The Wrestler @ IMDB
The end of 2008 seems to have been all about the underdog and comebacks. No more so than with Mickey Rourke and his starring role in this new film from Darren Arronofsky. The buzz surrounding this film has been immense. Considering that Arronosky's films tend to fly under the radar* this is a bit surprising.
The subject matter as well isn't necessarily something that would draw in the widest audience. Rourke stars as Randy The Ram, a professional wrestler who was once one the biggest stars in the industry. Now he's reduced to wrestling in school halls for a handful of notes.
As a wrestling fan, the film is a great look behind the curtain. Seeing the 'opponents' talking through the matches before they start, deciding on moves and how best to get the crowd excited is fascinating. It reminds me of a wrestling documentary called Beyond The Mat, it really is a warts and all view of the life of a wrestler.
And Rourke really goes for it. It is a really brave and raw performance, he becomes this tragic, battered survivor who can't let go of the memory of the good times.
This isn't to say that Rourke carries the film, the support around him doesn't let the side down either. Marissa Tomei is just as good as Rourke in her role as The Ram's potential girlfriend.
It's not perfect, some scenes seem to be there just so they can be shown as Oscar clips and the wrestling scenes may be too brutal for some. Some may have issues with the ending as well.
But it's an undeniably great film with one of the best central performances of the last year.
In a word? Powerful.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
I've got 99 problems but the INQ1 ain't one of them. Ish.
So I've got a new phone and a contract with 3. The phone I went for was an INQ1 which has been tagged as the Facebook phone, which is ironic becuase since getting it the thing I've accessed the most on it is Twitter.
But anyway, I like the phone. It's got a nice sturdy feel, the screen is nice and, for the money, has got a lot of functionality.
There are only two problems:
1) The camera. It's shit. Really bad. It's 3.2mp but the pictures come out blurry and really dark if you're inside. Natural sunlight pics aren't too bad but inside, not good at all.
2) The calendar. It's shit. Doesn't work. Not great.
Other than that, good times.
The Annual Late Review of The Year
BEST FILM OF 2008
For an actual piece of cinema, has to be There Will Be Blood. For a film that made me as giddy as a schoolgirl, Cloverfield.
BEST BOOK I READ IN 2008
Didn't read many new books this year but The Marvel Chronicles is amazing.
BEST MUSIC OF 2008
For new music it would be Cage The Elephant which lept to the top of my iTunes most played list. For music I've discovered this year it would have to be finding Baby Huey thanks to the JCVD trailer.
BEST COMIC OF 2008
Have been enjoying Mark Millar's Old Man Logan run on Wolverine, All Star Superman was simply astounding, Kick Ass has been Kick Ass (sorry) and you know what? I liked Secret Invasion. Sue me.
BEST FILM TREND OF 2008
Kick ass end credits.
Seem to have seen a lot of these this year, a stand out being the end of Tropic Thunder. But it's not just action films, Wall-E's were top drawer as well. More of this please.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Film review: Valkyrie
Valkyrie @ IMDB
Fresh from his film stealing role in Tropic Thunder, Tom Cruise now returns to familiar territory in this historical action thriller about the failed assassination of Adolf Hitler.
Woah! Spollers!
Seriously though, if that sentence spoiled the film for you then you need help.
This film had a notoriously troubled production. It's pretty much a comeback film for both Cruise and the Director Brian Singer* so a lot was riding on it.
Overall, it pretty much hits the mark. It's nothing special but it's a good solid thriller that rarely disappoints.
The main issue people seem to be having with this film is that despite being set in German everyone speaks in American/English accents. This is a tricky topic. Yes, the real way it should have been done is in German with subtitles. This sometimes works** but will alienate a large audience. A bit of consistency would have been nice though, because you have the majority of people using there own accents then up pops Eddie Izzard with a German accent last seen in 'AlloAllo '.
If you can ignore this, then the film is enjoyable. While not Singer's best work the pacing is good and it is quite nail biting in parts. It's a good ensemble cast as well.
Well worth your time.
In a word? Erfreulich.
* Jumping on sofas and Superman Returns. You can figure out which is which.
** See Mel Gibson's recent output, both in foreign (and dead) languages.
Fresh from his film stealing role in Tropic Thunder, Tom Cruise now returns to familiar territory in this historical action thriller about the failed assassination of Adolf Hitler.
Woah! Spollers!
Seriously though, if that sentence spoiled the film for you then you need help.
This film had a notoriously troubled production. It's pretty much a comeback film for both Cruise and the Director Brian Singer* so a lot was riding on it.
Overall, it pretty much hits the mark. It's nothing special but it's a good solid thriller that rarely disappoints.
The main issue people seem to be having with this film is that despite being set in German everyone speaks in American/English accents. This is a tricky topic. Yes, the real way it should have been done is in German with subtitles. This sometimes works** but will alienate a large audience. A bit of consistency would have been nice though, because you have the majority of people using there own accents then up pops Eddie Izzard with a German accent last seen in 'AlloAllo '.
If you can ignore this, then the film is enjoyable. While not Singer's best work the pacing is good and it is quite nail biting in parts. It's a good ensemble cast as well.
Well worth your time.
In a word? Erfreulich.
* Jumping on sofas and Superman Returns. You can figure out which is which.
** See Mel Gibson's recent output, both in foreign (and dead) languages.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Film review: Slumdog Millionaire
Slumdog Millionaire @ IMDB
Danny Boyle is a pretty eclectic film maker. He's gone from zombie apocalypse to space epic to a tale of a poverty stricken child in Mumbai.
Very eclectic.
There has been a lot of buzz surrounding this film, despite the fact that a while go it nearly lost it's American distributor. One thing has helped it attract a larger audience that might otherwise be scared off by the subject matter is that it's got an accessible hook: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
The film begins with our main character, who is one question away from winning the main prize, being interrogated. Why? Because he's a slumdog, an uneducated orphan from the slums. How can someone with his background possibly get so many questions right? He must be cheating. Mustn't he?
The marketing to this film should be ignored because, as the opening sequence demonstrates, this film is not Mamma Mia. This is at times an unflinchingly brutal journey through poverty and hardship.
So how does this reconcile with the feel good tone implied by the poster? Basically, the film and the main characters earns it. He suffers through the film and has to earn any happiness.
The acting is top notch, no one lets the side down. The characters are interesting, despite a couple of clichéd moments with the older brother. And all through the film you have the thrust of the Millionaire show pulling you through. You wouldn't have thought that a quiz show would have worked so well on the big screen but the natural tension in the format is magnified. It is nail biting towards the end.
Let's be honest, the film is full of co-incidences and quirks of fate. But it doesn't feel forced, like in something like Signs. It's feels natural, it feels right. You can sit there and say "Oh, that wouldn't happen in real life" but that's not the point. In fact, if you do, it says more about you than the film.
Great looking film, great soundtrack, great story, great acting. It barely puts a foot wrong.
In a word? Great.
Danny Boyle is a pretty eclectic film maker. He's gone from zombie apocalypse to space epic to a tale of a poverty stricken child in Mumbai.
Very eclectic.
There has been a lot of buzz surrounding this film, despite the fact that a while go it nearly lost it's American distributor. One thing has helped it attract a larger audience that might otherwise be scared off by the subject matter is that it's got an accessible hook: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
The film begins with our main character, who is one question away from winning the main prize, being interrogated. Why? Because he's a slumdog, an uneducated orphan from the slums. How can someone with his background possibly get so many questions right? He must be cheating. Mustn't he?
The marketing to this film should be ignored because, as the opening sequence demonstrates, this film is not Mamma Mia. This is at times an unflinchingly brutal journey through poverty and hardship.
So how does this reconcile with the feel good tone implied by the poster? Basically, the film and the main characters earns it. He suffers through the film and has to earn any happiness.
The acting is top notch, no one lets the side down. The characters are interesting, despite a couple of clichéd moments with the older brother. And all through the film you have the thrust of the Millionaire show pulling you through. You wouldn't have thought that a quiz show would have worked so well on the big screen but the natural tension in the format is magnified. It is nail biting towards the end.
Let's be honest, the film is full of co-incidences and quirks of fate. But it doesn't feel forced, like in something like Signs. It's feels natural, it feels right. You can sit there and say "Oh, that wouldn't happen in real life" but that's not the point. In fact, if you do, it says more about you than the film.
Great looking film, great soundtrack, great story, great acting. It barely puts a foot wrong.
In a word? Great.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Film review: Igor
Igor @ IMDB
As previously mentioned, everyone wants a piece of the animated kids film pie. Now we have The Weinsteins, known more for their indie flavoured movies and Oscar baiting attempts at serious cinema, sticking their oar in to the kids market.
Give it it's due, it's not following the usual cute animal path. Here we have Igor, part of a society of Mad Scientists who create evil inventions for a yearly contest which is used to blackmail the rest of the world into paying money for so the scientists don't unleash the inventions on the world.
But only mad scientists can create inventions, not Igors. However, one Igor has got an idea...
So we're in Tim Burton/Nightmare Before Christmas territory. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it doesn't push as far as a Burton film would. It's very much a kids film despite the 'shocks' that it creates. It keeps to mawkish sentimentality rather than the subversive atmosphere of something like Nightmare Before Christmas.
This lack of effort goes into the voice acting as well, as several name actors phone in their performances for an easy pay day. It's obvious in it's themes (everyone is special! Yawn.) and lazy in it's plotting.
It's not that it's bad, it's just in that horrible section of kids films that don't try. Which seems to be in the majority these days.
In a word? Lazy.
As previously mentioned, everyone wants a piece of the animated kids film pie. Now we have The Weinsteins, known more for their indie flavoured movies and Oscar baiting attempts at serious cinema, sticking their oar in to the kids market.
Give it it's due, it's not following the usual cute animal path. Here we have Igor, part of a society of Mad Scientists who create evil inventions for a yearly contest which is used to blackmail the rest of the world into paying money for so the scientists don't unleash the inventions on the world.
But only mad scientists can create inventions, not Igors. However, one Igor has got an idea...
So we're in Tim Burton/Nightmare Before Christmas territory. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it doesn't push as far as a Burton film would. It's very much a kids film despite the 'shocks' that it creates. It keeps to mawkish sentimentality rather than the subversive atmosphere of something like Nightmare Before Christmas.
This lack of effort goes into the voice acting as well, as several name actors phone in their performances for an easy pay day. It's obvious in it's themes (everyone is special! Yawn.) and lazy in it's plotting.
It's not that it's bad, it's just in that horrible section of kids films that don't try. Which seems to be in the majority these days.
In a word? Lazy.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Film Review: The Spirit
The Spirit @ IMDB
Frank Miller is a funny old sort. A giant in the comics field, he reinvigorated Daredevil and then redefined Batman. And then he went nuts.
I'm getting ahead of myself. Frank Miller and Hollywood didn't have a great start to their relationship. He wrote the script for RoboCop 2 which was gutted by the studio and drove him away from that industry. Which made Sin City, the film he co-directed based on his series of comics, such a surprise. It took the hard boiled comic book milieu developed by Miller and made it a visually stunning and influential movie.
This, then, is Miller's solo debut. He has taken the character of The Spirit, created by comic legend Will Eisner, and reimagined it. The Spirit is an ex-cop who was shot, died and came back to life. He now defends his city and tries to find out exactly what he is.
Basically? Sin City 1.5.
That shouldn't be a bad thing but the problem here, which is a problem with a lot of Miller's work, is the tone. Sin City, for all it's gruff noir craziness, plays it mostly straight. Sure you get characters that do things that are way over the top but at it's core it's a straight noir.
But The Spirit goes off the deep end. It's meant to be superhero noir but when you get characters literally hitting each other with the kitchen sink it's becomes something else entirely.
Gabriel Macht, as the Spirit, gets the idea. He's all gruff and bluster and not an issue there. We also have a raft of femme fatales thrown at the screen with various degrees of success. The problem here is that none of them really get a chance to breathe, a couple could have been trimmed and the film wouldn't have suffered.
And then there is Samuel L Jackson. He is The Octopus, The Spirit's arch nemesis.
HE.
IS.
MENTAL.
Proper, off the deep end, mental. Insane. It's such a bizarre crazy role. But it doesn't belong in this film, to be honest I'm not sure where it belongs but it's not here. It should almost be in a film by itself.
And that's the problem; the film is a great mix of ideas that don't really gel. The voiceovers drag down the pace, the flashbacks to The Spirit's youth drag it down even more. It's a shame because when the film works it's great. It needed someone like Robert Rodriguez there to keep the film on track, like with Sin City.
Close but no cigar.
In a word? Mental.
Frank Miller is a funny old sort. A giant in the comics field, he reinvigorated Daredevil and then redefined Batman. And then he went nuts.
I'm getting ahead of myself. Frank Miller and Hollywood didn't have a great start to their relationship. He wrote the script for RoboCop 2 which was gutted by the studio and drove him away from that industry. Which made Sin City, the film he co-directed based on his series of comics, such a surprise. It took the hard boiled comic book milieu developed by Miller and made it a visually stunning and influential movie.
This, then, is Miller's solo debut. He has taken the character of The Spirit, created by comic legend Will Eisner, and reimagined it. The Spirit is an ex-cop who was shot, died and came back to life. He now defends his city and tries to find out exactly what he is.
Basically? Sin City 1.5.
That shouldn't be a bad thing but the problem here, which is a problem with a lot of Miller's work, is the tone. Sin City, for all it's gruff noir craziness, plays it mostly straight. Sure you get characters that do things that are way over the top but at it's core it's a straight noir.
But The Spirit goes off the deep end. It's meant to be superhero noir but when you get characters literally hitting each other with the kitchen sink it's becomes something else entirely.
Gabriel Macht, as the Spirit, gets the idea. He's all gruff and bluster and not an issue there. We also have a raft of femme fatales thrown at the screen with various degrees of success. The problem here is that none of them really get a chance to breathe, a couple could have been trimmed and the film wouldn't have suffered.
And then there is Samuel L Jackson. He is The Octopus, The Spirit's arch nemesis.
HE.
IS.
MENTAL.
Proper, off the deep end, mental. Insane. It's such a bizarre crazy role. But it doesn't belong in this film, to be honest I'm not sure where it belongs but it's not here. It should almost be in a film by itself.
And that's the problem; the film is a great mix of ideas that don't really gel. The voiceovers drag down the pace, the flashbacks to The Spirit's youth drag it down even more. It's a shame because when the film works it's great. It needed someone like Robert Rodriguez there to keep the film on track, like with Sin City.
Close but no cigar.
In a word? Mental.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Oh, alright, THIS is the film I'm most looking forward to
A new Sam Raimi horror film.
Yes please.
Some more update will follow shortly, including several film reviews that have stacked up.
If I can be bothered, naturally.
Yes please.
Some more update will follow shortly, including several film reviews that have stacked up.
If I can be bothered, naturally.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Film review: Yes Man
Yes Man @ IMDB
First things first, this film is based on a book by a guy called Danny Wallace who I don't really like. Not for any particular reason but here we go:
He co-wrote a book called Are You Dave Gorman? with the eponymous Dave Gorman. Now Gorman went on to create the genius Googlewhack Adventure whilst Danny Wallace didn't. He took the Gorman template (man going on crazy adventure/challenge) and ran with it a little too far. In an ideal world, the talented Gorman would go on to glory whilst the, let's be honest, copycat Wallace wouldn't.
Of course, this isn't an ideal world so whilst Gorman still ploughs his own path Wallace gets a movie deal. Go figure.
So really I wasn't looking forward to this film a great deal. Based on the book, we have Jim Carrey as a man (not Danny Wallace, thankfully) who decides to change his life and say yes to everything.
Now Jim Carrey is a tricky actor to pin down. With him you'll get one of three faces; Mr Wacky from Ace Ventura, Mr Smaltz from Liar Liar or Mr Actor from The Trueman Show and Eternal Sunshine. Ideally, he'd be the last one all the time as those are his best films, closely followed by Mr Wacky.
This film aims to combine all three. It's not 100% successful but it's not bad. Mr Actor is forced to the background a bit but this means Mr Wacky is reigned in so he's not annoying. Mr Smaltz rears his ugly head at the end but he's not there very long and it is a romantic comedy so you can forgive it.
The main thing is, this is a funny film. It hits the mark more often than not, there's great support around Charrey (the cameo by the manager of The Flight of the Conchords is a particular highlight) and it's nicely paced.
It's not the best comedy this year but it's certainly up there at the top of the list.
In a word? Positive.
First things first, this film is based on a book by a guy called Danny Wallace who I don't really like. Not for any particular reason but here we go:
He co-wrote a book called Are You Dave Gorman? with the eponymous Dave Gorman. Now Gorman went on to create the genius Googlewhack Adventure whilst Danny Wallace didn't. He took the Gorman template (man going on crazy adventure/challenge) and ran with it a little too far. In an ideal world, the talented Gorman would go on to glory whilst the, let's be honest, copycat Wallace wouldn't.
Of course, this isn't an ideal world so whilst Gorman still ploughs his own path Wallace gets a movie deal. Go figure.
So really I wasn't looking forward to this film a great deal. Based on the book, we have Jim Carrey as a man (not Danny Wallace, thankfully) who decides to change his life and say yes to everything.
Now Jim Carrey is a tricky actor to pin down. With him you'll get one of three faces; Mr Wacky from Ace Ventura, Mr Smaltz from Liar Liar or Mr Actor from The Trueman Show and Eternal Sunshine. Ideally, he'd be the last one all the time as those are his best films, closely followed by Mr Wacky.
This film aims to combine all three. It's not 100% successful but it's not bad. Mr Actor is forced to the background a bit but this means Mr Wacky is reigned in so he's not annoying. Mr Smaltz rears his ugly head at the end but he's not there very long and it is a romantic comedy so you can forgive it.
The main thing is, this is a funny film. It hits the mark more often than not, there's great support around Charrey (the cameo by the manager of The Flight of the Conchords is a particular highlight) and it's nicely paced.
It's not the best comedy this year but it's certainly up there at the top of the list.
In a word? Positive.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Alright, THIS is the film I'm most looking forward to
The Expendables.
Let's break it down: Starring Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li AND Dolph Lundgren. Not forgeting this is being directed by Stallone and we all know how his last action film turned out.
It's this or Inglorious Basterds. But then The Expendables is described as "an 80s throwback men on a mission movie in the vein of Commando and Predator".
Commando and Predator?
Sold.
Let's break it down: Starring Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li AND Dolph Lundgren. Not forgeting this is being directed by Stallone and we all know how his last action film turned out.
It's this or Inglorious Basterds. But then The Expendables is described as "an 80s throwback men on a mission movie in the vein of Commando and Predator".
Commando and Predator?
Sold.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Film review: The Day The Earth Stood Still
The Day The Earth Stood Still @ IMDB
You have to feel sorry for Keanu Reeves. I'm sure if you total up the box office totals for his films he'd be enormously successful. Bill & Ted, Speed, The Matrix, these are big big films. And he gets no respect.
One might say he was the new Steve Guttenberg.
But at least Guttenberg knew his place, he pretend he was anything else other than a B-Grade actor who got lucky with some of the roles he was cast in. He didn't star in remakes of 50s Sci-Fi films and pretend that they were anything else than throwaway tosh.
As you might guess, this is a remake of the 50s classic which tells the tale of an alien called Klaatu that comes to Earth in order to warn the human race about their destructive ways. Only, instead of being about the Cold War like in the original, this time it's about man causing the ecological destruction of Earth.
How topical.
On the plus side, it looks good. They have kept the design of Klaatu's robot bodyguard similar to the original so no issue there. The initial half an hour or so of the alien craft landing is great, that sequence should have it's own film*.
It just doesn't hang together after that. We get that Klaatu is meant to be this emotionless, distant character but he's too distant. There's nothing there to hook us in as the humans are pretty dumb as well.
What we have is the basis for a really good film but it's not this one. Must do better, all round.
In a word? Stationary.
* In fact there is one, it's called Close Encounters of The Third Kind. Look it up.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Film review: Madagascar - Escape 2 Africa
Madagascar - Escape 2 Africa @ IMDB
Now, DreamWorks Animation Studios has always come off worse when compared to Pixar. Most people come off worse, admittedly, but DreamWorks have always been like Simon Cowell compared to Pixar's Brian Eno: in it for the money rather than for the love of the medium.
So it continues with this sequel to Madagascar; our animal friends from the first film leave the island only to crash land in Africa. What kind of hi-jinks will ensue? I think we already know.
I don't have a problem per-se with the the first film, it just wasn't that good. It was fun and everything but never more than that.
Do we need that fun a second time? Probably not but we'll get it anyway because the kids like it and makes the studio a lot of money.
Everyone from the first film is back but now we get some backstory crowbarred onto them that makes no sense: if he arrived in New York in a crate wouldn't he of mentioned this in the first film? When did the monkeys arrive on the island? Two of the characters are in love? Really?
To be honest, most kid films collapse when you think about them too hard* but the whole thing just comes off as lazy. The point is: there is no need for this film to exist. The reason Toy Story 2 works so well is because there was a new story to tell with the characters. There is no story in this film that wasn't already told in the first film, it's just a collection of set pieces hamfistedly strung together in order to get the kids in.
Which works, because my son loves it.
In a word? Roar-ful.
* Except for Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Wall-E etc.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Film review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Zack & Miri @ IMDB
It's fair to say, despite the mauling he generally receives, Kevin Smith is an icon for a certain section of popular culture fanboys. Having made his fame maxing out his credit cards to make a film, he's become almost the inspiration for the geek chic culture.
One group of people he has influenced is the Judd Apatow stable of movies, who follow the Smith Template of lewdness and sentimentality.
Now this comes full circle with Zak & Miri Make a Porno which stars Seth Rogen, one of the ring leaders of the Apatow films. A slice of fried comedy gold?
Hmm.
The story is interesting: we have two best friends who are struggling financially, who decide that the best way to escape their woes would be to make a porn film. Naturally. But the issue of sex won't complicate the relationship. Will it?
So you can see where it's going to go but with Kevin Smith films the ride is generally more important. As you do get his usual snappy dialogue, some nice jokes and the sight of Jason Mewes' cock.
But why am I not that enthused?
In a weird way Seth Rogen is the problem. This is because the films he's made are (basically) Kevin Smith films but done better. They don't have the self indulgence that has been infecting Smith's films since Jersey Girl. They don't rely on a ridiculous level of sentimentality. And they don't chuck in stupid dance bits that should have been left in rubbish 1980s John Hughes films.
The reason why Kevin Smith films used to stand out is because no one was making films like he made them. But now people are the cracks are starting to show. What he needs to do now is a completely fresh break and work on something new. At least the original View Askewniverse movies had a surreal charm to them, but the films he's made outside of that just seem like re-treads but without the good bits.
Possibly a little harsh there. It's still a good film but there's so much potential going to waste.
In a word? Shame.
It's fair to say, despite the mauling he generally receives, Kevin Smith is an icon for a certain section of popular culture fanboys. Having made his fame maxing out his credit cards to make a film, he's become almost the inspiration for the geek chic culture.
One group of people he has influenced is the Judd Apatow stable of movies, who follow the Smith Template of lewdness and sentimentality.
Now this comes full circle with Zak & Miri Make a Porno which stars Seth Rogen, one of the ring leaders of the Apatow films. A slice of fried comedy gold?
Hmm.
The story is interesting: we have two best friends who are struggling financially, who decide that the best way to escape their woes would be to make a porn film. Naturally. But the issue of sex won't complicate the relationship. Will it?
So you can see where it's going to go but with Kevin Smith films the ride is generally more important. As you do get his usual snappy dialogue, some nice jokes and the sight of Jason Mewes' cock.
But why am I not that enthused?
In a weird way Seth Rogen is the problem. This is because the films he's made are (basically) Kevin Smith films but done better. They don't have the self indulgence that has been infecting Smith's films since Jersey Girl. They don't rely on a ridiculous level of sentimentality. And they don't chuck in stupid dance bits that should have been left in rubbish 1980s John Hughes films.
The reason why Kevin Smith films used to stand out is because no one was making films like he made them. But now people are the cracks are starting to show. What he needs to do now is a completely fresh break and work on something new. At least the original View Askewniverse movies had a surreal charm to them, but the films he's made outside of that just seem like re-treads but without the good bits.
Possibly a little harsh there. It's still a good film but there's so much potential going to waste.
In a word? Shame.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Film Review: Quantum of Solace
Quantum of Solace @ IMDB
Bond is back. Again.
So it'ss fair to say that the anticipation for the second Daniel Craig Bond film has been intense, to say the least. And I'll include myself in that as Casino Royale was a great film that came out of nowhere.
And this is the problem, but we'll get to that shortly.
Hot on the heels of the end of Casino Royale, Bond is on a mission to find the people behind the actions of his last Bond Girl, the traitorous Vesper.
Now, I've stopped the plot description there before it gets too confusing because the plot is a tad confusing. The Bourne Influence casts a mighty shadow over this film, including the labyrinthine plot that doesn't make that much sense. The reason why this worked in Bourne is that Bourne himself was on a straight line, trying to find the people out to get him. It was around him that all the double crossing CIA stuff happened so it didn't overwhelm the plot. Meanwhile in Bond, he's right in the middle of plot which puts the not very clear story right at the front of the film. Not ideal.
The bad guy isn't that good either, he's hardly a threatening presence in the film and not the big enemy that Bond needs.
The real problem is that this isn't the film we were expecting. We all wanted Casino Royale 2 but this isn't it. Whilst the action sequences are great it just doesn't connect the way Royale did. This is possibly down the humanising aspects of Bond that are missing from this film. I know he's supposed to be a grief stricken revenge obsessed super spy but he's so emotionally distant from us in this film that it detracts from the whole experience.
That isn't to say that Craig isn't a good Bond because he really really is. The few real Bond moments in the film he makes his own, he just needed a better script to support him.
It is a great action film (as you would expect as the Second Unit Director who did the action sequences worked on the Bourne films) but Casino Royale was a great action film with a great story.
This only gets it half right.
In a word? Bland.
Bond is back. Again.
So it'ss fair to say that the anticipation for the second Daniel Craig Bond film has been intense, to say the least. And I'll include myself in that as Casino Royale was a great film that came out of nowhere.
And this is the problem, but we'll get to that shortly.
Hot on the heels of the end of Casino Royale, Bond is on a mission to find the people behind the actions of his last Bond Girl, the traitorous Vesper.
Now, I've stopped the plot description there before it gets too confusing because the plot is a tad confusing. The Bourne Influence casts a mighty shadow over this film, including the labyrinthine plot that doesn't make that much sense. The reason why this worked in Bourne is that Bourne himself was on a straight line, trying to find the people out to get him. It was around him that all the double crossing CIA stuff happened so it didn't overwhelm the plot. Meanwhile in Bond, he's right in the middle of plot which puts the not very clear story right at the front of the film. Not ideal.
The bad guy isn't that good either, he's hardly a threatening presence in the film and not the big enemy that Bond needs.
The real problem is that this isn't the film we were expecting. We all wanted Casino Royale 2 but this isn't it. Whilst the action sequences are great it just doesn't connect the way Royale did. This is possibly down the humanising aspects of Bond that are missing from this film. I know he's supposed to be a grief stricken revenge obsessed super spy but he's so emotionally distant from us in this film that it detracts from the whole experience.
That isn't to say that Craig isn't a good Bond because he really really is. The few real Bond moments in the film he makes his own, he just needed a better script to support him.
It is a great action film (as you would expect as the Second Unit Director who did the action sequences worked on the Bourne films) but Casino Royale was a great action film with a great story.
This only gets it half right.
In a word? Bland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
PS3 ID
