So it's pretty fair to say that Daniel Craig has been a damn fine Bond. One of, if not THE best is the general consensus. It certainly helps that the film series has aged beyond the silly sci fi gadget-obsessed nonsense of the latter Bronson films and into a gritty quasi-realism MUCH more befitting a post-9/11, post-Bourne film world. "Casino Royale" is a real gem among Bond films and does an amazing job both establishing Craig as the new 007 and updating his world into a modern, believable post Cold War spyscape. The Craig series was briefly derailed with a slight misstep with Quantum of Solace, which lacked a charismatic villain or an easily comprehend-able plot, both hallmarks of the Bond series, and along with a bankruptcy from MGM, left the Bond series in hiatus for a time. In steps Sam Mendes, unarguably one of the finest filmmakers working today, to resurrect 007 just in time for the 50th Anniversary of the series. Mendes might have directed some things you've heard of, having done movies called "American Beauty", "Road to Perdition" (in which Daniel Craig played a supporting role oddly enough), "Jarhead" and "Revolutionary Road". So popular action is a serious departure for a filmmaker whose career to this point has consisted primarily of awards bait.
Skyfall opens with Bond on mission with another agent. At this point he's the finest agent in all of MI6 and a close confident of director M (Judi Dench). After a botched mission results in the presumed death of Bond and the scandalous release of the identities of undercover operatives of NATO intelligence services, M and MI6 in general find themselves up against the wall. A revenge-obsessed former agent left for dead begins an all-out assault on M and MI6 as Bond struggles to get himself back to full strength.
The Good: First, as I said above, Craig is absolutely pitch-perfect as James Bond. He brings a needed gravitas and physicality to the role while retaining the charm and humor that we've come to expect from 007. The supporting cast is great as well, with Javier Bardem being alternately frightening, charming and unhinged as a former MI6 agent obsessed with bringing down M, and Judi Dench slipping into the comfortable shoes of M without a hitch. Newcomer Ralph Fiennes (low level HoB "boy status") assumes a role that will have him returning for other films is, as always, great. Visually this film is spectacular. There are a number of shots in Shanghai that are simply incredible... a battle in a glass high rise in particular. Mendes brings an artist's eye that really brings a new element to what could have been a relatively straightforward action flick. The plot, by and large, makes sense and is plausible, even despite employing the old Hollywood trope of being able to control everything via "hacker skills". Casting Bond and MI6 as outgunned and outmanned was an interesting turn, and allowed Bond to really shine as an innovator and all-around badass. Plus, this being the 50th anniversary of Bond, this one really referenced some classic Bond moments and scenes in a fun and deferential way.
The bad: Casino Royale was only 6 years ago, and it was presented as a Bond origin story. In this flick, Bond is presented as old and getting towards washed up. Is the operational effective life of an MI6 agent really only 6 years? I know that Craig as an actor is getting older, in his mid 40's, but if that's the case, why present him as a new agent in Casino Royale? Either way, that's seriously my only big criticism.
All in all this is a film that is visually thrilling, well crafted, well written, tremendously acted and an all-around good time at the movies. Craig and Bardem really bring their A-games, and for my money, this is the best Bond flick of them all. We really need to continue this trend of combining top flight directors with action scripts, Hollywood.
So we don't watch too many cartoons over here at HoB. There are a number of reasons for this, not all of them related to me being a curmudgeon, but most of them related to a general corncob kid sensibility that fills the vast majority of your Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks fare. I get that for children it's funny when a dog farts or whatever.. but for me, a somewhat adult, it's groan inducing. It's become common among moviegoing young person types to praise Pixar above all others, but even Pixar movies oftentimes have a hard time rising above their ultimately kiddie sensibilities. Think of the dogs in Up or the fatty humans in Wall-E if you don't believe me. And yes, I understand that the movies are intended to be able to be enjoyed by children and adults alike. I get it. However, for me personally, if your movie is jam packed with kiddie goodness, I'm just not going to enjoy it. I'm sorry, cartoons, it's not me, it's you. I like movies where people say "fuck" and kill each other while speaking in suave witticisms the way nobody does. It's my own little cross to bear. So, with that disclaimer in mind, I was bribed to see "Wreck It Ralph" despite my warning my companion that I almost never like cartoons. [Note: exception to be made for the Disney Robin Hood movie] So let's check it out.
If I'm not mistaken this flick is Disney animation trying to be Pixar. (Correct me if I'm wrong) For the most part, they succeed in that ambition, and Wreck-It Ralph (despite being a preposterous title for anyone with a "that's what she said" juvenile sense of humor like me) employs one of the most original and fun premises of any movie over the past few years. In the world of Wreck-It Ralph, video games within an arcade are populated by living characters with feelings, thoughts, ambitions and motivations all their own. They go to work like any of us during business hours, but once the arcade shuts down, the characters are free to roam through the power cables into other games or common areas. As long as all of the characters make it to their own game for the opening, all is well and no one is any wiser. However, if they should be away from their game during business hours, the customers will complain of their absence and the game will be out of order. Very clever stuff, and the flick wisely uses the concept to hit you with a barrage of classic video game characters and games in the early going. Ralph is a (very) big, sweet guy whose "job" consists of destroying a building so that Fix It Felix can repair it. As such, he's feared and detested by the fellow characters in his game, and finds himself wanting more from his life. So Ralph decides he's going to make a change and get some of the star treatment that's been withheld from him all these years, and sets off from game to game to try to be a hero.
So how is it?
The Good: Ralph, especially, is a remarkably well-developed character. He has flaws and thoughts and hopes and dreams, yet remains grounded within the game from which he came. John C. Reilly could voice a lovable dope with a temper with his eyes closed, and Ralph really is a likable character. The supporting characters are developed to a lesser extent, but they are all given moments to shine and the flick uses their roots as video game characters to humorous effect. There are many homages to classic games, but more the style of games than anything, with characters moving and behaving in ways that any longtime video game will remember fondly. The flick really does a good job of creating a rich and realistic universe where these characters all live and interact both within and apart from their games. The plot is your typical "challenge, personal growth, triumph", but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The Bad: I felt the flick really wasted a lot of the potential from its premise by focusing almost exclusively on characters and games made up for the movie. I understand the challenges of using characters and properties owned by diverse companies and with potential film futures of their own, but after the first 20 minutes, it's like the flick forgot that these characters existed. That could have been a lot of fun, but ultimately it sort of sizzles out. Also, the film spends the last 2/3rds centered pretty exclusively in a Mario Kart style game called "Sugar Rush" that features children as characters and is candy-centric. Not necessarily a bad thing, but to me it felt TOO kid centered. Yes, I realize that it's a cartoon and geared for the 8-13 year old crowd, but this is my criticism and cartoons have successfully tread that line before. When you make a movie about video games, you're making that flick recognizing that you're aggressively courting an older male demographic... and some of the choices here were TOO safe and TOO child centered for my tastes. Just my criticism, y'all.
In all, Wreck It Ralph is cute and quite a bit of fun. It's got heart and features an incredibly likable protagonist. However, it wastes quite a bit of the potential of its premise by featuring pretty exclusively on fictional (made up for the movie) games and game characters and ultimately is TOO kiddie to succeed in the way that some of the best animated flicks of the last decade have. Watchable, and fun, but ultimately falls short. Oh, by the way, the animated short at the beginning, Paperman? So good. So, so good. Someone was cutting onions behind me, I think.
My original goal was to finish the novel before seeing this film, but I unfortunately failed at said goal, as I fail at many goals, including but not limited to "reviewing movies within a reasonable time frame of seeing said movies". Sigh. So I caught this one a few weeks back, and to be quite honest, my procrastination in bringing you this review has less to do with "being lazy" and more to do with "processing what the hell this movie is". The acclaimed novel by David Mitchell was said to be un-film-able, as it features 6 distinct storylines only tangentially related and separated by time, space, characters, genre, style and language. The sections span from the 1840s to the distant future and are only minimally related to each other. For example, in one section a character is reading a diary/travel journal published by a character in an earlier section. With this format, I was honestly more curious than anything else to how this movie could actually be executed.
In step the Wachowski Brothers, best known for creating the Matrix films and German director Tom Tykwer, probably best known for "Run Lola Run", to write and direct this adaptation. This film has been a passion project of sorts for this crew, who managed to finance this flick outside of the studio system and make the most expensive independently financed film in the history of movies. This film makes a lot of pretty daring and risky moves. First, rather than keep the sections of the story separate and arranged by time and place, the film smashes the sections into short segments, jumping from one time and group of characters to another without much of what seems like rhyme or reason. Second, they use the same actors to depict different characters in each different story, irregardless of ethnicity or gender. Which can get confusing.
Ultimately, this is a film that succeeds a lot more than it really has any business doing. It's a honker at 2 hrs 45 minutes, and often confusingly and inexplicably shifts setting and tone abruptly. Some settings and characters are significantly more effective than others, but the story in each of the sections develops somewhat simultaneously, building towards an emotionally effective and soaring crescendo of an ending. Visually, this is an impressive film. It looks amazing, and each section effectively differentiates itself from the others through color and cinematography. Despite being 6 short films smashed together into one large film, there IS an overreaching narrative that really comes through in the last act.
The acting is strong. Tom Hanks, especially, shows everyone why he's such a highly regarded actor, as he hasn't given us much reminder of that as of late. Jim Broadbent and Jim Sturgess are other highlights among the cast. Some characters are more interesting and compelling than others, but considering what the cast was tasked with doing, the fact that this film makes ANY sense at all is a testament to the talent of everyone involved. The directing is strong. Each section retains a distinct feel despite being rather randomly (at times) smashed together with the others.
This is a flick that's often confusing and will have you checking your watch more than once as you try and figure out exactly where the hell we are going with this. The visuals, insane editing, strong directing and strong performances make it worth watching, but the first two hours of the film can be frustrating. However, the last half hour of this flick is straight up great. It's as good as anything else I've seen in the movies this year, and alone makes this flick one worth watching. The conclusion is emotionally soaring and downright heart-rending as the story and theme all comes crashing down throughout the separate narratives. This film isn't quite as good or deep as it would like to be, but it's ultimately a rewarding, powerful and worthwhile film experience. Well worth a watch, if downright bizarre.
