Anonymous ***1/2

Short Take: Wildly inaccurate historical opus that, after a slow start, manages to be quite compelling with a wonderfully dramatic ending.

Reel Take: Half an hour into Anonymous, my initial reaction was “Oh, dear! What have I gotten myself into?” but then everything changed for the better. The confusing myriad of characters had been introduced, the cinematic storytelling improved, and the CGI visual recreation of Elizabethan England began to draw me into the film.

As most of you have probably read or heard, Anonymous tackles the continuing 400 year old debate that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him. This time around they were written by Edward de Vere. The 17th Earl of Oxford who, for various reasons later explained in the film, could not take credit for them. A convincing case has been made for the Earl’s authorship in some circles but this film isn’t one of them. In fact it manages to get more things wrong than right but that doesn’t keep it from being downright compelling.

Let’s get the most glaring errors out of the way. 1) William Shakespeare was not a horny, Sacha Baron Cohen style buffoon who couldn’t write his name and who murdered fellow playwright Christopher Marlowe. 2) A Midsummer Night’s Dream was not written when de Vere (or Shakespeare for that matter) was 10 years old. 3) Although intended as dramatic irony to convey de Vere’s unhappy wedding, the use of Mozart’s Requiem (written in 1791) is not appropriate. 4) Queen Elizabeth’s funeral procession did not take place over a frozen river Thames.

Now that the historical geek in me has had my fun, I would like to point out that Anonymous is beautifully shot, intricately plotted, and full of several quality performances. Roland Emmerich, known for disaster movies such as Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow, directs the movie in compelling fashion while John Orloff’s screenplay gradually takes on the mantle of a Greek tragedy.

The film opens with a modern day prologue by Derek Jacobi and then becomes a live play which then goes back to Elizabethan England where playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) is attempting to save Shakespeare’s manuscripts before being captured and led away. We then go back to the beginning of Jonson’s narrative to meet de Vere (Rhys Ifans), William Cecil (David Thewlis), and Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave). They each have their own series of flashbacks so you have to pay attention, but if you do, you will be rewarded.

Most of the negative reviews that I have read on Anonymous center on two main complaints. 1) The whole idea is preposterous so the film is ridiculous (so was Shakespeare in Love but that didn’t hurt it) and 2) any film directed by Roland Emmerich can’t be taken seriously. If you enjoy history, theatre, and interesting plot twists, then you should delve into Anonymous. It certainly doesn’t deserve its current anonymity.

Rated PG-13 for some violence and sexual content.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

Extremely Loud Incredibly Close ****

Short Take: The film adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer’s 2005 novel by the same name, tells the story of an eccentric boy and his quest to stay connected to his father who perished at the World Trade Center.

Reel Take: I have not read Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, but I’ve heard it’s an incredibly moving and powerfully written story. When writer Eric Roth and director Stephen Daldry took on the daunting task of adapting it for screen, they may have taken on a little too much. For me, there was no way the material can avoid being emotionally manipulative, even if done with good intentions.

Most moviegoers will likely give themselves to the story and allow the hanky inducing manipulation. If you can do that, you will enjoy this post-9/11 story of a boy’s love and loss of a father. Oskar (Thomas Horn) is brainy young boy who has a wonderful relationship with his father (Tom Hanks). When his father is killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th, the loss leaves an unbearable hole in Oskar’s life.

Fast forward one year, Oskar finds a key in his father’s closet and decides to find out where it goes. He believes his father wants him to find where it goes. He explains at one point, “If the sun were to explode, you wouldn’t even know about it for eight minutes. For eight minutes, the world would still be bright and it would still feel warm.” He continues, “It was a year since my dad died and I could feel my eight minutes with him running out.” Finding the lock for the key would symbolize stretching those eight minutes with his dad. His quest will take him across the boroughs of New York.

Along the way he enlists the help of an inexplicably mute tenant of his grandmother’s played brilliantly by Max von Sydow. Together they embark on an adventure that will change both of their lives, just not quite in the way they think. As is in life, things don’t work out the way we think they will, but they work they out one way or another in the end.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a little too much at times and sometimes feels a little contrived, but it is incredibly moving; sobs, sniffles and gasps from the audience will be audible. Jeopardy! champ and first time actor Thomas Horn, delivers a powerful and earnest performance of this eccentric boy. The always brilliant von Sydow gives one of the best supporting performances of the year without ever uttering a word. Sandra Bullock is refreshing in a more serious, maternal role, and the rest of the supporting cast, including John Goodman, Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright are welcome touches as the story unfolds.

Rated PG13 for emotional, thematic material, some disturbing language and images.

Review by Michelle Keenan

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol ****

Short Take: The 4th installment in the Mission Impossible franchise is the best yet.

Reel Take: Tom Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt for the 4th installment in the Mission Impossible franchise for Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I confess I wasn’t dazzled at the prospect, but I was delighted that it far exceeded expectations. In fact, Ghost Protocol is the best of the lot so far. The main reason being, they lightened it up. This is probably due in large part to the direction of Pixar’s Brad Bird. In fact Ghost Protocol is his first live action film, and he readily proves himself a worthy filmmaker.

The other element that plays to this film’s strength is its ensemble. Tom Cruise is a little long in the tooth these days to be a lone wolf IMF agent. This go round his fellow agents are not mere background and support people, they are each integral to the success of the mission: impossible. Simon Pegg returns as Benji, only instead of being the technical brains behind the operation, he is now a field agent. Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner round out the team. Patton and Renner each bring a bit of baggage to the plot’s more serious aspects, but never take themselves or the film too seriously. Together the ensemble packs a punch.

The plot is fairly typical MI material — when a mission inside the Kremlin goes awry and Hunt is blamed for a bombing, Russia and the U.S. are brought to a heightened state distrust, the likes of which neither country has seen since 1961. The IMF is dissolved and they adopt ghost protocol to save the world from a crazy villain in possession of nuclear arms. Of course some things go right, some things go wrong, and it’s an action-packed thrill ride from beginning to end.

Being Mission Impossible, there is of course the over-the-top complete implausibility of most of what they do. The sequence at the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubai is not to be believed, but it’s spectacularly good. Interestingly, as Bird breathes new life into the franchise, he reaches for humor at some fever pitch points, and it works. Cruise is a better comedic talent than many realize, and he’s much better when integrating that talent into his work. Excellent timing in the utilization of comedic moments strikes the right balance between the action, the threat of nuclear war, and the lighter elements.

Patton gives a solid performance and she’s drop dead beautiful, but I felt like you could have plugged any number of actresses into the role. Renner is a strong addition to the cast and is able to give Cruise a run for his money. Simon Pegg is the standout in the comedic department, of course, but he is a sheer delight and asset to the ensemble. Michael Nyqvist (from the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) is the mad villain. He’s creepy good, though there is hardly any character development or narrative about him. All we get is very abstract impression of why he wants to nuke the states and start World War III. Details, details.

 Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is great fun for all but the very young and very old. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to check it out and enjoy!

Rated PG-13 for intense sequenes of action and violence.

Review by Michelle Keenan

My Week With Marilyn ****

Short Take: The little known story of the brief relationship between Hollywood icon Marilyn Monroe and a young Englishman while she was across the pond shooting The Prince and The Showgirl.

Reel Take: Simon Curtis’ directorial debut based on Colin Clark’s memoir and diaries, doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know about the tragic Hollywood icon, but it give us a telling glimpse into a brief chapter in her life. My Week With Marilyn shows her fragility, also her power to turn “her” [Marilyn] on and off. Mostly what we see is the impact Marilyn had on one man’s life in one brief week.

Upon graduation from Oxford, young Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) wants nothing more than to work in the film industry. After talking his way into a job with Olivier Productions, Colin finds himself working on The Prince and the Showgirl. Through happenstance, he ends up tasked with doing odds and ends for the film’s leading lady, Miss Marilyn Monroe. He is, of course, besotted with her and she seemingly is attracted by his innocence (or maybe the fact that he seems to be the only person that doesn’t want something from her).

It’s no secret that things were difficult on the set of The Prince and the Showgirl. Olivier (Kenneth Brannagh) was maddenly frustrated by Monroe who was constantly late, a nervous wreck and always under the watchful gaze of her acting coach, Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wannamaker). It didn’t help that Strasberg taught method acting, a technique Olivier detested.

Monroe also happened to be using the time in England as a honeymoon with her new husband Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott). When Miller leaves for a week allegedly to visit his children, but there were already cracks in their relationship, Colin steps more prominently into the picture. He is able to ease the tension on the set because he is able to reach Marilyn on a different level. When they are not working, he escorts Monroe around the English countryside and they spend an idyllic week together.

Redmayne gives a charming, caring performance. Williams is magic. Make up, costumes and lighting certainly aid her performance, but Williams probably comes the closest yet to capturing the layers and luminescence and incandescence of Monroe. She  gets’ her fragility but also her power — that ability to turn on the Marilyn Monroe that people paid to see. Interestingly, the two Marilyns are separate. Monroe craved the love and affection from the fans, but didn’t really see that as being for her. If only she had used that power for her own good, but sadly, while she is not yet a tragic figure in this story, the writing is already on the wall.

Clark wanted to protect her and take care of her, but he also envisioned taking her away from the world that was slowly consuming her. In true Marilyn form, that world fed whatever ego she had and she wasn’t about to let it go. For Clark, the memory of that treasured week would feed him for the rest of his life.

 My Week With Marilyn is beautifully filmed and is idyllic as Colin Clark’s reckoning. Supporting cast members, including Brannagh and Dame Judi Dench, are superb. My only criticism of the film is a lack of real depth or meat to the story, but then again, it’s just a beautiful glimpse of a moment in time, not a bio pic.

Rated R for language.

Review by Michelle Keenan

Shame ***1/2

Short Take: Despite tight direction and brave performances from Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, Shame is a relentless exercise in physical and mental degradation that fully earns its NC-17 rating.

Reel Take: I can safely place Steve McQueen’s Shame on that short but significant list of good movies like Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Salo that I wish I had never seen. Yet another installment in the ongoing critical dilemma (for me at any rate) of pointing out the obvious merits of movies that I truly abhor and wish had never been made. Films about the physical and moral degradation of human beings are just not my cup of tea.

Brandon Sullivan (Fassbender) is a business associate for a successful firm in New York City. He has a good job, enough money, a great apartment with a fantastic view of the city, and a serious addiction. He’s addicted to sex. He not only can’t stop thinking about it, he can’t stop doing it either by himself or with any woman he picks up.

Enter his down and out sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) who’s just as messed up as he is. She needs a place to crash and winds up staying with Brandon and then seducing his boss. It is her behavior and his realization that he failed to take care of her that serves as a wake-up call. Unfortunately an addiction can’t be gotten rid of that easily and as Brandon struggles with himself, Sissy’s downward spiral continues.

Director Steve McQueen (no relation to the famous actor) co-wrote the screenplay which spares us nothing. The film fully earns its NC-17 rating and there are several theaters that will refuse to show it, no many how many award nominations it receives. Any romantic notions you may have about sex will be dispelled by this movie. It’s well acted, well photographed (the underbelly of NYC is convincingly displayed), and tightly directed, but in the end I found it to be porn with a pedigree.

Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class, Jane Eyre) and Carey Mulligan give brave performances and while I realize the challenge for an actor to play parts of this nature, I just can’t understand why they would want to. At the risk of sounding conservative and in favor of censorship (which I’m not), I do think that there are standards that should apply to any art form which has the ability to influence human behavior.

I know that people won’t come out of Shame imitating the behavior of the characters but I find it incredibly depressing to see damaged people paraded before us in the name of reality. For me, there was nothing gained in watching this movie. It was a singularly unpleasant experience that I can’t forget soon enough. You might feel differently but at least you’ve been warned.

Rated NC-17 for explicit sexual content.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

The Adventures of TinTin ***1/2

Short Take: The boy journalist hero of Belgium’s vintage comic series gets the Hollywood treatment in motion capture animation.

Reel Take: Prior to seeing The Adventures of Tintin, I had heard of the popular European comic book hero, but beyond that had no familiarity with the character. American audiences in general will be less familiar with the boy journalist and his dog Snowy, but that should not stop movie goers from taking in Steven Spielberg’s adaptation.

At the start of the story, Tintin (Jamie Bell) is already a well known, intrepid young journalist with a nose for a good story and a talent for high adventure. When he purchases a model of a famous ship, he stumbles upon his biggest mystery yet. From then on out the story is one long thrill ride. From his unlikely ally in an old rum-pot, Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) to the wicked Red Rackham (Daniel Craig) and a couple of bumbling buffoons from Interpol, The Thompson Twins (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost), TinTin’s journey is filled with characters.

The story is rapid-fire. It’s a like a 1940s serial with all of Spielberg’s Indiana Jones tricks. Because The Adventures of Tintin is done in 3D motion capture, Spielberg can defy the laws of physics. The result is a film filled with over-the-top action sequences. Sometimes these sequences don’t know when to stop, but most people probably won’t mind too much. Tintin is not for small children but it will likely prove a satisfactory film for the whole family. It’s ridiculous pace will dazzle the kids, but some more adult elements and silly dialogue will keep the adults entertained as well.

I saw The Adventures of Tintin with several of my fellow reviewers. Afterwards, most of them seemed none too impressed, nor particularly entertained. For a while I thought I must have missed something. Perhaps the pace was too noisy for some, or perhaps the presence of the permanently sloshed rum-pot didn’t strike some as funny. None of us, myself included, care for motion capture animation. It also would have been nice to know a bit more about our intrepid young hero. However, for my money, The Adventures of Tintin rose above both of those complaints on the light mystery and its actors.

Jamie Bell delivers exactly what you’d expect for such a hero. Andy Serkis seems to have a grand time as Captain Haddock. If Daniel Craig had as much fun as he seems to have had being the nefarious villain, I think we may see him wear the black hat more often. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are hoot as inept Interpol agents. And last but not least, the person who may have had the most fun is Mr. Spielberg himself. He pulls out all the stops, blending old school Saturday matinee movie fare with 21st Century technology.

Rated PG for adventure action violence, some drunkenness and brief smoking.

Review by Michelle Keenan

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo ***1/2

Short Take: David Fincher’s highly anticipated remake ups the ante in terms of style but is not nearly as satisfying as the original.

Reel Take: It was not long after seeing the original Swedish film that I first saw the preview for this remake of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Much has been made of remaking the original but the inescapable fact is that most Americans don’t enjoy reading subtitles and prefer an action packed approach to their thrillers. This film delivers on the first count but not on the second.

After a high octane but pointless title sequence reminiscent of a James Bond film (surely Daniel Craig being in the film had nothing to do with this), Girl then settles into the story of disgraced Swedish journalist Mikhail Blomkvist (Craig) being hired by an aging industrialist (Christopher Plummer) to solve a 40 year old murder committed by someone in his family. To aid him in his investigation, he is given Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) a young and most unusual computer hacker with more than her fair share of personal baggage.

David Fincher’s overall approach to the material is surprisingly slow and deliberate but he fails to properly set things up. If you haven’t read the book or seen the original Swedish film, then the narrative is very hard to follow. Although the running time for both films is about the same (2 1/2 hours), Fincher and screenwriter Steven Zaillian condense the material in such a way that it lessens the interest. Gone are any interaction with the staff at Millenium magazine and Lisbeth’s lesbian lover is reduced to one very brief scene.

I was surprised to find more emphasis placed on Daniel Craig’s journalist than on Rooney Mara’s titular character. The film cuts back and forth between the two who don’t meet until almost an hour into the film but Craig has more screen time. Much of Lisbeth’s troubled background is missing although the notorious rape scene and its aftermath are left intact. Daniel Craig is more charismatic than his Swedish counterpart but Rooney Mara lacks the inner intensity of Noomi Rapace. The rest of the principals notably Stellan Skarsgard, Joely Richardson, and Christopher Plummer give quality performances.

Although this one is technically more polished, I found the Swedish version to be far more compelling in its treatment of the material and the story was easier to follow. After all the hype and Fincher’s more recent movies like The Social Network, I was expecting more than he was able to deliver. The film also ends in such a way that if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t think this was the first part of a trilogy. While there are plans to film the other two books, only time and the box office receipts will tell.

Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, graphic nudity, and language.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

The Iron Lady *****

Short Take: Really good Brit Biopic on the life of Margaret Thatcher made great by an absolutely jaw dropping performance by Meryl Streep.

Reel Take: It’s not like Meryl Streep needs another Oscar but the woman just can’t seem to stop giving Oscar worthy performances. This is certainly one of her best, a truly astonishing performance of the former British prime minister that rings true with every gesture and especially every word.

The Iron Lady is very similar to another biopic that was released just recently: Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar which features a strong central performance from Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover. Both movies begin with the character in old age looking back over the course of their lives and revisiting and reflecting on various moments.

Margaret Thatcher is especially interesting as most people outside of England know very little about her. Her rise from humble origins, defying rampant sexism and the British class system make for an ideal biopic material. Director Phyllida Lloyd (Mamma Mia) and writers Abi Morgan (Shame) and Michael Hirst (Elizabeth) have fashioned a solid screenplay that skillfully weaves past and present time frames which are firmly anchored in what should be Streep’s award winning portrayal.

Good as she is, Streep is not the only performer on display here. Jim Broadbent and Alexandra Roach are just as compelling in their parts. Broadbent is Thatcher’s late husband Denis who pops in and out of the proceedings in the elderly Thatcher’s increasingly clouded mind. And Alexandra Roach is the determined young Maggie Roberts, a greengrocer’s daughter who would become Prime Minister one day.

As was the case with J. Edgar, strong supporters and detractors of Margaret Thatcher are likely to be disappointed with the film for failing to fully praise or condemn her actions. There are also those in Britain who are annoyed at Streep’s casting. They wanted a British actress in the part. Regarding the former complaint, although portrayed somewhat sympathetically, the movie does not gloss over Thatcher’s flaws and as for the latter, Meryl Streep’s immersion in the role silences that particular criticism.

The real accomplishment of The Iron Lady is that it is one of those movies that will essentially remain timeless. It serves as a historical reminder not only of a particular time and a particular individual, but of a truly great actress in one of her best roles. It will be a pleasure to revisit it, again and again. Need I add that I highly recommend this film? I just did.

Rated PG-13 for violent images and brief nudity.

Review by Chip Kaufmann