Showing posts with label javier bardem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label javier bardem. Show all posts

Sunday, November 11, 2012

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

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Eat Pray Love (2010, U.S.)

Eh. The movie was better than the book, but that definitely didn't take much. And that's really about all I have to say about this movie. The scenery could have been exploited to much better effect. The writing could be stronger, but again, you have to consider the source material. I was most disappointed by the acting. I've always found Julia Roberts to be a very solid actress, and here she seemed weak. Whether it was the script or her, I couldn't say. I hope it was the former; on the other hand, her complete lack of chemistry with Franco or Bardem could have contributed.

I guess if you liked the book, you would like the movie. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste your time.

Rating: 2.5

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

No Country for Old Men (2007, U.S.)

I tried to like it, I really did. I'd heard great things, it won several Oscars... but I just didn't like it at all. Too much violence. Nothing but violence, really.

So here are my few notes on it: Minimalist score by Burwell was great, especially in the last scene/closing credits. Good acting, especially by Javier Bardem -- creepy! I didn't know this was based on a Cormac McCarthy book, but it reminded me of him. So when I found out it was based on one of his books, I can only assume they must have done a good job adapting it.

It's easy to forget over the course of a movie that seems predominantly about greed, but the main character never would have run into all the problems he did if he hadn't gone back to the scene where he'd found the money in order to give a dying man some water. No good deed goes unpunished, they say.

So overall, there was some good stuff in this movie. But it was entirely overshadowed by excessive violence. Which I guess was kind of the point, but that doesn't mean I had to like it.

Rating: 1.5