Spectre

Released:  November 6^th, 2015

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Columbia Pictures

Starring:  Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista

Directed by:  Sam Mendes

Written by:  John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth

Personal Bias Alert:  not a Bond fan, liked Skyfall

7 of 10

            This guy.  We all know Bond, James Bond and the cars, women, and martinis that come with him.  We also know Daniel Craig’s spin on the man, and whether you enjoy his dour era, you can’t deny that it’s banked some good money.  Spectre, no matter how well it does, will be hard-pressed to continue that trend, with the production budget inflating to a reported $350 million (for perspective, Titanic cost $200 million and Avengers:  Age of Ultron cost $250 million).  And what do audiences get for all this dough?  Just an average outing, one that delivers exactly what you expect from a Bond film and nothing more.

            This is a disappointing outcome after a promising pre-production.  The return of Sam Mendes as director had many hoping for another series highlight like Skyfall, and many were excited by the more serious duo of Bond girls that were cast.  But instead of pushing the envelope, Spectre falls back to its roots, taking Bond down another secret organization rabbit hole littered with chase scenes and loose women.  It’s hard to fault the film for the first element (these are action films, after all), but the latter is just tiresome, as eye-roll inducing as many of the antiquated trademarks have become.  What would be so wrong, Bond fans, with loosening the formula a bit?  Wouldn’t it be better to allow Bond to become a modern emblem of masculinity instead of the sad, boozy Sinatra impersonator he’s in danger of becoming?

            Series issues aside, Spectre gets so tied up in trying to bring you everything that you want from Bond that the screenwriters fail to add anything special.  It’s as uninspired as a band playing their decades-old hit; they hit all the right notes, but the boredom is undeniable.   There’s no love and care given to the villain, the love story, or even the investigation.  It’s all familiar beat after beat, endlessly referencing Bond’s past in a vain attempt to bring some meaning.  On the page, none of it is menacing or romantic, and any spark that appears is clearly coming from the excellent work of the people trying to bring the shoddy script to life.

            Mendes blew many fans away with his stylish approach to Skyfall, and he continues that gorgeous effort in Spectre.  If the film was being graded solely on presentation, it would earn top marks, with special accommodations going to cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema and conductor Thomas Newman.  They provide an example for how to make Bond’s tropes elegant, delivering the thrilling action sequences and extravagant locations we all expect in a modern package.  Care was given to the background activity of every scene, the lighting, and the music cues, culminating in a film that leads you through every obvious beat without being obnoxiously controlling.  They never betray the formula; they just make it the best it can be.

            Craig continues to keep his Bond an arm’s length away from the audience, and you’ll already know if he’s your cup of tea or not.  Monica Bellucci makes a brief and wasted appearance as an age-appropriate Bond girl (woman?), quickly seceding the film to French actress Léa Seydoux.  There are certain things you must do in the main Bond girl role, primarily serving as a seductress, which Seydoux excelled at in the Cannes-winning Blue Is the Warmest Color and in this.  The extra bit she brings is an air of self-confidence, not that of a plucky upstart, but of a woman who’s taken care of herself for a long time.  She does her best at what is the worst-written character in the film, and her energy saves the role from being an outright failure.  The same cannot be said for Christoph Waltz’s villain, not due to any poor effort from him, but from how largely absent he is.  The lack of a proper villain, or even a clear end goal, is the most problematic aspect of Spectre, and even a mustache-twirling Waltz can’t make him seem menacing enough to last.

            It’s lucky that such a cast and crew came together to lift Spectre’s stale script into decency.  Their efforts make it entertaining, a thoughtless but enjoyable ride that we’ve all been on before.

Other Notes:

Ø  I really like Ben Whishaw as Q:  “I’ve got a mortgage and two cats to feed.”

Ø  The intro of Waltz’s character is captivatingly weird.

Ø  As a Bond novice, I needed more of an explanation for the octopus, but I liked all the imagery they worked in.

Skyfall

Released:  November 9^th, 2012

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Columbia Pictures

Starring:  Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney, Judi Dench

Directed by:  Sam Mendes

Written by:  Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan

Personal Bias Alert:  not a Bond fan, likes the upgraded team

8 of 10

            Let’s face it, most of what I know about James Bond comes from playing Goldeneye on Nintendo 64.  If you were around during that time, then you know that it was the game, especially multiplayer, and my time commitment and domination of it knew no bounds.  That didn’t give me much knowledge about Bond, mostly that the Golden Gun is cool for some unknown reason and, in the least-spoilery spoiler of all time, Sean Bean dies at the end.  None of this prepped me at all for Skyfall, which vaguely delves into Bond’s backstory when it’s not too busy with chase sequences, beautiful women, and explosions.

            This is a Bond film, so you have to excuse its aforementioned tropes and fan-foddering as part of the charm.  But Skyfall is a notable turn towards respectability for the series, picking up Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes, Gladiator, The Aviator, and Hugo writer John Logan, and cinematographer god Roger Deakins.  The hope was that a top-notch team could turn the series around after the disappointment of Quantum of Solace, and boy did they pull off a hard turn in the right direction.  Skyfall is long, yes, but it’s expertly scripted, with layers of plot peeling off in one long, continuous reveal.  Even as someone who’s not a big fan of spy movies, this one had me happily rolling along with it, and the few times that something did go wrong, well, it moved on before I got too bothered.

            This is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, James Bond, and he delivers the sturdy sternness that he’s known for.  His Bond isn’t much fun nor does his sex appeal work for me, but he’s far from a failure in the role.  The cast of characters around him are made up of other dependable performers like Judy Dench, Ben Wishaw, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, and Naomie Harris.  All waltz into their scenes and play off the uptight Craig well, with Harris and Wishaw bringing a bit of bounce to their scenes.  Bardem as a flamboyant and distinctive villain (as expected in a Bond film) clearly had a grand old time with his part, and that energy is a bit infectious.  The problem is, he’s oddly not all that menacing.  He’s supposedly a cyber-wiz and physical threat, but he comes off a bit too cartoony in comparison to the rest of the dour proceedings to be taken very seriously.

            If anyone’s work is unblemished here, it’s Roger Deakins.  It’s nothing new to sing this guy’s praises, but that’s because his films are so damn beautiful.  The scale of his shots, from the flickering light of a burning building illuminating Bardem’s determined walk to a line of caskets so straight that the flags pulled taught over them seem to form a red line down the middle of the room, makes his immaculate work a constant joy to behold.  There’s even a clarity and energy to his action shots that is superior to what others are doing in this genre.  I’m not sure Bond did anything to deserve Deakins, but as Shad said, you never question when you get the blessings.

            The top-notch team who put Skyfall together delivered a beautiful, well-paced film, but it’s still Bond at its core.  The action sequences are the punctuation marks and the casual womanizing and alcoholism are the conjunctions stringing it all together.  Even if, like me, you don’t go for this Bond charm, Skyfall is still worth checking out.  In between these ludicirous staples is a well-worn but timeless story that’s fitting for a character who refuses to leave the pop culture stage long after his contemporaries have bowed out.

Other Notes:

Ø  While never boring, there was an awful lot of setup for a fairly basic story.

Ø  I like that they didn’t even bother to explain how Bond survived the opening fight.

Ø  That title sequence was awesome.

The English Patient

Released:  December 6^th, 1996

Rated:  R

Distributor:  Miramax

Starring:  Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Kristin Scott Thomas, Naveen Andrews, Colin Firth

Directed by:  Anthony Minghella

Written by:  Anthony Minghella

Personal Bias Alert:  not a big romance fan, haven’t read the book

6.5 of 10

            There’s little wonder why Miramax picked up The English Patient when it became available just before filming began.  Founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein know how to set themselves up for success come awards season, and a big, sweeping romance with World War II as a backdrop practically screamed ‘90s Oscar gold.  Epics were in (Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, and Braveheart took home Best Picture in the preceding years), and romances would win the next two years (Titanic and Miramax’s Shakespeare in Love).  Upping the prestige factor is the book it’s based on, which won the Booker Prize and was considered un-filmable by some.  So when an adaptation with an adequate story and gorgeous visuals rolled into theaters in late 1996, it must’ve seemed irresistible to the Academy.

            Yes, The English Patient walked away with Best Picture at the 69^th Academy Awards, along with eight other categories that night, but time hasn’t been kind to this film’s legacy.  Time wasn’t kind to its characters, either, as many spend the film breaking down inside an already crumbling monastery.  Nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) has taken refuge there to care for an unknown dying burn patient (Ralph Fiennes).  A series of tragedies have left her convinced that anyone she cares about will be killed, so isolation with her amnesiac ward seems like the safest option.  Soon other military personnel join her, including a Canadian operative named Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe) and a bomb defuser (Naveed Andrews).  Each have been ravaged in their own way by the war and have come to the monastery looking for refuge, which most of them find through new or remembered love.

            The lynchpin for this entire plot is the amnesiac burn patient, who’s slowly unwinding memory proves influential on all their lives.  It’s also this period, told in flashback, that gives the film much of its padding.  It focuses on the over told story of a middle-aged obsessive, someone who’s too single-minded to be very empathetic, which then falls back on melodrama to make us care.  Much could and should have been cut from this section, as these long breaks from the much richer goings-on at the monastery becomes frustrating.

            The novel (which I haven’t read) is allegedly a strong piece, perhaps too strong to fit in a film.  Evaluating it strictly as a film, it felt like writer/director Anthony Minghella focused in on the wrong aspects of the story.  By playing up the romance, there was less time to flesh out the numerous subtleties that seemed to be lurking just underneath the relationships, giving the entire film an air of grandiosity.  The actors did their best to bring these subtleties out, but since the least interesting relationship is the main focus, most simply didn’t have the screen time to make a smooth character arc.  Also, this is a story that easily should’ve been an hour shorter, but a character sits on information that he has no reason to sit on.

            While its epic length may not be deserved, the film certainly delivers an epic scope.  Deserts, minefields, and Italian rubble are all beautifully captured in wide, lush shots that show off a generous budget for a prestige film.  Cinematographer John Seale, whose work you’ll be able to see in the upcoming Mad Max:  Fury Road, shows a good eye for framing, allowing small things to linger in the background or gradually move into view.  So while you’re wading through this slow film, at least there’s something pretty to look at.

            In the end, the various relationships do deliver in a grand, sweeping way that gives The English Patient an old-school, momentous feel.  That’s doesn’t entirely make up for how long it takes to get there, but you won’t leave feeling short-changed.

Other Notes:

Ø  They’re all struggling to find their way in the world, making maps to cover their confusion.

Ø  This is the first digitally edited film to win an Oscar for Best Editing.

Ø  “Yes is a comfort.  Absolutely is not.”

Ø  This doesn’t hold a candle to 1996’s excellent Trainspotting.

In Bruges (2008)

8.5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Likes dark comedy, not at all offended by language

            Few movies are as delightful smart as “In Bruges.”  Too often movies feel dumbed down, and even intelligent films can fall into the trap of making only one aspect of it truly interesting or surprising.  I understand why; movies simply don’t have a lot of time to tell their story.  According to Amazon, the average length of a book is 64,000 words.   A television show can have hundreds of hours of content, and even unsuccessful series often get 5 to 6 hours from their initial order, far exceeding the runtime of a movie.  Plays are the only equivalent medium, normally running between 1½ to 3 hours.  It makes sense, then, that an accomplished playwright could swoop in and effortlessly cram so much into a movie.

            “In Bruges” picks up the story of Irish hitmen Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brenden Gleeson) shortly after a botched assignment, finding them hiding out in the Belgian city of Bruges.  Ken seems happy about the paid excursion, dragging the huffy Ray around while he takes in the sights.  Eventually the botched hit catches up with them, and their lackadaisical days are replaced with life and death decisions.

            Other characters eventually come into play, including their boss played by Ralph Fiennes, but much of the movie is dominated by Ray and Ken’s odd couple pairing.  Despite their differences they do like each other, and their banter is razor sharp.  They discuss everything from mortality to gay beers, and it never fails to be fun.  This seems like a good time for a side note.  The characters say really offensive things throughout the film, so if you can’t get past that sort of thing, then this isn’t the movie for you.

            The wide range of discussions that Ray and Ken have are a direct result of how well drawn the characters are.  They both have a lot on their minds, and thoughts sink and surface at the drop of a hat.  That’s often enough to carry a film, but playwright turned writer/director Martin McDonagh puts in a deceptively intricate plot as well, then garnishes the whole thing with some well-used symbolism.  Oh, and it’s really funny, too.

            It’s a treat to see “In Bruges” walk the tightrope it does, balancing many tricky elements without dropping the ball.  It’s one of those plots where everything crashes together at the end, but the connections and coincidences don’t feel forced or disingenuous.  The characters aren’t cookie-cutter likable but do have an undeniable charm (Colin Farrell is perfect for this).   It blends genres with ease, and the tonal shifts aren’t jarring.  It’s delightful when a film sets itself up so well then capitalizes on its promise.

            It’s a pleasing, funny film, but I can’t say it ever becomes more than that.  It evokes an oddly subdued reaction.  I was amused but never laughed out loud.  I was engaged but not invested.  I liked it but didn’t love it.  It didn’t do anything wrong, and I can’t explain why I had this reaction.  My only clear complaint of the film is with the end narration, which felt tacked on.  But my subdued reaction predated the ending, so that’s clearly not to blame.  This is why I described “In Bruges” as delightful; it will make you smile, maybe make you feel a generalized affection towards it, but it’s not love.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The city was filmed beautifully.  It evoked the languid, fairytale-like atmosphere really well.

Ø  Ray is one of those characters that says the things you wish you could say, and I liked it.

Ø  Is Bruges purgatory?

Ø  “What’s a lollipop man doing knowing f***ing karate?”