STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS - May the Force Bewitch You

More Star Wars Reviews.

Director: J. J. Abrams
Writers: Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt
Cast: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Domhnall Gleeson, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Peter Mayhew, Anthony Daniels, Mark Hamill
Runtime: 135 mins.
2015

Thus the tang of the prequels is washed from our mouths.

Sixteen years ago the whole world was anticipating the revival of the Star Wars franchise. The Phantom Menace was perhaps the most widely anticipated movie of all time. Star Wars fans had assumed for years that they would never have another new experience in their beloved fantasy world, yet here Lucas was returning to his old stomping grounds. He had a new story to tell, and his audience anticipated it with bated breath and open arms. Then the movie was released...

Many people walked out of that theater shellshocked, having realized from the moment of the opening crawl that something was very rotten in Denmark. Some people walked out thinking they had seen something good, already preparing their defenses via a psyche suffering from heavy cognitive dissonance. Few people walked out satisfied in any meaningful way.

The prequels wrapped up and Star Wars was dead yet again, leaving fans with a decades-spanning case of blue balls. It seemed impossible to conceive of being excited about another Star Wars revival after Lucas's last debacle--and yet, here we are, staring down the barrel of a Star Wars movie that has become the new most anticipated film of all time. This franchise is a titan that will not die.

The excitement did not spring up overnight, to be sure. A great deal of work was put into refurbishing the franchise's image by a great number of talented people (the marketing push for The Force Awakens has been one of the most skillful and massive advertising assaults ever). At the pinnacle of all this was J. J. Abrams, a man with an unparalleled love for Star Wars whose entire career seems to have built to this point. From the first bits of Star Wars information that came down the pipeline, Abrams and co. actively, if not explicitly, disavowed the prequels and promised a return to form. J. J. convinced us all that he understood why Star Wars became such a cultural phenomenon in the first place, and he reassured us that we were all in good hands.

All of that turned out to be true to a fault. The great failing of The Force Awakens is its unforgivable similarity to the original trilogy, A New Hope in particular. Yes, the movie is a return to form, but it accomplishes this by replicating large swathes of the originals. This goes deeper than winky and noddy homages to the original trilogy, though there are plenty of those. I'm talking about a lack of imagination on the structural level. Yet again a droid is secretly given documents of incredible importance. Yet again our characters walk into a shady cantina with aliens playing snappy music in the background. Yet again, and this is the most egregious example, our plot centers around the destruction of a massive planet-killing weapon.

THE GOOD DINOSAUR: The Land Beside Time

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. The Good Dinosaur is Pixar's 16th feature film, a worthy if not especially inspiring entry to their canon.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Peter Sohn

Writers: Bob Peterson, Meg LeFauve, Peter Sohn, Erik Benson, Kelsey Mann

Cast: Raymond Ochoa, Jack Bright, Jeffrey Wright, Frances McDormand, Sam Elliott, Steve Zahn, A. J. Buckley, Anna Paquin, John Ratzenberger

Runtime: 93 mins.

2015

A new original film from Pixar is always something to be received with great relish, for they are becoming less and less frequent as the studio's sequel-able properties increase in number. The Good Dinosaur has the added benefit of fashioning for itself a pretty good central concept: What if the meteor that wiped out dinosaurkind had instead missed the Earth, and the course of evolution had continued without interruption? Thus The Good Dinosaur presents a timeline in which dinosaurs have adopted language, and have begun to move past hunting and gathering into agriculture and animal husbandry. This is a richer idea than the typical "what if dinosaurs could talk" animated standby, as it can tackle more interesting questions about the development of a species' culture.

Unfortunately the concept is entirely wasted on this movie, which seems interested in little more than the "dinosaurs talking" business. The entire first act takes place on the farm of young Arlo the apatosaurus, and it is somewhat amusing to see the techniques these long-necked beasts use to tend their crops, but it is also by far the most boring stretch of the movie. It's repetitive and only slightly charming. The characters of Arlo's family are sketched in sand, and for the amount of narrative actually accomplished by this segment of the movie, it certainly could have been streamlined by upwards of 50%. I also reacted poorly to Jeffrey Wright's performance of the little dinosaur's father, the only other member of the family who is at all relevant to the film. It's a performance that perhaps feels warm and welcoming to a child, but I couldn't shake the feeling that Barney was trying to teach me something.

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY: E Pluribus Anus

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. We finish out our retrospective in disappointing fashion with the barren prequel Monsters University.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Dan Scanlon
Writers: Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson, Robert L. Baird
Cast: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Helen Mirren, Steve Buscemi, Peter Sohn, Joel Murray, Sean Hayes, Dave Foley, Charlie Day, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 104 mins.
2013

In my Brave review, I mentioned that near the climax I wandered out of the room without even thinking about it. During Monsters University, on the other hand, I very consciously spent as much of the runtime as I could doing other things vaguely nearby the television. Of all the Pixar movies I've watched or rewatched for this retrospective, I was looking forward to Monsters University the least. I called Brave "wholly and unflinchingly average." MU takes it one step further and becomes crushingly average. This is a movie that has no reason to exist and never stops reminding you.

To be honest I'm tired of this series. I embarked upon it because I figured I would enjoy critically revisiting some of the great contemporary animated masterpieces, and I have, but the most recent arc of Pixar's filmography is incredibly deflating. Between the Cars movies, the botched diversity of Brave, and now the insipid pointlessness of MU, my personal stock in Pixar is at an all time low (which is still rather high compared to other studios).

BRAVE: A Monument to Compromise

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. This time around we dig into the tragedy behind Pixar's attempt at diversity, Brave.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Mark Andrews or Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell (co-director)
Writers: Brenda Chapman, Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell, Irene Mecchi
Cast: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane, Kevin McKidd, Craig Ferguson, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 93 mins
2012

In every fiber of its being, Brave is a wholly and unflinchingly average movie. The character design is slightly amusing. The world is lush but unoriginal. The slapstick is inoffensive and unengaging. The voice acting is cartoonishly Scottish. The dialogue gets the job done. The action is functional. The plot is familiar. The story is a far more typical version of what Disney tried and succeeded in accomplishing a year later with Frozen.

When you add all that up, you can't help but be disappointed to find that Brave is no more nor less than the sum of its parts: a cookie cutter movie about fate and self-determination. I'd be hardpressed to name one truly interesting or groundbreaking choice in the whole movie. During my viewing I was so unimpressed with the paint-by-numbers proceedings that, without even realizing it, I got up and went to do something in another room while the climax was ramping up. I never abandon movies like that.

CARS 2: Porn for Rednecks

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Join me for another movie I hate it is called Cars 2.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: John Lasseter, Brad Lewis (co-director)
Writers: Ben Queen, John Lasseter, Brad Lewis, Dan Fogelman
Cast: Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Eddie Izzard, John Turturro, others, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 106 mins.
2011

On Rotten Tomatoes, a critical film review aggregate, the first Cars movie sits at 74% positive reviews. This is already perplexing to me for reasons I enumerated in my review of that pile of greasy turds. But the real curiosity is the plummet of Cars 2 down to 39% positive reviews. I have to wonder about the people who felt favorably about Cars, but were let down by its sequel. The second movie is much like the first, but contorted to fit inside the structure of a very typical international espionage thriller. The best scenes in the film involve newcomer British spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). Far more entertaining than watching cars do something they're designed to do (race) is watching them do something they have no business being able to do (covert ops), and this juxtaposition immediately propels the sequel ahead of the first entry in my estimation. Sure, Michael Caine sounds bored, and the plot is cookie cutter stuff that somehow manages to be both simplistic and convoluted, but at least it's something. At times, I felt like I was watching an actual movie, rather than a bunch of anthropomorphic cars farting around and being assholes to each other.

Unfortunately, this being a sequel to Pixar's main merchandising property, the characters from Cars have to be involved.* Unfortunately unfortunately, Pixar has realized that their primary demographic for this franchise are downhome southern redneck conservatives. With that realization firmly in pocket, they upgraded Larry the Cable Guy's tow truck Mater from goof-off sidekick to out and out protagonist.

*During the first scene of the movie, which details Finn McMissile's infiltration of an oil rig, I was blissfully able to pretend that we wouldn't be seeing the likes of Mater and McQueen ever again.

TOY STORY 3: Toy Movie 3 Is the Greatest Movie of All Time

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Here comes Toy Story 3, a film that many young adults got weepy about.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Lee Unkrich
Writers: John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Michael Arndt
Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Don Rickles, Michael Keaton, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris, John Morris, Jodi Benson, Blake Clark, Emily Hahn, Laurie Metcalf
Runtime: 103 mins.
2010

As much as any person has ever been a target demographic, I was the target demographic for Toy Story 3. As I relayed in my Toy Story review, Toy Story was the first movie I ever saw in a movie theater, and I was obsessed with it during my youth. I owned my own Woody doll and Buzz Lightyear action figure. I had a Rex and a Mr. Potato Head. I grew up with these characters. My fondness for the franchise was something my whole family shared. It wasn't a case of parents tolerating their kids' fixation with some dumb cartoon, as I imagine is the case with movies like Cars. We could pop Toy Story in any time and everyone would enjoy it.

Fast forward fifteen years to 2010. I had just graduated high school and was sliding my way through the last summer I would have before going away to college. That's a terrifying time, full of anticipation both hopeful and anxious. There is a pervasive sense that you are about to take an unknowable leap forward, so you also spend quite a bit of time looking back.

Lo and behold, along comes Toy Story 3, a movie about a grown up Andy getting ready to go off to college, and the trauma faced by his forgotten toys. Andy's arc is relatively minor within the plot of the movie, but it is the emotional underpinning of everything that happens: he must learn to let the toys of his youth go, and in doing so leave them in a more caring environment than he would be able to provide. The final goodbye of Toy Story 3 hit me hard. I know many people felt this, but it was as if the movie was speaking directly to me. This franchise had raised me, and now it was time for me to move on.

UP: Just a Piece of Latex in My Eye

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. As anyone who has watched Up already knows, it is a masterwork in emotional manipulation. And I mean that in the best possible way.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson (co-director)
Writers: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy
Cast: Ed Asner, Jordan Nagai, Christopher Plummer, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 96 mins.
2009

Nothing makes me cry. I'm not a tough guy, I've just never had easy access to my emotions. Crying isn't weakness, it's a release valve. One that I'm often envious of. Most of my favorite stories throughout my life have failed to move me to tears. In recent years this has been changing a little bit; as I learn more about movies and the craft that goes into them, it has made me more capable of accessing and understanding the emotions at the center of the story via an intellectual conduit. Maybe that makes me sound like a sociopath, but that's how things are. I have to understand before I can participate.

With that said, I will readily admit that the famous opening montage of Up makes me cry like a fool every single time I watch it. For those not in the know, Up is the story of a curmudgeonly old man who lives alone. The first five or so minutes of the film contain a montage showing his progression through the decades with the love of his life, Ellie. It is one of the most elegant, effectively manipulative feats of emotiontugging that I have ever seen. The story it tells is so simple, as is its montage format. But this sequence of silent glimpses into the lives of this couple--strung along to a tremendously moving Michael Giacchino composition that crops up again and again in the movie, always reminding us of this opening salvo--yanks the rug out from under us so hard, it could almost be considered cruel. Of course, the sequence is not just an exercise in pathos; it also establishes the character of Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) with maximum economy. Thanks to these five minutes, any time Carl is kind of a dick in the movie (which is not uncommon), we can never hate or resent him for it, because we have seen the exact emotional arc that has brought him to this point. Everything he does is out of a bullheaded sense of love, even when his decision making is misinformed.

WALL-E: All About Eve

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. We've arrived at WALL-E, which has one of the great first acts of any movie ever.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon
Cast: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, MacInTalk, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy, Sigourney Weaver
Runtime: 98 mins.
2008

If we were to only take the first 30 or so minutes of WALL-E into account, it would be a perfect 10/10 movie no question about it. The film opens with the camera roving through the galaxy to the sound of an upbeat old timey song. As the camera moves in on earth, our wonder turns mournful as we are blasted with imagery of an abandoned planet, mistreated and misshapen by centuries of irreversible pollution. It is in this trashy wasteland that we are introduced to our first, central, and for the moment only character: WALL-E. WALL-E is a trash compacting robot given the impossible task of cleaning up the Earth by humans who have long since died off. Yet the relics of humanity remain, and a blissfully large portion of this film plays out like silent slapstick steeped in sentimentalism. WALL-E recovers artifacts that his robot brain cannot easily comprehend, and he utilizes them in whatever charming way suits him. There's something comforting in this little robot gathering the remains of humanity around him in an effort to create an identity for himself in this lost world, and something immensely tragic as well.

Then one day all of that changes. A rocketship drops a drone named EVE, a sleek feminine hyperfuturistic robot whose purpose on Earth is not at first clear. As she sets about her duty, the narrative morphs into a love story, with WALL-E craving the companionship that he had never before allowed himself to admit he wanted. The narrative is at its heart a simple and familiar story, but the way it plays out on the apocalyptic stage makes it feel almost mythic in its gravity. This is spurred along by phenomenal production design. The world may be dead, but the sheer glut of detail parading across every shot makes it feel more alive than any other movie setting I can readily think of. The soundtrack is alternately light and melancholy, a masterpiece composed by stellar Pixar contributor Thomas Newman. The camerawork zooms, pans, and pulls our attention masterfully through the desolate futurescape.

RATATOUILLE: Pasta al Rodente

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Ratatouille holds the dubious distinction of being Pixar's most underrated film.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava (co-director)
Writers: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Emily Cook, Kathy Greenberg, Bob Peterson
Cast: Patton Oswalt, Lou Romano, Ian Holm, Janeane Garofalo, Peter Sohn, Brian Dennehy, Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 111 mins.
2007

When we look at Pixar's stable of repeat directors, currently numbered at four, choosing the best of the bunch may be an impossible task. We can throw out John Lasseter (Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, Cars 2) right away. Although he was responsible for kicking everything off with Toy Story, he also claims a hefty portion of Pixar's mediocre entries. We're left with Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc., Up, Inside Out), Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E), and Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Ratatouille). Such a selection between titans inevitably comes down to personal taste; in my mind the war rages between Stanton and Bird, both of whom have since gone on to direct live action movies, and both of whom are returning to direct Pixar sequels now that their most recent films have flopped financially and critically (John Carter, Tomorrowland). Whether that is good news or bad news, only time will tell. Perhaps the relative successes of Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2 will help me pick a favorite.

As far as I can tell, Brad Bird is not often at the top of people's favorite Pixar director lists. A cursory googling tells me that Docter is typically the favorite. This one even puts Bird at number five. Maybe he gets points docked for starting his career with The Simpsons and The Iron Giant rather than being born and raised in the Pixar system. I'm inclined to think it also has something to do with Ratatouille being the most regretfully underrated film in Pixar's canon.

CARS: Porn for Children

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Now Cars.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: John Lasseter, Joe Ranft
Writers: John Lasseter, Joe Ranft, Jorgen Klubien, Dan Fogelman, Kiel Murray, Phil Lorin, Bonnie Hunt, Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson, Don Lake, Steve Purcell, Dan Scanlon
Cast: Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, Paul Newman, Larry the Cable Guy, Cheech Marin, Tony Shalhoub, George Carlin, John Ratzenberger, Michael Keaton
Runtime: 117 mins.
2006

I went into this looking forward to Cars. It's not every day you get to experience a new Pixar movie, and this was one of the two I hadn't seen (Cars 2 being the obvious counterpart). I had no high hopes, just a willingness to be lightly entertained.

Instead I disliked Cars from the very first shot. The psych-up voiceover interspersed with blurred shots of cars zooming past the camera and slow pans across the sleek shiny red metal exterior of the main character. It's meant to titillate, to ingratiate. Already, mere seconds into the film, the cars are presented as fetish objects meant to be worshiped and purchased in small plastic form. What better way to sell merchandise to children than to take something they already love, slap a face on it, and stuff its mouth with witty quips? Note that I do not use the term "fetish object" lightly. Maybe you think my post title a bit harsh, but the definition of pornography is a cultural artifact intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. What's more erotic to a child than the thrill of moving fast, or the noise of a revving engine? Cars is eroticism for children the way James Bond is eroticism for adults. My point is only enhanced by the movie's baldfaced insistence upon cars objectifying other cars, both for their athleticism and their sexual capacity. I'm not even joking, watch this movie again and notice the moments when one car stares at another's ass, or when a car delivers some sexually explicit line of dialogue that confuses you on a purely pragmatic level but also on the meta-emotional level of why is a Pixar movie forcing me to concoct unspeakable images of motor vehicles engaged in coitus???

SPECTRE: Blow Feld

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is upon us. This review is the culmination of a week spent with Daniel Craig and his rugged take on Britain's most famous spy.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth
Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Rory Kinnear
Runtime: 148 mins.
2015

Spectre continues the trend of every Craig Bond film to somehow fumble or dishonor the genre-topping example set by Casino Royale. To be sure, Casino is a tough act to follow, but if any of the next three films had picked a unique identity and stuck to it, they would have fared better. Instead they feel like pale, wrongheaded imitations. Skyfall trailblazes better than the other two because it attempts to salvage Bond's psychological complexity from Casino; Spectre may come out the worst in this regard, because rather than stealing psychological or tonal cues from its predecessors, it merely siphons plot detail after plot detail into its own shambles of a story.

At its best Spectre is a film of moments. The film opens with a stunning continuous shot that follows James Bond and his quarry through a massive Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City. The camerawork, choreography, and aesthetic are all thrilling, and the subsequent helicopter fight isn't too bad either. Moment.

James Bond and Dave Bautista's charismatically silent henchman character Mr. Hinx rumble in the confined quarters of a train. This is the only time the film packs a punch. Bautista's massive wrestling physique smashes Bond through walls and furniture in a stunning display of brutality. Moment.

James Bond has an unexpected, hilarious, and exceedingly likable conversation with a small animal. Moment.

It's when these moments are strung together into something resembling a narrative that it all falls apart. The connective tissue is forced and awkward. The pacing is glacial. All to eventually disappoint us with a plot that is trying so hard to be something exciting that it ends up being nothing at all. As long as the movie delayed that plot from kicking in (and it spends a considerable amount of time doing so), I was having a good enough time. But when Bond finally faces off with the villain, the movie reveals its idiocy and just sort of plods through to the end.

THE INCREDIBLES: The "I" in Team

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. The Incredibles is one of my favorite superhero movies, and makes a case for being the most entertaining of all Pixar's output.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Brad Bird
Writer: Brad Bird
Cast: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Spencer Fox, Jason Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Bird
Runtime: 115 mins.
2004

Only just now am I realizing that The Incredibles is the only Pixar movie with a single credited writer/director. Typically these movies have at least one co-director and a laundry list of story and screenplay contributors. Bird taking the reins unsupported on the entire creative process is unheard of for such a collaborative organization, but I suppose it's thematically in keeping with the message of the film.

The Incredibles, after all, is a story of Supers. Following in the medium-shattering footsteps of Alan Moore, Brad Bird takes time to set up a world in which superheroes are popular, potent, and praised by police and populace--only to shatter that world with a government edict that makes superheroism illegal, told in slick newsboy-style spinning newspapers and black and white clips. Thereafter we jump ahead to today, and find that our hero Mr. Incredible has become regular old Bob, wage slave at an insurance company and lackluster family man at home. His wife Helen (Holly Hunter), the former Elastigirl, is desperately trying to keep their marriage alive by putting the past firmly in the past. This includes heavy restrictions on their children Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Spencer Fox); they are never to use their powers in public. Life is dull for Bob, but this all changes when his secret latenight heroism sessions with old friend Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) transition into something more involved when he receives a secret message about a secret mission from a secret source.

SKYFALL: Old Dog Old Tricks

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. Skyfall is the most polarizing of Craig's Bonds, a movie that I like very much and also find myself wagging a stern finger at.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan
Cast: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Berenice Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney
Runtime: 143 mins.
2012

When I claimed a few days ago that Casino Royale is and will probably remain the best Bond movie, I received in response an outpouring of love for Skyfall (for me an outpour is two people). I'm going to quote pieces of their responses without permission.

"Maybe in terms of scale, Casino Royale wins just because of the sheer amount of character creation. But there's a lot of humanity injected into the Bond character during Skyfall as well. In terms of his struggle with his past, family issues, and aging... Not believing he can be the same caliber of agent he once was. No other Bond movie approaches that level of analysis of his internal psychoses. You know, since when does James Bond have anxiety?"

"The real payoff of [Casino Royale] is in Skyfall, not in Royale itself. Skyfall is, at its core, about the trauma of loss & memory: the trauma of the Reformation (and you could argue this is really when the Empire started) and then the loss of Empire. What happens when England finally loses enough that they have to deal with the trauma they've been ignoring for centuries? . . . This is a new type of Bond. Still the markers of the one we knew before, but it doesn't shy away from the pain and violence that is inherently a part of being Bond. . . . Mostly I think the Craig Bond films can't be separated quite as easily, as they completely depend on one another."

These are two very similar and eloquent responses in defense of Skyfall's merits. Clearly there's a lot of Skyfall love out there, a love which I share. Skyfall was the movie that hooked me into the Bond franchise (when I first saw Casino Royale I was too young to care about much beyond the action). Moreover, they're absolutely right in pointing out that Casino and Skyfall are of a piece. One is an origin story about the man who became the agent, the other is a retirement story about the agent in danger of becoming the man. One recreates Bond for modern audiences, one investigates Bond's relevance for that audience. One reboots the series, one reestablishes the series regulars.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE: Shaken Not Turd

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. Quantum of Solace is the sequel to Casino Royale that everyone rapidly realized they never wanted.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Marc Forster
Writers: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Cast: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright
Runtime: 106 mins.
2008

Quantum of Solace is not un-entertaining. This is one of the two compliments that I will give it. The other compliment is that Marc Forster has this directorial tic that I enjoy: he ends all of his action scenes with moments of stillness where the sound mixing bottoms out and lets you catch a breath. Unfortunately it is pleasant in part because the action scenes are not very good.

It's hard to put a finger on exactly what went wrong with Quantum, but every which way you look is a decision that seems at least a little bit wrongheaded. First and foremost, Quantum is as far as I'm aware the only James Bond film that functions as a direct sequel to its predecessor. As in, the story elements and character arcs are so dependent upon what's come before that a newbie walking into this movie would have nothing to latch onto but confusion and boredom. As easy as it is to blame the studios for this decision... well, we should probably blame the studios. Bond films have always absorbed and reappropriated current Hollywood trends, and this time around they bit the bait of serialization. In an era of sequels, and at the cusp of shared universes (Iron Man was also released in 2008), it only made sense for Bond to go after the unfinished business of Vesper Lynd's untimely death.

CASINO ROYALE: A Fragile Instrument

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. First up is Casino Royale, the reboot that sparked a Bond pop culture resurgence.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Martin Campbell
Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis
Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright
Runtime: 144 mins.
2006

Casino Royale is a reboot of an everchanging character. I'm no Bond expert; I've only seen one non-Craig Bond movie (Goldfinger), but I've read Film Crit Hulk's book about the franchise. It's clear that while Bond maintains certain signifiers and character traits (he dresses well, uses his own name, beds the ladies, etc.), each iteration of the character has been fluid in how exactly Bond's character is played. Some interpretations have been more debonair, some more action oriented, some more comedic. Even within actors' arcs the tone of each film swayed drastically between grounded intrigue and out there absurdity. Here we are decades later, and in returning to Bond's first mission Casino Royale tasks itself with answering the auspicious and difficult question: Who is James Bond?

Seconds into the film Casino Royale stakes its claim and makes its statement of intent in two beautifully intercut black and white scenes. These are Bond's first two kills, one of which leads to the other. The second kill is suave, witty, and stylish. Bond is waiting for the double agent as he enters his office. Bond has emptied the bullets from the gun in his desk. Bond is always in control. This is a classic James Bond scene.

Meanwhile, Bond's first kill is like nothing we've ever seen in this franchise. Craig strides into a nasty overlit bathroom with a sense of cold purpose, and he starts a brawl brutal beyond the likes of which we are used to in a PG-13 movie. Faces are smashed and bloodied, mirrors are smashed, stalls are smashed, toilets are smashed, sinks are smashed. Even the most solid edifices are breakable in Bond's new world. This scene has nothing to do with the elegant, efficient combat of former Bonds. Here Bond is, as M (Judi Dench) later calls him, a blunt instrument, and the scene takes great pains to communicate the great pains involved in this line of work. This perfectly executed fight lets the audience know that this isn't your grandpa's James Bond anymore. Casino Royale shares responsibility for creating modern studios' fixation with the "gritty reboot," but at least in this case it was entirely called for, as a healthy dose of realism was something that Bond desperately needed to keep his character fresh.

FINDING NEMO: The Emotion of the Ocean

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Today it's Finding Nemo, which still maintains its quality and power despite everyone quoting it to death for years after its release.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich (co-director)
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, David Reynolds
Cast: Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould, Willem Dafoe, Brad Garrett, Allison Janney, Austin Pendleton, Stephen Root, Vicki Lewis, Joe Ranft, Geoffrey Rush, Andrew Stanton, Elizabeth Perkins, Nicholas Bird, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 100 mins.
2003

Finding Nemo is Pixar's second stone cold masterpiece, and the starkest departure from their previous film is a visual one. I mentioned in my Monsters, Inc. review that although the monsters looked great, the characters spent most of the movie running around corporate hallways that lacked any visual pizzazz. Almost as if Pixar heard that very complaint and determined to never again allow their films to be accused of visual mediocrity, Finding Nemo is one of the most epic, expansive, gorgeous masterworks of production design ever created by computer animation. The visual landscape is at times populated by Pixar's signature visual gags, like a group of fish popping out of a doting mother fish's mouth, but for a far larger portion of the runtime the picture is dedicated to images that flirt with the sublime. The ocean is vast and full of darkness, terror, wonder, perversion. Finding Nemo captures all of this while still somehow maintaining a G rating.

The story follows overprotective clownfish Marlin (Albert Brooks) who must cross vast expanses of ocean in search of his son Nemo (Alexander Gould), who was taken by scuba divers and imprisoned in a dentist office's glass tank. Along the way Marlin meets Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a forgetful blue regal tang, and together they encounter all sorts of friendly help and unspeakable hindrance.

BRIDGE OF SPIES: Caught Red Handed

Bridge of Spies puts the cap on my grand Spielberg retrospective. To see the reviews go here.

Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers: Matt Charman, Joel & Ethan Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Alan Alda, Amy Ryan, Austin Stowell, Sebastian Koch
Runtime: 141 mins.
2015

Bridge of Spies reaffirms my suspicion that Spielberg is the most sneakily subversive mainstream filmmaker in the business. The story, as penned by Matt Charman and the Coen brothers, follows insurance lawyer James P. Donovan (Tom Hanks) as he is tasked with defending the most reviled man in the country--a suspected Russian spy--during the height of the Cold War. Nobody ever has any doubt about the truth of this accusation. We see him doing spy stuff in the furtively filmed opening sequence. But that isn't the issue at hand. Donovan believes that as an attorney it is his job to give the defendant Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) the most capable representation possible, and for this the entire country begins to resent him, too.

I won't reveal how, but around the halfway point the movie takes an abrupt turn into more intrigue and Cold War spy business. It's a great twist, and Spielberg's grip remains tight on the narrative, though I personally preferred the front half. Sure, it was the dull courtroom drama part, but as I hinted above there is some brilliant subversive commentary about fear, media, and American culture.

MONSTERS, INC.: Scream of the Crop

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Now we're onto Monsters, Inc., which I enjoyed less and found more interesting than I remembered.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Pete Doctor, David Silverman (co-director), Lee Unkrich (co-director)
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Daniel Gerson, Pete Docter, Jill Culton, Jeff Pidgeon, Ralph Eggleston
Cast: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn, Jennifer Tilly, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 92 mins.
2001

Monsters, Inc. is Pixar's fourth feature film. Unsurprisingly, the germ of the idea for Monsters, Inc. derived from their other ingenious original property. Apparently after Toy Story was released, people told Pete Docter that they started really believing that their toys came to life when they left the room. Docter took that sentiment and applied it to his childhood certainty that monsters really did live in his closet. Many years and story iterations later, the Monsters, Inc. we know and love came to be.

In Monsters, Inc. Pixar returns to the buddy movie format of Toy Story. The protagonists of Monsters, Inc. are Sully (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), an odd couple whose friendship makes complete sense. Sully's scary, Mike's funny. Sully's laid back, Mike's uptight. Sully's empathetic, Mike's neurotic. Sully's big and furry and blue, Mike's small and round and green. They're perfect complements, and their work partnership is record-breakingly fruitful--until a third party is introduced.

They work at a company called Monsters, Inc., which specializes in energy production. That energy is produced from the screams of children. Professional scarers travel through doors that, when activated, transport them to the closet of an unsuspecting child. They then do their best to scare that child and harvest its screams. They must be careful, though--children are incredibly toxic and dangerous.

LINCOLN: Clothed in Immense Power

Every other day leading up to the release of his new movie Bridge of Spies, we will be dissecting a film in Steven Spielberg's oeuvre. I've picked ten movies spanning the length of Spielberg's career, five of which I have seen and five of which I haven't. The Spielberg retrospective gets all wrapped up with Lincoln, the director's most recent masterpiece.

Other Reviews in this Series: Duel, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1941, Empire of the Sun, Amistad, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Catch Me If You Can, Munich

Other Spielberg Reviews: Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Bridge of Spies

Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Tony Kushner
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Bruce McGill, Tim Blake Nelson, Joseph Cross, Jared Harris, Lee Pace, David Costabile
Runtime: 150 mins.
2012

Lincoln is fascinating to watch. It has the distinction of being the only movie that has ever made me think, "Wow, politics are really interesting!" Spielberg takes two and a half hours of politicking, bureaucracy, and an overfamiliar historical figure, and he makes it all fresh and full of vibrant energy.

At this point, the very end of my ten movie Spielberg cycle, I'm getting kind of bored with saying the same laudatory things about the Berg over and over again, but I must repeat them because they cannot be overstated. Spielberg is the greatest filmmaker of our time, and as he tackles more and more ambitious projects, it becomes clear that he's only improving as the decades pass.

MUNICH: Crafty Wrath

Every other day leading up to the release of his new movie Bridge of Spies, we will be dissecting a film in Steven Spielberg's oeuvre. I've picked ten movies spanning the length of Spielberg's career, five of which I have seen and five of which I haven't. In Munich Spielberg tackles some heavy subject matter, and true to form he rises to the occasion.

Other Reviews in this Series: Duel, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1941, Empire of the Sun, Amistad, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln

Other Spielberg Reviews: Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Bridge of Spies

Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers: Tony Kushner, Eric Roth
Cast: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Ayelet Zurer, Geoffrey Rush, Michael Lonsdale
Runtime: 164 mins.
2005

In my estimation, 2005's War of the Worlds and Munich are Spielberg's best one-two punch since 1993's Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. Reviewing Munich is a daunting task, one that I'm not entirely up to. The film is about an Israeli counterterrorist force that is tasked with killing the men who planned the terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Hostages were taken, hostages were killed, and now the Israeli government wants vengeance. Our main character is a family man named Avner (Eric Bana) a secret assassination group of four other men. The movie follows their dangerous ethical and subpolitical quest.

Munich feels out of my league because I am painfully ignorant when it comes to history; I knew absolutely nothing about the Munich Olympics or the historical context surrounding that event. I was a bit lost in the early exposition of the movie, but Spielberg, never one to alienate or obfuscate, guides even the most ignorant viewer along with a sure hand.