Archive for the 'Reviews' Category

04
May
13

Review: Iron Man 3

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , , , , ,

0504_01-FaceplateDOM

Riding high off last year’s mega-blockbuster The Avengers, Marvel starts off the summer again with Iron Man 3, this time though back to one superhero leading the way instead of seven. While Tony Stark and Iron Man are no strangers to the summer blockbuster season (they’ve kicked them off before in 2008 and 2010), this time things are different. We are now in a post-Avengers Phase 2 type of world. The stakes are bigger and so are the bad guys. And what bigger foe for Tony and Iron Man to face than his comic book nemesis, The Mandarin!

The Mandarin . . . I know this will be a sticking point to a lot of fans of the comic books or fans who know the history of The Mandarin, and I’m going to address this right off the bat. I thought what they did with the Mandarin was actually okay. One of the things I was most worried about going in was how his character was going to come across onscreen. Even though I wasn’t blown away by the character in the film, I was satisfied with his storyline and how Ben Kingsley played him. That is all I have to say about The Mandarin.

Don't call him Mandy. You wouldn't like to see him when you call him Mandy.

Don’t call him Mandy. You wouldn’t like it when you call him Mandy.

There were a couple of things in the film that just didn’t quite do it for me though, first and foremost being the heavy use of visual effects and CGI. From the Mark 42 armor components to Tony’s different suits of armor to human beings hopped up on Extremis, there was a lot of CGI work going on here. Realistically speaking, anytime we don’t see Robert Downey, Jr.‘s face the Iron Man suit is most likely a CGI representation. While it’s okay since it has been like this since the first Iron Man, the piling on of even more CGI characters was a bit much for me. In a world where nothing “feels” real, it was really hard to get into these epic action sequences when you know what you’re seeing on screen were all pixels. Beautifully done pixels, but still pixels nonetheless. The stakes just didn’t feel the same when you don’t believe a character or a representation of a character isn’t a bit more tangible. Other than pretty stuff happening onscreen, there wasn’t as much for me to latch on to, and I found myself just a little bit less invested in what was going on.

Then there was the story. We all know that from the trailer, Iron Man takes on The Mandarin. What bothered me though was the resolution of a secondary storyline where Tony is suffering anxiety from what happened to him in New York with the Avengers. It’s beautifully set up, but I didn’t think it was resolved in a way that was totally satisfying. Tony has been struggling with this post-traumatic stress, and he’s been trying to find ways to overcome it, save seeing a doctor. His friends are worried, and all the elements seemed to be there for him to rise from the ashes like the phoenix that we all know he can be. Exactly how he has his “breakthrough” though seemed contrived and not at all authentic to what was going on in the story. I can’t really say more without getting into spoilers, but yeah, there was just something about Tony’s journey to overcome his post-Avengers anxiety that I just didn’t buy into.

Iron Patriot = War Machine Extreme Makeover: Marketing Edition

Iron Patriot = War Machine Extreme Makeover: Marketing Edition

Not to sound too negative though, there are a lot of fun things about Iron Man 3. Front and center would have to be humor that director Shane Black brings to the film. While Joss Whedon brought an off-the-wall geeky comedic vibe to The Avengers, Black brings his dark and awkwardly funny humor that fans will recognize from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Just some of the banter that Tony has with other characters in the film and a ton of really embarrassing and awkward moments that happen throughout the film, some in life and death situations… I thought all of it was really fun and made the movie almost an action comedy.

And what kind of an Iron Man movie would this be without the addition of new Iron Man armor? Tony’s latest armor, the Mark 42, has two things that make it unique: 1) the suit can be controlled remotely by Tony, and 2) its components can operate and travel separate from one another. While you wouldn’t think this second trait is that impressive, it comes in quite handy as the armor does not have to be put on as a whole unit. In one scene Tony calls for the entire Mark 42, but only one of its hands and a single boot piece show up. With just these two parts of his suit, Tony still manages to utilize them to great effect to take out a couple of henchmen till the rest of the suit shows up. With Tony being able to control the suit and its components remotely, it  made for some fun action sequences.

0504_04-TonyAndMark42

Tony Stark totally pwns on X-Box.

Finally, probably the best sequence in the entire film is the one that was teased during the Super Bowl where Air Force One is going down, requiring Iron Man to save a bunch of people that have fallen out of the plane. It’s one of those conundrums where the hero has a decision to make about who he should save, a decision usually where it seems someone will still have to be sacrificed in order for someone else to be saved. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time as the gears in Tony’s head were working up a plan, the ground is getting closer, and he and Jarvis are trying to save everyone. Definitely the highlight of the film.

At the end of the night Iron Man 3 sends Tony Stark, Iron Man, and Marvel’s Phase 2 off on a good foot. It integrates the fallout from The Avengers without seeming as ham-fisted as the S.H.I.E.L.D. storyline was in Iron Man 2 and also gives us a pretty decent Iron Man standalone movie as well. With great action and visuals, Iron Man 3 kicks off summer with a (repulsor) blast.

Iron Man 3 is now playing in theaters everywhere.

Rating 3.5/5 stars // PG-13 // 2h 10m

26
Apr
13

Review: Pain & Gain

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , , ,
They're big and they're strong and they're here to show that Michael Bay can make a good movie.

They’re big and they’re strong and they’re here to show that Michael Bay can make a good movie.

Michael Bay. The guy’s name incites so much eye rolling and jawing at the mouth that you’d wonder if he was some sort of cinema pariah. Within the span of the last seven years the man went from being an action filmmaking god to someone that ruined the dreams of many a 20-somethings. Well, our national nightmare is over. Michael Bay semi returns to form in his latest feature, Pain & Gain.

Based on actual events, Pain & Gain stars Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, and Anthony Mackie as body builders who extort one of their clients (Tony Shalhoub) into giving them his fortune. The thieves convoluted plan involves kidnapping, torture, and disguises; all magnified by their misguided thinking. In the grand scheme of things these are characters that we should not like, but like watching a train wreck; it’s something that you can’t turn away from.

The film is more of a dark comedy than an action movie as most of the time you end up laughing at the humorous and idiotic situations our protagonists find themselves in. From the get-go you realize that these characters aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed when their grand plan to “get ahead” is to take money from someone that is better off than they are. In one of the more hilarious moments in the film, the gang needs more than one attempt to kidnap their mark as they are foiled in one instance by a dinner party and are again foiled by their sheer bad timing in another. As they continue to carry out the plan, their delusional reasoning leads them into more unbelievable and face-palming moments.

They're future's so bright, they have to wear shades.

They’re future’s so bright, they have to wear shades.

If you were worried that this wasn’t a real Michael Bay movie don’t fret, all of his signature touches are there. From circular panning shots around our characters to the emphasis and exaggeration of speed, to grandiose upward shots, to spectacular location shots of Miami; a lot of the things that make a Michael Bay movie a Michael Bay are here in Pain & Gain as well. In some instances I thought a few of these flourishes were a little over the top considering the story, but for the most part they fit with the frenetic body building 90s vide that was running throughout the film.

Mark Wahlberg plays ringleader Daniel Lugo pretty well; he knows how to do good comedy and can deliver funny dialogue with a serious and straight face. The Rock of course has already had a number comedic performances under his belt as well and he plays his somewhat naive, man of God, former drug addict role rather well. Of the three main characters though, I felt Anthony Mackie was the one that stood out the most. His delivery combined with his character’s steroid obsessed and overly exaggerated persona made a lot of what he did some of the funniest (or saddest) moments in the film. He always seemed to have these dead serious questions and comments that came out of nowhere; and like a lot of the other stuff in the film was funny because of how wrong it was.

The walking away from an explosion shot . . . what Michael Bay movie would be complete without one?

The walking away from an explosion shot . . . what Michael Bay movie would be complete without one?

One thing I haven’t decided on is whether or not Bay is merely just telling a story or has a larger message he’s trying to convey. Throughout the film the American Dream and the American Way is referenced a number of times by Wahlberg’s character. What ultimately kickstarts the main action of the film is when the Lugo character seeks the advice of a ‘get rich quick’ guru who’s main point is . . . “Be a DO-er, not a don’t-er.” It’s a mantra that Lugo constantly uses to reenforce that what he is doing is the right way to get ahead. You can’t help but feel that maybe the American Dream, being a Do-er, body building, building yourself up, all that excess and focus on perfection and being rich that perhaps maybe Bay is saying something about who we are as a people, or at the very least who we were in this particular time period. Or I could be totally off base and he just has all these things in the movie for show.

On the whole I was really entertained by the effort Michael Bay put forth in Pain & Gain. While the actual story itself is wholly unbelievable, it’s the telling of it and how it’s told where I liked it and was entertained. Sadly it makes me wish that he would do more films like this that are a little more personal to him and not go back to franchises. After all, I feel that’s where Bay has done some of his best work . . . outside of the Transformers franchise (and Bad Boys before it too became a franchise). However, if there’s anything we can gleam from this film, it’s that Michael Bay himself is a Do-er. I just hope he puts a little more thought into his next project, because if you look at Daniel Lugo in Pain & Gain . . . he was a Do-er too.

Pain & Gain is now playing in theaters everywhere.

Rating 3.5/5 Stars // R // 2hr 9min

12
Mar
13

Red Band Redux: February 2013

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , ,
0312-01_FebReduxHeader

The Red Band Redux is Yoda808’s recap of all the movies seen in theaters for the past month. Though not fully formed reviews, here are his off-the-cuff thoughts on movies playing in the past month.

Yes, after an extended time away the monthly feature Red Band Redux is back! Not to much to report back from last month as we went on a little hiatus of sorts. That was probably for the best as the early months of the year are a dumping ground for the big studios. Here’s a look back at the few flicks we did catch in February . . .

Side Effects

Pretty people, with a pretty big problem.

Pretty people, with a pretty big problem.

Every time a Soderbergh film comes out you kind of have to take notice as the man is such a prolific filmmaker and always seems to explore something different in each film. Whether it’s subject matter, the way he tells a story, or the technical elements of a film; Soderbergh always manages to find some interesting way or thing to show us in his films.

How does this play into Side Effects? As much as I’d like to tell you about how good this film really is, a lot of it revolves around spoilers that come late in the film. The one thing I will say is that the film is not what you think its about. This fact alone is what had me at the end as well as had me perk up when things started to turn half way through the film.

Soderbergh brings back two of his former star for this go around; Catherine Zeta-Jones (Traffic, Ocean’s Tweleve) and the ubiquitous Channing Tatum (Magic Mike, Haywire) who are pretty solid in their supporting performances in this film. The star and lead though is Rooney Mara who plays a depressed, manic, and prescription drug obsessive woman oh so well. There’s no experimentation or crazy camera shots going on in this film . . . Soderbergh is mainly focused on crafting this story about a woman trying to combat depression and the effects of prescription drugs. Is he going for a social commentary on prescription medication? I’ll let you decide. What I will say is that Side Effects is thoroughly entertaining and definitely not what you would expect.

3.5/5 stars (Definitely worth checking out or Redboxing when it hits Blu/DVD)

——————————–

Beautiful Creatures

0312-03_BeautifulCreatures

STOP! You’ve been warned.

Maybe as a book series Beautiful Creatures might be engrossing and enrapturing, but as a movie, it was just kind of “meh.” I think the biggest thing that sidelined this film was the two romantic leads . . . they just didn’t have enough charisma and heft of any kind to be convincing or emotional in their roles. This entire film hinges on the relationship of these two characters and I just didn’t believe the chemistry or feel the urgency that I felt they needed to bring. As a result you get a decent amount of flash, but not nearly enough substance.

In a move that I think was supposed to help the film but ultimately didn’t, a number of great actors filled many of the supporting roles in the film: Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, Emma Thompson, Emmy Rossum. With such heavy hitters in supporting roles, I thought they actually compounded the problem of not having similarly strong actors in the lead roles and not necessarily stole the show, but definitely brought more emotion and feeling to their roles than the leads did.

As for the story itself, we’ve seen doomed/forbidden romances done before and without great believability from the leads . . . it’s hard to care for the story.

1.5/5 stars (Unless you’re a fan of this book series, it’s really not worth watching)

——————————–

I Give It A Year

Romantic comedies are on the up and up thanks to I Give It A Year.

Romantic comedies are on the up and up thanks to I Give It A Year.

I was pleasantly surprised by I Give It A Year since we all know how rom-coms have kind of been on a downward slide in the past five years or so. This film bucks that trend by doing something that I think more rom-coms need to do . . . become unconventional. This film does that by starting off where a lot of rom-coms finish: with marriage.

The couple in question gets married at the beginning of the film and we follow them throughout the course of their first year of marriage as they struggle to deal with being and living with one another after a short courtship. Obviously hijinks ensue, but the comedic situations both husband and wife find themselves were so awkward and were incredibly laugh out loud funny. One of the highlights of the film was when the couple gets a digital picture frame for Christmas from the parents of the bride and they decide to hook it up right away to show off photos from their honeymoon. At first the frame displays seemingly innocuous photos from their honeymoon, but as the sequence goes on, racy photos randomly start showing up and well, you can guess what happens after that. I haven’t laughed so hard at a rom-com in a long time.

Rose Byrne and Rafe Spall are pretty good as the somewhat mismatched newlywed couple. The chemistry of their characters provide a number of conflicts for them to overcome; but yet you’re sympathetic to both characters. Showing up in supporting roles are Simon Baker (The Mentalist) and Anna Faris (House Bunny) as people who provide potential alternate matches for the hard working couple.

Overall I Give It A Year breaks the mold a little in terms of the predictable setup of most rom-coms by starting our characters off in a place that’s different (different starting point means different journey). As such I didn’t exactly know where the film was heading till the last 20 minutes or so. Combine that with a ton of great jokes and you have a romantic comedy that’s a breath of fresh air.

3.5/5 stars (Has not been released yet in the US. Definitely check it out once it does hit US shores)

——————————–

Also reviewed last month: Warm Bodies.

01
Mar
13

Review: Jack the Giant Slayer

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , , , ,

0301_01-JackReviewDom

When it was announced that Hollywood was going to turn the folktale ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ into a feature length film, like everyone else I was a bit skeptical about its success. However, once The Usual Suspects and X-Men director Bryan Singer was attached to direct the picture I definitely was a little intrigued and even a bit hopeful that this adaptation could be something worth watching. Alas, this isn’t the case as Jack the Giant Slayer is just the latest in a string of fairy tale/folktale stories that we heard as kids turned into a just ok movie.

The core problem with Jack the Giant Slayer is that nothing really stands out to grab you. Not the story, not the acting, not the visuals, nothing. While there are some exciting moments and a few times where integrations of practical effects and CGI are pretty cool; there are not enough moments like these to sustain the entire film. With nothing to really latch onto, at no point was I ever really blown away or heavily invested in what was going on in the film.

Be prepared to look into the face of very bad computer generated images.

Be prepared to look into the face of very bad computer generated images.

What really stood out to me though was the terrible CGI used to create the ‘look’ of the giants. Designed a little cartoon-ish and cavemen like they did not look great at all and came off looking cheap. Being a fantasy film, one with the word “Giant” in the title, it’s a given that there will have to be some suspension of disbelief on behalf of the viewer. No amount of this could help me believe in these unrealistic giants; not even Bill Nighy who’s menacing voice was used for the lead giant.

I guess what it boils down to was that the giants looked like poorly animated characters from a bad Saturday morning cartoon. Their looks did not hint at any of the reported $195 million dollar budget that this film is carrying. I know that most viewers can spot visual effect magic a mile a way; but there are awesome examples of great CGI characters in bad films like the Tharks in last year’s John Carter or even Jar Jar Binks back in the Star Wars prequels.

Good times before this whole beanstalk thing.

Good times before this whole beanstalk thing.

On the positive side there are some bright spots to Jack the Giant Slayer. As I previously mentioned, there’s some good integration between set work and visual effects work, most notably in places where the beanstalk is involved. There were a few reminders of Honey I Shrunk the Kids more than a few times as our heroes were climbing the beanstalk–which I loved. Also, in a few scenes where the beanstalk is coming down I thought there was some great action there as well between real life actors, animals, practical beanstalk props, and the visual effects.

Now now kids . . . I'll show you how to climb this beanstalk.

Now now kids . . . I’ll show you how to climb this beanstalk.

While Nicholas Hoult was ‘warm’ and affectionate in his last outing Warm Bodies (review here), he did not bring anything to the table this time around. The highlight of the entire film had to have been Ewan McGregor. Having proven his blue and green screen acting chops with the Star Wars prequels; he looked the most believable out of all the actors in the film. In fact, McGregor was chewing on scenery a number of times and looked to be having fun doing so. I enjoyed his character the most and was entertained almost every time he was on screen.

When it comes right down to it, Bryan Singer was in a tough spot when he took over production on Jack the Giant Slayer from the original director, the effects of which can still be felt in the film that is now in theaters. Tonally, I’m not sure who the right audience for the film is and I’m not sure the film does either. Sure it has some great action sequences and some funny lines; but it also has crude humor that got old after a while as well as crummy looking giants. While Jack the Giant Slayer is not a bad movie, it might be more of a mediocre one. For the man that made us fearful of Keyser Söze and jumped started the superhero genre; this film is more in line with Superman Returns and Valkyrie–films of his that no one hardly mentions anymore.

 Jack the Giant Slayer is now playing in theaters everywhere.

Rating 2/5 stars // PG-13 // 1hr 35min

01
Feb
13

Review: Warm Bodies

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , ,
Ruh-roh . . . the world didn't end in 2012, but looks like hunky zombies will start to take over 2013.

Ruh-roh . . . the world didn’t end in 2012, but looks like hunky zombies will start to take over 2013.

With Young Adult literature adaptations being all the rage these days and studios snatching up books left and right, Warm Bodies seems like the perfect fodder for a sure fire hit from the studio that brought us the Twilight Saga. I mean, it’s got everything in the formula that draws people to these books: an unlikely relationship, young love being tested under extreme circumstances, and oh yeah . . . ZOMBIES!

The unlikely protagonist of the film is “R” (Nicholas Hoult, X-Men: First Class), a zombie unlike any other you’ve met. For one thing, he’s got an inner conscience and monologue more akin to Ferris Bueller, and at the end of the day he goes home to his airplane where he listens to vinyl records. Well one day R meets the very much alive Julie (Theresa Palmer, I Am Number Four) and becomes smitten after an encounter with Julie’s boyfriend. From that point on a bond begins to grow between the two that not only has a profound impact on R, but everyone around him as well.

Aw, remember when we had polaroids before the apocalypse?

Aw, remember when we had polaroids before the apocalypse?

Now let’s be real here, this is a zombie love story. That is the central premise of the film and if you’re at all a zombie purist, you probably won’t like this film. I was a little doubtful myself going into the film, I mean, “A zombie falling in love with a human? Come on!” However, the film does a pretty good job of setting up the plausibility of this circumstance and Hoult and Palmer do an equally good job of building the relationship between R and Julie. Since this isn’t you’re typical romance movie, their reactions feelings seemed pretty spot on and by the end of the film I bought in to the relationship even though there were times were it definitely seemed creepy.

However, it’s not all love and romance. If anything, Warm Bodies is more of a romantic comedy with zombies so there is human-on-zombie and zombie-on-zombie action. In fact, the film introduces to a second type of zombie: Boneys. What separates Boneys from regular zombies? Boneys are basically zombies that have gone crazy, are pretty mean, have ripped off all their flesh, and attack anything with a heartbeat. In the film regular zombies are played by real life actors while Boneys are all done through visual effects. While I liked the idea and difference between these two zombie species, you could totally tell the Boneys were computer creations and not that believable  Despite the unbelievability, I got where the filmmakers were going with this as this Boneys did provide an obstacle (and action sequences) for both the regular zombies and humans.

Yes, believe it or not this zombie love story flick does have zombie hordes.

Yes, believe it or not this zombie love story flick does have zombie hordes.

If you’re looking for a perfect date movie, you might find it in Warm Bodies. It’s got hunky Nicholas Hoult with a pretty decent love story for the girls, and you have zombies and action for the guys. It’s also got some good humor that I’m sure both parties will find laughs in. Not only is R’s inner monologue hilarious and awkward, but R’s zombie friend M (Rob Corddry, Hot Tub Time Machine) delivers some great one liners as well.

On the whole I was entertained by Warm Bodies, but at the end of the day it didn’t do all that much for me. While the story is cute and funny, there’s nothing really outstanding about it, any of the performances from the cast, or even visuals in the film. The biggest thing going for the film is that it challenges the audience to believe a relationship can develop between a human and a zombie, which I give credit to the story, is something different. However, I didn’t feel there was too much more there than that.

Warm Bodies is now playing in theaters everywhere.

Rating 3/5 stars // PG-13 // 1hr 38min

26
Dec
12

Review: Silver Linings Playbook

By Yoda808 2 Comments
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , ,
Knock knock. Who's there? A potential Academy Award contending movie.

Knock knock. Who’s there? A potential Academy Award contending movie.

Ah the holidays . . . a time when families comes together, talk, and catch up with relatives. And while Silver Linings Playbook isn’t a holiday per se, it’s definitely a film representative of our culture today (at least part of it anyway). It’s got everything you could possibly want from a holiday film: drama, family issues, and love. I mean, what more could you ask for?

In many ways Silver Linings Playbook is sort of a current take on the dysfunctional family movie. Think along the lines of something with the vibe of American Beauty, but updated for 2012. You have Pat who’s just been released from a mental institution, trying to deal with bipolar disorder stemming from a breakdown he suffers when he catches his wife having an affair. Then you also have Tiffany who’s dealing with depression and the death of her husband. Both are supported by their families, but both struggle to deal with how to handle the little things in their everyday lives; some things that us “normal people” would consider second nature. In our world where there’s a medication to solve any of our problems and an abundance of therapies to work through our psychological issues; the story of two slightly broken people developing a relationship based on their common experience with mental instability doesn’t seem that out of place.

Probably the biggest thing the film has going for it is the cast. Everyone in the film is pretty solid and the three top names in the film are all giving Academy Award level performances. Ok, maybe Academy Award level is a bit hyperbolic, but trust me when I say that Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Robert De Niro are all turning in the performance of their career/the last 10 years.

1226_02-Cooper

Cooper is probably giving his best performance to date in a role that draws from other characters in his filmography. he utilizes some of his doucheyness from Wedding Crashers, mixed with some of his cool guy persona from The Hangover movies, and adding a bit of torturedness that gives his character Pat believable anger management issues and baggage, but at the same time makes him someone you want to see work through his issues. While Cooper dances the line between angry and emotional pretty well, he’s getting a lot of help from those around him; help that makes his performance that much more believable and buyable.

1226_03-LawrenceCooper

Tiffany, played by Jennifer Lawrence and becomes Pat’s new love interest, has a few issues of her own. Her hang ups stem from depression from the death of her husband which make her lash out by being with guys who don’t treat her well, thereby reinforcing a downward spiral. In Pat’s first few encounters with Tiffany, Lawrence plays the psycho girlfriend card pretty well and we don’t know if she truly is damaged or just plain crazy. However as the relationship between Tiffany and Pat develops, you begin to see her feelings come through and her outbursts slowly change from “crazy girl” territory to that of someone being upset with a person they genuinely have feelings for.

1226_04-DeNiroCooper

Rounding out the acting trifecta is Robert De Niro. Now don’t get me wrong, we know he can give a great performance; as of late though it seems like he’s been chewing on scenery and just taking paydays (we’re looking at you New Year’s Eve). But in Silver Linings Playbook, director David O. Russell manages to get a great performance from the two time Oscar winner. De Niro plays Pat Sr, father to Cooper’s character in the film, and a devout Philadelphia Eagles fan. When it comes time for game day, Pat Sr’s neurotic quirks regarding fandom and bonding with his son soon goes beyond mere team support and sheds light on not just Pat Jr’s problems, but the entire family’s as well. De Niro plays the loving father/OCD super fan really well and is actually emoting in some of the better scenes.

Going in I wasn’t too sure how I was going to feel about Pat’s budding relationship with Tiffany (something that the entire film hinges on); one because I’ve never really gotten behind or really rooted for any of the characters Bradley Cooper has played in the past; and two because of the age difference between Cooper and Lawrence (15 years, though in the film he’s playing younger and she’s playing older). However, over the course of the film I was really sold on Pat’s struggle with his bipolar disorder. From the challenges Pat faced and the way he dealt with them, that’s what sold me on their relationship in the end–it was a challenge that he kept working on, that wasn’t easy and tested him along the way, and one that you could get a good sense of from the emotion he was portraying.

Overall, everything about Silver Linings Playbook feels just a little bit awkward and a little bit off, not in a bad way, but in a way that mirrors its main characters. You won’t be blown away by action or special effects, because there are none to be found. What you will find is a great modern day family film, well acted, and with a great mix of comedy and drama that will entertain. And really, isn’t that all we could ever ask from any holiday film?

Silver Linings Playbook is currently playing at Consolidated Kahala 8 and Regal Dole Cannery.

Rating 4/5 stars // R // 2hr 2min

14
Dec
12

Review: Hitchcock

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags:
When you're the master of suspense, scaring the audience ain't easy but somebody's gotta do it.

When you’re the master of suspense, scaring the audience ain’t easy but somebody’s gotta do it.

Ok, I’m going to be up front here . . . I haven’t even seen a tenth of Alfred Hitchcock’s films let alone Psycho, which is the major focus of the film being talked about in this post–Hitchcock, the new semi-biopic about the famous director. Since I’m not that much of a Hitchcock buff I’m not exactly sure how much of what was shown on screen was true to who Hitchcock really was. If there’s hardly any thruth I won’t be surprised as this is a movie as well as one based off a book written by someone other than Hitchcock so who knows exactly how much “truth” made it onto the screen. In the end though it doesn’t really matter as what we get on screen is a fairly good impersonation of Hitchcock done by Anthony Hopkins. I don’t know if I believed Hopkins’s Hitch (in the film he likes to be called Hitch “. . . hold the cock”). but in the lighthearted and comedic vibe of the film I went with it and wasn’t bothered at all.

Where the film really shines though is the relationship and bond between the two leads and their characters; Hitch and his wife Alma played by the stalwart Helen Mirren. While “the great and glorious genius” Alfred Hitchcock is always in the spotlight and always seemingly putting on a show or production, Alma is the rock and emotional core of their relationship, and the sense that you get from the film is that she has helped Hitch weather the many storms of his career. Of course Mirren plays Alma beautifully with a strong sense of purpose and independence that unbeknownst to Hitch; is something that he desperately needs and comes into play as Hitch goes through the process of shooting Psycho.

Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins getting down and dirty in the editing room.

Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins getting down and dirty in the editing room.

Though well established as a filmmaker by this time, no one in Hollywood wanted to make a film adaptation of Psycho. Hard to believe in this day and age when Hollywood is buying up book properties like crazy (Twilight anyone?). In order to get the film made, Hitch has to finance it himself and either reap a hefty windfall by keeping his creative vision, or face losing credibility in Hollywood and personal finance should Psycho flop.

The film has a number of recognizable faces in supporting roles; first and foremost being every guy’s favorite actress, and former Mrs Ryan Reynolds, Scarlett Johansson. She’s actually pretty decent playing Psycho leading lady Janet Leigh. She isn’t given that much screen time, but when she is there she’s doing good work; most noteably when Hitch shoots the infamous shower scene. Michael Stuhlbarg and Toni Collette add solid turns as Hitch’s agent and assistant (respectively) while Jessica Biel even shows up in a secondary role (literally) as Vera Miles; former Hitchcock leading actress who has history with the storied director. Hell, we even had Ralph “The Karate Kid” Macchio show up in a small role as Psycho screenwriter Joseph Stefano. All in all a pretty solid cast giving credence to the film.

From start to finish I was pretty entertained by everything that was going on with Hitchcock. From the studio in fighting, to production problems, to relationship drama between husband and wife I bought into everything that the film was selling me. Probably the most interesting thing that struck me was that like Norman Bates, Alfred Hitchcock had an obsession with females as well–his leading ladies. This leads to emotional tension between Hitch and Alma that they struggle to deal with throughout the film, and by the end was handled very well despite being a bit predictable.

You guys want to make a movie called Psycho? It'll be big.

You guys want to make a movie called Psycho? It’ll be big.

This is also a movie about making movies and one highlight of the film (for me anyway), was the wheeling and dealing of Hitchcock to get a deal in place for his film and the support he provided afterward to help ensure its success. As any film geek will tell you, these types of films hit a certain sweet spot for us. I don’t know what it is exactly but seeing the drama behind the scenes makes for something entertaining. Part of the appeal was seeing Hitch fight against a studio system that wanted to give audiences that same experience while he as a filmmaker was trying to give them something more (does this sound at all familiar?) Where I really geeked out though was all the extra work and support Hitch gave when it came time to release Psycho to ensure it would be a success. Sure it’s easy enough for us today to see how filmmakers personally support their films and promote them using social media as well as reporting from movie bloggers. Back then I’m sure it was a whole other story and Hitch goes above and beyond to make sure not only did the theaters play his film, but showcase it in the best possible way as well.

In the end Hitchcock is a film that hits the mark that it sets out to aim for; an interesting and fun look at the filmmaker that was Alfred Hitchcock. Is some of the drama in the film exaggerated and played up a bit? I can almost say yes, but come on, this is a movie we’re talking about here. If it didn’t have some juiciness to it we probably wouldn’t watch it at all. The film tells us about a man who has reached legendary status in cinema history. What more could we ever ask for in a film about such a man other than a fun and entertaining story?

Hitchcock is now playing at Consolidated Kahala 8.

Rating 4/5 stars // PG-13 // 1hr 38min

13
Dec
12

Red Band Redux: November 2012

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , , , , , ,
1213-01_NovReduxHeader

The Red Band Redux is Yoda808’s recap of all the movies seen in theaters for the past month. Though not fully formed reviews, here are his off-the-cuff thoughts on movies playing in the past month.

November is usually when the heavy hitting films of the holiday and awards season start to make their way into theaters and this year was no exception. While we didn’t see too many movies this month, the reason was manly because these behemoths dominated the multiplexes . . .

Cloud Atlas

The Matrix and Speed Racer this ain't.

The Matrix and Speed Racer this ain’t.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Cloud Atlas and I was even a little scared that I wouldn’t be able to comprehend it all, but after leaving the theater after the film I was definitely in awe of what I had just seen. Many people won’t forgive the Wachowskis after the not-so-great Matrix sequels and the colorful Speed Racer (which I liked). I on the other hand was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though like I said, I was just hoping that Cloud Atlas wouldn’t get too bogged down in the the siblings’ philosophy that kind of overshadowed Reloaded and Revolutions.

One thing I think everyone can agree on . . . the film is epic in scope and ambition. I mean, who would try to weave together six different stories across six different time periods; all at the same time having them relate to one another. No easy task for any director I tell you and I think the directing team of the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer pull it off beautifully. The goal? To renforce the central theme of Cloud Atlas the book where souls are connected and actions that we choose in the past will shape our futures; sometimes even after our death. For the most part I think the directors pull this off as over the course of the film we see how characters relate to one another in different timelines and how their actions are central to their singular “soul/character”; call it what you will.

Speaking of characters, you’ve got a great bunch of actors in the film most notably Tom Hanks and Halle Berry leading the way. A few actors have roles in every timeline while others don’t. Picking them out isn’t so much the issue as seeing how an actor’s different personas in each timeline connect the film together. While nothing really stood out for me in the acting department, my favorite performance had to be that of Ben Whishaw’s tortured composer character in the second timeline. Just the emotion and expression of his character alone was really touching to see.

On the whole Cloud Atlas isn’t the easiest film to digest, but then again, I think that’s the point. It’ll make you think and give you something to chew and look pretty and grand doing it the whole time. The film was definitely something to see and something that we need to see more of from Hollywood.

4 stars

————–

Wreck-It Ralph

Ralph definitely 'wrecked it', the box office that is.

Ralph definitely ‘wrecked it’, the box office that is.

Wreck-It Ralph is probably the best sign that Disney Animation has returned to be a serious player when it comes to making animated features. After a dismal run post 90s the turnaround started with Bolt, then took a big step up with Tangled in 2010, and now Wreck-It Ralph. The movie does so many things right; if you didn’t know any better . . . you would think that this was a Pixar movie as it has a number of Pixar traits: focus on characters, a story people can relate to, and emotion that the audience can feel.

At first glance you might thing this movie gets by on video game references alone, and yes, while it does have a lot of things that will get anyone who has picked up a joystick excited; that’s only the icing on the cake. Like I said, the story itself is something that you invest in from the very beginning. Ralph trying to find meaning/a greater purpose to life beyond what he was programmed to do, I think that’s something most of us can relate to.

Speaking about the story, one of the things I appreciated the most from the film was that it didn’t try to crowbar as many video game cameos as possible. Granted there were a lot of awesome appearances by a number of different characters, and sure I would have liked to have seen more, but the creators showed a lot of restraint and good common sense by not going overboard with the video game cameos. Ultimately the story is about Ralph and his journey and not about seeing video game greats in animated form so I tip my hat to them for realizing that.

Overall, you don’t have to be a video game lover or player to appreciate the film (though it certainly will help). As long as you crave an animated movie with great characters, an engaging story, and a fun time at the movies; look no further than Wreck-It Ralph.

4 stars

————–

Skyfall

Shaken, but not stirred: Skyfall brings the Bond franchise (and MGM) back to promenence.

Shaken, but not stirred: Skyfall brings the Bond franchise (and MGM) back to promenence.

It’s always interesting to see what different directors can do with a long running property such as the James Bond series. When it was announced that Sam Mendes was going to be directing this film I wasn’t really worried or anything. I knew the characters and their development was going to be there, but I did have to wonder if Mendes had the sensibility to direct action since that isn’t what he’s really known for. After seeing the film, I can safely say that my apprehension was put to rest.

Of all the Bond films this one feels the most personal (we actually can begin to see James Bond as a real human being), real, and authentic of all the other Bond films. Maybe it’s the fact that the film touches on Bond’s past or maybe it’s because of the realistic way that Bond’s age and MI6′s mission is treated, but all of this combined leads to a pretty entertaining film. Oh, did I mention that the action is there as well.

Mendes has a great stable of actors that he’s working with and it shows. Daniel Craig is solid as as Bond, but it’s the support that he gets all around him that helps to make the film really shine. You’ve got Judi Dench as M, not just the leader of MI6, but probably the most important woman in Bond’s life. Then you’ve got Javier Bardem as the antagonist Silva, very smart and menacing enough to believe he is really a worldwide threat, but just crazy enough to put him in the demented villain category. Not to mention that Ben Whishaw shows up again in a pretty brilliant turn as Q. And I haven’t even mentioned some pretty solid work turned in by Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and sultry newcomer Bérénice Marlohe.

On the whole the film definitely lives up to Bond mantle and might actually elevate the series in terms of story and just plain making you interested in Bond as a character and what is going on with him. It’s not just a film that has great action in exotic places. Yes it has that (especially the abandoned island), but because we believe in the story and what Bond is doing . . . it makes everything else that much more meaningful.

4 stars

————–

Lincoln

He came, he saw, he drank our milkshakes AGAIN . . . this time as Abraham Lincoln.

He came, he saw, he drank our milkshakes AGAIN . . . this time as Abraham Lincoln.

Going in I knew that Daniel Day-Lewis (DDL) could act, but after seeing his performance in Lincoln I have to say that he is probably one of the finest actors working today. From start to finish DDL was our 16th president. From the look, to the talk, to even the mannerisms; the man practically embodied my vision of what the real Abraham Lincoln would have been like. It was uncannily scary how much DDL was Lincoln.

The entire movie is basically an acting clinic as tons of known and recognizable character actors turned out for roles in the film. Leading the way had to be Tommy Lee Jones as the cantankerous representative Thaddeus Stevens who doesn’t always see eye to eye with Lincoln, but has enough sense to know what is right. Then you’ve got great supporting turns from Sally Field as Lincoln’s wife Mary Todd and David Strathairn as Secretary of State as well as great support in minor roles from great character actors such as James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Lee Pace, and Michael Stuhlbarg just to name a few.

As for the movie itself, the narrow focus of Lincoln’s final four to five months covering his time trying to get the 13th Amendment passed definitely helps as far as storytelling goes. While there are a number of names and faces to keep track of during the film, you ultimately get the gist of things and follow along due to the great performances everywhere you look. I identified with characters and motivations to the point where if I didn’t know their name or their title, I still knew what they stood for and their importance within the context of the entire film. And while you may think that over two hours of lawmakers yammering on might be boring; Spielberg orchestrates it in a way that is engrossing to watch.

4 stars

————–

Red Dawn

Like any good software update, The Wolverines 2.0 isn't without it's share of glitches.

Like any good software update, The Wolverines 2.0 isn’t without it’s share of glitches.

What is there to say about remakes that hasn’t been already said. The sad part about Red Dawn’s 2012 remake is that it’s just a mediocre film with so much lost potential. Granted a lot of the story beats and explanation of why things are done is a lot more plausible in this version than the original, but I just didn’t feel that the feeling and emotion from the relationships of the characters were there. In the original the angst, hatred, and emotion that the Wolverines felt you could feel as well and their interplay with one another seemed more authentic. In this version, I didn’t quite get that. I don’t know, maybe something was lost in the update or maybe my fondness for the original just clouds my judgement. In any case, sitting on a shelf for two to three years didn’t do this film any favors either.

Probably the best thing the film has going for it is the number of great action sequences throughout the film. Tactical strikes that the Wolverines make are pretty darn nice with today’s Hollywood action filmmaking. I also feel like the cast was wasted as well. Granted this was pre-Avengers and Hunger Games, but it didn’t seem like they had all that much to do. In the end Red Dawn 2012 falls short not because it’s a bad movie, but it wastes a lot of inherent potential.

2.5 stars

————–

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Don't worry . . . the glittering finally stops.

Don’t worry . . . the glittering finally stops.

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by the final film in the Twilight series. Granted, it probably won’t land on any critic ‘Best of’ lists for the year (or mine for that matter), but it was definitely the best film in the series. What it has going for it is that it actually appeals to both girls and guys; especially with the final sequence at the end.

Up until now this series has been all about the angst and tortured development of Edward and Bella’s relationship–which I know has turned many guys off to the series. However, being the final installment in this saga the movie begins by generating conflict that a lot people can relate to . . . a child in danger. All the drama and beating around the bush of emotions is finally shed as the relationship of Bella and Edward is already established. The sole focus is on the impending danger of their daughter and what they will do to protect her.

Being the final film Stewart and Pattinson, while still not the greatest thespians, are at least comfortable in their roles and know what they have to do. They’re definitely a lot more believable now than when they started off this franchise four years ago.

What definitely makes the film though is the end of movie and how that is staged and treated. While I won’t go into spoilers here, from what I’ve been told happens in the book, the film is pretty true to it. Also, another reason why guys will not mind seeing Breaking Dawn Part 2 . . . it’s almost like an Avengers with vampires (believe it or not). In any case, I was thoroughly entertained my this Twilight film unlike some of the other installments in the series.

3.5 stars

13
Nov
12

Review: Side By Side

By Yoda808 Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews
Tags: , ,

Keanu Reeves and Martin Scorsese invite you to have a conversation about the pressing matter of the death of film and the rise of digital.

A couple months ago I had the fortune of working with high school photography students; and when I say photography I’m not just talking about the process of taking photos, but the processing and developing negatives and film prints as well. Yes, that stuff that we used to put in our cameras up until about 10 years ago. This recent experience made me realize that kids today are growing up in a world where something as physical and as analog (and what to me seems like common knowledge) as film is becoming something of an antiquated notion and one of those things that we can now refer to as something we used “back in the day.”

With the advancement of consumer digital cameras, most people under the age of 20 have grown up in a world where photography is instantaneous and at your fingertips. Things weren’t always this way though. Maybe it was fortuitous then that I recently heard about Side By Side; a documentary that that looks at the way digital technology (and more specifically digital cameras and photography) has affected the movie industry. Narrated and produced in part by Keanu Reeves, the documentary is an interesting and candid look at how filmmaking has changed in the last 10-15 years with the advent of digital cameras and digital filmmaking techniques.

Film synopsis from the Side By Side website:

Join Keanu Reeves on a tour of the past and the future of filmmaking in SIDE BY SIDE. Since the invention of cinema, the standard format for recording moving images has been film. Over the past two decades, a new form of digital filmmaking has emerged, creating a groundbreaking evolution in the medium. Reeves explores the development of cinema and the impact of digital filmmaking via in-depth interviews with Hollywood masters, such as James Cameron, David Fincher, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, and many more.

Directors James Cameron and David Fincher give their thoughts on shooting on film and digital.

The doc takes viewers through the entire filmmaking process, from the building of sets and capturing performances, through the post production process, to exhibition in theaters, to the final step of archiving a film. At each step of the way the film looks into how the process was done traditionally with film and how digital has changed process today. The film as a whole is very accessible and is not bogged down by technical jargon and interviews with filmmakers are done in a very conversational manner.

Some of the more interesting tidbits from the film . . .

  • Danny Boyle was excited to shoot with digital cameras on Slumdog Millionaire because there are things you can do with digital that you couldn’t with film. For him, digital allows for more unconventional use of the camera, greater portability, and is cheaper to use.
  • Slumdog Millionaire helped to further the advancement of digital filmmaking as it was the first all digital film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
  • George Lucas pushed digital filmmaking technology when he decided to shoot Star Wars – Episode II using only digital cameras–the first film ever to do so.
  • The changing nature of shooting movies on film mirrors the way consumers are viewing film/movies . . . at home on HD TVs, computers, and portable electronic devices.

At the heart of the film is the question of “film vs digital” and the filmmakers involved basically state their cases for using film or shooting digital depending on what they prefer. While there is no clear answer to this central question in the film, the issue is definitely divided with valid reasons on both sides for using a particular format. However, throughout the documentary you definitely get the sense that the days of filmmakers shooting on film are numbered. Take for example Christopher Nolan, director of the The Dark Knight trilogy, who prefers to shoot his films on film. He can make (and get) this request since he’s made tons of money for Warner Bros. However, with the continued development and evolution of digital, that option may soon not be available to him.

Filmmaking has always pushed the technology that filmmakers use to create their films. From the doc you get the sense that in our ever growing digital world, digital cameras and tools that filmmakers have today will be honed, refined, and will continue to evolve so that the quality of digital cinema is equal to the quality of cinema as seen on film.

For the average moviegoer though, many of this stuff may not matter all that much. As long as you get that large image projected on screen and as long as the sound is loud and doesn’t cut out . . . that’s what most people will look at. This debate of film vs digital for the most part is something that the film industry itself is dealing with. With that in mind, I can’t recommend this film to everyone. It’s definitely a must watch for film geeks or cinephiles; or anyone even remotely interested in the art of film or filmmaking. While casual moviegoers would be able to understand the topics discussed in the film, much of it might not mean all that much if you’re not already interested in what’s going on.

He may not know Kung Fu, but he sure does know how to interview filmmakers.

The film as a whole is pretty well done and very well put together. Keanu and company interview a wide range of directors, each of whom has his or her own take on the art of filmmaking. In fact, this is the area where the film probably shines the most: in the filmmaker interviews. Each one gives candid and honest remarks about their craft and definitely chooses a side in the ongoing debate of the film.

For me personally though, do I have a preference of one or the other (film or digital)? In the end, no I don’t. I’m neither pro-film nor pro-digital. I’m pro-theatrical experience. As long as filmmakers have the tools that they need (whether it’s film or digital) to tell the stories that they want to tell . . . all I’m concerned with is how that is presented to me. Side by side, film and digital are like two different roads that ultimately lead to the same destination. At the end of the day that’s what it really comes down to; the movies . . . and how we enjoy them.

Side By Side will be presented this Friday, November 16 at the Doris Duke Theatre at the Honolulu Museum of Art as part of the their Friends of Film Friday program. The film will be introduced by Dr. Peter Britos, Director of Media and Cinematic Arts at Hawai‘i Pacific University who will also lead a Q&A after the screening. Side By Side is also currently available on video-on-demand services such as Amazon Instant Video and iTunes.

Star rating-3.5/5 // NR // 1hr 39min

11
Nov
12

Review: The Sky Really Did Fall

By Rye Leave a Comment
Categories: Reviews and Rye's (Not So) Weekly Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Missed a step? I’m still younger than Roger Moore was in A View to a Kill.

First, contrary to advance word, Skyfall is definitely not the best Bond movie ever. Yet, it is a game changer with some eye-popping moments never seen in a 007 film before so it’s definitely worth seeing for both fans and non-fans. (Incidentally, that little top 10 list I made yesterday? Chuck #10 and replace A View to a Kill with this flick.)

But, there is absolutely no way to have a frank discussion without spoilers so be warned. Turn back now if you haven’t seen it.

Let’s start with the negatives.

Inexplicably, they kill off Judi Dench as M. Unless she, as an actress, wanted to retire, that decision is completely ludicrous. Only she can pull off an Alfred Tennyson poem in the middle of a government hearing in an action movie. Ralph Fiennes is introduced as a bureaucrat monitoring M and by the end of Skyfall, he has taken her place behind the desk handing Bond confidential files. And the problem is, his character is nowhere near as compelling as Dench’s.

On the road to retirement.

In fact, there’s a lot of the sense that they are bringing in the new and tossing out the old in Skyfall. Much is made that 007 has “missed a step” and needs to be put out to pasture and M must retire. Didn’t they just reboot the bloody series a few years ago? If that’s the case, why not just hire Henry Cavill and start the whole thing over again. Again.

Director Sam Mendes (The Road to Perdition, American Beauty) finally dumps The Bourne Identity mimicking tone and while refreshing with some just plain jaw-dropping, sumptuous cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption), somehow it doesn’t work. Even though the most exciting action sequences: the opening train destruction in Turkey, the train destruction in London, a fistfight outlined in blue neon, the shootout in a courtroom, a helicopter crashing into an old manor at the climax… Everything seems to fall flat. There’s no punctuation to the violence. And when Bond and Silva finally have their final confrontation, it isn’t the competitive match we expect. At times, the pacing seems more like the recent Alex Cross, not a Bond movie.

“Pull my finger.” “What makes you think this is my first time?”

The soundtrack by director Sam Mendes’s frequent composer Thomas Newman is particularly disappointing, especially after the great strides made by David Arnold. The music is a tad too non-intrusive and we miss the eponymous Bond theme more than ever. Sometimes during the action scenes, even we find ourselves humming it on our own.

Adele’s theme song, listened to on its own seems subdued and derivative, but in the context of the film itself, it turns out to be absolutely perfect. Daniel Kleinmen returns for the opening credits and it’s the most visually compelling since Casino Royale. It’s a surreal, swooping, unnerving murky underwater nightmare of moving feminine curves and bleeding target range body-sheets that will look terrific on Blu-ray.

I giggle a lot because this isn’t really a tobacco cigarette.

Also beautiful is French actress Berenice Marlohe as the mysterious bad guy’s girl Severine. Slinking around in black dress and equally black goth make-up, she just looks gorgeously intriguing right up until the moment she is called upon by the screenplay to portray fear. Then, inexplicably, she has a case of the giggles. Without hesitation, Connery’s Bond would’ve slapped her back into reality.

Albert Finney has a wasted small part towards the conclusion as the gameskeeper of Bond’s old family estate and his presence is a bit unnecessary. Usually Bond doesn’t need amateur assistance, especially from a crotchety character straight out of a Dickens novel. Usually the job goes to the Bond girl to assist 007 during the final conflict. This makes Finney Craig’s Bond girl. Eww… Either that or the bisexuality theory just took an extremely fascinating turn.

Moneypenny is finally introduced in the form of Naomi Harris. It’s a subterfuge; the press releases and advance media portrays her as a Bond girl but by film’s end we learn her last name and find her behind a desk in front of M’s inner sanctum. Frankly, it all feels like a gimmick. And as we infer by the famous shaving scene, her and Bond did it. I know we’re re-inventing the series but Bond and Moneypenny should never oof—that’s just wrong. Their whole relationship is based on unrequited flirting. Prior to Skyfall, I always felt that Moneypenny should be gay; someone for Bond to mercilessly toy with. Oh well… These fill-ins just feel like gimmicks as opposed to organic elements added to the Craig canon.

The interrogation is gonna be THIS big.

But leading from homoeroticism, here’s what does make Skyfall work: at the top of the list is Javier Bardem as the evil, unhinged Silva. Arguably the best villain since Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill, he steps it up from his sociopath in No Country for Old Men and goes full-on into psychopath territory. Bardem is given so many great moments, more than Craig himself: his intro with the rat monologue, a deadly game of William Tell with old fashioned pistols, his revealing of a deformity due to a cyanide capsule gone wrong, and best of all, his sketchy, pervy “interrogation” of Bond… It’s the kind of classic jolts that we missed from the villains of the past. (And depending how you interpret Craig’s blech face once Bardem turns his back, could Bond be bisexual?!)

Ben Whishaw (Cloud Atlas) is introduced as Q and he’s completely dorky and watchable even though, as an afterthought, he adds completely nothing to the story. He seems busy pushing a lot of keys on a computer but we really have no idea why. Hopefully he’ll have more to do in the sequels because his presence is refreshing.

Last but not least though is Daniel Craig, Bond himself. His portrayal continues to be sincere and appropriate, no small feat in this era of short-term reboots. While he doesn’t go Roger Moore on us, his subtle injection of humor is just what the series needs for the long term. From adjusting his cuff links after dropping into a train car via construction lift to his confident reply to Silva’s leg-rubbing pass at him: “What makes you think this is my first time?”, Craig proves that the part is his for as long as his muscular fingers want it; regardless if other characters in the movie deem him too old.

I’m actually a trust fund baby. You don’t think I can afford all this on a government salary, do you?

Every moment Craig is onscreen, it’s riveting. You can’t help but think that this is the coolest man on the planet, exactly what James Bond is supposed to embody. He does a tequila shot with a scorpion crawling on his wrist and even though the movie isn’t perfect, you feel you are witnessing the best portrayal of the Ian Fleming creation since…well…Casino Royale. There’s a great moment during a fight with a henchmen in a komodo dragon pit. (Yes, komodo dragons are involved.) Craig has the perfect look of MMA focus and surprised confusion as the slow lizard moves into the frame. And he’s wearing a tux in the scene as well. If he ain’t Bond, who is?

« Previous Entries

Contact Red Band Project

team@redbandproject.com

Red Band Feed

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.