Marvel teased us with the release of this film near the end of various previously released super hero flicks like Captain America and Iron Man 2. This would be the movie that unites all the super heroes from the Marvel universe. Well actually, only those that had not been previously licensed to other studios. Hence, you will not find characters from X-Men, Spiderman, or the Fantastic Four in this movie. Director Joss Whedon brings back fond memories of creative television series like Firefly and Dollhouse, but what does he make of a 220 million blockbuster production?

The Avengers was released in the UK as `Avengers Assemble’ to avoid confusion with the 1960′s television series with the same name. The main protagonists in this flick have all had movies of their own: Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. If I had to pick any of those movies that would be good to watch before The Avengers it would be Thor as it introduces the most important characters, including the antagonist. However, The Avengers can also easily be watched by itself.

This film does not fall in the trap of taking its subject matter overly serious, which I think is key for movies in the superhero genre. The Hulk, not a very talkative character to begin with, in particular has some good `moments’ in this movie. The chemistry among the main cast is excellent, and even supporting characters, like Agent Phil Coulson, deliver memorable performances. Robert Downey Jr. gives an excellent performance as the ever arrogant Tony Stark, and Mark Ruffalo is easily the best Hulk so far.

The Avengers is a special effects extravaganza where no expense has been spared to produce excellent looking computer generated imagery. The 3D is subject to mild strobing effects, particularly during quick pans. It was added in post-production. There were very few scenes in which it actually made any difference, so it might as well have been left out.

Overall the filmmakers do a good job of keeping the fights both interesting and easy to follow. It does not become an unwatchable mess typical of poorly choreographed fight scenes. One scene in which the camera floats by all the heroes fully engaged in combat in the middle of a city-wide attack is particularly impressive for it manages to actually keep the audience engaged instead of invoking disorientation. The music and sound effects were excellent, and combined with the spectacular visuals certainly warrant a visit to the cinema.

If I had to pick on anything: the plot is a little thin with respect to the drive of the main villain. The interactions between him and his allies could have used some more screen time. Whilst shrouding a villain in a cloud of mystery makes sense to some extent, what actually drives him sometimes eluded me.

This movie should be skipped only if you really do not like superheroes, everyone else should go and watch this as it surely lives up to the expectations. So: stop reading, and go see it!

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2012 Marvel Studios

Hugo is based on a relatively recently released (2007) award winning book by Brian Selznick. It is not surprising that the film rights to the book were quickly sold, and certainly not to the least of directors either: Martin Scorsese. He has a career spanning decades and has directed a string of movies in recent years which I liked, among which: Shutter Island, The Departed and Gangs of New York. However, those were admittedly all in different, less family friendly, genres. Nevertheless, I went to Hugo hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

Hugo starts off with a flight over Paris and a long, cinematically pleasing, opening scene in which we follow the main character: Hugo, as he makes his way through his home: the Parisian main railway station. We quickly learn that Hugo is scavenging materials to restore something which he holds very dear to him: an automaton. We later learn more about his motivation for doing this, and also the consequences this has for him, but particularly for other people that live and work in the station.

The movie nicely interleaves various smaller subplots which are not essential to the main storyline, but serve as welcome variation and add to the broader feeling the filmmakers try to elicit. However, if anything, Hugo is a tribute to the early days of film making. It is full of references to this period, and while the story is fictional, if you’re into seeing some actual old film history, this movie is a treat.

Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baren Cohen all give excellent performances in their respective roles. Both cinematography and sound design are beautiful, something for which the film has deservedly won Oscars. 3D is not exactly necessary for a movie like Hugo. However, apart from annoying strobing snow near the start, the effect is used very well and does subtly add something to various scenes. This shows that, while not essential, 3D is not a domain exclusive to summer action blockbusters.

Hugo is fairly slow moving, something which can also be seen in previous works of Scorsese. However, this serves the purpose of drawing the viewer in more effectively as we marvel over the presented visuals, something in which Hugo also succeeds. There are some moments wherein revealing the motives of characters leans to strongly on dialogue for my taste. Nevertheless, there are enough twists and turns to make the audience care for the characters, and that’s what it’s ultimately about. All in all Hugo is an entertaining family friendly ride that transports you back to 1930 Paris. Recommended!

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailed Hosted by YouTube. Copyright © Paramount Pictures

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.

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.

This movie marks the end of a string of no less than eight films, started by Chris Colombus, of Home Alone fame, and finished with a more mature tone set by David Yates. The reason for splitting the last book of the series into two films was perhaps due to its length: nearly 800 pages. However, one can not entirely disregard a financial motivation either: the Harry Potter film franchise has been a massive success. Perhaps due to the split, the seventh movie: which is the first part of the last book, was a bit too lengthy and drawn out for my taste. It was also more grim than its predecessors, which is in-line with the source material. So, how satisfactory is this second part: the conclusion?

At the start of the film we jump immediately into the story: it feels more like returning after the break than the start of a new film. This is exactly what viewers would expect, so it seems like a good choice. Unfortunately, during the first twenty minutes, not everything feels solid: the pacing is slow, the tone a bit too serious and there’s distracting overuse of dramatic music at inappropriate moments. In all honesty: this would probably work if you would watch the first part immediately prior to seeing this movie. Nevertheless, the pieces of the movie fall in to place as Harry Potter reaches Hogwarts. From there on the pacing is good with pleasant acting thanks to the great ensemble cast. There are also enough sprinkles of humor from this point on to keep the movie from taking itself overly serious. Furthermore, the cinematography is excellent and the special effects are well done. Parts of the movie are clearly influenced by the feel of contemporary movies, particularly Lord of the Rings. The post-converted 3D is not over-used or distracting apart from some minor strobing in some scenes, but they might as well have left it out as far as I am concerned.

It is always difficult for film makers to adapt a book so loved by millions. The good source material if anything, makes this more of a challenge. Besides having less time for the build-up of characters, things that work well in books simply do not translate well to the big screen, particularly long stretches of monologue or dialogue. Fortunately, the film makers manage to keep the dialogue to an absolute minimum putting the focus where it belongs: the trials of the main characters. There are several changes with respect to the book. I will not spoil anything content-wise in this review, but with respect to the source material there are some more moments in the movie for Hermione, professor McGonagall and Neville Longbottom, and there’s less emphasis on the back story of Dumbledore’s family. Some changes have been made to be able to to play on the strengths of the medium: telling a visual story, I find that this predominantly works well.

All in all, this is a worthy closing to a long-running film franchise. A good job by David Yates and all the other people who have worked on this movie. It is understandable even for people that have not read the books, even though seeing the first part of the deathly hallows is mandatory. To be honest: if you haven’t read the book, you really should read that first as it contains a lot more detail and back story which will make you better able to understand the film, as well as appreciate the minor changes it makes for more effective visual storytelling. If you are looking for a movie with lots of action then this is certainly not for you, as action is used only as a story-telling device. This is a good choice, as it caters to those who have really come to love Harry Potter over the years. This is the best movie in the series: recommended!

Rating:  

Trailer hosted by Vimeo. Copyright © 2011 Warner Brother Pictures