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

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011, U.S.)

I want to be able to give this one more than Part 1, so it's getting a 3.0. Really, it was a struggle to give it more than a 2.5. Look, I love Harry Potter. The first few movies were quite good, and I was on the verge of loving Half Blood Prince because it was so bloody hilarious (though that clearly was the wrong tone to take). But. But but but.

The plot has been slowly and steadily losing momentum when it should be more and more action-packed. Although that's not quite the right way to phrase it, because the focus has shifted so far toward action, special effects, stunts, etc. that plot, character development, symbolism, etc. seem to have fizzled. I knew that by this point in the films a lot would make no sense, just because so many plot threads have been dropped. So that wasn't as much of a let-down as it could have been, due to internal preparation.

Still, it's hard to watch an adaptation of a novel that is so fundamentally about characters and the fight between good and evil and have all those key elements watered down. In fact, if you watch this film without reading the books or watching any of the others, you'd be hard pressed to identify just what's so wrong with Voldemort and the Death Eaters anyway. Life at Hogwarts doesn't look so bad, just especially organized with a very dark and gloomy ambiance. Where are the horrible, soulless adults enslaving the students? Well, there's just not time for all that if we're going to show all the explosions, epic Voldemort vs. Harry wand battle with blazing lights that might as well be lightsabers, etc. Even key moments that were so suspenseful and nail-biting in the book (I'm talking mainly about the Gringotts vault break-in here) were so diluted that they felt like they were put there just because they were supposed to be there, and the fear and excitement were completely removed. Even the horror of Horcruxes and the importance of their destruction seemed to vanished, replaced with a formulaic "destroy x, y, and z in order to achieve completion of Harry Potter equation." Meanwhile, the Hallows seem to become completely irrelevant. The Elder Wand's loyalty is important, yet its full power is mostly ignored. The Resurrection Stone serves its purpose, but with little fanfare (despite being one of the most moving parts of the novel) or explanation. And the Invisibility Cloak? What cloak? Not a mention. Very strange.

The thing that bothered me the absolute most, however, was the battle of Hogwarts, and it really sums up my feelings about most of the later series and this movie in particular. Yes, it was visually pretty cool. But emotionally, it was barren. Mrs. Weasley's classic line was there, but rather than focusing on a mother's fierce protection of her daughter, the focus of the moment is on Bellatrix's visually interesting (to be generous) demise. (Really, she like explodes into a bunch of black bits. What is that about?) All of the required deceased are there laying in the Great Hall at the end of the battle, but those scenes are robbed of the heart-wrenching quality of the novel. It's hard to explain, but the shots of rows of dead (and especially the most beloved) had an unemotional, detached feeling. It just wasn't good. I think the later filmmakers lost sight of what's important in the Harry Potter universe, something the earlier filmmakers had a better grasp of. They've traded human emotion and character for special effects, and the trade weakens the heart of a truly epic human story.

I hate to complete trash the visuals, because some things were strikingly done. Harry's version of King's Cross Station was phenomenal. (Also, that scene was pretty cut and paste from the book, so that was nice.) The ruins of Hogwarts were beautiful and sad. The Fiendfyre was pretty sweet. The passages beneath Gringotts were perfectly cavelike. (Sidenote: many of these things repeatedly reminded my friend and I of the places of Middle Earth, namely Moria, Helm's Deep, and Minas Tirith. I guess similar sights and events are inevitable in good v. evil fantasies, but it was still amusing.) The darkened halls of Hogwarts felt coldly realistic. So sets win over special effects.

Of course I don't repeat all the things I've said before about the great casting and how much the child actors have grown (as actors, not as children to adults). There were some surprising and talented people in minor roles who I didn't even recognize (especially Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore). That role especially highlights the talent of the wardrobe and makeup departments. Maybe the were worn out, but a lot of the performances seemed lackluster, even compared to the first part of this film. Again, this could have been more because of the formulaic feel of the script, but who knows.

Scores since the early days seem to have been either memorable or not. Part 1's score didn't stand out to me (at least at the time, maybe it's great), but parts of this one did. The song that I especially loved, loved, loved was "Lily's Theme" (I looked up the name), which opens the film. It has that ethereal, otherworldly female voice sound that I love and the melody was beautiful yet eery and haunting. It was repeated during Voldemort's farewell, if you will, as little pieces of his cloak drift through the air in front of the ruins of Hogwarts, and it really struck a chord (har har) there. I loved this one song so much that I wanted to go back and buy the rest of the soundtracks I don't own (I only have 1-3). I also liked that they returned to their roots. Although the score for Deathly Hallows is a far cry from Sorcerer's Stone, the credits music sounded like it had come straight from the first film. It really tied everything together and brought the viewer back to the feeling of Harry's first trip from Platform 9 3/4. The transition from the final song of the film into the credits was smooth too, perhaps because the last scene was nearly identical to the book's epilogue, another journey from 9 3/4. Really well done. I really want to run buy the five scores I need to finish my collection.

Anyway, my overall feeling with this movie is, "Well I'm glad that's over." They weren't bad. In the early days they were quite good. But they just strayed so far from the important core of the novels that it was hard to hold on. Time for me to go reread the tales of the Boy Who Lived, the way they were meant to be told.

*edit: I almost forgot. We saw this on July 31, which I remembered is Harry's birthday. Now that was a happy accident for a nerd!*

Rating: 3.0

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010, U.S.)

I heard a lot of people say this was a boring film because they spend so much time wandering around doing nothing. On the contrary, I found it to be way too fast-paced. They're galloping around the countryside, accomplishing their tasks with seeming ease. It completely negated the epic David and Goliath, hopeless battle for Good that they're fighting, practically belittling their efforts.

I know one shouldn't judge movies based on one's knowledge of the books, but in this case I just can't help it. Of all of the Harry Potter films, I thought this one was the weakest adaptation. Of course, I rather expected it to be. They've been dropping threads of the plot and relationships since the beginning (or perhaps since the fourth movie), so with the final installment, it was impossible to weave together the complete, complex tapestry.

Of course, I still maintain that this undertaking put together one of the greatest casts, and this installment brought almost every participant together. Though it was inevitable to miss Hogwarts, the various settings, from nature to Malfoy Manor to the Ministry to a London street to a snowy graveyard in Godric's Hollow were all beautifully rendered.

I'm glad Dobby had his day, even if it was very "Oh, remember Dobby? He has a very close relationship with Harry even though you don't know anything about it, so he's going to come save his friend now!" Ugh. Even worse, however, was the thing that came out of the locket horcrux. It was way over the top and super cheesy. And greenish—think "dead faces in the water" and the army of the dead and all the other cheesy parts of Lord of the Rings times about a trillion and plus gratuitous nudity. Shiny nudity at that. So even Catherine Hardwicke could be proud! As you can tell, it annoyed me quite a bit.

The music doesn't stick out in my head too much, but I can only assume that it was good, since Alexandre Desplat is one of my favorite composers.

I still look forward to the second part of this film, but I won't get my hopes up.

Rating: 2.5

The Hurt Locker (2008, U.S.)

An army bomb removal squadron disenganges a bomb in Baghdad. And then they disengage another. And a few days later they do another. On and on and on, blah blah blah.

This had to be the slowest paced movie I've ever seen in my life. It would be one thing if they tried to make some deep statement about the psychology of war or something like that. What made it worse was that they probably thought that's what they were doing. But no. Characters weren't sympathetic, writing wasn't good, acting was wooden... awful.

I was already doubtful about the Academy Awards in recent years, but the fact that this movie actually won the Best Picture Oscar just completely made me lose faith in the Academy. I've only seen a couple of other nominees, but all of them were better by far.

Rating: 1.0

The Reader (2008, U.S.)

I was torn between "liking" and "really liking" this film. Obviously, I recognize that it has some astounding qualities—hence the word "film" instead of movie."

First, the acting. I adore Kate Winslet, and this was one of her best performances yet; she definitely deserves her Oscar nomination. It's unfortunate that one has to spend most of a movie looking completely hideous to get a nomination, but I guess that's just how it is. Her characterization of Hanna Schmitz was subtle and well done; even her accent was consistent. I was also impressed with David Kroß, the 18-year-old German who played young Michael Berg opposite Winslet. (Fiennes played the old Michael Berg.) He is an incredible actor for being so young, and he was able to convincingly portray this boy as a young teenager and then an older law student. He did adult scenes tastefully (and again, convincingly) as if he's been doing this for years. It was only his fifth movie. Lastly, Ralph Fiennes. I go back and forth on whether he is a good actor or not, but in any case I don't think this film was his best. His personality seems to be nonexistant, though this perhaps enables Winslet to shine even more as an old woman.

The plot is definitely not action driven. I would perhaps call it a "slice of life" approach, as it shows key scenes from young Berg's relationship with Hanna, her war crimes trial, and their lives as they age. I really liked that it wasn't in-your-face, instead relying on the viewer to immerse himself in this place and pick up on small details. It was like a character study of Hanna and her relationship to Berg—and to the truth. A very intelligent, high brow kind of film.

One thing that really bothered me was that towards the end, the viewer finds himself trying harder and harder to read into the two characters' motives; their behavior doesn't make sense (perhaps because I personally would have responded to what happened in a different way), and their thoughts are veiled. I think it's clear that this was an adaptation of a book, and there is likely much more elaboration on the thought processes in the novel. This is one weakness of adopting this kind of novel to the screen. (I'll have to read the book to verify.)

Lastly, two of the most important factors: music and setting. I love that almost the entire movie was filmed on location. The viewer can really get a feel for beautiful countryside where Berg and Schmitz spent their summer affair and the urban feel of Berlin. Filming on location is a very wise move in most movies, in my opinion. And the score was lovely. I'd never heard of Nico Muhly, but something tells me he's going places.

I'm not quite sure whether I'd call this one a classic that will stand the test of time, but it is definitely a must-see for this year at least.

Rating: 4.0

The Duchess (2008, UK)

I am almost embarrassed to say that I was not familiar with Georgiana Spencer's story before I saw this film, and I didn't realize it was going to be a huge depression-fest.

Still, it was absolutely wonderful. Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes are both brilliant actors, of course. Even if the rest of the film was horrible (which it wasn't), those two would make the entire thing worthwhile. Their portrayls of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire were incredible. The duke was vile, the duchess sympathetic. I really cannot say enough about them, so I won't say anything. Well, maybe one thing—both of them look amazing in wigs. Fiennes looked like he was born to his powdered wig, and Knightley is never better than when she's in a historic role, with gorgeous dresses and fancy hair.

The entire visual aspect of the film was beautiful. Costumes, scenery, everything. The 18th century is probably my favorite when it comes to aesthetics, and this film didn't disappoint. Rachel Portman's score was complementary and not overwhelming.

I enjoyed the historic drama, as I usually do. But in the last couple of years, I have become more interested in the Foxite era, although I haven't had much opportunity to get into it. So to have that background to this story was quite interesting.

And the plot was a really heartbreaking look at the life of one woman whose husband flaunted his mistress in front of her, who was denied her one true love, and who sacrificed everything for her children. It was beautiful and sad and wonderful. Definitely bittersweet. And the Duchess of Devonshire was an admirable, strong woman. A great character. A great film.

Rating: 4.0