Mission: Impossible III (Abrams, 2006)

“Mission: Impossible III” doesn’t waste any time with pleasantries. As the film opens, we are immediately thrust, unprepared, into the action. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is strapped to a barber chair, his arms and legs bound. His face is beaten and bloodied; his skin is clammy with sweat. His wild, misted eyes are staring at someone off-screen.

“Where is the rabbit’s foot?”

It’s Owen Davian (played by the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman, a far cry from last year’s “Capote”), the suave and ruthless villain of the film. He’s holding a gun to the brunette head of Hunt’s pretty new wife, Julia (Michelle Monaghan), his face placid as he stares Hunt down. And then he starts counting.

“One …”

Ethan Hunt, secret agent extraordinaire, has returned for the third installment of the “Mission: Impossible” franchise – but this time, it’s personal. Davian, an arms-dealer whom Hunt failed to capture in the first act, has nabbed sweet young Julia (whose disturbing resemblance to Katie Holmes did not go unnoticed by me) and run off to Shanghai with her. If Hunt doesn’t retrieve the “rabbit’s foot” within 48 hours, he will find himself suddenly single. This gets Hunt all misty-eyed and angry (oh, Tom Cruise is so good at being misty-eyed), and it really pisses him off when he learns that his own agency, the IMF (Impossible Missions Force), might be involved – specifically his superior (Laurence Fishburn).

“Mission: Impossible III” is a vastly different film than its predecessors – chief reason being its direction by television big-shot J.J. Abrams of “Alias” and “24” fame. I’m hesitant to say that the action in this installment is realistic, but the stunts might as well have been choreographed by Newton himself as compared to the campy car chases and fight scenes of “Mission: Impossible” and “Mission: Impossible II.”

The film hasn’t strayed too far from its roots; the ridiculous face masks have returned for a third run (hey, they didn’t work in the first two films, why shouldn’t we use them here?), and Abrams has decided to stick with the obligatory “twist” at the climax of the movie involving the masks. Though cool in theory, the face masks just come off as moronic and corny. Yes, Tom Cruise is wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask now – but where did he get those extra pounds? No disrespect to Hoffman, but he doesn’t exactly have Cruise’s lean physique. The masks succeed only in digging a few more deep holes into the Swiss-cheese surface of the plot.
But it’s not like the plot is why you’re watching this movie in the first place, and the fast-paced action and chase sequences more than make up for any misgivings in the story.

In one spectacularly intense scene, a jet and a helicopter full of Davian’s men attack a bridge – very similar to the one in “True Lies,” actually – on which Hunt and his team are traveling in a convoy, detained Davian in tow. Cars explode, portions of the bridge collapse and Hunt and his team are forced to play medic to the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. The scene is fantastically paced. We’re finally coming out of the “slow the action down, let the audience take it in” stage that films like “The Matrix” put us in six years ago, and we’re returning to the “give it to the audience fast, fast, fast – don’t give them time to recover!” method of filmmaking.

There’s a shot – you’ve probably seen it in the trailers – where Hunt is bolting across the bridge. A missile decimates the vehicle behind him, and the force of the explosion flings him into a nearby car like a rag doll, shattering the windows. Then a jet rockets past the frame, almost too fast for the eye to detect, and Hunt is on the ground, prone and covered in shards of glass. It all happens in a span of about two-and-a-half seconds, and it’s fantastic. No slow-motion for this mission, just fast-as-all-hell intensity.

Other insane action scenes include a rescue mission, an infiltration of the Vatican in Rome, a skyscraper base-jump, and a hectic chase and fist-fight in Shanghai. The film isn’t lacking in thrills by any means, and the tone is one of danger and espionage, as opposed to a focus on crazy-fast motorcycles and death-defying stunts (“Mission: Impossible II,” shame on you).

Though the film has its holes, though Hoffman’s villain is criminally underused and even though we never learn exactly what the “rabbit’s foot” actually is (an excellent case of a MacGuffin – a plot device that creates motivation for the characters, but doesn’t add any relevance to the story), it takes a lot of hard work not to enjoy “Mission: Impossible III.”

The Final Verdict: 7/10

The declining box office and why it's hurting me inside

Dear readers: I am very pleased. I know, I know – you’re used to “Grumpy Elitist” Matt, not “Content Enthusiast” Matt, right? So why am I so cheerful?

Is it the fact that my girlfriend is now an employee at Regal Cinemas, Longston Place and I’ve lately been enjoying movies free of charge? How about because The Grand Cinema will be screening Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times” this Sunday? Could it be because I’ve recently learned that Roger Waters, the former bassist/vocalist of Pink Floyd, will be playing KeyArena this fall? Is it because George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford finally approved the story for “Indiana Jones 4?” Or maybe it’s the approaching release of the “Dark City” director’s cut, or the new “Blade Runner” DVD?

Definitely, they’re all contributors to my happiness. But this time of year – the months of May, June, July and August – is an especially exhilarating time for me. It’s the summer movie season, people! And I’m psyched. Seeing phenomenal trailers for films like “Superman Returns” (which is gradually becoming my most anticipated summer flick), “X Men: The Last Stand,” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” makes me all anxious for the sunshine.

It’s like Christmas for me – if Christmas was four months long … and a little warmer.

But this summer, I can’t shake an issue that’s been irking me. My excitement for the coming of the blockbusters is tainted by a few mounting concerns: The decline in box office earnings, the lack of interest in film and the waning dedication to the cinema experience.

People just aren’t seeing movies with the frequency and numbers they used to, and it’s hurting the industry.

Just two weeks ago, for instance, “Mission: Impossible III” opened. It’s an action-thriller, brimming with guns, explosions and plenty of car chases. It’s also starring Tom Cruise, who is almost a lock with any box office – couch-jumping and placenta-eating aside.

So why did it flounder so badly?

“Mission: Impossible III” brought in a measly $48 million in its opening weekend. That may sound like a lot – and believe me, for some films it is. But this flick is the summer movie season header. It’s the first in a long line of “blockbusters” due out in the next few months. This movie should have been making twice that in its opening weekend. It’s ridiculous. If “M:I:3” couldn’t break $100 million, whose to say “The Da Vinci Code” or “The Omen” will fair any better?

This seems to be a disturbing trend. Take 2005’s “King Kong.” It cost over $300 million to produce Peter Jackson’s spectacular epic, and it opened to a lukewarm reception of $50 million. It took a successful overseas release to push it over $150 million. And what got it over $200 million? DVD sales – “King Kong” made almost $30 million in DVD rentals and purchases.

That’s the main excuse I get from people. “I’ll just catch it on DVD,” they say. Don’t get me wrong, I love DVD – it’s such a fantastic technology, and we’ve only scratched the glossy surface of its potential (see the upcoming Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats). But the accessibility it offers – the ease with which people can buy, rent and trade them – is a hindrance to the box office.

For movie fans that don’t necessarily need a giant screen to enjoy their films, DVD is excellent. With HD televisions, surround-sound systems and discs with picture quality that rivals the cinema, the home is becoming the ideal film-viewing environment. Skip the lines, the tickets, the ridiculously overpriced concessions, the crowds (or lack thereof, I suppose) and watch movies in the comfort of your home. And with the inception of NetFlix, you don’t even need to leave the house to rent them.

Movies are just a mailbox trek away. DVD is getting more and more convenient, and the theater is becoming more and more of a hassle.

In some ways, this accessibility is incredible. Never before in the history of film have movies been so readily available to anyone – you can even walk around with movies in your pocket, thanks to portable media players like Zen and iPod. It’s a great time to be a film fan. But should we be substituting the experience of seeing a film in the theater with the ease of watching a movie at home?

The two mediums have actually begun to compete with one another, believe it or not. Why should this be the case? Is it the four discs worth of commentaries, behind-the-scenes footage and deleted scenes? Is it the obligatory “unrated” version, with five minutes of additional boob footage and penis jokes? It’s absolutely insane to think that a future DVD release of a movie is actually competing with the present theater release, but it’s happening. It’s happening all too often, and the film industry is paying for it.

There’s a simple solution – it’s almost too easy. It’s called supply and demand, and theaters aren’t adhering to it very well at all. It’s pretty straightforward: lower ticket prices and the crowds will come – whatever funds you lose by dropping the prices, you’ll more than make up for in sheer numbers. I’m not too keen on paying $8.50 for a movie, and judging by the waning box office earnings I’ve been yapping about, the general public isn’t either. The Grand Cinema charges $7.50, and I’d definitely spend a bit more time at the theater if Regal followed suite and dropped the price of admission by a dollar or two.

But that would just make too much sense, right?

School of Rock (Linklater, 2003)

"School of Rock" is a very predictable film. It's a comedy, where a guy (mind you, a guy who has failed at life thus far, but will be turned around by the love of children by the end of the film) pretends to be something he's not, is found out after the charade goes bad and is removed. But everyone still love him for who he is ... and he's welcomed back into a compromise and everyone's happy.

All that aside: I absolutely love this movie.

The man with a crappy life is Dewey Finn (Jack Black -- the man), a failed rock star down on his luck. Short on his rent, unemployed and recently kicked out of his band, Dewey has hit rock bottom. But Dewey hatches a brilliant scheme to pose as a substitute teacher. It's an easy gig -- watch a bunch of brats for a few hours and get paid $650 a week to do it. But Dewey finds something else in that classroom -- the heart of rock n' roll.

"School of Rock" is a wonderfully entertaining film, with great comedic performances from Black, Joan Cusack and Sarah Silverman. It's one of the best "kid" movies to come around in years. However, it's very loosely a kid's film. It's rated PG-13, and it's a little raunchier than your average Disney fodder. But it's by no means inappropriate -- in fact, I'd say it's vastly more enjoyable for the family because of the rating. The kids get a good laugh, and the parents get a good chuckle.

It's a very accessible film. Definitely a top-notch foray into the world of rock n' roll.

The Final Verdict: 8/10

Inside Man (Lee, 2006)

I've got to be honest: as "Inside Man" began, I wasn't impressed. We've got your basic bank robbery plot -- an intelligent criminal mastermind formulates the perfect plan for robbing a bank. He's got followers, trained to follow his scheme exactly. He's got uniforms, masks and disguises, to keep from being indentified by the police. He's got hostages and guns and hi-tech equipment that knocks out the cameras.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the film -- because I was pleasantly surprised by "Inside Man." What begins as your stereotypical bank robbery film (which, by the way, you can predict exactly), turns into a tangled, twist-a-minute story of wealth. "Inside Man" keeps throwing curveballs through its entirety.

Dalton Russel (Clive Owen) is the brains behind the operation -- he sets in motion the robbery, along with his trusty henchmen. Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is the Detective who arrives on the scene, along with his partner (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and a police captain (Willem Dafoe). On the outside, the bank robbery seems traditional. But there's something deeper ... something much deeper behind the heist that isn't revealed until the very end.

"Inside Man" isn't an action movie. There's no car chases, shootouts or getwaways. It's a smart thriller that kept me guessing, and a great flick. I did feel that it dragged on a bit near the end, and the climax was a big drawn out. But the movie is otherwise enjoyable.

The Final Verdict: 7/10

Thank You For Smoking (Reitman, 2006)

In "Thank You For Smoking," a film based on the book of the same name, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart, fresh off of 2003's horrendous camp-fest "The Core") is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry -- an industry that kills over a thousand people everyday. Nick finds it a breeze talking his way out of any situation, even when confronted with a teenage cancer patient on a daytime talkshow, whose life was ruined by cigarettes.

For all his charisma, though, Nick can't resist the charms of a pretty investigative reporter (Katie Holmes), and he tells her absolutely everything about his job -- the death toll, his personal feeling towards cigarettes, even the details of his meetings with other members of the MoD (Merchants of Death) Squad. When the slanderous story hits the press, Nick has to deal with the consequences of spilling the beans and come to terms with himself and his reltionship with his son (Cameron Bright).

"Thank You For Smoking" is a wonderfully crafted film -- it's fun and smart, riddled with wry humor and satire. Eckhart is great as the professional BSer, a charismatic but troubled individual who thinks of his job as a necessary evil (as he puts it, "You gotta pay the mortage"). There's also a slew of fantastic supporting performances from the likes of William H. Macy, Maria Bello and Robert Duvall.

The film is infinitely enjoyable, a very charming piece of cinema. Though Nick works for and supports a corrupt organization, whose products kill millions a year, we can't help but sympathize with him when he gets into trouble. At his core, Nick is a good guy -- a loving father, a caring friend and a smart individual. Much like 2005's "The Weatherman," we're supplied a flawed leading man who finds himself through the course of the film and accepts who he is.

"Thank You For Smoking" is a hilarious film with great dialogue and amazing performances. It's a breath of fresh air among the oncoming wave of summer blockbusters.

The Final Verdict: 7/10