Film stuff by Mark

As sleek and shiny as the surfaces of the world’s tallest building and the suits worn by Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt) and Jeremy Renner (Brandt). One great action sequence after another, with just enough quiet moments to catch your breath. And it falls out of your brain an hour after you’re done watching it.

I like and admire director Brad Bird (The Incredibles and Ratatouille, the latter being one of my favorites of 2007), and this is a career-establishing move to live-action films. It’s clear that Bird’s imagination, nurtured in animation, brings a freedom and energy to his action sequences that most other action directors don’t possess. He’s not earth-bound in any way, and there is a visceral punch and joy to those parts of the film that easily lift this fourth entry in the series above the others.

Another high point is Jeremy Renner, whose intensity pulls the film up another notch, especially in his scenes with Cruise, who moves away from his normal baseline approach of smiles and one-liners when he acts with Renner. Renner doesn’t shine here as he did in The Hurt Locker or The Town, but he’s easily the strongest of the four leads. Having Simon Pegg as the comic relief is another bonus, but his humor isn’t always well integrated into the film’s rhythms and tone. Still, Pegg’s character is a happy presence that prevents the film from reaching intensity overload via the presence of Cruise and Renner.

There’s an uneasy alliance between the relative realism of the political tensions and violence in the film and the utter fantasy of some of the action sequences and plot points. The film is both grounded and cartoonish, often within the same sequence. It’s almost always dazzling, but it stretches disbelief too far, too often. The last-minute—rather, last-second—climax is simply beyond the pale, and undercuts the suspense and tension of the sequence it ends. It nearly mocks all that went before.

Suffice it to say that Paula Patton is a solid actress who plays the Bond girl with Lara Croft skills in this non-Bond movie.

As an action film, it works. Just suspend your disbelief to the max and enjoy the ride.

A well-acted, beautifully written small picture. It’s a dramatic comedy about a young man who has a 50/50 chance of beating cancer—based on the real-life journey of screenwriter Will Reiser. It’s on the scale of a Woody Allen movie, and doesn’t have an epic shot, computer creature, or swelling chord of music in it. Not that there is anything wrong with that—but it’s a nice break to go through an entire film without any of that.

Once it’s over, you realize that the idea could be considered cliché—young man is dead in every emotional and relational way, gets sick with a possibly terminal illness, and gradually comes to life through the experience. But the outcome of the disease isn’t obvious from the start, and the movement toward life is so real, so measured, that we are in suspense until near the end, and are engaged throughout. The requisite moments are there—the comeuppance scene of the “villain,” the primal scream of rage against the disease and all it’s taken and might take from the central character, the reconnecting moments between the lead and important secondary characters. But they are done in understated or unexpected ways, and seem to flow out of the reality of the circumstances and the characters themselves.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Adam) is one of my favorite young actors, and at first I was underwhelmed by his performance. That is, until it became clear what an emotionally constricted people-pleaser his character was. Then, over time, the performance blossomed with a warmth and freedom of expression that was still gentle but no longer beaten down. It’s a lovely character arc.

Dallas Bryce Howard is an unusual screen presence, and I struggle to find the right adjective to describe her as an actress. She has lately been excelling in playing multi-layered women we don’t like without turning them into completely hateful people (see The Help). She’s growing in skill as an actress, but she never seems to fit entirely into any film in which she’s cast. There is an individuality that stands out (or for the more critical among us, sticks out) in her films. Yet I admire her bravery and her unwillingness to play a character generically. Here she plays Rachael, Adam’s girlfriend, and isn’t afraid to show us the conflicted weaknesses behind her actions.

Anna Kendrick as the therapist can pretty much do no wrong on screen. Once I saw her performance in Up in the Air, I was sold. She owns the screen every moment she’s in a scene.

The heart of the story, though, involves Adam’s relationship with his best friend Kyle, played in fairly typical crude puppy-dog fashion by Seth Rogan (Reiser’s real-life friend who helped walk him though his cancer experience). Kyle is rude, crude and lewd, and the reason why kids shouldn’t see the film. His character helps maintain the realism of the film by his sex-obsessed rants, references and suggestions, which are typical of certain types of young men. But the incessant crudity almost derails the film from making its strongest points—the value of true friendship. It’s not a spoiler to say that Kyle is a true, decent and loyal friend, and that in spite of his immaturity and adolescent perspectives, his actions display the heart and soul of a genuine friend when one is needed. It’s a point that’s almost drowned in profanity and coarse sexual talk. But ultimately, Kyle and his friendship with Adam are at the heart of the film. And—no spoiler alert here—Kyle gets to be the center of the most emotionally satisfying scene in the film, and brings us willingly and happily right along with him. You’ll just have to see the film to know what I mean.

I have to completely let go of my professor/film critic hat when I talk about this movie. That’s OK, and it’s not just because I am a Christian or that I have a little (tiny, actually) connection with one of the actors. (Kevin Downes, who plays Shane Fuller in the film, was in my office with his brother Bobby a few years ago discussing the possibility of shooting a film in our region of upstate/Western New York).

It’s because this film is something different from almost every other kind of film. It’s a feel-bad, feel-good sermon, and it completely works on that level. It’s not meant to entertain, though it’s as touching to a Christian dad as any film I’ve ever seen. It’s not trying to be “work of art,” but it has one comic scene involving the question “Do you?” between actors Robert Amaya (Javier) and Alex Kendrick (Adam) that is a good an exchange as found in any comedy anywhere.

The most striking feature of the film is what makes it such a great experience for an evangelical Christian, and a Christian dad in particular It’s so unabashedly Christian, and isn’t the least bit subtle, coy, or hesitant about it. For someone who believes that Jesus is the center of the universe, as does the author, that makes this film a joy to experience. The acting is OK at best (except for the aforementioned scene). The script is meandering and wildly unfocused at times, with too many stories trying to be told. The film looks good, but none of the technical elements is particularly noteworthy.. But for someone who believes in Christ, it’s the most powerful film to come along in ages. It hits hard, hurts some, and makes its impact loud and painfully clear.

“Christian films”—those aimed specifically at a Christian market—are manifestly improving, and there are offshoots of that genre that can easily be categorized as tight independent films with an increasingly Christian worldview behind them (e.g., Like Dandelion Dust). Then there are those films that embrace the idea or experience of faith within a Christian context (see The Way by Emilio Estevez or Vera Farmiga’s Higher Ground) that are moving into Robert Bresson or Carl Dreyer territory. There’s so much going on in the area of faith, and specifically, Christianity, in films that we can only notice the growth as well as the breadth of expression. If we’re looking at only one strand—“Christian films,” films primarily about faith, films tangentially about faith—we’re missing the tapestry of topics that are being investigated and the increasingly complex and fine work being done in unexpected corners.

Courageous is clearly in the classic “Christian film” category. And while folks are rightly saying that they are improving and are, to many of my friends, as enjoyable as a Disney film, it can’t come close to most mainstream “Hollywood” films. Doesn’t matter. This is a different animal, with a completely different aim. Go, Sherwood Pictures, go. Keep it up, keep improving, and keep making the kinds of films that are on your hearts to make.

A rare delight. Perfect for families, and witty and fun for adults—the kind of “movie they don’t make anymore.”

I wasn’t a Muppet fan, though I had nothing against them. So I went in with no feelings for or against them. It was more of a “Yay, I get to take my three grandkids to the movies!” kind of thing. But it was a fun experience for everyone. Lots of cameos by some folks I recognized and others I didn’t, but I knew they were “somebody,” which made the moment something more. For the movie person, lots of references to the fact that it was a movie they were all in. In-jokes galore, some of which will stay fresh.

What was particularly remarkable is that with producer-actor Jason Segel, we have someone who could easily have tipped this into the partially cynical and world-weary. But instead there wasn’t a “wink-wink” moment in the film that compromised the joy and innocence of it. He played things straight all the way through. Of course, Segel had a perfect partner in Amy Adams, who proved in Enchanted that you could play things without camp or a knowing nod in a kid’s picture and make sweet innocence look good.

A “knowing” film often implies dark or skeptical. This film is as knowing and intelligent as any film that despairs of the human condition. But instead, it’s smart and funny, clean and wholesome, and as enjoyable as any film of the year.

Final note: Jason Segel must not be able to dance a lick. He’s occasionally surrounded by dancers in a typical kind of movie dance where the leads perform an easy version of what the real dancers are doing, or a light complement to the real dance moves. Amy Adams has clearly had dance training, but poor Jason can barely kick a leg. They give him so little to do, and what he does he does so minimally, that he often looks like he’s standing still. But if he’s the guy that brought us this delight, then having two left feet is forgiven.