The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) review

In 1816, German author E.T.A. Hoffman published The Nutcracker and the Mouse King, which told the story of a young girl named Marie who ends up on a fantastical adventure with the sentient Nutcracker toy that was given to her at Christmas. But when it comes to the most famous interpretation of this story, that distinction goes to the 1892 ballet The Nutcracker, which was based off a revised version of Hoffman’s story written by Alexandre Dumas and featured music from composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. While its initial production did not fare well with critics, it has since gone on to be performed by numerous ballet groups worldwide, with Tchaikovsky’s music now regarded as some of the best and most recognizable melodies of all-time. The Nutcracker has also played a prominent role in the world of film thanks to its prominent use in Disney’s musical anthology film Fantasia and various film adaptations of the ballet that have been made over the years. And now Disney takes another crack at this story with The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, a film that experienced an interesting bit of development during its production. From the get-go, the film was directed by veteran filmmaker Lasse Hallstrom, whose work includes critically-acclaimed projects like 1993’s What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and 1999’s The Cider House Rules. But when it was announced that the film would be undergoing a series of reshoots, it was revealed that Hallstrom was unable to return due to scheduling conflicts. Fellow veteran filmmaker Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Captain America: The First Avenger) was brought in to direct the reshoots, and unlike the other major release this week that experienced a directorial switch-up during its production, Bohemian Rhapsody, Hallstrom and Johnston ended up sharing the film’s final directorial credit. What follows is a film that is truly something to behold when it comes to both its highlights and its shortcomings.

In the bustling city of Victorian-era London, young Clara Stahlbaum (Mackenzie Foy) regularly exhibits her passion for science and inventing, a trait that she’s inherited from her mother Marie. However, since her mother’s passing, Clara has grown emotionally distant from her family, especially her father (Matthew Macfadyen) who has pressured the family to maintain a respectable image amongst their peers in the wake of their recent tragedy. On Christmas Eve, Clara is given one last present from her mother in the form of a porcelain egg-shaped box that she cannot open as she doesn’t have the key for it. In her efforts to try and open it, Clara meets with her godfather Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman), a noted inventor, during his annual Christmas party. And while he doesn’t have the key either, Clara is eventually led on an adventure to find it when she partakes in his annual gift-giving process by following a string through his mansion. This string ends up leading her into a fantastical world that is divided up into Four Realms, including the Land of Sweets, ruled by the Sugar Plum Fairy (Keira Knightley), the Land of Flowers, ruled by Hawthorne (Eugenio Derbez), and the Land of Snowflakes, ruled by Shiver (Richard E. Grant). There, she learns that her mother was the queen of this world and helped bring all its inhabitants to life. However, the three main realms have also been in conflict recently with Mother Ginger (Helen Mirren), the ruler of the Fourth Realm, the Land of Amusements, who had previously attempted to take over the whole kingdom. Learning that the key to her porcelain egg also operates a special device that can help them deal with Mother Ginger and her army of mice, Clara finds herself on a quest to retrieve the key so that she can save the Four Realms and gain a greater understanding of her mother’s past.  

Like many other recent live-action Disney films, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms does sport some amazing visuals that help bring the fantastical world of the Nutcracker to life. And sure, just like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland films, sometimes this film goes a bit overboard with its CGI but said CG is generally well-handled and is then bolstered by solid cinematography from Damien Chazelle’s go-to cinematographer Linus Sandgren. Things get a little more complicated, however, when it comes to its story. With no clear indication yet as to what parts of the film were done by Johnston rather than Hallstrom, there’s never really a point in the film where it feels like a direct competition between the visions of its two directors. And yet, there is a noticeable inconsistency when it comes to the film’s overall tone. While some parts of it are more serious in tone to emphasize the dramatic parts of the story (e.g. Clara learning more about her mother’s past), other parts of the film, namely anything that takes place within the Four Realms, are far more over-the-top in nature. These two extremes frequently collide over the course of the film and, simply put, they do not gel well together in the slightest. It also doesn’t help that the film has a very short 100-minute runtime. Once Clara enters the Four Realms, the film then speeds through its story at a break-neck pace. This results in a vastly underdeveloped plot that gives you no time to comprehend its biggest twist halfway through. And because of this, this reveal ends up feeling like it came completely out of nowhere and is easily one of the most substantial deviations from its source material outside of the infamous use of Nazi imagery in the 2010 film adaptation of the ballet (no joke, look it up…).   

This sense of unevenness also applies to the film’s cast, with half of them giving reserved, serious performances and the other half giving unabashedly over-the-top performances, and because of the film’s breezy pace, many of their characters don’t get much to do story-wise. But for the most part, several of them manage to do a good job with their limited material. Of them all, the most prominent standout of the cast is Mackenzie Foy in the lead role of Clara. In a cast that includes multiple Oscar winners and/or nominees, Foy impressively manages to carry the whole film as its sympathetic and smart female lead. She also works quite well with newcomer Jayden Fowora-Knight, who plays the title role of Philip the Nutcracker Soldier, who sticks with her through thick and thin while also being one of the saner characters in this crazy world. Another major standout is Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger who, despite being built up as the film’s main antagonist, ends up benefitting from the previously mentioned plot twist that reveals a bit more to her character than originally anticipated. But the one who is the most affected by this plot twist (and not exactly in as good of a way as Mirren) is Keira Knightley as the Sugar Plum Fairy… though, to her credit, she does commit to this character and all the craziness that comes with it in a performance that can only be seen to be believed. And as for Morgan Freeman as Drosselmeyer? Well, despite what the marketing for this film suggests, he’s literally in it for about three to five minutes in the beginning and then he doesn’t show up again until the end.

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms… is certainly a ‘unique’ film, I’ll give it that. I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s as ‘bad’ as some critics are saying it is, but at the same time, it’s not that great, either. In fact, to be perfectly blunt, it’s quite a bit of a mess, though this isn’t entirely because the film ended up crediting two different directors. Ultimately its biggest issue is that it’s incredibly inconsistent with its tone, often going between serious drama and over-the-top kookiness in the blink of an eye. And despite the best efforts of some of its cast members, they’re all waylaid by an undercooked plot that bases itself around a mediocre plot twist in a film that goes by so fast that there’s no time to comprehend what just happened. Now to the film’s credit, it’s well-intentioned, at the very least, given that it’s a big-budget fantasy film that focuses on a young female protagonist who’s easily one of the most proactive iterations of her classic character. And just like other recent live-action Disney films like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful, this film does boast some gorgeous CGI visuals. But as innocuous as it is, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is just… bland, which is a shame given all the work that clearly went into it from a visual standpoint. Had it been given a bit more time to flesh out its story and characters, this could’ve turned out to be a decent new take on the classic story of the Nutcracker that wasn’t primarily based around its music.

Rating: 2/5

Pirates of the Caribbean Series Retrospective (2003-2011)

Argh, me mateys! It’s time for another retrospective on a classic franchise that sees new life this year with an upcoming installment. And today’s franchise is a classic of this current era of franchises; one about the swashbuckling scallywags and their adventures on the high seas! “Yo-ho, Yo-ho, a Pirate’s Life for Me!” Heh, okay, I won’t be talking like a pirate throughout this entire post. But today, we are talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean films, one of the biggest film franchises in recent years… and an unexpected one at that. Because, really, the idea of turning a theme park ride into a film may seem like a crazy one depending on who you ask. That was clearly the case in 2003, when Disney decided to do a live-action adaptation of Pirates of the Caribbean, inspired by the company’s iconic theme park ride of the same name. The original Pirates of the Caribbean ride first opened in March 1967 at Disneyland in California and was the last attraction that Walt Disney himself primarily supervised before his death in December 1966. Obviously, it was a big hit with guests and the ride has since been established at multiple Disney parks around the world, arguably becoming Disney’s most iconic ‘dark ride’. Still, it seemed like a stretch when the first Pirates film was released in the summer of 2003 given the arguably absurd nature of what it was; a ‘theme-park ride’ based film. However, to the surprise of many, it was a smash hit with both critics and audiences, resulting in a few more sequels that were released over the next few years. And while the sequels did not fare as well in terms of critical and audience reception, they still proved to be monster hits for Disney at the box-office, even when considering that some of them ended up being some of the most expensive films ever made.

And this year, the series returns to the big screen for the first time since 2011 with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Supposedly, it’s the final installment of the franchise, if based only on the tagline ‘The Final Adventure’ seen in the film’s primary trailer. However, recent comments from co-director Joachim Rønning suggest that isn’t the case. After all, I’m sure that we all thought that At World’s End was the final film… and then On Stranger Tides seemed like the last one. And yet, here we are now with the fifth installment; who knows where it’ll go from here? Whatever happens, though, I am looking forward to this new installment of the franchise. I’ll admit that I generally like each of the four previous films. Granted, the sequels do have their flaws, but they also have great moments in them that ultimately make them worthwhile in the end. I may not have seen any of the original 3 films in theaters (I almost did see the first film back in 2003 during a double feature at the Rustic Drive-In along with Finding Nemo, but my family decided to leave a few minutes in because some of us were getting tired) but I do still fondly remember all the hype surrounding their releases. For one thing, I remember going on a Disney cruise right around the time when Dead Men’s Chest came out in 2006. Not only did they have the film playing in the ship’s theater (again, though, I didn’t see it then), but they also had the actual Flying Dutchman ship used in the film anchored at Disney’s private island, Castaway Cay. Sure, the hype for this franchise isn’t what it used to be but it does go to show how big the original trilogy really was. And so, in honor of the new film’s release, it’s time to embark on the seven seas alongside the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow as we look at the previous four installments of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Savvy?

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

We start things off, of course, with the original Pirates film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, released in 2003. As noted in the intro, there was some uncertainty surrounding this film given its status as a film that was based off one of Disney’s most iconic attractions. To put this entire situation into perspective, this was released one year after the infamous adaptation of The Country Bears, which was both a critical and commercial disaster. 2003 also saw the release of another poorly-received ‘Disney theme park’ adaptation, The Haunted Mansion. But, to the surprise of many, Pirates of the Caribbean (which, technically, was released before Haunted Mansion) proved to be one of the biggest critical and commercial hits of the summer and rightfully so as it’s a highly entertaining pirate adventure. Sure, perhaps it’s a tad bit overlong, with a runtime of over two and a half hours. And sure, maybe some of the CG effects, namely whenever the villainous pirates reveal their skeletal forms, have become rather dated compared to the effects of its sequels. Still, through it all, there’s never a dull moment in this film and, as would become common with each film in the series, the film has excellent action set-pieces, especially the sword-fighting sequences. Johnny Depp debuted one of the most famous protagonists in recent years in this film as the rogue and eccentric pirate, Jack Sparrow, and does a fantastic job in the role, so much so that he even earned an Oscar nomination for it. The rest of the cast is solid too; Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are both excellent as the series’ main romantic leads, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, and Geoffrey Rush is enjoyably over-the-top as main villain Hector Barbossa. Thus, The Curse of the Black Pearl still holds up as a fun and adventurous film that truly surprised us all upon release.

Rating: 5/5!

“You are without a doubt the worst pirate that I’ve ever seen!” – Commodore Norrington

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (2006)

The main thing to note about this franchise is that only the first Pirates film was a commercial AND critical success. While each of the sequels were successful commercially, they didn’t fare as well with critics compared to the original. That all started with 2006’s Dead Man Chest, once again directed by Gore Verbinski and produced back-to-back with the third film. And, to be perfectly blunt… this film gets too much of a bad rep. Sure, there are some flaws here and there. You could say that this is where one of the main issues that critics have had with the series starts to emerge; that the plots begin to get overly complicated with too many characters to follow. Plus, there are quite a few ridiculous moments throughout the film, like during the finale when ‘literally’ everyone begins to fight each other over control of the titular ‘Dead Man’s Chest’, which contains the heart of main villain Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) that can be used to control him. But, again, never a dull moment thanks to excellently choreographed action sequences, including an epic finale in which the crew of the Black Pearl battles Davy Jones’ ‘terrible beastie’, the Kraken. The cast is still great as before; the returning cast members slip back into their respective roles with ease and there are some memorable new characters as well, including Stellan Skarsgård as Will’s long-lost father ‘Bootstrap’ Bill and, as mentioned earlier, Bill Nighy as the series’ absolute best villain, the creepy tentacled pirate that is Davy Jones. Heck, the film also deserves some credit for not entirely ending on a ‘happy’ note a la Empire Strikes Back, while also culminating with an awesome cameo that further sets up the sequel. So, in short, no I don’t think that this is better than the first film. Still, I’d argue that it ain’t too far off. Thus, it’s easy to see why this became the first film in the series, and the third film EVER, to gross over a billion at the worldwide box-office. Clearly, it was one of the biggest films of its time.

   

Rating: 4.5/5

“What about Jack? I’m not leaving without him!” (*sees Jack pursued by the cannibals*) “Time to go!” – Will Turner (though I must say, it’s more hilarious in the trailer, where he’s just like “Never mind, let’s go!”)

Also…

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END (2007)

When it comes to the argument that these films are overstuffed and overly-complicated, At World’s End is most likely the primary film in the series that receives the most flak for this. It’s the longest film in the series with a runtime of nearly three hours and was also the most expensive film ever made at the time, becoming the first film ever to have a budget of at least $300 million. And, admittedly, in some cases the critics are right. It IS a bit overlong and there are some instances where the plot gets overly complicated, namely during the second act where characters begin to repeatedly double-cross one another in scenes that admittedly make the film start to drag. However, once again, when this film does something great, it’s fantastic. For a film that was the most expensive film ever made at the time, it does live up to its status as a $300 million film. This is easily the biggest film in the entire series in terms of its scale, set design, visuals, and action sequences and it’s all fantastic from a technical perspective. Case in point, if you can make it through the hefty runtime, the film ends with what is easily the series’ best finale to date, as our heroes battle Davy Jones and his crew in the middle of a raging maelstrom, complete with an impromptu wedding between Will and Elizabeth ministered by Barbossa. Thus, like Dead Men’s Chest, I think At World’s End also gets too much of a bad reputation. I mean, to be fair, if I had to rank these films, admittedly this one would probably rank last amongst the original trilogy. It is somewhat of a chore to sit through at parts with a runtime that damn near rivals the Lord of the Rings films. However, I’d argue that it’s worth it for one of the best finales of any film from this past decade, making this a solid conclusion to the original trilogy of Pirates films.

Rating: 4.5/5

“Mr. Gibbs, you may throw my hat if you like!” (*Gibbs throws Jack’s hat*) “Now go and get it!” – Jack Sparrow

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)

While it seemed like At World’s End marked the end of the series, it instead returned four years later with a new installment, On Stranger Tides, inspired by a 1987 book of the same name by author Tim Powers that also influenced the popular Monkey Island series. This time around, directorial duties went to Rob Marshall, best known for directing musicals like Chicago and Into the Woods. And that experience in theater does help, in a way, when it comes to choreographing the action sequences. Like its previous installments, this film’s biggest strength is through its technical merits; cinematography, set design, visuals, etc. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are great, as always, and Penelope Cruz is a welcome addition to the franchise as Jack’s old flame Angelica. Ian McShane is also great in the role of the film’s imposing villain, the infamous Blackbeard. However, the film does run into a problem in terms of its overall scale, at least when compared to previous installments. After the large-scale efforts in At World’s End, this film is decidedly scaled down by comparison. This is, ultimately, both a good and bad thing. On one hand, it means that the film isn’t trying to do as much in terms of story and plot. But, at the same time, it’s still a vastly smaller scaled entry in the series, complete with a finale that’s more on par with the first film’s finale in terms of its overall scale. It truly makes you wonder how this film ended up surpassing its predecessor as the most expensive film ever made. You think At World’s End’s $300 million budget was crazy? Apparently, this film’s budget was over $400 million. And, truth be told, this doesn’t feel like that kind of film. It feels more like a $140 million film which, for the record… was the budget for the first film. Still, at the end of the day, On Stranger Tides is another enjoyable, albeit flawed, entry in this iconic series.

Rating: 4/5

“Did everyone see that? Because I will not be doing it again!” – Jack Sparrow (after jumping from a tall tower before it explodes)

And those are my thoughts on the Pirates of the Caribbean films. I recognize that I might be in the minority when it comes to those who do like these films (along with my pal Alex Corey; be sure to check out his reviews of these films over on his site), but I’d argue that these are still entertaining films despite some of their biggest flaws. Still, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal thoughts on these films. And you can expect a review of Dead Men Tell No Tales sometime this week. Until then, remember…

“This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow!”

Post Christmas Double Feature Short Reviews: 2014

Well folks, for the third year in a row, me and my co-panelist on ‘The Feature Presentation’, Matthew Goudreau, embarked on a cinematic double-header as we did our third straight post-Christmas double feature, as we went to go see a pair of potential award contenders yesterday, which has basically been the case with every film we’ve seen in this fashion since we started doing this. In 2012, we went to go see the musical epic ‘Les Miserables’ and Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, ‘Django Unchained’. Last year, it was Martin Scorcese’s hilarious, and in some cases rather underrated, black comedy ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ and ‘American Hustle’, the film that unfortunately I wasn’t as big a fan of compared to most critics; I was more in the line with the general reaction from most audiences. Like I did these last two years, I’m not going to do full reviews of these two films, only because I’m currently busy prepping my end-of-the-year ‘Best of’ list. So instead, I’m just doing a pair of quick short reviews for each of the two films that Matt and I watched yesterday. So, without further ado, let’s get started.

INTO THE WOODS

Disney has been known for some truly iconic movie musicals, from animated films like ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Frozen’ to live-action classics like ‘Mary Poppins’. Their latest musical, ‘Into the Woods’, certainly has quite the pedigree in terms of talent both behind and in front of the camera. It’s based off of the multi Tony Award winning musical of the same name by famous composer Stephen Sondheim and writer James Lapine. It’s directed by Rob Marshall, who helmed 2002’s Oscar-winning musical ‘Chicago’, and it’s got an all-star cast from top to bottom… and overall it’s a pretty damn good musical with stunning visuals and a nice light-hearted atmosphere that contrasts solidly with the darker turns of the second act. As some have joked, it’s sort of the fairytale equivalent of something like ‘The Avengers’ as it brings together many famous characters from classic fairytales, from Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) to Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) to Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone). It’s primarily focused around a Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) who embark on a journey to lift a curse of infertility that was set upon the Baker’s family years ago by an old witch (Meryl Streep) by bringing her four items; “a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn, and a slipper as pure as gold”. And while they’re on this journey, they come across all of the aforementioned fairy tale characters who just so happen to have the items that they need.

There’s been much talk about whether or not Disney would ‘tone down’ some of the darker parts of the musical, like the sexual undertones of the scenes between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf (Johnny Depp, who I kid you not is literally in the film for only about five minutes). And it’s true that certain parts were definitely toned down to maintain a family friendly PG rating. But, for the most part, I think it’s for the better. While the story certainly does get dark near the end, this is, for the most part, a fairly light-hearted story with a lot of humor and some fairly over-the-top moments but it’s ‘over the top’ in a good way as it’s a fairly heightened reality being that it’s a fairy tale. The musical numbers are solid and the cast is spot on from top to bottom. A lot of people have been focusing on Meryl Streep as the Witch and while she is great in the role, I have to say the biggest standout of the cast would actually have to be Emily Blunt as the Baker’s Wife, as she provides a much more ‘down-to-earth’ persona compared to most of the other characters in the story. My only real complaint about the film is that sometimes it feels like the story rushes through some moments, like when Jack climbs the beanstalk. I mean, this was probably the case with the musical as well but I do kind of wish that we could’ve gotten to see some of these moments. Still, ‘Into the Woods’ is a solid musical and while I can’t really say how much it stays true to the original musical due to the fact that I haven’t seen it, I have the feeling that this film at least does it justice.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE IMITATION GAME

Then we have ‘The Imitation Game’, based on the true story of Alan Turing, the famous computer scientist who was one of the key figures in cracking the Enigma Code of Nazi Germany during the Second World War by developing a special deciphering machine known as the ‘bombe’ that could encrypt these secret messages much faster than any human can. This story is truly fascinating and in some cases fairly sad due to some key events that happen near the end. I mean, this was a man whose work saved countless lives during World War II and, as some have predicted, it shortened the length of the war by at least two years. And yet unfortunately, in 1952, he was prosecuted for being a homosexual, a way of life that was outlawed in the UK at the time. He died only two years later in 1954 on account of suicide, and it wasn’t until recently (just a year ago, in fact) when his work was finally given the proper recognition it truly deserves. With that in mind, this is without a doubt a must-see ‘true story’ film as Turing was a man who truly left a major impact on all of our lives. You know those devices that you and I use every day… computers? His work is what laid the groundwork for that technology and the fact that he was prosecuted just for being gay (which is just total BS) makes this film even more important in today’s society, where currently only 35 states in the U.S. (and the District of Columbia) allow same-sex marriage.

The main highlight of this film is easily Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance in the role of Turing. I can definitely see a bit of Cumberbatch’s version of Sherlock Holmes in this performance as both men have this sort of awkwardness to them. But while Sherlock is more confident in what he’s doing despite the fact that he seems awkward and strange to everyone around him, Turing is fairly shy in terms of his awkwardness, which makes sense due to the fact that he’s holding in a big secret from everyone around him. Keira Knightley is also superb here as well as Joan Clarke, a fellow code-breaker who Turing gets into a romantic relationship with before finally revealing his secret to her. Not only are the performances great, but the film is really captivating as we see Turing and his team in a race against time to break the Enigma Code as they only have a set amount of time each day to figure it out before it switches at the end of the day. All in all, ‘The Imitation Game’ is a well-acted and well-directed film that truly shines a light on a man who thankfully has begun to receive the recognition that he truly deserves and the struggles that he went through near the end of his life will certainly resonate for many people today.

Rating: 5/5!

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) review

Author Tom Clancy, who sadly passed away in October of last year, has left quite an impact on pop culture. His novels featured tales of military espionage set during or after the Cold War and 17 of his novels have become bestsellers. He has also lent his name to multiple video game franchises, including ‘Splinter Cell’, ‘Rainbow Six’, and ‘Ghost Recon’. Some of his stories have been adapted to film, with most of them focusing on the character of Jack Ryan, a CIA analyst and occasional field operative. This character had previously been portrayed on screen by Alec Baldwin in ‘The Hunt for Red October’, by Harrison Ford in both ‘Patriot Games’ and ‘Clear and Present Danger’, and by Ben Affleck in ‘The Sum of All Fears’. In this new film, which serves as a reboot for the franchise (its second after ‘Sum of All Fears’), Star Trek’s ‘Captain Kirk’, Chris Pine, stars in the role of Ryan and the film is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who as a director landed a very big hit back in 2011 with ‘Thor’. As for this film, it’s not exactly perfect (what more should you expect from a film that came out in the ‘dead month’ of January?) but it is still pretty entertaining mainly thanks to its cast which help this film manage to ultimately overcome its shortcomings.

Compelled to serve his country after 9/11, student Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) joins the Marine Corps but his time as a soldier abruptly comes to an end after he nearly dies when his platoon’s helicopter is shot down. While in rehab, he is recruited into the CIA by agent Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) as an analyst. Ten years later, Jack, while undercover as a broker on Wall Street, discovers a potential terrorist attack that could weaken the market, eliminate the value of the dollar, and lead America into a second Great Depression. After Harper promotes him to the position of operative, Jack heads to Russia to meet with Viktor Cheverin (Kenneth Branagh), a businessman whose directly involved with this plot. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when Jack’s girlfriend Cathy (Keira Knightley) is brought into the situation and he is forced to reveal to her what his ‘real’ job is having kept it secret for years.

Now I’m not too familiar with this franchise as a whole, but from what I can gather, the appeal of the character of Jack Ryan is that he’s an everyman. He’s someone who gets into incredibly dangerous situations even when they are more than he’s used to handling. But at the same time, he’s not like some invincible superhero without any flaws. Overall, I’d say this film succeeds at making the character of Jack relatable to the audience. He is in way over his head and while it may seem like he is able to get out of most situations that come upon him without any major problems, the character still has a very down-to-earth and likable personality. Chris Pine does a very good job in the role. It doesn’t require the ‘cocky’ attitude of a character like James T. Kirk, but Pine still manages to be a charming lead. Kevin Costner (who’s having quite the career resurgence lately after his excellent performance in ‘Man of Steel’) and Keira Knightley also do good jobs as well, although Knightley’s role leans toward ‘damsel in distress’ territory near the end of the film. At the same time, she does get involved in Jack’s work at one point and the two of them have really good chemistry so it’s not like she’s just there to be Jack’s love interest. Finally, in the villain role, Kenneth Branagh also does a good job as well; his character can be both menacing and yet charming at the same time.

However, as a director, Branagh still isn’t used to directing an action move yet. In ‘Thor’, it wasn’t really too much of a big deal when it came to the action sequences, but some were shot in that close-up, quick edit style that some action movies tend to use. The same scenario applies here; most of the action scenes are shot close-up and use fast edits. Like in ‘Thor’, it’s not too much of a problem but at the same time it shows that Branagh needs to improve as an action director. On that note, the film itself also really doesn’t have a ‘definitive’ action sequence. There are a couple of car chases and some one-on-one fight scenes but I can’t really say that any of these scenes really stood out. It’s sort of your basic spy thriller; a good and entertaining one, but pretty basic as far as its execution is concerned. Maybe under a different director, the action scenes could have been better and some of them could have really stood out. In the end though, that wasn’t the case with this film.

I was a little hesitant about this film being pushed back to January because, as we all know, January is not exactly the best month for movies and that was a little worrisome considering the talent involved on this film both behind and in front of the camera. However, in the end, this is one of the better films that have come out during this month. At the same time, though, it makes sense why this was released at this time because overall this film is just good, not great. That’s not to discredit this film by any means. It is a very entertaining spy thriller that benefits from having a solid cast, namely Chris Pine in the lead role. There is potential in this franchise but at the same time, there’s also room for improvement. Branagh is a good director, but as an action director, he still needs to work on just that… action. This film lacks a definitive action sequence, and some of the action sequences are shot in the close-up, quick edit fashion. Still, I can see this becoming a franchise. I would just suggest that the studio try and find a director who is more suited to the action genre.

Rating: 3/5