Skyfall (2012, UK)

First I have to say how interesting it was to watch this right after watching Thunderball. Instead of sharks, Skyfall had komodo dragons. Instead of Domino, Sévérine. Both had underwater scenes, though Skyfall's were much better (and shorter). Bond was recovering a hard drive instead of nuclear weapons, but the mission was similar. He makes love in a glass-walled shower instead of a glass walled-steam room. He spent time at the beginning recovering from grievous injury. The day was partially saved by homing devices from Q. All these strange similarities, and which movie was better? Skyfall by a landslide. (Though don't get me started on how a large part of this movie was very Home Alone!)

It's also interesting how much the Bond movies say about the society in which they're made. Connery's are so very '60s. Craig's are so very 21st century. These days we're much more concerned with how characters got where they are, back stories and raking over emotional coals and exploring the psyche. Connery's Bond was much more action, sex, and martinis in comparison. M had a quasi-speech in front of many government officials saying that her department was still relevant in this day and age because of how things have changed (the exact reason the government thought they were becoming obsolete). She talks about how our enemies no longer have faces but operate in the shadows. It was fascinating, and in addition to being a great plot point, it also speaks to why Bond is still relevant in the 21st century. But anyway.

To start with the beginning: It was very interesting how much happened before the opening credits, but it worked pretty well. On the other hand, the way they set things up made it impossible to use the classic gun barrel shot in the opening credits and it had to be reserved for the ending instead. A bit disappointing. I thought Adele's song was perfect. It harkened back to the days of classic Bond, very smooth and sexy. Unfortunately, the imagery on the credits was just too much. It tried to blend modern elements with the classic elements, and it just made me feel like I was getting sea sick in Willy Wonka's tunnel, if you know what I mean. It's unfortunate because some pieces were exactly right, and if they hadn't been so ADD and emphasized those elements, the credits could have been just right. (Therefore Casino Royale still wins for credit images and music!) As for the rest of the score, Thomas Newman is one of my favorites of course, and I thought he did a good job of fitting in rather than standing out, which worked for the film.

Of course Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, and this was a great movie. There was tons of action, but it didn't feel like too much like Thunderball did. The opening chase through Istanbul via car, motorcycle, foot, and train was awesome. I mean awesome. This is the first time I've seen Ola Rapace (former husband of Noomi) in action, and he did his scenes well. Sadly I don't think he had the opportunities for close-up facial acting like the parkour runner of Casino Royale did. Still, his scenes with Craig were sweet. They have another fight in Shanghai with all this neon lighting in the background so there is this amazing silhouette effect going on as well. (Craig later has a silhouette scene against a backdrop of fire which is also sweet.) So anyway, there is a lot of action and it is all beautifully choreographed and filmed. It was just a joy to watch.

The acting was also good. I was especially fond of Naomie Harris as Eve. (I saw where they were going with her character from a million miles away, so that was kind of disappointing, but she still stood out.) Her chemistry with Craig was also great. Judi Dench... what can I say? Daniel Craig was of course magnificent. And Javier Bardem... wow. The guy has creepy down to an art form! The cadence of his voice, his mannerisms, everything about him was just... yeah. Also of note was the chemistry between Bond and Q.

The plot was great, but I also wanted more more more! There was all this hinting about M's past, and a little comes to light, but it just wasn't enough. Ditto Bond's. I can't say much more without giving a lot away. In fact, almost everything I want to say is a spoiler! I will finish by saying that there was a hinted return to the "glory days" of Bond. They were clearly testing out some one liners, a classic Aston Martin showed up, certain characters appeared. It should be interesting to see where things go from here.

Rating: 4.5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, U.S.)

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way to begin with: the Swedish one was better.

With that said, this was what you'd expect an adaptation of the book to be, just like the Swedish version was. The plot was simplified some (I really didn't like what they did to the ending, but I won't spoil it), though it retained all the key elements to prevent the story from changing. Still, I felt it was overly simplified in places, almost like they were assuming the American audience would prefer a less intellectual plot in favor of a more action-based one. (For instance, why did Mikael not go to prison? That really bothered me. Why was Millennium suddenly this hugely staffed publication instead of a struggling moral voice?) Not that there was more action in this one than the Swedish one, but it felt more action-y. There wasn't more sex or nudity in this one either, and yet that part felt more pronounced as well. Very strange. I think it must be something about how Scandinavians make sex seem like a natural part of life, while Americans make it seem like a racy, commercial thing added just to sell tickets. But let's not get on our anti-America soapbox today.

A lot of elements were better in this version. One thing I liked was the technological bits, how they showed Mikael and Lisbeth stitching all this information together on the computer. The time-lapse pictures of the parade were especially well-done; it helped me visualize the process in a way I hadn't been able to before. I also liked the flashbacks to the day of the bridge accident. They were really well done, and the way they were filmed, with whatever filters or whatnot they used, really gave it the feeling of a memory that was clear but starting to fade around the edges. Probably the best part was the soundtrack, which was just perfect. I can't remember the soundtrack to the Swedish version at all, but this one was chilling, suspenseful, advancing, retreating, startling in all the right places. Famous metal musician as composer for this film... perfect choice.

So of course that leaves me with casting, a major influence on how good adaptations are, especially of this book. Well, Rooney Mara is no Noomi Rapace. She was okay, and she was a decent actress, but she didn't completely embody the role the way Rapace did, physically or mentally. Rapace was transformed into Salander, while Mara was an actress playing the role of Salander. That's my opinion, anyway. (Part of this is also due to makeup/costuming, which also wasn't as good as the Swedish version.) The rest of the cast was pretty darn good, though. I liked Christopher Plummer for Henrik a lot. Daniel Craig was a pretty sweet Mikael. (In fact, he shares strange similarities to the Swedish version actor, who also has that craggy sort of face and compact body. But Craig is a lot sexier.) When I saw Robin Wright, I realized that she's sort of how I pictured Erika all along, except maybe younger... but again, she was a lot like the Swedish actress (except her age). And I just adore Stellan Skarsgård, so I was psyched when I saw that he was in it. When I realized what role he was playing, I was shocked, but of course he was perfect. The man can act. (Props to them for actually casting a Swedish actor, too.) So all in all, a pretty strong cast, with the exception of the titular girl. My main complaint was the accent issue. Obviously, Skarsgård has a light accent. Plummer also seemed to adopt a light accent. Craig sounded like he was trying to do a strong Swedish accent sometimes, but sometimes it morphed into something resembling his Russian accent and sometimes into something resembling his American accent. (His was sadly the most distracting and annoying. I love him anyway.) Wright had a very strong accent, although how accurate it was, I couldn't say. Then most of the rest of the cast sounded American. So that whole thing was a major consistency problem for the film. Look, we know it's an American movie that takes place in Sweden and they're speaking in English anyway, so if you want to go ahead and have American accents for everybody, that's fine. If you want to try to coach everyone to have Swedish accents, that's fine too. But make up your mind and do it all the same. Sheesh.

Anyway, that is all. My general opinion is that you should read the book, but if you don't like to read you should watch the Swedish version, but if you can't stand subtitles you should watch the American version. But I'm warning you, it's just not as good and you'll be missing a lot.

Rating: 3.5

Cowboys & Aliens (2011, U.S.)

This is not my kind of movie at all. Yes, I like science fiction, and yes, I've recently discovered that I like some westerns, but I would never see this movie in a million years. But. Daniel Craig! Harrison Ford! I would have been missing out if I'd missed it, so thank goodness for that.

I had no idea what it was even about (aside from the obvious cowboys and aliens) before I went to see it, so I will fill in a bare bones plot here. Basically a man (who turns out to be Jake Lonegan, played by Craig) wakes up with no memory of who he is and with a weird mechanical cuff attached to his wrist. It is revealed quickly that he is, for want of a better word, quite a badass. He can fight. He's witty. And let's face it, nobody looks sexier in chaps and a cowboy hat. Nobody. (That alone makes the entire movie worth watching. Seriously. He's that sexy.) When he finds his way to town, alien aircraft start snatching the townsfolk out of the sky, including the son of the rich cattle baron Dolarhyde (played by Ford). The remaining townsfolk (woman played by Wilde, a young boy, a dog, a preacher, the doctor/store owner, Dolarhyde, and Lonegan) head out to find the aliens and get their kin back. In the process, they have some very scary encounters and discover what exactly the aliens are after.

Visually, the movie was pretty awesome. The western scenery was sometimes stark, sometimes beautiful. (On that note, the score felt the same way. It had a western feel and not a sci-fi feel. Even when the music said "the aliens are coming!" it could have just as easily been "the Indians are coming!" or "a stampede is coming!") The costumes seemed very accurate (except perhaps the tightness of Craig's chaps, and I am definitely not complaining about that). The spaceships were cool. The alien's home base was dank and creepy. The one thing I didn't like (which is probably why I don't like alien movies in general) is how disgusting the aliens were. Don't get me wrong, they were really well done, and I know they're the bad guys, but do they really have to be so slimy and nasty? I mean, their chest cavities open and they have extra three-fingered hands in there next to their pulsing heart/lungs/whatever it is. Disgusting. Effective I guess, but yech! Also they like to use their teeth on people, which is vile. That excessive violence and gore and yuckiness just isn't my thing, so that took away from the experience.

Still, the more I thought about this movie after the fact, the more I liked it. Yes, the ending felt a little too easy, but the journey was more important. It had the feel of an old western, but without the racist portrayal of Indian enemies. Instead, the enemies were really nasty, greedy extraterrestrials. And when that concept feels so plausible, you have to admit that the movie was well done. Some aspects, like Lonegan's mind-activated weapon cuff thing, seem a bit ridiculous when you think about them, but somehow it still doesn't require the suspension of disbelief that you'd expect. It's hard to explain.

The acting was, of course, phenomenal. The supporting cast was made up of actors with a lot of talent and familiar faces. Ford was on the ball, and it was nice to see him in a role that accepted his age, didn't treat him as a romantic hero, and let his talent shine in another form. And Daniel Craig. Wow. I already mentioned the sex appeal, of course, but his acting talent is practically unparalleled. He has the most expressive face I have ever seen. Just his eyes convey so much. (I always say he has the best crazed man expression, with darting eyes and heavy breathing.) Even when he's perfectly still, all the way down to his face muscles, you can see countless emotions flickering through his eyes. It's fascinating to watch. In this role, like his role as Bond, he is manly, in charge, and yet emotionally weak (though he tries to hide it). He also plays his humorous lines and physical comedy (mostly involving Dolarhyde's idiot son) with this understated feel and a straight face. Brilliant. (Another positive aspect of the film was the writing, which was sometimes funny in very straight-shooting, serious, dry, manly sort of way, if you get my meaning.) Basically, my reasons for seeing this movie, Ford and Craig, were what made it stand out so much. It would have been okay, and even good, without them, but they made it as great as it is.

I'd recommend this to the right sort of viewer, and even to those who think this might be a bit out of their comfort zone. You just have to see it to appreciate it!

Rating: 3.5

Love & Rage (1998, Ireland)

I haven't seen many Irish films, but I've liked the ones I've seen. Of course, this one I watched because it stars Daniel Craig.

It's based on a true story. From what I can tell online, it's very, very loosely based. The long and short of it is that an aristocratic widow running her own estate took on an inexperienced, peasant estate agent. They fall in love, have an affair, he gets violent and things get tense. In the historical case, all I can find out says that he raped her, beat her, left her for dead. He fled Ireland, was hailed as a hero by Teddy Roosevelt (I think it was) for something unrelated, and wasn't tried in Ireland until years later.

So in other words, this story is screaming for a melodramatic interpretation. And the filmmakers did not disappoint in that regard. Personally, I thought it was just too over the top. And even the normally brilliant Daniel Craig laid it on too thick. I guess that's what they were going for. I don't think I'd recommend it at all.

Rating: 2.5

Defiance (2008, U.S.)

Defiance was astounding. So astounding that I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for more Oscars. The story was incredibly moving, all the more so because it was based on a true story. It is really a testament to the human spirit. These brothers' ability to create a community and protect their people and their culture in the face of extreme hardship is inspiring, all the more so because they each stayed true to their beliefs. I thought that the story was well-adapted without making it over-dramatic/emotional while still impressing upon the audience the magnitude and meaning of this quietly heroic undertaking.

The acting was brilliant. I was really impressed with Jamie Bell, a 22-year-old kid who played the youngest brother with a perfect mix of innocence and maturity. Liev Shreiber's character was rough and stoic, and his gruff demeanor never faltered. Daniel Craig stole the show, as I knew he would. That man has talent. Pure talent. All three maintained convincing Eastern European accents too, which was an added bonus. (Word on the street is that the other recent WWII film, Valkyrie, has a scattering of British and American accents where there should be German ones.)

On top of the acting and the subtly told story, the music and scenery just put it over the top. Really, listening to James Newton Howard's beautiful, haunting score filled with violin solos by Joshua Bell while watching beautiful shots of Eastern European forests would have made this film worth seeing by itself, no plot necessary. More movies should be filmed on location. James Newton Howard should do more scores. (His Peter Pan score is one of my all-time favorites.) I can't reinforce enough how much these two elements contributed to this film. And if Defiance doesn't win the Oscar for Best Original Score, I will truly be blown away.

Rating: 4.5

Quantum of Solace (2008, UK)

I. Love. Daniel. Craig. There is no other Bond for me. To be fair, I've only ever seen the Brosnan and Craig films. And Casino Royale was my first Bond, and I already had a soft spot for it because I'd seen them filming it. But still.

The plot of Quantum of Solace was very typically Bond, probably more so than Casino Royale. Bad guys doing something extremely technologically complicated, creative, and deviously evil. (And as far as evil plots go, this one really takes the cake—but I don't want to give it away.) Sexy women getting in the way, sleeping with Bond, getting killed off. Car chases, shootouts, and explosions. Only this time, Bond had more than duty motivating him—he had revenge. And he very subtly reaches toward revenging Vesper's death. It's not an obvious plot point, but it nicely ties QofS with CR. I love continuity.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the beginning. I did not like the opening credits, nor the new theme song performed by Jack White and Alicia Keyes. (Surprising, because I do love Jack White.) I just don't think anything could touch "You Know My Name" and the clever gambling theme of the CR credits. I liked the "cut out" looking men more than the CGI women, even if it was less "Bond."

The opening scene of QofS is a car chase. I'm back and forth on car chases overall; they have to be really well done to get my attention. And while this one was pretty cool, the jerky camera movements were just a bit too much. It's hard to appreciate a scene when your eyes can't focus on it! It also took me awhile to figure out what was happening. Apparently the beginning of this film takes place directly after the end of the last film. Again, love the continuity—don't love that Bond was wearing a different suit. Confusing!

After that, it was all great. I'm still a bit confused on some of the plot points, but as far as I can tell, every Bond film takes at least two viewings to work out the kinks of who did what and why. The casting was fabulous. Of course I love Craig and Dench, so no surprises there. The actors who portrayed the main Bond girl and the main villian were both amazing. Olga Kurylenko was both fragile and tough, and she definitely held her own. Mathieu Amalric can only be described as "slimy." They were perfect.

The cinematography was well done (from gritty to stunning, depending on the . The score was understated and effective (though again, it didn't touch CR either). The choreography (I'm talking fight scenes here) was realistic and yet very dance-like (if that makes sense).

I'm pretty much dying to see it again.

Rating: 4.5