Disney's 'Frozen' Warm to the Touch

After nearly a decade of being left in distant third by Pixar and Dreamworks and seeing other rival animation studios surface worldwide, the once legendary Disney Animation has finally regained a serious foothold in today's crowded market. In Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph, they have created two of the absolute best family features in recent years (as I've pointed out, Wreck-It Ralph should have won the Best Animated Feature Oscar last year), and while they seem to be returning to a familiar formula with Frozen, directors Chris Buck (Surfs Up and Tarzan) and Jennifer Lee (who also penned the screenplay) show that Disney can still put on a kick-ass song and dance when given the opportunity.

Loosely based on Hans Christian Anderson tale "The Snow Queen", Frozen is about sisters Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel), princesses in the glorious kingdom of Arendelle. For a long time they've been cooped up in their castle, separated not just from the world, but for the most part from one another. This is particularly hard on the lonely Anna, who remembers sharing joyous relationship with her sibling in the past. On the evening of her coronation as Queen, Elsa accidentally reveals to the world a power to control the elements, and when this incident results in her running away and the kingdom being awash in snow (in July), it's up to Anna - alongside gruff mountain man Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven and Olaf, a magical, living snowman (Josh Gad) - to becalm her sister and try to get the world back to the peaceful, sunny way things used to be.

Just your typical bubbly, overly-friendly, smart Disney princess... maybe...

For the first act, we are introduced to this land in the best possible way: a combination of lovely ice and snow and Broadway-quality song and dance. We're introduced to the sisters, the reason they drifted apart, and family tragedy, all to the enthusiastic harmonics of "DoYou Want to Build a Snowman" and "For the First Time in Forever". The musical score was assembled by Christophe Beck (whose impressive resume includes Pitch Perfect, The Muppets, and last year's Academy Award-winning short film Paperman) and written by Tony Award-winning songwriter Robert Lopez and his wife Kristen Anderson-Lopez, and their combined genius really shines in that first twenty minutes. Those amazing numbers (and to a lesser extent, Menzel's solo performance of "Let it Go") transfix the audience and combine with outstanding visuals to render the average viewer catatonic with emotion. It's the best example I can think of where a movie musical actually carries the charm of a Broadway play, without feeling like a cheap, misunderstanding castoff. It is here that Frozen is at its absolute best, as Beck and Lee make the most of their combined resources and start things off with an impassioned opening salvo of epic set pieces and glorious musical achievement.

No, you may not call him "Bumble".

But somewhere after this point, what makes Frozen truly an unique, prodigious treat is muffled a tad. It's not that the rest of the movie is without charm, or that it is not excellent in its own right; the directors do an amazing job of moving the story forward and keeping you rooting for our likable heroes. But in comparison to that astounding opening, the story just doesn't have the emotional momentum to overcome its limitations, from characters that aren't as deep as they are charming to a definite lack of story development. Besides the opening, Buck and Lee's biggest success is their treatment of the Snow Queen, which when all is said and done is nothing short of miraculous. Menzel's Elsa is not evil or even converted to evil by the fear of the other characters. She's simply misunderstood - more anti-hero than outright villain - and her character never really alters from the very good, very caring character that was established at the beginning. However, the quality of the musical numbers takes a downturn in the second act, and while they're all still quality songs delivered with spunk and dynamism, they don't get any better than those openers. There isn't even a final number - only a reprise of an earlier one - despite a relatively weak ending that would have benefited from a strong closing bit. Finally, despite subverting your expectations of the Disney Princess genre - no doubt due to Lee's work on the screenplay - the film prefers to skew uncomfortably close to that same style, and for the most part doesn't feel different from the Mouse's early, "Damsel in Distress" stories that really ought to feel old-fashioned in this day and age.

Because they have to make a billion dollars in merchandise, as well.

The dialogue is at least razor-sharp, and delivered by a surprisingly elite cast to boot. Sure, you have the unknowns, from Glee's Groff to Broadway star Santino Fontana (playing a seemingly prototypical Prince Charming) who deliver solid efforts. And the twin leads of Bell and Menzell are absolutely perfect, Bell a surprise as her career to this point isn't exactly rich with musical numbers. Nonetheless she does a great job as a charismatic heroine, fitting right in with the likes of Rapunzel, Belle and Pocahontas. Veteran Menzel has never had much of a cinematic career, her biggest effort to date coming in the adaptation of her iconic theatrical role in Rent. More known on Broadway, she takes her combined singing/acting experience and easily converts it to the big screen; some of the film's best moments feature either her understated yet powerful singing or her understated yet compelling acting. The cast is rounded out by veteran voices Ciaran Hinds and Alan Tudyk (though I wish they'd done more with both), and Gad fulfills the comedic sidekick role alongside Sven the silent reindeer. Though both provide laughs (Sven's antics are definitely inspired by Tangled's secondary hero Maximus), they're thankfully not overused, their humor providing just the right amount of levity comparable to their contributions to the plot. It's this excellent use of characters by the directors that keeps both the children and adults in the audience invested in the story through the final two acts.

Don't get in the way of her "Ice Fu".

And these strengths - alongside that stellar opening - are what make Frozen not only the best animated movie this year, but one of the best movies of 2013. There are definitely some gaffes when it comes to Disney's latest effort, and it doesn't come very close to the overall quality of Tangled or Wreck-It Ralph, let alone classics like The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, or The Little Mermaid. Or almost anything from Pixar, for that matter. Even when the movie actively departs from its Princess-y roots, it never distances itself enough to morph into anything distinctive (a defect highlighted by the Mickey Mouse short Get a Horse, which runs with it), and the movie as a whole never really lives up to that outstanding first act. But demerits aside, this is a strong, fun, funny, delightfully subversive and emotionally engaging story for children of all ages and a must-see for anyone who has ever had affection for their siblings. It may not end up being long-remembered, but it certainly ought to be fondly remembered in the years to come.

Way Over the Rainbow

It's not often that a film gets blasted before a single soul ever sees it. Normally, a well-known piece of American literature (in this case Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars") would be at least respected by potential audiences and reviewers months in advance. And yet, thanks to what has been called a "lackluster" marketing drive by Disney and a $250 million budget routinely criticized by movie "experts", there is a good chance that you will not see John Carter on the big screen in the coming days. That would be a mistake, as no matter how much Disney might not know how to advertise a movie geared towards boys (after all, their entire business used to be solely appealing to girls) it doesn't change the fact that I had a ton of fun watching it this past weekend. Todd and I had a choice between this and Silent House (which I'll be reviewing next week), and we decided that we were more in the mood for a light-hearted adventure tale than a spooky horror flick. Sure, 3D hasn't always been kind to me. Sure, it's being released in March, and there's not much released during this particular month that is usually any good. But dammit, we wanted a mindless sci-fi action film, and we didn't care from where we got it.

Soon, he'll be adding Best Picture nominee Battleship to his resume.

When Confederate Civil War hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) finds himself mystically transported to Mars (known to the locals as Barsoom), he finds himself squarely in the middle of an inter-species conflict, as war rages between the cities of Zodanga, a warrior nation intent on destruction, and the peaceful, scientifically superior city of Helium. Somehow Zodanga's leader Sab Than (Dominic West) has gotten his hands on a weapon superior to anything Helium has been able to produce. Dominating his enemies, Sab Than is intent on conquering Helium, and taking the genius Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) as his bride. Asked to help, John Carter is searching for meaning in his life but nevertheless intent on returning to his little bit of nowhere in the American West and a substantial deposit of gold that awaits his return. In his way is the war, a tribe of green skinned aliens known as Tharks, and a mysterious sect known as the Holy Therns, who have their own plans for cities and people of Barsoom.

Yeah, yeah, she's hot... but can she ACT?

John Carter might not seem it at first, but sitting through it makes you appreciate the work of Burroughs, essentially one of the great-grandfathers of modern science fiction. First published in 1912, Carter's adventures have always enjoyed a pulpy feel to their telling, a method that translates to the big screen easily, even if this is the first time the tale has been told in such a visually spectacular way. Director Andrew Stanton, whose resume has mostly consisted of animated films Finding Nemo and Wall-E, does an excellent job in his live action debut, though perhaps not as well as his Pixar compatriot Brad Bird did with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. He's helped by the fact that most of the film is animated to begin with, with almost all the backgrounds, effects and most of the leading roles created in post-production. The design of the alien Tharks is especially realistic, helping John Carter sport the best visual effects since Avatar. Stanton also perfectly captures the intended fictional vision of Mars, a wasteland that despite looking completely barren manages to support life on a grand scale. Top it off with excellent 3D and a musical score by Michael Giacchino, and you've got a perfectly realized Barsoom, easily the most realistic-looking setting for a sci-fi film I've witnessed in a long time.

It's an early twentieth-century sci-fi story... of COURSE there's a dog!

Sadly, the story doesn't quite live up to the standards set by the special effects. Though I haven't read any of the original novels, I'm willing to bet that the quality of the story can partly be attributed to the fact that the tale itself turns one hundred this year, and certainly not everything could be included for fear of simply not getting better with age. Thankfully, this is all but solved with liberal doses of humor that are scattered evenly throughout the film. Unlike last week's Ghost Rider, the humor here is 100% intentional, so there's never that moment where you're laughing at what a farce the show has become. Sure, sometimes the humor goes a little over the top or takes the obvious route to a laugh for the expressed purpose of ending a scene, but no matter what the reason for use, John Carter never fails to be funny when called upon to do so.

"Okay, yeah... I can take them!"

Really, the only disappointing aspect of John Carter is in the acting. It's not the supporting cast that fails us, however. Drawing upon substantial talent like Dominic West, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds (who seems to appear in everything these days), James Purefoy and Bryan Cranston in live action roles, the people on the screen would appear to be as mighty as any seen in the past few years. Add in the vocal talents of Academy Award nominees Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton, and you really do have a cast to be reckoned with. Sadly, it doesn't matter how many excellent supporting actors you've collected when your leads are a pair of noodles just taken out of the water. Taylor Kitsch is at least decent, though I don't see anything beyond his rugged good looks that certify him as a star in the making. Sure, he COULD be the next Hugh Jackman, but Jackman was a theatrically-trained actor who can also sing and dance, regularly showcasing abilities surpassing his presence among the top action stars in Hollywood today. If Kitsch wants to make a name for himself, he'll have to take on a role (and soon) which requires more from him than a guttural regurgitation of simplistic dialogue. The worst however is Lynn Collins, who can at least state that her performance is better than the one she put forth in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. No, that's really not saying much. Perhaps it's partially the character's fault, as Dejah Thoris pretends to be a strong female role while being simultaneously disallowed the opportunity to explore that idea. I felt that the dog had better character development, not a good sign for this pretty but not talent-endowed actress.

Awww, he just wants a hug... of DEATH!

As I've said, the film has flaws. I would have loved to look more into the background of the Therns, a mystical race much like Star Trek's Q species, omnipotent space-faring people that manipulate world event not for evil, but because they can. Perhaps that can be explored in the future, as John Carter was always meant to be the beginning of a film franchise. Whether that happens or not will be decided by how much business it builds in the next few weeks, but in the meantime I seriously enjoyed this film, to the tune of #4 for 2012. Rarely last year did I witness an action film that was the match of what John Carter put before me (the only one surpassing it would have been Hanna, and that title wasn't blessed with the same level of amazing effects), and between this, Underworld: Awakening, The Hunger Games and The Avengers in the year's first half, it's turning into a good year for genre films. I for one was more than pleased to discover that catching this particular title on the big screen was indeed no mistake.

Spirit of Dread (ful)

Oh right, THAT'S what this feels like.

2011 was a great year for superhero movies. Against all odds, Marvel Comics managed to release three such titles that collectively were actually very good, with Captain America, Thor and the excellent X-Men: First Class proving to not only be quality films but extremely profitable in the process. This was a huge difference from years past, in which Marvel wasn't exactly known for putting out the best product (Punisher, Daredevil and Elektra, to name a few). For years films based on the Marvel franchises were criticized by fans for failing to capture the essence of what made the comic books so attractive to people around the globe, while DC Comics  enjoyed a long line of success at the theaters. Much of that success has centered around the "Big Two" of Superman and Batman, however, with last year's bomb Green Lantern hinting that interest outside of Supes and Bats might not be as high. So with Marvel doing so well lately, it was only a matter of time before something like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance came along and ruined that new car smell. Movie-going sidekick Todd stated that she would suffer through Ghost Rider with me if I was going to watch it anyway, but never did I suspect that "suffer" would be the perfect definition for what we did for an hour and a half this past weekend.

Nicolas Cage has never looked better!

Former stuntman Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) has left home and life far behind, hiding out in Eastern Europe while battling with the demonic soul inside him, known as the Rider. When the Rider gets loose, it completely takes over Blaze and destroys evil people, and so Blaze has left to avoid accidentally hurting any of his family and friends (or maybe because it was cheap to film in Romania and Turkey). By avoiding contact with anyone, he can stop the Rider from emerging, but this is not meant to last: an envoy of a holy sect, named Moreau (Idris Elba), has sought Blaze out so that the rider can protect a child being hunted by the The Devil (Ciaran Hinds) to fulfill some bizarre prophecy. With a promise that the sect can also remove the spirit of Ghost Rider from his body, Blaze is in a race against time to protect the boy and his protective mother Nadya (Violante Placido) so that they cannot be harmed and prevent a new apocalypse on Earth.

This is where Charlton Heston went when he died.

If that story put you to sleep, well, I guess you're done reading. For those of you still conscious, this Ghost Rider sequel features the worst elements of cliched Hollywood screenwriting, surprising since David S. Goyer was the chief storyteller here. Goyer's best work has been writing superhero films including the Blade trilogy and with Christopher Nolan on Batman Begins, so it's actually kind of surprising that there's nothing to redeem Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, a film that revels in showing us the completely ridiculous. Maybe that's the fault of the directors, though. The duo of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (known collectively as Neveldine/Taylor) has become well known for their irreverence and explosive action, and I really liked their 2009 look a the future of social media, Gamer. Elmo has also praised their addition to Jason Statham's action resume in Crank, and if there was one thing I had hoped going into this new release, it was that Neveldine/Taylor would make up for its faults by cranking the energy of the film all the way up to 11. Instead, Ghost Rider is far too much like Jonah Hex, the utter crap from 2010 for which they wrote the screenplay. Riddled with animated interludes, an excess of voice-overs (by a mentally unstable Cage, no less), and more cliches than you should legally be allowed to include, this was a story that never had a chance of success, even BEFORE you threw Nicholas Cage at it.

That chimichanga REALLY disagreed with him...

Ah, Nicolas Cage. He and I have enjoyed a love/hate relationship since I began this site a few years ago; he loves himself and I hate his movies. Dotting his resume are performances that prove he has talent as an actor (Brian could tell you more, but some include Kick-Ass, Adaptation, and Leaving Las Vegas). However, all this means is that there are some directors out there who manage to reign in his levels of crazy into something both tangible and entertaining on the big screen. Neveldine/Taylor are not those directors. Cage is regularly allowed to go balls-to-the-wall insane, and when he does the results are not as they should be. I'm okay with the fact that the screenplay includes an overdose of humor (if it hadn't, I never could have made it through the film), but regularly Cage's exploits as the Rider earn more unintentional laughter than they should. The character of Ghost Rider needs to be scary to be effective, but not once does the character do anything to frighten the audience. I'm shocked that the bad guys don't just keel over from laughter every time Cage is on the set, as that's all I would do in their place.

So much acting talent... it's just GONE...

The rest of the cast is okay, though they rarely step above the level of "comic book movie" quality. Ciaran Hinds is excellent chewing scenery as The Devil, though he's featured very little, relatively speaking. Taking over for Peter Fonda in the original, Hinds has enjoyed a recent string of secondary roles in the past few years, and he's a talented actor with a unique look that will always find him a place in genre films. Idris Elba is another serious talent who adopts a French accent almost as believable as his American in HBO's The Wire. As a Golden Globe winner (for BBC series Luthor) it's a shame to see him bust his butt in small comic book movie roles like this and Thor, but at least he's getting regular work in Hollywood. I was less impressed by Johnny Whitworth, who is fine in smaller roles but not so much as this film's main antagonist. I liked Violante Placido in 2010's The American but she likewise doesn't have any real depth beyond the "desperate mother" role she plays dutifully. In the end, Cage is allowed to go psycho, while the rest of the cast is just trying to counteract that with actual acting.

Blaze was never invited kiting again.

If there's one saving grace to Spirit of Vengeance (besides the actually intentional humor), it is the special effects, which include post-production 3D. Think about that for a second. I have been more than vocal about my dislike of the technology explosion that has been 3D in film, to the point where I will avoid the topic even when relevant to avoid repeating myself over and over again. If I was to list my favorite films using 3D from the past few years, most of them would have one thing in common: they were filmed using 3D cameras, and not simply rendered in post-production. There are a few films with post-prod 3D that actually work (Piranha 3D is the only one that comes to mind), but for the most part the only way to make great 3D these days is to just spend the extra money for the cameras. Ghost Rider is a shocking change in the trend, lending credence to the idea that post-filming conversion has gotten much better in the short period of time since people gave Clash of the Titans crap for their 3D usage. I still believe there's nothing better at the moment than James Cameron's introduction of the 3D camera technology to the filmmaking process, but perhaps that won't be true for long.

Um, no, I'll walk. Thanks.

Of course, when the best thing you can say about a movie is that the 3D is great, you know you've just done yourself an injustice in your film-going choices. I normally would never say this so early in the year, but I harbor no doubts that Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance will be among the worst films I list at the end of 2012. Neveldine, Taylor and Cage aren't even trying, and their lack of effort drags this film into such a deep abyss that you pray it never escapes, lest the end of civilization as we know it follow. I'll have higher hopes for Marvel's next film event The Avengers, and hope Joss Whedon and crew can wash the taste of bile from my mouth at having volunteered to watch such a monumental cinematic mistake.

Black Friday

Todd and I went on our second movie trip this past week. Originally I wasn't 100% certain what we were going to see, but with our shared love of all things science fiction, we were prepared to take in the 3D re-release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, which had made its way into theaters over the weekend. While both of us (and most Star Wars fans) agree that it is nowhere close to the best film in the iconic George Lucas franchise, we both also agreed that "yeah, we'll see it" on the big screen given the chance. But when the witching hour came, there was a moment of doubt, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. Actually, what happened is that we had a change of heart. If there's one thing Todd loves more than sci fi, it's horror, and when the Poltergeist fan offhandedly mentioned The Woman in Black - the new film featuring everybody's favorite Hogwarts graduate Daniel Radcliffe - it suddenly opened the way for a new opportunity. Forgoing Lucas' special effects extravaganza (seriously, I should have learned my lesson the first time), she and I settled down for the old-school nitty gritty of a classical haunted house tale.

Yes, because taking on a ghost with an axe is SO smart...

Four years ago, the wife of Edwardian era lawyer Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) passed away giving birth to their young son. Today, Kipps is depressed, lonely, and something of an alcoholic, never getting over the circumstances surrounding the love of his life's death. Kipps is sent on a business trip to sort out the affairs of Eel Marsh House, a secluded mansion located in a tiny village in rural England, in a last chance to sort out his issues and emotional turmoil. While most of the locals can't wait to be rid of Kipps, he does gain an ally in Sam Daily (Ciaran Hinds), the one man in the whole village who doesn't believe in the superstitious mumbo jumbo spoken aloud. And yet something evil undeniably permeates the small town; reports of a restless spirit haunting Eel Marsh House are followed by the tragic deaths of several local children. Despite the dangers, and the increasing hostility of the people in the village, Kipps makes it his mission to discover what force has taken residence in the foreboding house, and make things safe for the children again, even as he is due to be joined by his own young son in only a few days time.

Don't worry; he'll exorcise this spirit with MAGIC!

As just about anyone can tell you, Woman in Black is the first film to star Radcliffe since the last entry of the Harry Potter series was released this past fall. As for his appearance here, I am of two minds. The first is that Radcliffe does an amazing job playing a role about as far from that of his family-friendly wizard as it can possibly be. Playing a depressed widower to the level that he achieves would be a challenge for any veteran performer, and Radcliffe is incredibly impressive in his first role as a full-fledged adult. That being said, the 23-year old still looks like he should be in high school, and his baggy eyes and oh-so-lifelike facial fuzz do little to hide his youthful looks. It was quite the distraction, and while he does his absolute best to be involved with the story at hand, you can't help but notice how much more appropriate the film would be with magic wands and Rupert Grint.

...and The Joker demanded a do-over

Questionable lead casting aside, The Woman in Black remains a classic haunted house film. That "classic" adjective is unfortunately a hindrance as well as a help. I don't know if it has something to do with the story's origins as a novel by English author Susan Hill, or perhaps simply a lack of unique ideas by director James Watkins, but this film felt somewhat derivative of haunted house tales of yesteryear, with each plot point accentuated by the thought of having been seen somewhere else. If the source material is to blame, perhaps that's because The Woman in Black was published back in 1983, and a lot of horror films have been released in the time since. One that I was easily reminded of was 2002's The Ring, directed by Gore Verbinski. The Woman in Black is similar in theme, and even sports a similar ghost and ending; you can do worse than be akin to one of the scariest films of the new millennium. Still, this means The Woman in Black is nothing you haven't seen before, especially if you're already a huge fan of horror films.

Hey, look! Someone who isn't Daniel Radcliffe!

The rest of the cast is thankfully as good as Radcliffe, though they are certainly few in number. Ciaran Hinds surprised me by playing decent guy Sam Daily (he has more the look of a classic Bond villain), a wealthy land-owner who doesn't believe in ghost stories despite the tragic death of his own child. Academy Award nominee Janet McTeer also impresses as Daily's affected wife, who seems to suffer from dementia and believes herself a medium through which her deceased son speaks. She manages to steal every one of her scenes, and when she actually gets a chance to show off in the film (which is sadly little), they are among the best moments of the film. And Liz White is at times sympathetic and scary as the house's possessive spirit, perfectly capturing both the cheap and expensive scares needed to make this film a success.

...aaaand back to Daniel

And a success it is. While not as scary as say, last year's Insidious, The Woman in Black is a complete package of entertainment, with excellent atmosphere, wonderful acting, and insanely scary moments that keep you on the edge of your seat. If this film had been a teeny bit more original, it might have topped at #1, but landing at #4 for 2012 is no small feat, and I'd easily recommend this title for those horror fans who are looking for something more familiar and classic than what usually gets released these days, and it gets a few points for being done right.

Tinker Tailor on Mr. Anderson

When British author John le Carre released his fifth novel featuring Secret Intelligence Agent George Smiley in 1974, he can be forgiven perhaps for not realizing what he had on his hands at the time. The first novel in what became known as his Cold War-set "Karla Trilogy" went on to become a bestseller of international proportions, had radio and television adaptations made, and remains one of the best known British novels to date, completely revolutionizing the spy drama in the process. So when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy finally was given the cinematic treatment by director Tomas Alfredson (who made the original Swedish Let the Right One In), there were those fans of the book whose response was “it’s about time!” It helped that the cast brought in was chock full of talent, from standouts like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth to perhaps lesser known Tom Hardy and Toby Jones. Would any of these stellar abilities get any lasting recognition for such a renowned title? And how does this well-anticipated film fare over the course of a two hour movie when both previous adaptations had to be slotted into seven-part miniseries? My trek to the theater to add this to my yearly film allowance would hopefully answer that.

Gary Oldman: classic curmudgeon

In the wake of a blown operation in which British spy Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is shot and captured by Russian intelligence operatives, a shakedown is performed at the top of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, forcing out "Control" (John Hurt), the SIS’s director, and his right hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Control is convinced however that one of the four men left in charge of the SIS in his departure is in fact a mole, funneling secrets to Russian Intelligence. When Control, already ill, passes away, it is left to Smiley to ferret out what few clues can be found and to see which of the four operatives, code-named Tinker (Toby Jones), Tailor (Colin Firth), Soldier (Ciaran Hinds) and Poorman (David Dencik), is the culprit, and whether the mole has anything to do with the top secret source of intelligence from Russia, known only as “Witchcraft”.

Yes, books... you might have heard of them

As I mentioned before, the exhaustive cast is one of the major draws if Tinker Tailor appeals to you. Gary Oldman reminds us of what a star he used to be in the nineties, as recent years have seen him starring in less-than-reputable titles or tagging on side roles in big series' like The Dark Knight or Harry Potter. Given center stage, however, he cuts a swath through the material in front of him, with every deliberate motion and dour grimace given for a very good reason, with no wasted energy to muddy up his delivery beyond exactly what is needed. It doesn’t hurt that he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, most notably Colin Firth as a rival Intelligence head and one of those suspected to be a mole. Firth plays up the clichéd British arrogance for the role, but because he’s Colin fricking Firth his performance doesn’t come off as trite or silly. Other standouts include Toby Jones as the smug new head of the SIS, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s confidante and overly cautious agent, and Mark Strong in a relatively small role as Jim Prideaux, the agent (and Firth’s character’s best friend)  whose capture sets off the whole mess. Kathy Burke impresses in one scene as a foul-mouthed source of information (I guess her character had a larger role in the book), vacillating between helpful and flirty with Smiley. Unfortunately, crushing the story of the book down to a two-hour film means a whole got left out, including a lot of back-story for suspects played by Ciaran Hinds and David Denick. It’s a shame as both are well-regarded actors who would have benefited from a little more screen time. Also impressive is rising Hollywood star Tom Hardy as young agent Ricki Tarr, whose appearance in London allows Smiley clues to the mole in his midst. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable with a shaggy head of hair, shows that no matter the role, no matter how out of place it might seem for him, he can do it. It’ll be a shame to see his career go mainstream (such as in the upcoming This Means War), but if there’s any justice in the world, his name atop billboards will inspire people to see his films sooner rather than later.

What's more ridiculous; his career ascension, or his hair?

The aforementioned plot compressions create other problems besides just glossed-over characters. On one hand, the story feels told as if no crucial details are left out, and the tension the film bears throughout feels completely natural to a spy thriller like this. On the other hand, the tension is born from square one, with little downtime for the viewers to stop and catch their breath amid all the potential treason. While no major details feel left out, the same cannot be said for minor, clarifying ones, and some narrative miscues will throw the viewer off for whole scenes at a time, especially some featuring Mark Strong early on. Overall, the whole thing feels as though you need to have read the book to fully appreciate the experience of seeing this film. This is unfortunately the byproduct of plot shrink, and thankfully it’s no more than a minor nuisance on the film as a whole. Sure, some characters and plot points would have made far more sense with a bit more prodding, but for the most part such details would have been nice additions, not necessary exposition.

He may not get an Academy Award, but he's still Colin Firth!

For a film based on a beloved novel, there were certainly plenty of places where a lesser filmmaker would have screwed up. Thankfully, Alfredson did his source material due diligence and brought together the perfect cast, melding them into a story that would have devolved into drawn-out mumbo-jumbo without a strong hand to guide them. This is one of the few times I will argue that a film should have been LONGER, but thankfully this is no reason not to see what amounts overall to a very good film. While perhaps not reaching “Must See” status, it’s just a rung below, and even if you don’t see this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in the theaters, I hope you’ll at least consider it a serious rental in a few month’s time. More importantly, I hope the Academy will show the film and especially lead Gary Oldman more love than the Golden Globes have. Oldman deserves a Best Actor nomination for his efforts, as much for how he has been ignored in today’s Hollywood as he has been vindicated in this international thrill ride.