On JJ Abrams and Star Wars

Yesterday, the word came out that JJ Abrams would be the director for the new Disney Star Wars film, which has been called Episode VII since its announcement. Having read nothing other than headlines on the topic, here are a couple of thoughts on what Abrams is working with and what he might bring to the franchise.

First, a few thoughts on Abrams. I’d consider myself something of a mid-level fan of Abrams work. I’ve enjoyed most of his TV work (that I’ve seen), including Lost, Alias and Fringe. Abrams does have a habit of handing off his creations to other showrunners who make it their own thing, so it’s hard to tell how much credit he deserves for making Lost awesome, or how much blame he deserves for the decline in quality of Lost and Alias. Still, he puts a unique stamp on his work and he’s given some new life to genre TV.

I’m a fan of his debut film, Mission: Impossible III, though I’d still rank the original and M:I-4 above it. I’m not as keen on Super 8, which worked fine (for better and worse) as a Spielberg homage and featured talented child actors, but was hampered by sappiness in the last quarter of the film. Star Trek falls somewhere in the middle for me.

Lincoln

Beth and I finally saw Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln last night, something we’ve been planning to do at least twice a week since the film opened three months ago. Anchored by a strong lead performance and solid supporting work from a sea of recognizable character actors, Lincoln is Spielberg’s best film in a decade.

I know a few people who can’t stand Spielberg films because of their overt sentimentality. The director artificially elevates scenes, characters, events and moments to the point of head-shaking unreality through his use of music, lighting and the camera. He also highlights stilted dialog in moments of grand pomposity designed to tell a viewer to pay attention because This Is Important. But by golly if it doesn’t work much of the time. Spielberg is a master manipulator and while I often recognize these heightened moments–thankfully Spielberg gets one of the “worst” out of the way in the first five minutes of Lincoln–I find myself looking past or even being swept along with some of them. I have no trouble enjoying a movie with a beating heart, even if that heart is sometimes pumping sugar syrup.

As I watched Lincoln, one thing that stuck out to me was the set decoration. The world of the film is incredibly detailed, but something felt just a bit off to me.

Some Post-Golden Globes Thoughts

First, a couple of admissions:

1. I did not watch more than 15 minutes of the Golden Globes ceremony on January 13. Why didn’t I watch more? Maybe because I needed to clean the kitchen. Maybe because I couldn’t bear to leave my TV on after the New England Patriots advanced to yet another AFC Championship Game. Maybe because…

2. I just don’t really care all that much about the Globes. I’ve already said a little about my opinion on the value of the Academy Awards in my Pre-Oscars and Post-Oscars posts for 2011. For as little as I claim to get out of the Oscars, I feel like I get even less out of the Globes. I do think it’s fun to combine awards for TV and Film. Also, I certainly spend more time watching TV than movies, so I enjoy that part of the Globes a little more (why didn’t I write about the Emmys though?). Plus, the Globes are not nearly as self-important as the Oscars. I love myself some Hollywood prestige/nostalgia/history, but the Academy Awards take themselves way too seriously sometimes. That said, the Oscars award fun stuff like Cinematography and Editing, which you don’t see at the Globes (but you do at the Emmys). Still, the shady “Hollywood Foreign Press” and the sometimes lower quality of the nominees (I’m looking at you, Musical/Comedy film category) keep me from tuning in or caring. Much.

Now, just a few brief thoughts on the nominees and winners. It’s nice to see a decent degree of difference in the nominees when compared to the Oscars, though I’ll probably have plenty more to say about movies when the Oscars roll around next month.

Star Trek Into Darkness (9 minute IMAX preview)

via: http://www.inquisitr.com/426615/

I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last night in IMAX 3-D (more on that later, if I’m not too lazy to write about it). I knew that before the feature, I would be treated to what I had heard advertised as “the first 9 minutes” of the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie, Into Darkness. Below is my reaction to the extended preview. There are some SPOILERS below, mostly for what is seen in the preview, but also a few outside details (that have been revealed elsewhere) and just some speculation from yours truly.

Before jumping into a my quick thoughts on the preview, I should briefly explain my level of Trekkie-ness. I fall somewhere between a hard-core Trekkie and a casual viewer. I’ve actively made an effort to see every episode of the first three Trek TV shows (four if you count the animated series), though I’ve seen none of Voyager or Enterprise. I’ve also seen all of the feature films. I was lukewarm on the 2009 Abrams reboot. I thought it was a solid action movie (as Abrams always provides) and it was kind of fun seeing new introductions to familiar characters, settings and situations. However, I didn’t think the new Trek had the heart/soul of The Original Series. It was a slick movie, better made (and arguably better) than some of the weaker entries in the Trek film series, but I don’t think it quite won the uphill battle it was fighting to be a smash hit and still please most of the fans. I’m still excited for Into Darkness and will definitely be there on (or shortly after) opening day.

The preview begins in London 2259.55 with two characters we’ve never seen (at least I didn’t recognize them) waking up and driving their hover car to a hospital (that looks kind of like Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, and Wayne Manor, and the mansion where Rachel Weisz lives in The Brothers Bloom). The couple goes in to visit what is presumably their sick daughter. The mother, played by Nazneen Contractor (the annoying daughter of the president of “Kamistan” in season 8 of 24, and recently a reporter on Last Resort, if anyone watches that) holds the daughter’s hand and the father (Noel Clarke, apparently of Doctor Who fame) looks on in anger. Dad goes out to a balcony and is spoken to by an unseen individual who claims that he can save the girl. Turns out the guy talking to him is Benedict Cumberbatch, who, reports generally say, is the antagonist of the film.

If this is indeed “the first 9 minutes” of the new film, it starts out on the wrong foot. As I said, we don’t know either of these characters, and giving them a sick child is no way to force us to care about them. Cumberbatch’s introduction is appropriately ominous, which I quite liked, but I don’t think it packed the oomph necessary to open a new Star Trek movie. We don’t get a demonstration of his power and we don’t know anything about this little girl or her parents and why he’s helping them. It’s hard to say whether this scene would work better later in the film, but considering the action takes place one year earlier than the next scene (thanks to an on-screen title) I think it’s stuck where it is.

The rest of the preview deals with a big action sequence on a very striking “Class M” planet filled with Dr. Seuss-like red trees and populated by what appear to be primitive, pale, white-skinned (or at least white-painted) natives with all-black eyes. In a scene that takes a few cues from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the natives chase two figures (who turn out to be Bones and Kirk) through the red tree forest, firing arrows and throwing spears at them. It seems the two have stolen an artifact from the natives as a distraction while Uhura, Sulu and Spock take a shuttle into the planet’s gigantic active volcano in order to neutralize it and prevent the destruction of the native race. This involves Spock being lowered into the volcano from the shuttle to plant a device. Of course, Spock’s cable snaps and the shuttle has to abandon him. Bones and Kirk leave behind the artifact and jump off of a cliff into a large body of water. Turns out they have underwater breathing equipment and little shoe-jets to propel them along (a reminder of some of the sillier gadgets Sydney Bristow made use of in Alias). They scoot through the water and come upon…

…The Enterprise! It’s a pretty cool reveal with the ship hiding underwater so as not to tip off the natives that they are there. How they got it down there without causing a commotion (within a couple minutes’ run of the community’s center) I have no idea. Maybe they entered on the other side of the ocean? Anyway, everyone (but Spock) is back on the bridge and they need to decide how to rescue Spock without disobeying the Prime Directive. Somehow they have communication with Spock, who tells Kirk that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” It’s a nice reference, though I can’t imagine they’d have Spock “die” in the “first 9 minutes” of the new film. Still, the situation goes unresolved as Bones tells Kirk that if Spock were in his shoes, he’d let Kirk die.

via: http://en.memory-alpha.org

I really enjoyed this second part of the preview. It’s a really fun action scene–or more of a chase scene and also CGI Spock bouncing around in a CGI volcano–which is what I’ve come to expect from Abrams. If the movie puts together a couple more scenes like this and figures out how to sell us on Cumberbatch’s villain after the weaker opening sequence (which shouldn’t be hard, since he’s Benedict Cumberbatch) I think Into Darkness will be just as good as the previous film. I know that’s not especially high praise, but I’m honestly hoping that Abrams tops the first film. Whether that means I’ll like it more as a Trek fan, or simply enjoy it as a second installment of a fun sci-fi action franchise remains to be seen.

Before the preview ends, we get a few clips of “sizzle reel” action from other parts of the film. There is at least one shot that appears to be the Enterprise skimming through the surface of water (in daylight). We see a very Elizabeth Dehner-like Alice Eve (though apparently she’s playing Dr. Carol Marcus, another familiar figure). We also see two people’s hands on either side of a pane of glass, reminiscent of The Wrath of Khan, of course. I could see Abrams going the Khan-like route and “killing” Spock to take us “into darkness” and set up the third film. I can only imagine him actually killing off one of the major characters without offering a chance of return. I can’t see it happening, but if it does, my money is on Uhura (an admittedly problematic choice which would certainly raise questions given her race/gender). Or, now that I’m thinking of it, maybe one of the crew dies or is dying and Cumberbatch needs to “save” him/her. It’s equal parts fun and difficult to speculate as to what might happen in the new film. I guess all will be revealed in May.

via: http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/12/06/extra_frames_in_japanese_version_of_st?ref_src=news_rss

If you’re going to see The Hobbit, and you have the choice to go in IMAX, just do it. Even without the Trek bonus it’s worth it.

Killing Them Softly

[Politics aside, I love the poster art for this film. Found at: http://www.ropeofsilicon.com]

Most people couldn’t find one reason to get out and see Killing Them Softly. I had three. First, despite the little advertising I had seen for the film, I had read a lot of positive things about it including some reviewers saying it was the best film of the year so far. Second, it stars Brad Pitt. I’m not head-over-heels for Pitt by any means, but of late (I’d trace it back to Babel in 2006) he’s had a pretty good track record of picking interesting films and he’s usually a solid performer in everything. Third, it is directed by Andrew Dominik.

I admit that I haven’t seen Dominik’s first film, 2000’s Chopper, but as a big fan of the Western genre I adore his second film, 2007’s The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The cast in Assassination is great, led, I suppose, by Pitt, who’s low-key performance as Jesse gives way for Casey Affleck to shine in his Oscar-nominated supporting role as Robert Ford, his best performance to date and one of my favorites of that year. Assassination gained high praise when it first came out, particularly as an under-seen and underrated film. Recently, I read a review that called it overrated, so I guess the pendulum has started to swing the other way. I understand why some might not enjoy an action-light, 2-hour, 40-minute film when 3:10 to Yuma is playing in the next theater over, but I really like this film. It doesn’t hurt that it’s beautifully shot by Roger Deakins (recently of Skyfall fame). As a western history buff, I think it’s a bold decision to start the film years after the most well-known event in Jesse James history (beyond his assassination, of course): the Northfield, Minnesota Raid. That 1876 event has been depicted in almost every other Jesse James movie I’ve ever seen, but Dominik begins the film in 1881, the year before Jesse’s death. Assassination is more of a psychological character-study then a traditional western film, and I think it, and the genre are all the better for it. [NOTE: for those interested in Jesse James history, I highly recommend Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War by T.J. Stiles]

via: http://www.cinetastic.de

In Killing Them Softly, Pitt is the one doing the assassinating. He stars as a hit man brought in to fix the problems caused by the armed robbery of a private poker game. Honestly, there isn’t much more to the plot than that, but that’s no matter because it’s the characters that really shine. Though he doesn’t appear until 20 minutes into the film, allowing for his on-the-nose entrance to Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around,” Pitt is engaging throughout. He keeps an even keel as Cogan, turning in a restrained performance that is free of the flash found in his earlier star-making roles.

The rest of the cast is just as solid, particularly Scoot McNairy (also seen recently in Argo, my take on that film here) as Frankie, one of the two men who rob the poker game. Ben Mendelsohn (Animal Kindgom, The Dark Knight Rises) is Russell, the other stickup man. Honestly, McNairy could be considered the lead character of the film, kind of like Affleck in Assassination, as he’s around for the entire film. Richard Jenkins as Driver, a representative for the mafia acting as a contact for Cogan, and James Gandolfini as Mickey, another hitman, also put in memorable performances. The major players are all very believable in their roles, from slick hitman to slimy mafia middleman to grimy hoodlum. Rounding out the cast are Ray Liotta, Vincent “Johnny Sack” Curatola, Max Casella and Sam Shepherd, in what’s essentially a cameo. Nope, there are no women in this film (apart from a prostitute and Curatola’s girlfriend).

Mendelsohn and McNairy via: http://www.flicksandbits.com

Killing Them Softly has been noted for its violence. I didn’t find it particularly gross or gory, though it is rather brutal, beginning with a punch-sound-effects-heavy beating in the rain. The first scene of killing in the film is also delivered in lyrical slow motion. It isn’t entirely original given its violence-as-dance appearance, but it is a standout scene in the film, well shot and well staged. It exists in contrast to the other kills in the film. One of which is done at a greater remove (or even more “softly”) and another of which comes as a viscerally effective shock. Dominik also allows himself some flash with a memorably stylized scene between McNairy and Mendelsohn, with the latter drifting in and out of a drugged-induced haze.

Like Assassination, Killing is also contemplative, giving its audience time to listen to long conversations (of which there are several) and sometimes to revel (or squirm) in its silences. Pitt shares dialogue scenes with Jenkins, Gandolfini and McNairy that I could watch over and over. I love it when a film or TV show (notably Breaking Bad) takes the time for a real conversation to run its course. The words are important in this film, which reminded me more than a few times of Killer Joe (dir. William Friedkin), adapted from a stage play by Tracy Letts. Friedkin’s film is more violent and crazy-over-the-top, but I think the films share a few things and perhaps a more in-depth comparison is due.

The leisurely pace of each scene in Killing Them Softly stands in contrast to the film’s 97-minute run time, a brevity that caught me off guard. When the film ended, I thought that perhaps I had missed something, or maybe there were reels missing. Adding to my suspicion of an incomplete print was the fact that Dominik seems to leave the fates of some of the characters dangling, or decided off-screen. While it was somewhat curious initially, in hindsight I think it’s a great touch. The film doesn’t show us everything, but it shows us enough to tell its story.

If there’s one criticism I have, and several others have, of Killing Them Softly, it’s the blatant references to the faltering American economy. Killing is set in 2008 and it seems like every other scene (including the opening credits sequence, which I quite liked) features a speech about the state of the nation’s economy by either then-president George W. Bush or presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain. TV or radio broadcasts of these speeches appear in the background of several scenes, sometimes interrupting them in a “do you guys get it yet?” manner that I feel distracts and detracts from the much stronger balance of the film. This is a curious choice given that the film is an adaptation of a 1974 novel titled Cogan’s Trade by George V. Higgins. It makes one wonder what a straight adaptation might have looked like without the heavy-handed commentary on the economic crisis in the US.

Jenkins and Pitt via: http://www.filmxtra.co.uk

In the end, I can’t say I liked Killing Them Softly as much as The Assassination of Jesse James, though it has a lot working in its favor. Dominik has directed a pretty good follow-up to his previous effort. I think it’s too bad that more people aren’t seeing this film, as I enjoyed it just as much as some of the higher profile awards-contender films I’ve seen this fall. Political views aside, Killing Them Softly is a nice “short story” of a film with an able cast and engaging dialogue. It’s certainly not as bad as its box office receipts suggest.

Argo

via: http://web.orange.co.uk

It’s time for round 2 of “dumping on surefire Oscar contenders.” After my lukewarm response to David O. Russell’s Silver Linings Playbook, I decided it was time to write about a film from another director I like, Ben Affleck’s Argo.

Affleck’s first effort, 2007’s Gone Baby Gone was one of my favorite films of that year. It was the second notable performance by Casey Affleck that year (the first being his amazing turn in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) and it’s a film that I’m always fond to revisit. 2010’s The Town was also a film I enjoyed, though not as much as Gone Baby Gone. I don’t know if it was the story, or if I felt Affleck was being a bit indulgent in casting himself as the lead, but it didn’t draw me in quite as much as the earlier film.

With Argo, Affleck has again cast himself in the lead role, but in a film where the most important aspect is the story. Argo is a period piece set in 1979/1980 during the Iran hostage crisis. Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA specialist who is tasked with trying to rescue six employees from the American embassy in Tehran who were able to escape and are hiding out in the Canadian embassy. With the help of Hollywood makeup artist and some-time CIA collaborator John Chambers (John Goodman) and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) he concocts a far-fetched extraction plan. The trio begins pre-production on a sci-fi movie called Argo, a fake film that will potentially shoot in Iran. Using Argo as a cover, the 6 embassy refugees will be able to escape by posing as part of the film crew visiting Iran on a location scout. Mendez himself will act as the shepherd to the group of 6, first getting into Iran and then getting all of them out safely.

via: http://i.telegraph.co.uk

The performances in the film are all very good, but not distracting or showy. There’s been some mention about Affleck’s Tony Mendez being bland or boring. Personally, I love that he’s not an action hero. It adds a level of reality to this (based on a true) story about the nuts and bolts of getting people out of a bad situation. Goodman and Arkin get most of the funny and memorable lines in the film, but I was surprised how little they were actually featured in a film where they among the top 4 performers billed (along with Affleck and Bryan Cranston as Affleck’s CIA superior). The two are great character actors who refrain from chewing the scenery and simply deliver solid supporting performances. The film is also filled with “that guy” actors, people you have seen everywhere before, but who you might not be able to name. The list includes Kyle Chandler, Victor Garber, Chris Messina, Željko Ivanek, Titus Welliver, Bob Gunton, Philip Baker Hall, and Richard Kind. Also, props to Affleck and the casting directors for avoiding the temptation to get bigger, more recognizable actors to play the 6 embassy escapees. Sure, you may have seen these people before, but I only knew Clea DuVall (from Identity) and Kerry Bishé (from Scrubs and Red State).

via: http://movieline.com

I mentioned above that the story is the main focus of this film, and that’s probably what I like most about it. Argo is fairly straightforward history lesson about an unorthodox and unique operation that I had never heard about (and I’m assuming a lot of viewers, or at least people who weren’t around during the crisis, hadn’t heard about either). The film doesn’t get bogged down with extraneous plots, action scenes, love triangles, twists or shocking elements, probably because none of that existed in the actual historical record. It’s just an interesting story, well told.

Here is where my biggest nitpick with Argo comes in. Yes, this is an interesting slice of history, but I get a sense that Affleck didn’t think it was quite interesting enough. I must admit that I haven’t researched the actual events, so I could be completely wrong about what I write next. The final act of the film, the escape attempt, is filled with manufactured tension that isn’t in line with the rest of the story and makes it feel just a bit too “Hollywood” for my taste. Certainly, a “Hollywood” ending is in keeping with the film being about a fake movie, but the sheer number of problems the group runs into was a bit much. Affleck (and/or perhaps screenwriter Chris Terrio) stacks snag after snag on top of difficulty, close call and obstacle. By the time Goodman and Arkin were being held up by a film shoot, unable to reach their office where, unbeknownst to them, at that exact time the most important phone call of the whole operation was coming in from halfway around the world, I had to shake my head.

It doesn’t kill the movie entirely, as we’re still rooting for Affleck to succeed and these people to get out, but unfortunately, it’s still a mark against an otherwise very good movie, in my opinion. This last act letdown is unfortunate, because the film has already given us a good example of real tension that springs organically from the situation. Once Affleck arrives, the 6 are forced to go on an actual location scouting trip through the heart of Tehran, after having less than two days to learn their cover identities. There are some real moments of suspense during the scouting trip, and honestly, I wouldn’t have minded if Affleck had milked this sequence a little more, rather than back-loading all of the tension into the escape. A side story about one of the escapees not trusting Affleck to get them out also doesn’t work for me, as it’s a development that we know the resolution to as soon as it begins. Perhaps if we had spent a little bit more time with the escapees (another slight knock against the film) it wouldn’t have seemed so unnecessary. Another side story involving the housekeeper at the Canadian embassy being a potential threat to the operation is a bit more interesting, but ultimately, it isn’t developed enough to make me care a lot about it, though I liked that it was included.

The real group of six meeting with President Carter. – White House Photo via: slate.com

I have to say that I began this response prepared to criticize Argo more harshly, but the more I reflect on and write about it, the more I find that I liked the film. Overall, I liked Argo quite a lot. The care taken with the film’s 1979/1980 look and feel, emphasized by the historic photographs shown during the credits, makes evident the love these filmmakers have for history; a love shared by yours truly. It’s no surprise that the film is co-produced by George Clooney and his frequent collaborator Grant Heslov who brought us period-piece/television industry films Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night, and Good Luck. (as well as Leatherheads, a semi-successful love letter to the screwball comedies of Preston Sturges). That said, I understand that any dramatic film adaptation of a “true story” needs to be embellished and condensed, and perhaps requires an increase in the level of conflict in order to sell the film to a studio and/or an audience. Still, Argo does so well at playing things low-key that I don’t think it needed to lean on the crutch of contrived suspense in its climax.

I’m glad that Argo is getting a good bit of awards buzz for Terrio, Arkin, Affleck and the film itself. Compared to everything else I’ve seen this year, which isn’t all that much as far as awards contenders are concerned, the film is probably near the top of the list. Still, as much as I like Argo, and Affleck as a director, I’m not convinced it’s a winner in all categories.

Silver Linings Playbook

Disclaimer: I never meant to write 2000+ words about Silver Linings Playbook, and I typically try not to write this much about something I don’t have the immediate opportunity to watch again (and again) to support or challenge my opinions. Basically, I’m saying that I only saw this movie once (a couple of weeks ago) and my thoughts may change if/when I see it again. I may be over-analyzing this romantic comedy and I’ll admit that I haven’t read the Matthew Quick novel that it is based on, so I can’t comment on the adaptation. That said, I welcome any thoughts or criticisms that might allow me to consider the film from a different perspective. Also, there are a lot of SPOILERS below (particularly after the plot summary section). You probably wouldn’t find this post interesting, if you find it interesting at all, unless you’ve seen the film anyway.

As I began to hear the positive buzz about Silver Linings Playbook, I was interested and hopeful that the film would be a return to what I loved about the work of director David O. Russell.

I’m not a David O. Russell fan from way back. I’ve never seen his debut feature, Spanking the Monkey, and I only recently caught up with and enjoyed Flirting with Disaster, but when I first saw Three Kings, I was blown away. In 1999, a year featuring several great movies, Three Kings just might be my favorite. It is a wonderfully offbeat mix of comedy (and comedy styles), action (I remember Cinescape magazine perhaps overpraising it as one of the top 25 action movies of all time), and human drama (though admittedly, it falls a bit short on this front). It plays like a comedic heist caper, set against the backdrop of the Gulf War, a conflict seldom explored on film either before or since. One thing I especially loved was Russell’s stylistic flourishes including flashbacks, fantasy cutaways, desaturated colors and one of the most unique shootouts put to film.

Russell followed up Three Kings with I Heart Huckabees, a film that was highly anticipated by yours truly. The strangeness (or quirkiness?) present in Three Kings is taken to another level in a film about existential angst explored through Russell’s wacky visuals and set to philosophy-heavy dialogue that is, perhaps knowingly, impenetrable, but often insightful. The “science” isn’t as important as the connections these characters in Huckabees make and break throughout the film. In the end, it’s a messy, sometimes confusing, but entirely enjoyable and original bit of film-making.

Then came The Fighter. As an aside, I’d LOVE to finally see a version of Nailed, Russell’s filmed, but unfinished 2008 film, which sounded like it would be a more fitting follow up/addition to Russell’s ouvre as it existed at the time. I don’t dislike The Fighter, but upon seeing it, I had a difficult time finding David O. Russell anywhere in the film. It seemed as if Russell had given up on his unique style to direct a film that could arguably be considered the definition of Oscar bait. Of course, Russell is known for several behind-the-scenes difficulties and Huckabees was far from a hit, so maybe he needed to get back into the good graces of the Hollywood community (there’s a broad generalization for you). Nominated for seven Academy Awards (including a directing nod for Russell) and winning two (supporting awards for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo), The Fighter clearly increased Russell’s status.

So here we are with Silver Linings Playbook. I think it’s a step up from The Fighter, but I wouldn’t consider it a return to Russell’s roots. The film begins with Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) being released from a psychiatric hospital. Diagnosed as bipolar, Pat has been there since he had a psychotic break after walking in on his wife cheating on him with one of her co-workers. Now Pat is out and he wants to get his life back on track and try to rekindle his marriage, despite the fact that everyone around him seems to know it’s over, and the fact that he has a restraining order so he can’t see or talk to her.

Pat moves in with his parents Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) and Dolores (Jacki Weaver). Pat Sr. is a small time bookie who has an unhealthy obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles. He’s also ridiculously superstitious about Eagles games, going as far as dictating where the remote controls need to be and also who gets to hold his lucky handkerchief. Pat Sr. wants to raise enough money with his bookmaking to open a restaurant. Dolores is a put-upon homemaker who has dealt with Pat Sr. for so long that she’s forgotten any other life. She’s reduced to making “crabby snacks and home-mades” over and over again on game days, while looking timid and concerned.

Things change a bit for Pat when he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), the sister-in-law of a friend of his. Tiffany is dealing with her own problems, the biggest of which is the death of her police officer husband, Tommy. She and Pat start a (mostly) good-naturedly antagonistic relationship which eventually begins to grow into something more as these two broken people start to heal.

Obviously, there are more ins and outs of the plot and more characters filling this world—including Chris Tucker as a fellow psych patient, Julia Stiles as Tiffany’s sister and Boardwalk Empire’s own Shea Whigham as Pat’s older brother—but you can see the movie for all of that (and hopefully you already have, if you’re going to continue reading this). The cast isn’t an issue with Silver Linings Playbook as everyone of consequence is played incredibly well. This may even be De Niro’s best work of the past decade (or longer). My biggest problems with the film are the odd tonal shifts which, in my opinion, don’t entirely work for a film that is being sold as a romantic comedy-drama.

Much of the humor in Playbook is found in Pat’s awkward interactions with others, and the playful parts of his relationship with Tiffany. That said, wherever I found a laugh in the film, I also found myself second-guessing my reaction. Should I really be laughing at this man who clearly has mental issues that are tearing at him and his family? I guess that’s the definition of dark humor, but I don’t think it plays out like that. I think Russell (or at least the studio) is trying to sell the film’s humor to broad audiences, who may not consider Pat’s mental state as thoughtfully when they’re getting a superficial chuckle out of him meeting Tiffany by asking how Tommy died. Maybe I’m overly sensitive, maybe I’m more concerned about Pat than I really should be, and maybe this is just nit-pickery, but I think the film’s troubles with balancing tone are more far-reaching.

Beyond the dark humor, Playbook deals with some heavy issues: institutionalization, mental health disorders, death of a spouse, familial dysfunction, etc…. There are a couple of intense scenes between Pat and his parents where the shouting, crying and emotional and physical violence are a bit disturbing. Notably, these scenes take place before Pat goes back on his meds. I don’t believe that Russell is advocating for modern medicine, but the frequency and severity of Pat’s manic mood swings significantly decrease for the rest of the film. Regardless, these scenes stand in contrast to what we might expect from a comedy. Sure, it’s funny when Pat throws A Farewell to Arms through a window and proceeds to go on a rant about how terrible Hemingway is for making us feel so bad after reading his novel. However, when he’s doing this at 3AM and waking up his parents, I can see how clearly affected he is by this and the laughs don’t come quite as easily. Once he’s on his meds, Pat’s moods are more leveled which eases some of the tension. Still, I was anticipating another episode–which dramatically probably should have happened after Pat learns something about a certain letter from his wife–though it never comes.

Also, as fun as De Niro is playing the tough, sports-obsessed and frustrated Pat Sr., it’s evident upon reflection that his relationships with everyone else in the film are tragically stunted, if not irreparably broken. He’s a father who never learned to connect with or love his children traditionally. Sure, he’s probably had the hard life as a provider and all that, but it’s incredibly sad to see him fail in his attempts to bond with his son through sports, the only thing he knows. The fact that the outcome of a football game plays a part in “saving” his family in the end is perhaps appropriate, but also a convenience that undercuts any real growth for this group of people. We never get any catharsis or deeper healing with Pat Sr., we just get reinforcement of the status quo (and perhaps a new restaurant).

Then there’s the romantic comedy. The romance between Pat and Tiffany, two people who are recovering from having their worlds shattered, is played and written well. There’s a degree of predictability involved in some of their interactions (particularly surrounding Tiffany’s acting as a go-between for Pat and his oft-mentioned, seldom seen wife), but I think their relationship is probably the best part of the movie, along with some of the more dramatic moments early in the film. I’m sometimes surprised that Lawrence is only 22, although she does look rather young to be a widow, which then makes me wonder if it’s weird that Cooper is 37.

As fun as the romance between the two leads is to watch, the climax of their story is just a bit too “easy” for a film that has decided to present us with so many difficult human issues. Tiffany has convinced Pat to be her partner in a dance competition in return for promising to pass a letter on to Pat’s wife. When Pat misses an important dance practice because he’s trying to bond with his brother and please his father by going to an Eagles game (a game on which Pat Sr. has bet all of his restaurant money because he thinks Pat is good luck) everything comes to a head. Pat and his brother are involved in a fistfight with some other Eagles fans in the tailgate area. They never see the game and the Eagles lose. Superstitious Pat Sr., feels let down, plus he’s lost everything. A betrayed Tiffany shows up and a huge shouting match takes place in the Solitano living room. Everyone is yelling and crying so much that it seems like a Cassavetes film. Then things abruptly change as a solution presents itself. In a funny, though tonally ill-fitting moment, Tiffany convinces Pat Sr. that she is really the good luck charm for his Eagles. Pat Sr.’s buddy agrees to give him a chance to win his restaurant money back, double or nothing, by betting on another Eagles game as well as betting on Pat and Tiffany scoring at least a 5 (out of 10) in the dance competition. We’ve gone from kitchen sink melodrama to “let’s win a dance contest to save the family” in less than 3 minutes. It’s crazy.

From there we get the final act with the football game on TV, the dance competition, and the added pressure of Pat’s wife showing up to watch the performance. It plays out as expected. The Eagles win. Pat and Tiffany dance, which I quite liked, and mange to score exactly 5. Their subsequent elation at achieving the lowest score out of every couple is funny in the moment, but it kind of plays out like the “let’s celebrate our own individuality” moment when the entire family gets on stage at the beauty contest in Little Miss Sunshine. It’s not a new situation, and thus not surprising when the outcome is exactly as it should be, though that’s the nature of rom-coms. Also in keeping with tradition, we get a last bit of tension as Tiffany runs away thinking that Pat and his wife are getting back together. Pat chases after Tiffany and the two declare their love for each other with a triumphant long-distance dolly-out on their kiss.

So where do I stand? I don’t dislike the film, and the more I write about it, the more interesting I think it is. I think I see more of the Russell I like in Playbook than I did in The Fighter, but I also see a lot that seems too familiar. I feel like Russell is trying to maintain the mass appeal and good will he achieved with The Fighter by turning this story of dark dysfunction into a film that is more predictable and palatable. Something is lost in the transformation. There’s half of a really interesting, dark comedy-drama character study in here, and there’s half of a slightly more offbeat romantic-comedy, but these two halves are at odds, each pulling a bit too far in their own directions for the film to cohere completely. I feel like the beating, bleeding heart of the film is too easily bypassed with the quick fixes of traditional romantic-comedy tropes.

Silver Linings Playbook is often as bipolar as its main character, a quality which is potentially brilliant if it is a conscious choice, but which is more likely an indicator of a film that isn’t exactly sure what it wants to be.

Building a Bond Villain: Where Does Silva Rank?

image from: thearmitageeffect.wordpress.com

I’ve still only seen Skyfall one time, but I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit as more of my friends have been trekking to theaters to watch the latest Bond extravaganza. A lot of things I’ve heard and read about the film praise Javier Bardem’s Silva as one of the best (or perhaps, the best) villains in the entire series. Though I was cautious in my first Skyfall post, choosing to say vaguely that the film was probably near the top half of the series (until I’ve seen it again at least), I been thinking about Silva and exactly where he ranks in the James Bond rogues gallery.

While eventually I might like to turn this into an in-depth film-by-film look at all Bond villains, I won’t do that here. I do think that it is worthwhile to at least briefly consider many of the main baddies and find out specifically what doesn’t work, what does work and why Silva is getting so much praise. Please keep in mind that this isn’t a comment on the quality of the films, or even the performances, it’s just my way of beginning an analysis what might make a cool/good James Bond villain. Many villains embody some or all of the few characteristics I list below, but I wanted to try to separate them a bit, not only because it’s fun to make lists, but also so I’ll have a bit more to write (and you’d have more to read).

What Doesn’t Work So Well

-Weak/Old Men: Ernst Blofeld (Donald Pleasence in You Only Live Twice), Karl Stromberg (Curt Jürgens in The Spy Who Loved Me), Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce in Tomorrow Never Dies).

They may be creepy or charismatic, but they’re just not quite imposing enough to be Bond’s main antagonist. Granted, Blofeld is a HUGE part of the Connery films, but Pleasence just seems so slight in YOLT, despite his creepiness. I feel like the only thing the filmmakers could decide on for Stromberg was “menacing,” otherwise he seems like a clumsy retread of Pleasence’s Blofeld mixed with Dr. No (webbed hands, really?). Price chewed the scenery appropriately and really went after it with his one-handed computer keyboard, but he’s not exactly imposing. These three guys were each helped with the physical side by tough henchmen (Hans, Jaws and Stamper, respectively) who were more a match for Bond, which brings me to…

-Villains who won’t get their hands dirty: The above, plus Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale in Moonraker), Kamal Khan (Louis Jourdan in Octopussy), and Georgi Koskov (Jeroen Krabbé in The Living Daylights).

These guys have henchmen too, though perhaps they could hold their own if they weren’t so lazy or cowardly. Koskov is fun at times, but he’s never really a threat. Drax has some great lines, but Lonsdale seems to be sleeping through some of the film (though he’s better than Lois Chiles in Moonraker, who appears to be clinically dead). Jourdan (pictured above, as Kahn) was also in his early 60s when Octopussy came out. That makes him one of the older villains, a trait which is offset by the fact that he was squaring off against Roger Moore, who was in his mid-80s at the time.

Worth a mention: Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi in Thunderball) as well as the Telly Savalas and Charles Gray versions of Blofeld (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever), and perhaps Aris Kristatos (Julian Glover in For Your Eyes Only) kind of feel like they should fit into the first category. They’re not all exactly old or weak, but they just don’t seem ready for the fight. They each partake in some of the action, however, which keeps them off the lists proper.

What Does Work Well

-A villain who is in charge: Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe in Goldfinger),  Max Zorin (Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill), Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi in Licence to Kill), Elektra King (Sophie Marceau in The World is Not Enough).

Goldfinger is the classic villain with classic lines from arguably the most popular Bond film of all. Zorin is appropriately crazy and is, of course, Christopher Walken. Sanchez is ruthless and violent (here comes the PG-13 rating!) and he makes Bond’s hunt personal. King is just manipulative and seems to take pleasure in her villainy. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that Marceau is quite attractive. Bond doesn’t technically go one-on-one with all four of these villains, but they are the masterminds behind their grand plans, they are (mostly) charismatic, and they’ll all pick up a gun or a knife if necessary.

[NOTE: Elektra King is essentially on equal footing with Renard (Robert Carlyle), but I think she’s strong enough on her own to fit in this category. I’m hesitant to say the same for Renard, but, considering his co-lead villain status, and his absence in the early goings of that film, I’ll include him in the next category]

-A villain who is an equal to Bond: Red Grant (Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love), Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee in The Man with the Golden Gun), Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean in Goldeneye), Renard (The World is Not Enough).

It’s this category that I think works the best. Grant and Trevelyan are spies; Renard is ex-KGB; Scaramanga is an assassin. They are physical equals to Bond and they can turn a phrase as well as they can throw a punch. Also, I’d put two of these four films at/near the top of my list for the best of the series.

A lot of the guys in charge are often the older men from the first section, and, as mentioned, a lot of the guys who are equal to Bond are the henchman. The physicality that henchmen bring to the films (a trait that the main villain sometimes lacks) helps to balance a film out. Imagine Stromberg without Jaws (Richard Kiel), Carver without Stamper (Gotz Otto), or even, to a degree, Goldfinger without Oddjob (Harold Sakata). Those films wouldn’t be nearly as interesting.

Leftovers: Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is a prototypical Bond villain, but he has such little screen time that it’s hard to call him much of anything. Kananga (Yaphet Kotto in Live and Let Die) holds his own and actually fights bond, but he’s got more henchmen than any other villain in the series (Whisper, Tee-Hee, Baron Samedi, Rosie Carver). Orlov (Steven Berkoff in Octopussy) and Whitaker (Joe Don Baker in The Living Daylights) seem sort of secondary, though both are a bit crazy. Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen in Casino Royale) is imposing, but is also under the thumb of Mr. White (and he’s a careless gambler). Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric in Quantum of Solace) is slimy, but forgettable. The less said about Die Another Day, the better, though the argument could be made that the villains Graves and Frost (Toby Stephens and Rosamund Pike) fall into the “equals” category.

What About Silva?

If you can’t already tell from the above, he fits into the categories that work. In thinking about him, I honestly believe that the writers of Skyfall went back to the previous films in the series to find out who the best villains are and why they work so well, then they modeled Silva after them, at least in part. This holds with my observation that Skyfall is also more of a return to formula for the Bond series (though it still fits nicely with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, despite the lack of Felix Leiter).

Like my group of villains that “work,” Silva is in charge of his outfit of nameless thugs, answering to nobody but himself, but he also gets in on the action throughout the film. Sized up against Bond, Silva is undoubtedly one of 007’s equals. I’d say he is most closely related to Trevelyan. He’s former MI-6, he wants revenge, he had his face messed up. He also owns his own island like Scaramanga (though sadly, we didn’t get to see as much of it as I would have liked). Perhaps the main difference between Silva and the other three is that he never gets a one-on-one showdown with Bond, something that I think is a missed opportunity for Skyfall. However, to the film’s credit, this omission is one you might not even notice. Sure, they have a memorable introductory scene, and they have the shooting match (shades of Goldfinger‘s golf game, Moonraker‘s shooting party, or any number of casino games throughout the series), but they never really get a chance to beat the tar out of each other (like with Grant, Trevelyan or Renard), or even just face off (like Scaramanga). I noted in my previous post how strange it is that Silva doesn’t even show up until almost halfway through the movie. It also takes a little while for Renard to appear in TWINE and for Trevelyan to be officially revealed as the main villain in Goldeneye, so perhaps there’s even some precedent for that, and it isn’t so strange after all.

Something that sets Silva apart from most other Bond villains is the fact that he’s played by a reasonably well-known actor, Academy Award winner Javier Bardem. The degree of fame achieved by actors playing villains in Bond films tend to vary, quality of performance aside. I don’t think it matters a lot, but it certainly doesn’t hurt, especially in Bardem’s case. Of course, having an Academy Award does not a great Bond character make (ahem, Halle Berry), but still, anyone who has seen No Country for Old Men knows what Bardem can do. Plus, the guy has been nominated twice in the lead category as well (Before Night Falls in 2000 and Biutiful in 2010). He’s got pedigree. Notably, Walken was an Oscar winner prior to starring in a Bond film as well.

Whether they went back to the well of previous Bond films or not, the writers certainly took at least a little look at another iconic villain in recent film history, the Joker, as played by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. There are a lot of connections between the two, including the aforementioned “William Tell” shooting contest with Bond (a deadly little game), the army of nameless goons, seemingly unlimited resources, dressing up like a cop, and perhaps most notably, the elaborate escape from MI-6. A friend of mine said that Silva is a combination of the Joker and Hannibal Lecter, which I think is a pretty interesting description. Hopkins and Ledger both won Oscars for those roles, but whether Bardem is ready to add an(other) Oscar to his collection, we’ll see.

In conclusion, if there is a conclusion, have I decided whether Silva is the best Bond villain ever? I’m not ready to say that. However, I think he shares many traits with the best and most memorable Bond villains of the past, plus, he’s in one of the better films in the series (I feel I can fairly confidently say), and that probably puts him near the top of the list.

Wreck-It Ralph

My wife and I wanted to see a movie a week ago. After considering Argo, Cloud Atlas and Flight, we settled on Wreck-It Ralph. It looked fun, featured recognizable video game character cameos, had some familiar voices and was a Disney computer-animated film, so it had a lot going for it.

I think it’s fair to say that our expectations were mostly met. The film is set in an arcade and follows Ralph (John C. Reilly) who is a “bad guy” in his game Fix it Felix, Jr., as he fights his bad existence and tries to be a hero. Wreck-It Ralph takes a page out of Toy Story in that, when the arcade is closed, the game characters “come alive” and are free to live lives beyond the boundaries of their arcade monitors. Characters even travel from game to game via “Game Central Station,” which is basically the electric wiring system of the arcade.

In his effort to be a hero and win a medal, Ralph does the unthinkable and abandons his game during operating hours for the arcade. He finds a medal in first person shooter game Hero’s Duty and he gets transported to Sugar Rush, a racing game populated by cute little girl racers and candy landscapes. While he’s there, he meets Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a “glitch” in the game who steals his medal to enter a big race and prove that she’s not a glitch after all.

Also appearing in the adventure are King Candy (Alan Tudyk) the ruler of Sugar Rush who is attempting to stop Vanellope from racing, Fix it Felix, Jr. (Jack McBrayer) the aw-shucks hero of Ralph’s game, and Sgt. Calhoun (Jane Lynch) a tough soldier from Hero’s Duty, bound to save Sugar Rush from a “cybug” that has traveled to the game with Ralph.

The animation is great, as expected. The cameos from games like Sonic the Hedgehog, Street Fighter, Pac-Man, Q-Bert, etc… are a lot of fun (though I probably missed a few little references since I’m not a big gamer). The other residents of the arcade, particularly the folks who live in the high rise from Fix it Felix, Jr., are creatively animated. The actors are perfectly cast for their roles. I also enjoyed the music, particularly that within the game Sugar Rush. It just sounds like it’s pulled right from a real racing game. I’m not going to fault the film for having the expected happy ending, though I will say that it takes a couple of darker turns that caused me to question whether to side with Ralph and also wonder just where the film was going to end up. This was something unexpected, but something that added to my enjoyment of the film overall. (As a side note, I’d love to see an animated movie like this take a dark turn that sticks, but I guess I’ve got to consider the kids) It’s an entertaining movie and even at 1 hour and 48 minutes, it doesn’t feel long at all.

As exciting as the premise of “Toy Story in an arcade” is, my wife and I both agreed that Wreck-It Ralph felt a bit limited in scope. We wanted the characters to travel to and from more games. The bulk of the action is set in Sugar Rush and the only other games we see for any length are Fix it Felix, Jr. and Hero’s Duty. The more I think about it, I understand the need to keep it small, otherwise the plot would probably get out of control. Still, it might’ve been fun to see Ralph jumping from game to game and dealing with different gameplay styles and gameworld designs. Of course, this is something we may see in the sure-to-be-forthcoming Wreck-It Ralph 2. I’d personally welcome a sequel to this film, as I think there is a lot of potential for the world of Wreck-It Ralph to expand.

Ralph was preceded by an animated short entitled Paperman. I usually enjoy the Pixar shorts and I was really loving this until about 3/4 of the way in, when it went in a direction that I wish it hadn’t. Still, it’s enjoyable, creatively animated, and at 7 minutes, hard to really complain about.

A quick note about Disney Animation and Pixar, which I’d like to expand on in a future post, perhaps. With Ralph and 2010’s Tangled, I think Disney Animation has proved that it can hold its own against Pixar (despite their affiliation, I’ll make this a competition). I liked Toy Story 3, I couldn’t bring myself to see Cars 2 and I was disappointed by Brave, though I didn’t dislike it. With Pixar set to release Monsters University next year, another sequel (or actually, prequel, to the only other Pixar movie I haven’t seen, Monsters Inc.), I wonder if they’re becoming mired in existing properties. Disney Animation is slated to release Frozen next year, a musical-fantasy-comedy starring Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell. It is a loose adaptation of a Hans Christian Anderson story, but it’s a new story for Disney Animation. I don’t know if next year will crown a “winner” between the two animation studios, particularly with more original content on the way from Pixar, but I’m excited to find out.

Skyfall

A disclaimer: In the US, Skyfall was released one day early on IMAX screens only. If you’re reading this late on 11/8/2012 or early on 11/9/2012, you may not have had a chance to see the film. This post is probably best enjoyed after seeing Skyfall, but I’ve tried to avoid major spoilers.

For a blog with a name inspired by a James Bond movie, it would be a missed opportunity not to feature at least something about the newest James Bond movie, Skyfall. Below are simply my initial thoughts and a lot of the usual rambling. I saw Skyfall last night, in a true IMAX theater, at the midnight (technically 0:07AM) screening. Skyfall is unique in that although it was not shot with IMAX cameras, it has been specially formatted in post-production to be screened with a larger aspect ratio than a typical widescreen movie (go here for more info). For this reason, it’s totally worth seeing in IMAX if you have the chance. Surprisingly, the theater was not sold out, which was nice, because back row seats were available, a welcome change from the front row, where my wife and I ended up for The Dark Knight Rises. What follows are some of my rambling initial thoughts on the film, having seen it just this one time. As I said, I’ll try to stay free of major spoilers, but some little bits here and there will probably fall through the cracks.

Skyfall is a departure from the previous two Daniel Craig-starring Bond movies in that it is free from the task of re-introducing the character and it operates more as a standalone film. Sure, there are recurring characters (Bond, M, Tanner), but there is really no direct connection to the plots of Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, and I’m inclined to say that the movie is better for it. I really liked Casino Royale, but not so much Quantum (though a recent revisit has slightly improved my opinion on the latter). Skyfall falls somewhere between them for me, though closer to the Casino Royale end of the spectrum.

As much as Skyfall fits into the new era of James Bond films, it is also a sort of return to formula for the series. Of course the big action setpieces never went away, but Skyfall also has a bit more globe-trotting, an over the top villain, the introduction of a couple of new, old friends, including Q (Ben Whishaw) who supplies Bond with at least one gadget. There are several references, whether knowing or not, to previous Bond films, and several moments that feel like they could’ve been taken out of earlier efforts. As familiar as some of these things are, it’s strange to see Craig throwing off one-liners à la Sean Connery, or giving a bug-eyed look at a Komodo Dragon à la Roger Moore. It is also difficult not to see some of these moments as fan service, though I think they work for the most part.

One major observation (I hesitate to call it an issue) I have is the change in tone between the first and second half of the film. The first part of the film feels like classic Bond, including a great pre-credits sequence, trips to exotic locations and the introduction of the scene-stealing/scenery-chewing super-villain, Silva (Javier Bardem). The thing is, once Silva is introduced, the film starts to shrink a little bit. As much as I enjoy Bardem in pretty much everything, and as good as he his here, I never fully understood the source of his power. His motivations, or at least his end goal are pretty clear, but how he does what he does and why he does it that way ultimately remain a bit hazy for me. He does a great job with the material, being creepy, funny and in the end, crazy, but something tells me the film may have benefited from introducing Silva earlier in the film. Of course, that might have robbed us of his great introductory scene, so maybe it was the best choice.

I think the actual plot of the film works pretty well, though as I said, it seems to grow smaller as the film progresses. There are a couple of larger action/destruction moments having to do with MI-6 HQ and the London subway, but those seem to be forgotten (at least the latter is). Despite high-ranking official Gareth Mallory’s (Ralph Fiennes) best efforts to tie the story to the larger world of British Intelligence and the responsibilities and failures of MI-6 to protect the agents and people of England, it all ends up feeling very personal for the trio of Bond, Silva and M (Judi Dench). Of course, this is nowhere more apparent than in the finale, set in a location at which the series has barely hinted. It all seems a little atypical for a Bond film, but the more I think about it, the more I think I like it.

As is common with Bond films, Skyfall ends with the promise that James Bond will return. As long as they can maintain this level of quality, I certainly won’t be complaining.

Some more notes about Skyfall:

Adele’s theme song is pretty good. It’s better than anything since “A View to a Kill,” with the exception of Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name” (I’m also willing to consider exceptions for “Goldeneye” and perhaps “The World is Not Enough”). I didn’t listen to it before the film and I haven’t listened to it (in the one day) since, but I think it’s probably better than average. Sometimes Bond themes are saddled with fitting the title into the lyrics which makes for some awkwardness (“Thunderball,” “The Living Daylights”), but most of the time the titles fit in pretty well. “Skyfall” is fine in that regard.

I’ve already said my piece about Javier Bardem as Silva, but I haven’t mentioned the Bond girls for this one. Probably because they’re not really traditional Bond girls. This might be a bit of a SPOILER but there’s not really a romantic lead. The movie opens with Bond working alongside Eve (Naomie Harris), who is more of a partner throughout the film than a love interest. Think of her as a less-action-y Wei-Lin (Tomorrow Never Dies) or a more competent Mary Goodnight (The Man with the Golden Gun), minus the sex. Bérénice Lim Marlohe is the other prominent Bond girl in the film, Sévérine. She‘s quite good in the role, but doesn’t have too much to do.

Of course, M is the ultimate Bond girl, and Skyfall gives her more to do than ever before. She’s involved in some of the action scenes, but thankfully, the script and the filmmakers don’t ask her to do too much, keeping it believable. I’ve really enjoyed the Bond/M relationship in the Craig films. Despite the nature of their work, these characters care about each other, and Dench and Craig sell their relationship as one that has gone beyond the professional. Dench works better with Craig than she did with Brosnan, or at least more consistently well.

One of the best things about the movie is how it looks. Roger Deakins is one of the best cinematographers in the business and this may be the best looking James Bond movie ever. The opening action scene has the expected level of grittiness and the views of Istanbul, Shanghai and even London are spectacular. Deakins’ work really shines as the film nears its conclusion, finding loads of atmosphere among the misty moors of Scotland. As director, I think Sam Mendes succeeds in bringing us a good action film with some smaller moments, but I’ll have to watch Skyfall again to determine if there is any kind of Mendes stamp on the film or if he becomes mostly lost in the franchise. I’d consider myself a mild Mendes fan. I like his Oscar-winning American Beauty and I’d argue that Road to Perdition is probably his best film (and under-seen). Both of those films are shot by the late, great Conrad L. Hall, and both earned him Oscars (Perdition posthumously). [As a side note, Roger Deakins has the record for most nominations (9) for the Cinematography Oscar without a win, for someone still living.] Anyway, I was excited to see what Mendes might do with a Bond film, and I’m pleased with the result.

As far as the action goes, I have few complaints about the film. The aforementioned pre-credits sequence was perfect. The climactic battle delivered as well, though it initially looked like it might be a bit Home Alone-y (with a touch of Straw Dogs thrown in). It was loud, explosive, brutal and even featured some beautiful shots. Mendes stages action scenes so they’re much more comprehensible than Marc Forster’s Quantum of Solace. I really liked how inventive Forster tried to get with some of the shots in Quantum, but the cutting in that film was so quick and all over the place that I didn’t have time to enjoy what worked. Skyfall brings back Casino Royale editor Stuart Baird, somewhat loathed director of Star Trek: Nemesis, but notable editor of several films by Ken Russell and Richard Donner, including The Devils, Tommy, Superman, and Lethal Weapon.

Perhaps my favorite bit of action in the movie is a fairly short, stylized scene in which Bond fights with a baddie while silhouetted against the fluorescent lights of Shanghai. Although it’s a fairly quick scene, the bulk of the fighting is done in one take. Shadows against a blue background, the men throw punches at each other and grapple for a gun which goes off periodically, lighting up their faces and blasting holes in the ceiling of the room. It’s a quick moment, but it’s one that really stood out to me.

A big question to consider in the days ahead concerns where Skyfall ranks among the other films of the Bond canon. I think it’s too soon for me to decide, considering I’ve only seen it once. I don’t think it tops Casino Royale, but it’s a definite improvement on the disjointed Quantum of Solace. This latest batch of Bond movies has been so different in tone than almost all of the others, plus, the series has been around so long (celebrating 50 years now) that it’s like comparing apples to oranges to sausages to graham crackers. I’ll play it safe and say that Skyfall is probably in the “Top 15” of Bond films (I hesitate to say “top half” without appropriate consideration). I have a long-term plan to write more in-depth posts about every James Bond movie, but that’s going to take a while (I’ve actually been sitting on my Dr. No post, but you can currently read my post about the 1954 TV version of “Casino Royale”). I’d like to write a post that is strictly concerned with ranking the Bond films, but it may have to wait until I’ve seen Skyfall again, which I might just do soon.