First, some of the duds.

- For Ellen

This sounded like one that might have potential: Paul Dano starring as a rock star who shows up in a small town to finalize his divorce and seal the fate of his daughter, whom he has rarely, if ever, met.  Unfortunately, the film is hardly watchable.  It was the perfect film during which to take micro-naps, for I could close my eyes for several seconds and the same shot would be continuing by the time I opened my eyes.  By the end of the film I had started counting shot length, and each shot clocked in at about 10 seconds longer than what would have been sufficient for a slow film.  Dano’s earnestness cannot make up for an amount of story that would hardly fill out a short film, and extended sequences involving him rolling on the floor in a bar, air guitaring in his misery to White Snake are almost insufferable.  Definitely the low point of the Festival.

- John Dies at the End

I didn’t hate this film, but was perhaps more disappointed as it seemed to hold so much potential.  With a plot synopsis that sounds like every horror movie blended together in an insane mess, and Don Coscarelli as director, it seemed to be an off-the-wall horror hit.  Unfortunately, after a pleasant, humorous, discordant first twenty minutes the film devolves into an actual story that plays out rather blandly.  Still, the experience was not a total dud.

- 2 Days in New York

Even with Julie Delpy and Chris Rock present for a Q&A afterwards, their film (co-written and directed by Delpy) couldn’t cohere into anything resembling a great film, or hardly a good film.  The story revolves around Delpy, who has a child from a previous relationship and now lives with Rock, who also has a child from a previous relationship.  She is about to premiere an art show, with her soul for sale as a showcase.  Perhaps there are some intriguing themes that could be discussed around such a plot device, if they weren’t already covered by The Simpsons, but her soul for sale remains a side note.  The main show is courtesy of her father, sister and her boyfriend, who show up at their NYC apartment and proceed to destroy the world.  There are some laughs, but much of the comedy is forced, and odd situations (a Thai massage just so Delpy’s father, playing himself, can be more inappropriate?) are contrived and unnecessary.

But there were several good films, and maybe a couple that were close to great.  Here are some of the highlights.

- Beasts of the Southern Wild

I barely got into this film, but I was very thankful I did.  It was already buzzed about at Sundance, as Fox Searchlight picked it up following its first screening.  I was at the second screening, and had the opportunity to hear the cast and crew talk a bit.  The film is extraordinary in many ways, and I’m still processing it.  It has been created by a collective of filmmakers, using found objects for sets and dressing, and non-actors in all the roles, I believe, and no computer-created special effects.  The story is about Hushpuppy, a young girl (played with ferocity, as she’s one of the titular beasts, by Quvenzhané Wallis in one of the standout performances of the fest) who lives in the Bathtub.  Raised by her father, they are surrounded by water and blocked off by a levee some miles away.  While not quite a perfect film, it is almost always extraordinary; think elements of Where the Wild Things Are but grittier and more heart-felt at the same time.  I look forward to seeing it again.

- Under African Skies

The best documentary we saw was also the first.  The film is about Paul Simon and his album “Graceland,” on the eve of its 25th anniversary.  I had always loved the album, but knew little about the explosive situation surrounding its creation.  The film does a fine job of combining a trove of archival concert footage, incredible rehearsal footage, and reminiscences by Simon and those who opposed him in the late 1980′s.  Rousing and detailed, the film also explores in depth the creative process behind some of Simon’s greatest songs.  A focus on the collaborative process explains a great deal, and the soundtrack, as one might expect, is stellar.

- Chasing Ice

Photographer James Balog set out to photograph climate change the only way he could think of: by capturing the melting of glaciers. To do so he set up cameras that would take a photo every hour for several years, eventually giving a time lapse portrait of environmental change.  The results, and the entire endeavor surrounding his project, are captured in the film, which has been purchased for television by National Geographic.  The film is deftly woven, combining years of footage while maintaining a singular focus on Balog’s mission.  The resulting footage is some of the most incredible I have ever seen.  It is almost too much to describe in words, as is a scene of ice the size of lower Manhattan calving into the ocean.  Powerful and thought provoking, Chasing Ice is a film I hope finds a larger audience.

- The Pact

Another of my late-night adventures, The Pact proved to be the most electric experience I have ever had in a movie theater.  The story sounds standard, concerning a house that might be haunted.  Two sisters are forced to take care of the estate after their estranged mother passes away.  One of the sisters disappears immediately, which isn’t surprising for someone with a history of severe drug problems.  The other sister is left to deal with the house.  The first half hour is standard set up, but the first jump scene is so expertly staged and executed that the entire crowd shrieked, and then chuckled for the next four minutes.  Only occasionally bursting into brief brutality, the film thrives on its characters and atmosphere, as well as a clever and somewhat original story mixing supernatural goings-on with explainable occurrences.  The highlight of the evening was the question and answer session with director Nicholas McCarthy, especially as the first question was asked by a five year old boy (his three year old sister was also present).  Nicholas had no idea how to respond to the kid’s interesting question, and continued to talk about how the kid should be in bed, and definitely not at the film.  A great horror film, and an unforgettable movie-going experience.

A few other films proved interesting, or at least a bit quirky.

- V/H/S

My first midnight movie was an interesting one, and according to Deadline someone even fainted at the screening.  I didn’t see this happen or hear any of the commotion, so am curious about the story’s veracity.  Nevertheless, this horror anthology built entirely on found footage is visceral, gaudy, and generally quite effective.  There is a wraparound story involving four petty criminals charged with breaking into a house to steal a video cassette.  They find a trove of them, and one by one start viewing the tapes.  Each tape provides a segment of the film, each by a different director.  The first segment, involving video-equipped glasses, a trio of ill-guided boys, their attempts to pick up some attractive women, and one particularly creepy woman who turns out to be a demon bat (or something, sorry for the semi-spoiler), is particularly effective.  Ti West also has a twisty episode.  One of them is entirely shown via Skype video chats, and is one of the better vignettes.  All of them have an inherent gimmick that makes them intense, especially on a big screen.  When the camera cannot cut away, the viewer is aware that it is only a matter of time before something happens: like watching a bomb tick down, but being unable to see the timer.

- Room 237

An interesting experiment, the film is almost entirely composed of footage from The Shining [review here] and other films.  Laid on top of the footage are audio interviews with a variety of scholars, kooks, and nut jobs who espouse various theories about the painfully obvious messages Kubrick left in the film.  For instance, it is plainly clear from the can of Calumet baking powder Kubrick staged in the food pantry that the film is about the genocide of Native Americans (Calumet means “peace pipe,” we are told).  Also, it is about the Holocaust, a subject Kubrick couldn’t directly deal with in his films.  Also, it is about how Kubrick shot the moon landing footage that the world saw (this interviewee does not say we didn’t go to the moon, only that the footage we saw was faked, and directed by Kubrick).  The entire film is amusing, though it drags on too long and gets a bit too wrapped up in a couple theories (watching the film projected simultaneously running forward and backwards proves… what exactly?).  Nevertheless, the experiment is interesting, and often engaging, even if the film will probably never see the light of day due to the filmmakers not having the rights to exhibit any of the footage from Kubrick’s films (they claim “fair use” laws, which can probably suffice in a festival setting).

So those are some brief thoughts on the best, worst, and more interesting films I saw during the 2012 Sundance Film Festival.  There were many other really good films that I caught, and I hope to write up some lengthier reviews as (if) time allows.

2011 was not a particularly good year for film.  2010 may have been generally mediocre, but yielded some truly great films such as Inception, The Social Network, True Grit, The King’s Speech, and Black Swan [thoughts here].  2011 lacks even a few great movies, at least of those I have seen.  Once again I have missed many of the year’s most lauded films, such as A Separation and some other arty/obscure/foreign films.  Suffice to say, of the widely-released studio or “independent” studio product of 2011, very little stands out as extraordinary.  There were a number of good films, and a few very good films.  But such a lack of quality content has made me a bit apathetic this awards season, and makes the completion of a “best of” list a bit silly and trite.  Nevertheless, here are some of the films that stood out to me in 2011, with a very personal choice in the number 1 spot.

10. The Artist
The Artist, along with Hugo, is in the genre of film that celebrates cinema.  I quite enjoyed both films, but decided to give the nod to The Artist, primarily because it feels more like a true film.  Hugo, in a way, bothered me because of the obvious artifice associated with the production; the magic was somewhat dissipated like a digitally enhanced fog.  The Artist remains as a cute love story, a paean to the lost ages of Hollywood when movie stars didn’t need to talk and were fabulously famous.  It may not rise above pure entertainment, but is certainly a solid enough film to land a place on this list.

9. Drive

If Drive had been released while I was in college it surely would have been one of my favorite films ever.  It is sleek and pretty, and occasionally brutal.  It is stylish and cool, elements that would have perfectly attracted a college-age version of me.  There may not be much, if anything, underneath the surface, but I still greatly enjoyed the film.

8. Rango
Rango is one of the earliest releases on my list, and it made an impact back in March.  It is a quirky, odd, beautifully animated film that toys with the tropes of westerns in a unique fashion.  The story might not amount to much, but the detail and odd characters are enough to make it an entertaining animated standout.

7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
I didn’t necessarily love David Fincher’s remake of the first part of the Millennium Trilogy, but it’s impossible to deny the film’s impeccable direction, music and sound design, and strong acting.  The story is clearly laid out, the two primary characters are dynamic when they finally meet halfway through, and the film remains a dark and disturbing thrill ride that I quite enjoyed.

6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
The most satisfying ending the series could have hoped for, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is exactly what it needed to be.  Perhaps the climax isn’t as exciting as some might hope, but the thematic culmination of the eight films is perfectly captured.  The movie remains dark and sad, but these are traits that enable it to rise above the rest of the series.

5. Crazy, Stupid, Love.
I saw Crazy, Stupid, Love. twice before it was even released, and I enjoyed it greatly both times.  It stood out as a summer release that was a notch or two above any other romantic comedy.  It has a heart, or at least tries, and has characters with depth.  Plus, there is a remarkable twist that neither audience I saw it with suspected.  It may ultimately celebrate shallowness as it outwardly condemns it, but that doesn’t make the film any less entertaining.

4. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
I think that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy might be a great film, but I don’t know why.  It doesn’t seem to care about plot or climax, and perhaps not much about characters or sensibility in general.  But there’s something bewitching about the production.  It features the best cinematography of 2011, and some of the best acting (in part because the editor and cinematographer let the camera linger on faces).  It may not have entirely made sense, but maybe it will with a second viewing.  Even if it doesn’t, there are elements that will still beguile me, I suspect.

3. Martha Marcy May Marlene
Martha Marcy May Marlene has aged well with time and thought.  Immediately leaving the theater I was perhaps unsatisfied, but intrigued and engaged.  But the film demands to be considered in depth, and as my mind has returned to the film its stature has increased.  It is a complex, difficult film, impeccably thought out and with some outstanding performances, and is certainly a film that will need to be re-watched at some point.

2. Melancholia
Lars von Trier had the second place film on my list of favorite films of 2009, with Antichrist, and he returns again with a film that is less angry, and even more depressing.  Melancholia is a beautiful film, with difficult situations and people, not to mention the end of the world itself.  For someone who has experience with depression in some way, it is an immediately identifiable look at the irrationality and crushing weight of sadness and melancholy.  I enjoyed Melancholia in a rather strange way, taking delight in seeing such themes played out in a theater setting, while relishing the masterful filmmaking and acting on display.

1. The Adventures of Tintin
I would understand those who might argue that The Adventures of Tintin is not the best film of the year, and I would probably even agree.  But it was a film that made me sublimely happy in parts, bringing back some of the scarce good memories I have of childhood.  It is an absurdist adventure, filmed beautifully, with a flair for computer graphics that look incredible on the big screen.  After finding only depressing films to be enjoyable for much of the year, The Adventures of Tintin was a wonderful bright spot.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains violence, some sexual innuendo, some language

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol represents Brad Bird’s first foray into the world of live-action feature films, but it is clear that the directing skills he learned from working on The Incredibles and Ratatouille translated perfectly into live-action. As a result, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol brings the franchise back to life in impressive and heart-stopping ways.

The story begins with agents Benji (Simon Pegg) and Jane (Paula Patton) breaking Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian prison. As soon as he’s free there is an assignment, should he choose to accept it. Immediately Ethan sets off with Jane and Benji to break into the Kremlin, but it appears to be a set-up. An explosion cripples the building and threatens to throw the world into war once again. The attack appears to be pegged on Ethan and his crew, and they are disavowed, though they are given an extra team member: Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an analyst whose past probably holds a few secrets.

It seems that a master criminal is excited to start nuclear war in the hopes that the survivors will lead to a new, improved planet. Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, from the Millennium Trilogy [review here]) is close to holding nuclear launch codes, a launch device, and a satellite capable of transmitting them. Obviously, such a result is not what the IMF would wish for. Together the foursome must race across the globe attempting to stop Hendricks from carrying out his dastardly plan.

The first stop is Dubai, where the most spectacular stunts occur. Cruise proves he is still an action hero unlike any other in the business today, and is fearless walking along or down the fearsome Burj Khalifa (why do we often call it the Burj Tower in English, when “burj” means “tower”? It’s like asking for “chai tea” at Starbucks.). The group almost catches up to Hendricks in Dubai, though a terrific dust storm threatens everything. After Dubai the group heads to Mumbai, where a new set of challenges await before the ultimate showdown and conclusion.

The first half of the film is a nonstop roller coaster ride. Ethan and his gang are thrown remorselessly into a new situation as soon as they recover from one impossible scenario. The action ramps up unceasingly through the Dubai episode, but then the rest of the film has trouble keeping up such an enormous level of intensity. The climax in Mumbai is satisfactory, but a bit of a letdown from the adrenaline rush the first hour provides.

Bird’s direction and action instincts are impeccable, no doubt helped by Cruise’s talents as actor and producer. Renner is also impressive as Brandt, a man with substantial action skills. Patton is effective as the attractive yet self-conscious Jane, and is constantly troubled by the loss of her fellow agent, Hanaway (“Lost’s” Josh Holloway), an episode that occurs prior to Ethan’s jail rescue. Pegg is amusing and perfectly cast as the technical wizard who is excited to finally be granted privileges as a field agent. Their characters are of little importance, but rather serve to support Ethan’s mystique and intrepidity in the face of the impossible.

The production is top-notch, with world-wide locations wisely chosen as exotic backdrops, and, more cynically, to bolster the international box office takings (the tactic has proven effective, with strong box office takings in the U.A.E., Russia and India). The stunts are incredible, and knowing that Cruise actually performed his own stunts makes it all the more impressive, and drastically increases his stature as an action star. The pace is frenetic yet fairly easy to follow, thankfully.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a grand fun time at the theater. It is fast-paced, energetic, stylish, cool, and a heart-racer for the first half. It serves to reestablish Cruise as a credibly action hero, and Ethan Hunt as a credible box office performer. It is a roller coaster ride, with little care given to who is on board or why, but the overall result is nonetheless engaging, entertaining, and well worth the time for casual movie-goers.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains some violence, a little language, fleeting nudity, some mature themes

The first third of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is enthralling, almost mesmerizing. It is gorgeously directed, beautifully filled with hazy smoke and dust, as if the period costumes were indeed 35 years old and emanating mustiness. The puzzle is confusing, and the pieces slowly become clear. It is a bit disappointing, then, that the film has trouble maintaining such an atmosphere, as the film continues and the pieces come almost all the way together. However, despite not finishing as strongly as it starts, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is still highly immersive, enjoyable, and beautiful.

The story concerns the “Circus,” or MI6, the British intelligence agency. It is the height of the Cold War, in the early 1970′s. The upper ranks of MI6 seem to have a bit of a problem on their hands. At the outset, the head of the agency, Control (John Hurt), sends an agent to Hungary in an attempt to uncover a mole placed at the head of the British agency. The mission goes awry, and a year later Control finds himself forced out of MI6, along with his second-in-command, George Smiley (Gary Oldman).

But then the ministry gets another message warning of a mole, and Smiley is brought back in to figure out who at the top of the Circus is a Soviet agent. Is it Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), or Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds)? Or maybe Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) or Toby Esterhase (David Dencik)? Smiley takes young Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) along as an aide, and together they start to spy on MI6 itself.

There is much more to the story than what meets the eye, however. There are subplots involving the Americans and their desire to share whatever might be useful of British intelligence. There is informant Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy), an ex-agent who may or may not have switched sides, but has useful information in either case. There is a lovely Russian agent, Irina (Svetlana Khodchenkova), who may prove useful; or not. There are old acquaintances from the Circus that Smiley interviews, who seem to have been let go in an attempt to cover someone’s tracks. And there is Smiley’s wife, who perhaps is not even seen on screen, but seems to be involved with someone or something.

The plot is dense, and it is essential that one pay close attention throughout. Even remaining alert and attentive, I feel that I only caught about three quarters of the story. The reveal, toward the end of the film, is treated in an almost commonplace fashion, proving that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is indeed not a traditional spy movie. Moviegoers most interested in story might be turned off by the complexity and unconventional unfolding of the narrative. I was perhaps hoping for a little more, though I did enjoy just about every other element of the film.

Few films this year have featured as strong acting as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Part of it boils down to costuming, period detail, etc., and a great deal is owed to the direction and editing, which allow the camera to hold on faces for large amounts of time. The camerawork is gorgeous, allowing the nooks and crannies of the wizened spies to fill the screen, as smoke and dust obscure, preventing clarity. Oldman is sublime as the subtle, understated Smiley. He rarely speaks, and always knows what he’s going to say when he does. Firth, Hinds, Dencik and Jones are likewise superb, though Hinds has, unfortunately, little to do through much of the film. Cumberbatch is also superb, particularly as the stress of spying on one’s own begins to break him. Hardy is perfectly cast for his thuggish role, yet he brings a softness and sympathy to the character. Also excellent is Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux, an old agent with connections to MI6.

The direction, from Tomas Alfredson (best known for Let the Right One In), is some of the best of the year. Not much happens, but it happens so moodily, so atmospherically that I was drawn in and engaged with nearly every line uttered or look cast about. The camera moves very slowly, deliberately, and lingers on faces, or follows people deliberately walking about their business. At times there is a great deal of suspense, though some might complain that there is hardly a payoff at the end. Perhaps this is the point, and I’m sure the filmmakers were aware of their creative decisions. The film is more interested in focusing on its characters and its style than its story.

The lives of these spies is occasionally examined, and the film excels when it opens up their inner thoughts. It never seems to delve too deeply, though, and at times characters’ motivations are unclear, and their inner demons seemingly obscured by smoke and dust. Smiley, who serves as closely as possibly as the protagonist, is also analyzed most deeply. His existence in the agency has been difficult, and the constant paranoia has left its mark. In many ways the threat of being called a double agent, and branded thusly, is similar to the branding of mental illness as depicted in films like The Snake Pit [review here]. But in this case, those doing the branding are just as suspect as the alleged double agent, whereas a doctor is never accused of being insane.

In some ways Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy recalls The American [review here], a film so obviously European. Less concerned with plot, climax, and more with atmosphere, mood, character. Just like The American might infuriate some viewers with its lack of climax and clarity, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy might infuriate those hoping for an easily solvable murder mystery. And while it at times disappointed me by not offering a bit more clarity to the mystery, or attaching more importance to the climax, I was often thrilled with the journey, sucked into the atmosphere and relishing the incredible direction and acting.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains mature themes, some language

The story of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close could fall into any number of traps. Shameless exploitation, melodramatic tripe, perhaps. It avoids many of these pratfalls, but only has a handful of great moments. The story will tug at the heartstrings for many, and perhaps infuriate just as many others, who will likely charge it with being overly manipulative. In truth, the film probably lies somewhere in between.

Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) is a young boy who lives in New York. It is clear from the outset that his father has died in the September 11 terrorist attacks, but the exact circumstances only become clear as the intertwining story threads play out. Oskar is a special boy, very sharp in some areas but with bouts of anxiety,and irrational aversions to certain noises and circumstances. He claims that he was tested for Aspberger’s, but that the results were unclear. While his dad, Thomas (Tom Hanks) was alive, they played all manner of games together. Most frequently, though, his father would send Oskar on searches. He told stories of the “Sixth Borough,” which disappeared at some point in history.

Oskar is enthralled by the searches, and always caught up in what he is supposed to find. He does not quite understand that it’s the search that matters, and how his father uses the searches to strengthen and prepare Oskar for a life ahead. After “the worst day,” Oskar stumbles upon a key that was left in a blue vase. Believing it to be one last scavenger hunt, he sets about looking for the lock to fit the key. His hope is that he will be able to remain as close to his father as possible, for as long as possible, though he knows that his memories are fading.

And searching so desperately for an object that might not exist also leads to tension with his mother, Linda (Sandra Bullock), and they grow further apart. Linda must be dealing with her own awful grief, but knows she must help Oskar as best she can. On his searches Oskar also stumbles upon a variety of other people, including doorman Stan (John Goodman), troubled Abby Black (Viola Davis), and his grandmother’s Renter (Max von Sydow). Throughout his journey he meets a number of people, and learns a great deal about himself. This is, of course, the point; there is more, though, in the form of a late twist. Some may find the twist emotionally manipulative, but I felt it was appropriate and touching.

Some of the performances are strong, with perhaps the most attention being given to Horn. Found as a teen champion on Jeopardy, this collaboration with producer Scott Rudin and Stephen Daldry is his first attempt at acting. Most of the time he is earnestly effective, and it becomes difficult to discern when (or if) his overacting is not just a part of his character’s normal behavior. Hanks is genuine and sweet in his short role, and Bullock also does a very nice job. Max von Sydow might give Christopher Plummer in Beginners [review here] a run for his money in the Best Supporting Actor category. While von Sydow’s role is smaller, it is fresher in voters’ minds, and also entirely wordless and very effective.

The filmmaking is adequate. The audience is treated to standard shots of New York. Some of the material is heart-wrenching, as one might expect. It seems to generally tread the fine line between exploitation and exposition quite skillfully. Much of the story is dependent on the characters, and a lot of time is spent with Oskar. The film ends up running on a bit long; some decisive trimming in the edit bay might have necessarily shaved a few subplots, but would have also led to a more concise, effective narrative.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is not a bad film. In fact, it is often a very good film. For some it will be gratingly awful, though I don’t share that viewpoint. Others may find it cathartic, genuine and one of the most moving films of the year. I would not share that viewpoint, either. Rather, it lies somewhere in between: a good film with some strong performances, some interesting themes, and nicely packaged together.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains some language, violence, mature themes, sexual content, some nudity, rape

David Fincher has decided to tackle Steig Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy, or at least the first part, and, as expected, brings his considerable talent to the thriller. The result is indeed thrilling, and often dark and disturbing, as was the 2009 Swedish version [review here]. While Fincher’s effort is slightly longer than the first filmed version, it also seems clearer, cleaner, and slightly more effective.

The story is dense and convoluted. Journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just been exposed as a fraud, his story on a corporate CEO exposed as lies. He works for Millennium Magazine, a paper devoted to hard stories, but this situation has created rather a bit of trouble for him. His co-editor and lover, Erika (Robin Wright) is also concerned. Mikael is tired, and when a sudden call comes in with a rather bizarre job offer, he accepts, if for no other reason than to escape for a bit.

He is called to the Vanger estate, where patriarch Henrik (Christopher Plummer) has a challenge for him; to find the killer of his beloved great niece, Harriet. For forty years her killer has gone free, and Henrik suspects a member of his own family. The family, including Harriet’s brother Martin (Stellan Skarsgård) and cousin Anita (Joely Richardson), is generally a devious and dastardly bunch. Half of them no longer talk to the other half, and scattered throughout are the odd Nazi’s. Mikael’s task will be difficult and probably fruitless, but it will pay well, remove him from the public spotlight, and be a sort of holiday.

In a parallel timeline the audience is introduced to Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara, capably taking Noomi Rapace’s role), the series’ most fascinating character. Salander is a rogue, a hacker and investigator whose means may not always be legal. She is a ward of the state, and has her own problems that include her abusive new guardian. She was the one who compiled a background check on Mikael for the Wagner family, and Mikael is impressed (and startled) by her skills and techniques. Soon he takes her on as a research assistant, and the pair work together (as much as Salander works with anyone) to dig up new clues on Harriet’s murder. Soon it becomes clear that things might be even more disturbing than they initially appear.

Those familiar with the story will have no trouble following what happens. The screenplay by Steven Zaillian (Moneyball [review here], Schindler’s List [review here]) quickly lays out the characters, and does a cleaner job of exposing the pieces of the puzzle than Niels Arden Oplev’s film. Those only loosely familiar with the story will not be surprised at any of the slight story changes, but devotees of the books might be thrown off slightly. Nevertheless, the story works effectively for this film.

The characters remain intact, particularly Lisbeth, which is important because she is the lynchpin of the series. Without her the Millennium Trilogy would never have been as big a success. Her mysterious past, violent tendencies, loose sexual preferences and semi-psychotic behavior are intriguing. She has been abused by many men, and therefore fights men who abuse. In Mikael she finds a pleasant soul, a man who is generally gentle, and also concerned for women. The film does a fine job walking the fine line between exploitation and portraying the horrors of sexual abuse; with the well-known rape scenes and revenge it could easily have fallen into Day of the Woman territory.

The production is sleek and slick, and rather more stylish than the Swedish film. The sound design is impressive, and intricately intertwined with the score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who so impressed with their work on The Social Network [review here]. One of Salander’s tech acquaintances even sports a Nine Inch Nails shirt as a nod to the band. The palette is dark, often grey in the snowy winter, and similarly muted as the story progresses toward spring. Combined with the atmospheric score, the effect is immersive.

Craig is more than adequate as Mikael, while Skarsgård and Plummer are great in smaller roles (a vastly different role for Plummer than his best work this year, in Beginners [review here]). Mara is the most impressive, though. It is clear that she immersed herself into Salander’s fictitious lifestyle, and she is capable of fierce aggression, vast vulnerability, and a generally unique attitude.

The first hour of the film starts off relatively slowly, interesting but less than thrilling. As soon as Salander and Blomkvist meet, however, the sparks fly, and their chemistry propels the film forward. The remaining hour and a half are substantially more thrilling, as their personalities clash and meld, and as the story reaches a thrilling climax and the requisitely expositional dénouement. Overall, Fincher’s version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is impressive, lengthy, atmospheric and largely thrilling, and utterly incapable of being classified as light entertainment.

Rated PG by the MPAA – contains some action

As a young boy growing up in a third world Commonwealth country, I read a great deal of Tintin comics. Tintin and Asterix were my companions, and I preferred Tintin. The sense of adventure was intoxicating, and the characters clear and amusing. There have been many comic book movies appealing to a wide variety of fanboys, but now there is a movie specifically made for the fanboy in me. The Adventures of Tintin is the first film I’ve felt this way about; ecstatic, almost giddy, soaking in the absurdist adventure, the throwaway lines, a logo on a can of crab juice. Able to tell which lines were verbatim from the books, even if the story was vastly different. I have not been this happy while watching a film in a very long time, if ever. As a result, the following thoughts will be more subjective than I normally allow; please forgive my indulgence.

The film opens with a young man having his portrait done. His name is Tintin, and his portrait appears exactly as it does on all of the books he has appeared in. The camera pulls back to reveal Tintin in this motion-capture animated film, and the results are startling. In a full theatrical setting the result is impressive. The details are rich and textured, and only rarely veering too far into the Uncanny Valley. I was thoroughly absorbed throughout the film.

Tintin is played by Jamie Bell, at least his motions and voice. He is as good as one who loves Tintin might expect. Tintin is in a street market, and soon spies a model ship that intrigues him. He purchases it instantly, and is soon besot by two other gentlemen wishing to purchase it for him. Taking it home he soon discovers that the ship holds a great and dangerous secret, and that some men might wish him dead over it. The secret seems to point to hidden treasure, a centuries-old shipwreck, revenge, pirates, and much more. Along the way Tintin and his intrepid white dog Snowy will meet a variety of characters, most notably among them Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), a drunken wreck of a captain who has failed to maintain control of his own ship. Together Tintin and Captain Haddock must square off against the villainous Sakharine (Daniel Craig), who also wishes to possess the secrets held by the model ships. The story will set them adrift in the ocean, leave them stranded in a desert, and eventually land them back in England, ready for part two of the adventure, which is directed by Peter Jackson and due out in another year or so.

The story is mostly taken from “The Secret of the Unicorn,” the first part of a series finished by “Red Rackham’s Treasure.” The film borrows liberally from both parts, while omitting large sections of both and the entire treasure hunt of the second. The first book’s villains are replaced by Sakharine, himself an inconsequential bit player in the first book. I needed to constantly remind myself that the film had its own story, and I ought to follow it instead of being angry about the revisions. This was easy, though, as I had always fallen in love with the characters and adventures Herge presented, not the minutiae. This willingness to enjoy the film made each offhanded reference to another book or line taken verbatim from the book all the sweeter.

The Adventures of Tintin is, above all, an adventure story, and directed by Steven Spielberg. As such, it contains a great deal of adventure and action. It rarely lets up, is rarely realistic, and is almost always immensely enjoyable. Tintin’s pluck, Captain Haddock’s stubbornness, and Snowy’s sharper-than-human instincts pervade each sequence; it is easy to tell that the film was made by fanboys, including Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Steven Moffat. They clearly love Tintin and his adventures, and have taken great pains to stay true to the characters, if not precisely following the slight story that the books provide. Thompson and Thomson (played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, respectively) are an amusing and necessary inclusion, and go a great way toward keeping the film’s integrity intact.

The production is impressive, filmed with appreciable 3D and a keen eye for lighting. Watch the end credits closely to see just how much emphasis was put on lighting. It pays off, as the film manages to create an immersive atmosphere, and includes some stunning and stylish shots. The action is easy to follow, even at its most frenetic. Occasionally the bodies don’t seem to have the weight real people would, but this adds to the cartoonish quality of the film and remains in line with the atmosphere of the books.

I loved The Adventures of Tintin. I smiled almost the entire time, and was taken back to my childhood at numerous moments. The flashbacks to pirate battles between the dreaded Red Rackham and Sir Francis Haddock are skillfully created, and unendingly thrilling. These scenes, more than any other in the film, took me back to the happy moments of my childhood. Growing up in Pakistan, and attending boarding school in particular, was often very difficult. Most of my memories of that time seems to have been repressed, but evidently having my Tintin comics nearby was a bright spot. This film transported back to those feelings, perfectly satisfied my hopes for the journey, and entertained and made me happy throughout. As a film, on its own merits, The Adventures of Tintin is solid entertainment, well made, and with a memorable cast of characters. On its own merits it would be deserving of perhaps 3.5 stars. For me personally, the film is so much more; a bright happy spot that continues to thrill me, and is my favorite film of the year.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains some mature themes, I suppose; this is one of the worst ratings since J. Edgar

The Artist is a sweet film, one whose central technical device perfectly fits the story, time period and themes it presents. Initially it seems to be another All About Eve [review here], filmed in black and white and sepia tone, silent but for a musical score and a handful of Foley effects. But after about the first twenty minutes it clearly turns into a Sunset Blvd., with an extra act and fewer dead narrators.

The story begins in 1927, and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a successful movie star. He’s suave, handsome, winsome, charming. He infuriates his co-star, Constance (Missi Pyle) after the premiere of their latest film, as he hogs the stage and the applause. His director/producter/executive Al Zimmer (John Goodman) looks on helplessly; Valentin carries the studio. And Kinescope is a major player in the movie industry.

After the premiere, Valentin steps outside to greet his fans, held back by police as reporters ask questions and snap photos. One fan beguilingly drops her autograph book, and sneaks past the police line long enough to catch Valentin’s attention and be caught by the paparazzi. Next thing she knows, she’s made the cover of Variety as the mystery girl with Valentin.  Peppy (Bérénice Bejo) is an aspiring actress, but with a little more verve than the other thousands of aspiring actresses in the Hollywoodland of the late 1920′s. She lands a gig as a dancer, and meets Valentin again. There’s something about her that he finds alluring. But he’s stuck married to the cold Doris (Penelope Ann Miller). It’s unclear who is most at fault for their marital difficulties; it may even be his frequent co-star, the dog (Uggie).

His success continues, and Peppy’s increases dramatically, and then, in 1929, the studio becomes aware that the only future they will have is with the talkies. Valentin is an artist, and refuses to even attempt performing in such a crude medium. His downfall ensues, just as surely as Peppy’s rises. But her kindness lingers, and it is clear they will meet again, even though her face is plastered all across town while he has lost everything.

I won’t say more about the story; indeed, the above is possibly too much. There are few surprises throughout, and the film as a whole is rather conventional. That’s not to say that the black and white and lack of dialogue is a gimmick, though the rare detour into full sound may be gimmicky (and delightfully enjoyable, in a meta kind of way; I was disappointed when one exceedingly clever sequence turned out to be a dream). And while the colors are muted or absent, and sound effects generally non-existent, the editing is sharp and relatively modern. The period effect is sold, but packaged modernly enough that today’s audiences will be able to sit through it without falling asleep.

The Artist is nice, and charming, and will have most audiences smiling throughout. It’s not without its faults, but none are substantial problems. Peppy at first seems rather opportunistic; it’s unclear what changes her, perhaps just her love of Valentin, but soon she’s an altruistic benefactor. She remains intensely likeable, though, as the star who stays firmly grounded as a regular person. And while the story is not overly ambitious, it is rather delightful.

The acting, as one would expect, is also delightful. Dujardin acts like the French Cary Grant. He has a sly grin, but without pretension, and can dance and romance his way into any woman’s heart. He’s prideful, sure, but is reminded of his humanity in some scene’s that thematically recall Citizen Kane. Bejo is great, too, though her mouth, for some personal reason that I feel foolish for pointing out, seems rather too large for the period. Regardless, she is charming, beautiful, and able to twinkle her eyes or wink and blow a kiss in just the right manner. Supporting stars such as Goodman, James Cromwell as Valentin’s assistant, and Penelope Ann Miller as Valentin’s distanced wife, are respectable. Malcolm McDowell even plays a tiny role.

The Artist is enjoyable, and solidly made. It is perhaps novel for this day and age, which is odd considering the nostalgia it purposefully engenders. And what begins as a story about an attempt to leach stardom from an established star, a la All About Eve, soon becomes a bitter old actor pining for the lost golden years, watching silent films of him- (or her-) self alone in their home, in a manner strikingly similar to Sunset Blvd. The film might not be entirely original, but will please audiences. Academy voters, in particular, who are generally of an older bent, and familiar with how the industry has changed drastically, will probably empathize even more with Valentin’s predicament. For that reason, it would not be a huge surprise to hear The Artist’s name called on numerous occasions come Oscar season. It might not be the best film of the year, but it just might win Best Picture.

Rated PG by the MPAA – contains some action and adventure, some mature themes

There is a lot to like about Hugo, particularly for film fans. It might seem at first glance a bit odd for Martin Scorsese, 3D and family entertainment to be joined together, but the combination eventually works; he has crafted one of the year’s better films, even if such a statement does not say much.

It took a while to warm up to Hugo, though; an opening shot through Paris and into a train station is stylish, but to the point that it looks entirely like CG. In fact, so much of 1930′s Paris looks fabricated inorganically that the first 30 or 40 minutes were a bit of a struggle. But then the various themes begin to run together, and it becomes clear that this is a effort of love on Scorsese’s part, a paean to the history of cinema. It may end up feeling like a PSA about film preservation, but if this is how a young generation becomes interested in the history of cinema, so be it.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield, given much better material here than in Boy in the Striped Pajamas [review here]) is a young boy who lives in this central train station. He is an orphan; his dad (Jude Law) was a clockmaker and taught Hugo a love of all things mechanical. Now Hugo lives in the inner workings of the station, setting and winding all of the clocks, like a benevolent wraith. He is constantly in danger, though, of being thwarted by the earnest Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). The Inspector is constantly on the lookout for vagabonds, thieving boys and orphans. He almost delights in sending them to the orphanage.

A variety of characters inhabit the station, and early scenes set up their lives much like Amelie [review here] did ten years prior. But in this Paris everyone speaks English with a British accent, though they are adept at reading French and translating it for the audience. Nevertheless, Hugo has kept a special secret. His father had been working on restoring a special automaton, one capable of sitting at a desk and writing. But pieces are missing, as is a special key.

Hugo gets in trouble one day with the owner of a mechanical toy stall in the station. Georges (Ben Kingsley) does not take kindly to Hugo’s pilfering of his gears and other mechanical odds and ends. But through Georges and his goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Hugo ends up in a huge adventure, unraveling the secrets his father left behind.

Along the way the film explores themes of adventure, mystery, nostalgia, and, above all, Scorsese’s own love of film. In fact, it does not become clear until perhaps halfway into the film that it will have anything to do with film, though eventually the entire movie depends on this theme. I do not wish to ruin it for anyone, so will avoid specifics. Suffice to say that at times it feels like Scorsese’s personal PSA about film preservation. At other times it feels a little like a personal passion project run a little amuck; a tad self-indulgent, even.

But even if there are perhaps too many story threads, and a little too much lingering on inconsequential moments, the film as a whole is a success. Butterfield is quite a great young actor, having already proven his chops as one of the only mentionable aspects of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Kingsley is, as usual, fine. Cohen is a real joy, as the crippled authoritarian, and brings some rich humor to his pathetic character.

The film is lush and softly lit, and generally soundly constructed outside of a few minor continuity errors that are only noticeable because of pedigree of the director. My biggest complaint is that many of the period scenes look almost entirely fake and green-screened. Even the inside of the clock tower looks CG, and even if the sets are real the illusion is a bit disappointing for a film that prides itself on exploring the real magic of cinema; the illusion becomes pallid and less engaging as a result.

All things considered, Hugo is a success, even if all the critical raves won’t be able to help it recoup its enormous budget. And perhaps critics will love it more than audiences, as it panders rather directly to those with a love of cinema, particularly very early cinema. But, for that specific crowd there are many joys to behold, and, for film fans in general this may be Scorsese’s Cinema Paradiso. All in all, Hugo is one of the better films of the year, and one of Scorsese’s better efforts in quite some time.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains some war violence, mature themes

War Horse is a bit of a difficult film to process. On one hand it presents some great themes concerning humanity and war, as one would expect from director Steven Spielberg, and is filmed with great panache and an expensive-looking production. On the other hand, some of the scenes are rather poorly done, and it feels in many regards like a film from sixty years ago; the end scenes, and specific shots, directly recall Gone with the Wind, and the themes and characters are presented as basically and broadly as in Sergeant York [review here]. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but keeps the film oddly tied to a simpler era of filmmaking.

The story revolves around a horse named Joey, and it is key to remember that Joey is the central figure of the story. As a result, the film is highly episodic in nature, with primarily thematic threads holding together the disparate episodes. It is important to remember that Joey is the main character, for much of the film focuses on Albert (Jeremy Irvine), a young man in the English countryside. His father, Ted (Peter Mullan), was wounded in a previous war, and is now the town drunk. Nevertheless, Ted works hard on his farm, primarily with the help of Albert and Albert’s mother, Rose (Emily Watson).

One day Ted is in town buying a new plow horse, but spies a fine colt that sparks his fancy. Determined to purchase the young horse, Ted bids far too much for it, driven upward in his bidding by Lyons (David Thewlis), who just happens to also be Ted’s landlord. Even worse, the young horse is not fit to be a plow horse, until Albert can train him in special ways. Albert takes a shining to the horse, and is determined to save the farm and his family by proving that the horse is indeed very special.

But then war is announced, and a young Captain named Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) buys Joey to use as a cavalry horse in the Great War. Nicholls is kind, and understands Albert’s special bond with Joey. Nevertheless, Joey is needed for the war effort. On the continent, Joey ends up finding himself under a number of different commands. He is first a British horse used in war, then a French farm animal, then a German work horse. Along the way he touches many people’s lives.

Some of these people, such as the French grandfather (Niels Arestrup) of a young girl, and a variety of kindly German soldiers, are struck by Joey and recognize his character and fortitude. Some of them see an animal meant to be used, and their hearts are not softened. Eventually the horse brings together a few select British and German soldiers in the most moving scene of the film, set in the no-man’s land between opposing trench lines.

But it is unfortunate that this scene is the sole standout in the entire film. Indeed, some scenes are almost painful to watch. The French scenes in particular are nearly atrocious; horrendous accents and stilted acting on the parts of the grandfather and his granddaughter Emilie (Celine Buckens) are unfortunate and distracting. Even more distracting is the fact that both sides in the conflict, German and British, speak English with British accents. During some of the battle scenes the only way to distinguish German from Brit is by noticing how pointy their helmets are. Such a factor may be overlooked in a film like Schindler’s List [review here], but in War Horse it is just another unfortunate filmmaking decision.

The episodic nature of the story is also unfortunate, as it leaves no central thread or character to focus on throughout the film. The story is therefore disjointed, particularly when it can’t tell if Joey or Albert is the main character. Additionally, some of the coincidences that occur might bother some viewers as contrived, but they are easily forgiven by someone more interested in the general themes the film presents.

The production is almost distractingly perfect, with lush period details and an odd softness to the entire film. It is perfect, almost too perfect, and such perfection makes the flaws stand out more strongly. I am conflicted about War Horse for just these reasons. Elements of it are strong, and the climactic sequence in no-man’s land is incredible. But so many other elements are either weak or poor, and the film as a whole rarely, if ever, captured me. The filmmaking style, as a throwback to the films of the the 30′s, 40′s, and 50′s is odd; what was cutting edge story telling and technique six or eight decades ago has become cliched and tired. Audiences have evolved with the medium, and while there are aspects to be appreciated in War Horse’s style it is also discomfiting to see such a production, especially from Spielberg, in 2011. War Horse will go on to earn a Best Picture nomination, surely, and might win an award or two, but I ultimately found it to be a confusing experience.