2015: The Year in Film: "Spectre" Review

Daniel Craig's run on James Bond has been pretty darn great, guys. It includes the absolute best Bond film of all (Skyfall) and absolutely raised the bar for what the franchise could be. Combining Bond with director Sam Mendes (who's responsible for American Beauty among other terrific work) led to the triumph that was Skyfall, a film that managed to pay homage to decades of Bond films while creating a visually stunning, emotionally powerful masterpiece of the action genre. So when it was announced that the follow-up to Skyfall would return Craig, Mendes, and all of the principals responsible, expectations were sky high, along with fan anticipation.

Spectre finds agent 007 going off the books in an effort to avenge the events of the previous films in Craig's Bond run and track down the people he believes to be truly responsible for all that has happened and been done to him since Casino Royale. In typical Bond fashion, he's trotting the globe from exotic locale to exotic locale as he discovers that the plot may go far deeper, and far older, than he ever could have thought.

The Good: Craig was born to play Bond, and he slips into the role effortlessly. Even the worst Bond film imaginable would be watchable if it featured Daniel Craig in the lead. Mendes brings his trademark polish and beauty to the film, and it features a few spectacular scenes, particularly the opening 20 minutes or so in Mexico City.



The Bad: in many ways, I'm convinced that the people involved took everything good about Skyfall and drew the exact OPPOSITE conclusions that they should have from how well-received the previous film had been. Skyfall features an enemy with ties to Bond and the British secret intelligence service. So does Spectre. The previous film features threats to Bond's continued operation and the survival of his program. So does Spectre. Skyfall features a battle close to home as everything that an outgunned Bond holds dear is under siege. So does Spectre. The problem is that everything Skyfall did so well, Spectre does in a meandering, roundabout, reductive and unfortunately all-too often boring way. It's overlong, overstuffed, features needless twists and turns and features lazy and preposterous action sequences. In a lot of ways Bond is, at its heart, absurd. However, Spectre takes this absurdity and runs 1000 miles in the opposite direction from the more realistic and Bourne-esque action sequences that had characterized the best part of Craig's Bond run up to this point. JAMES BOND SHOOTS DOWN A HELICOPTER WITH HIS PISTOL. It is as stupid as it sounds. The film took the time to cast the usually outstanding Christoph Waltz as Bond's potential nemesis and he turns out to be a whiny, entitled brat. Yawn. Fresh off of a charismatic, often hilarious and star-making turn in Guardians of the Galaxy, former WWE star Dave Bautista is cast as... a wordless brute. Ultimately, the potentially exciting status quo that existed at the end of Skyfall is wasted in a rehashed snooze-fest that seeks to culminate Craig's Bond run and instead throws the whole thing into doubt.

Ultimately, what we have here is a movie that's been "mailed in" from the top on down and as a result isn't even fun to watch. Mendes, Craig, and everyone else has made a Bond movie that commits the worst of all possible movie sins: it's boring. It's time for new Bond blood. Or even better, let's just stop making Bond flicks for a while, guys.

5/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Skyfall" Review

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.

8.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" Review

Wow. I suck guys. More than a month with no posts? Well, I saw this one a healthy week ago and intended on getting it up right away but damn things like "Holidays" and "responsibilities" got in the way and RUINED EVERYTHING. But here I am, and for all outward appearances, one could reasonably conclude that I'm a groupie for these stories, I've read all three books, seen the Swedish flicks, and now here I am seeing the American version. Steig Larsson's "millenium trilogy" has more or less swept the world, but I promise I don't like the story THAT much. With that being said, I don't know that there's been a better combination of director and material than David Fincher and Steig Larsson's novels. The books are bleak, twisted, violent and dark, and Fincher often flashes a nihilistic, gritty, violent streak in his work. While Fincher is undoubtedly a strong director with a striking visual style and unquestionable artistic skill, his flicks are often hit or miss for me, missing as often as not for a variety of reasons. We have Alien3 (miss, but not his fault), Se7en (hit), The Game (hit-ish), Fight Club (hit), Panic Room (miss), Zodiac (miss-ish), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (miss) and The Social Network (hit) - so Fincher is 4-4 going into this one. This is no easy task, making this flick. The books are widely beloved, and the Swedish flicks are strong to quite strong, the first installment especially, and probably better cast, at least upon first glance. So let's review this thing, shall we?

These books are popular for a reason, especially this first installment, combining the brutal violence of a crime drama with computer hacking technobabble, political and family intrigue and a healthy dose of sex. In addition, the titular "girl" with said tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, is a unique and compelling protagonist. She's somewhere on the spectrum with a past of emotional, physical and sexual abuse and manipulation, but is also an uber badass, so it combines to create some sort of hacker antiheroine who you can't help but find yourself drawn to. The other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, is basically a fantasy version of the author of the series. He's a crusading journalist who brings down whole institutions through his quest for truth and justice, and who all the ladies can't help but bed. It's infantile when it comes down to it, but it's all in good fun.

So here's the set-up, Blomkvist has just been found guilty in a libel trial in Sweden for certain unprovable allegations made against a titan of Swedish industry. His magazine is floundering and he finds himself broke and facing the prospect of jail time. He is approached by a mysterious potential employer, an aging Swedish patriarch whose family owns one of the largest firms in the country, and who finds himself obsessed by a haunting and peculiar mystery that is now more than 40 years old. Meanwhile, Salander uses her hacking skills to be the star investigator at a security firm, while she faces difficulty (to say the least) with her state appointed guardian (she was declared insane as a youth after a horrible act of violence that will be elaborated on in later installments). Eventually Blomkvist seeks help investigating his murder mystery, and is led to Salander, who did a very thorough investigation on him for his new employers. The two join forces, and that, folks, is the basic skeletal outline of your story.

Fincher and the screenwriters made a very good decision in choosing to keep the story set in Sweden. It very easily could have been bastardized and transplanted to the US for American audiences, but this is one case where the setting and rather unique nuances of the Swedish climate and past enrich and assist with the action of the story. When it's boiled down, this story is basically your classic Agatha Christie-style murder mystery dressed up for our modern day and age, and the harsh, dark, cold climate and characters only add to the sense of tension and dread. This flick looks great.. and that's always been Fincher's strong suit, but he certainly does not disappoint here. Most of the flick was shot on location in Sweden, and the sense of pervading cold and isolation is really enhanced through Fincher's visuals and the often haunting and dark score (Fincher brought back NIN's Trent Reznor for another collaboration after last year's Social Network).

But when it comes down to it, this is a flick and a story drawn by characters. A disproportionate amount of time is spent watching characters obsess over books or diaries or pictures or computer screen, and the actors have to be compelling for that to work, or else it ends up looking preposterous. I must admit I had reservations on both main characters, for a number of reasons. First, Blomkvist is a journalist who never displays overly physical characteristics and as a matter of fact is overwhelmed a number of times throughout the books. In addition, he's a 40-something journalist. Daniel Craig is James Bond.. and he's absolutely jacked. I don't think bookish journalists have 10-packs. So I was concerned that Craig wouldn't be able to tone down his machismo for the role. Likewise, Mara, in her first major role, had to slip on some major shoes here, and do a lot of the heavy lifting without much dialogue. It didn't help that the actors who played the characters in the Swedish flicks were damn great. But, both were very, very good and completely demolished all of my concerns, especially Rooney Mara. She brings a smoldering rage and determination to the character, completely making you forget that she's actually an adorable little heiress. Craig dials down the confidence and masculinity enough to make the whole thing believable. I felt like he should have gained 20 lbs and put on a paunch just to add to the authenticity but oh well. Chris Plummer is great as Henrik Vanger and (Swedish!) Stellan Skarsgard is very good as the current President of Vanger industries.


All in all, this flick worked for me. It's often rather intense (one scene of violence in particular), dark and twisted, making it right up Fincher's alley. Fincher's visuals give the flick an often haunting quality, which fit the subject matter beautifully. The cast doesn't get overwhelmed by the intricacies of the plot or the showy visuals, and you never forget that these characters are people first and foremost, with fears and relationships. Even having read the book and seen the Swedish version, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.. I'd think that having NO familiarity with the story and the characters would probably make it even better.

8.5/10