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

My Week with Marilyn (2011, U.S.)

I've never been a big Marilyn Monroe fan. Not that I don't like her, just that I've never really seen any of her movies for some reason. I think the only two I've seen are Monkey Business (which she's hardly in at all) and The Misfits, during which I was busy scrutinizing Clark Gable's performance. Still, Michelle Williams got lots of awards nods for this, and everyone knows that I adore Eddie Redmayne, so I gave it a try.

It was quite good, and certainly interesting. The authenticity of Williams' performance was somewhat eery at times, particularly in Monroe's vulnerable or unguarded moments. (A scene of her innocently singing in the bath especially sticks in my mind.) It really says something about her caliber as an actress that the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench seemed to pale in comparison. Her talent continues to surprise me, and I don't know why. Still, this performance stands out, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the role posterity remembers her for.

The plot was really engaging, as a troubled but spectacularly famous woman spends a week falling in love with (and breaking the heart of) a younger, less worldly man—and probably her own too. The insight into celebrity and personhood were fascinating. Redmayne and Williams certainly had chemistry, but it was a delicate, fragile, newborn sort of chemistry... which of course worked perfectly for the film. I feel no need to mention that Redmayne was very good, although for once he didn't steal the show. Williams was just that good.

I enjoyed the score a lot as well. It seemed fairly piano heavy, lightly jazzy, very 1950s. It fit perfectly with the film. This is the first work of Conrad Pope's that I've heard, so I'm curious to hear more. Speaking of 1950s, I will mention that sets, props, and costumes were also historically delicious. Every element of this piece just comes together wonderfully to immerse the viewer in the era. Really, delicious is the perfect word for that lovely 1950s feel.

When you get down to it, not much actually happens here, and even less is resolved, but the whole film is a wonderful character study and that is what made it so great. I would certainly recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

On the one hand, this was a very interesting and entertaining movie. I knew next to nothing about Hoover before, and I found his relationships with his mother, Helen Gandy, and Clyde Tolson to be quite fascinating. The cast of the movie was out of this world. Of course Dame Judi Dench is one of my all time favorites, and her performance as Mrs. Hoover was very nuanced, I thought. Armie Hammer was pretty good, and Naomi Watts was spot on, as usual. I loved everyone playing small roles of big people, from Robert Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower to Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple. They were all very well cast. Then of course there was Leonardo DiCaprio, probably the most talented actor of his generation, who just became Hoover. He nailed both the intimidating, intelligent public persona and the insecure, unsure inner man. I think poor Leo gets a bad rap just because of Titanic, but a) his acting was great in that movie, and b) I have never seen him give less than a brilliant performance in another movie, either. Just think about What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Gangs of New York, The Departed, even lighter movies like Catch Me If You Can. I don't really think he's attractive, but boy can he act.

Anyway, it obviously wasn't the acting that was underwhelming in this movie. I think it must have been the script. There were so many instances when I felt like a bit more dialogue or a more lingering camera shot could have added a lot more meaning to a moment. It also could have suffered because they were trying to cover so much of his life at once while picking the most important professional and personal moments and not having enough of either. That was pretty frustrating.

Another frustrating thing was the makeup. It was eery how well they did DiCaprio's makeup as he aged. I could have believed they shot the film over 50 years! For Watts, they did a good job of adding wrinkles and things and making her look much older than she is, but her character didn't seem to age nearly enough to match Hoover's aging. The worst job was on Hammer, who went from a young man to a sort of fake looking, spotty, clay-headed geriatric. He didn't even look like a real person in his elderly form. That was very off-putting.

The costumes and sets were also brilliantly done. The cinematography was dark, dark, dark, which served many functions. It made the movie feel historical. It emphasized the secretive nature of their work in the Bureau. And it served as a reminder of the parts of Hoover that were hidden from the public.

So this movie was good, but I just felt like it was missing something. I wanted a lot more from it than I got. However, it is certainly worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say about this one, so I won't say much. I think the whole thing is just tired. I loved the first one when it came out (so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater before buying it on DVD the day it came out). I really liked the second and third ones (when nobody else seemed to), though I thought they should stand alone more like the first one did. Now somehow, I was really disappointed by POTC4, while every other review I've read seems to call it as good as the first one or even the best of the four. What?!

Change is good, and their stories were definitely complete, but that didn't stop me from missing Will and Elizabeth. Instead, Penelope Cruz appears as a former flame of Jack's. Now normally she irritates me to no end, but I thought she was actually pretty good in this movie and even had believable chemistry with Depp (who, I doubt I have to tell you, was just as awesome as ever). But then we have her father Blackbeard, played by Ian McShane. They keep talking about how evil he was, but I just didn't see it. He definitely wasn't as evil as Davy Jones, he wasn't as evil as Cutler Beckett. Heck, he wasn't as evil as Barbossa was in the first movie. This was especially disappointing because normally I find Ian McShane to be a very strong actor. So that's it for new main characters. Secondary characters? Forget about it! There was no Pintel and Ragetti, no Annamaria, no Mr. Cotton (or parrot), no midget worth his salt, no Marines-turned-pirates. Even Mr. Gibbs was rather blah in all this. Instead, we have a priest who was captured by Blackbeard, who is constantly preaching about the importance of faith and who falls in love with a mermaid. The preaching was downright annoying, and the romance was a chemistry-less flop. (No pun intended. Get it? Mermaid!)

The plot was also a huge disappointment. The third movie sets up the story of Jack off to find the Fountain of Youth, because he's terrified of death and wants to live forever. Instead, we find him on a quest for the fountain of youth for somebody else, and he doesn't seem that disappointed when it's not for him. That just doesn't make sense for his character, which further illustrates how badly done the characters were in this movie. Actually, I was really excited in the beginning because it started off with an amazing bang. Jack fights with a pirate who's masquerading as Sparrow, and their fight scene is beautifully choreographed and actually someone reminiscent of the Jack/Will sword fight in the first one. Then Jack is captured and brought before the king of England. Their scene together is great, especially Jack's escape attempt when he's almost more focused on getting a bite of cupcake than getting away. (That is classic Jack, so you can see why I had a good feeling about the movie.) Then he's tearing through the streets in a carriage filmed with flaming coal, which was pretty sweet, and I'm still thinking, "This movie is going to be great." And then he hooks up with Blackbeard, and it's all downhill from there. The remainder of the plot is meandering and boring, especially when added to the flat characters. There are extra plot points (like the whole mermaid thing, and especially the mermaid/preacher romance) that could have been left out entirely or at least done much, much better. Then the ending makes no sense at all. What a travesty.

On top of all that, the score was underwhelming. I had listened to the previews on iTunes before seeing the movie, and it seemed very guitar heavy (like they were going for a more modern South American/Caribbean feel) and didn't quite work. In the context of the movie it was passable, but it didn't stand out and it wasn't nearly as memorable as the first three scores. Like the stories, the music is getting tired too.

There were some pretty awesome special effects. I already mentioned the fiery coal carriage careening through the streets. The other awesome thing was that Blackbeard keeps all the ships that he has defeated in bottles in a cabinet on his ship. The bottles were full of thunder and lighting and crashing waves, and ***spoiler alert*** even Cotton's parrot appeared in the bottle with the trapped Black Pearl. Because of this whole bottle thing, a definite sequel is implied. It could be good, based on the hints, but then the whole search for the Fountain of Youth hinted at in At World's End sounded good too. So we'll see.

Rating: 2.5

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

Jack and Sarah (1995, UK)

This must have been another one of those films that Blockbuster recommended, because I don't know why I'd see it otherwise. Well, to be fair, it did have a stellar cast—Judi Dench, Ian McKellan, Imogen Stubbs, Eileen Atkins... but those were all the supporting roles. The main characters, especially the girl, were awful. The dialogue was often stupid, and there was some horrible, horrible acting.

The premise was good. A (British) man's wife dies in childbirth and he's left to raise his baby daughter by himself. Enter the mess of an American nanny, and instant romantic comedy. Pretty serious subject matter for a romantic comedy, though.

Like I said, the leads weren't great, but the premise was good and there were some very funny parts. But overall, I could have lived my life without seeing it and I would have been okay.

Rating: 3.0