Spectre

Blue is the Warmest Color

Directed by Abdellatif Kechiche.

2013. Rated NC-17, 179 minutes.

Cast:

Adele Exarchopoulos

Lea Seydoux

Salim Kechiouche

Aurelien Recoing

Catherine Salee

Benjamin Siksou

Mona Walravens

Alma Jodorowsky

Anne Loiret

Benoit Pilot

Adele (Exarchopoulos) is your typical high school student. She seems to be a fringe member of the in-crowd. this isn't some all-powerful elite crew like in movies for teenagers. It's just a group of girls who seem like they're the cool kids. They hang out together at school, talk a lot about their sex lives and exert a bit of peer pressure on each other about it. So when they tell her that a cute guy has a crush on her, the news comes with advice on how she should handle the stiuation. She pursues him and sure enough, winds up in bed with him. In the immediate aftermath, we see that something's amiss. She seems conflicted about the event. Her issue isn't whether or not she should've done such a thing. We can presume she was not a virgin before this. It appears she's not sure she really enjoyed it and doesn't know why.

Things would soon change. Adele decides to hang out with a gay male friend from school. He takes her to a nightclub full of guys where she stays for a while. Eventually, she wanders off on her own and finds herself in a lesbian bar. There she meets the blue-haired Emma (Seydoux), a budding artist and college student. The two hit it off right away. Emma pursues our heroine and before you know it, the two are in a committed relationship. We follow them for an unspecified number of years, well into Adele's adult life.

One thing that sets this apart from other movies about same sex relationships is that that is not the focus of the narrative. Early on, there is some hesitance on Adele's part as she comes to grips with her sexuality and a bit of cruelty suffered at the hands of her school friends when they only suspect she's a lesbian. However, that passes quickly. For the rest of the film we focus on fairly universal themes. Adele struggles with her place in Emma's life as Emma advances in her career as an artist, has friends more sophisticated than her, and an uncomfortably chummy relationship with an ex. She fears being left behind as Emma outgrows her. At times, she also feels neglected. On the opposite side of the coin, Emma is driven, climbing the ladder of success, and proud to have Adele in her corner. Unfortunately, she's somewhat oblivious to Adele's concerns. Adele hasn't verbally communicated her feelings and Emma hasn't picked up on them. Both Exarchopoulos and Seydoux give wonderful performances conveying their characters' emotions and motivations.

Normally, watching a three hour movie has me looking for things that should've been cut. I'm speaking to you, Peter Jackson. In this case, I actually found places where things could be added. Most important of these is finding out how Adele's parents feel about her relationship. I've already mentioned that the fact the couple in question is a lesbian one is not the movie's main focus. However, judging by the reaction of Adele's friends, the climate toward homosexuals isn't completely friendly, either. This is confirmed by the fact that Adele hides the fact that she is in a lesbian relationship when she introduces Emma to her parents. She presents it as a platonic friendship between two straight girls. Following this scene, her mom and dad just disappear from the movie. I'm not saying they have to disapprove of their daughter's lifestyle to create some massively melodramatic scene, but they should at least have knowledge of it and acknowledge it in some way. Without their input, there seems to be a gaping hole in the narrative of Adele's life. This is especially true when, just a short while later, we're shown that she has moved in with Emma. We're left to assume her parents are still in the dark about her relationship. This doesn't seem logical unless it were something that was expressly communicated to the viewer.

Delving into the parents' feelings may have placed more emphasis on the fact that our lovebirds are of the same sex than what was wanted. However, that is clearly the visual focus of the film. There are a number of sex scenes and they are almost all lengthy and graphic. It gets dangerously close to all out porn, if it isn't already that. It's hard to believe we aren't seeing actual sex. The way these scenes are shot, I wonder how it's possible that they are not doing what it looks like they are. Even during the one hetero sex scene we're shown something not seen in American movies outside of the adult industry: an erection. Cinematically, if there is a place to shave the runtime, it is here. Most of these scenes can be cut in half, if not reduced by two-thirds and change absolutely nothing about the movie. Of course, my inner-pig won't let me actually suggest that, so deal with it.

When the closing credits roll, we realize we might not be at the end. Ignoring the obvious, that we're told this is chapter one of two, the film concludes in such a way that suggests there could be more. I say could because if this were to be a standalone film then it functions as a fully self-contained unit. We've ridden the roller coaster of a relationship and come to a satisfactory finish. On the other hand, we can see there is possibly lots more to tell. What closes the movie could be interpreted as the chance for a new beginning, or at least a restart. We enjoy the ride we've had up until now and hope there is more to come.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Directed by Brad Bird.

2011. Rated PG-13, 133 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Cruise

Jeremy Renner

Simon Pegg
Paula Patton
Michael Nyqvist
Vladimir Mashkov
Léa Seydoux
Miraj Grbic
Tom Wilkinson
Ving Rhames
Michelle Monaghan

We start on what by now seems to be a normal day in the life of extra super duper secret agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise). He busts out of a Serbian prison while dragging along a fellow inmate who may have some valuable information. He finds out that one of his buddies was killed in the line of duty. More importantly, Hunt learns that he has to retrieve a file that’s locked away in the Kremlin. Yes, an actual physical file and not an electronic one. While there, someone else blows the place up. Unfortunately for our hero and his crew, they’re being blamed so the good ol’ USA has to disavow any knowledge of Ethan and company. We learn this is called ghost protocol, hence the title. Anyhoo, not only do the good guys have to clear their own names, but that of the United States, as well. They must do this without the help of their native land, either. Of course, accomplishing this means they also must stop some Russian nut from starting a nuclear war. And you thought you had a tough day at work.

Thankfully for us, watching this particular mission is a better viewing experience that the last couple. The first movie in the series was pointlessly and aggressively convoluted making it a chore to watch. As a knee-jerk reaction to the sheer confusion of much of its audience, parts II and III turned Hunt into a superhero and dumbed everything down to seemingly random stunts and explosions. So far, the franchise hasn’t been able to strike the proper balance between sophisticated espionage and stupid action.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol takes a step in the right direction. Make that a few steps. The action is dialed back a bit. Don’t worry junkies, there’s still plenty for you to tweak on. The difference is that everything going boom isn’t the focus. The story between the stunts actually intrigues us. Occasionally, it slips into needlessly cryptic exposition but for the most part, it works. So does the comic relief, courtesy of Benji (Pegg). For that matter, the camaraderie and sometimes contentiousness of this new squad is pretty entertaining. This includes an interesting turn by Jeremy Renner as Agent Brandt. Though I must admit that I did miss Ving Rhames who only has a cameo in this installment.

If there is a problem with MIGP it’s with Ethan Hunt, himself. Mind you, I’m not talking about Tom Cruise. Haters be damned, he’s solid just doing what he normally does: giving us the Tom Cruise persona. I’m talking about the actual character. It’s the same problem that’s plagued the franchise and one I alluded to earlier: Ethan Hunt is invincible. His decision making is also infallible no matter how quick he has to make them or how stressful the situation in which he finds himself. It’s kind of hard to generate any real suspense when we know that regardless of what our hero does it will work out without any real consequences. Brandt even asks about Hunt’s extraordinarily quick wit. Hunt responds that he was playing a hunch. His hunches are always right.

Complaints aside, I have to reiterate that MIGP takes the franchise in a positive direction. In fact, it may well be the best of the four movies. In my opinion, only the first is any competition. That’s the only one that even tries to engage our brains. The other two are assaults on our senses, and not in a good way. Here, there is a well stirred mixture of the two approaches. Sure, we might still roll our eyes at some of the stuff Super Ethan pulls off, but when woven into the fabric of an interesting narrative it’s more palatable. For me, at least. If you’re already a fan of the series you won’t be disappointed. If you’re not, you might actually be pleasantly surprised.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Midnight in Paris

Directed by Woody Allen.

2011. Rated PG-13, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Owen Wilson
Rachel McAdams
Marion Cotillard
Kathy Bates
Michael Sheen
Carla Bruni
Adrien Brody
Kurt Fuller
Mimi Kennedy
Tom Hiddleston
Corey Stoll
Lea Seydoux

Gil Pender (Wilson) is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who wants to break into legitimate literature. To that end, he’s working on a novel. He’s also on vacation in Paris with his fiancé Inez (McAdams) and her parents. We immediately learn that he longs to have been alive and in the city during the 1920s when many of the greatest artists of all time roamed its streets. His days are spent with Inez around her friends and family. More often than not this includes Paul (Sheen), an insufferable know-it-all. In an effort to get away from Paul’s incessant pontification, Gil finds himself taking late night walks alone. It just so happens that every night at midnight he’s scooped up by some people in this movie’s version of a DeLorean and they take him to precisely where he wants to be: Paris in the 1920s. Shortly, he’s face to face with F. Scott Fitzgerald (Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (a particularly good Stoll). He get his manuscript read by Gertrude Stein (Bates). He also gets acquainted with a number of others such as Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo) and Bunuel (Adrien de Van). Each morning he’s back in the present longing to get back to the past. Yes, this is a movie about his romantic view of a particular city but also about traditional romance, too. Is Inez really right for him? Perhaps it’s Picasso’s on-again, off-again mistress Adrianna (Cotillard). After all, the two take a shine to each other.

Midnight in Paris gets points for being an atypical romantic comedy. The genre is filled with tales of boy meets girl that proceed through a succession of predictable ups and downs. They only differentiate themselves by the preposterousness of their situations. Seriously speaking, what could be more preposterous than a time traveling aspiring novelist meeting his long deceased heroes and possibly falling in love with their women? The difference is those other movies pass themselves off as only slight exaggerations of the type of romance we’re all sure to experience when we meet that special someone when in truth they’re farcical, at best. This film understands its place. It knows it is presenting us with impossible events and runs with it. Through characters other than Gil, it lets us know it is keenly aware how crazy this whole thing is.

The writer and director is none other than Woody Allen. As proof, the movie contains many of his usual touches. Gil is fairly similar to most of Allen’s protagonists: smart, quirky and a bit of a loner. He’s probably not as self-deprecating as he might’ve been had Allen played the character himself, though. The women are flighty, yet seem to have a keen understanding of our hero. Like the director’s best, MiP is charmingly whimsical. Unfortunately, it relies too heavily on its premise. It seems to think that transporting us back and forth in time is enough to wow us. It often settles for cute instead of going for all-out funny. Sure, there are laughs to be had. However, they’re spaced at intervals too large. Near the end, things get a bit convoluted as a third era is awkwardly introduced. Still, MiP does lots of things well. It is a good Woody Allen movie, just not a great one.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Robin Hood (2010)

Directed by Ridley Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Oscar Isaac
Max von Sydow
Mark Strong
William Hurt
Danny Huston
Mark Addy
Kevin Durand
Léa Seydoux

The legend of Robin Hood, here played by Russell Crowe, has survive for ages by keeping him fairly simple. He and his band of merrymen, plus Lady Marion (Blanchett), roam Sherwood Forest and steal from the rich only so that they can give to the poor. Have you ever wondered how he wound up there? Me neither. However, in Ridley Scott’s sparkingly grimy update on the character that’s precisely what we find out. Oh, if you’re vexing over the oxy-moronic “sparkingly grimy” you have to see it to understand. Dirty people have seldom looked better.

Not content to merely be about our favorite archer, we’re treated to several other storylines to fret over. Most notable is one that emphasizes the difference between King Richard the Lionheart (Huston) and his brother and eventual successor John (Isaac). This supplies us with our hero’s reason to be heroic. Of course, there is also the love story and a couple other things going on. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds. Most of them breathe well enough on their own and come together nicely.

In the lead role, Russell Crowe does what Russell Crowe does. It’s not up there with his best, but it’s solid work, nonetheless. He’s actually outdone by Cate Blanchett as his love interest. Overall, the acting is very good. You should expect no less from the excellently assembled cast. The action scenes are solid, but not spectacular and evoke memories of Braveheart. However, they don’t quite measure up.

Evoking memories is a bit of a problem for this movie. It seems to blend the aforementioned Braveheart with another Scott/Crowe collaboration: Gladiator. The main problem is there seems to be little difference between our newly crowned King John and Gladiator’s Commodus, save for that whole incest thing. Instead of becoming something grand, it turns into a rather bland epic. It’s not bad, but it isn’t likely to stick in your psyche for very long.

Despite the best efforts of Kevin Cosner and Mel Brooks, the image most of us have of Robin Hood is one of Errol Flynn practically dancing up the stairs while sword fighting with multiple henchmen. Maybe we think of Flynn swing from the chandelier or from some other moment culled from all the fantastic cheese that movie provides. All the while, he’s wearing the unmistakable bright green tight and funny mustache. Hmmm…I’d dismissed all charges of homoeroticism against the classic until I wrote this paragraph. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just had a revelatory moment, that’s all. Anyhoo, the 21st century version is a solid, but flawed effort not likely to change the reality of our perception of what Robin Hood should be.