Just back from this, I'll start with the good...since there's less of that. The film starts out well, we have a major incident, a macguffin has gone missing and MI6 could be in real danger. Nice dramatic start to the story, shame it goes no further (more on that later). Sam Mendes gives us some lovely looking scenes at times, I think he gives nice framing visuals on a few ocassions and the early settings are fantastic, the casino is particularly gorgeous, the lighting both inside and out. And...nope, I think that's it.
Where, oh, where to begin? Okay, remember that intriguing start I mentioned, something that has all the trappings of classic Bond, including exotic locations? Yeah, forget all that it doesn't really matter.
What was the point of the hard drive with the Agents' identities on it? It's not long after meeting Bardem's character that we discover he's only after M, why exactly does he want/need the hard drive to get to her? He could've got himself caught or went after her any other way, it didn't really matter. The hard drive would only be important if they actually used it to kill off numerous agents with some sort of end goal in mind, but they didn't, they took it and that was it, wasn't really heard of again. I'm being harsh on Bardem because he's not just after M is he...no, he suddenly gets a fixation to kill Bond in the finale, only for him to decide he's not bothered about Bond anymore and to go back to M. He doesn't know what he wants, the writers don't know what they want him to be, he's all over the place character wise. He was an unbelievably weak villain, something that has been an all too common occurance in this franchise since Goldeneye, there are no memorable villains (particularly glaring in the Craig films). I mean, he dies from a knife just thrown into his back, no final fight scene with Bond in gruelling hand to hand or cagey gun play combat. Bond just sneaks up on him and throws a knife at him from a few feet away, the coward. The "Bond Girl", whose name escaped me for the entirety of her 3 scenes was completely worthless, again her introduction was very good in the terrific Casino scene with Bond but then they sleep together and she dies. This isn't new for a Bond film, but normally it takes the process of most of a film to happen and not 15 minutes, and Bond didn't give a damn about her being killed, he was shaking at the thought of accidentally shooting her but as soon as Bardem did it it was like 'Well, at least I didn't kill her'. Those exotic and lovely settings I mentioned earlier; the Casino and Island, we move away from those to London and then the finale in rural Scotland. Not exactly thrilling places at first thought, are they? The whole jet setting, global scale associated with the franchise is stripped away for dull, wet locales with scenes to match, like the tedious courtroom scenes. The finale was less huge scale climax between Super Spy and Super Villain and more a few folks running around the set of Emmerdale with guns on a cold night. What the hell was with that stupid old man Cincade? This old codger is taking out trained professionals with a sawn off shotgun from a good few feet away with none of them able to react and shoot him in between him firing shots? MI6 should get right on hiring this guy as he could easily defeat most of their lesser enemies. Due to the villain's lack of focus and the removal of exotic locales the film lacks any kind of danger on a worldwide scale, which is what Bond is normally about. He's out there thwarting nefarious plans that will unhinge global society as we know it, but not this time when he's just playing soldiers in his backgarden with a few friends. Ralph Fiennes' character is never used ot his full potential, he should have been clearly set up as an obstacle and doubter of Bond, with his true allegiances being called into question, but rather than that we have once scene in which he expresses doubt over Bond's abilities and then he comes back to save M, had a chance to really build up the point of him replacing her being about trust coming full circle but missed out on that one.
I think that's about enough of everything else and it's time to get to the single biggest flaw of this film which violates the mythos of all Bonds previously gone:
He is James Bond. I know what you're thinking but read it again, He is James Bond. No one else, not Brosnan's Bond, not Connery's, not Moore's, no one else, just Craig's Bond is officially Bond. From when I was very young I decided that James Bond was not a real person, it was an alias given to the agent ranked 007, hence why different people could be the same person over many years. It turned out that that is actually a popular fan theory, and it makes the most sense. Why would you have a secret agent using their real name all the time? Give them an alias. But no, this film decides to piss all over Bond history and Bond fan's feelings by declaring that all previous Bonds are null and void and that there is only one Bond. To go a little further on this point, we didn't need ot know Bond's background, he's supposed to be mysterious that's kinda his thing as a spy. Sure, it's fine to hint at things, but don't take us back to his child hood home and tell us he's an orphan, making us have to find out why he became Bond and introduce us to his wily old house keeper and...Oh, my God. They just wanted to make him Batman, didn't they? Why? He's not Batman, he's BOND
.
This franchise has suffered terribly from having used up its source material, there's really no books left. I know they change things from the books all the time, but they at least gave them a good starting base and ideas to work off of and develop. Without them they're just kind of lost. I think the best option is to go out and find the best non-Bond spy novel and buy the film rights to it and make it but just title it James Bond. It's simple and wouldn't be the first time such a thing's been done in Hollywood history. In all honesty though, with everything they pulled in this film including bringing in Moneypenny I wouldn't be surprised at all if they instead go down the remake route and start redoing the old films/villains.
I loved the opening, it gave such a warm sense of life, togetherness and community. I thought that could've been done as a short film purely on it's own. There's a lot of issues in the relationship between Hushpuppy and her daddy, but a lot of love too and I think it's in their relationship that the strength of the film lies. Aesthetically it's pleasing and different, I liked a lot of what Benh Zeitlin did with the film and would be happy to see his next project, and it would be very interesting if a studio gave him a chance and a decent budget to see what he produces.
On the downside it failed to live up to my expectations. This is one of the rare times I say this for a film such as this, but: it was let down quite a bit by it's lack of plot. As I mentioned before I thought the opening would've made a brilliant short film and this felt like it was a short idea that had been lengthened somewhat.
I'd still recommend it to people, but it's not going to dislodge Killing Them Softly from my film of the year slot as I had perhaps thought it would.
This should've ended 15 minutes earlier. It's a good film with a terrific performances, Cotillard in particular who's Stephanie is the heart of this film. Schoenaerts shines through with intensity when it comes to his character fighting.
The film spends most of its time painting Ali (Schoenaerts) as pretty unlikeable in my opinion, and just when you think he might turn it around with Stephanie he runs away to Strasbourg. It was great at highlighting how he just doesn't want to deal with things, he'd rather just fight and ****. He's a primal being, at the first sign of "danger" he flees and leaves everything in his wake. It was clear for most of the time that he didn't really care about his son, he didn't know him before he took him under his care and didn't try to know him afterwards, so to make him suddenly want to play and spend time with his son, purely just to make his almost death scene a bit more "tragic", felt very tacked on and cliche.
It's still a decent film though, and is another example of the great stuff coming out of French cinema in recent times: The Artist (it's practically a French production), Untouchable, A Prophet (okay, 2 years ago, but still another good example), and we've still got Amour to come in a week or so.
The plan tomorrow is to see Argo, which I am stoked for. When the trailer first hit I thought "looks great, an outside shot for an Oscar". But since it's US release last month the praise for it has been immense and is now considered a serious contender for a number of awards.
Going into this I was very, very excited for it, from the moment the trailer first hit, but especially this last month to its reaction Stateside. Could it live up to the hype?
The rioting at the start is terrifyingly chaotic, there's a real sense of intimidation, danger and you fear for these innocent people. The blending of real life footage really helped in this aspect. The mood however does change, many time throughout the film, and Affleck proves he is now one of the best emerging Directors around by how he handles these changes in tone absolutely seemlessly. Everything feels so real and natural, there's a terrific flow to this film. The atmosphere of not only the place, but also the time, captured perfectly (70s facial hair abound!). And despite this it's a relevant film right now, the timing of this release couldn't be more apt as the political climate between the US and Iran is ever escalating. Some people may see Affleck having cast himself in the lead roles of the films he's directed as a self aggrandising move, but the not only is he a fine actor, but in the likes of both this and The Town, he may be the lead but he's not the entire focus. His films have been almost ensemble pieces bringing together a multitude of smaller and bit part roles to work around and with him. I was particularly pleased to see Clea DuVall in this, I've enjoyed her since her days in Popular (great show!).
So, in closing my expectations of Argo were not only met, but even surpassed, which is why I award this film...
9/10 and it is now the new placeholder for my Film of the Year (sorry Killing Them Softly ).
I'd love to see Affleck continue to work in the fields he has, doing more serious stuff like this. He will undoubtedly be offered a tentpole franchise by some point by a Studio (already turned down Justice League by reports some time back). I think he'd be great at anything, but a part of me kind of wants him to stay away from it. In saying that, I am going to make a bold prediction right here and now: Ben Affleck will be the Director, and Star, of the next
All the "funny bits" are in the trailer, the "drama" seems forced in and other than reminding you of the excellent, original versions of the songs they use there's really not much else to this film.
That Paul Thomas Anderson isn't half bad at this film making lark, is he? Masterful (pardon the pun) stuff, absolutely immense all round; visionary directing, a fabulous score.
The acting is probably the highlight, Joaquin Pheonix is positively frightening at times bringing his deranged character to life. Everything about him is so wel put together, the mannerisms and overall movement he gives are just brilliant, you believe he is that troubled. Hoffman always brings the goods, he's equal parts smooth and slimy just the way the role should be. Look out for both to be heavy in the running come the Oscars with Pheonix my particular tip just now for Best Actor.
Okay, time to stop bolding everything 20thC - I read it with emphasis on the emboldened words and it sounds like somebody is trying to convey a secret message to me when I don't have the slightest clue what they're on about. Obviously I get that Agent Oscar Hoffman is the Best Actor to carry out the Phoenix Plan, but beyond that I have no idea what my part in this is. I mean the Phoenix Plan is a one man operation, it doesn't even require additional Agents...
3rd French film in a couple months that has disability as a key plot point. How oddly specific.
This film is quite hard to watch at times, it often feels like you're watching a real people rather than a film. It's frighteningly realistic, I'd probably say you could categorise it as a horror in some ways because of it. A human, emotional horror.
Okay, time to stop bolding everything 20thC - I read it with emphasis on the emboldened words and it sounds like somebody is trying to convey a secret message to me when I don't have the slightest clue what they're on about. Obviously I get that Agent Oscar Hoffman is the Best Actor to carry out the Phoenix Plan, but beyond that I have no idea what my part in this is. I mean the Phoenix Plan is a one man operation, it doesn't even require additional Agents...
Personally, I think that bolding parts of sentences can be useful, like to add emphasis. Although here, I think the use of quotation marks is your most beneficial alternative 20thCenturyBoy.
I felt that some of the stuff outside the "vehicle" scenes between Gyllenhall/Pena was quite contrived, the shock moment with the knife was probably the best bit for me. I didn't like the indecision of whether this was a found footage film or just shot normally on handcams. Make up your mind; is Gyllenhall filming all of this or not? Pick one and stick with it.
It's not bad, but I probably expected a bit more from it.
Very enjoyable. It's very funny but is able to change tones quite well and get quite dark when necessary, the breakdown scene when Pat is looking for his marriage video being a prime example. It benefits from great chemistry between the two leads and I actually came out of this being a bit of a Bradley Cooper fan. I've never really cared for him before but I thought he was excellent here. As for the other half...Mmmm, Jennifer Lawrence. I love her in oh so many ways. I will say though, that while her performance is good and everything I don't think it's an Oscar winning one, which she is the heavy favourite for right now. I think she's benefiting from the lack of any big, mainstream opponents in the category (Hathaway is being pushed for Best Supporting from Les Mis).
Maybe expected too much from it from the trailers and Ben Wheatley's previous film (the superb Kill List). Still, it was quite good, laughs in places and has Wheatley's eerie style all over it.
Gambit
6/10
Almost a reverse of the above, didn't expect much from the trailers but got slighlty better than what I expected. Not great by any means but decent enough. Cameron Diaz still has a body that just won't quit.
Just back from this, I'll start with the good...since there's less of that. The film starts out well, we have a major incident, a macguffin has gone missing and MI6 could be in real danger. Nice dramatic start to the story, shame it goes no further (more on that later). Sam Mendes gives us some lovely looking scenes at times, I think he gives nice framing visuals on a few ocassions and the early settings are fantastic, the casino is particularly gorgeous, the lighting both inside and out. And...nope, I think that's it.
Where, oh, where to begin? Okay, remember that intriguing start I mentioned, something that has all the trappings of classic Bond, including exotic locations? Yeah, forget all that it doesn't really matter.
What was the point of the hard drive with the Agents' identities on it? It's not long after meeting Bardem's character that we discover he's only after M, why exactly does he want/need the hard drive to get to her? He could've got himself caught or went after her any other way, it didn't really matter. The hard drive would only be important if they actually used it to kill off numerous agents with some sort of end goal in mind, but they didn't, they took it and that was it, wasn't really heard of again. I'm being harsh on Bardem because he's not just after M is he...no, he suddenly gets a fixation to kill Bond in the finale, only for him to decide he's not bothered about Bond anymore and to go back to M. He doesn't know what he wants, the writers don't know what they want him to be, he's all over the place character wise. He was an unbelievably weak villain, something that has been an all too common occurance in this franchise since Goldeneye, there are no memorable villains (particularly glaring in the Craig films). I mean, he dies from a knife just thrown into his back, no final fight scene with Bond in gruelling hand to hand or cagey gun play combat. Bond just sneaks up on him and throws a knife at him from a few feet away, the coward. The "Bond Girl", whose name escaped me for the entirety of her 3 scenes was completely worthless, again her introduction was very good in the terrific Casino scene with Bond but then they sleep together and she dies. This isn't new for a Bond film, but normally it takes the process of most of a film to happen and not 15 minutes, and Bond didn't give a damn about her being killed, he was shaking at the thought of accidentally shooting her but as soon as Bardem did it it was like 'Well, at least I didn't kill her'. Those exotic and lovely settings I mentioned earlier; the Casino and Island, we move away from those to London and then the finale in rural Scotland. Not exactly thrilling places at first thought, are they? The whole jet setting, global scale associated with the franchise is stripped away for dull, wet locales with scenes to match, like the tedious courtroom scenes. The finale was less huge scale climax between Super Spy and Super Villain and more a few folks running around the set of Emmerdale with guns on a cold night. What the hell was with that stupid old man Cincade? This old codger is taking out trained professionals with a sawn off shotgun from a good few feet away with none of them able to react and shoot him in between him firing shots? MI6 should get right on hiring this guy as he could easily defeat most of their lesser enemies. Due to the villain's lack of focus and the removal of exotic locales the film lacks any kind of danger on a worldwide scale, which is what Bond is normally about. He's out there thwarting nefarious plans that will unhinge global society as we know it, but not this time when he's just playing soldiers in his backgarden with a few friends. Ralph Fiennes' character is never used ot his full potential, he should have been clearly set up as an obstacle and doubter of Bond, with his true allegiances being called into question, but rather than that we have once scene in which he expresses doubt over Bond's abilities and then he comes back to save M, had a chance to really build up the point of him replacing her being about trust coming full circle but missed out on that one.
I think that's about enough of everything else and it's time to get to the single biggest flaw of this film which violates the mythos of all Bonds previously gone:
He is James Bond. I know what you're thinking but read it again, He is James Bond. No one else, not Brosnan's Bond, not Connery's, not Moore's, no one else, just Craig's Bond is officially Bond. From when I was very young I decided that James Bond was not a real person, it was an alias given to the agent ranked 007, hence why different people could be the same person over many years. It turned out that that is actually a popular fan theory, and it makes the most sense. Why would you have a secret agent using their real name all the time? Give them an alias. But no, this film decides to piss all over Bond history and Bond fan's feelings by declaring that all previous Bonds are null and void and that there is only one Bond. To go a little further on this point, we didn't need ot know Bond's background, he's supposed to be mysterious that's kinda his thing as a spy. Sure, it's fine to hint at things, but don't take us back to his child hood home and tell us he's an orphan, making us have to find out why he became Bond and introduce us to his wily old house keeper and...Oh, my God. They just wanted to make him Batman, didn't they? Why? He's not Batman, he's BOND
.
This franchise has suffered terribly from having used up its source material, there's really no books left. I know they change things from the books all the time, but they at least gave them a good starting base and ideas to work off of and develop. Without them they're just kind of lost. I think the best option is to go out and find the best non-Bond spy novel and buy the film rights to it and make it but just title it James Bond. It's simple and wouldn't be the first time such a thing's been done in Hollywood history. In all honesty though, with everything they pulled in this film including bringing in Moneypenny I wouldn't be surprised at all if they instead go down the remake route and start redoing the old films/villains.
Well I think it was pretty clear from 'Casino Royale' that Craig's Bond was separate from all others. It doesn't make them null and void, just that they happened in a different timeline or similar, like 'Ghost in the Shell' vs 'Stand Alone Complex'.
As to the orphan thing, Bond has always been an orphan, it was explicitly mentioned in 'Goldeneye' and comes from the books.
I very much liked 'Skyfall' it felt much more personal and while, as you say, that takes away from the globe-trotting aspect, I enjoyed it very much.
With regards to the harddrive, you're right, it didn't have much of a point, but it was more about Silva causing trouble for trouble's sake, he wanted to hit M where it hurt, while also creating a parallel to when she betrayed him, leaving him out in the cold. I also felt that Silva was a pretty good villain, though I agree Craig's previous villains have been rather 'weaksauce' as the kids say.
Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, I just thought the first two points worth mentioning, since you seemed to take such umbrage against them, when they had been fairly well established I'd though =)
Maybe expected too much from it from the trailers and Ben Wheatley's previous film (the superb Kill List). Still, it was quite good, laughs in places and has Wheatley's eerie style all over it.
Gambit
6/10
Almost a reverse of the above, didn't expect much from the trailers but got slighlty better than what I expected. Not great by any means but decent enough. Cameron Diaz still has a body that just won't quit.
The best bits are when the Gremlins start being silly and people die hilariously...It just takes a while to get to those bits. That's why I've always preferred the sequel, you can just jump into the silliness earlier since everything's already been established.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
There should be another episode going up over the weekend.
