05 December 2012

Film: Skyfall (2012)

Thoughts: Even though it could definitely benefit from some judicious cutting, Skyfall provides ample amounts of entertainment and action, despite leaving most of the female characters shortchanged. The famous faces are many, and the performances are pretty good all-round, especially Javier Bardem as our over-the-top villain. Of course, the star of the show is director Sam Mendes, and his take on Bond has to be the most stylish to date.

From imdb:
"Bond's mission is to keep a computer drive that has a list of British agents from being used against them. He chases the man who has it and they have a brawl on top of a train. Eve, an agent sent to assist Bond has them in her cross hairs but hesitates to take the shot because she might hit Bond but M orders her to take it. She does, and hits Bond who falls into the river and is believed to be dead. A few months later, the British government is upset with MI6 for losing the list; specifically with M. She is told that she'll be allowed to retire but she refuses to leave till the matter is resolved. So she returns to HQ to work on it but as she arrives, there's an explosion. In the meantime, Bond, who is not dead, has been laying low. When he learns of what happened, he returns. And M tasks him with finding the one who has the information. He eventually learns that the man who has it, is someone from M's past and who has it in for her."

Right from the get go action is thrown into your face, leading to Bond himself presumed dead, and the title credits a-rolling. One thing I loved in the film was this kind of "breaking of Bond"; we see him portrayed as a bit of an adrenalin junkie who, when removed from his calling, turns to cheap thrills, alcohol and women to dull the pain. Its an interesting look at the character, and one that made me view this new ruthless, emotionless and quite vicious Bond in a whole new light: as a human. This is made especially more plain when the villain is a clear juxtaposition of our usual suave hero.

And to mention the villain, Javier Bardem gives him that looney edge all Bond villains should have. Plus he's sporting some wicked Sam Jones/Flash Gordon hair. When he's onscreen, especially with Daniel Craig, things become... sharper, more acute, and we find ourselves locked on their every exchange, verbal or otherwise. It's a testament to the actors and the writing- and definitely some fantastic choices by Sam Mendes and his DP- that we become so involved in the scenes.

I had an interesting discussion with Earl in the car after the film, and started to hurt my brain when it came to how the film played out with regards to the villain and his plot. Mostly, and I'm trying not to spoil here, but backtracking through all the story points that lead up to near the end, involve early planning, then early planning, then early planning.... You'll understand once you see it. Basically, the baddie would have to have planned a hell of a lot, and down to a point, for everything to happen as it did. Not knocking the film, because most if not all of the thoughts DID have an answer but... it was still a lot of circumstance and I guess hope that it would all follow the correct paths. Interesting to think about at least.

And of course we have the one and only Sam Mendes behind the camera. Light and colour play a big part in his films, and here they are used to jaw-dropping effect. Plus we have smooth and graceful long takes, elegant pans and some absolutely magnificent mise-en-scene, some if not all practically demanding to be set up as high definition backgrounds on desktops or TVs.

One thing I did notice was how insular the whole thing felt. Sure, we have a multitude of locations all across the globe, and an action sequence to cap each set of events, but when you look at it from the outside, each set occurs in a very central location: in the makeshift MI6 bunker, in a high-rise building, in a decrepit city. I attribute this to MGM's recent financial difficulties, and their need to save costs within the budget. None of this hurts the film whatsoever, and the set design is still impeccable- it's just an observation.

Bold moves are made with the story, and once again I'll bet purists will be snapping and stomping and causing a ruckus across the interwebs. But you know what? I don't fucking care. I've never been fond of the films before Daniel Craig became Bond, and Casino Royale is one of my favourite films. So basically, I loved this, but I don't think it reached the levels of the previous mentioned. Still worth every penny though.

4.5/5

04 December 2012

Film Rewatch: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Thoughts: ....alright, on a second viewing this was actually pretty awesome. I still have really, really big issue with the script though, and my original assessment still definitely stands- especially in the first half of the film. All the dialogue is made up of one-liners, melodramatic speechifying or exposition. Still, I really liked how the film was split into the comic storylines of Knightfall and No Man's Land. The latter was much better than the former in my opinion though, the first is riddled with bad dialogue, ridiculous and underwhelming action and story beats that are ludicrous at best.

I still love Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle though. Easily my favourite Catwoman. Batman's plight was a fair bit more involving this time around, and the story flowed much more smoothly with the advance knowledge of how it all played out, and what was really going on. Tom Hardy is still one of my favourite actors, and I valued his performance much more on this sitting. He really did kick some serious ass here.

One thing still bugs me though: how the fuck did they get those dirt bikes into the stock exchange! I watched that scene intentionally, but they still didn't show where they came from! Ah well.

The action played out better on the small screen too, and the level of effort that went into the set design was actually quite astonishing. Plus, the film really feels like a massive epic with far-reaching ideas. I still found the overall arc of upper vs lower class as far too obvious and blunt though. There are a lot more subtleties to the whole situation, and the way the film throws out its agenda is really quite heavy. But now that I think about it, it also doesn't really favour one side, so perhaps I'm not giving it enough credit... I guess I'm not.

Eh, either way, I'm glad I picked it up on blu-ray. It looked and sounded absolutely magnificent, and practically boomed the house down with the bass. I'm amazed the kids didn't wake up honestly.

REDUXED NUMBER: 4/5


Film: Headhunters (2011)

Thoughts: Despite a rather tepid first act, Headhunter's latter thirds flip to balls-out insane, and in the best ways possible. It is exceedingly violent, it is intentionally twisted, and the ending wraps everything up in a nice little bow so as to leave no stones unturned. Sometimes that's all you want from a film though.

From imdb:
"Roger Brown works as one of the most powerful headhunters in Norway. To support his extravagant lifestyle, he is also an art thief, which he does in cahoots with his friend, the gun toting Ove Kjikerud. They replace the originals with forgeries, which go undetected at least until the trail back to the thieves goes cold. His outward bravado, based primarily on building upon reputation, masks his insecurities, especially in his short physical stature. He feels he needs that confident demeanor and wealth to get what he wants, including his trophy wife, art gallery owner Diana Brown. However, he almost seems to like the thought of what Diana represents more than Diana herself. As such, he has a mistress on the side named Lotte. The issue of having a baby - Diana wants to get pregnant while Roger doesn't want her to - is another bone of contention in their marriage. The two sides of Roger's professional life intersect when Diana introduces him to Clas Greve..."

Fuck, that's a lot of text. And it barely covers the first 10 minutes! I guess you can see what I mean by tepid: there's a lot to set up. And it's not all done through boring exposition- it is all actually quite well done and comes back full circle in the end. It's just that there is so much of it, and it takes the entire first 40 minutes to really hit the go button. Once it does though, hoo boy. Things go fucking apeshit real quick. Loyalties are tested and different characters rear their true heads in different ways. Now you're talking good, breakneck cinema.

All the actors do their thing accordingly, and special props must go to lead actor Aksel Hennie, who does a great job transforming (or is it conforming?) throughout the runtime. Plus he looks like a mini Christopher Walken, which is never a bad thing. Everyone else does well in their various roles as well, keeping things from going stale.

The action is brutal, the blood flows freely, the tension is high and the twists many. I can recommend this to fans of twisty thrillers with very satisfying endings.

4/5

Film: Fright Night (2011)

Thoughts: I fucking love a film that is completely aware of what it is, and what it is trying to do. Big budget, small budget, huge cast, no cast, foreign or right next door. Any genre. Any year. As long as you understand the limits of what you're making, and have no illusions about what you're going to end up with, you have my vote. Fright Night knows exactly what it is. And it does what it does with style, strength and general awesomeness.

From imdb:
"A remake of the 1985 original, teenager Charley Brewster (Yelchin) guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) is a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one he knows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent (Tennant), a self proclaimed vampire killer and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry."

All the actors have fun with it, and the script is tight and sharp. The action is awesome, the pacing dead on, the direction exceptional and out of the box, and the ideas behind the various moments throughout the film are very inspired. I can't ask anything more from a film.

Colin Farrell is an inspired choice for the head vampire, and his performance is a whole mess of fun. He smirks and leers, slides and saunters. He flirts and growls and snaps and hisses and, god it's great fun to watch. I especially love the scene where our main kid has just become aware that he can't come into the house, and Jerry the vampire so desperately, desperately wants to get inside. Ah, so much slime and ew! Like the creepiest stalker you've ever seen. And David Tennant provides the best evidence to hire trained actors to play Russell Brand, as opposed to hiring Russell Brand to play Russell Brand. His self-centred nature and comic timings are hilarious and fun.

The events that transpire in the film are fun and well thought out, and the actions that characters take even threw me off my game. People both good and bad make decisions that I would never have thought of, and to great effect. Action scenes are inspired and filled with great direction and camerawork, and constantly laced through with humour.

My only gripe really would be with the kinda shoddy CG, but really, why poke sticks at that. They worked with what they had.

Seriously, fans of horror and comedy should check this out. I had a really, REALLY great time with this. Love a blind buy that works out!

5/5

Film: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Thoughts: An intimate working knowledge of the original book definitely helps when viewing the 2011 adaptation of Tinker Tailor, but regardless one can still enjoy the fine performances, immaculate cinematography and assured direction. What's interesting to note though, is how the book is quite internal and emotional, whereas this rapidfire version is almost like an exercise in sterility. But then again, I can't really think of an easy way to convert internal processes to the screen, when it is shared among many, many very well-drawn characters.

From imdb:
"In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control, resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. Smiley had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr, that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him."

Sounds confusing, and yes, it can be. When you're introduced to multiple richly layered characters, and their individual recollection of events, it can be hard to keep up. Names, codenames, cyphers and hidden messages and thoughts abound. Being a convert to the book though, I liked the film as a visual representation of the amazing people and events littered throughout the text.

Despite all this, Director Tomas Alfredson proves once again how much of a talent he is in the field of cinema, and DP Hoyte Van Hoytema conjures up an almost perfect recreation of late 70s England, complete with thick grain and muted colours, dreary skies and greys mixed with brown.

Events transpire differently in the film than to the book, sometimes greatly. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Ricki Tarr, played here by personal favourite Tom Hardy, practically screams the actor from the page. But in this adaptation, he's practically all nerves and twitch, retaining almost none of the smarm and fatalism seen in the book. A few characters and events are combined for time constraints too, but again, nothing that adversely affects the final product.

Ultimately, you're dealing with great actors, a fantastic source and strong crew behind the scenes. If you don't like talking though, you might not be inclined to stay awake for the whole ticket. Those of us who like classic spy thinkers should definitely get on board. And for the record: I personally preferred the book. A lot more emotion and flesh to the bones.

4/5

01 December 2012

Book Readings: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I had no idea, at all, that I was going to enjoy John le Carre's classic as much as I did. I was intrigued, interested, and riveted to my seat. Who would have thought a tale written and set during the height and downfall of the Cold War, and containing nearly no action and a multitude of characters with astounding levels of depth, would capture my imagination so? And yet it did.

The story concerns the efforts (imposed efforts, I should say) of "retired" MI6 agent George Smiley. The story is told primarily through flashbacks and memories, as Mr. Smiley is clandestinely recruited to root out a mole from the tippy top of MI6 headquarters itself.

That barely scratches the surface of le Carres amazing novel. It clocks in around 268 pages or so, and is filled with all sorts of jargon from around the time this is set- late sixties, early seventies. Despite all the names, places, and events that swirl around George Smiley and through his mind, not once was I lost, or bored, or irritated. About 120 pages in I happened upon a wikipedia entry for the book that listed definitions for all the jargon throughout, which helped greatly, but honestly le Carres prose is so solid and flowing that you get the gist of the terms anyway- so long as you're not a complete dunce.

The book works through both memory and present, and with it reveals characters and events that all lead to an unearthing of the aforementioned mole. But its the characters that truly shine throughout the book. Seriously, by books end I felt I knew these guys, their passions, their desires, their means and reasons, their hopes, fears, successes and failures. Every time a character is introduced, le Carre basically goes to their childhood and lays out their path up to now. Not once is it boring, or rote, or repetitive. With a lock onto these characters as they are revealed, it allows your mind to better grasp people in places, causing or reacting to events, and it allows you to actively participate in the hunt that forms the crux of the entire enterprise. I found my mind creating possible scenarios, concocting possible solutions to problems, and even committing certain moments to memory for future reference. I'll be honest: I've never, EVER had a book stick in my mind quite like this has. I've still got images, names, people running through my mind from the book. I honestly don't think I want to let them go.

I loved it. I'd read it again. Dead serious. I think I'll start tracking down John le Carre's other work now. Oh, and I watched an interview with him after viewing the 2011 film adaptation (review forthcoming) and he seems like the coolest, most knowledgeable, conversationally exciting 80 year old that achieved success. And very humble, self-aware and humorous too. I'd love to chat with the guy. He reminded me of me but without the whole being useless at everything.