Showing posts with label daniel craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daniel craig. Show all posts

April 25, 2013

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)


4/5

Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin is a rousing adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones, but even more playful and fun. It follows the titular character Tintin (Bell) and his dog Snowy as they investigate clues on a transcontinental journey involving pirates and shipwrecks and hidden treasure. The plotline itself is not particularly groundbreaking or inventive, but it serves the movie well and pushes the story forward at a rapid pace. What really makes this movie such a treasure to watch is its charming characters. Their innocent naivete combined with their clever puzzle-solving and thirst for answers give them unending sympathy no matter what mistakes they make. I can see why the comics were so popular.

The motion capture is a little bit of a double-edged sword. It places the film's characters directly in the uncanny valley, which may put off a lot of viewers. However, it enables Spielberg to take the chase and action scenes to stunning new heights, to truly thrill and excite. It delights and rewards those able to suspend their disbelief. And delighted I was. Just thinking about this movie puts a smile on my face. It was a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/

April 01, 2013

Skyfall (2012)


3/5

Skyfall, the 23rd Bond film since its creation 50 years ago, is certainly the most beautiful Bond film I've ever seen. And it's a prototypical Bond movie in many ways--filled with dry wit, exotic locales, and evil villains--but it's set in the new "hero as human" era of superhero movies that started with The Dark Knight. I'm certainly not an expert in the franchise, but my experience has always been of James Bond as a suave, debonair, practically invincible spy. Ever since the refresh with Casino Royale, we've seen him tortured and shot and just about beaten to death. This new bastardization of Bond is of an action hero who relies on brute force instead of gadgets, luck instead of planning. The 007 franchise has turned into a predictable summer blockbuster with a little star power and name recognition thrown in, but it's lost what made it special.

On top of all that, the movie itself is pretty mediocre, even with Sam Mendes at the helm. I will give it credit for having phenomenal cinematography (thanks to the incomparable Roger Deakins) and set pieces. But Mendes did not do enough to make it special again. Q and his gadgets came back, but in the most piddling, imbecilic way possible. The pacing suffered from an extra 30 minutes of explosions tacked on at the end. The plot is absolutely laughable. Granted, the plots have always been laughable, but that was part of their charm. Now they're preposterous in a realistic world instead of a dream world, which makes the inconsistencies and plot holes all the more embarrassing.

This is a plea to the producers: Stop this nonsense. Bond is not an action series; it's a spy series. Stop turning it into every other movie and bring it back to its roots. Update it without destroying it. Bond is more than what we're seeing here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/

December 25, 2011

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

4/5

David Fincher's remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is as terrifying, gripping, and disturbing as the Swedish version. When I first heard Fincher was doing the American remake, I was ecstatic. The content and atmosphere was classic Fincher, and the extended 8-minute trailer was riveting. To say my expectations were high was an understatement: they were nigh unattainable. And, lo and behold, the movie failed to meet them.


Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that this is so similar to the Swedish version. I typically favor American remakes (such as The Departed) as they inherently bring uniquely American cultural and social viewpoints that we can better relate to, independent of the quality of the directing or the cinematic techniques. But here, I just didn't get that. It felt overly faithful to the Swedish film, to the point of zealotry, and there was very little that was new or different.

The changes that Fincher did make were fairly minimal, but had enormous impact. I was a little bit more confused by the Vanger family tree this time around (although you would think it would be less confusing having already seen it and having it in English this go around). The beginning felt extended while the ending felt rushed. And the minor variation in the ending had huge implications for Lisbeth's character that I just can't shake. I have no idea how the novel ended, but I feel that Fincher's ending broke down the entire essence and persona of the titular character. She feels like a completely different Lisbeth.

Don't get me wrong. This is an absolutely engrossing movie, made with directorial precision and technical finesse. Beautiful cinematography, phenomenal music, and stellar acting. Rooney Mara more than holds her ground against the powerhouse that was Noomi Rapace. Perhaps I just set my sights too high, and perhaps I am being much too critical of the film, but I feel like the Swedish version speaks to me more. It has its imperfections, as does this American version, but the Swedish version is the one I think of whenever I think of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/

November 16, 2008

Quantum of Solace (2008)

3/5

The new James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, has just as many problems as the last Bond movie, if not more, and not too many improvements. There are no gadgets. There's no Q or Moneypenny. He doesn't make love to the main actress. And he's not really a spy--this was James Bond playing Jason Bourne. (There was even a fight scene that almost replicated the kitchen fight scene in The Bourne Ultimatum.) The movie starts about an hour after Casino Royale left off, but since I didn't remember all the characters and double-crosses from that movie, this one had a far more incomprehensible plot than it needed to. (Think Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.) When will the creators get some sense into them and bring back the old James Bond we know and love? It's been formulaic for 45 years because people love the formula.

I did like a few things. The title sequence in particular was very retro and very cool. It was a truly action-packed movie, with little time to catch your breath. I thought the directing was far superior to what it's been in the past, especially with regards to editing and cinematography. At the very least, these two latest Bond movies are better than Die Another Day, which I had the displeasure of catching on TV last night and wholeheartedly recommend you avoid at all costs. But Quantum of Solace is an entertaining flick, so check it out if you're a Bond fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/

December 08, 2007

The Golden Compass (2007)

3/5

I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/

November 22, 2006

Casino Royale (2006)

4/5

I was expecting this Bond movie to be particularly good, since they usually are when they cast a new actor to play Bond, but I was let down. Don't get me wrong; it's not bad, it's just not as good as it should have been. It seemed to follow the trend of humanizing superhero characters as in the two Spiderman movies and Batman Begins, which took away from the Bond we know and love and have grown up with. Why are there no gadgets in this movie? The music was a heavy-handed attempt at being emotive, which just made it ludicrously melodramatic in some places, and mediocre at best in others. It was much too long--its ending felt longer than the ending(s) for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yes, all 13 of them.

The action in the beginning was amazing. Absolutely flawless. The women are unbelievably sexy and the cars are stunning. The pacing up until the finale is surprisingly well done, and Campbell is able to switch moods effortlessly. The acting is phenomenal, something you don't usually see in a Bond flick. It's a real treat to see Bond's transformation from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. It's definitely a good addition to the Bond lineage, I just don't know if I like the direction it's going.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/

July 12, 2006

Road to Perdition (2002)

5/5

From start to finish, every frame of this film is jaw-dropping in its beauty. You will be stunned by the cinematography, which relegates the powerful script and precise acting to the back of your mind. Even so, it contains scenes of heart-stopping suspense to rival even Hitchcock's greatest works. It also manages to achieve a certain poignancy through Tom Hanks's quiet and restrained interactions with his son and equally quiet and restrained interactions with his father-figure (Paul Newman in a stellar performance, one of the best of his entire career).

The emotional impact of the film becomes somewhat muted due to its obligatory sense of fatalism, in the same vein as the film noirs of the 1940's. To me, the movie's cold, distant mood fits the piece exceptionally well. The terse manner in which the characters speak is also similar to noir, although the dialogue itself is vastly different (where those movies were flashy, Road to Perdition is earthy). Quite simply, it says all that needs to be said and nothing more.

Sam Mendes directs Road to Perdition with the same subtlety and artistic insight found in American Beauty, but the flourishes are more spectacular: A silent, slow-motion massacre in the rain that resembles a dance more closely than a murder, followed by the words "I'm glad it's you." A long take tracking Hanks as he shoots a man in his bathtub, the bright red blood on the white tile sharply contrasting with the pervading dark grey tones. You will remember these scenes; this movie is unforgettable.


IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0257044/