The premise behind the YouTube documentary “Life in a Day” is interesting: invite everyone around the world to shoot video on one specific day: July 24th 2010. Have people upload their raw footage and edit it so it becomes a short, ninety minute, documentary that chronicles a single day on our planet. Does this extreme form of crowdsourcing actually work?

The goal of a film is storytelling and doing this by combining random contributions seems like a formidable challenge. The organizers received over eighty thousand submissions and had a total of about forty-five hundred hours of footage to work with. For making something coherent out of all this, the film had a lot of talent to work with. Scott Free productions, owned by the brothers Ridley and Tony Scott, known for heavyweights like Top Gun and Gladiator, was involved as production company. Kevin McDonald was attached as director, and Harry Gregson-Williams as composer. The excellent music, and several montages set to rhythm, help a great deal with keeping things dynamic.

The film starts and ends with a view of our moon, and proceeds chronologically from the earliest hours to the end of the day at midnight. Footage from all around the world is included. While the first couple of minutes may seem a bit random, gradually more coherent stories form. Most of these are in the form of personal narratives that give a brief window into the lives of real people. This includes everything from the mundane and materialistic to fairly gripping emotional moments.

The film can be viewed as a time capsule and gives a beautiful broad portrait of the human condition around mid 2010. It presents many events, beliefs and themes in a non-judgemental way, perhaps that’s the greatest strength of this documentary: just allowing the viewer to observe things and not trying to impose a message. A succesful experiment. Recommended!

The trailer is below. You can watch the full ninety-minute version on-line here.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Copyright © 2011 National Geographic. Trailer Hosted by YouTube

After a five year hiatus Ethan Hunt is back on the big screen familiarly portrayed by Tom Cruise. Director Brad Bird is perhaps best known for his considerably successful animation films, like The Incredibles and Ratatouille. This affinity with animation is clearly visible in for example the title sequence of Ghost Protocol. But is it any good after that?

Mission Impossible starts with Ethan Hunt being broken out of a Russian prison by former IMF team members. It is immediately apparent during this sequence that the movie leans considerably on funny moments as well as pure action. The main villain Hendricks and his objectives quickly become crystal clear, and naturally Hunt has to stop him. However, he and his team lose support of the IMF after they fail to stop Hendricks at the Kremlin. This is when the ‘Ghost Protocol’ becomes active and the team goes underground to chase down Hendricks and stop him from unleashing a devastating nuclear war. So far nothing that we haven’t seen before. However, especially with a fairly predictable and straightforward plot, it can be hard to get the rest right.

Luckily Ghost Protocol is extremely well paced with enough variation to continually command attention. Simon Pegg delivers a good supporting role as the light hearted Benji, providing all kinds of cool technical gadgets that would make even James Bond’s Q jealous. Jeremy Renner’s character also makes for a good companion to Cruise’s lead. Spectacular views and excellent cinematography make Mission Impossible IV a visual treat. If there’s any criticism: the movie sometimes tends to overplay its comical hand, for example in some of the scenes situated in India.

Mission Impossible IV is over-the-top, and not particulary deep or original. Nevertheless, the filmmakers have managed to create a light and humorous action flick with good technical execution: a treat for any movie goer. Recommended!

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Paramount Pictures.

For many people the name of the character alone might make their skins crawl, let alone its tagline: “when patriots become heroes”, but one should keep in mind that the fictional superhero Captain America was created during the second world war. A time in which the global war efforts of the United States were internationally uncontroversial and parodies like Team America: World Police did not exist. It is during this historic period that most of this latest movie adaptation takes place.

We follow Steve Rogers’ struggles in the American army and his transformation into Captain America. The main villain in this Joe Johnston directed movie, the Red Skull, is convincingly played by Hugo Weaving, of Matrix fame, and the protagonist Captain America by Chris Evans. His entertaining transformation from a frail man to a superhero is aided by a defected German scientist, an excellent role by Stanley Tucci.

Captain America does not take itself too seriously and is luckily not without humor and self-deprecation. After his transformation the Captain is turned into an entertainer for troops abroad, a role which quickly loses meaning to him. Hence, his foray into the forefront of battle driven by an additional strong personal objective. Good supporting roles are given by Tommy Lee Jones as army colonel and Hayley Atwell as strong female officer. The movie’s ending hints to a sequel, and of course to the upcoming Avengers movie.

As with any super hero movie, good and bad are portrayed as rather black and white in Captain America. Despite its fine execution: good cinematography and well paced dialogues, it doesn’t feel like this movie has a whole lot to say of its own, which is something we’ve gotten used to thanks to high quality film adaptations of Batman and Spiderman.

My main observation is that Captain America feels to run-of-the-mill and doesn’t add anything to the established genre of superhero movies, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it comes expected. Hence, If you like comic book heroes and are into a light “popcorn” movie with plenty of action, then you will find Captain America entertaining. If you want anything more than that, you’re probably looking in the wrong place.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Marvel Studios.

Another Earth is a drama film with a science fiction backdrop. The story revolves around a girl named Rhoda, portrayed by Brit Marling, who has recently been accepted to study at MIT. Unfortunately, while driving home from a party she slams her car into that of a famous composer, killing his family and throwing him in a coma.

The rest of the film is mostly about the consequences for both the composer and Rhoda, as well as one of the causes of the accident: Rhoda looking out of the window of her car because she sees another earth in the sky. This visual cue is revisited many times in the movie as we slowly learn what the other earth really is. However, more central to the story is the relation between Rhoda and the composer, a fascinating role by William Mapother. The fact that the audience and Rhoda share a secret together from the outset of the movie makes for some particularly gripping moments.

Another Earth is recommended for people who like well crafted art house films. While it borrows elements from other movies, like Moon and Crash, it’s hard to really compare to existing work, which makes that it has a unique signature: a good thing. Another Earth is slowly paced, but consistently throws enough at you to hold your attention. To what extent you will like this movie probably depends mainly on whether you sympathize with the faith of the two main characters. The cinematographic execution is rough in some places, but not a distraction. Finally, the abrupt ending may be a disappointment to some, but I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Clint Eastwood has sharpened his directing skills in the past decade, showing that he can make high quality drama films such as Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby. In his newest feature he takes on the life of J. Edgar Hoover, the former long-time director and founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The script was penned by Dustin Lance Black best known for the award-winning movie Milk.

J. Edgar tells the life of its subject through flashbacks while an elderly Hoover dictates about his past. A lot of this revolves around the Lindbergh kidnapping. Hoover’s personal life throughout the years is highlighted, particularly his relationship with his deputy Clyde Tolson. Controversial subject matter surrounding his persona is not swept under the carpet, like his alleged homosexuality and self-glorification.

Although inter-cutting between past and present is an effective storytelling device, it is sometimes disorienting in J. Edgar. The cinematography is decent, and most of the make-up used to make actors look older is convincing. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an excellent performance as J. Edgar Hoover and whilst certainly intended as a deep drama movie, it is not shy of amusing dialogue.

J. Edgar is not particularly gripping, at times a bit too slow, and occasionally hard to follow due to some flashbacks problems. Nevertheless, it is overall a well crafted movie that gives insight into a person who was instrumental in establishing some of today’s established forensic practices. If you’re into biopics, and can oversee some minor flaws in execution, this is for you.

Note: J. Edgar will be released outside the United States in January, and in the Netherlands on January fifth twenty twelve.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Warner Brothers.

Margin Call is a film about risk taking in the financial market and the consequences for people working in that sector. Not a very popular topic for filmmakers and moviegoers alike. Nevertheless, it features an all-star cast, but do they deliver?

First of all: don’t expect a lot of excitement and explosions. Although marketed as a thriller, Margin Call really is a drama. The financial system is not easy to understand, not even for insiders as is suggested in the movie – Jeremy Irons’s character, the head honcho, remarks: “I don’t get any of this stuff.” – Nevertheless, the filmmakers do succeed in making things understandable even for people without a degree in finance, but whether a financial melt-down excites you is a matter of personal taste.

Most of Margin Call isn’t really about money at all. It’s more about how people treat each other when the going gets though. The movie starts out with massive lay-offs at an investment firm, with cold and clinical severances, and then progresses towards an even bleaker scenario once it becomes obvious that a complete collapse is imminent. The situation is complicated by the fact that a key employee, with insights into the cause of this foreshaded collapse, was fired during the initial lay-off.

The movie believably portrays how problems bubble up from the bottom to the upper echelons of such companies, to what tricks they resort to motivate their people, and how little they really value their human capital. It contains a lot of subtle criticism on Wall Street, such as the fact that they employ talented engineers and scientists, who could have otherwise made a more concrete contribution to society.

Margin Call is made believable by its excellent cast with impressive roles in particular by Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. Despite its relatively slow pace, the movie doesn’t drag. Nevertheless, some characters would have benefited from a richer depiction of their background.

Overall, Margin Call is recommended if you are either working in, or have some interest in, financial markets. For others the subject matter might be too dry to be exciting. Despite its fairly narrow appeal, Margin Call is a good drama in its own right.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Before the Door Pictures.

I don’t watch a lot of comedies, but I am willing to make an exception for Rowan Atkinson. There probably isn’t a soul who isn’t familiar with Mr. Bean. Atkinson’s non-verbal acting skills are simply amazing. However, he has to rely on more than that to play a secret agent. Is this follow-up to the “so, so” 2003 Johnny English, any good?

The movie starts off with humorous scenes of Johnny English in a Tibetan Monastery, followed by his re-entry into MI7. He’s assigned the mission of uncovering an assassination attempt on the Chinese head of state, and has to reluctantly accept the presence of a sidekick. From there the film kicks into high gear, with numerous parodies of cliché moments in more serious action and spy films. This never gets old thanks to Atkinson, who is often doing something totally inappropriate in the background of a “serious scene”.

British director Oliver Parker isn’t known for box office hits, but does a decent job here. The unbelievable plot isn’t really a distraction, as most of the movie leans on Atkinson’s scene-to-scene performance and his sidekick excellently portrayed Daniel Kaluuya. However, not everyone acts very well: although Gillian Anderson, of X-Files fame, is billed as one of the top cast she gives a surprisingly poor and plastic performance.

This movie is certainly no gem, and people have likely become accustomed to better performances from Atkinson. However, all in all Johnny English Reborn offers good value. It’s better than the original Johnny English and good as a light “popcorn” movie. If you’re into that, or a die hard fan of Rowan Atkinsons, you should go see this movie.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Universal Studios.

Truth be told, I wasn’t really aware of Ryan Gosling before Drive, although I vaguely recalled him from Remember the Titans. Shame on me, as he delivers a convincing performance in Drive as a man of few words. Other cast members deliver good acting as well, notably Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks. This movie is not permeated with slick dialogue like Fast Five and it doesn’t have the cliché Michael Bay look, but instead stylistically resembles an early eighties film. All the better since it is exactly these elements that give Drive a unique feel.

The movie heavily relies on non-verbal behaviour: glances, smiles and awkward pauses. This builds excellent tension between the main characters. Rosling plays the nameless driver who seems somewhat of a lone ranger. His genuine care for a woman results in him getting caught up in a violent plot.

The cinematography is excellent and makes up for the film being a little bit slow in some spots. Although the music used is fitting, the soundtrack is very minimal and large portions of movie are without any music at all. This is quite effective and sets Drive apart from a pack of over-the-top action films that rely too heavily on constant pumping audio to move the audience along. Nevertheless, because the film is so silent, the moments where gunfire and other types of violence are used, are all the more shocking and gruesome.

The amount of violence in Drive is also my primary point of criticism. I don’t mind this when it is essential for advancing the plot, and some parts of Drive rely on it to bring forward the violent nature of the main character. However, I think there’s a bit too much visceral violence. Drive is often compared with Tarantino’s films. However, in his work violence is often so over the top that it becomes light-hearted and almost humorous besides also serving a plot wise purpose. In contrast Drive has a much darker tone than most of Tarantino’s work, making it even more essential to strike the right visual balance.

Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive is an overall good movie with an interesting storyline and memorable characters. The style and overall atmosphere is reminiscent of movies like American History X, Pulp Fiction and No Country for Old Men. Even though it is too blunt to actually belong among those classics. Nevertheless, Drive is recommended if you liked those movies.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer Hosted by YouTube. Copyright © FilmDistrict

Luc Besson’s two most memorable films for me are The Fifth Element and Léon: The Professional. The latter stars a very young Natalie Portman that wants to learn the trade of being an assassin, and this is in fact the starting point of the French-American movie Colombiana. It opens with scenes from our heroine’s childhood: Cataleya, but quite quickly switches to her story as an adult portrayed by Zoe Saldana.

While Besson has written many over-the-top action flicks over the last decade, he has not directed any of them. This also holds true for Colombiana which was instead helmed by Olivier Fontana. Fontana has given this film the same look and feel as the purely action-oriented production The Transporter. Unfortunately, this does not mix well with a plot which is more reminiscent of the drama and human-condition-driven Léon. Especially, for the scenes with the young Cataleya.

Cataleya wants her uncle to help her become a professional assassin for reasons that are revealed near the beginning of the movie and in the trailer below. At one point she insists on being taught the trade and her uncle’s reaction to this is far too extreme, let alone the lack of reaction of others in that scene: it just feels contrived. These kinds of moments significantly hamper character development making the audience less engaged with the rest of the movie.

Fortunately, Colombiana gets better as focus shifts to the adult Cataleya. Zoe Saldana saves the day with excellent acting, and some well choreographed fight scenes make the second half a treat. However, it is hard for the audience to sympathize with anyone’s faith in the movie apart from Cataleya. This is where Leon so excellently succeeded and Colombiana fails. Perhaps this would have been in better hands being directed by Luc Besson himself. Nevertheless, this is an okay movie to go see provided you like the over-the-top action style and can forgive the lack of character development.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Video Hosted by YouTube, Copyright © 2011 Sony Pictures

Steven Soderbergh is a very prolific director. Interestingly, he recently announced that he has lost interest in the film medium and wants to retire. Soderbergh has directed several gems such as Erin Brockovich and Ocean’s Eleven, and was involved in the production of other good quality flicks like Syriana and the rotoscoped adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkly. However, some of his work is notably harder to follow like Solaris and the critically acclaimed Traffic.

But let’s move on to Contagion: Soderbergh’s most recently released work concerning a global pandemic. The movie opens in an original way by showing a number of infected people in several places in the world. This is followed by a sequence of introductory scenes for the main characters. After this the consequences for the principal cast rapidly become apparent. The first third of the movie is gripping and fast paced, but not in an action-film way as we’ve become used to from Hollywood. Instead Contagion mixes narrative and character build-up with close to documentary-style film. The second third of the movie is more conventionally paced as officials try to figure out a way to develop a remedy for the spreading disease. Unfortunately, the movie loses direction and comes to a grinding halt in the last third of the movie.

Fortunately, the scriptwriters have not tried to `dumb down’ the movie, for example: the medical researchers appear to use real, hard to follow, language. Nor have the creators tried to pump it into a blockbuster: there are no over-the-top gun blazing heroes here. Good! As people begin to realize what situation they are in they choose for themselves leading to rioting and looting, revealing the dark side of the human spirit. This also accurately shows the indirect consequences of societal turmoil: a refreshing take on easily milked subject matter.

The filmmakers chose to follow several characters throughout the pandemic that are essentially disconnected from each other. That can work quite well if their stories are logically intertwined. Unfortunately this is not the case which makes some of the subplots underdeveloped, for example the one involving a blogger and one that involves a WHO representative. On the other hand the main character at the CDC, a role by Laurence Fishburne, and of a family man portrayed by Matt Damon are well structured.

This leaves me with the problematic last third of the film, which is simply paced too slowly. This is not helped by the fact that the viewer does not really have a sense of where the movie is going once the main device that closes the story is undramatically revealed. In this sequence, surprisingly, characters are used that were either unseen or insignificant during the rest of the movie. Finally, the ending itself is somewhat predictable, but satisfactory.

Good and unnerving cinematography, a strong start and some excellent acting save this movie. However, Contagion is certainly not for everyone, and people seeking action or a blockbuster should skip it. Nevertheless, if you are interested in a more realistic spin on what might happen during a global pandemic, this might be for you.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube, Copyright © 2011 Warner Brothers