Ironclad

Ironclad

People who know me well understand that I have a weakness for 'sword' movies.  It doesn't matter if it is a fantasy or a swashbuckler or an epic; if it has a sword, I am there.  And Ironclad is right up my alley. A sort of adaptation of one of my favorite films, Seven Samurai, Ironclad is a medieval adventure that takes place during the Baron's War in England.  After being forced to sign the Magna Carta, King John decides to bring in an army of barbarian mercenaries and exact revenge on the rebellious barons who dared to defy his authority.  Seven rebels take the strategically vital Rochester Castle, which John needs.  And so you know what that means - time for some awesome siege warfare!

There is a lot of quality in the movie.  First off, I have to give director Jonathan English some credit.  He takes a tiny budget and gives the film more scope and excitement than I would have expected.  The film never looks cheap and that is an accomplishment.  I also generally like the cast, with some seasoned pros like Brian Cox (Troy) , Derek Jacobi (Gladiator), Jason Flemyng (Snatch), and Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) - all taking their turns munching on the scenery.  But the movie really rests on the shoulders of our two main opponents. James Purefoy (Rome) plays Marshal, a Templar Knight recently returned, shell shocked and bitter, from the Crusades.  Meanwhile, the villainous King John is played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), spewing righteous fury as he tries to retake his kingdom.  Both are truly excellent in their roles and elevate the movie.

All in all, this is all a recipe for a movie I should love. Unfortunately, I didn't.  Despite the movie's strong points, there is just too much I didn't like.  The biggest problem lies with the character of Isabel (Kate Mara from 127 Hours), the young wife of Rochester's master.  When our heroes first arrive, she takes an immediate interest in Marshal, his violent past, and especially his vow of chastity.  And she is just all over him.  This whole story thread is infuriating.  I understand what the filmmakers are trying to do.  They want Isabel to act as Marshal's conscience and show him that life is actually still worth living, if you live it the right way.  Well, this doesn't work.  Instead, she is a complete distraction and just comes across as a bored housewife who wants to bone the new knight in the neighborhood.  Marshal goes about his business, trying to save everyone's lives, and she just follows him around, yammering on about why vows of chastity are lame and killing people is wrong and blah blah blah.  Stop distracting him, you idiot!  The man is trying to fight an army of barbarians who want to kill all of you!  Maybe you should leave him alone and let him do his thing until, I don't know, maybe when the battle is over?!

Unfortunately, this isn't a subplot I can ignore.  It's too large a piece of the movie.  Now, just to be clear, I am not blaming Kate Mara.  She's a fine actress and she does the best she can, but the character is so frustrating that I doubt even Meryl Streep could have saved it.

The battles themselves are also a bit disappointing.  The fighting falls victim to the same over-editing that maligned Quantum of Solace and other recent action films.  This is a trend that filmmakers love to use today in an attempt to make the audience feel like they are part of the chaos.  Well, stop it!  It doesn't work.  No one I know likes it.  It just gives us a headache.  And if we can't see the awesome fighting, then we are aren't going to like it - no matter how awesome it might be.

So there you go.  Overall, Ironclad is diverting enough, I suppose.  It's definitely not as bad as the recent Conan the Barbarian reboot!  There is fun to be had here if you have an afternoon free and feel like some medieval battle fun.  But it should have been a lot better, so overall I can't help but be a bit disappointed overall.


MVP:
It was almost James Purefoy, an actor I have been a fan of ever since I saw him in A Knight's Tale.  I think his work in Rome remains the best Marc Antony ever put on screen.  He carries Ironclad extraordinarily well, despite being dragged down in the Isabel scenes.  Giamatti was also excellent as King John, but overall I thought Purefoy was making more of an impression throughout the first 2/3 of the movie.

But then we got King John's big speech.

Holy cow.  At the 2/3 mark, King John begins to rant and rave about the foolishness of rebellion and the divine right of kings.  It's a good monologue and Giamatti just knocks it out of the park, but then he goes even further, ramping up the delivery to 11.  His voice breaks and explodes, his performance loses complete control, and Giamatti just vanishes.  He's not there.  He is channeling King John himself, furiously venting out 800 years of pent up wrath and vengeance.  It is a monstrous moment, shocking and Oscar worthy.  I don't know what movie Giamatti thought he was acting in, but it certainly wasn't Ironclad.  And whatever movie Giamatti thought he was in...I want to watch that one!   For sending chills up my spine and for genuinely scaring me, I have to give Giamatti the MVP.  That is an easy decision!

BEST LINE:
Marshal: Have you ever killed a man?  It is not a noble thing.  Not even when it is from God.

TRIVIA:
Here's a funny bit of trivia for you.  I have no problem with movies changing history, but I do get concerned when you change history this much.  So this great ol' battle that the good guys win in the movie?  Yeah, well, they didn't win.  They put up a good fight, but they pretty much got their butts kicked.  In fact, King John's generalship at Rochester is actually considered a textbook example of how to effectively conduct a siege operation.  That's taking historical license a bit too far for me!!!

Club Paradise

Club Paradise

After a life-threatening illness derailed his career in the 1970s, Peter O'Toole (Lawrence of Arabia) seemed poised for a comeback.  He secured well-deserved Oscar nominations for The Stunt Man (1980) and My Favorite Year (1982), and made a lasting impression as the Roman general Silva in the sprawling Masada miniseries (1981).  And then something happened, something horrifying, tragic and terrible.  And that thing is called Club Paradise.

Wow, is this movie bad.  Club Paradise is the unfortunate type of comedy where you don't laugh at all.  You can't laugh.  All you can do is stare and wonder how it even got made.

Robin Williams plays Jack, a retired firefighter living in the tropical paradise of St. Nicholas.  Eventually he decides to refurbish and manage a resort with his buddy Ernest (played by reggae artist Jimmy Cliff).  The problem is that despite their best efforts, their resort is a piece of trash and is literally falling to pieces.  Jack and Ernest spend much of the movie trying to keep the place together so their guests can have a good time.  Another problem is that a ruthless American businessman and the island's prime minister are plotting to force the locals into a tourism sucking cycle of servitude, leaving them destitute forever and unable to climb the economic ladder.  Grr!   Evil foreign capitalism!

...

Yeah, you read that right.  Look, I'm not saying that fancy foreign businessmen and their big fancy resorts haven't played their parts in preventing economic equality on some of these islands, but this theme seems kind of heavy for a movie as crappy as this.

The biggest shame is that the cast and crew is full of talented artists.  We all know what insane joyfulness Robin Williams is capable of bringing to the table, but he is terrible here and constantly changing character.  He is actually acting like he is doing a standup routine, which makes for a pretty bad character performance.  Was he trying to make the crew laugh maybe?  The bad guys are played by Brian Doyle Murray (Bill Murray's brother and a fine comic actor in his own right) and the Oscar-nominated Adolph Caesar (A Soldier's Story).  The hotel guests include fine actors like Rick Moranis (Ghostbusters), Eugene Levy (American Pie), Andrea Martin (SCTV) and Joanna Cassidy (Bladerunner).  The director is the gifted Harold Ramis (Groundhog Day) and the script was co-written by Ramis and Murray, both of whom are really fine writers.

And then there is Peter O'Toole.  I love that man.  His brilliance in film, on stage, and in bars is legendary.  He has risen above terrible material and delivered gold.  And in this movie, he just...isn't any good.  I don't know what is going on, but he is really off.  To me, it's a big disappointment.  Sure, he has the best line in the movie (see below), but it is the line that it clever, not O'Toole's delivery.  And from my perspective, all the good will built from The Stunt Man, My Favorite Year, and Masada vanished.   This was the beginning of the "unfortunate" period, that included such classics as Supergirl, Creator, King Ralph, High Spirits, Phantoms, The Seventh Coin, and Phantoms.  Sure, there was that quality blip on the radar (The Last Emperor), but overall this was not a good time in O'Toole's career.  Of course, who am I to judge?  He probably had a lot of fun and made a lot of money doing these films.  But wow...painful.

Actually, that is a good word for this whole movie: painful.  Please avoid it.  Please.


BEST LINE:
Governor Hayes (referring to his island): "Either the Americans will move in and turn it into Miami Beach, or the Cubans and Russians will come and turn the entire island into bloody Albania.  There really is no hope."

MVP:
I have to go with the non-actor of the bunch, Jimmy Cliff.  I don't think he made that many movies, but he actually has a nice screen presence.  Everyone else seems to be trying too hard, while Cliff just goes with the flow.  He gets my MVP, for sure.

TRIVIA:
The movie was originally supposed to star Bill Murray and John Cleese, both of whom would have been more appropriate in their roles than Williams and O'Toole.  I don't know why they dropped out, but the decision probably ranks among their best career moves.  Easily.

The Avengers

The Avengers

And this is it.  After years of planning and hundreds of millions of dollars invested, Marvel's master plan has finally come to fruition and The Avengers has been released in theaters.  The film is the culmination of a strategy that began with 2008's Iron Man, a plan to introduce all the major Avenger super heroes in their own films and then bring them together in a big old fashioned crossover.

And the strategy worked brilliantly.  The Avengers lives up to expectations and even manages to exceed them.  After his defeat in Thor, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) comes into contact with an evil alien race called the Chitauri.  He makes a deal with them.  He will retrieve the all-powerful Tesseract (the super weapon from Captain America) and turn it over to them in return for an army with which he will conquer the Earth.  What stands in Loki's way?  The Avengers!  Assembled by S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), The Avengers team includes Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Captain America (Chris Evans).  Together they have to band together, defeat Loki, and save the planet.

That's a lot of characters and that is where Marvel's gambit paid off.  Because we have already been introduced to these characters, we don't really need to waste time delving into their back stories.  We can just jump right into the movie.  Because I'll be honest, the movie is two and a half hours long, as it is.  If we had to introduce audiences to these heroes, we would be in big trouble.

As it is, the film's weakness is in its first half hour.  We have all these characters and we need to get them all together somehow.  Sometimes these moments seem a bit forced, others - such as Thor's introduction - are downright contradictory to the earlier films.  Not that these scenes are particularly bad.  They just have some...speed bumps, I guess you could say, and are not as strong as the rest of the movie.

Because once we have everyone in the same room, the film really begins to hum, and then it churns, and then it explodes.  Every member of the cast is pitch perfect - especially newcomer Mark Ruffalo, who replaced Ed Norton as Bruce Banner/Hulk.  I initially thought Ruffalo was miscast, but he won me over pretty quickly.  And now I think he is the best cinematic Banner we've had yet.  He's almost the MVP of the movie.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that even though this movie is super crowded, everybody - and I mean, everybody - has their moment to shine, including smaller characters like Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).  Every hero has a crowd pleasing kick butt moment, especially in the final battle.  This is a tricky juggling act and we have to credit Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy and Firefly) for shepherding such a complicated cast through the film.  Give him credit, too, for the great sense of humor that permeates the film.  Simply put, The Avengers is funnier than most of the comedies we get these days, plus we get great effects, great heroics, and great acting, too.  There are other summer films coming out that might end up being better than The Avengers, but I doubt any of them are going to be anywhere near as entertaining.

But in the end, The Avengers is not just a fun summer film, it is also accomplishes a remarkably feat -  it captures the spirit and the magic of the comics.  The Avengers really feels like a comic book come to life.  It is easily Marvel Studios' best film and rightfully takes its place as one of the best comic films of all time.


MVP:
Full disclosure - I am not a Whedon fanatic.  I think he is a talented writer and director, but I do not fawn over everything he does.  I loved Firefly and Serenity, but Buffy was just okay (here comes the hate mail) and Angel was just slightly better.  I want to qualify that just so you know I can be unbiased about this whole MVP thing, because I gotta say that Whedon just upped his game 500%.  I felt comfortable as soon as he was hired because I knew he was adept at handling team dynamics.  But I didn't think he would knock it out of the park like he does here.  I am still incredibly impressed how no character was under-utilized.  Everyone had something important and relevant to do - and we had eight major characters.  That is pretty remarkable.  And as a writer, he was able to give each hero their own distinct voice, which is also pretty difficult to do.  It's just impressive all around.  Whedon captained this ship and gave us one of the best of the genre.  I can't wait to see what he does with the sequel.  This was an easy MVP decision.

BEST LINE:

Ouch, so many.  Lots of good lines.  But I can say this line got a lot of cheers in the theater:

Captain America: "Ma'am, there's only one God, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."

TRIVIA:
Some fans were disappointed that the villainous aliens in the movie weren't the Skrulls, Marvel Comics' go-to evil alien race.  The aliens in the film, the Chitauri, actually come from the Ultimates comic version of The Avengers.  In the comic, they do claim that they go by other names, including The Skrulls.  So why not just use the Skrulls name?  Well, turns out there were some legal issues.  The Skrulls were also villains in the Fantastic Four series, and since Fox Studios currently has the rights to Fantastic Four, that means they couldn't be used in The Avengers film.  Bummer.

The Hunger Games

Hunger Games

Sometimes, I think I must live in a cave.  Harry Potter was a phenomenon that I understood, but I was still trying to wrap my head around why the Twilight series was so popular, and then suddenly they announced that a movie was being made based on some book called The Hunger Games.  The world went crazy.  And I thought, "huh, where the heck did this come from?!"  Apparently, this trilogy of books came out and became an instant blockbuster, and I completely missed it.  And now that the movie was coming out, everyone I knew was really excited.

When I finally read the plot synopsis for the film, my initial reaction was that it was a ripoff of Battle Royale, the Japanese cult classic that pits teenagers and pre-teens against each other in a brutal fight to the death.  Now, that I've seen the movie, I am happy to report The Hunger Games is no ripoff of Battle Royale.  If anything, it evokes the old Greek myth of Theseus, with a small dash of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Running Man thrown in.  But the blend works.

I'm sure everyone knows the plot of the film by now.  But for the five of you who have not heard of The Hunger Games, here you go.  Every year in the futuristic nation of Panem, two teenagers are selected from each District as both tribute and punishment for past rebellions.  These kids are brought to the capital, trained to fight and then thrown into battle against each other until there is only one survivor.  The battle is, of course, watched by everyone in the country.  From District 12 comes Katniss (Winter's Bone's Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson, Zathura).  She's tough, resilient, independent, and a killer shot with a bow.  But is she going to be good enough to survive this brutal game and bring hope and glory to her downtrodden District?

There is a lot to like in this movie.  The cast is superb and surprising.  When I think a dystopian future, I do not think of Lenny Kravitz, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, or Stanley Tucci.  Not at all.  But every single one of them pulls off their role with panache and skill.  This cast is probably the most pleasant surprise of the film.  The art direction is also top notch.  The film does a nice job of combining Greco-Roman influences with a truly futuristic look and feel.  I also like what writer-director Gary Ross (Sea Biscuit) brought to the film.  Granted, I have not read the books, but I thought the script and the direction had heft and weight to it, giving the film an importance that most studios wouldn't usually give to a young adult franchise (ahem, Twilight, cough cough).

But while the film was good, there were some issues that kept it from being great.  For one thing, Gary Ross depends WAY too much on shaky cam in a mistaken belief that it will add grittiness and realism to the economically depressed District 12.  Really, Gary, do we need shaky cam when we are looking at an old guy on a rocking chair?? What does that add to the movie????  It gave me motion sickness and I know I am not alone.  A lot of people seem to be complaining about this, and GOOD.  Shaky cam is overused and generally used poorly.  It certainly is completely unnecessary here and burdens the movie.  And it is a surprise to me because I've never seen Ross use this technique in his other films.  Oh, well.

There are also some minor complaints.  SPOILERS HERE.  I thought Cato was kind of a lame bad guy and nowhere near as menacing as the vicious little brunette who gets killed off in an unsatisfactory way.  I didn't like that Peeta seemed to somehow have a really complex paint and makeup kit with him in the forest...and I'm not sure where he was hiding it for most of the game.  I didn't think the relationship between Katniss and Rue was set up very well.  So when their story arc reached its conclusion, I certainly didn't feel the emotional wallop that the movie wanted me to feel.  I also thought the final fight involving Cato and the CGI wolf things was underwhelming.  And I have to wonder - if in this future, they can make flesh and blood wolf things appear out of nothing, then why do they need all those resources, like simple coal and oil, from the other districts?  Can't they just materialize coal out of thin air, too?  Seems like it would be easy to me...

Anyway, The Hunger Games overall was a pleasant surprise.  It was not a great film, but it was a pretty good one.  I'll be curious to see how this trilogy develops.

MVP:
Can there be any doubt?  Jennifer Lawrence takes this film and kicks its butt.   She is fantastic here.  She is the real winner, showing that she not only can hold her own in dramas, but can also carry a franchise on her shoulders.  She is a clear MVP.  I can't wait to see what she does next.

Side note: In a weird sort of way, I could imagine this as a sequel to Winter's Bone.  District 12 is an awful lot like the bleak Ozark setting of that film.  And there are definite similarities between Katniss and Ree.  Both are resilient young women who have to care for their siblings because mom has checked out after the death of their father.  Katniss and Ree are both good hunters, have a clever head on their shoulders, and are absolutely determined to do what they have to do for their family.  It's almost like Winter's Bone is about Katniss finding out what happened to her father and his meth lab, and then she gets picked as tribute for the Hunger Games.  And please, realize, I am completely joking about this.  But I couldn't help thinking and chuckling about it when I was watching the movie.  The similarities are there!!!

BEST LINE:

Peeta: I keep wishing I could think of a way to show them they don't own me.  If I'm gonna die, I wanna still be me.  Does that make any sense?

Katniss:  Yeah, I just can't afford to think that way.

TRIVIA:
The setting for The Hunger Games is the fictional country of Panem.  The name is derived from the Latin expression, "panem et circenses," which means 'bread and circuses.'  Basically, this was the old Roman expression for how the emperors controlled the people of the Empire - by giving them bread and violent games like gladiator matches.  It's a clever and accurate name given the subject matter of the film.  Also, to me, it also sounds similar to Panam, implying 'PanAmerican' and some sort of future where North and South America merge into one huge super country.


  

John Carter

John Carter

John Carter is the type of movie that makes me just a little sad.  Though it has performed decently overseas, it was crushed at the box office domestically, and Disney is estimating they are are going to lose $200 million on the film.  The movie is going to be remembered as the big flop of 2012.

And it doesn't deserve it.

I'm not saying John Carter is great.  It's not.  The movie, directed by Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo), has some real problems and is even a little clumsy in places, especially in the film's opening scenes.  The script is a bit hokey in places, the acting is sometimes hit or miss, and I don't understand why Mars looks like Utah.  But you know what?  It is ten times better than most of these summer sci-fi blockbusters which end up making a bazillion dollars no matter how bad they are.  And that it just a shame.

Because John Carter is the granddaddy of all of them.  In 1912, Edgar Rice Burroughs, who also dreamed up Tarzan, created modern science fiction when he wrote a story about an Virginian cavalry officer who finds himself on Mars, where he has super strength because the gravity makes his human bones more dense.  He is a stranger in a strange land, finds himself siding with the locals against an evil empire and marries a princess.  Sound familiar?  It should, because we've been watching this story all our lives.  Burroughs' work has inspired writers, filmmakers, scientists - men like George Lucas, James Cameron, Ray Bradbury, Frank Frazetta, and Jerry Siegel.  Why wasn't that little fact in the marketing?!  The trailers for John Carter made it look like some lame Star Wars or Avatar clone, when really it is the other way around.

Despite its flaws, John Carter's heart is in the right place.  The film is genuinely exciting in a lot of places, and the comedy is for the most part natural and not forced.  Most importantly, you can tell that the filmmakers are involved not because they want to make a big blockbuster, but because they love the source material.  They are trying to do the classic story justice.   This enthusiasm crosses over to the cast, which includes Taylor Kitsch (Wolverine) as our title hero, Lynn Collins (also from Wolverine) as the Princess Dejah, and a solid supporting troupe that includes Ciaran Hinds (Rome), Polly Walker (Rome), James Purefoy (uh, also Rome), Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes), Dominic West (300), Thomas Haden Church (Easy A), Samantha Morton (Minority Report), Willem Dafoe (Spiderman) and Bryan Cranston (Drive).

TANGENT: Speaking the casting, I have to address some miscasting.  Dominic West was cast as the villainous ruler Sab Than, while James Purefoy was cast a roguish good guy captain Kantos Kan.  Both are fine actors and put in solid work, but it is clear to me that their roles should have been switched.  Dominic West keeps getting cast as villain because of his dark looks and mean glare, but he doesn't have the true menace needed here to be a worthy evil tyrant of Mars.  One look at Purefoy's Marc Antony in Rome and you will see a glimpse of the charismatic, magnificent asshole-ishness that Sab Than should have had.  Purefoy would have been spectacular.  Instead, he is stuck as the dependable and noble Kantos, who has an unfunny comedic scene late in the movie that borders on embarrassing.   Purefoy just looks out of place, but West could have pulled it off.  More than than, as you can see from his vibrant work in Centurion, West would have owned this scene.  It would have been funny without making the character any less badass.  West would have been superb.  I know this is a small detail, but that simple switch would have made a big difference.  TANGENT OVER.

Anyway, overall, John Carter is a mixed bag.  It has its flaws, but there is a lot to like in it, and I think it is a shame that it got destroyed at the box office when it really isn't that bad.  It deserves better.  I think everyone reading this review should go check it out.  They might be pleasantly surprised.


MVP:  
When he was hired to write the score, Michael Giacchino (Lost) was told to go big, to write "his Star Wars."  And he does.  With some nods to John Barry, John Williams, and Maurice Jarre, Giacchino goes into overdrive, writing a grandiose (if a tad over-used) main theme and a stunning love theme.  His work propels the movie forward and gives the dramatic scenes more emotion than the script sometimes deserves.  It's terrific work.  If the movie had done better, he would have been guaranteed an Oscar nomination.  Alas, I fear that this score will be lost to the mainstream.  But I will do my best to trumpet its cause.  And I will start by giving Giacchino my MVP award!


BEST LINE:
Tars Tarka: When I saw you, I believed it was a sign...that something new could come into this world.


TRIVIA: 
Possibly, this movie has the record for being in 'development hell' for the longest period of time.  The first attempt to make the film was all the way back in 1931.  No one succeeded until now.  That's...over 70 years!!!

The Russia House

The Russia House

I have been curious about The Russia House for a long time.  When I was younger, it seemed like my dream movie, starring two of my favorite actors at the time, Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer, written by Tom Stoppard (who wrote the amazing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead) and based on a book by superb novelist John Le Carre.  Plus, the production stills (like the one above) looked super cool.  How could this not be a great movie?

So then I graduated college and I found out my brother owned it on DVD.  I asked if I could borrow it and he said, "Sure, but watch out.  It's boring."  I was taken aback, my enthusiasm instantly waning.  After all, I trust my brother's opinion almost completely.  I put The Russia House on my shelf and said, "Maybe I'll watch you next week.  No, maybe the next week."

...Ten years later, I finally sat down and watched The Russia House, almost just to prove to myself that I could do it.  And sure enough, it's boring.  The tricky part is finding out why.  My expectations were not crazy.  I knew Le Carre didn't write action flicks and that his novels are realistic and slow, more about research, talking and bluffing than they are about sneaking about and shooting bad guys.  And the story of The Russia House is interesting.  Katya (Pfeiffer), acting on behalf of Soviet nuclear scientist Dante (Klaus Maria Brandauer) smuggles a complete portrait of the Soviet strategic situation to book publisher Barley Blair (Sean Connery) in hopes that he will publish it.  The manuscript raises a lot of questions.  Is it real or a plant?  More importantly, since it paints a pretty pathetic picture of the Soviet military, how will the West react?  You would think they would be happy about their enemy's weakness, but then again, how can they now justify their own defense spending?  Naturally, British secret service (represented by James Fox) and the CIA (represented by Roy Scheider) get involved.

Done right, this is all pretty interesting stuff.  But things are rocky from the very beginning, with much leaping back and forth in time in an attempt to be clever about the exposition.  The result isn't clever at all, but is confusing, badly edited, and bizarre.  The playing around with the timeline isn't even necessary and sticks out even more considering that they don't do anything like that again until the very end (and no, that's not a spoiler).  This opening isn't helped by an overacting Connery, who seems to be trying way too hard to distance himself from his reputation for awesomeness.

The confusion isn't intriguing; it is bothersome and lethargic and made me sleepy.  But things do brighten up a bit when Barley meets Katya.  Despite the age difference, their blossoming romance is very believable.  And Connery calms down a little bit and starts to really gel with the movie.  By the end of it, I was really enjoying his take on Barley.  In fact, I would even say the scene where he declares his love for Katya features some of the most honest acting of his career.

But for the most part, the movie just drags.  The fate of nations is at stake, lives are threatened, and I never once felt any sort of suspense or danger.  The movie just glides along, trying to coast on a fine cast that is unable to save the sinking ship.  Perhaps that is a bit harsh.  There is one scene, a really long scene, where the CIA question Barley at a small cabin.  With so much at stake, they need to know if Barley can be trusted.  It's a fascinating look at the questioning process, with good writing, acting, and directing.  Oh, if only the whole movie had been like this scene!  Pity.  And it is too little too late.  For the most part, the movie is just deadly dull.  And with the talent involved, it was a big disappointment.

MVP:

I am going to go with the fine English actor James Fox (Sherlock Holmes) as Barley's handler.  Perfectly affable and polite, he doesn't look or act like a spymaster.  And yet, he seems to understand what is happening before any other character in the movie because he is busy observing and not showboating.  His reactions to the CIA, especially the foul-mouthed Russell played by Scheider, are priceless: "Russell's metaphors are becoming rather scatological."  It was a big laugh, and it sealed the MVP award for him.  

BEST LINE:

Russell: How the fuck do you peddle an arms race when the only asshole you have to race against is yourself?

TRIVIA:  

The Russia House was the first major film production from the West to be filmed in the Soviet Union with full permission of the Soviet government.

Drive

Drive

Do you know the old fable about the scorpion and the frog?  The scorpion comes to a river and asks the frog if he will ferry him across on his back.  Despite the fact that scorpions are dangerous, the frog agrees.  So the scorpion hops on the frog's back and the two begin to go across the river.  Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog, paralyzing him.  Sinking, the frog cries out, "why did you do that?  Now we'll both die!"  And the scorpion just replies, "It's my nature."

I mention this because the fable of the scorpion and the frog has a deep thematic tie to Drive, one of the best movies of last year.  And no, the fable does not ruin anything about the movie, so don't think I spoiled anything.  I would never do that to you!  But I do think knowing the fable increases your enjoyment of the film and allows you to see it on another level.

Our frog is the unnamed character played by Ryan Gosling (The Ides of March).  In the credits, he is called the Driver, so we'll call him that, too.  During the day, he is a movie stunt driver and a mechanic at a garage owned by Shannon (Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad).  In his spare time, he is a getaway driver for bank robbers and gangsters.  He is the frog ferrying these bad men to safety.  And as if there were any doubt about the symbolism, he also wears a jacket that literally has a scorpion on its back.

There is a difference between Driver and the frog in the fable.  When the scorpion tries to sting Driver, he fights back.  And damn, can he fight.  When one of the heists goes horribly wrong, Driver finds himself a target of local gangsters Bernie and Nino, played by Albert Brooks (Finding Nemo) and Ron Perlman (Hellboy).  But he's not gonna go down easy, and things are gonna get bloody.

But don't let this description fool you.  Drive is not an action film.  The violent scenes, though gruesome, are few and far between.  This is more of a character study of the Driver.  More time is spent on his relationship with his neighbor, Irene, played gracefully by Carey Mulligan (An Education).  But even these scenes are slow - the Driver and Irene spend more time looking at each other and smiling than they do talking.  And it's actually kind of sweet.

I do not want to imply that this slow pace is a negative thing.  It's not.  But I do think people should be warned before getting into it - this isn't The Fast and The Furious.  The pace works for the mostly silent character of the Driver and is an important element of the film.  If they had sped the pace up, then it probably would not have worked as well as it did.

While I want to make sure people know what they are getting into, let me be clear when I say Drive was one of the better films of 2011.  Superb direction, writing, and acting all combine to make one helluva movie.  I consider this one of the big snubs of the 2011 Oscars.  How the poorly reviewed Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close got nominated and Drive didn't...sigh, I don't get it.

MVP:

Ryan Gosling, easily.  In three different movies in 2011 (Drive, The Ides of March and Crazy Stupid Love) and with three very different performances, Gosling showed how truly versatile he really is.  With his smaller frame and cherub face, Gosling didn't really seem like a badass to me, but he totally owns this performance and is a truly powerful force of violence when he is unleashed.  But his performance is even more remarkable because it is mostly silent.  He has so few lines, and focuses on his body language and eyes to sell the emotion.  It's great work, making him an easy MVP.

BEST LINE:

Driver: You tell me where we start, where we're going, where we're going afterwards.  I give you a five minute window.  Anything happens in that five minutes, I'm yours.  No matter what.  Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own.  I don't sit in the car while you're running it down.  I don't carry a gun.  I drive.

TRIVIA:

Drive was originally going to star Hugh Jackman and be directed by Neil Marshall (Centurion).  That would have been interesting, but probably would have been more of a straight action movie.  It certainly would have not have hit the cult classic status that Drive has already claimed.