Quantum of Solace

I've noticed a trend in the James Bond pictures, perhaps you have too. They seem to come in cycles, where the first in the cycle is hard edged, dark, and generally very well received. As they progress forward, however, it becomes more and more difficult to hold onto that edge, slowly slipping into a world of silliness. Inevitably they hit a low point (Moonraker, A View to a Kill, Die Another Day) and the franchise needs to be rebooted. Those inevitable reboots never last, unfortunately, and the cycle repeats itself. So following the most daring reboot in the franchise's history - Casino Royale - it is interesting to see if this new cycle of Bond can finally overcome the failings of past installments and actually continue with what made Royale so refreshing.

The short answer is no, Quantum of Solace does not live up to what was started two years ago. This feels much more like typical Bond fare, which may be a good thing, may be bad, depending on your opinion of the franchise. Gone is the character development of the last film, instead replaced by wall to wall action. I think what makes many of the earliest Bond films stand out to this day is that they didn't rely too heavily on action set pieces. Take Goldfinger, still considered the quintessential 007 outing. Bond spends half the movie hanging out with his enemy, just talking. Casino Royale followed in that tradition with the drawn out poker game at its center. It's fun to get to know your characters so that when the action does occur, it has more of a resonance, a sense of danger. It's surprising to see that director Marc Forster, a man known for films focused more on talking and characters than action, is so keen on moving the film along at a brisk, unrelenting pace. And while the action may be a bit much for my own taste, it's undenibale that some of these action scenes are the most kinetic of the franchise's history. If you like big action, you won't be let down here.

Solace picks up just where the last film left off, with the mysterious Mr. White being interrogated about the organization he works for. Bond seems interested in only one thing - revenge for his lost love Vesper. The theme of the film ends up being how Bond comes to reconcile his job with his emotions. At the start he has no problem shooting first and asking questions second, but by the film's end he seems to realize there is more to it than just revenge. Sure, he will always have that dark side to him, but it becomes tempered by his need to do the job right. In just one film, Daniel Craig has simply become James Bond. It took really no time at all to see his face and think "Bond." That's a testament to just how good he is at the part. He's not given a whole lot to do here, but just the way he carries himself makes you believe he is the suavest secret agent in the world. Indeed, it is Craig that makes pretty much everything in this film work. While the film feels a bit regressive, Craig's performance alone demands me to recommend this film. You get the real feeling that this is a character that is growing and changing on screen, not a rigidly defined guy we've see over and over for 40 plus years. That's a pretty amazing feat.

The rest of the performances are all only ok, with the exception of Judi Dench. She has become such an integral part of this franchise that it's almost impossible to imagine anyone else filling the role of M when she eventually does depart. She is surprisingly given a fair amount of screen time here, and her interaction with Bond is a highlight of the Danial Craig cycle so far. Her relationship with him is at times both antagonistic and motherly, and it works wonderfully. As villain Dominic Greene, Mathieu Amalric is sadly forgettable. I suspect that has more to do with his character's lack of definition than the actor's abilities. He simply feels like an even less formidable enemy for James than Le Chiffre did in the last film. The franchise is clearly setting up a SPECTRE-like evil organization, but is would be nice to get an actual antagonist and not just business men who present no real danger to our hero. Mr. White comes closest, but we simply know too little of him at this point. Much like my feelings on the last film, this film feels like one big setup for the sequel. While that was ok with Casino Royale because it was the beginning of something new, here it just feels like stalling.

Obviously, if you're a fan of 007, you'll see this film regardless of critical opinion. I'm the exact same way. And Quantum of Solace is honestly not a bad film. It has moments of genuine greatness, however few and far between they are. It's just that compared to Casino Royale this is a let down. Compared to the typical Bond picture? This probably holds up a bit better than average. If you like explosions, hot women, suave spies, and a plot you can't quite fully wrap your head around, you'll enjoy this. If you want a bit of that introspective quality that Craig's first outing had, you will be left wanting.

RIP Michael Crichton

1942-2008

Michael Crichton is the reason I write, the reason I read.

In the sixth grade my teacher had an expansive library in our classroom that had everything from children's books to classics to modern bestsellers. At the time I was getting burned out on reading, having grown too old to enjoy the books of my youth. Perusing the shelves of her library one day I came across Jurassic Park. Loving the movie, I decided I should read the book. My first grown-up book, it opened my eyes to the ability words have to transport us to another world. Not only did this book singlehandedly make me the avid reader I became over the years, but it made me want to explore the power of written words.

No matter what you thought of Crichton's writing style or unconventional beliefs, there is no denying the impact he had on pop culture. There's a reason he holds a record for being the only person to have simultaneously the number one book, movie, and TV show in the country. He was a man who knew how to transfix his audience through a combination of thoroughly researched information and exciting narrative. Reading one of his books you felt like you were really learning something while being entertained.

If you go through my reviews over the years, the film that pops up in references the most is Jurassic Park. While cinema was not very kind to many of his works, that was one that had undeniably been treated right. I loved it for the very simple fact that it was one of the most ingeniously simple ideas for a story I've seen during my lifetime. We take it for granted now, but looking back it makes sense that it became such a phenomenon. There were very few, if any Crichton novels that I didn't take something away from, he always made me look at the world in a slightly different way. His novels encouraged you to go out and explore and research things you never would have even thought about otherwise.

As you can see, I could go on and on about Crichton for ages. I am deeply saddened by his passing, which came as a sudden shock to me. I respect that he wanted to keep his declining health private, and I simply wish to thank him for his many literary and film contributions over the years that I've cherished. No other writer has affected me in quite the way he has, and I am forever grateful to him for that.

"I am certain that there is too much certainty in the world."
- Michael Crichton

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

So many movies, so little time to review them. I saw a number of movies over the last month and some of them took some real time to wrap my head around. While some may deserve more analysis, for now this will have to do - many more movies are quickly approaching on the horizon. The next two months are the most exciting for movies, and I look forward to sinking my teeth into the fall season's offerings. For now, though, reviews.


Happy-Go-Lucky

I recognize I'm in the minority on this one, but dear lord was this film a pain to sit through at times. Director Mike Leigh presents us with Poppy, one of the most grating characters of the year. Cheerful to the point of derangement, Poppy refuses to let anyone not be affected by her chipper attitude. There's no real plot to speak of, just a series of moments in her life and the characters she meets along the way. I was unable to believe that this character could or would exist in the world, or that anyone would do some of the things she does. The one truly shining element here is Eddie Marsan as her polar opposite driving instructor. Perhaps it says more about me than the film itself that I often preferred his volatile character to Poppy, but he was riveting. These are two people that should not have met, but because they have it rushes inevitably to a shocking and powerful confrontation that almost single-handedly redeemed this movie. As unimpressed as I was by this film, I would be happy to see Marsan get some recognition during the awards season.




Let the Right One In

If you've had your ear to the ground, you've probably heard rumblings about this one. Believe the hype - it's a masterpiece. It's unique visions like this that make me love watching movies. Classified as a horror film, I feel that is incorrect. It has a young girl who is a vampire, and there are certainly scenes of shocking violence, but at it's heart it is a beautiful love story between two kids trying to come to terms with who they are and what place they occupy in the world. I haven't been this affected by a movie in a long while, and can't recommend this highly enough. The nature of the characters make it hard to accept some of their actions, but at the same time you can't help but love the two kids in spite of those actions. The end especially had me literally cheer out loud for the characters. Trust me, you haven't seen a film quite like this before, this is one of the best you'll probably find all year.




Synecdoche, New York

I still haven't totally come to grips with the implications of this film after nearly a month of contemplation. Suffice it to say, Charlie Kaufman is one of our most original minds working today, and while this doesn't deliver quite on the level of his greatest work, it is still at times fascinating and moving. It follows a playwright named Caden (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as he tries to make the most important work of art ever conceived. Right off the bat you should not expect narrative sense from this film - think David Lynch lite. Time passes these characters by with almost no notice, physical space becomes undefinable, and real and imagined begin to merge into one. Caden attempts to recreate his life on a gigantic sound stage, but as he does it all begins to fold in on itself. He starts telling the story of how he's telling the story of how he's telling the story, etc. Hoffman is great, as are all the women in his life - Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, Diane Weist and more. It seems to falter at the end when it becomes less clear what is happening anymore, and the film seems to lack a coherent ending - but then again, so does life. I would recommend Kaufman's own Adaptation over this as it hits on many of the same themes, but this is a solid film with moments of brilliance. I think had Kaufman found a director instead of directing it himself, it could have been a masterpiece.





Trick 'r Treat

Here's a film with a story. Filmed in 2007 and set for an October release last year, it suddenly disappeared from the schedule. Presumed to be released this October, it once again was MIA. One would assume this means bad things, but quite the opposite is true, in fact. Trick 'r Treat is one of the best Halloween films in many years. It tells a number of intertwining stories all set on Halloween, each evoking different aspects of the holiday. It is clever, fun, scary, and very darkly hilarious. And Sam, the central... not villain, but let's call him an antagonist - is one fascinating and creepy horror film character. Dylan Baker shines as a man with a dark secret, and Brian Cox evokes the image of John Carpenter in his storyline, perhaps the most frightening of the movie. This is a film to be seen with a big audience, and it demands to be seen as close to Halloween as possible. It has been screened a number of times recently in hopes of getting the word out, and I think it's working - I have heard absolutely no negative feedback from those who've seen it. Who knows when or if this film will ever get released, but if the opportunity to see it ever does come up, take it. This is a new Halloween cult classic waiting to be discovered.





W.

Oliver Stone can be so hit or miss. His two past "president" movies were both masterpieces, but many of his other films fall completely flat, like World Trade Center. His latest falls somewhere in between. The film puts up a great argument for the need to tell Bush's story on film, but the timing is still too soon. It feels as though so much more could have been explored had we had some hindsight. Still, what Stone does tackle is often fascinating, especially W's relationship with his father. Josh Brolin embodies the man eerily well, but the rest of the cast is hit or miss. James Cromwell doesn't particularly evoke Bush Sr, but he gives a well rounded performance regardless. Jeffrey Wright makes you feel sympathy for Colin Powell, who was clearly misled by those he trusted. But Thandie Newton gives a Razzie-worthy performance as Condoleezza Rice. It's like she's never seen Rice before in her life and just did some sort of bizarre caricature of a dimwitted yes man politician. It's absurd. I was surprised to find myself understanding our president in new ways because of this film. While Stone's film doesn't forgive him for his mistakes, it does put them into an interesting perspective.





Zach and Miri Make a Porno

Oh, Kevin Smith. I'm an unapologetic Smith fan, so my bias will be showing whenever I talk about him. I recognize he isn't a great director, and his dialogue can be on the verbose side, but I enjoy everything he's done. And while I also enjoyed this film, I felt it was on the lower tier of his work. The laughs are undeniably there, and the actors are almost uniformly perfectly cast, but the story itself feels off. In many ways it feels like Chasing Amy-lite. The relationship between Zack and Miri feels forced oftentimes, and the ending feels incredibly rushed. As just a comedy, it works well, but I kept hoping for it to rise above comedy and be something more. I have to give a special mention to Jason Mewes, who has really pulled himself together in recent years. He showed in Clerks II and especially here that he is a born performer, exuding more charm and charisma than anyone else in the film. He turns Lester the Molester (not a porn name, by the way) into a lovable guy, no easy feat. I can't help but kind of hope Smith would move onto something new and put films like this behind him. He's starting to run out of things to say in this genre, and I think he has such talent that if he ever did decide to do a drama (or even his long rumored horror film) it could be a revelation.

Rachel Getting Married

Some films aim to create great drama, others thrive on intricate plot points, while still more exist to overload our senses. That's the beauty of the medium - there's just so many ways a film can connect with and entertain its audience. Jonathan Demme's Rachel Getting Married goes a route not often taken, striving to create an ultra real version of a weekend wedding. Shot on handheld cameras, it embodies the essence of a home video one might make of their own wedding. In doing so, Demme has achieved a level of honesty and realism that elevates this film to the ranks of the very best of the year.

I can't lie, finding an entry point into this film is no easy task, especially if you aren't going in with a very open mind. Imagine, if you will, being dragged along by a friend to a wedding for someone you've never met, nor do you know any of the guests or family members. You might hear fondly told stories about events you never experienced. Perhaps you'll notice the way people speak with a certain tone about someone who is in attendance, or how they try not to speak of someone who is glaringly absent. And you'll certainly be audience to the many squabbles that inevitably come up with the gathering of such a large group of family members. That's a wedding, and that's Rachel Getting Married. For a good while I had trouble appreciating these characters because they didn't try to explain themselves to the audience. They had a past everyone in the film knew about that I in the audience had to discern through observation over this long weekend. And it pays off.

This isn't about a plot, as there is no running storyline, nor does it end with any real resolution. What we have is simply a group of people and their interactions. Central to it all is Kym (Anne Hathaway), free from rehab for the weekend for the first time in a long time. We don't know the details of why she ended up there, but we can figure it out as the film progresses. She is attending Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding, being presided over by father Paul (Bill Irwin). Mom Abby (Debra Winger), divorced from Paul for reasons we don't know (but slowly begin to understand if we think about it) is absent more often than she is present, much to the disappointment of her two children. The rest of those in attendance include groom Sidney, best man and recovering addict Kieran, Rachel's best friend Emma, Paul's new wife Carol, and the many family members on either side. It is a true ensemble and they all get their great moments. Particularly wonderful is how multicultural the whole affair is. Let's be honest for a second - if this were a big Hollywood production, it would have been an all white cast, or an all black cast. What we get instead is a melting pot of ethnicities, and that multicultural aspect adds vibrancy to the proceedings.

The performance you've probably already heard about is that of Anne Hathaway. Yes, she really is quite good. She can be frustrating when called upon, but she has a lot going on under her prickly exterior, and she let's it all out in a couple of key scenes. But her performance wouldn't work without the help of her costars. DeWitt is pitch perfect as Rachel, a woman torn between her future and her past. This weekend is about her, but her sister comes in like a storm, wreaking havoc and calling attention away from the wedding. The balancing act she plays between frustration and love for her sister is great. And then there's Bill Irwin as Paul, the father. This film simply couldn't work without his performance, simply my favorite of the film. He conveys so much with his character and he quickly becomes the heart of the film. When one character makes a happy announcement halfway through the film, his reaction is just wonderful and honest. His competition with Sidney, the soon to be son-in-law, over the dishes is lively and fun. And there is one event that happened many years ago that is hinted at for much of the film, which when finally laid bare for us in the audience, it is Paul's reactions to it that hits home most of all. Irwin's performance here is something to be treasured.

Demme made a smart choice with the handheld approach. Had he gone simply for staged melodrama it would have fallen flat, akin to the insidious Margot at the Wedding from last year. Demme allows you to be enveloped by the weekend celebration we are watching, and by the end we reach a catharsis. Sure, some parts go on too long and others make little sense to us upon initial viewing, but that's how we're supposed to feel at a wedding such as this. And the wedding itself, as well as the reception, just looks like so much fun. When it's all over we feel like we've really been a part of a special event, filled with ups and downs. I did not expect to like this film much, and I was resistant to it for the longest time while watching. But as it progressed it charmed me, wowed me, and made me cheer the little victories and moments some of the characters have. Rachel Getting Married may no be your idea of cinematic, but there's no denying that it is something special.

RIP Paul Newman

1925-2008

What more can be said about Paul Newman that hasn't already been touched upon elsewhere? A screen presence not matched by many, and by all accounts a truly magnanimous human being. He will be missed by friends, family, and fans alike. Rewatching Butch Cassidy last night, I was reminded just how strong the chemistry between Redford and him was. We got two films with them together, and I had always hoped for one final reunion. While we'll never get that now, we'll still have a legacy of great work few actors can match. Cool Hand Luke, The Hustler, The Verdict, The Hudsucker Proxy, and the aforementioned Butch Cassidy were among my personal favorite performances by the man. His work will forever be cherished.

Appaloosa

For the past half decade or so we have seen a minor resurgence of the Western. Films like Open Range, 3:10 To Yuma, and The Assassination of Jesse James have revitalized the dying genre. These films (and a few others) have taken the Western in brave, exciting new directions. Now comes Appaloosa, Ed Harris' second directorial effort. To say it does not live up to those previously mentioned films would be an understatement. This film might have felt fresh back before 1992 and Unforgiven, but now it just comes across as redundant and often quite illogical. One might say that we should take any Western we can get in such sparse times, but I would argue that it is films like Appaloosa that killed the genre off in the first place.

It's only fair to start off with what works best: Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris. Together, these two make for an interesting and sometimes fun combination. The way they portray their characters gives you the sense of a long, unspoken history. And neither plays their character as totally likable. These two are brought in to marshall a lawless town, but they have a mean streak themselves - can they be truly trusted with this town's safety? At one point Harris beats up a bar patron, nearly killing him before Viggo intervenes. A film that played off this aspect, the idea that the men the town turn to in a time of need might not be any better than the people they need protecting from could have been truly inspired. That is not this film.

Instead, we get a love story. It is here that the film completely falls off the rails so drastically that it kind of stuns the viewer. Renee Zellwegger comes into town and Harris immediately falls for her. She is portrayed as an annoying, conniving, shrill woman, and the idea that Harris would, even for a second, fall for her is never justified. It goes against the very nature of the character that has been set up to that point of the film. Zellwegger's character isn't really supposed to be likable, but when so many plot points hinge around worrying about her safety, or carrying about her relationship with our hero, it undermines everything else the film has going for it. There is a scene in which her character is kidnapped and the bad guys demand that their captured leader be turned over in exchange for her. The film gives us no reason to think these two lawmen would ever go through with it, but go through with it they do. It is undermined even further when it is revealed that she may have been in cahoots with the villains all along. That Harris learns this and does not care is the final straw that destroys the credibility of his character and this film.

The film builds to a climax that in another film would have felt powerfully devastating, but here is humdrum and unnecessary. Because it once again hinges around the Zellwegger character, the emotion that should be derived from the final showdown is drained because we don't feel the scene should have ever happened. The friendship of the two leads hinges on what happens in the end, but it shouldn't have to. Viggo's character makes a decision based in part on his belief that Zellwegger and Harris belong together. We know they don't belong together, but the film and its characters do not. It is an ending ripped straight from Unforgiven, but it lacks any of the bittersweet impact. It's a final nail in the coffin of a misguided film.

Appaloosa hits certain expected notes from any Western, and for that I do not damn this film completely. Had Zellwegger not been in the film, it could have been pretty great, actually. Viggo and Harris do some good stuff, and Jeremy Irons as the villain is pretty fun. The direction is nothing special, and the cinematography is downright bland, but the mood the film has in the opening scenes would have been enough to carry this film to a passable grade. With the genre hanging by the most tenuous threads with the general public, one can only hope that a film like Appaloosa doesn't cut those threads completely.

Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading, the new Coen Brothers movie, plays like the comedy mirror to their own No Country for Old Men, with a dash of The Big Lebowski thrown in for good measure. A group of dimwitted personal trainers (Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and Richard Jenkins) discover a disk in their gym with what looks to be secret CIA files on it. The disk belongs to Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), who doesn't even know that it is missing (or that the disk of information even exists), so when the personal trainers contact him in order to collect a reward of some sort, things turn sour and all hell breaks loose. What follows is mayhem, death, a few laughs, and a morally ambiguous ending. Pretty much what you'd expect from the Coens.

If you've been keeping track, you probably remember that I was not the biggest fan of their Oscar winning picture from last year. I came to appreciate it as time wore on, but it is not the classic many might have you believe. Which is a shame because I really love these guys and their offbeat filmography. On paper, Burn After Reading looks like a return to familiar territory for the brothers. Viewing the film, however, it became slowly apparent that this was not going to be the knockout that so many of their earlier films were. Indeed, by film's end I was a bit disappointed. Not overwhelmingly so, thankfully, but enough to make me a bit sad. Will the Coens ever achieve the same lofty heights they hit with Fargo, Lebowski, Barton Fink, and others?

The film starts off surprisingly slowly, introducing us to all the players. This is problem number one: there are too many characters at the outset, and too few are immediately interesting. Cox and his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) take up a good majority of the opening scenes, yet they have very little spark to their characters. They are two bitter, angry people that you would not expect a comedy to be centered around. Thankfully just when you think you can't take any more of these two George Clooney shows up to brighten things up a bit. His Harry is a twitchy, odd duck. Cheating on his wife with Katie, he also cruises the internet looking for other woman to fool around with. He is a fun character, but for a long time we don't understand why he is even in the film. After a good twenty or thirty minutes we are finally introduced to the Hardbodies employees, and this is when the film finally takes off.

McDonrmand is a ball of energy as Linda, a woman who just wants a couple simple procedures done to make her appearance better. Discovering the secret disk may be exactly the ticket she needs in order to pay for those procedures. The true revelation is Pitt, an actor who rarely disappoints but is especially great here in what is easily his funniest role. Pitt plays Chad, a man who takes dimwittedness to rarely seen levels. His attempts to negotiate with Cox over the return of the disk fail repeatedly, yet he can never understand why. Chad feels almost like he is from a different movie, especially when he is interacting with the dry Malkovich, and as he cuts a swath through the story he leaves behind nothing but charm and laughs. Sad that he has relatively small screen time compared to the rest of the cast - a few more scenes with him would have gone a long way, especially early on.

The film has a strong climax, and the abundance of characters makes sense by the end, but that opening half is far too slow and dull. Also, I suspect many might be annoyed by the glib, offhanded way the film is concluded, making the loose ends of No Country seem like nothing. When this film does hit the right notes, it can be very funny. Yet it is not nearly funny enough, nor as interesting and insightful as most of the Coen Brother's previous films. It all adds up to a lot of nothing. I know the Coens had some purpose to this darkly misanthropic comedy, yet I can not figure out what it is. My silver lining is that a some of their films have failed to impress me upon early viewings, only to expand with passing time - even No Country. I suspect a second viewing here will illuminate some of the subtler points and make me appreciate what felt like an otherwise malformed film. But until that second viewing, all I am left with is a film that came close to being good but just missed that mark.