“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” isn’t just a rip-roaring yarn worth seeing in all its IMAX glory. It’s the most eye-popping installment in a franchise overseen by some of the biggest directors in Hollywood.

Each “Mission” recruits a new director – should they choose to accept the assignment – to interpret the modern spy film as they see fit. This time, Pixar veteran Brad Bird (“The Incredibles”) got the nod. Seems he’s just as comfortable directing human beings as he is orchestrating ones and zeroes on a keyboard.

Yes, the “Protocol” story is sketchy, and you won’t be quoting any of dialogue as you file patiently out of your seats. But when an action caper delivers this much excitement, demanding more almost seems churlish.

Cruise’s Ethan Hunt opens the film trapped in a Russian prison, but one masterfully executed escape sequence later he’s back on the spy beat. His new team – Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg – end up getting blamed for a Kremlin bombing which disgraces their team’s good name. So Hunt and co. must go undercover – or Ghost Protocol, to be precise – to find a Russian in possession of nuclear launch codes.

Bird is only one movie into his live-action film career and he could already teach a seminar on action movies. His ability to instigate thrills, which he proved via the superhero antics in “The Incredibles,” doesn’t require shaky cams or other gimmicks.

You don’t have to shake a camera if you know how to use it.

Even jaded action freaks will clench their armrests as Hunt dangles from a skyscraper, his only tools a pair of “Spider-Man”-style gloves that just may be defective. Had “Ghost Protocol” only served up that exhilarating sequence audience could settle back in their chairs knowing they got their money’s worth.

Moments later, Hunt is at it again, chasing a baddie through a Dubai sand storm, and you’ll wish you could grab your own pair of goggles so you won’t miss a beat.

Bird deposits us directly into the action, whether it’s a worm’s eye view of Hunt racing away from the storm to Hunt’s team trying to save their embattled leader from plummeting to his doom.

Bravo, all.

The off-screen Cruise can be a tad … intense. Whether he’s jumping on couches or smiling just a bit too wide, he gives off a slightly creepy vibe. But those same attributes lend Hunt a near-supernatural ability to save the day. Cruise may be in his late 40s, but he’s as fit as any 20-something punk. He’s also gunning for that perky “Twilight” kid actor’s turf. It seems Hunt can’t keep his shirt on for very long.

Co-star Patton and Pegg make a fine support team, with her stunning looks and his knack with a punch line giving texture where the screen is often as smooth as a baby’s rump. Renner holds his own as an agent with a murky past, but the talented actor isn’t challenged nearly enough.

“Ghost Protocol” finds excuses to touch down in Russia, Dubai and India, just the sort of exotic locales the spy genre demands. The “Mission” is more Bond-like than “Casino Royale” or “Quantum of Solace,” brimming with gadgets that make the Sharper Edge catalog look like a stone tablet from “The Flintstones.”

The ending more than hints at future “Missions,” and if they can recruit Bird or an equally talented peer then why on Earth not?

In “Ghost Protocol,” the fourth installment of this 15-year-old franchise, Tom Cruise—short of hits in the five years since the last film in the series—returns as Ethan Hunt, star agent of the Impossible Mission Force, that U.S. government espionage squad dedicated to squashing colorful malefactors in picturesque locations around the world.

This time out, Hunt has a new team: brainy-hot Agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton, smart choice); displaced intel analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, over-qualified for this sort of exercise); and, also back again, tech wiz and comic-relief specialist Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg). Their target: nuclear terrorist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, of the Swedish “Dragon Tattoo” movies), whose rather Bondian ambition is to destroy the world and then rebuild it into a new, improved, presumably more Hendricks-centric society.

The story begins inauspiciously. Hunt is confined in a Moscow prison, for reasons we don’t learn till much later. Carter and Dunn bust him out, and they all set off in search of the nuclear launch codes that are a key component of Hendricks’ scheme.

Read the full review at Reason.com

First, Adam Sandler’s latest comedy, “Jack and Jill,” failed to measure up to his previous blockbusters. Over the weekend, the star-laden “New Year’s Eve” debuted at number one, but with a final tally of $13 million that few folks found impressive.

And Will Smith, arguably the most bankable star of his generation, has been MIA of late until the lackluster MIB3 trailer hit the Web today.

That brings us to Tom Cruise, the mega-star with the mega-smile. His latest film, “Mission:Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” opens in limited theaters Friday before going wide Dec. 21.

To say there’s plenty riding on the film for Cruise is a Hollywood-sized understatement. Should “Ghost Protocol” falter at the box office, it’ll be all the evidence needed that Cruise is no longer a box office draw.

One could argue we already got that proof with the 2010 actioner “Knight and Day.” an underrated spy caper which failed to crack the golden $100 million mark. But that film offered an original story that didn’t have any franchise tie-ins to goose ticket sales. The new “M:I” won’t have such excuses. Plus, this new “Mission” features red-hot actor Jeremy Renner along with rising star Paula Patton. The best asset Cruise has may be Brad Bird, the Pixar director making his live-action feature debut with “Ghost Protocol.”

It’s been ages, in pop culture chronology, since Cruise jumped on Oprah Winfrey’s couch. We’ve long since moved on from that ridiculous sight. What Cruise is up against now is far more formidable – the notion that audiences have simply moved on to other actors.

“I was dead set against it. I was horrified by the idea,” says Mangold, who would later go on to direct Oscar-winning films like ‘Walk the Line’ and ‘Girl, Interrupted.’ “He played a superhero so often. I didn’t want to make a movie about Judge Dredd.”

—–

Mangold graciously went to dinner with Stallone all the same and laid out his vision for the role.

“You have to let your body go. I mean let it go … gain at least 40 pounds” the director told the erstwhile Rocky Balboa.

‘He agreed immediately,” Mangold recalls. “He took the leap, and he delivered.”

Stallone’s sensitive performance in the tale of a New Jersey town teeming with dirty cops reminded us he’s more than just a slab of muscle for hire. The film, out this week in a Director’s Cut Blu-ray edition, also proved Mangold could handle a veteran cast led by Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro and Ray Liotta.

“I have a memory of being a young man with this ridiculously heady cast all around me… it’s like pretty big boots to be strapping on in your second movie,” he says. “It demystified working with really important actors.”

The film also taught him that his complete vision won’t always make it to the big screen.

The Blu-ray edition tacks on a few minor scenes cut for its theatrical release, including a moment where Stallone’s extra weight comes spilling out for all to see. The new version also trims away a few seconds he didn’t want in the film in the first place. The studio wanted to “wrap things up in a happy bow,” he says.

“It wasn’t the feel-good experience of the summer, so the cut got a little compromised,” he says.

“The movie was under so much pressure to be America’s next ‘Pulp Fiction.’ But it’s such a dark and sad tale, less jazzy and more of a kind of morality tale. It ends in a dark place,” he continues. “The star value got so high, and they wanted the grosses to be so high.”

Working with A-listers does come with a downside.

“When ‘Cop Land’ came out, a lot of daggers were out for Sly,” he recalls. “He had made a bunch of shittier moves, he’s the first to admit, that weren’t aimed for the highest result each time out.”

The ‘Cop Land’ Blu-ray includes a commentary track with Mangold, Stallone, co-star Robert Patrick and producer Cathy Konrad, as well as deleted scenes and a “making of” featurette. Mangold’s directorial career took off after the film’s release, veering from smart romantic comedies (‘Kate & Leopold’) to a celebrated look at the life of music icon Johnny Cash (‘Walk the  Line’). His next project finds him dabbling in Hollywood’s hottest genre – the  superhero epic.

‘The Wolverine’ casts Hugh Jackman once more as the hirsute hero with the adamantium claws. Mangold promises comic book fans the new film won’t resemble any they’ve seen before.

“In many ways what attracted me to this… it’s like the tentpole superhero movie is almost a cliché,” he says. “Hugh and I were most after making an original film.”

The superhero sequel will be based on the iconic Frank Miller series set in Japan.

“It takes place in an entirely different culture and fighting in entirely new ways,” says Mangold, who adds that he’ll be getting under the skin of the main character in ways past films couldn’t quite do.

“What’s it like to be immortal, to lose all the people you love and know you’ll keep on going? To have that kind of violence within you and turn it into good?” he asks before quickly assuring fans the film will still have some “kick-ass action.”

Mangold’s directorial career hasn’t always gone smoothly. Before his romantic comedy ‘Kate & Leopold’ reached the public, reporters were abuzz about the personal peccadilloes of the film’s leading lady, Meg Ryan. Last year, critics greeted Mangold’s action vehicle ‘Knight and Day’ with cynicism thanks, in part, to Tom Cruise’s fading star power.

The writer/director is learning to take it all in stride and trust what he puts up on the screen.

“It’s all about surviving the test of time in the end, not all about the opening weekend,” he says.

Has Hollywood finally snapped out of their wicked anti-American streak thanks to profits, Obama being in office, or a little bit of both? It isn’t a moral awakening, that you can be sure of.

DHD:

Christopher McQuarrie will write, produce and direct Rubicon, a new property that is intended to be turned into a movie, graphic novel and videogame. McQuarrie is directing Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in One Shot, but the project was announced at NY Comic-Con by coproducers Mark Long and Dan Capel. They describe the project as The Seven Samurai, set in Afghanistan with Navy SEALs as the heroes, and the Taliban the villains. Since Navy SEAL Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden, the SEALs have become the centerpiece of numerous feature films.

Full piece here.

—–

Now, understand that it gives me no pleasure to report that Terra Nova is off to a crappy start.  None.  Anyone living in California knows lots of people who work in the Industry, from crew to talent, who rely on production to feed their families.  We want shows to be great, to be hits, to run for years.  And none of them got up and said “I want to take an interesting idea and turn it into a hackneyed, tedious death march.” Well, maybe the writers and producers did – the vicissitudes of chance do not account for how they managed to hit every tiresome cliché and make every bad choice available every time.

The conceit of Terra Nova is that a bunch of people from 2189 are sent back in time from a polluted, fascist Earth 85 million years to restart human civilization.  They face all sorts of ferocious dinosaurs, which is cool, and that have all sorts of bitchin’ guns, which is also cool.  Steven Spielberg is involved with it, and once upon a time he made movies I actually liked.  Fox is spending a fortune on it.  It should be kinda interesting and kinda fun.

But no.

No, the premiere was a ponderous nightmare composed of the same cookie-cutter, lazy choices that have been wrecking such shows and movies for years.  Like the mega-disappointing Walking Dead, which somehow made a zombie apocalypse boring, Terra Nova has somehow done the same for another cool idea – this one being carnivorous dinosaurs. 

Terra Nova has done a lot of things wrong, though it did do a few things right.  But the premiere’s meh ratings, despite months of hype, showed that the creators better get a grip before the show joins its main attractions in extinction.  Here are some key takeaways from the endless two-hour premiere:

1. Enough of the Manufactured Family Drama:   Surprise – our hero has a family, and they spend all of their time talking about their feelings toward one another.  The father, played by Jason Mara, was in prison because the family had an extra kid and he only rejoins the family (after the world’s simplest maximum security prison breakout) as they step back in time.  So he has issues.  With his wife.  And his teen son.  And his teen daughter.  And his other daughter.  And they talk about them.  All the time.  Then they hug.  It all makes me want to projectile vomit.

Now, screenwriters, I know they teach you at screenwriting seminars that you have to create a rooting interest for the audience.  Okay, here, rooting for them to win the gunfights with the rampaging velociraptors is plenty interesting.  Interminable discussions of emotions followed by cuddling, not so much.

Why …. why …  does every show seem to have to focus on bizarre daddy issues?  I want an exciting, interesting entertainment experience, not to sit there watching you work out your personal psychodrama.  Just show me a tyrannosaurus biting a tank.

Remember 2005’s War of the Worlds?  It sounded great on paper.  You got aliens and Spielberg and special effects…it should have been awesome.  And what did we get?  We get this idiotic domestic drama with Tom Cruise arguing with a couple of urchins as they drive around the Eastern Seaboard.  Sure, he beat on Tim Robbins, which was cool, but otherwise it was like Are We There Yet? with an older, duller Maverick taking the Ice Cube role. 

—–

And I bet Cube would have spent less time bickering with the shorties and more time going upside some alien head.  Yeah, now that would have been the mierda.

Look.  There’s this stupid notion floating around out there in Tinseltown, promulgated by self-appointed script gurus and enforced by Hollywood suits whose only flair for creativity is within the realm of their personal debaucheries, that the focus of every story needs to be a loving family that fights then hugs.  Give me a freaking break.  That’s the same thinking that turned Super 8 into Super Suck.

Someone needs to dare to speak truth to hackery and say, “How about the story focus on something cool, like running from dinosaurs, without taking momentum-halting stops to work through abandonment issues every time something interesting is about to go down?”  Which leads us to the next point:

2. Can the Characters Not Be Idiots?  Characters doing dumb things, like going for a naked swim while Hatchet Boy is running around the abandoned summer camp, has been a cliché for decades.  In Terra Nova, it’s even more frustrating because it usually revolves around the same insane need to stop the story  every two minutes in order for a couple characters to hash out their stupid feelings. 

Someone is missing and needs to be found before darkness falls and the dinos come out to dine…what do you do?  Do you grab your rifle and join other trained warriors, moving quickly to locate and rescue the lost people, or do you get into a lengthy argument with your wife who isn’t a trained warrior but wants to come along anyway because…well, I don’t know…because fighting off carnivorous reptiles isn’t hard enough without bringing along some unarmed civilian to slow you down. 

Oh, and when you do find an injured person in the middle of nowhere, do you: A) Secure the wounded person, load her in a vehicle, and move out before the monsters come back or B) spend some time out in the open in the dark, lizard-filled forest discussing your feelings.  Well, if the answer was “A”, it would be Terra Awesome.

3. The Concept Is More Interesting Than Any Character:  Sorry folks, but I know that your gurus tell you character is everything, but this isn’t freaking Ingmar Bergman.  I’m not tuning in to delve deep into the psyche of… geez, I watched two hours of that show and already forgot the main character’s name.  Whatev.  I don’t care about the characters.  The concept is cool; if I want a character study, I’ll seek out a story that doesn’t involve time travel to the Jurassic Age.  You feel me?

Now, the concept is not just dinosaurs.  The idea of starting a civilization over could be really interesting if they started exploring issues like how society was organized, whether they would try communal living or a market, dictatorship versus democracy.  The focus on feelings overwhelmed most of it, but there were interesting hints at how this new society was forming.  Contributions seem to be made according from the ability of the colonist, while resources appear to be distributed according to his needs.  We call that communism; Hollywood people called that “Awesome…for you peasants.”

I wonder if the producers will have the guts to confront the failure of non-market economics in a way that the super-lame – and overtly fascist/socialist Star Trek: The Next Generation (Yeah, I went there Trekboys) – never did.  Probably not – Terra Nova’s executive producer Brannon Braga is a Star Trek alum.  So we’ll probably hear lots about a wonderful new world without greed or capitalism or stuff.   It’ll be a paradise, just like the pilgrims (whose name the series appropriates for the colonists) experienced in New England prior to introducing free enterprise.  Communism worked really well there, just like it has everywhere it’s been attempted.  At least, that’s what Chet the Unicorn told me.

4. There Are Hints of a Mythology Which Must Be Ruthlessly Suppressed:  Ever since Chris Carter’s The X-Files started the trend by weaving its detailed, incoherent, stupid back story into its episodes, every sci-fi/fantasy show on TV now has to have some elaborate and pointless mythology.  Mythology episodes are always death – you can tell a terrible X-File episode because it starts off with some portentous Scully monologue and inevitably ends up raising more questions and bile than it answers. 

Please don’t think we need that here.  You have man-eating dinos.  You don’t need an all-encompassing conspiracy by powerful forces that come together in a terrifying effort to occupy the imaginations of lonely 35-year old virgins with nothing better to do than think about TV shows.

5. There Are Some Good Things:  There are some things that deserve praise.  First, Stephen Lang as the dictator of the place is pretty awesome.  And his character is not what you expect – though he is on the cusp not only of a mythology plot line but one that involves his lost son.  Don’t.  Go.  There.

The dinosaurs are pretty cool, as are the rest of the special effects.  They’re not perfect, but who cares?  The set design and props are really good.  It would be nice, though, if those neat-o guns seemed to have any effect on the dinosaurs.  The characters get all Scarface on the  lizards, firing off long bursts of rounds that have about as much effect as a multi-billion Obama stimulus package.

And the politics do not (yet) make me sick.  I was busy complaining to my Hot Wife, so I missed what somebody told me was the shot showing that 2189 money had Obama’s face on the bills – that’s amusing.  I just wonder who gets his mug on the higher denomination, him or Jimmy Carter?

It’s so far not as eco-stupid as I expected.  The producers mention that “we” somehow ruined the planet, but they don’t mention or attribute it to the global warming scam, which was nice since I grilled some really tasty cheeseburgers right before and it would have been a shame to puke them up. 

Also, the fascist government that arrests people who have too many kids cannot be considered right wing – in fact, famed Chinese family planning fan and liberal fave Thomas Friedman would have approved.  So, at least for now, there was no liberal sucker punch. 

Perhaps Terra Nova will improve.  I hope so.  No one wants to see a show fail.  It certainly could be interesting.  For the viewers, it’s a cool concept and might be a fun diversion.  For the many folks on and off camera, it’s their livelihood.  This is not just a beat down for the sake of beating down an easy target.  This is a plea… to give us a fresh, exciting program that doesn’t spout the same hopeless clichés that have wrecked so many other movies and shows.  So, guys, get it together and cut the mierda.

Three was the best of the series and Jeremy Renner is certainly a welcome addition to any film, but CGI stunts that defy gravity and reality are starting to get pretty old. I count at least four times someone should die in this two-minute trailer. Heaven only knows what the final film will look like. After a while that kind of artificial invincibility begins to numb the senses until you get the feeling you’re watching someone else play a video game.

It would be nice if the franchise were to go back to the roots of the long-running television show where brains, cunning teamwork, and some terrific role-playing combined to create a sense of real suspense and excitement — as opposed to phony excitement enhanced by obvious CGI.

One reason, however, to scratch everything written above is that the director of this installment is the great Brad Bird, the unqualified genius behind “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille,” two of the best films of the last decade. Bird is a brilliant storyteller and director. I expect great things and will ultimately not judge “Ghost Protocol” by its trailer. The story look interesting, as well. High concept with massive stakes involving both the fate of the individual characters and, naturally, the fate of the world.

You gotta dig that theme song, though. Makes up for a lot.

“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” hits the big screen December 16th.

Why it’s a left-wing film

This is another in a long line of Hollywood films that qualify as a Cambodian Holocaust denier, something I elaborate more on here.

Using the true story of Ron Kovic, an all-American kid born on the 4th of July who grew up in Long Island during the idyllic 1950s and eagerly joined the Marines in order to fight for his country and against the scourge of communism in Vietnam, co-writer/director Oliver Stone is able to hide behind the credentials of an autobiographical true story in order to create yet another one of his deceptive soda straw looks at America’s role in defending the South Vietnamese from the communist North.

Through Kovic’s story we witness American Marines accidentally massacre an innocent Vietnamese family after panicking under the confusion of battle, the military cover up a horrible friendly-fire incident after Kovic mistakes one of his own men for the enemy, and Vets home from the war unable to psychologically make peace with themselves. Are these the truths surrounding the formative events that eventually helped to shape Ron Kovic into a high-profile anti-war activist? Sure. But in a larger historical context, it’s not the truth about the war or in any way representative of what really happened over there or how our military behaved. And yet, with rare exception, this is the only way this war and the brave men who fought it are ever portrayed on film.

The other benefit of choosing this particular story is how it allows Stone to tell his critics how wrong they are by cinematically molding those of us who disagree with him into someone who eventually comes to see the leftist light. Young, America-loving, communist-hating Ron Kovic represents everything Oliver Stone and the Left despise. What a pleasure it must have been for him to tear that persona down and rebuild him (us) into his own self-righteous image.

Using a true story or not, this is something Hollywood loves to do; haul out the template I call the He Who Believes In The Goodness Of America Template.

And it goes a little something like this…

When a character arrives on screen and makes clear that he believes in the goodness of America, Hollywood’s intolerant politics will only allow the arc of that character to rise in one of three ways:

1. He Who Believes In the Goodness of America will be revealed as the villain.
2. He Who Believes In the Goodness of America will be a liberal fighting evil conservatives.
3. He Who Believes In the Goodness of America will have that illusion shattered forever.

I’m not sure how effective this formula is in the real world, but anti-American filmmakers use it all the time. In this case, Oliver Stone cherry-picked a true story that already fit the template, Michael Moore frequently introduces us to those “who once believed in America,” and more recently there have been these kinds of characters peppered throughout the long string of box office flops released to undermine our troops: “Lions for Lambs,” “Green Zone,” and “In the Valley of Elah,” to name a few.

The sleight of hand at work here isn’t complicated. It’s based on the idea that in order to change minds the owners of those minds must relate to the central character. What better way to do that than to introduce us to a character just like us, who believes in the same things we do? And what better way to try and change what we believe in than by using the full force of motion picture propaganda to break down that character’s beliefs (our beliefs) after witnessing Hollywood’s version of the truth.

This is as sinister as it is obvious.

Why it’s a great film

Though it is obvious at times, and bombastic and self-consciously operatic at others, the film that won Stone his second Oscar for direction is an epic piece of storytelling. Aided by impeccable production design with an attention to detail that transports you into another time and place, John Williams’ evocative score, and a career-defining performance from Tom Cruise, you can’t help but get lost and caught up in main character’s journey. The scenes involving Kovic’s high school sweetheart are alternately tender and heartbreaking (especially when she sees him in a wheelchair for the first time); the long sequence in the Veteran’s hospital is outright harrowing; and the time in a Mexican brothel so visceral you can smell the desperation coming off the souls of the lost. You don’t have to agree with this character or the choices he makes, you don’t even have to like this character (I didn’t, though I did sympathize with him) to find fascinating and tragic the events and circumstances that had such a profound effect on his life and core beliefs.

And whether this was by design or not, one of the elements I most respect about the film is that Kovic is rarely portrayed as a likable character. His politics and worldview may change, but even as a young, gung ho, flag-waver, Kovic is an insufferable, sanctimonious prig. Whether he’s out to win the conference wrestling match as a clean-cut teenager or a hippie in a wheelchair shrieking at his mother in the hopes of exorcising his own pain and demons, Stone doesn’t shy away from the character’s less redeeming qualities. Kovic himself deserves credit, as well. He co-wrote the script.

In other words, “Born on the Fourth of July” is no hagiography. It feels true and authentic, more interested in the man than the agenda. The best example is probably the film’s most memorable and emotionally complicated scene; when Kovic visits the family of the Marine he accidentally killed to tell them a painful truth they might have been better off not knowing. This is an unbelievably selfish act on Kovic’s part and to his credit Stone makes very clear that the price of Kovic unburdening his guilt was paid for by a family who had found some peace in the belief that their loved one died a war hero.

When the credits finally roll after 145 minutes, Stone and company have done an extraordinary job at making you feel like a fly on the wall who was witness to two turbulent decades of American history. And, to be honest, you also feel a little manipulated. But that’s what great directors do and Oliver Stone is one of America’s great directors.

Gone with the Wind (1939), Star Wars (1977), The Sound of Music (1965), E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), The Ten Commandments (1956), Titanic (1997), Jaws (1975), Doctor Zhivago (1965), The Exorcist (1973), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1939), 101 Dalmatians (1961), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Ben-Hur (1959), Avatar (2009), Return of the Jedi (1983), The Sting (1973), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Jurassic Park (1993), The Graduate (1967), Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace (1999), Fantasia (1941), The Godfather (1972), Forrest Gump (1994), Mary Poppins (1964), The Lion King (1994)

If you said they all made scads of money, bravo — they are the top twenty-five domestic box-office champions of all time (adjusted for inflation, of course).

But consider another similarity: surprisingly few of them relied on established A-list movie stars — the most famous, the highest paid — for their moneymaking prospects. Gone with the Wind had Gable, yes. The Sting had Newman and Redford. The Godfather, Brando.

As for most of the rest, they either featured no A-listers at all, or used them before they became bonafide movie stars. In fact, many of those pictures can take credit for sending now-famous actors into the celestial Hollywood firmament in the first place. Gone with the Wind made Vivian Leigh known to the world. The Ten Commandments did it for Charlton Heston. The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman. The Godfather, Al Pacino. Star Wars, Harrison Ford. Mary Poppins, Julie Andrews.

Meanwhile, I note that Will Smith, the current top A-lister, is nowhere to be found on this rarefied roll call. Nor is Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Julia Roberts, or many others whose compensation has, at various times, made gasp-worthy headlines. Of the modern crop of top-salaried men, only Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, and wee Leonardo DiCaprio are up there, and only for movies where it can be argued that genuinely astonishing special effects and epic spectacle, brought to life by proven audience-pleasing directors, served as the real stars.

(It’s telling that four of those behind-the-scenes men — Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, James Cameron, and Walt Disney — are responsible for over half of the list all by themselves.)

Is this being too dismissive of the contributions of highly-paid thespians to a movie’s bottom line? I don’t think so. Do you honestly think that Jurassic Park suffered at the box office because Harrison Ford turned it down and was replaced by Sam Neill? Or let’s go straight to the very heights of heresy: if you took Gable’s indelible, iconic performance out of Gone with the Wind, or Brando’s out of The Godfather, and replaced them with other well-regarded actors, would the movies still have made that Top 25 list? If the presence of these vaunted personalities is so magical in and of itself, how does one explain all the flops starring these very same actors?

There are other considerations that trump the movie-star effect in terms of improved profits. Consider that eight of the top twenty-five films were rated G, and eleven PG (four others had a PG-13 rating, and a paltry two were rated R). It’s clear common sense: make a movie suitable for the whole family, and you’ve just doubled or tripled your ticket tally, not to mention all the extra popcorn, soda, and candy getting sluiced through the digestive tracts of America’s moppets in direct violation of nanny-state health doctrine. That’s not to say that there’s no place for R-movies, just that a film’s potential for profit should always remain a healthy multiple of its budget.

Given all this, it’s high time that the stumpy tail of A-list Hollywood stops wagging the studio dog. Ten or twenty million guaranteed, up-front dollars to an actor for any movie (much less an R-rated one) is fiscal insanity. It’s the quality and appeal of the movie as a whole that counts. Once one comes to grips with this, paying a huge salary to a well-known celebrity begins to seem like a far poorer use of a studio’s money than spending the same amount of dough on better special effects, larger advertising buys, a great script, and/or a quality crew of cinematographers, editors, sound designers, and musicians.

Patrick Goldstein, who gets a lot of criticism round these parts, wrote an excellent article last year about the trend towards reduced star salaries. Music to my ears. Movie stars will always be with us, and at their best they add a great deal to a film’s artistry. But perhaps they will once again assume their proper economic place in the hierarchy of moviemaking (less money, less creative control), allowing Hollywood’s much maligned product to get better as a result.

As noted above, things start out at an airport where our two protagonists meet for the first time. They’re supposed to be on the same flight but plans change when an airline employee does not allow June onto the aircraft. Consoling her, Roy says, “Sometimes things happen for a reason,” right before he boards. However, a few moments later, June is invited back onto the plane to Roy’s surprise.

The plane takes off and after flirting with each other, June heads to the restroom and Roy — who is actually a government agent — is confronted by a number of  passengers who try to kill him. June returns from the bathroom and quickly realizes…actually, she doesn’t realize anything until Roy tells her, that the pilots are dead (supposedly, she’s too self-absorbed to notice the other passengers have been killed).

Eventually, Roy lands the plane and directs June to forget she met him. Soon enough, government agents are questioning her, and Roy has to come to her rescue. The movie continues from there as June starts working with Roy without knowing whether or not he’s lying about being set up for a crime he says he’s innocent of. It seems that Roy has been “framed” for wanting to steal a powerful battery. Roy and June spend most of the plot trying to avoid both the government agents Roy previously worked with and other individuals trying to steal the this battery.

Cruise does a great job with his role. He’s smooth and charismatic and once again the cool action hero. I especially enjoyed a scene in a diner (which was previewed in the film’s trailer) where Roy quickly ingratiates himeslf with a friend of June’s, while June is trying to warn this friend that Roy is crazy.

Unfortunately, I was less impressed with Cameron Diaz’s role. June could have been written as a stronger and more interesting individual. But she’s relegated to flighty and unlikable, like Katherine Heigl’s role in the recent disaster, “The Killers.”

Additionally, “Knight and Day” is scattered with uneven pacing. Jumping from scene to scene and from location to location, the story does not flow well. One second, the characters have been kidnapped and then a few seconds later they’ve escaped. In one scene they’re being attacked on an island while preparing to board a helicopter, seconds later they’re safe. I wish the movie had focused more on longer action sequences rather than cutting to new scenes without resolving the old ones.

“Knight and Day” is ultimately a big disappointment for those looking for a good time. Paul Dano, who briefly appears in the film, is wasted, along with Diaz, who deserves better. Cruise does some good work but that’s ultimately lost in unbelievable plot twists and frantic pacing.

“Knight and Day” is a disappointment no matter when you see it.