Beware of Falling Bodies

Ah, the plight of the up-and-coming Australian actor. It seems that whenever a performer arrives in Hollywood from "down under", they enjoy a brief run on the big screen before fading into obscurity. If they're lucky, they can at least follow up their short-lived superstardom with sporadic appearances that pay the bills. Eric Bana has done a nice job following that path, and even though he has the talent do more than play secondary characters in second-rate films, that is his lot in life now. Chances of a new Mel Gibson appearing among the industry's rank and file seem far less likely nowadays, especially with more and more nations contributing new Hollywood stars to outshine those who came before. And that brings us to Sam Worthington, one of the latest attempt Australia has put forward to try and prove their relevance in today's film industry. Sure, everybody was impressed with his American debut in the fun but otherwise frivolous Terminator Salvation, but since then his career the past couple of years has been... uneven. Sure, he scored great successes in Avatar and Clash of the Titans, but neither of those could be considered "acting" films. His only other widely-released film, the spy thriller The Debt, was successful at the box office only by virtue of being inexpensively made. While I have no doubt that this year's Clash sequel Wrath of the Titans will also be a massive success, I'm waiting for Worthington to prove that he can overcome that "action" motif and prove he has talent consistent with what we witnessed so briefly in Terminator Salvation. That's what made Man on a Ledge so interesting for me. Here was a chance for Worthington to have a taste of both worlds, with some of the action that has made him the actor he is today, alongside some legitimate dramatic and thriller bits that would challenge him to expand on his usual repertoire. Being surrounded by a talented cast (including Jamie Bell, Anthony Mackie and Ed Harris) doesn't hurt either, and the ensemble cast looked more than able to make up for what looked like little more than lightly clever heist film. At center stage is the Aussie actor, trying to show us that he indeed has what it takes to run with the big boys.

No, really, he just enjoys the view

One morning, fugitive and former police officer Nick Cassidy (Worthington) enters a Manhattan hotel and checks in under a false name. The man accused and convicted of stealing the Monarch diamond from Real Estate tycoon David Englander (Ed Harris), Nick apparently has little to live for, and climbs out on the high ledge of the hotel. This action soon gains witnesses, as a police and a shocked crowd gather, the law to try and save his life, the crowd to see whether he'll jump. The eyes of the city are on Nick... and that allows his brother Joey (Jamie Bell) and Joey's girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez) to sneak into a building across the street with a whole mess of thieving tools. Their mission? To prove that the Monarch diamond was never stolen, and that Nick Cassidy was an innocent man all along.

We love wires

Okay, to be fair, the whole situation is more than a BIT convoluted. You're going to be asking yourself a lot of questions, such as "why does he have to be right across the street? Why not be across town?" and "how did Joey and Angie afford all that extremely sophisticated equipment they use to break into a high-security building?" "Why would Joey give Angie a chance to back out when he would have had no chance of success on his own?" "How did Nick get convicted with no real evidence that he stole the diamond in the first place?" All good questions, never answered. While the premise in itself is indeed an intriguing one, it's also the film's fatal flaw; very little actually makes sense, and yet things turn out okay for the most part. When something comes up and a character says "we're not ready yet", there's no real explanation as to why they're not and by the time the moment comes to past, they usually are. Man on a Ledge has plenty of last-second gasps, but thankfully they are not what drives the film.

Nick made sure to get a live feed of the Giants game. Because some things are too important to miss

In fact, it's the human element of Ledge that is the real treat for audiences, and the film has a bevy of talented actors to build a film around. Best is the pairing of Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez as the amateur robbers. Romantically linked, their conversations are full of humorous bickering and even innuendo, and the two have a great chemistry that makes it all work. Bell of course is amazing (as always) in a role more free-form than most he usually performs, even allowing him in one moment to draw upon his Billy Elliot history. He's an extremely talented actor, and hopefully he'll be leading films in his own right. Rodriguez, who to this point has mostly appeared in Spanish-language telenovelas, puts on a remarkably nuanced performance as Angie, portrayed as being smarter, stronger and more dominant overall than Bell's Joey. Angie is the perfect example of the strong female character you don't see in most Hollywood screenplays these days, and Rodriguez might prove herself into a successful acting career with this debut. Another strong female character is negotiator Lydia Mercer, played by Elizabeth Banks. I'm not usually a fan of Banks, but she does a fine job playing Mercer, a rookie who famously botched rescuing the victim of a similar suicide attempt and has been vilified by the press and her peers, as if she hadn't already been having a difficult time breaking into the "boys club" of the NYPD. I hadn't expected much, but the character's transformation over the course of the film is one of its highlights, one that makes the film much better than it should be. Other good performances come from cops played by Titus Welliver and Anthony Mackie.

"Dispatch? I forgot my lines again. Advise?"

Of course, the film does have major flaws, mostly in the acting department. Worthington is actually mostly okay, his energy and enthusiasm making up for some minor flaws and the fact that his Australian accent keeps popping up for no reason. He's got the charisma to lead a major motion picture; I'm just not sure this was the right one. There were two far worse performances to be had, one inexcusable and the other unnecessary. Director Asger Leth typically makes documentaries (and incidentally hasn't made a film in six years) and so his inclusion of a major character in the press corps is not all that surprising. What IS surprising is that in putting Kyra Sedgwick in that role, he has guaranteed that I'm that much further from bothering with her TV show The Closer, as her reporter is the worst representation of the free press I've seen in film. Her role is also borderline insulting, as she's playing a Latina (Suzie Morales), leading me to wonder at the laziness of the casting. I don't care if you thought she could pull it off; either cast a Latina, or change the character's name. As if we don't have enough high profile racial casting issues in Hollywood today. But Ed Harris has the unfortunate fate of having the worst role in the film, that of the completely illogical villain. His role is so poorly written, conceived and executed that you have to ask what it was that Harris saw in the script that made such an otherwise talented performer proclaim that he was in. Every decision David Englander makes during the film is stupid, making one question how he became so successful in the first place. A horrible antagonist would be a prime reason to stay away from Man on a Ledge, were it not for all the dominant GOOD work around him.

This won't end well

The stuff I liked? Anything Bell and Rodriguez and their adventures in breaking and entering, Banks' good cop schtick, the action and even Sam Worthington in a role that won't establish him as a star, but doesn't hurt his chances either. The bad? Harris, Sedgwick, a negative look at humanity in general, and a plot that is so contrived and dependant on things going JUST the right way that it becomes completely unbelievable in the face of pure logic. I enjoyed Man on a Ledge despite its flaws, but that doesn't mean that they can be ignored. For now, it's the #5 movie of 2012, and if this is the worst thing I'll see this year (and it won't be), I'll still be happy with it overall.

Animation Nation

Well, hey, if Martin Scorcese can make an excellent family film on his first go around, who's to say that Steven Spielberg can't make an equally great animated film in his first attempt? December has proven to be a big name for the iconic director, whose live-action War Horse has already been nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Picture and will surely be have been considered when the Academy Award nominations roll around. Beyond that, he released his first animated film (alongside another epic filmmaker, Peter Jackson) The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, which has received a Best Animated Film nomination and will likely be the pick for what has become the Academy's annual nomination of an animated feature to the Best Picture category. Based on the classic comic book series by Belgian artist George Remi (or as he's more popularly known, Herge), Spielberg has owned the rights to make Tintin since shortly after Remi's death in 1983. For one reason or another - whether due to unacceptable scripts or other responsibilities - Tintin did not make it to the big screen, and we would never see a live-action version of this international sensation in movie theaters. Enter Peter Jackson, who had used motion capture technology in creating amazingly lifelike nonhuman characters for films King Kong and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Suggesting that Tintin could be made into an animated film using motion capture equipment, he and Spielberg set out to do something never before accomplished, and for the most part they got it right.

A Library? Don't you know all good adventures start in a tavern??

When renowned Belgian reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a beautiful three-masted ship model at an outdoor market, he doesn't think anything of it. He doesn't know that simply purchasing  the ship may present him with the story of a lifetime. He certainly doesn't expect that it will set him on a globetrotting mission to uncover the secrets of a lost treasure, restore the legacy of a cursed family tree, and suffer through disasters on land, sea, and air to survive by the skin of his teeth every time. Escorted and aided everywhere by his white fox terrier Snowy and new friend Captain Archibald Haddock (Andy Serkis), Tintin is in a race against time to find a sunken treasure before criminal mastermind Ivan Sakharine (Daniel Craig) can steal it to fund his nefarious deeds.

Yes! Saved from a life of glorious adventure!

The stills I've compiled don't do enough to show how brilliantly animated this film is. The Adventures of Tintin possesses the most realistic depictions of human characters I've ever seen in a non-live action film, and anyone who's seen what bad human characters look like know how big a deal that is. Never has Uncanny Valley been so conspicuously absent, and several scenes are so realistic they look as if they were shot with live actors instead of their digital counterparts. This is especially true of the main character, whose likeness to actor Jaime Bell helps connect him to the viewers, but who also must be believable in every scene. And since he's in just about EVERY scene there is... well, what's important is that the animation not only doesn't detract from the adventurous aspect of the film, it actually assists in making it more engaging to the audience. In fact, I'd say that should Spielberg become interested in doing a line of films in this vein, it would make for a natural progression of the Indiana Jones series, which shares many similarities with his variation of Tintin. After all, there's nothing that could cleanse the palette of Crystal Skull better than to reboot the franchise with computer animation, in my opinion.

No, really! I always do the crossword in the blood of my enemies!

Another step in the right direction is the breadth of characters made open to us, thanks especially to Spielberg's faithfulness to the source material. Though we learn little about Tintin himself (a byproduct of Herge, who developed all his secondary characters more than he did his hero), his visual demeanor and Jamie Bell's reading of the role make him instantly likable, as Bell gives Tintin a youthful exuberance in which you can't help but get caught. Also a lot of fun is Andy Serkis as Tintin's friend Haddock, an alcoholic and self-proclaimed failure who rediscovers his sense of adventure and self-respect of the course of the film. Playing the role of crowd favorite, it's the most fun I've had seeing a Serkis performance since he played Gollum in Lord of the Rings and even that thirty seconds of awesome that was Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Daniel Craig rises above his so-so no-Bond 2011 with his best performance of the year, and that's mainly because it's the only one in which you're not sure it's him until the final credits. As the film's main villain, Craig comes off as devious, cruel and completely lacking in compassion, which is exactly what was needed. A nice addition to the cast are the comedic duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as Thomson and Thompson (yes, two different spellings) as identical policemen who are allies with Tintin. While not deeply ingrained to the main story, their sporadic appearances do provide quite a bit of levity to the story, which occasionally needs it when gunfire is present at regular intervals. Finally, one of the film's better roles might be for a non-speaking part, as Spielberg takes his love of furry animals to the ultimate level with the rendering of Snowy, who is as fleshed out a character as can be, despite the dubious distinction of walking on four feet.

Aye, he's an angry Scotsman

If there's one problem with Tintin, it's that it's directed by, well, Steven Spielberg. Don't get me wrong; in his early years, Spielberg was a genius director for whom the sky was the limit. However, he hit that sky more than a decade ago, and these days seems to settle his business quickly and efficiently, resulting in some underwhelming and overrated titles that survive mainly due to his name and the talent he attracts to his side. One major problem with his work is that the message of the film or even a single scene is placed out there in the open, and he can't help but constantly point to it and figuratively say "See? See? Aren't I clever?" It's less present in Tintin, but still present a bit too often; Spielberg must have heard the moviemaking manta "show, don't tell", but if he has it has no presence in his work, with characters espousing plot devices and any important information instead of letting us work it out for ourselves. That's what makes him such a mediocre (and ironically, popular) director; his films these days rarely make you actually think, allowing you to turn off your brain and not ponder what you see or hear. Most people like that, but as a regular film-goer, I prefer subtlety and intelligence to rule the day.

Hey, don't you know it's impolite to eavesdrop??

Despite this, The Adventures of Tintin is an exciting, fun film for the whole family that is a modern miracle in human engineering. I was not bored one moment throughout the film, and while some quiet moments would have been welcomed, I can't help but feel this is a more trivial quibble than a real critique. Some moments, such as an amazing chase through the streets of Bagghar, Morocco, count among the greatest feats of cinema in 2011, and it's that visual spectacle alongside some real human heart that rates this title so highly in my eyes. It's no Arthur Christmas in terms of overall film quality, but Tintin is still one of the best animated films I've seen recent years, and it's lack of inclusion in the Top 10 is by no means meant as a snub. A very good film that you should see in the theater, this is by far my favorite Spielberg film this decade. With an attempt to try something different on your part, it could be yours too.

Plain Jane Reigns

Today I've got a special treat for you. Once again I'm teaming up with my good friend Steve, whose Stevereads blog can be found on the web magazine Open Letters Monthly. Once more we share a topic, as he delves into the literary classic by Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, while I tackle in my own way the 2011 film adaptation that is already setting some film attendance records around the country. I honestly don't recall reading Jane Eyre in high school. I remember that we had to read it for English class, but much of the required reading from that time has faded somewhat into background static for me; if it wasn't Shakespeare, I didn't much care for it, and this particular Bronte book stuck less with me than most. It's odd to think of it this way, for when I first saw this film's trailers a few months ago, my first thought was: "Why didn't the book seem this AWESOME when I first read it??" Getting me suitably intrigued, I was then forced to wait weeks after the film's official release for it to make its way to my favored theater. I was certainly excited, but for all I knew the trailers may have been apart from the story's true narrative, and fears of being bored to tears by a traditional period piece were not unheard in my mind.

 The film opens with namesake Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) sneaking out of Thornfield Hall with her meager belongings and running for the hills. Before the wild elements can cause her to perish alone, she is taken in by a kind young holy man, St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. Recovering her strength, we are soon told the fascinating tale of Jane's past, from a neglected and abusive childhood at the hands of her wicked step-family to an equally traumatic education at a penny-pinching boarding house, to her employment at Thornfield Hall and the irregular romance the rather plain Jane shares with the master of the house, the sullen and eccentric Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

One of the first things I noticed watching this film was something I was certain would never happen: there's not one iota of voice-over narrative anywhere in this film. There is the occasional line of dialogue that overlaps scenes, but not once is Bronte's descriptive word spoken out loud so that the audience can easily follow along with the film's tale. By removing this potentially distracting staple of modern film, director Cary Fukunaga risked losing his audience in the mix and forces them to focus on every detail they are presented with, making this latest rendition of Jane Eyre a show for the true thinking viewer. The dialogue is smart enough and the characters complex enough to make sure you can't just sit back and turn off your brain; the patron who invests himself in this title will surely be rewarded with a richer understanding and appreciation for the narrative they just witnessed.

And what an outstanding narrative it is! Love, lies, betrayal, and mystery are ever-present in this tale, one much darker than most classic period pieces. Fukunaga, who had only directed the Spanish-language film Sin Nombre before tackling this project, has a great eye for detail, and has the ability to instill the bleak and heavy atmosphere where most would fail to tread. This results in Jane Eyre being fundamentally different not only from the countless prior adaptations but also makes for a much more groundbreaking film than one would initially think. Fukanaga's supposed inexperience is nowhere to be seen here, and its almost scary to think that he might have out-directed most of his more renowned predecessors when it comes to adapting this Bronte classic. Though it does feel as if some story elements were left out (and since I'm not Steve, I wouldn't know where to seek them), it doesn't detract at all from the film's composure.

The acting here is top of the line, and a mix of obvious choices and curious talents littering the mix. Mia Wasikowska proves that her 2010 breakthrough performances in the films Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right were no flukes with her commanding portrayal of the titular heroine. Wasikowska shows a variety of sides in this character, and Eyre might end up being her signature role when all is said and done. Michael Fassbender is another rising star; his parts in films like Inglourious Basterds and Centurion roaming enough to make him not an obvious choice for this classic role. He makes it his own however, and you can't deny his multitude of talents. The only real question is how he hasn't been noticed by now, as his lead role is his best yet. It's almost a shame he'll be slumming it up this summer in X-Men First Class, but as long as he's able to get those roles he should be able to sign on for any script he wants. For the safe casting decisions, Jamie Bell is good in the relatively small role of secondary love interest, though it's too bad that it doesn't live up to his abilities. He probably could have done so much more with his acting talents, given the chance. Judi Dench also has a minor part as Mrs Fairfax, Thornton Hall's housekeeper; it's a tiny part, and she goes above and beyond in making it hers. It almost doesn't matter who fills these roles, as most of the film is either just Wasikowska, or Wasikowska and Fassbender together. I do have to give some kudos to Amelia Clarkson, who played Jane as a young girl in the early scenes. She was such a treat that I was almost sad when Wasikowska took over the role full-time. Like much of the rest of the movie, the cast comes together perfectly, and made the entire experience the best it could be.

It seems impossible to say it, but Fukanaga might have created the greatest film version of Jane Eyre of all time. There are a few dull bits, especially early on when the plot is still growing and things haven't yet reached their apex. Some of the dialogue is a bit too mouthy, and though most people can follow the general gist of the conversation, some sentences will doubtlessly end with audience members scratching their heads. But these are mere nitpicks. Jane Eyre easily matched my expectations and threw a few curves for good measure. For that it becomes 2011's new #3 film, and certainly encourages me to pick up this literary classic and re-read it for the first time in nearly fifteen years. But don't worry, I won't be taking notes on that event; writing about books is Steve's job, and you won't find me encroaching on his territory anytime soon.

The Empire Strikes Back

You might recall back in November, I reviewed an independent film from Descent director Neil Marshall called Centurion. The film followed a band of lost Roman soldiers being chased from Pict tribes in what is now known as the Great Britain, the edge of the known world at the time. At the review's end, I predicted that the wide-release and extremely similar Hollywood film The Eagle, when it was to be released, would be nowhere close to the quality of Marshall's film, despite director Kevin Macdonald being a more renowned director (winning an Academy Award for his 2000 documentary One Day in September). The film not only takes places around the same time as Centurion, but also uses the fabled disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion as its main plot device. In this, it is far from the first. In fact, the Lost Ninth has been the focus of many books and films, not the least of which is the 1954 novel The Eagle of the Ninth, on which the film I'm reviewing today is officially based.With the lack of viable film releases in recent weeks and harboring no desire to be depressed into next month (sorry, Biutiful, I'll get to you soon), I decided this last Saturday to take in the historically-inaccurate action film. I certainly did not expect much from The Eagle, but I was at least hoping it would surpass my limited expectations and make for an enjoyable if brainless activity.

Marcus's secret attack - The Smolder

The film begins with the arrival of Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) in Roman-occupied Britain approximately twenty years after the legion led by his father - you guessed it, the Ninth - disappeared in the wilderness of the north, never to be seen again. Since then, Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of what is known today as Hadrian's Wall, with the intent of keeping the barbaric tribes outside of Rome's control from attacking "civilized" folk. After serving briefly as a Roman Centurion, Marcus hears rumors of the lost legion's standard, a gold eagle statuette, seen north of the wall. Intent on recovering the symbol of Rome and restoring his family's honor, he heads into the unknown world with only the Scottish slave Esca (Jamie Bell) as escort. Together, they search for the item and honor, facing the dangers of Britain's northern lands every step of the way.

Yes, I'm stealing this line from Airplane: "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

Kevin Macdonald made some interesting, perplexing decisions in making the film. The most obvious was his casting Americans as the conqueror Romans. Normally in film, when you have an over-lording empire, whether it be the Romans or the Sith, your average casting job in these instances calls for lots and lots of British actors. Besides the obvious talent pool you have from filming in Europe, it simply feels more authentic when your empire soldiers speak with a clipped British accent. I know that doesn't make a ton of sense, what with English not being even close to being a language at a time and Britain in fact not even being officially on the same LAND MASS as the city of Rome. But, for me at least, the British accent makes it feel more familiar and acceptable. American voices in comparison just sound so... UNREFINED. Even talented actors like those of Donald Sutherland (yes, I know he's Canadian) simply don't seem to belong in these roles, and they represent the upper echelon of acting talent. In an early scene basically spelling out the pretense of the film, Macdonald managed to secure some of the worst vocal talents this side of a Limp Bizkit concert to set up the film's tale. I mean... I GET IT. You use Americans to represent this country's history as a conquering nation, using Picts and Gauls to represent Native Americans. I can understand that just fine. What I can't forgive is the ham-handedness with which this was carried out, culminating in a first third of a film that just doesn't feel very well put together.

Yes, that will probably hurt

Another unfortunate decision was to make the film PG-13. There are numerous fights that occur through the course of the story, and if this had been a more ambitious film, it would have upped the blood and gore conspicuously absent from the film. It certainly didn't need to be as bloody as Centurion (which made a point of dismembering each representative limb at least TWICE during the length of the film) but the surprisingly bloodless battles and just-off-screen violence make The Eagle feel lifeless and dull in even these instances and practically begs for an "unrated" DVD release. There are some acts (including the murder of a small child) that would easily have knocked the film's rating up to R had it just been slightly more in the frame. This can only be seen as cowardice on the part of the filmmakers, perhaps worried that their film would not reach a prospective audience with an R rating.

What's hidden is that not one of them is wearing pants

As for historical accuracy, Macdonald had said he wanted to be as accurate as possible, but when you're dealing with a disputed legend and ancient tribes for which little is known, there's not a whole lot to work with. The best you can do is nail down the Romans, and for all intents and purposes, the director seems to at least pull that off. Of course, the only major detail they focus on - and of course they make SURE you notice it too - is the fact that the Roman helmet apparently left a distinctive (and convenient) welt under your chin. I guess I can't be too disappointed, since the film is based on a novel written for children, not any actual historical tale. Most historical analysts won't be paying much attention to this film anyway, I suspect.

Joey REALLY liked gladiator movies

The acting left a lot to be desired, though much can be attributed to a lazily-woven script rather than unambitious acting. I thought Tatum was actually much better here than than he had been in GI Joe, though any who remember that particular film know that's not saying much. At times his natural charm shines through, but at others he's still wooden and uninteresting. He's certainly got the looks to be a star; now he just needs his acting talents to rise to that same level. Jamie Bell suffers from the flaw of his first film role being the most memorable; he might likely never reach the level of success predicted for him after Billy Elliot made him an overnight sensation. Since that time he's mainly played supporting roles in big movies, and his future as a top-billed performer probably will be determined by how well his role is received in this year's Tintin movie. Still, he's the best part of this film, instilling heart into young Esca, with the audience never knowing for sure where the slave's loyalties lie. Donald Sutherland is as I have said a talented performer, but he has pretty much resorted to slumming it up in lesser films like this, chewing scenery long enough to get the story underway. I guess now that he has his official star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he feels he can stop doing the good jobs and just go for a paycheck. Well, I guess I can't blame him for that. Mark Strong (Seriously? Seems like he's in everything lately) appears as a tribesman who knows where the Eagle is, and does a fine enough job with it. And French actor Tahar Rahim puts forth a very convincing portrayal as another tribe's prince and the film's main antagonist. His performance is possibly the most consistent in the whole movie, with the only exception being Bell's.

Apparently gift horses come in all shapes and sizes

As I stated before, I didn't have high hopes for The Eagle going in. I hate to keep comparing it to Centurion, but when Neil Marshall takes the same topic and runs with it, it just comes out BETTER on all counts. The Eagle barely stands on its own feet however, and while you can plainly see Macdonald trying to make this scrap heap of broken parts into a piece of art, it too often reverts to overly-simplistic storytelling, marginally average acting, and a poorly-written story that doesn't make you care one whit about what's happening on the screen. And don't get me started on the positively stupid ending. I'm sure I'll see worse before year's end, but since I've only seen three 2011 films, The Eagle coming in at #4 just doesn't seem to do justice to how poor I though it turned out. With March looking like a packed house of interesting titles, I'm sure this film will be out of the Top 10 before too long, I'm just not sure how long I can wait for that.