Babe* (1995)

Here is one of those rare children’s / family films that just nails it. It’s cute but not sappy, simple but not stupid, and heartwarming without inducing your gag reflex. I don’t know that it deserved to be nominated for Best Picture, but Babe is a charming little puff piece that hasn’t lost much, if any, of its magic over the last two decades.

The runt of the litter and unwanted by his pork farm owners, he is offered up as the prize for a weight-guessing game at a local carnival. After guessing correctly, Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell) brings him home to his small countryside farm. Some of the barnyard and household animals embrace him while others want nothing to do with him. Adopted by a family of sheep dogs, Babe’s spunk and desire to take up the “family” business catches the eye of Farmer Hoggett, leading him to defy convention and risk humiliation by registering Babe in a sheep-herding contest.

Live-action movies with talking animals strike me as risky business. You can do anything you want with animation, and there is a lot of leeway when the film is just about talking animals. Films like Babe, which set talking animals against a very real-world setting including humans have to be done just right. The animals have to act like animals and they can’t be too smart or the humans too dumb. Credit is due both the filmmakers and undoubtedly the author of the book the film is based on for fashioning a slate of animal and human characters that walk this tightrope act with ease.

Plain and simple, films like this live and die by the animal performances. To bring this film to life, the director, cinematographer, and animal trainers all have to be on the same page. The animals hit their marks (though I can imagine multiple takes required for each scene) and the cinematography captures the animal movements from angles and in lighting that complete the illusion.

Praise is also due to the people behind giving voices to the animal characters. All of the voice characterizations are terrific because the voice textures blend with the animal actions in such a way that you have no problem believing that these animals actually possess the personalities being expressed. The visual effects department also does a flawless job of making each animal look as if it is actually delivering the lines without defying animal anatomy. Between subtle mouth movements via animatronics in production and computer effects in post-production, the filmmakers make talking animals look plausible, eliminating most of the objections our brains would normally raise.

I think the only thing in this film that dates it is when Farmer Hoggett and his wife receive a fax machine as a gift to help keep in touch with their city-dwelling children and grandkids. Otherwise the film exists within a world insulated from changes in fashion and culture. You can watch Babe today and still presume it to be set at a modern quaint off-the-beaten-path English farm whose owners eschew fancy technology. Its setting is as close to timeless as you can hope for in a family friendly film and it comes with a whole lot of charm. This will be one to share with the kids and grandkids someday.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

Here is Disney’s first true post-Renaissance misfire. While it has plenty of promising elements and interesting ideas to its credit, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is not a well-oiled machine. For some strange reason its components do not play well together. It may sound like I am about to come down harsh on this film but please know that I was left disappointed after rooting for it to right itself for most of its runtime.

In 1914, millennia after Atlantis sank into the ocean, Milo Thatch (Michael J. Fox), an overzealous Atlantis researcher at the Smithsonian Institution, believes he has discovered an ancient manuscript that will point the way to the lost civilization. Enter an eccentric millionaire friend of Milo’s grandfather who already has the manuscript and needs Milo to interpret the ancient Atlantean language to lead a crew, already waiting in port no less, for a grand adventure. While Milo is going purely for scientific discovery, upon arriving at the fabled kingdom, he learns that others have ulterior motives for making the trek.

Maybe I’m finally being too nitpicky with a children’s movie but there are a number of things that just don’t make sense in this film. The Atlantean people, culture, and history is interesting but do you really expect me to believe that Kida and her people can understand English because it shares a common root with the Atlantean language? That would be like expecting me to be able to understand Hindi because it stems from the Indo-European language tree. Also, how are some of the characters such renowned explorers if they are so prone to making bad decisions? How exactly have the Atlanteans survived with little to no air filtration in their subterranean rock bubble? And who built the robotic lobster that guards the entrance to Atlantis anyway? It couldn’t have been the Atlanteans.

Perhaps it’s the specific mixture of fantasy and realism attempted by the filmmakers that holds me up. Perhaps if this had been a book written in the 19th or early 20th century it would be easier to swallow. But this is an original tale gushing with rich fantasy elements that totally overpower the lost-world fantasy sub-genre construct. We’re used to the discoverers being more advanced than the lost civilization. I don’t mind turning the tables on convention (and legend almost requires Atlantis to be advanced) but I think Disney’s team went a little too far with it to the point that it’s hard to buy into.

A clunky and muddled story don’t help matters much either. After growing up on Indiana Jones, the whole scientific idealism vs. greed/power conflict doesn’t feel fresh. Atlantis also plays its cards close to the vest for too long. Secrets about Atlantis’s power, technology, and history are kept from audiences and the film’s characters until the eleventh hour and only in order to prevent calamity. Don’t ask your audience to process a huge amount of information late in the game like this. Had the filmmakers revealed a little bit at a time throughout the film, then a lot of things would have made more sense and would have actually added more tension to unfolding events because we would know at least a little about the stakes involved.

For all the good things at work in Atlantis: The Lost Empire, there are an equal amount of things that either work too hard or not hard enough. This results in the film feeling unbalanced. If you can keep everything straight in your head until all the secrets are revealed, you probably think my review is silly. Otherwise, you are probably like me and see a lot of potential for an old-school discovery adventure. It’s a shame that this film couldn’t hold it together because it could have marked a bold new direction for Disney to explore.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

12 Monkeys (1995)

This is what happens when you let an eclectic filmmaker fully realize his vision for a project that inspires him. Daring, jarring, and unsettling as it is, there is a strange beauty in 12 Monkeys that is hard to pin down. It features excellent performances by Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt and makes up for a lack of flashy sci-fi effects by being chock full of nerdy, intellectual talking points.

In the year 2038, inmate James Cole (Bruce Willis) is offered a chance at parole. In exchange for his freedom, he must help subject himself to crude time travel technology and help government scientists research the outbreak of a virus that decimated the world’s population and sent all survivors underground to avoid contamination. While in the past, Cole teams up with a psychiatrist (Madeline Stowe) and attempts to shed light on Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) and his Army of the Twelve Monkeys, the group believed responsible for the virus’s release in 1996.

For me, it all starts with the story. If a film doesn’t have anything original to say or a unique spin on a concept or idea we’ve seen before, then it is already running behind. Hard core sci-fi nerds know that this film takes the same premise as French short film called Le Jetée but adds additional details and conflicts to bring it to full feature length. Audiences must digest issues like causality, mental instability, and radical environmentalism.

One thing viewers don’t get much time to think about is time travel itself. Tackling this subject is no easy task but the filmmakers treat it with care and respect. I appreciate the lack of a technological explanation. Being told that time travel exists and being forced to just go with it help to suspend disbelief. Sure, we inevitably ask ‘how?’ but I would much rather wonder about how it’s done than to mentally dissect and judge the acceptability of the filmmakers’ explanation of how it’s done. It’s more sleight of hand than movie magic but it’s effective all the same.

And really, 12 Monkeys is not a film about time travel. Time travel, though vital to the story, is just a tool used to tell the tale of a troubled man trying to earn his freedom by saving the world. Bruce Willis nails his role as a tormented lab rat. The world Cole returns to is both foreign and familiar. Cole has been in prison and surrounded by enough post-outbreak technology for enough time to find the world of his childhood memories confusing and alarming at times. Though my own acting experience is quite limited, I know that confusion is a very difficult emotion to convincingly portray; it is easy to overdo and under-do and audiences can typically spot when you’re doing it wrong.

The other standout performance in this film is Brad Pitt’s unstable and unhinged Jeffrey Goines. I don’t know where he pulled from to bring this character to life but it is nothing short of amazing. The physicality of Goines mannerisms, from his spastic outbursts down to his wild and contorted stare, is enough to make you feel tired just watching it. Madeline Stowe is stuck with the weakest of the three main characters but she carries her weight well enough. She conveys a different but equally effective form of confusion as she tries to figure out who Cole is and what he’s dragging her into.

Even more interesting is that director Terry Gilliam manages to share Cole’s sense of confusion with the audience. Through a number of tricks with lighting, camera angle, and his choice of camera and lens to take the shot, Gilliam finds clever and subtle ways to make the familiar feel bizarre. It disorients us slightly and helps increase our empathy for Cole. Gilliam also uses restraint in keeping the future looking just futuristic enough yet composed of technology left over from the pre-virus era. Some of the future set decorations don’t quite fit or even seem too strange but the overall effect works well.

I will always have a soft spot for intelligent cinema, especially intelligent sci-fi. This film is abundant with talking points but it isn’t too smart for its own good. Some filmmakers go overboard in an attempt to make themselves look intellectually superior (Matrix Reloaded anybody?) but you can watch 12 Monkeys at face value and still enjoy the ride. That comes from a careful mix of indulgence and restraint that is a real gift to cinema when balanced just right.

12 Monkeys is depressing yet hopeful, convoluted yet captivating. The fantasy of time travel mixes with the realities of dissidence and terrorism in ways that entertain but also hit close to home. This is a film that is watchable in its own right and worth repeat viewings simply for the thrill of seeing how it unfolds. It is also the kind of film that could launch you into a night-long conversation about all kinds of heady topics. The choice is yours. Either way, it is entirely worth it.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Scent of a Woman* (1992)

For years I avoided watching this film because the title sounded like a sappy romantic flick. Only after I decided to grin and bear it, because my wife wanted to see it, did I learn how wrong I was. It may not be a chick flick, or even a romance for that matter, but there is still a sap factor to Scent of a Woman that holds it back.

Prep school student Charlie Simms (Chris O’Donnell) takes a caretaker job over Thanksgiving break to earn money for a trip home for Christmas. He gets more than he bargains for when the man he is hired to watch, retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino), drafts him into a road trip to New York City. The blind military man is full of anger, and at times finds himself at odds with his caretaker, but Slade and Simms find a kind of rapport that enables each of them to help the other through difficult situations.

This film serves as a vehicle for showcasing Al Pacino’s acting chops, end of story. Like many other Hollywood films before it, Scent of a Woman is a one man show without being a true solo performance. Pacino is fierce with his characters rage yet completely watchable. I’m not sure what blind advocates though of his performance but he seems to do well enough in playing a blind man. His line of sight never gets too focused on what a non-blind person would.

While Chris O’Donnell’s character is actually the main character of this story, he is completely overshadowed by his costar. The way the script is written, it almost feels like this was by design, because you only remember Pacino’s performance. Enjoyable as the film may be, it would have been nice to have a stronger actor playing Charlie Simms. O’Donnell has a few shining moments but he comes nowhere close to standing toe-to-toe with Pacino. I don’t know what young actor could have pulled it off but O’Donnell doesn’t convince me.

Scent of a Woman has some charm and plenty of heartwarming and uplifting moments but something feels a little paint-by-numbers. Pacino’s Oscar is certainly earned here but when one performance overpowers everything else, it takes something away from the film as a whole. This film may have something to say about honor and values but it doesn’t quite say enough to be the kind of film that people will remember forever. If it weren’t for Pacino, this film probably wouldn’t be remembered at all.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

The so-called Disney Renaissance supposedly runs from The Little Mermaid to Tarzan, yet here is a film that turns out to be Disney’s best non-Pixar venture since The Lion King. Perhaps it is because The Emperor’s New Groove was followed by several Disney misfires that was lost in the shuffle. Granted, it spawned a cartoon TV series for the House of Mouse but I don’t hear many people talking about this film like they do the Pixar products of the same general time frame. That, I am afraid, is a shame.

Kuzco (David Spade) is the spoiled, self-absorbed emperor of the Incan Empire. To celebrate his upcoming birthday, he plans to build a huge palace in a nearby village but things go awry when he fires his advisor Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and her lackey Kronk (Patrick Wharburton). The duo attempt to kill the young emperor but only turned him into a llama. Before they can dispatch the transformed Kuzco, they lose him. Kuzco winds up in a village and teams up with Pacha (John Goodman), whose home is threatened by the emperor’s palatial plans, to get him back to the palace. Meanwhile, Yzma and Kronk search desperately for Kuzco to clean up a very wooly loose end.

Maybe the folks at Disney decided to take a page out of the Pixar playbook with this film. That would explain the flurry of wit, references, and even a splash of sarcasm here and there. What is surprising is that Disney takes those tools and runs with them in a way not seen since Aladdin. Nothing is sacred in The Emperor’s New Groove and that is refreshing considering Disney’s recent non-Pixar flicks and their tendency to stay between the lines. This is not safe Disney. I wouldn’t call it edgy Disney either though. This film is more like Disney with its hair let down.

The story is predictable and the foreground animation may not be as lush as Disney’s best, but the characters and background animation really keep this film engaging. Kuzco’s wry narration is a fun take on a Hollywood cliché, especially when he interrupts the flow of the film in an attempt to make sure that we are focused on him and not Pacha, who is a far more worthy of our empathy. David Spade is exactly the right person to bring Kuzco to life. Spade’s tone and timing fit the mindset of our haughty protagonist and John Goodman’s deep, warm voice is perfect for a caring sidekick. The setting for this unlikely buddy flick is the Andes Mountains of South America. Disney’s animators wowed me with the colors and architecture used to bring the Incan Empire to life.

Despite a few structural flaws, The Emperor’s New Groove wins you over with its ability to entertain. Some of the things I can find fault with in this movie I have complained about in other Disney products. So how can I rate this film so much higher than latter-half Renaissance flicks? Unlike Hunchback, Mulan, and Tarzan, this movie never gets boring. After the success of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Disney swung deeper into the dramatic end of the spectrum and it backfired.

Without the formula-friendly musical numbers, the filmmakers have to craft a lean, tight film that stays on target. They pull off this difficult task seemingly with ease, using a brisk pace and snappy rapid-fire dialogue keep you smiling for the duration of the film if not chuckling and laughing hysterically. Its screwball comedy tactics may come off as stale to anyone coming in with specific expectations. If you don’t have expectations (or are quickly able to let go of them) you will find yourself enjoying a funny little film. Its artistic merits may be suspect but Groove stands tall as one of Disney’s most non-stop entertaining films to date.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

Every few years, Hollywood cranks out a marginal film featuring silver screen veterans dealing with old age in unique and supposedly funny ways. Whether it’s a last ditch effort to feel young, a journey to fulfill unfinished business, or a team of old pros called back into action, the results are usually shaky at best. Maybe it’s because The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was made outside of the Hollywood system that it defies the odds.

After reviewing their options, several retired Brits take a major risk and move to India to stretch their retirement dollars. Evelyn (Judi Dench) is broke thanks to her dead husband’s debts, while Jean (Penelope Wilton) and Douglas (Bill Nighy) are scraping by after investing in their daughter's stagnant web start-up. Graham (Tom Wilkinson) is looking for an old flame, while Madge (Celia Imrie) is on the prowl for a new flame. Norman (Ronald Pickup) is trying to cling to whatever youth he has left, while Muriel (Maggie Smith) needs a hip replacement on the cheap. Upon arriving at the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, everyone is dismayed to find the place is the opposite of the pictures on the website. As the hotel manager, Sonny (Dev Patel), struggles to keep the place from falling apart, the seven guests band together to help each other out on many different levels.

Far from being a charming tale for the geriatric demographic alone, this film has the potential to play well to most age brackets. It’s not for the youngest of viewers but anyone with an adult level of maturity can find something to enjoy here. The characters may be somewhat formulaic but the filmmakers put enough refreshing twists on type to keep you emotionally invested and genuinely curious to see how each of these seven retirees adjust to their new surroundings.

Maybe it’s the pedigree of the cast or maybe British actors are just a better breed of talent in general, but all the principals do a wonderful job of making their characters feel real. Whether it’s portraying the fear and anxiety of new and intimidating surroundings or the general vulnerability that comes with aging physically and emotionally, the cast is remarkably spot-on. This makes for several powerful moments and also for a few humorous moments that you don’t see coming.

On the surface, Dev Patel’s hilarious character does feel like an obvious ploy to appeal to young adults and thirtysomethings who might not otherwise be interested in a film about old people. Patel is more than just a throwaway to the younger set though. His youth and inexperience contrast against his tenants and open up the door to both sides learning from each other. Some of these lessons are more predictable than others but they’re not executed poorly.

Cynics may consider this film a kind of Breakfast Club for the retirement home crowd but take heart in knowing that cynics are usually little more than an extremely vocal minority. There is no shame in liking this film, regardless of your age. Years of Hollywood beating these kind of ensemble dramas (from coming-of-age teen flicks to gray-haired adventures) has trained us to brace ourselves for inevitable disappointment. It may not live up to its name 100% but The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel houses very little, if anything, to be disappointed about.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Of all the films that John Hughes wrote, produced, or directed, perhaps none of them are remembered as fondly as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (though The Breakfast Club certainly has its own following). His chronicling of a day in the life of a free-wheeling teenager determined to take in life before it passes him by speaks to a societal and cultural yearning for freedom while never going overboard with its humorous or dramatic elements. It’s not perfect and parts of it haven’t aged as well as others but there is a purity to this film that time and cynicism have not tarnished.

Rather than spend the day in school, senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) hacks his school’s computer system to give his attendance record one more absence to take advantage of and still graduate. He drafts his best friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) to help spring Ferris’s girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) from school so the three can spend a day taking in all that downtown Chicago has to offer. Not everyone falls for the much beloved Ferris’s tricks though, as his sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) tries to expose her brother’s lies and the school principal (Jeffry Jones) seeks to finally catch his nemesis breaking the rules.

I think this film is the best piece of work by John Hughes because it is one of his most restrained films (despite its indulgence in all kinds of antics). There are certain elements that let you know if you are watching an 80s era John Hughes film. Is it a kind of coming-of-age film? Are most of the young people in it smart, aware, and blessed with plenty of witty dialogue? Is at least one of the young characters working through difficult parental relations issues? If all of these three ingredients are present, along with a catchy soundtrack, then you are probably watching a John Hughes film.

The interesting difference about this film is that Ferris doesn’t go through any formative changes. He’s the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. He ends up with a better relationship with his sister and his friend Cameron but that’s because those two characters are the ones who change over the course of the film. His sister comes to terms with her disdain for Ferris on her own and Cameron decides to stand up for himself after minimal coaching from Ferris. What’s unusual is that these changes happen on the periphery; Cameron’s by a partial meltdown and Jeanie’s via a deep conversation with a punk in a police station. Usually, Hughes’s main character (or the main ensemble cast) goes through some kind of transition that slows the film down and adds a smarmy aw-shucks moment that is somewhat out of place with everything else.

Thanks to his sister’s turnaround though, Ferris manages to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, allowing his wink-and-a-nod lifestyle to continue into whatever future awaits him. Unlike most young adults, we never see Ferris facing the reality that he has to grow up, which makes us question if we can live in a similar spirited way. Does it give us hope that such an existence is possible as an adult? The message of the film is, to quote Ferris, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it.” To have that spoken to us by a character makes us wonder if we have been missing it. That’s a powerful takeaway from a teen comedy and one that has been exploited by inferior teen comedies ever since.

I think one of the things that help hold this film together is the decision to break the fourth wall. If Ferris was not allowed to talk to us and fill us in on his take on the things and people around him, he would not come across as a genuine person. Left in the confines of a strict third-person perspective, audiences would view Ferris as an obnoxious slacker who thinks he is enlightened and somehow superior to everyone else. Because Ferris is allowed to interact with us, and does so in such a welcoming and honest manner, audiences bond with him and get emotionally invested in what some would otherwise find to be an unlikeable character.

Matthew Broderick is another key ingredient to this film’s success. Broderick has a very every-man look to him that suits the needs of the character. If Ferris doesn’t look just right, the audience won’t buy in. Broderick looks like the kind of teenager who could float between groups. He’s not too attractive, too weird looking, too nerdy, too pompous, too muscular, or too skinny. But Broderick doesn’t just look the part; he acts the part perfectly. He somehow combines the sarcasm of a teenager, the wisdom of adulthood, and the warmth of a good friend into one person. If you’ve seen even just a few teen comedies, you know that this balance is rare.

I could be wrong in thinking this film is timeless. What does the current generation (aka high school and college students) think of this film? When I was a senior in college, this movie was still popular among freshmen but is that still the case? Sure, kids will probably enjoy the idea of taking a day off to do whatever they want, but will they appreciate more than just the concept of this film?

In this post-Occupy Wall Street era that we live in, can a spoiled, rich, know-it-all white kid from the posh suburbs serve as a protagonist and become a cultural icon? I doubt it and that leads me to believe that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off will lose a healthy percentage of its popularity with each successive generation. Most of that drop-off will be due to the fact that kids don’t pay attention to weekend movies on TV anymore and are growing up with little to no appreciation of what came before the cultural influences they view to be important.

Fortunately, there will always be a minority in each generation willing to look back at what influenced the present. Those lucky few will discover Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and be thankful that they did.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Exorcist* (1973)

Going into this film, I knew it was renowned for being intense and scary. I had also seen numerous references and parodies of key scenes in other movies and on TV. What is amazing is that none of this knowledge came to the front of my brain while watching The Exorcist. That speaks to just how strong this film is.

Washington D.C. native Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) notices increasingly strange behavior from her daughter Regan (Linda Blair). Fits of violence, swearing, and more lead Chris to seek medical help for the girl. When the doctors come up empty-handed, exorcism is suggested. The task is given to a duo of priests-one a weak-in-faith young man (Jason Miller) and the other much older and with personal experience with the supernatural (Max von Sydow). The quest to heal Regan pushes all parties involved to the breaking point.

This movie pushed me pretty far as well. It starts off slow and confusing (the elder priest is in the Middle East and finds relics of a demon he cast out of another person long ago) but the rest of the film is fantastic. Regan doesn’t pull a sudden 180 on us. Her possession is gradual, ratcheting up the creepiness a little bit at a time. Some modern viewers may balk at her possession stemming from experimenting with a Ouija board but I am fine with it. Getting no explanation for the possession would be scarier but also harder to digest.

Linda Blair deserves every word of praise she ever received for her performance. To be perfectly honest, it’s a wonder she wasn’t permanently scarred emotionally and psychologically from making this film because she does many things that I cannot imagine asking a child to do for a film. I know it is not her voice saying such vile things during the exorcism sequence but it all looks legit. The way she throws her body around and contorts her face is jaw-dropping.

This film impacts an audience because (as I’ve said numerous times before) human beings are hardwired to be troubled by seeing children in danger. The Exorcist resonates especially with me as a parent. I would do anything to protect my little girl, so I can understand the fear and anxiety exhibited by Burstyn’s mother character.

The underlying battle of science vs. faith is intriguing. The young priest called on to help Regan has been taught by the church that demonic possession is not real and just a combination of psychological and physiological issues. Experience tells the elder priest otherwise, making it interesting to watch Miller’s character confront something he was told not to believe in. It raises the question- are advancements in science and medicine blocking mankind from believing in the spiritual forces of evil?

You’ve seen the parodies, the references, and allusions. Even if you’ve never seen this film before, chances are that you know what ultimately happens. However, The Exorcist is a powerful piece of evidence to the saying ‘it’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.’ No matter how prepared you think you are to watch this film, it will catch you off guard. The Exorcist is one of the most genuinely unsettling films I have ever watched. For me, that says a lot.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Here is another case of a fun and engaging story striking it rich at the box office, leaving Hollywood execs dreaming of repeat business with a sequel. The first Home Alone was a delightful romp through one child’s chaotic misadventures of surviving on his own and defending his home. Familiarity doesn’t quite breed contempt this second go around but a change in location isn’t nearly enough to keep Home Alone 2 fresh.

Once again, the McCallister family is travelling for Christmas, only this time they remember to bring Kevin to the airport with them. This small victory turns into defeat when Kevin gets on the wrong plane, ending up in New York City instead of Miami. Once there, he crosses paths with Harry and Marv, the dim-witted bandits he thwarted a year earlier. Kevin must rely on his wits and ingenuity to prevent the Wet Bandits from robbing a toy store and exacting their revenge upon him.

This sequel has plenty of humorous moments but at least half of the laughs stem from the formula laid out in the first film. The writers avoid a total retread by changing up a few pieces of the formula but Home Alone 2 looks a lot like its predecessor if you put it in outline form. Kevin gets separated from his family (this time Kevin is not actually at home), tricks people with movie clips and props, and sets up a series of elaborate traps to thwart the bad guys. Our protagonist also finds time to make friends with and learn a lesson from someone who is scary at first glance.

The centerpiece of this film, as with the original, is Kevin’s funhouse of carnage. This time around, Kevin sets up shop in an empty house undergoing renovations. This change to the formula is innocent enough to be believable but it also allows the writers to escalate the severity of Kevin’s traps because the house is already halfway torn apart and does not need cleaned up after the chaos is over. Almost every single trap sees Harry and Marv enduring physical trauma that would either incapacitate or kill a real person. Where I was supposed to laugh, I sometimes found myself cringing at the injuries that I knew a real person would sustain. For me, the film crossed the line where comedic violence ceases to be comedic.

In the first film, Kevin learned a lesson about the importance of family. This time around, the lesson is about the importance of friendship via a homeless pigeon lady in Central Park. This subplot is a stiff and forced version of Kevin’s befriending of Old Man Marley in the original film. Whereas the Marley developments were sappy but acceptable, it is glaringly obvious that the pigeon lady sequences are there to add some form of emotional depth to the film. We all know that people just want to see Kevin humiliate a bunch of sad-sack criminals. This time around, the John Hughes-penned heartwarming moments are just hollow, unwelcome distractions.

If you liked the original Home Alone, you probably won’t protest about much of what’s in this sequel. Kevin McCallister is still the same cute, clever, sassy kid we met before and the slapstick comedy of Harry and Marv still elicits a few chuckles and laughs. If you look closely, you’ll find out just how much of Lost in New York is repackaged goods but it’s still not a bad comedy sequel. A little disappointing for sure but still a safe distance from the bottom of the pile.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Misson: Impossible III (2006)

After the qualitative dud that was John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II, it’s a wonder that Paramount was even willing to entertain the notion of a third installment. Then again, the sequel put up good numbers at the box office and Tom Cruise was still a force to be reckoned with on the big screen. With director J.J. Abrams bringing his knack for savvy intrigue to the table, the end result is a whirlwind of a film that grips you more than either of its predecessors.

No longer an active field agent, IMF member Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) spends his time training new agents while hiding his job and past from his fiancé. When one of his former pupils is captured, IMF calls on hunt to rescue her. When the mission fails, Hunt is dragged deeper down the rabbit hole and goes full-on active duty again. Hunt and his new team must find a way to prevent a ruthless arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) from acquiring a mysterious super weapon, sniff out a mole inside IMF, and keep Hunt’s wife out of danger.

Fans of the TV show Mission: Impossible have long complained about the film series and I am sure that any of those fans who saw M:I 3 did plenty of bellyaching. Perhaps Abrams drew from his work on Alias to form the foundation of the spy antics of this film. Gone is most of the long-winded exposition of how the plan is supposed to go down. In its place is a frantic pace and high-octane set pieces that grip you tight. Some fans of the series will find this approach refreshing while others may feel Abrams sold M:I out and emulates the secret agent mechanics of James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Jack Bauer. While the format does make this film harder to remember, I still found myself refreshed.

Abrams has been unafraid to take an unorthodox approach to his work on television and he is similarly unafraid to be unorthodox here. During what would normally be the key set piece of the film, in which Ethan Hunt breaks into a highly secure Chinese research center at the top of a dizzying skyscraper, the audience sees nothing. Rather than watch the frenzied smash-and-grab sequence, we wait outside with Hunt’s partners wondering what on earth is going on in there. Even the item he is grabbing, the Rabbit’s Foot, is never explained; it is simply something both our protagonist and antagonist want to get their hands on. It’s a total MacGuffin but the spy/thriller genre has always utilized that sort of plot device.

Because Hunt’s team members have been interchangeable over three films, the success or failure of M:I 2 and M:I 3 really lies with the villain. The first film introduced us to the determined and heroic Ethan Hunt, so emphasis on villain was minimal (and we didn’t know who the real villain was for much of the film). The villain in M:I 2 was a clichéd rouge agent. Mission: Impossible III features the most intense villain yet and Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves every word of praise he received for his performance. His character is so intelligent, resourceful, and vicious enough to make audiences feel that no one is safe. The level of ferocity that Hoffman injects into the film raises the stakes and helps make the break-neck pace feel warranted.

The plot itself may be forgettable but I walked away from this film marveling at how exciting it was. It boasts an excellent villain, slick directing, and a flurry of intense action sequences. In short, this is the kind of stuff we should expect from a spy flick. It’s not as convoluted as the original and not bogged down with the silly and intricate choreographed violence of M:I 2. It’s a fine cat-and-mouse game and stands, in my mind, as the best of the three M:I films thus far. It is also easily the most underrated film in the series. If M:I 2 turned you off to the series, do yourself a favor and check this one out. Chances are you won’t be disappointed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5