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.
Showing posts with label Daniel Craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Craig. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
SPECTRE: Blow Feld
Labels:
Daniel Craig,
James Bond,
plot,
Sam Mendes,
series,
Spectre,
tonal shifts
Thursday, November 5, 2015
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.
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.
Labels:
Daniel Craig,
James Bond,
Sam Mendes,
series,
Skyfall,
subtext
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
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.
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.
Labels:
Daniel Craig,
editing,
James Bond,
Quantum of Solace,
sequel,
series
Sunday, November 1, 2015
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.
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.
Labels:
action,
Casino Royale,
Daniel Craig,
James Bond,
Martin Campbell,
origin story,
prequel,
series
Thursday, October 15, 2015
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.
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.
Labels:
Daniel Craig,
Eric Bana,
historical,
Munich,
political,
series,
Steven Spielberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








