We Bought A Zoo and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

On Christmas Eve we went as a family to see "We Bought A Zoo" at the movie theater in downtown Colorado Springs. It was wonderful to see a Cameron Crowe film as a family, considering that previous Crowe films have definitely been intended for mature audiences. While "We Bought A Zoo" deals with some pretty heavy issues, I was impressed with Crowe's ability to gently handle ideas which a lesser director would have exploited for emotional effect. The film centers around a man who has lost his wife and his two children (who lost their mother). Instead of dwelling on the past, Crowe focuses on the daily challenges of life. I think that it must have been very tempting to incorporate flashbacks into a movie like this, so that we the audience could understand how wonderful life was before the wife/mother was lost. Instead Crowe introduces us to characters who have already begun the process of life without their loved one. Of course the film still is quite sad, as each person struggles with this new life, but ultimately they are supporting each other. The run-down zoo which is attached to the family's new home works as an allegory for their life and it is also just what it seems; a zoo. This was a smart move for Crowe, I think he understands that a good film should entertain it's audience, and be substantive to boot. Even if children don't understand the deeper meaning upon their first viewing, it will be there when they return. I think that my favorite movies from childhood have turned out to be the great films which have gotten better as I am able to understand them more.

I didn't take the family to see "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", and I don't think any of them will be seeing it for quite some time. I had seen the original film version, which really was sufficient, but I really wanted to see how David Fincher would treat the same material. Honestly the first film could easily have been directed by Fincher, so he definitely had to out-do himself to leave no doubt that this was really his movie. The opening titles reminded me of the opening to "Fight Club", it really grabs your attention and sets the atmosphere for the film to follow. Throughout the film there are moments and techniques utilized which definitely made the film uniquely Fincher, but overall I was surprised with how similar it was to the original version. Of course Fincher's best films ("Fight Club" and "Seven") are best the first time you watch them, so here he was already at a disadvantage. The moments of greatest tension, or that are meant to shock were the same exact moments from the previous version. When I think of "Fight Club" I always think about the first time I saw it, the visceral experience that was burned into my mind; this movie fell far short of that. This film was billed as "the feel bad movie of the holidays", to which it totally delivers... And yet, Fincher's nihilism, which somehow worked to his benefit in some of his other films somehow feels like too much here. "Seven" is about men who confront evil for which they are unprepared. That film at least forces the audience to ask themselves what would they do if faced with the same dilemma. The closing moment of the film solidifies the main character's belief that she is and always will be utterly alone. If this review has bummed you out, I'm sorry, I didn't force anyone to read it. You should have stopped with "We Bought A Zoo".

Mission Impossible 4

What I like the most about the Mission Impossible film series is the variety. With the fourth installment we get the fourth director, the result of which is an entirely new movie. These films don't fit the standard sequel mould; rather it's a completely different experience each time. Of course this can be risky, since there isn't much continuity between the films. Personally I believe that Brian De Palma's work on the first film remains the best. The action sequences are memorable, but more importantly the twists and turns within the plot make it a very entertaining ride. John Woo brought his stylized action to the second movie, going way over the top; which was fun. J.J. Abrams directed the third film, essentially making a big budget episode of Alias with the added bonus of drones, wind turbines, and lens flares (I'm not saying any of that is a bad thing).

Here in the fourth movie, Brad Bird makes a live-action version of "The Incredibles". If that doesn't sound totally awesome to you, then I suggest that you get a check-up immediately. As with the last two movies, story and plot is of little importance, it merely serves as the thread to tie one set-piece to another. In a sense I was somewhat disappointed, considering that Brad Bird directed "Ratatouille" and "Iron Giant", he has proven his ability to bring substance to film. Yet the visuals and action in this movie are so captivating that I forgave him right away for the shallow story. There is absolutely no reason to describe the three main action sequences; yet I will comment on the third which would be right at home in any good Pixar film (minus the blood and broken bones of course). While watching this amazingly choreographed scene I became aware of something interesting; the camera is a hindrance. In "The Incredibles", "Iron Giant", and "Ratatouille" there are no limits to what Brad Bird can do. In the real world Bird is constrained by the limits of the camera, which made certain shots seem somewhat static. While I hope to never see digital animation replace live-action, it's exciting to see the marriage of the two, and watch the evolution which is taking place in filmmaking. Hopefully Hollywood will get the message that we don't want Jar Jar Binks, but we do want a hovering camera capturing Tom Cruise climbing the tallest building in the world without ropes.