Bond at 50 is Pure Gold: Review of SKYFALL

In 2006, Martin Campbell's CASINO ROYALE brought James Bond back with a vengeance. Daniel Craig, new to the role, put everyone's fears and apprehensions to bed and brought a much-needed dose of humanity and fallibility to the character. In 2008, Marc Forster followed it up QUANTUM OF SOLACE which was a decent film, but one that took itself way too seriously and didn't really provide the kind of action that fans of the films are used to. And now, in 2012, Sam Mendes (AMERICAN BEAUTY, ROAD TO PERDITION) brings Bond back to the big screen with SKYFALL. 

And IT. IS. AMAZING. I usually try not to utterly gush when reviewing movies on here, but this one deserves it. As an immense James Bond fan, I can easily say that this is the best Bond film to be released in my lifetime. I would almost go so far as to say it might be the best Bond film to be released in anyone's lifetime. As a Bond film, it has every single thing you want and it has them in spades. The action scenes are some of the most beautifully shot (cinematography by the impeccable Roger Deakins) and pulse pounding sequences I've seen in a long while. The score by Thomas Newman is absolutely stellar (including another fantastic credit sequences set to Adele's really well done Shirley Bassey throwback) and acting is superb. 

Daniel Craig finally feels completely at home as Bond and it really shines through with some great little ticks and impeccable timing, while still keeping that humanity he brought to the two films previous. It's clear now how much fun he has playing the role and it is a real privilege to see him do Bond the way he should be done. Albert Finney and Ralph Finnes also show up for brief roles (the latter in a more significant role) and bring their A-game as expected. Ben Whishaw's take on Q is also really spot on (though he does get a few clunker lines throughout) and Dame Judi, at her most Churchillian, is simply stunning. I mean, I know she's Judi Dench and she's amazing but wow does that lady have some major gravitas. 

And then there's Javier Bardem as the platinum blonde, highly eccentric, highly effeminate, highly disturbing Raoul Silva. One of my major complaints with the past two Bond films is that they just didn't have a classic Bond villain to latch onto. Sure, Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre in CASINO ROYALE was fine, but he just never did it for me like Goldfinger, Dr. No or the man himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld. That being said, with Raoul Silva, Javier Bardem has given me exactly what I wanted. He's a Bond villain for the 21st century. Silva is ruthless as hell, supremely intelligent (preferring to do his terrorism with hacks and viruses rather than guns and knives), and has no regard for the well being of himself or anyone around him. What Heath Ledger brought to the Joker, Javier Bardem brings to Bond villains.  He is so incredibly unnerving and yet at other points absolutely heartbreaking. He is just amazing and there is no taking your eyes off him when he's on the screen (especially two sequences in particular that will be etched into my memory forever). 

SKYFALL is amazing. Where CASINO ROYALE breathed new life into the franchise and took Bond to a place he'd never been, SKYFALL takes the classic films and translates them perfectly into the modern age. The locations are GORGEOUS and the action is fantastically riveting. The banter is back to full effect and is some of the best I've heard in a long time (thankfully PUN FREE). Bond has his necessary trysts with a few ladies, but the film handles it in a way that reduces the blatant misogyny to a minimum. And on that note, like all the best Bond films, SKYFALL realizes it's a James Bond movie (like it's predecessor sadly did not) and is actually able to laugh at itself and cause a few laughs while doing it. Sure, there are a few cringe-inducing lines of dialogue but the film knows they're cringey! It's got amazing actors and some subtle and not-so-subtle callbacks, none of which feel like simple pandering to fanboys. The plot is simple, but it's simple in all the best ways. With a Bond film (any action film, honestly) you don't need an intricate plot with lots of twists and turns. You just need some amazing action scenes, a great villain, some heart-racing music, and most of all you need James Bond at his most debonair. And SKYFALL simply has it all. 

He may be 50 years old, but Bond's never looked better. 

Attack of the Killer References: Review of FRANKENWEENIE

So, at this point  it feels like whenever the new Tim Burton movie comes out, anyone who reviews it or writes about it in any scope has to briefly touch on how Burton used to make good movies and how now (brown cow) he just doesn't. So here's me taking care of that: Starting with PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE in 1985 up until MARS ATTACKS! in 1996, Tim Burton made some really excellent movies. And, apart from BIG FISH in 2003, he hasn't really made a truly good movie since (even though I do have a personal attachment to SLEEPY HOLLOW from all the times I've sleepily, often times medicated, watched it in the middle of the afternoon on Sci-Fi). Now onto FRANKENWEENIE.

A stop motion animation retelling of Burton's 1984 short film of the same name, FRANKENWEENIE tells the story of Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) who's a young kid that loves science, making awesome monster movies, and especially his best friend (and best actor) Sparky the dog. Victor's parents (Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) love their son, but don't necessarily love that he spends so much of his time in the attic alone. So they make him a deal: join the baseball team and you can participate in the science fair. During his first at-bat, Victor unexpectedly hits a homerun and his ever faithful companion Sparky runs to retrieve his master's ball. Tragically, while bringing the ball back to the park, Sparky is hit by a car and is killed. Victor spends the next few days in a state of depression until his intense and menacing science teacher, Mr. Ryzkruski (otherwise known as "Mr. Rice Krispie" and voiced by Martin Landau), introduces the kids to the idea of electrical shock stimulating even dead tissue. Motivated by grief and longing for his lost companion, Victor attempts to harness the power of lightning to bring Sparky back to life. The experiment is a success! However, Victor quickly finds out that having a reanimated dog isn't as simple as he might have thought, and he has to deal with not only jealous (and incredibly creepy) classmates, but neighbors who would only see Sparky as a monster. 

As much as I really want to say it's a return to from, the closest I can get to is... almost. There are so many things to like about FRANKENWEENIE, however. The voice actors are great and the Danny Elfman score is superb as always. But most of all, no matter how bad a movie Tim Burton makes, he has, for my money, never made a bad looking movie. And FRANKENWEENIE is no exception. Burton's artistic vision puts some people off, but I have always considered it to be amazing to watch. The stop motion animation is always breathtaking, and the character designs are fun, really interesting and all unique (though the Frankenstein family could have used an extra dash of crazy). It's reminiscent of NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS and THE CORPSE BRIDE in all the best ways and served to remind me just how much I love stop motion animation. 

That being said, like Ridley Scott, Tim Burton is a visual artist first and foremost. Unfortunately, what that means is that the narrative often suffers in favor of the overall look of the picture. And though it doesn't suffer from this to a great extent, it's clear that the story was not the most important part of the film. Sure, the story is fine. Nice, quaint little tale about a boy and his love for his dog. There are also TONS of references to classic horror films  and classic horror film actors like Vincent Price and Boris Karloff. And there are also even subtler nods to Rankin/Bass stop motion films of the 60s and 70s, all of which pleased me to no end. That being said, the relationships between parents and their kids, as well as Victor and Mr. Ryzkruski and Elsa van Helsing (Winona Ryder) feel really underdeveloped and the story overall, while being fine, does nothing to establish itself as something truly special. 

And that's how I left the theater feeling. Happy that I watched a Tim Burton movie and didn't have to walk back to my room angry, but sad that it still didn't reestablish him as the overall talent that those movies between PEE-WEE and MARS ATTACKS! showed him to be. But FRANKENWEENIE is a short little piece with countless, fun references that's pretty enjoyable if not a little underwhelming. 

Time Travel Fries Your Brain: Review of LOOPER

Most of the people who will be reading this won't know who Rian Johnson is. But that's not an insult, as I'm sure even people who watch a ton of movies aren't completely sure who Rian Johnson is. Debuting to the public in 2005 with his gritty high school neo-noir, BRICK, Johnson has gone on to direct the 2008 caper film THE BROTHERS BLOOM and two episodes of the best show on television, BREAKING BAD. 

Now, I really enjoyed BRICK and absolutely adore THE BROTHERS BLOOM, but I was unsure if Johnson's style would ever translate into a film that would appeal to mainstream audiences. His films asks a lot from their viewers. You have to not only pay close attention so as to not miss any key elements that are casually mentioned, but his films really make you submit to the world they are presenting in order to get the most out of them. Some people just aren't willing to suspend their disbelief to that extent. 

So, needless to say when I saw that his newest film, LOOPER, about time travel and assassins and delayed suicide was slated to be a major release, I was worried. Luckily for me, with LOOPER, Rian Johnson not only confirms the already known fact that he's an excellent director, but also proves he can do an intelligent, thought provoking, big(ger)-budget action film that doubles as a fantastic popcorn-flick for any casual cinema goer.

LOOPER pretty much has everything you want. The crisp, snappy dialogue that made BRICK so fantastic is here again in full force. The cinematography by Steve Yedlin is impeccably executed, the makeup/prostheses/whatever it was to subtly make Joseph Gordon-Levitt resemble Bruce Willis is really unnerving at first but completely works once you get used to it, and the performances are top notch.

Gordon-Levitt as the younger Joe completely nails the pained look of bewilderment, slouchy walk, and wry smile that made Bruce Willis famous. Willis himself as senior Joe is also fantastic, doing some of the best work he's done in quite a long time and showcasing a wide range of emotion, from snarky superiority to completely devastated sorrow. Even Emily Blunt and the child actor Pierce Gagnon (who is AMAZING in a few scenes) both give top-notch performances with their comparatively small screen time. 

All this being said, however, LOOPER, like all of Johnson's films, is about the story. And the story here is extremely smart, clever, and most importantly fun. Though I won't go deeply into the plot as to keep it as fresh as possible for those of you who haven't seen it (Sorry for how late this review is into its run), it hinges basically on the fact that Loopers are hitmen in the present (the present being 2044) whose only job is to kill people from the future (where time travel has been invented) who are doing the future mob harm. Sometimes, however, the mob wants to "close the loop" and sends back the Looper's future self to be taken out (along with a sweet, sweet 30 year pension in gold). 

While, like most time travel movies, you can't really think too long and hard about the plot for fear of your head exploding, Johnson's narrative makes more sense and holds together better than the greater majority of time travel films out there (an obvious comparison that is even referenced in the film is Nacho Vigalondo's amazing film TIMECRIMES). Granted, like BRICK, it asks you to just accept a lot of elements: the Loopers' blunderbuss, the silver they're paid in, the loops that close and the ones that keep running. But if you just suspend your disbelief long enough, Rian Johnson takes you on a terrific, exciting, often heart-wrenching and terrifying, and extremely intelligent joyride that is a real reprieve from the everyday schlock that seems to haunt cinemas this time of year. 

If you haven't seen it already, to randomly quote Tom Haverford and Donna Meagle: "Treat yo' self." 

Anniversary. 50th Anniversary.

Let's get this out in the open: I'm a pretty big fan of the UK. I love their culture, I love their non-confrontational (for the most part) attitudes, I love their literature, I love their college institutions (big ups to the OX), and I especially love their TV and movies. Sure, you've got THE OFFICE and FAWLTY TOWERS, MONTY PYTHON and everyone loves a certain bespectacled wizard. But for me, two words top all of that. Bond. James Bond. 

Ever since I was quite young, I have been enamored with 007. He was calm, he was cool, he got the girls and most importantly he got all the cool gadgets. He simply radiated the type of guy that a nerdy, overweight kid from Kentucky wanted to be. Could he be a little (perhaps a lottle) misogynistic? Perhaps. But as a kid, I didn't recognize or care about any of that (and as an adult, I can appreciate the intended humor in it). I just wanted to see Bond escape from perilous situations, defeat the baddie, and take a much deserved vacation on the beach until he was called into action again. 

Spanning 22 films (the 23rd, SKYFALL, debuts later this month) and many actors, James Bond has now been leaping off the pages of Ian Fleming's novels and onto the big screen for 50 years. Sean Connery was the first (basically) and brought a rugged manliness to the already debonair secret agent and had always been my favorite iteration of Bond. Roger Moore was the smoothest and arguably the epitome of character (my Mom's favorite). Pierce Brosnan was the deadliest while Timothy Dalton and the other minor actors also brought their own special intricacies and points of view to the character. And the most recent Bond, Daniel Craig, has brought a much needed dose of humanity and vulnerability to the character which has been incredibly refreshing (though more so in CASINO ROYALE than QUANTUM OF SOLACE).

Are all the Bond films great? No. Can you even say all the Bond films are good? Certainly not. But I personally love them. Even if they don't provide you with the best plot or top notch acting and even if they can be rather formulaic, it doesn't matter to me. I watch James Bond films because he has always been the epitome of cool for me. Even when the film is bad, it doesn't matter. Why? Because Bond is Bond regardless. And then sometimes those fantastic opening credits roll and you're serenaded by the sultry Shirley Bassey and the action is pitch perfect with that classic Monty Norman score and the villain has all the right sinister touches and it comes together perfectly to create a one of a kind immersion that cannot be beat. And at the center is still Bond. James Bond. Cool as ever after 50 years and 22 films. Happy Birthday, Mr. Bond. 

"What Did You Put in This?": Review of THE MASTER

As most of you know, I'm in Oxford study at one of the colleges that make up Oxford University. As such, my ability to complete PTA Fest 2012 was a bust (I will pick up the remaining films once I return to the States and to my dvd collection). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's newest feature, THE MASTER. 

Starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, THE MASTER tells the story of Freddie Quell (Phoenix), an alcoholic World War II navy veteran with post traumatic stress disorder, and his struggles to adjust to postwar society. Eventually he meets the mysterious author, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, man, and leader of a philosophical movement known simply as The Cause, Lancaster Dodd, an inevitably change each other's lives forever. 

Now, if that seems like a vague, almost rudimentary plot, that's because it kind of is. And that's okay, because the plot of the film has to take a back seat in order to tackle the two most important elements of the work, those being the two main characters. Freddi Quell and Lancaster Dodd are two sides of the same coin. Both so completely different, but on such a scale that it makes them almost the same person. Freddie Quell is controlled exclusively by his Id. Whether it be drinking fuel from a bomb on a battleship or attempting to have sex with everyone women he comes in contact with, no matter how old or young, big or small, his only need is to satisfy the animalistic nature inside him. Lancaster Dodd on the otherhand is completely controlled by his Ego. Unable to take criticism or questioning without becoming defensive to the point of verbal, and near physical abuse, his need to be the smartest person in the room, to be the center of attention and the man with all the answers controls his every whim. 

But both men are so controlled by these opposite parts of the human psyche that they are unable to change, whatsoever. Even though Lancaster takes Freddie under his wing, by the end Freddie is in the exact same dark place that he was when he originally got off the boat. And Lancaster, through all his trials and tribulations, though seeing first hand the inability of his philosophy to really change anyone, continues to speechify and profess the great powers that come from reading his work. 

As such, THE MASTER becomes a fascinating look into the human psyche, the powers of cult-like organizations, the master and disciple dynamics, the idea of how perhaps who we are at our core is unchangeable even if we sincerely believe we want to change, and the overall American personality. It's an incredibly ambitious, breathtakingly gorgeous (I can't imagine what it looks like in 70mm) film with an amazing score (by Jonny Greenwood) and two of the best performances by leading actors that I've seen in quite sometime. Admittedly it's not for everyone. And if you don't invest deeply in the two characters then the film could probably begin  to feel like quite a slog. It's purposefully opaque and mysterious, and the performances (and the film as a whole) are incredibly unnerving, but in the best way possible. It's not my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film of all time (that's not a knock at all), but it is most certainly a worthy addition into the portfolio of one of the most gifted and important filmmakers in America today. 

Can I Buy You a Cup of Coffee?: Thoughts on HARD EIGHT

So, I was hoping this event would start a lot sooner and that I could complete it a lot faster than it appears is possible. At this point, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to actually watch all 6 movies and give my thoughts on them before I leave the country, but I'll get as many as I can done (THE MASTER is the only other I know for sure). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's first ever feature film, HARD EIGHT. 

And it's an interesting little film. Made in 1996, it tells the story of John (John C. Reilly), a down on his luck schlub sitting outside of a diner who is confronted by a mysterious, middle-aged stranger offering to him a cigarette and to buy him a cup of coffee. As we come to find out, the stranger is Sydney (Phillip Baker Hall), a professional gambler, who asks John what he would do if he were to be given 50 dollars. Turns out John is just looking to make 6000 dollars to pay for his mother's funeral. Though Sydney says it won't net him the 6 grand, he offers to show John a few tricks that might net him a room and some food. John obliges and they set off for Vegas. 

When you compare HARD EIGHT to some of Anderson's later work, it seems much smaller in scale, story and it's overall ambition (that's not a knock). The 20 minute prologue (stated above) takes place 2 years before everything else and is remarkably subdued. It's pretty much exactly what I've described, two men sitting in a diner and talking about themselves and what the future might hold. And even when the film picks up after the introduction of Gwyneth Paltrow's (dimwitted waitress and occasional prostitute, Clementine) and Samuel L. Jackson's (sleazy "security guard" for a local casino, Jimmy), it is still very intimate. But I think that's the point. I don't think it is surprising that Anderson chose Reno for his setting instead of opting for the larger, more glitzy Las Vegas. 

Like other PTA films that would follow, HARD EIGHT isn't really about the plot per se. It's about the characters. Paul Thomas Anderson cares immensely about his characters; perhaps more than any other director working today. Every single character in his films is treated with respect in the way he or she is presented. It doesn't hurt when you have actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman who can come in and do a quick 2 minute bit part, but with the attention Anderson pays to his characters, it would be this way no matter who was playing them (Kristen Stewart and Cody Horn notwithstanding). But as superb as the minor cast is, it's the film's stars who really deserve the attention.

All four of the main actors give amazing performances. Gwyneth Paltrow is great, as is Sam Jackson. But those two are also only supporting characters. The core of HARD EIGHT (and the main reason to see it), however, is the dynamic relationship between John C. Reilly and Phillip Baker Hall. Hall as the titular character (the film is also known as SYDNEY is some areas) is especially noteworthy. Played pitch-perfectly, Sydney exudes an old school confidence and his assured manner and calmness in all situations makes it easy to see why John looks up to him, wants to be just like him. But it's not long before we start seeing the deep-seated desperation and loneliness eating away at Sydney. Phillip Baker Hall portrays this subtlety through a carefully modulated performance that is masterful and is the main thing that sticks with you once the credits roll. 

HARD EIGHT is not Anderson's best, not that that's something you should expect from a director's first offering. The film does however demonstrate the assured filmmaking, strong dramatic characterization, and unconventional plot that would become PTA staples. Admittedly the film does become slow at times, but it evokes a particular mood so vividly while managing to avoid all the cliches of the Vegas/casino genre that even it's slowest parts have this inexplicable magnetism that is almost hypnotic. 

Thoughts on the First Behind the Scenes Look at LES MIS

Wow. Just wow. It's not often that I get chills from a behind the scenes feature. Yesterday Universal moved the release date of Tom Hooper's (THE KING'S SPEECH) take on the classic musical to Christmas, and today it released this nice extended clip. And while not as epic as the first trailer for CLOUD ATLAS, there is some really great stuff here. 

Most of the clip focuses on the fact that every take was sung live during filming. Seeing how much emotion it empowers each performance with is just amazing. One of the most fascinating pieces is seeing Hugh Jackman's various takes on one of Jean Valjean's key soliloquies. And while all the actors offer really great insight, it's Jackman's demonstration that really shows what this particular way of shooting can do for performances. It gives them so many outlets and different paths to explore, while bringing a much needed component of realism and pure emotion. It's such a wonderful idea that really seems like it's going to bring something truly amazing to the adaptation. It makes you wonder why every musical doesn't do this, though I'm sure it's because of the extreme length of time it must have taken to film each scene. It's a truly groundbreaking idea, and if Tom Hooper pulls it off I would not be surprised one bit if he received an Oscar nomination. 

My only complaint would have to be that we don't get a sneak peak (or listen) of Russell Crowe's Inspector Javert. I know for a fact that Crowe is a very talented singer and I am very anxious to hear and see his take on the character. We also don't get a glimpse of Helena Bonham Carter or Sacha Baron Cohen which is regrettable. However, the cast is stunning (especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine, WOW) and the film looks like it has the real chance at being something very special.