Directed by: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Chloe Moretz, Jonny Lee Miller
Rated: PG-13 for comic horror violence, sexual content, some drug use, language and smoking

Once upon a time, there was a soap opera called “Dark Shadows.” I grew up hearing about it, but never saw it myself. I caught the short-lived revival starring Ben Cross, but found it uninspired. Now Tim Burton brings us a film based on the original, with a fabulous cast led by Johnny Depp. Given the enormous popularity of the original series and of Johnny Depp, it should be a slam dunk — but it’s hamstrung by a dreadfully inconsistent script. Good acting and gorgeous visuals can overcome a lot, but not a five-minute-long “balls” joke.

We learn the history of poor, tormented Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) in an extended prologue — his family moves to the US in the 1700s and creates a fishing empire, he rejects the amorous intentions of a family servant, the servant turns out to be a witch who curses him to be a vampire, he winds up imprisoned and buried. In 1973, he’s released and finds his once-wealthy family has been driven nearly to bankruptcy by the onetime servant, Angelique (Eva Green). The family, consisting of mother Liz (Michelle Pfeiffer), daughter Carolyn (Chloe Moretz), uncle Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), and young cousin David (Gulliver), live in the rundown family mansion and have retained the services of a psychiatrist (Helena Bonham Carter) and a governess (Bella Heathcote) in addition to their two incompetent servants.

Barnabas is determined to make the family great again. Angelique, tired of being the only powerful immortal in town, is determined to make him her partner in business and in bed — even if that requires threatening him and his family. Add in the psychiatrist’s desire to understand Barnabas and some mysterious supernatural happenings around the children, and you have what should be a potent recipe for a good film.

Unfortunately, “Dark Shadows” never quite strikes the right tone. It has moments of camp, but also moments of seriousness; it has moments of genuine horror and pathos, and then there is the aforementioned “balls” joke, which is only one of a number of very juvenile and silly attempts at humor. Too much is made of Barnabas’ “fish out of water” status, with constant, eyeroll-inspiring jokes about his unfamiliarity with the trappings of the 70s and modern social mores.

It’s a shame, really, because everything else about the film is delightful. The special effects are impressive (except where they are clearly overdone on purpose, like with Depp’s makeup and fake pointy-ears). Burton excels at creating gorgeous, weird settings, and Collinsport is no exception. Depp and the rest of the cast look like they are enjoying themselves. There’s even a cameo from horror legend Christopher Lee to enjoy. But it’s not enough.

“Dark Shadows” isn’t irredeemably bad, but it’s difficult to watch it knowing what could have been. It’s a wasted opportunity which will likely please neither the young Depp fangirls nor the older generation who were fans of the original.

Written & Directed by: Joss Whedon
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Clark Gregg, Samuel L. Jackson
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference

“The Avengers” has been a long time coming. Starting with the post-credits scene in 2008′s “Iron Man” and through the four following movies (“The Incredible Hulk,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” and “Captain America”), expectations around this film have been building slowly but surely. There was a lot riding on this, and it does not disappoint.

“The Avengers” has a host of characters to deal with, but writer-director Joss Whedon is an expert at juggling ensemble casts. He doesn’t waste time giving everyone’s back story — each hero gets a little introductory scene, but that’s it. To make a long story short: Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has an army of aliens and wants to take over the world. The only people who can stop him are the mismatched and mutually-antagonistic Avengers (Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner). The team gets off to a rough start — Thor’s first interaction with Iron Man is a knock-down drag-out fight — but eventually they have no choice but to work together.

In spite of being packed wall-to-wall with action and plot, the film’s nearly two-and-a-half-hour runtime feels much shorter. The pacing is solid, the fights are exhilarating, and the dialog is so sharp that it never feels like it’s dragging. If anything, the biggest flaw in “The Avengers” is that it may not be very accessible to folks who haven’t seen the other films. It isn’t necessary to know everyone’s backstory to enjoy the fights, but it’s hard to appreciate the character interplay without it — and the character relationships are one of the best things in the film.

Take, as an example, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. They bond immediately because of their mutual love of science, but there’s more to it than that. Each of them had their lives changed by a sudden, irreversible accident and gained both power and challenges from the experience. Banner handles his resulting dark side a lot better than Stark does (the specter of Stark’s alcoholism has been haunting the Iron Man franchise), and it’s clear that Stark admires him for it. Being who he is, Stark shows that admiration by constantly teasing, needling, and startling Banner. The rest of the team take it as an irresponsible attempt to get Banner to Hulk out, but it’s easy to see that it’s more than that, that he’s showing that he trusts Banner to keep control.

The central relationship of the film, though, is between Thor and Loki. The estranged brothers’ past is what sets the plot of “The Avengers” in motion. Loki’s lifelong feeling of being less-than is what motivates him to unleash his army on the Earth in an attempt to take over. It’s clear from the start that Thor still loves his brother, still wants him to come home to Asgard, but Loki is determined to get a throne for himself rather than go back to playing second fiddle to the heir to Odin’s throne.

A superhero movie stands or falls on the strength of its villain, and Loki is able to hold up a film with four movie franchises’ worth of heroes. He’s a complex villain with many facets, from hurt little boy to master manipulator, and Hiddleston juggles them all with ease.

The other element that can make or break a superhero flick is the special effects in its fight scenes, and “The Avengers” doesn’t disappoint there, either. The alien army arrives in what appear to be flying lizard-aircraft-carrier-ship-things, which roar and fly heavily around the city as the soldiers zip around on airborne jetskis. The motion capture used to create the all-CGI Hulk is impressive, and he’s utterly believable even as he’s climbing up buildings and slamming aliens around like rag dolls.

Even better, the fights are edited and choreographed in such a way that it’s not only clear what’s going on, but everyone gets roughly equal time. Considering that for the final fight the Avengers’ ranks have swollen to six, that’s more than a little amazing. There are loads of wonderful little moments, but none of them feel tacked-on or forced. Nothing is wasted.

“The Avengers” may be a little impenetrable to newcomers, who will have to buckle in and hang on for the ride, but for those who have been watching the movies as they came out and eagerly awaiting the culmination of all this careful setup, it is a thoroughly satisfying and epic movie.

Directed by: James McTeigue
Starring: John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve, Brendan Gleeson
Rated: R for bloody violence and grisly images

“The Raven” is one of those movies that never quite seems to figure out what it wants to be. Is it a gothic thriller, all period costumes and hushed terror? Is it a splatter movie, like so many modern horror films? Is it a black comedy? A silly, over-the-top piece of camp? Sure, plenty of movies manage to be more than one thing at a time, but “The Raven” tries to be things that are incompatible, and winds up being nothing at all, just a jumbled mess of a film. I suspect the reason can be found in one simple fact: it was directed by James McTeigue, whose last film was the trainwreck “Ninja Assassin” — a flick with the same problems.

It’s a shame, really. The plot is ripe with possibility: famed author Edgar Allen Poe (John Cusack) is in Baltimore when a serial killer obviously inspired by Poe’s own macabre tales begins cutting a bloody swath across the town. Poe must work with gifted Baltimore Police Detective Fields (Luke Evans) to catch the killer — a mission made even more urgent when Poe’s beloved Emily (Alice Eve) is kidnapped by the murderer.

“The Raven” fails in attempting to have something for everyone. There are scenes of the sort of existential terror so familiar to Poe fans everywhere (there’s a long, lovingly-shot sequence of a terrified young woman being buried alive that is shot with the kind of sadism Poe brought to tales like “The Cask of Amontillado”). There are also impressively gory, disgusting sequences — if you’ve ever wondered what “The Pit and the Pendulum” would look like in real life, if it were set up by someone impatient (the blade drops entirely too quickly between swings), prepare yourself for fountains of CGI blood.

At times, the film almost feels like there were two versions of it made, and sometimes the editor grabbed the wrong reels of film. The version that is all spatter and horror and gore is handicapped by the long, slow interludes from the version that has witty dialog, a well-crafted and slowly-developed rapport between Poe and Fields. The slow, thoughtful version is handicapped by the fact there is no character development for Emily (she and Poe have absolutely no chemistry, and it’s impossible to tell what they see in each other except that her father hates him and she’s beautiful).

You can’t have a thoughtful, interesting thriller in which the camera lingers lovingly on someone being slowly sliced in half by a clockwork mechanism. You also can’t have an effective splatter-flick in which there are long, slow interludes of period drama. It’s jarring, hopping back and forth between the two. There are even moments that almost seem spliced in from yet other versions. A campy flick in which Poe is a widely-reviled drunk with delusions of grandeur (Cusack really looked like he was having a blast in those scenes, it’s a pity there weren’t more). A beautiful costume piece that includes a masked ball in which everyone wears gorgeous period costumes.

Worse, the mishmash of genres isn’t even edited together well. The pacing is incredibly uneven, to the point that the film seemed to be racing toward its climax several times, and the ultimate showdown is so anticlimactic that even one of the characters comments on it. The running time is about an hour and forty minutes, but it feels a lot longer.

“The Raven” could have succeeded just fine had it picked one path and stuck with it. Instead, it almost seems to be trying to have something for everyone — and it winds up being enjoyable for nobody. It’s too gory for the audience that would have liked the thoughtful thriller. It’s too dull for the splatter fans. It doesn’t even succeed as an enjoyably terrible movie. It’s just bad.

Directed by: Drew Goddard
Written by: Drew Goddard, Joss Whedon,
Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Brian White
Rated: R for strong bloody horror violence and gore, language, drug use and some sexuality/nudity

Some movies lend themselves to reviewing, and some don’t. Last week’s “Lockout” was a straightforward flick to write up. “The Cabin in the Woods” is anything but — it has a very specific, narrow audience and you’re either in it or you’re not. If you are, you probably know it already and saw the flick the day it opened. If you aren’t, then you don’t really need me to tell you to avoid it.

“The Cabin in the Woods” opens with two fairly official-looking fellows getting their day started in some sort of governmental facility. Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) have been working toward this day for a long time, everyone in the installation is keyed up, and they’re all determined to do a good job. Meanwhile, a band of teenagers are gathering and heading up to the titular cabin in the woods — there’s Curt (Chris Hemsworth), the jock; Jules (Anna Hutchison), the hot blonde; Marty (Fran Kranz), the goofy stoner; Dana (Kristen Connolly), the serious and artistic gal; and Holden (Jesse Williams), the new guy.

The “teenagers go to a remote location, awaken something terrible, and horrible things ensue” story is a familiar one, and there are loads of hat-tips to other greats in the genre (as well as to other types of horror movie, from Japanese horror to monster movies, and even “Back to the Future”), but “The Cabin in the Woods” is about something else altogether.

If you’ve seen even one or two standard horror flicks, nothing that happens in the film is really much of a surprise — but even so, half the fun is watching the mystery slowly unfold, so I won’t give you any further details on the story. It’s a very meta film, a movie about movies, so let’s talk about it in a more meta sense.

“The Cabin in the Woods” is sort of like “Scream” taken to the next level. It’s the “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” of horror movies, it’s “Community” with actual gore and death. There’s so much to unpack that it’s suited more to criticism than reviewing. Yes, the effects, acting, and other technical aspects are top-notch, but that isn’t what makes this an interesting film.

It’s a commentary on horror movies, on our fascination with watching teenagers do stupid things and get themselves killed, on the way we flock to watch horror movies even when they’re essentially the same thing over and over. And yet, at the same time, it’s a ripping good ride! You don’t have to get all (or even half) the references to enjoy it, but it definitely rewards an encyclopedic knowledge of horror movie tropes. There are tons of tiny details that reward the attentive viewer.

Whether or not you will you enjoy “The Cabin in the Woods” depends heavily on whether you enjoy this kind of genre-savvy storytelling. It’s not so graphically violent as to put off those fans of meta (or Whedon) who aren’t into horror, but it’s self-analytical enough that if you find that sort of thing grating it will probably bother you. If, however, you’re a Whedon fan, into self-aware fiction, and like to laugh, do not miss it.

There is a special place in my heart for films that know exactly what they are and set out to fulfill their destiny with utter enthusiasm. “Lockout” is in that class of film. It knows it’s a B-movie sci-fi action flick, and has no pretensions otherwise. There’s no subtlety here, the film is predictable right down to much of its dialog, and the action and one-liners are slathered on thickly.

The story, in a nutshell, is this: in the not-too-distant future, the President’s daughter is held hostage on a prison in space, and a rogue CIA agent must rescue her.

The agent, Snow (Guy Pearce), has been captured for a crime he (of course) didn’t commit. He’s the best they’ve got, but he’s a loose cannon. You can tell, because he wears a t-shirt that reads “Warning: Offensive.” The President’s daughter, Emilie (Maggie Grace), is idealistic and naïve, but also able to hold and accurately fire a machine gun (prompting Snow to crack, “I thought you were a Democrat!”). The baddies are led by a pair of British criminals, Alex (Vincent Regan) and Hydell (Joseph Gilgun) — who are, respectively, the intelligent, calm sort and the insane, loose-cannon sort. No points to you if you guess why Alex puts up with Hydell when the lunatic keeps messing up his plans. Snow also has to deal with Agent Langral (Peter Stormare), head of the Secret Service, who doesn’t like him but is willing to give the ridiculous rescue plan a shot.

The space prison is created mostly with cheesy CGI effects from the outside and with lots of rambling tunnels, hallways, and shafts folks can fall down on the inside. There’s no real sense of where you are, but that’s irrelevant. It’s disappointing that the film’s effects aren’t better, but it does have the single most important thing a film like this can have: a lead actor who looks like he’s actually enjoying himself. Pearce throws himself headfirst into the ridiculousness that is “Lockout” and never once seems to feel embarrassed by its predictability.

The action sequences are enjoyable, and include gunfights, hand-to-hand combat, knife fights, and the use of in-reach blunt objects like fire extinguishers as weapons. The cinematography for the fights is good, as well — there’s a mix of the up-close-and-handheld filming so popular right now and longer shots that let you keep track of who’s hitting whom and who is actually winning the fight.

Really, if you’re reading this review trying to decide if you want to see “Lockout” or not, the answer is probably that you don’t. This is a movie whose target audience watches its trailers or reads its plot summaries and mutters, “hell yes!” If you’re only on the fence because you aren’t sure if it will be awesomely bad or just plain bad, be reassured that it’s awesomely bad. If you’re on the fence because maybe, just maybe, “Lockout” transcends its genre and has things like character development and a hole-free plot, you will be disappointed.

Directed by: David Foenkinos, Stéphane Foenkinos
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Francois Damiens, Bruno Todeschini, Melanie Bernier, Josephine de Meaux, Pio Marmai
Rated: PG-13 for some strong language

There are certain sweets that suffer if you gobble them down, they’re best enjoyed slowly. If you don’t let their subtle, quiet flavors have time to mix and expand, they barely taste sweet at all. If you do, though, they’re a delight. “Delicacy” is the film version of that sort of sweet — it’s simple, quiet, and at times even a bit strange, but if you give it time to work its magic, its charm is inescapable.

Bird-like Nathalie (Audrey Tautou) and handsome, romantic Francois (Pio Marmai) are young and in love, freshly married, talking about children — and then there’s an accident, and he’s gone. Nathalie throws herself into her work, much to the dismay of her loving friends, family, and coworkers. After years of solitude (and of eluding the machinations of her lecherous manager), she finds herself drawn out by a man who is practically Francois’ opposite: Markus (Francois Damiens), a lanky, lumpy, balding Swede who is her subordinate at work. She’s unsure of whether to try to move on with Markus, or stay with what she knows: isolation.

Markus sees himself falling for his unavailable, remote boss almost immediately, and does his best to fight it, even going so far as to turn and sprint away when the Eiffel Tower lights up behind Nathalie just so after an evening out and it’s all too romantic for him to cope with. He doesn’t want to have his heart broken, but can’t stop himself from falling.

“Delicacy” takes its time, showing us just how happy Nathalie was with Francois before she was widowed, and building not only her character but the characters around her in small, simple ways until we know them. Tautou is older now than she was when “Amelie” put her on the American film radar, and if anything it makes her face even more expressive. She can show us exactly what she’s thinking with just a glance.

Damiens is fantastic as Markus, a man who is about as ordinary as they come on the outside. Her friends and coworkers don’t understand what she sees in him, and at first, neither do we — or Nathalie herself, for that matter. It’s not until we, and Nathalie, get to know him better that his subtle spark of awesomeness peeks into view.

“Delicacy” is not a film of sweeping melodrama, political thrills, or witty banter. It is, pure and simple, the story of a beautiful woman who finds her way back from crushing grief. It’s charming, and seems out of place at the box office, like a lone subtle sweet in a box of See’s Candy. If you’re looking for big bangs, literal or emotional, this is not the film for you, but if you want to slow down and let yourself thoroughly enjoy a quiet tale, do not miss it.

Firstly, a confession: I have not read “The Hunger Games” books. This is actually something of an advantage, going into a movie adaptation without knowledge of the original material, because I can’t be disappointed by bad versions of favorite scenes or saved from confusion by having read the book. Unfortunately, it means I can’t really tell you how the film compares to the book. What I can tell you is that it’s a solid and exciting movie.

Our setting is the future, apparently after an apocalypse. As punishment for a rebellion decades ago, each of twelve districts are required to give up one boy and one girl aged 12 – 18 to fight to the death in the annual Hunger Games. The Capitol, where the games are organized, is full of high fashion and high tech, but the district our heroine, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), comes from is all filthy coal mines and half-starved people. When her sister’s name is drawn to be sent to the Games, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), the young man chosen from her district, are sent off to be groomed and trained.

Lawrence gives us a Katniss who is mature beyond her years but experienced only in the hardscrabble life she comes from. She practically raised her younger sister after her father died and her mother fell into a depression, finding the family enough to eat by sneaking out of the district grounds and hunting with a bow in a nearby forest. It’s refreshing to see a female teenager who is more interested in survival than in finding a boyfriend, who is skilled in survival and determined to make it back to her family by any means necessary.

It’s easy to read “The Hunger Games” as heavy-handed: just on a fairly surface level it’s an indictment of reality TV, the cutthroat nature of adolescence and high school, and the disparity between rich and poor. What saves it from being a crushing two-by-four of symbolism to the side of the head is a combination of solid casting and well-paced suspense. It’s easier to ignore the glaringly obvious social commentary when you’re caught up in the excitement of how on earth Katniss is going to survive a situation that’s essentially “Lord of the Flies” on steroids.

The one time the adaptation process made the film a little clunky is a subplot of unrest in the districts, which seemed unnecessary for a self-contained film already long at over two hours. Knowing, however, that the unrest is a major part of the story in the other books, it makes sense to include it here to set up films of those sequels.

The only thing the film does very, very badly is the cinematography during action sequences. There’s way too much hand-held jigglycam, and it’s very difficult to enjoy the stunts and choreography when you’re unable to see much besides blurs. I survived “Cloverfield,” but there were scenes in “The Hunger Games” that made me seasick.

That aside, if you’re looking for a grim action flick with a strong female protagonist, do not miss this. “The Hunger Games” is not for those with soft hearts — don’t be fooled by the PG-13 rating into thinking there aren’t gruesome, visceral deaths of youngsters here — but it’s a very satisfying tale.

Disney has a knack for producing movies that aren’t terribly demanding, but are very entertaining for kids of all ages, including grown-up ones. “John Carter,” loosely adapted from the Edgar Rice Burroughs book “A Princess of Mars,” is just such a flick. If you’re the kind of person who can’t set aside science and enjoy a grand adventure on the surface of Mars, this is not a movie for you.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Civil War veteran who winds up transported to the surface of Mars — which, far from being a lifeless, airless rock, is a planet home to several warring factions of aliens. Carter is found by the Tharks, who are enormous, six-limbed, green barbarians. They stay out of the affairs of the other species, keeping mostly to their own warlike pursuits and internal conflicts.

Elsewhere, the villainous Sab Than (Dominic West) has been systematically taking over or destroying the other city-states of the planet. The last remaining holdout is Helium, but when its ruler is offered a truce on the condition that his beautiful daughter, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), marries the dastardly conqueror, he accepts. Dejah flees, hoping to find an alternative solution to end the war. What she finds is Carter.

This is a movie that would not have been possible even a few years ago. It relies heavily on CGI, and because the state of the art has progressed so rapidly, it’s actually fairly easy to buy into the world the film creates, complete with giant aliens and ships that sail on light. The CGI-created creatures are sufficiently different-looking from humans that they avoid the creepy, dead-eyed look so many quasi-realistic CGI humans have, and are actually likeable.

It probably helps that director Andrew Stanton (who also co-wrote) has worked on several other CGI films, including the Toy Story movies, “Finding Nemo,” and “Wall-E.” “John Carter” is a bit more mature than those films, but it has the same sense of wonder and is a straightforward, enjoyable ride of a movie.

The pace is fast enough and the story simple enough that there isn’t really room for character development, so all that is really required of the actors shown on screen is that they interact realistically with their CGI costars and deliver their lines in a way that is believable. Kitsch and Collins handle this admirably, and if their romance isn’t terribly believable, it’s mostly the fault of the script, which doesn’t give them much to work with.

Ultimately, this film succeeds because its goals are so straightforward. This is not a political thriller, character drama, or philosophical treatise, it’s a sci-fi/fantasy action flick, designed to entertain, and it does that admirably. The action sequences are exciting, the aliens are fascinating, and although at times it’s not terribly clear where the story is going, if you have faith that it will ultimately hold together, you won’t be disappointed.

And that means coverage on The Cineblog!

Woo! This week and next, no regular reviews, just Cinequest coverage. Go check it out!

There’s a certain pleasure in seeing a familiar job done well with a slightly new mix of tools, and that’s just what “Safe House” is. There’s not much new about this CIA double-cross story, but the setting, actors, cinematography, and story details are a new combination, and it’s enjoyable watching familiar gears mesh and turn in the new setup.

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a young CIA agent stuck in a dead-end job: housekeeping. He spends his days sitting in a safe house in South Africa, keeping things ready in case the Agency has someone to bring in. After more than a year bored out of his mind, he gets more action than he can handle: notorious rogue CIA agent Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) has resurfaced after a decade under the radar and the safe house he’s brought to is Weston’s.

The interrogation conducted by the escorting Agency team (led by Robert Patrick — it’s a pleasure seeing him on the big screen again) is interrupted when mercenaries blow down the door and try to capture Frost. Weston knows his primary responsibility is the safety of the guest in his house, so he takes Frost and runs.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that not everything is what it seems, and Weston is in way over his head. Frost gives the young man an education in the realities of working for the Agency while following his own mysterious agenda.

The mentor/student relationship underlying Weston and Frost’s enmity seems likely to parallel real life here, with the very experienced Washington sailing calmly through his role while Reynolds, no slouch himself, struggles to keep up. Washington’s performance is as casual and spot-on as Frost is himself, and it’s a joy to watch the way his light touch brings the enigmatic Frost to life. Reynolds is solid, and handles the transformation of his character from untested rookie to experienced agent well.

The requisite car chases, gunfights, and hand-to-hand showdowns are all top-notch, and closeups are blended with enough long-shots that you can mostly tell what’s going on. That aside, the biggest weakness of the film is its cinematography. If you don’t like hand-held camerawork, low-resolution film, and frequent low lighting (to the point that the audience sometimes can’t see much more than the characters can), “Safe House” will drive you batty. It adds to the grittiness and immediacy of the film, but makes it much harder to enjoy the performances, stunt work, and fight choreography.

If you’re a believer that there’s nothing new under the sun, and that’s just fine with you, “Safe House” is likely to satisfy. It’s like ordering macaroni and cheese at a new restaurant — you aren’t expecting many surprises, but that isn’t why you chose that dish, now is it? You ordered it because you like macaroni and cheese. If you like your movies new and surprising, or if spy action thrillers aren’t your cup of tea, stay away.