Man on a Ledge

 

No, they did not put much thought into the title of this film...  

Man on a Ledge follows the life of an escaped convict, as he tries to prove himself innocent for his supposed crime - being accused of stealing a $40 million dollar diamond.  This film stars Sam Worthington, Elizabeth Banks, Jamie Bell, Genesis Rodriguez and Ed Harris.

Whenever I tell someone I saw the film Man on a Ledge, they always ask me, "So, did he jump off the ledge?"  Well, I'm here to tell you... it's not exactly worth the watch to find out.  It's a good thing this film has more plot dynamic than you might have originally anticipated.  Not bad for a movie with a title like Man on a Ledge. 

Anyways, everything about this film was decent - not amazing, not impressive, but consistently entertaining.  Elizabeth Banks' acting bothered me, however.  She was not convincing as a negotiator, with something to prove to her male superiors.  She came off just as lazy as the people who gave the film its title.  She portrayed the character with little enthusiasm or attitude, and came off unimaginative and dull.  There was no feeling of determination when she spoke her lines, which would have been one of the most important things to convey about her character.  To sum her up: a disappointment.

As for all the other actors, their characters were not exactly deep, but they kept me interested in what was going on... which says something.  They did their jobs, more or less.

I do have to point out Ed Harris, who in my opinion was the star of the film.  He did a great job with his small, but important role.  I finally felt reminded of what real acting is.  It wasn't just make-believe for Ed Harris, but a matter of completely giving himself over to the character.  A complete abandonment of self.  I give him a thumbs up for making some portion of this film have purpose.

Now, this is not a film I would see again.  Once was enough for me, and I don't think it will leave a lasting impression.  So, here is my advice to those of you not sure what to see this weekend.  Man on a Ledge is a light thriller that will be fleeting with its effect on you, if it has any effect on you.  I give this film 6.7/10. It's just okay. It's no Phone Booth.          

The Woman in Black

 

Well, some would say that Daniel Radcliffe will forever be seen as Harry Potter and nothing else.  I think that this might be one of the rare occasions when an actor actually takes his job so seriously that he surpasses the media's low expectations of him.  That goes for all of the young Harry Potter actors.  

The Woman in Black, based on a novel by Susan Hill, is about a young lawyer who is asked by his boss to sort out papers on a property that is meant to be sold.  Little does he know that the property he needs to sort out is haunted by a vengeful mother longing for her dead son, taking her anger out on the children of the town.  

This film is your typical horror film.  You've got ghosts, shadows, black and grey everywhere, things popping out of corners.  This film totally relies on the power of sound at just the right moments, and shadows to keep everything eery.  The set design was really well done and the tone of the film was perfect. To top the horror tradition, you actually have a good actor leading the entire thing. 

Now, to transition from some positive to some negative.  Daniel Radcliffe does not really pull off a father or a widow missing his wife, for that matter.  I didn't feel the parental love I should have felt or the inner pain certain flashbacks were telling us he was in.  He may have taken a leap with that one.  As for the events, moving from one to the other, it seemed slow and slightly repetitive.  It took a while for things to get really interesting with the ghost and Radcliffe.  The ending was not satisfying and you don't quite get any closure.  

With a strong performance from the entire cast, all this film needed was more plot dynamic.  Because it lacked this, I give this film 6.8/10.               

Mission Impossible : Ghost Protocol

This series is known as America's James Bond.  I prefer Britain's James Bond myself...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol follows the ongoing spy life of Ethan Hunt, one of the top agents from the IMF agency, facing yet another mission.  Only this time he goes rogue.  His mission, which he chooses to accept, is to save the world, yet again, from some sort of bomb.  Really, what's the difference what he's saving the world from?  It's all the same...  This film stars the obvious Tom Cruise, the talented Jeremy Renner, the funny Simon Pegg, and the beautiful Paula Patton.  

So where was I?  Oh yes, the fact that I find it insulting when comparing Mission Impossible to James Bond.  The reason I say that is not because Mission Impossible isn't a decent film series.  In fact, Mission Impossible has always been a solid and reliable film series.  The reason I say it is because James Bond is about the swagger/charm of the character, where the audience connects and feels for the character on an emotional level.  It is not just about the story line and how much action they can fill it with.  The character of Ethan Hunt, on the other hand, does not possess characteristics worthy of a strong attachment to the audience.  In fact, he isn't what makes the films what they are.  It's the supporting actors that made this film and, if I look back, the films before.  Whatever spark there once was between Ethan Hunt and the audience, it has long disintegrated to relying on the supporting actors and the ridiculous, yet remarkable stunts.

As you can see, I have more respect for the strength of character, than for action and stunts.  That said, the scene where Tom Cruise climbs the Dubai building is impressive and terrifying to think about.  So I will give him credit for doing it.  I will also clarify, Tom Cruise is a decent actor.  It's not that he isn't.  He just hasn't bothered to develop his character more than by plot.

The writing for this film was well done and light.  Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg were as wonderful as always.  As for Paula Patton, other than being pretty and adding a female dynamic to the scenes, she wasn't impressive as an actress.  I would also like to point out the ridiculous fighting scenes.  I thought the characters fighting each other (particularly at the end with the cars, and when the bad guy gets in a car crash) was just plain stupid and unrealistic.  Usually, when a person is involved in a car crash, they can't get back up and start running within seconds... just sayin'.

Mission Impossible films definitely know how to capture your attention, but they don't know how to make that connection meaningful and with purpose.  Maybe they're supposed to be light and fleeting, but if that's the case, it is no James Bond.  James Bond is iconic and Ethan Hunt is... not.


I give this film 7.5/10 for being, if I could sum it up in one word - okay.

Hugo

 

You can't say it isn't unique...

Hugo is about an orphaned boy who keeps the clocks running in a Paris train station, meanwhile, spending his days searching for clockwork pieces that will help him finish the automaton his father left him.

One thing this film isn't lacking is a sharp beautiful picture that grabs your attention and doesn't let it go until the end.  The plot has so much potential, but I don't feel like they took advantage of that.  There were plenty of scenes that slowed to the point where you found yourself bored.  The story lacks excitement and even though the visuals are inventive and strong, the story only has a few peaks that keep you hoping for better.

The actors did a good job.  I'd like to point out Sasha Baron Cohen's character as extremely entertaining and refreshing from his usual Borat type characters. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz were great together.  Ben Kinglsey also did a good job. None of the acting blew me away though.   

For me it was a slight let down in its entirety.  I think most children would not enjoy it as much as a kid-friendly film should be enjoyed.  The hype surrounding the movie seems to be about the visual strength of the film more than the story or the acting.  It's not balanced.

Because of this, I give this film 7.6/10 for striving to be different and original, but lacking in excitement and adventure.

New Years Eve

 

Eh...(shrug)

I think we all saw this coming.  No surprises here.

New Years Eve follows many lives as they approach a new year and new opportunities, as well as adventures to come. This film includes many stars such as Robert De Niro, Sarah Jessica Parker, Lea Michel, Zack Efron, Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry, and this list goes on.

Basically, the film was mediocre or even less than that.  The acting wasn't horrible on all accounts, but I have discovered I am not a Zack Efron fan.  They all seemed to play very silly characters without much heart or much life.  I feel like a lot of unknown actors could have come up with the same result that would have skipped the theaters and went straight to the W Network.  So why did I pay for such a film when I probably could have seen a similar one on television, making me to switch the channel as soon as I discovered what it was? I should have known.

So, ultimately do not see this film, because frankly it's not worth your eleven bucks. I give this film 5.4/10.  Need a warm and fuzzy holiday film as a replacement?  I recommend The Holiday, Love Actually, When Harry Met Sally.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Huh?  I had some trouble understanding what was going on and apparently I'm not the only one...

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy takes place during the time of the Cold War, where it becomes necessary to bring an espionage veteran (Gary Oldman) out of retirement in order to find out who is the spy within the MI6 agency.  Some known actors in this film include Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, and John Hurt.

Let me be clear: all the acting was extraordinary.  There is no question about that.  Gary Oldman was incredible with his character George Smiley.  Colin Firth and Tom Hardy were impeccable as always.  However, this film reminds you just how far acting can go when the plot is confusing and the film's resolve is misunderstood and dissatisfying.

More specifically, I'd like to point out the tone created by the damp and dark London streets.  They truly set the mood for the film perfectly.  The cinematography was carefully constructed so that it was not overpowering or underwhelming.

I guess my issue with this film is, perhaps, that you had to have read the book in order to understand it.  Leaving the theater, I overheard many people claiming to be completely lost.  So, whether or not this is a film you have to really pay attention in, it is not friendly to all audiences and that, in itself, is the flaw that clouds the film.

However, because I am stubborn and want to make sure I'm not missing something, I am going to give it another shot, and see if maybe my perspective can change.  If I pay more attention maybe the film will reveal things to me it hadn't before.

So for now, I give this film 7.8/10 purely for the superior acting and the visuals.  This rating may change over time, so take it with a grain of salt.  If you see this film, feel free to comment because if you could shed light on certain events within it, I would be very grateful.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

You'd be crazy not to love the Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law duo...

The second installment of the Sherlock Holmes franchise promises continuity as well as a fresh storyline.  The film follows the lives of England's most famous detective Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. John Watson, as they try to hunt down and stop Professor Moriarty from succeeding in provoking a world war.

To start, a lot of the jokes from the first film were shamelessly repeated in the second one.  The plot itself had too many hidden facets and sharp corners for it to feel tight and secure.  There was too much going on, that it felt like plot twists were thrown in for convenience.  For both of these reasons I am lead  to believe that the screenplay was written too quickly and somewhat carelessly, in order to receive instant gratification rather than long lasting appreciation and respect.

 Now, lacking a strong solid plot, I'm going to move on to the directing and producing that took place.  This is where the talent shines through.  I give a thumbs up to Guy Ritchie for his hard work that made the film much better than what it would have been.  I'd like to point out the scene where they are running in the woods and bullets are being shot at them.  This scene was visually very impressive, with slow motion technique put in the right places and the well done camera work revealing a controlled and artistic direction.  This was one of many scenes that I tip my hat to Guy Ritchie for.  Without him, this film would have bombed.

I also will point out the actors - Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachael McAdams, and Noomi Rapace.  They did their jobs well without leaving me with any disappointment.  Noomi Rapace especially brought a refreshing character to the story, keeping female presence empowered amongst two strong male leads.

For all of this, I wouldn't say the film is worth a second glance.  It hasn't completely turned me off from seeing a third installment, but if they don't take more care with the writing, this franchise can only go downhill from here.  I give this film 6.5/10 for its acting and directing, without which the film would have been rated much lower.