Dan Gilroy, Jeremy Leven
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Evangeline Lilly, Dakota Goyo

Most movies don’t know how to handle cancer. Heck, most people don’t know how to handle cancer — and I’m not talking about the patients. Cancer, or any other terminal illness for that matter, almost always plays some kind x-factor in a film — that is when a film even dares to enter a realm often deemed depressing and “not for the movies.” Most often, scripts will position cancer as a tearjerking emotional turning point in a film or as the initial spark of some banal “live life to the fullest” comedy.

“50/50″ puts an end to that. Written semi-autobiographically by cancer survivor Will Reiser, it would seem it takes one to write one. Although cancer drives the entire story, the story doesn’t fixate on cancer or melodramatize the terrible truths we already know about potentially fatal illness.

Perhaps you could tell as much from the trailer thanks to some typical Seth Rogen antics, but the injection of contemporary R-rated humor is neither irreverent, insensitive nor an attempt to simply put a positive spin on a depressing subject. Life — believe it or not — doesn’t stop for cancer. People don’t sit in the hospital the entire time and then lie  at home in bed the rest. Reiser’s story provides a mostly unforced and honest depiction of a young man’s diagnosis and treatment for potentially fatal spinal cancer, one where cancer isn’t the conflict in and of itself, but the way it so dramatically changes the behavior of the people whose lives it enters and positively and negatively alters relationships.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his spree of playing absolutely lovable main characters as Adam, a play-it-safe 27-year-old who after the initial shock handles his diagnosis in stride, keeping his ups and downs internal other than when the script cues him to let it out a bit. The more external symptoms come from Adam’s girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and mother (Anjelica Huston).

Other than focusing on these relationships, director Jonathan Levine (“The Wackness”) puts particular emphasis on character perspective, which will change instantaneously at points throughout the film. In one terrific sequence, Adam enters the hospital for his first chemo treatment and gets bummed out by all the sick and ailing people in the hallway. After the older men he meets while getting treatment (Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer) give him some marijuana-filled pastries, he leaves down the same hallway high as a kite, suddenly elated despite the same negative images lining the hall. Levine understands that so much of how you deal with cancer relates to mood and perspective at any given time.

Levine coaxes brilliant and thoughtful performances out of his actors. Even though Rogen exerted his usual shtick a bit more than needed, he handles his character as written, someone who wants desperately to help his best friend but hides behind shallow self-centered form of support that many men turn to because they can’t communicate emotions all that well.

The women of “50/50″ also deliver if not more so. Howard’s character is an unlikable mess but she gives her performance convincingly. Anjelica Huston perfects the ideal on-screen mother, the best since Melissa Leo’s Oscar-winning mother in “The Fighter.” Anna Kendrick also continues to blow me away with her talent. She plays a psychiatrist working on her PhD who receives Adam as just her third patient. She gives such lifelike quirks to her characters and Katie plays right to her strengths.

But in a drama/comedy about cancer, the key lies in tone and for that Levine should become an A-list director. ”50/50″ could have easily turned into a Hollywood hack-job like the various comic-toned cancer films before it, a film that either overplays the dramatic or overcompensates with the humorous, but “50/50″ might be one of film’s best balancing acts between the two. The shifts feel completely natural between moments of deep sentiment and moments of levity. Those who can’t help but fixate on this being a movie about cancer will likely have to remind themselves to feel serious when “50/50″ just wants you to simply absorb it as you would any other film.

Other than some predictable moments and plot devices to give the film a nicer Hollywood sheen, “50/50″ provides a genuine and heartfelt movie experience, one that neither goes for the emotional sucker punch nor the sugarcoated version. Instead of making us look at cancer in a specific way, it makes us look at the way we look at cancer — or any uncomfortable subject — the way we talk about it or don’t talk about it, the way we interact with those who live with it and the way we cope with it ourselves. That way when someone we love has a serious problem, we can ultimately do what’s best for that person.

4.5/5 Stars

50/50
Directed by Jonathan Levine
Written by Will Reiser
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard