Chances are you’ve already made up your mind about whether or not you’ll see Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Like so many films framing fictional tales around real-life tragedies past, it could be argued a movie centered around the events of Sept. 11 is going to be at best a tacky melodrama and at worst an exploitative venture that cashes in on very real sorrow and the deaths of 3,000 innocent people. 

In this case, the movie is based off the book of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer (Everything is Illuminated), who, coincidentally, like director Stephen Daldry (The Reader, The Hours), has a previous work rooted in another sorrowful bit of history — the Holocaust.

ELIC is a tale (heavily) narrated by 10-year-old Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), whose father (Tom Hanks) died on “the worst day.” (Though narration is the go-to easy-way out for working the best parts of a book into a film adaptation, it's hard to fault Daldry for the tactic when faced with a collection of words as potent as Foer's) Desperately attempting to make sense of his father’s death and coping with the expanding gulf of time separating him from the memory of his father, Oskar embarks on a nearly impossible quest to unlock the meaning of a key left behind by his father and a lost and mostly forgotten sixth borough of New York. 

Continued after the jump.
Add Comment
 
 
_You remember the ‘90s when the Mission: Impossible movies were wildly popular? And then Tom Cruise went all nutso, but JJ Abrams decided to reboot the franchise anyway (and bring in Felicity herself), and it was actually really good? Well, The Incredibles director Brad Bird decided he was going to top all of those.

No, really.

Mission: Impossible--Ghost Protocol decided to go above and beyond any badass action sequences that any of the previous Mission: Impossible films have done before it. And do it in IMAX. I know I’m sounding hyperbolic here, and I went full in expecting to have a good time, but I really didn’t expect to be completely blown away by how over-the-top (in a good way) this film is. Some of the stuff they do is fucking bananas.

READ MORE AFTER THE JUMP.
Add Comment
 
 
__The first Guy Ritchie-directed Sherlock Holmes installment didn’t really do it for me. I thought the plot was completely jumbled and too much for the likable cast to overcome. However, I could recognize that the film definitely had a lot of great things going for it: namely the chemistry between Holmes (Robert Downy Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) and the frenetic directing and fight choreography of Ritchie. I could buy that this Holmes was a martial arts master because of the slow-mo fight scenes where he deduces his opponent’s moves. But I couldn’t buy that awful plot.

For Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I felt myself more willing to go along for the ride, especially due to the addition of Moriarity (Jared Harris), who gives Holmes a greater intellectual match. However, the sequel still cannot overcome its jumbled plot, but it still becomes a fun movie because of the sum of its parts.

A Game of Shadows follows Holmes as he tries to solve the cause for several bombings in Europe, which are being pinned on an extremist Anarchist group. He believes they are the product of mastermind Moriarty, but he cannot figure out what his evil nemesis is up to. Along for the ride is, of course, Watson, who is trying to embark on his honeymoon without getting killed, Holmes’ brother, Mycroft (Stephen Fry), and a mysterious gypsy (Noomi Rapace) who is trying to figure out how her brother is involved in all the bombings.

That’s the plot boiled down to the simplest I can. There is a whole bunch of Victorian-era politics that predate World War I that I was trying to follow, but it’s mainly best to just sit back and watch Downey, Ritchie, and Holmes do what they do best, which is to make you laugh, show some badass fight scenes, and solve some mother effin’ crimes. But is is the addition of Moriarty (and Harris) that give the film any sense of weight. He is the true foe of Holmes, and he tones down all the adrenaline rush of the action sequences.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows isn’t the most spectacular of films, but it plays on the strengths of everyone involved, and it entertains despite a bogged down plot.

--Darcie Duttweiler
Add Comment
 
 
_You may be scratching your head and wondering, “a family movie from Martin Scorsese? WTF? The dude who brought me Goodfellas and Taxi Driver? No way!” Well, Hugo isn’t necessarily a children’s movie in the same vein as The Muppets, which is also opening this weekend. It’s slower, more methodical, and definitely more beautifully-crafted. Sure, it’s about a boy in his quest to uncover a secret, but, more importantly, Hugo is a film that’s meant to be a work of art for those who love movies.

At one point, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) takes his new friend Isabelle (Chloe Moretz) to her first movie, and she turns to him and says, “Thank you for the movie. It was a gift.’’ Hugo is Martin Scorsese’s gift to cinephiles in that he lovingly recreates many of the very first films ever shown but gives them a 3D makeover. This is one instance where the latest technology really does add to the overall package of a film. Hugo is a film for dreamers, but more about that after the jump!
Add Comment
 
 
_The very first song in The Muppets, Gary (Jason Segel) and his puppet brother Walter sing the lyric, “I can’t seem to wipe this smile off of my face.” If that’s not an allusion to how you’ll feel the whole movie, then I don’t know what is. I loooooooved the Muppets growing up, and it wasn’t until that opening number that I realized how much I really missed a great Muppet movie. (Yes, I’m discounted Muppets from Space.) Lifelong Muppet-lover Segel and his cohort, which includes Bret McKenzie from Flight of the Conchords, have created a truly magical and fun Muppet movie that will hopefully relaunch the franchise. And it’s one of the best movies in a loooong time that’s perfect for the whole family.

The Muppets follows Walter, his brother Gary, and Gary’s gal-pal Mary (Amy Adams) on vacation in Los Angeles as they decide to visit the whole Muppets Studio. There, Walter discovers that evil oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is going to buy the studio and bulldoze it to drill for oil unless the Muppets can scrounge together $10 million to buy it back. Walter persuades Kermit the Frog to rally the whole Muppet gang back together in order to hold a good ol’ fashioned telethon to raise the money. Trouble is everyone has gone their separate ways: Miss Piggy is in France working for Vogue, Animal is in anger management therapy, and Gonzo is a huge plumbing magnate. Plus, a TV exec (Rashida Jones) thinks that the Muppets are obsolete and not famous anymore. (How very meta.) So, can Kermit and Walter get the whole gang back together, and can they prove to the world how much everyone needs a little Muppets in their lives?

While this could very well sound like the sappiest, lamest movie ever, The Muppets is the perfect mix of sincerity, happiness, and humor. The movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, and even offers up classic Muppets meta humor (“this is going to be the shortest movie ever”). Everything is lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek, but nothing feels too grownup or cynical. Sure there are moments of weight, like when Kermit sings a song about how long it’s been since he’s seen his friends, and it’s downright sad and tear-inducing. But then there are absurd Flight of the Conchords-esque songs like “Am I a Man or a Muppet?” that are so pitch-perfect and ridiculous that they’re an amazing fit with the Muppets world.

By the time Kermit sings “Rainbow Connection” you’ll be downright giddy and delirious from smiling so damn much, whether you are a boy or a girl, a kid or an adult, a man or a Muppet. The Muppets might just be one of the best family movies I’ve seen in a long time because it made me feel all gooey and fuzzy in my heart. And this is coming from a cynic like me. Do yourself and your family a favor this Thanksgiving and head out to see The Muppets. 

--Darcie Duttweiler
Add Comment
 
 
_Watching the opening wedding scene in Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 is like being a guest at your friend’s friends’ wedding. You don’t belong there, and you frankly don’t give a shit about the copious amounts of toasts occurring. You just want to get to the free booze and maybe make out with a cute groomsmen on the dance floor. Is that too much to ask for? Yes, yes it is. Because instead of a beautiful film with nuance and complexities and fun, Breaking Dawn is a boring, slow film that is laughably awful at several parts. When will Hollywood understand that splitting a film into two parts is quite possibly the worst idea. It makes for the first half to feel completely unfinished and lacking, not the gripping cliffhanger they (or rather, their pockets) anticipate.

Read more after the jump!
Add Comment
 
 
Let’s imagine a movie. This film will be produced by Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, Hellboy). It will star Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek as lovers on a quest for redemption and justice. We’ll throw in comic relief from Zach Galifianakis in skin-tight golden spandex and Billy Bob Thorton and Amy Sedaris as a couple of hillbilly psychopaths. That sounds like a movie I’d watch. No, Robert Rodriguez isn’t adding a fourth film to his Mariachi Trilogy — this is Puss in Boots.

About 15 minutes into Puss in Boots, I became deeply concerned. I was being... entertained. How could this be? There are few animated movies I despise more than the Shrek series, and despite a few recent gems, DreamWorks Animation is still responsible for 20-something downright awful films over the past decade. My terror turned into skepticism before dissolving into joyous acceptance after a roller-coaster ride of stunningly animated 3D chase scenes, slapstick humor, wink-wink adult jokes, an expertly choreographed dance off and a flurry of cat puns.

My praise is difficult to utter. It lingers in my throat like a massive hairball I hesitate to vomit free, but I must: This is an entertaining movie. I would recommend people see this.

Though Puss in Boots was born from the painfully unfunny Shrek films, which suffered from a case of Family Guy humor (i.e., mistaking pop-culture references for jokes) and Mike Myers, it has little in common with its forebearers and is much more like DreamWorks Animation’s best work, Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon. It’s a family-friendly action-adventure, a PG take on Zorro with universally relatable characters and top-notch visuals and exceptional performances. 

Though the lack of competition may take some of the punch out of this statement, Puss in Boots is the best animated film I’ve seen this year.

--Eric Pulsifer
Add Comment
 
 
Ahhh....it’s finally fall. There’s a crispness in the air, everyone’s a-buzz about Halloween, and Austin Film Festival is literally right around the corner. For me, Oscar season kicks off the moment I hit my first AFF screening, as it’s usually a smorgasbord of festival favorites and early Oscar front-runners. So what films do we recommend catching this year?

Check out our list after the jump!
Add Comment
 
 
Being a writer sucks sometimes. Like today, for instance, when my lovely computer crashed and ate my entire Footloose review, which was quite eloquent and insightful. Trust me, you would have loved it. But, because I'm lazy, you're stuck with this one instead. I promise it will be concise and straightforward with small nuggets of insight.

Footloose, for any of those who've lived under a bridge for the past 27 years, is about a city boy, Ren (newcomer Kenny Wormald) who moves from Boston to Bomont, GA after his mom dies. Quickly he learns that the small town has some weird laws prohibiting public dances outside of church functions because some high schoolers died in a drunk car crash several years before (why they don't just outlaw driving instead is beyond me). Upon his arrival in Bomont, Ren catches the eye of the minister's wild child daughter, Ariel (Julianne Hough) and befriends a yokel named Williard (Miles Teller). Somewhere in there Ren does an angry dance in a warehouse on his yellow VW bug, and my friend, who never saw the Kevin Bacon version, snickered profusely.

Director Craig Brewer (Hustle & Flow) has lovingly remade Footloose with much of its original elements. Ariel's red boots pop up, as does Ren's red velvet prom jacket. While most of these elements are welcome additions, such as new renditions of popular soundtrack tunes, the film is almost too similar to the original. The 2011 version wasn't given enough license to make it feel new and fresh and become its own film. I wish they could have made it just ever so slightly different from the original. Although, all the Step Up type choreography was pretty entertaining.

The performers are decent. While Bacon had a dance double, Wormald is a backup dancer turned actor, and it shows. Same goes for Hough. Both actors are slightly wooden and don't really light up the screen until they start dancing. Teller, on the other hand, lends the movie most of its comic relief and steals the show, much like his original counterpart, Chris Penn.

I went into Footloose prepared to dislike the remake. Why remake such a cult classic? But I couldn't help wanting to kick off my Sunday shoes and cut loose. I hate myself for admitting that...

--Darcie Duttweiler
Add Comment
 
 
What to say about The Thing that hasn’t been said about the million other remakes, reboots and uncalled for prequels? Well, for starters, it’s another one of those. A film that no one asked for. A movie no one ever knew they didn’t need.

The Thing (1982) — the real one, the John Carpenter-directed one with a bearded Kurt Russell — is a grim, tense and terrifying thriller with groundbreaking special effects and a palpable air of paranoia. 

The Thing (2011) — the brainless yawn-fest of a prequel released this week that stars a beardless Mary Elizabeth Winstead (the object of Michael Cera’s affection in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, the cheerleader from Death Proof) — leads into the opening of the original film by telling us the story of the poor bastards who first come into contact with The Thing. The Thing — the titular shape-shifting alien life form that can morph to mimic its victims — is introduced in The Thing (2011) as a 13-foot tall black bipedal creature with claw-like hands that has been frozen in the ice outside of its spacecraft, which apparently crashed in the middle of Antarctica centuries ago.

This Thing — the appearance-absorbing alien — creates some interesting dilemmas if you’re isolated with a small group of scientists in a remote research facility in Antarctica. Who can you trust when you know the enemy is among you?

Luxurious beards and flamethrower porn after the jump!
Add Comment