Movie Review: ROCK OF AGES

ROCK OF AGES

2012

PG-13

"This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke."

-- Dennis Dupree

Rock of Ages is a 2012 dramatic musical film directed by Adam Shankman that serves as a big-screen adaptation of the off-Broadway musical of the same name. The film opens in 1987 with Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) on a bus from her native Oklahoma to Los Angeles, where she hopes to find fame and fortune. Shortly after arriving, however, she's mugged and finds herself lost and nearly penniless. Enter young aspiring singer Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) who manages to get her a job at a popular nightclub called The Bourbon Room. The famed venue, however, has hit a recent string of financial troubles, and owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his partner Lonny (Russell Brand) are desperately trying to keep the Bourbon Room afloat all while dealing with the ultra-right-wing wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of the city mayor. In a bit of luck, they manage to book the final performance of a band called Arsenal, which is fronted by superstar rocker Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). As the night of the massive performance draws near, however, relationships between each of the characters begin to strain, causing a massage amount of upheaval inside The Bourbon Room.

I would like to start by saying that, while I have long wanted to see Rock of Ages in its stage incarnation, I have never had the opportunity. Therefore, I went into the film version a little bit blind, seeing the storyline for the first time. All I knew entering the film was that it was all about rock 'n roll and that Tom Cruise was supposedly going to sing. And always being up for a bit of rock music, I figured I'd have a excellent time. Cue the "Bill & Ted" guitar riff.

Unfortunately, Rock of Ages is missing a few notes here and there. One of the biggest problems with the film is that we're getting a rather humdrum screenplay that's about as predictable as you can get. From the opening scene, we know exactly what direction the film is headed, and that takes a little bit away from the film. If the audience knows how the film's going to end, then what's the point of enjoying the ride? Sometimes the ride is enough to keep a viewer engaged, but if we're simply going off the storyline and the plot devices, then Rock of Ages is sinking, and sinking fast.

Also, we're not getting a ton of help from the cast, at least in terms of their acting. Despite the fact that the film holds an all-star cast, I couldn't really find anything terribly redeeming about the acting portion of the performances. Our film's leads - Hough and Boneta - are both a little too laughable from time to time, and they manage to chew the scenery just a little too much. Cruise is decent, but it's nowhere near his best on-screen role. And to be honest, it was a little bit strange seeing him portray sexual rock 'n roll god. He's never been an overt sex symbol during his career, and to have him try to bring that to the table at his current age just seems a little bit weird. We get a bit of nice interplay between Brand and Baldwin, who probably offer the film's best performances. And still, they're only serviceable. Even great actors like Paul Giamatti and Bryan Cranston can't bring this film any higher. Also be on the watch for decent bit pieces from Malin Akerman and Mary J. Blige, as well as cameos from Will Forte, Eli Roth and T.J. Miller.

Now, I only said that the acting portions of the cast's performances were a little lackluster. Where Rock of Ages does manage to excel is in its soundtrack, and each of the performers brings their A-game for that part of the film. I was thoroughly impressed with Hough and Boneta as our stars, and even Cruise manages to bust out a few songs relatively well. Brand, as you may already know, is a fantastic singer, and his bits are glorious indeed. Even Baldwin and Giamatti manage to sing a few lines here and there, and it works to a nice effect. However, the real glory I think belongs to Boneta, who proves to be - arguably - the best singer of the bunch, and he has some of the most opportunity to belt it out. He even manages to overshadow Hough, which is surprising considering she's also very good. Overall, the soundtrack is fantastic, and I thought that some of the song mash-ups worked relatively well.

At the end of the day, however, Rock of Ages simply isn't that great of a film. It has a shoddy screenplay and weak character development, and normally, that would be enough to doom any movie. However, with a stellar soundtrack like this one has, it's tough not to have fun with Rock of Ages. Anyone who's a fan of this particular genre of rock 'n roll is going to get caught up in the emotion of the songs, and that might lead a viewer to believe they're having an emotional connection with the film. I'd bet that won't be the case, seeing as if you take away the music, then this film's about as devoid of emotion as you can get. It's the music that proves to be the glue in the film, keeping it together just long enough to keep the audience entertained from start to finish.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: RISKY BUSINESS

RISKY BUSINESS

1983

R

"You've done a lot of solid work here, but it's just not Ivy League, now is it?"

-- Rutherford

Risky Business is a 1983 drama written and directed by Paul Brickman. It tells the story of Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise), a high school senior who is left home alone while his parents go on vacation. Always careful not to step on any toes, Joel's friend Miles (Curtis Armstrong) finally talks him into taking a few risks. This leads Joel to calling on call girl Lana (Rebecca De Mornay) who proceeds to steal one of his mother's prized pieces of art. He chases her down and learns that she is trying to escape the clutches of her "manager" Guido (Joe Pantoliano). The two evade capture and begin a working relationship that puts into motion a plan to generate a large amount of revenue for the two of them. At the same time, feelings start to grow between Joel and Lana, and their relationship leads Joel to neglect his studies, forcing his educational prospects to spiral out of control.

When the thought of Risky Business comes to mind, most people are immediately drawn to the iconic dance scene that shows a half-naked Cruise romping around to Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock & Roll." It's an image that's been often parodied, and for that reason, it stands out prominently in our minds. In all reality, it's a somewhat inconsequential scene that occurs towards the film's beginning before we get into the thick of the storyline. Still, any review of Risky Business would be incomplete without a mention of Cruise's rock 'n roll rampage.

I had a little bit of trouble finding a way into Risky Business. It starts out relatively slowly, and there's a dry humor that's difficult to follow at times. From the start, I could only see Cruise's Joel as a whiny teenager trying his best not to get caught with doing anything wrong, but at the same time, I desperately wanted him to break out of his shell and do something for himself for a change. We get an interesting look at the dynamics of his relationship with his parents (portrayed by Nicholas Pryor and Janet Carroll), and it sets the stage for his ultimate unwinding. But the story that follows is a strange one that I admittedly may not fully understand. It tells the tale of Joel's decision to take up a night of prostitution, working as a pimp for Lana and her fellow call girls. The whole idea is tied into the fact that Joel has been trying to prove he can be a successful businessman, but the whole concept just takes a strange turn here and there, and it all left me a little bit perplexed. Maybe this film would have resonated in the capitalist-friendly culture of the early-1980s when it was released, but in today's society, I don't think it would strike as strong a chord as it did back then.

That's probably the one thing that Risky Business definitely has going for it: it has a very 1980s feel to it, and in that respect, it's actually a fascinating look at the lifestyle of a teenager in that time period. Libidos were high and so was the cash flow, but there was still a strong desire to increase personal wealth as well. That's exactly what Risky Business portrays, and for that, it should be applauded.

The acting within the film is decent, although there really isn't anyone blowing away the competition. Cruise does well as our lead, although there were a few times where I simply couldn't stand his presence. He goes between solid and over-the-top, and it doesn't always blend well. That being said, it's still a stronger performance than quite a bit of what we get nowadays. Rebecca De Mornay does well as Lana, bringing a soft but powerful grace to the screen. If anyone steals the show, however, it's Pantoliano in his limited role as one of the film's chief antagonists. He manages to be both funny and menacing, creating a character that's completely believable while being entirely over-the-top. Some of Cruise's on-screen friends make for a few good bits of comedic relief, but there really isn't anyone else worth mention.

At the end of the day, Risky Business is a decent film that wonderfully showcases a specific time period in United States history. Although the storyline often becomes muddled and the acting isn't necessarily top-notch, there are still a few things to like about the story. It just isn't a movie that I'm going to go back and watch over and over again. If you're looking for a movie that features a teenager who goes on a spree after his parents go away, I'd check out the far superior 1986 film, Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

2011
PG13


"Next time, I get to seduce the rich guy."
-- Brandt

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a 2011 action film directed by Brad Bird that serves as the fourth installment, and the first since 2006, in the Mission: Impossible film franchise. We open on Agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) breaking Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Serbian prison. With intel he received during his stay, the trio sets out to learn the identity of a so-called 'Cobalt' (Michael Nyqvist) who supposedly wants to start a nuclear war. When Cobalt alerts the Russian guards of their presence, however, the team barely escapes as Cobalt blows up the Kremlin, sending the Russian government into a frenzy as they take the attack as an undeclared act of war from the United States. After their escape, Hunt learns that the Impossible Missions Force (IMF) has been dissolved in response to the Kremlin attack and that any retaliation against Cobalt will have to be done with the help of the United States government. Aided by an analyst named Brandt (Jeremy Renner), Hunt and his team try to locate Cobalt and stop his plan to start a nuclear war.

Those of you who have been reading me for a while will know that I drafted a trailer breakdown for this film back in June 2011. At the time, I was moderately excited to see another addition to this franchise, but I wondered about the reasoning behind bringing it back to the big screen. After a five year absence, Mission: Impossible III seems like a distant - and entirely forgettable - memory, so despite the fact that all three previous films have fared well monetarily, I didn't really see the reason for creating another installment.

That being said, I have to say I was thoroughly surprised when the film opened to spectacular reviews. It currently holds a 93% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

Stylish, fast-paced, and loaded with gripping set pieces, the fourth Mission: Impossible is big-budget popcorn entertainment that really works.

In that regard, I suppose Ghost Protocol is a success. I found myself thoroughly entertained by the visual effects and the non-stop action, but is that all it takes to make a good movie?

Generally, I'd say the answer is no. It takes a number of factors to create a great movie, but in my own personal opinion, the two biggest factors are the screenplay and the level of acting within any given film. Let's start with Ghost Protocol's screenplay, shall we? While it's not necessarily offering anything all that brilliant, we do get a relatively entertaining story that adds a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. Although we all can readily assume how the story will probably end, the journey to reach our final destination is bumpy and loaded with excitement, which is exactly what the doctor ordered for a film like this. Sure, it's not a brilliant storyline, and it's not bringing anything new to the table, but there's something steady and familiar about this one that makes it all the more endearing. Had the screenwriters attempted to break the mold, they may not have been as successful. Instead, they merely bent the mold here and there to create something a little bit different, and I thought it worked splendidly.

The acting in the film also isn't all that spectacular, but it works within the constructs of an action film in the 21st century. Cruise brings the same character we've seen three times before, and although he's still the film's centerpiece, I feel like he does drop back a little bit and lets his supporting cast shine from time to time. That was always one of my issues with the previous Mission: Impossible films: they always seemed like Cruise-centric flicks that spiraled into drivel rather quickly. This time, however, there's a better combination of personalities, and each is given their chance to strut their stuff. Patton is very good as our main female lead, and although her character isn't given much depth, she does well with what she has. Pegg serves up enough comic relief to keep the film moving along. Renner is the revelation in the film, bringing his high-caliber acting skills to this franchise and offering a great foil to Cruise's Hunt. We also get a good performance from Nyqvist, who I recognized from the Swedish Millennium trilogy, which starts with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Also be on the lookout for a couple of cameos and familiar faces along the way.

One of the questions I posed in my trailer breakdown for Ghost Protocol was whether or not Brad Bird would be able to direct a successful live-action film. Before this, he had only directed animated films, so to make his live-action debut with such a storied franchise couldn't have been easy. Suffice it to say, I do think he's created the best Mission: Impossible film to date - although that's not saying a whole lot considering the caliber of the three previous films - so for that, he should be applauded. At the end of the day, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun film that's sure to keep you entertained. Just don't try to over-think it.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

Happy Birthday, Tom Cruise!

It's birthday time again, and we're celebrating the 49th birthday of a certain actor named Tom Cruise. It's hard to believe that this man is closing in on fifty years old, but needless to say, he's definitely provided quite a bit of entertainment both on and off the screen throughout his career. Yes, he's had his personal life scrutinized and skewered countless times over the past few years, from his connection to Scientology to his Katie Holmes love-fest on Oprah Winfrey's show, and through it all, I think some people have forgotten just how good of an actor he actually is. Sure, he often gets typecast into roles that work with his personality, but he's managed to nab three Academy Award nominations over the years, so he's even garnered some critical praise as well. So push all the thoughts of his apparent "craziness" to the side and enjoy his acting. He may not be the greatest ever to live, but he definitely does well with most of his material. So on his 49th birthday, I salute Mr. Cruise by listing my five favorite of his roles. You'll next be able to see him in theaters this December in the latest installment of the Mission: Impossible franchise, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Once again, happy birthday, Tom Cruise!

5. Nathan Algren
THE LAST SAMURAI (2003)


----------

4. Charlie Babbitt
RAIN MAN (1988)


----------

3. Jerry Maguire
JERRY MAGUIRE (1996)


----------

2. Vincent
COLLATERAL (2004)


----------

1. Les Grossman
TROPIC THUNDER (2008)


----------

Awards
2002: Nominee - Best Hero(ine)
2004: Winner - Best Supporting Actor, Drama; Best Villain
2008: Winner - Best Cameo or Brief Appearance

Trailer Breakdown: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

It's been five years since the last Mission: Impossible film hit theaters, but Hollywood has decided to bring the franchise back to the big screen with Tom Cruise reprising his role as the lead Ethan Hunt. He'll be surrounded by an impressive cast, so I'd say we could be looking at the makings of an interesting return to the franchise. The film's first trailer was released this week with the opening of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and I thought I'd break it down for you and give you the skinny on what we should probably expect. Below is the trailer, and after the jump, you'll see my breakdown. Enjoy!

And now for the questions that entered my mind while watching the trailer:

1) What is Ghost Protocol?
Because it's the film's subtitle, it must play a relatively important part within the film itself. I know that there was never going to be an explanation within the actual trailer, but Tom Wilkinson's mention of it makes me a little more intrigued to find out exactly what this "Ghost Protocol" may be.

2) The trailer sets this film up to be extremely fast-paced. Will it deliver on that promise?
For much of the trailer, we get to see a number of sequences of intense action scenes that will hopefully stay off the cutting room floor once the final product is released. Now, I know that the Mission: Impossible series is an action-oriented franchise, but in the past three films, I can't really remember anything truly stellar about the level of action that makes them stand above similar films. In a way, they're just not all that memorable. Still, there's no reason that Ghost Protocol won't change that standard. They even managed to throw in a big-time effect at the end of the trailer, like I mentioned all action film trailers do in my breakdown of Fast Five.

3) What was the reasoning behind bringing this franchise back to theaters?
I know that money was definitely a driving factor in bringing Mission: Impossible back to the big screen, especially considering that the three previous films all surpassed the $100 million mark to be considered "blockbuster" films. That being said, the most recent installment in 2006 spotted the lowest domestic gross of the franchise. Add in the fact that Tom Cruise has had a bit of a shaky personal image in the past few years, then you could start to question the reasoning for bringing this one back.

4) On that note, is Cruise still right for this role?
It'd be tough for Cruise not to come back to a franchise he dominated for ten years, and had he not been asked to return, there would have been quite an uproar from fans. That being said, I simply wonder if he's a little too seasoned to be playing Ethan Hunt yet again. And while I don't think his personal image is as scared as it was a few years ago, I'm pretty sure there's still a good number of people who would avoid this film just because he's starring in it. I just don't know whether Tom Cruise has the star power to draw a massive audience anymore. I personally think he's a great actor (he's nabbed wins in my personal "Best of" awards in 2004 and 2008), but his portrayal of Ethan Hunt was never one of my favorite of his roles. Still, it'd be strange not to see him in the film, so I guess we'll have to live with it.

5) Can the all-star cast around Cruise help give this series a fresh breath of air?
All that being said about Tom Cruise, I'd have to say that whoever was in charge of casting did a great job with this one. The aforementioned Wilkinson brings some serious acting chops to the film. Bringing back Simon Pegg is a huge plus as he's sure to bring some much-needed comic relief to the screen. The addition of the beautiful Paula Patton also brings a level of grace to the screen that I'm not sure the Mission: Impossible franchise has had to date. However, the biggest signing has to be of Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner, who in the past two years has proven himself twice over that he has the potential to be a great actor. Throwing him into the mix with a legend like Tom Cruise should play out very well, and I'm definitely excited to see Renner delve more into the action side of things.

6) Can director Brad Bird succeed in making this live-action film?
Before this film, all of Brad Bird's previous films have been of the animated nature. His debut feature film was 1999's The Iron Giant, and he followed that up with the Pixar endeavors The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He hasn't directed a movie since that 2007 film, so I'm interested to see how his creative tendencies will translate to the live-action format. The fact that he helmed The Incredibles is a little reassuring, considering that was an action-packed film despite being animated. Still, I think the jury has to remain out until the final product can hit theaters.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol will hit U.S. theaters on December 16, 2011.

Movie Review: RAIN MAN

RAIN MAN

1988
R

Rain Man is a 1988 Oscar-winning dramatic film directed by Barry Levinson. The film opens on Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise), a hot-headed yuppie who runs an expensive car business. Upon hearing the news of his estranged father's passing, Charlie and his girlfriend Susanna (Valeria Golino) make their way to Cincinnati the funeral. Afterwards, Charlie learns that his inheritance includes only a classic Buick Roadmaster and some prize-winning rosebushes; they $3 million estate, however, has been given to an unnamed beneficiary. Charlie begins to search for answers and learns that the money has gone to Raymond Babbitt (Dustin Hoffman), the elder brother Charlie never knew he had. Raymond is institutionalized as a high-functioning autistic, but Charlie decides to take matters into his own hands. In an attempt to attain half of his father's estate, he kidnaps Raymond from the institution and tries to take him back to his home in Los Angeles where a court hearing will determine what is best for Raymond.

This film was the big winner at the Academy Awards in 1989, nabbing eight nominations and four wins (including Best Actor for Hoffman, Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture). Although I don't personally think it's the best film from 1988 that I've ever seen - Die Hard, Beetle Juice, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit rank slightly higher - it's still a fascinating watch that borders the lines of a must-see. There are a few issues with the actual storyline, the most pressing being that the film is entirely predictable. We can see from a mile away that Charlie is going to achieve some sort of major personality change as a result of the time he spends with his brother. I feel like I've seen this type of story dozens of times before, so it's not necessarily original. It's just wrapped in a different kind of wrapping paper, so to speak. However, Rain Man works more as a character drama rather than a plot-driven film. It's not about the fact that Charlie is going to have a change of heart; the important aspect is how he reaches that point. In addition, we get to see a change in Raymond's personality. It's not as drastic, but it's enough to be profound by the end of the film.

With character-driven films, acting is key. If an actor can't make us believe the transformation of their character, then the film loses all of its power because it doesn't have an astounding story to fall back on. Fortunately, our two leads are simply fantastic and entirely convincing in their respective roles. Let's start with Hoffman, who grabbed his second Oscar statuette for his turn as the autistic Raymond Babbitt (his first win came for 1979's Kramer vs. Kramer, for those of you who were wondering). Now, here in the 21st century, I couldn't help but recount one particular scene from 2008's Tropic Thunder as I watched Hoffman's performance. One of the central ideas in Tropic Thunder is the idea that so many actors will go ridiculously deep into a role. In the scene, Robert Downey Jr.'s character is explaining to Ben Stiller's character why you should "never go full retard" for a role. When pressed for an explanation, he continues by referencing Rain Man: "Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'." The fact that Hoffman was referenced goes to show just how dedicated he was to his craft in creating the character Raymond Babbitt. While he does have a couple of over-the-top moments that the Academy tends to love, the real meat behind his performance is the subtlety he brings to the screen. There's a number of little ticks that he gives to Raymond that make the performance stunningly brilliant, and he easily deserved his Oscar recognition.

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about Tom Cruise, the only other main character presented in the film. I know that a lot of people nowadays have issue with Mr. Cruise, and considering his media exposure over the past few years, I can't necessarily blame them. However, none of that should take away the fact that he's a very, very good actor. Sure, he tends to play characters that parallel his own personality, and I feel like his role in Rain Man falls into that category. That being said, I'd easily put his Rain Man performance in my top three favorite Cruise roles, behind only 2004's Collateral and 2008's Tropic Thunder. In this film, he makes Charlie's transformation so real and so visceral that we almost make it right alongside him. I started the film absolutely hating Charlie Babbitt, but by the time the final credits rolled, I wanted to shake his hand. That's saying a lot, to be sure.

Rain Man is definitely a movie you should watch. I wouldn't quite call it a must-see film, but it's pretty damn close. It met every expectation I had of it, and although it didn't grade as highly as I thought it would, it's still a very good film that I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up