The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012, U.S.)

I hate to say it, but yawn. I was kind of expecting it, to be honest, but it was still disappointing anyway. It started out so well with the arrival of the dwarves, invading Bilbo's home and pantry, cheerfully singing their clean up songs and mournfully singing their treasure songs. I was pretty excited then, because those early scenes in Bilbo's hobbit-hole were perfect. It was all downhill from there.

Mainly the problem is that a book, essentially a children's fairy tale, that should have been made into one movie is being stretched painfully into three. "Like butter scraped over too much bread," if you will. They drew out things that hadn't happened in the books, bringing characters on screen that were simply mentioned by other characters, namely Radagast the brown. Him and his stupid bunny sled were ridiculous. The book is mostly from Bilbo's point of view, and I certainly don't remember any description of what the dwarves were doing while he was lost in the dark in the Misty Mountains, and the giant fat albino goblin type thing that they encountered was just stupid. Also as much as I love them, I could have done without Elrond and Galadriel. Ugh, huge parts of it were just frustrating.

I'm being generous and giving this a 3.0 because of course Middle Earth was as beautiful as always and the casting of Bilbo and the dwarves was great and the early scenes were so enjoyable, but honestly it was just boring for huge parts. Very sad. Should have been one movie only. Duh.

Rating: 3.0

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, U.S.)

Oh, how sad I was to find this movie so run-of-the-mill. I had heard such great things about it and I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, but alas, it just felt like every other super hero movie, really.

I'm not sure what it was. The cast was great: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans usually stand out to me. Sally Field and Martin Sheen were really great as Peter's aunt and uncle. I enjoyed the focus on the science aspect. The action scenes were good. So why did it seem to fall flat?

The only thing I can think of is that I was not convinced by "The Lizard." His initial transition was good, but then he just seemed to fall on the corny side as far a supervillains go. So that's really all I can come up with. It was good, but it didn't blow me away. Another victim of hype.

Rating: 3.5

Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012, U.S.)

I am stunned! I really didn't like the second half of Breaking Dawn (the book), so I expected the movie to be even worse. Mainly, I absolutely hated that stupid kid. However, in the movie you can actually see why she was so appealing to everyone, which makes the second half so much more sensible!

But I get ahead of myself. I want to start with how amazing the credits were. I'm getting them confused in my head (opening and closing), but I believe it was the opening credits that were all black and white with hints of red, really artfully done. The closing credits did this amazing thing where it showed the final words of the novel from the novel, and it felt like a book closing with this sort of finality. Then they did the kind of credits were all the main actors were pictured from the entire series, which furthered that feeling. Pretty awesome on both ends.

And the middle was really good too. Like I said, the kid was not annoying. They simplified the whole "Jay" sideplot to work with the movie. The supporting cast of vampires was really amazing, although I have to say a big part of why I didn't give this a 4.5 is because I felt like they were all short changed on screen time. The big fight at the end was just amazing, especially with all the twists that I had managed to completely forget from the book. I was completely nail-biting, which was completely unexpected.

Everyone belittles "KStew" and "RPattz," but I continue to think that they're both great actors. Maybe this isn't the best vehicle for them, but still. Stewart does a convincing job as someone finally getting in touch with her real self. The contrast between the awkward human and the graceful vampire is very obvious if you compare the early movies to this one.

I thought this was a strong ending to the series, particularly with the above-mentioned credits that tied the movie into the book and tied all the movies together. I'm looking forward to a marathon when it comes to DVD.

Rating: 4.0

You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)

Well, talk about ridiculous! I feel like I should have seen all these old Bond films before the new ones, because the picture I had of him in my head (cemented by the modern films) was much less cheesey!

On one hand, this one had some pretty amazing elements, including an epic car chase and some hints and Japanese culture. Also, Bond's "assassination" at the beginning of the film was pretty sweet. On the other hand, it got downright racist (particularly when Bond was disguised as a "Japanese man") and the whole SPECTRE-stealing-spaceships-from-space thing was just plain silly!

I'm a bit at a loss on this one. I loved parts; I hated parts. I just don't know.

Rating: 3.0

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

Thunderball (1965, UK)

At first I was enjoying this movie, but to be honest I think the ending completely killed it. I'm glad to see elsewhere online that I'm not the only one to think that while the underwater fight sequences were cool, they dragged on and on to the point where I honestly lost interest. My attention drifted for awhile before I snapped back and watched the last few minutes.

Until then, it was pretty clever. I liked SPECTRE's complicated plan to steal a NATO plane and two nuclear weapons, which was complicated and bordering on ridiculous but still strangely plausible. I liked Largo and his lair, complete with man-eating shark pool. I liked his mistress Domino, who is essentially trapped with Largo, her role in Bond's mission, and her penchant for only black and white clothes. The early part of the movie where Bond is recovering from injuries at a health-spa type place was interesting because it showed that he was only human (although I could have done without the jetpack escape from the fight that put him there).

Overall it was a good one, but I could have used more traveling and edited-down underwater sequences.

Rating: 3.5

Notting Hill (1999, UK)

I was reading (and loving) this book called From Notting Hill with Love... Actually by Ali McNamara, basically a chick lit whose main character loves chick flicks. Of course she mentions this one constantly, and since I've never seen it, I decided to give it a go.

So, eh. To start with, I just have never seen the appeal in Hugh Grant. Sure, I liked him in Bridget Jones as the skeazy Daniel Cleaver, and he's definitely attractive, but his nice guy roles are never that enjoyable to me. I like Julia Roberts quite a bit, and one of my all-time favorite chick flicks is My Best Friend's Wedding, but for some reason I had a bad feeling about this one. Maybe it's the smirk she has on in poster.

Yeah, the concept was cute, but I wouldn't it make more sense for a chick flick to be about a famous man falling for a normal woman, instead of vice versa? I mean, that would make the predominant audience swoon. (Though I do love a man in a bookstore!)  And the whole romance was really sweet. The spilling orange juice, the awkwardness of the first meeting... but then she randomly kisses him and it feels very disjointed, and that's the whole basis for their continuing relationship. I feel like if the initial attraction made more sense and flowed more smoothly, the good parts about the rest of it would have seemed great. (For instance, him having to interview her and pretending to be a journalist from Horse & Hound!)

And okay, I always say that I love Rhys Ifans and he is an under-appreciated actor, but in this case, I had too much of him the second he was on the screen. His character is dirty, both literally and figuratively, and he just made my skin crawl. Why was he there? Sure he made Hugh Grant's character look even more charming (and normal!) in comparison, but for the most part his ewwww factor completely took away from the story. For that alone, I went from a 3.0 to a 2.5.

There are better chick flicks out there. I need to go have a Bridget Jones lovefest to rinse this one out of my brain. And just as a side note, in case anyone is even reading this or cares, apparently there's going to be a third Bridget Jones movie. Now that's what I call good news!

Rating: 2.5

Goldfinger (1964, UK)

This movie was so stupid but it was my favorite one so far! I mean, the superspy has to stop a fat German guy who is a bit crazy, kills women by dipping them in gold, and plans to break into Fort Knox! (Not to mention Oddjob, his nutso Korean henchman who can kill people with a fling of his razor-sharp bowler hat!) A fellow movie buff said that if I thought that Dr. No was bad I would hate this one, but somehow its common elements (corny villain in a corny lair, mostly) were terrible in Dr. No but good here.

The locations weren't so exciting here. Switzerland was nice, but then it was Florida, Baltimore, and Kentucky. I guess that's exotic to a posh guy from Britain. Still, the model of Fort Knox was pretty realistic looking, which was cool.

An interesting aspect of this one was Pussy Galore and her Flying Circus. First, Honor Blackman is still the oldest Bond girl ever cast, and yet I thought she was sexier than many I've seen. It might have been her voice. Second, her female pilots are very girl power. Sure, they wear stupid sexy outfits, but they're pilots. That's pretty impressive for 1964. (I gather in the book they were acrobats and cat burglars, so this was a definite upgrade.) I thought that her manner, crew of self-reliant ladies, and initial disinterest in Bond all subtly suggested lesbianism, but quickly dismissed it from my mind. However, turns out the Pussy Galore of the book actually was gay. Now that really is risky for the 1960s, though it certainly explains the name (and why she doesn't fling herself at Bond like a bimbo). So far she's my favorite Bond girl because she's so self-possessed, self-assured, and self-aware. (Of course plot-wise I still love Vesper Lynd, but she's not exactly her own woman.)

So the verdict here is ridiculous but good!

Rating: 4.0

From Russia with Love (1963, UK)

I definitely liked this more than Dr. No because there was more plot and less ridiculous villain's lair. Basically he knows that the Soviets are trying to ensnare him with a sexy female agent, but MI6 is so desperate for the decoding device she has that they don't care.

After a weak start in the Caribbean in the first movie, Bond really starts his travels here—Istanbul, Venice, Zagreb... There are also scenes in Russia, though he's not there. Sure the less than crystal-clear quality that we're used to in modern movies and the dated clothing might have taken a bit away, but I still loved the scenery. I think the ability to see the world is one of the best things about the Bond movies.

We also begin to see here that Bond has friends conveniently placed throughout the world (most of whom turn out to be jovial middle aged men) and that while he treats women as disposable when it comes to sex, he does care about women as people too. (Exhibit: worry over fate of Russian spy.)

Things are looking up as I continue to work my way through Bond.

Rating: 3.5

Romantics Anonymous (2010, France)

This was a cute enough movie with some good underlying serious issues, but I was still a bit disappointed. Having heard it described as Amélie meets Chocolat, I was expecting greatness. It wasn't bad, it just didn't live up to its hype—or its potential.

I did love the two main actors. Both were absolutely endearing and... I can't think of the word. Normal and average don't quite get it. Maybe ordinary? I think the title must have been a play on words, because while they were both secretly romantics, they were also overemotional (mostly anxious). Their anxiety was fascinating to watch. It was of course overplayed for comedy, but it also rang true. It was a delicate balance that ultimately succeeded.

 The setting was also a lot of fun. They work in a struggling chocolate factoring that needs rescuing, and all four of their coworkers are just right and all a bit stereotypical. Two mothering middle aged women and two young, slender, androgynous men who are all invested in the company and in the lives of their boss and the new employee.

So with all this charmingness, how did it fall short? There were just too many places were things were set up for a perfect line or plot twist that never happened. Everything was too easy (even for a romantic comedy) and a brilliant concept ultimately went to waste. I would still recommend it, just not too enthusiastically.

Rating: 3.5