Movie Review - Skyfall

 Skyfall (2012)

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes

I have an unapologetic man crush on Daniel Craig.  Who can blame me?  The man is handsome, well-spoken, in great shape, and fashionable as hell.  I was never really a huge fan of the Bond movies prior to Casino Royale, but since Craig took over the role I have become a bit of a Bond freak.  No disrespect to Sean Connery, but to me Craig is Bond.  The swagger, cool demeanor, and raw physicality he brings to the role is what makes his portrayal of Bond so special in my opinion. 

Just the fact that this is another Daniel Craig Bond film was enough to get me incredibly excited for Skyfall.  Not even the relative disappointment of Quantum of Solace could dull my anticipation.  In fact, with highly accomplished director Sam Mendes (and heavyweight actors like Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes) involved, and the overwhelmingly positive buzz surrounding the movie, I went into the theater with ridiculously high expectations.  Probably the greatest compliment I can give Skyfall is that I was not disappointed.  

But don't take that previous statement to mean that this review will be a love letter to the latest Bond flick.  I've heard a number of people claim that this is greatest Bond movie ever.  I'm no Bond aficionado, but those people are crazy in my opinion.  This isn't even the best Daniel Craig bond movie.  For a while, though, I thought it could be both.  The beginning of Skyfall is pretty much perfect.  The opening sequence, with a (very Bourne-esque) motorbike chase, and an extended fight scene on the roof of a train that reminded me just how much of an ass-kicker Craig's Bond is, was phenomenal.  That is immediately followed up by one of the best opening credits sequence in Bond history, accompanied by the incredible Adele theme song.  

But things go somewhat downhill from there.  Daniel Craig grows a really bad beard, and develops a dependency on alcohol and pills.  Oh, and his shoulder hurts.  Of course, this all fits into the theme of the movie.  You see, this is a very different Bond film because it's the most personal one ever.  For the first time, we see a Bond grappling with his position in the world, and the question of whether he is still fit to do his job, or whether his job is even necessary anymore.  As part of that, the story delves more into the personal history of the character than ever, and we see Bond at his weakest (mentally and physically).  The decision to make that sort of Bond movie is a brave one, and the movie is very effective in that regard.  If you like the concept of a Bond movie as a character study, then you will love Skyfall much more than I did.  

For me, thought, I could have done with a little more of the traditional Bond elements in this movie.  Of course, as with previous Craig-era Bond films, there are no gadgets for the most part.  But much more bothersome than that is the fact that the the scale just seems so small compared to previous films.  The movie starts off in Turkey, and visits China and Macau (both stunning sequences), but, once again, because this is such a personal battle for Bond, a lot of the action takes place in (and underneath) boring old England, and the (actually very good) climactic final showdown actually occurs on a quiet farm in Scotland.

Once again, this is all very brave decision making and effective for what it is, but I couldn't help yearning for the days of globe-hopping, world-saving James Bond.  One of the reasons for this lack of scope is the villain, played by Bardem.  The Spanish actor is predictably brilliant in the role, but the character just left me a little cold.  He was clearly very smart, but never seemed to have an ingenious scheme beyond killing a little old lady with whom he had a pretty bizarre, almost Oedipal fascination.  That does allow M a nice send-off, but all the M-centricity made me wonder exactly who went to see Skyfall for Judi Dench?

Those were my issues with film, but there is a lot of great stuff in Skyfall.  The movie is visually stunning, particularly some of the scenes that take place in China.  And Craig is, of course, perfect.  His fashion is impeccable, and his aura of charm and menace is, as always, irresistible.  The signature Aston Martin is used once again to incredible effect.  For a Bond film that is unconventional in many ways, Skyfall actually introduces a lot of the typical Bond elements to the Craig-verse that had previously been missing: namely the characters of Q and Moneypenny, both of whom were well cast.  The idea of Q as a somewhat snarky, young 21st century tech whiz is perhaps not the most inspired, but it definitely works.  And the chemistry between Craig and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny) is very natural and convincing.  I also have a feeling that Fiennes will fit right in as the new M.

Interestingly enough, Skyfall may be the best movie featuring Bond ever, but I'm not sure it's the best Bond movie, if that makes any sense.  As a study of what might be the result of a man like Bond doing what he does for a living (clearly very Nolan-verse Batman inspired), and the necessity (or lack thereof) of a seemingly antiquated concept like the Cold War spy in modern times, Skyfall is undeniably successful.  But with a Bond movie, there also comes certain expectations.

I hate to appear as the lowest common denominator, but the next Bond movie could do with a few more large-scale action pieces (and yes, explosions, although there are some impressive ones here), not to mention a few more plots for global domination and mustache-twirling from the villain.  I do look forward to seeing where the next director to have a shot at Bond will take this series: will that director continue the narrative of a beat-down, slightly more world-weary and potentially over the hill Bond? Or will Craig be back to Superman in the next movie? Probably a balance somewhere between this movie and the comic book existence of the Brosnan movies, for example, would be best.

Verdict: 7/10

Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 7 "When the Dead Come Knocking"

 

As the first half of the third season of Walking Dead draws to a close, the show is in a good place.  "When the Dead Come Knocking" continues the great momentum established by the previous episode "Hounded" and ratchets up the intensity.  This was an episode that was extremely tense, and provided a very palpable of unease that any show of this nature should try to cultivate.

Some of the most intense sequences involved Milton and Andrea (a rare worthwhile scene involving either of those two), and the journey of Rick and his crew through the walker-infested woods.  Unfortunately, the resolution of that last sequence was a little disappointing.  Michonne stabbing the hermit served a purpose (it showed Rick and company a little about the nature of her character), but the idea that a seemingly deranged man could survive for so long locked up alone in his cabin with a dead dog and surrounded by walkers was more than a little far-fetched.  That part was a little too "deus ex machina" for me, but it was nonetheless overall an effective and scary sequence.

Obviously, though, the most tense and scary parts of this episode were the Merle torture scenes involving Glenn.  The character of Glenn has been an under-used one throughout this series (and he isn't alone), but it was great to see him front and center for this episode.  And Steven Yuen does a good job in what was no doubt a challenging performance.  Seeing Glenn's face so beat up was striking, but I can't help but wonder why Walking Dead didn't show more of the actual punishment that Merle inflicted on him.  I'm not asking for Hostel level torture porn, but I was a little surprised that, given how little this show has shied away from displaying violence or gore, things didn't get a little more graphic. 

Speaking of graphic, I had a little issue with the scenes between The Governor and Maggie in this episode.  It seems that since I praised the character of The Governor so much in his first appearance, I've only criticized him since, and unfortunately that trend has to continue this week.  When it comes down to it, I want The Governor to be more nasty, or at least show more of that side of himself.  One of things that Robert Kirkman has always said is that The Governor represents what the character of Rick could have become had he made different choices. Well, so far in the television version of Walking Dead, I don't see much distinction between The Governor and Rick at all; they both are simply making very tough decisions in the name of doing what they see as right.  The Governor hasn't really done anything more evil than Rick has at this point.  

Maybe that is intentional and the television show wants to go a more subtle route in it's portrayal of The Governor.  I don't have a problem with that, but I do prefer my villains a little more villain-y.  At this point, Merle is a more convincing and threatening villain than The Governor, which is no good if The Governor is expected to be the Big Bad.  The scene with Maggie was a perfect illustration of my point: when The Governor orders her to take off her shirt, it was an incredibly frightening moment.  I thought we might finally get a glimpse of a more sadistic Governor.  In the end though, he just came off as a bit of a creeper.  If Maggie had actually undergone some sort of more physical trauma in that scene, it would have established The Governor as a true villain, while giving the character of Maggie (one of the most boring on this show, and that's saying something) something to do.  Instead, it all just seemed like a pretty ham fisted attempt to get Lauren Cohan topless.

Overall though, the good in this episode certainly outweighed the bad.  Even the sentimental moments were solid (the reunion between Maggie and Glenn, and everyone and Carol).  In addition, this episode ends with the promise that the first half of season three will not end with a whimper.  Things could be headed for full-scale war.  And several characters on the show (Darryl and Andrea chief among them) will have some very serious decisions to make in the near future about where their allegiances lie.  That should make for great television.

Movie Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage

The time has come for Hobbit to take it's rightful place in the ranks of my personal all-time movie disappointments.  I've thought for a long time that things would end this way, but the optimist in me never could give up hope until I saw the movie with my very own eyes (regardless of how many negative reviews I read and heard).  Now that I've seen it, though, Hobbit instantly becomes one of the major entries on that list of disappointments.

First place on that list will forever belong Star Wars: Episode I.  In 1999, I was a 13 year old who had seen all the Star Wars movies and heard endlessly from people older than me about the incredible influence the original trilogy had had on their lives.  With Episode I through III, I envisioned that my generation could have finally a  Star Wars to call our own.  Of course, we all know how that turned out.  Episode II and Episode III aren't bad movies in my opinion, but Episode I certainly is, and none of them are good enough to carry the Star Wars name.

Ironically, the same year Episode I came out to my great disappointment, a little movie called The Matrix utterly floored me.  At the time, being a less cynical youth, I never dreamed that there would be a sequel to The Matrix.  So when they announced that there would be two sequels, a trilogy, I could barely contain my excitement.  Could The Matrix actually be Star Wars for my generation?  I was hopeful.  Then I saw The Matrix Reloaded.  And I suffered the second biggest movie-related disappointment of my life.  In hindsight, Reloaded isn't as bad as I, and many others, thought it was at the time (although some of the effects look much worse now), but the third movie, Matrix Revolutions, was awful, and the entire ordeal only served to harm the legacy of the first Matrix movie, which I actually think has become underrated in the intervening years.

But all that was fine, because I did eventually get my generation's Star Wars, in the form of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  It helped that the timing was perfect.  The movies came out annually from 2001-2003, coinciding with my first three years of high school.  I was becoming a young adult at the time, finding myself, making new friends, and becoming enamored with movies.  And Lord of the Rings was everything I could have wanted: epic, whimsical, fantastic.  Those qualities, coupled with incredible effects, acting, and music, made those movies instant classics.

The idea of a movie version of The Hobbit has been floating around a long time, and it made perfect sense given the success of the first three movies.  If you had told me in 2003 that Peter Jackson was making a Hobbit movie, I would have forked over the admission free right then and there.  But in the years between Return of the King and Hobbit, my enthusiasm for the project lessened.  Peter Jackson was either doing nothing or making forgettable movies like King Kong and Lovely Bones.  I begin to think maybe he was a one-hit wonder, and questioned whether he was the right guy for Hobbit.  So when Guillermo del Toro was floated as a name to potentially take the reigns as director, I got excited.  I thought a new director with a different vision might be a good idea for Hobbit.

Unfortunately, that fell through.  And Jackson was back in the saddle.  Still, I convinced myself, it might be good.  Jackson did seem to have a special connection with the LOTR universe, and that might mean he could recapture the magic of the original movies.  Then it was announced that The Hobbit would be split into three movies.  One book?  Into three movies? That was when I lost all hope.  That was when I realized the studio was more concerned with their pocket book, and Jackson with his ego, then making a decent movie.

And the result is The Hobbit.  I can honestly say today that I feel a fraction of the anguish that fans of the original Star Wars felt when they saw Episode I for the first time.  Watching this pale imitation of something so beloved to me lurch across the screen for three hours was truly painful.  In fact, the only thing this movie succeed in doing was to make me want to watch Lord of the Rings.  I have a laundry list of complaints a mile long about The Hobbit, but first I will give credit where credit is due: the special effects are still amazing (I did not see the 48 fps version, which apparently suffered in that area), and Martin Freeman is very good as Bilbo.  OK, I think that does it for the positive stuff.

Now on to all the things I hated.  As other reviews of Hobbit have helpfully pointed out, most of the problems of this movie stem from it being over-long.  The decision to stretch The Hobbit (which has a much less dense story than any of the three Lord of the Rings books) into three movies is a curious one; the decision to make each of those movies three hours long is just an asinine one.  There are too many scenes where nothing is happening that drag on forever, too many "huh? what?"-inspiring interludes that contribute nothing (hello rock giants)!  Additionally, Hobbit is undoubtedly one of the most repetitive movies in recent memory.  There should be a drinking time for every time the characters are running from a threat, with a wide shot showing their progress.  And every time the characters are in trouble only for salvation to come from an unlikely source (complete with epic music, of course).

The movie is at it's embarrassing worst when it tries to ape the original Lord of the Rings movies, and it suffers from a serious identity crisis throughout.  The Hobbit book is far more whimsical and lighthearted than Lord of the Rings, but Jackson tries too often to  shoehorn in some of the epic, dark grandiose of those movies, and it just doesn't work.  And how about the utterly forgettable characters?  As I mentioned before, Freeman is good, but remember Lord of the Rings?  Those movies launched the careers of Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom, and featured countless other memorable characters who shared a number of now classic, unforgettable scenes.  I can't even name one dwarf in this movie.  And Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, they are all just kind of there.  Everyone is going through the motions.  This movie doesn't 1/10 the heart of the original movies.

Perhaps the greatest insult I can give to The Hobbit is that I'm pretty sure I won't see the next movie in the theaters.  In fact, the thought of a sequel coming out next year, and then another the year after that, is just depressing.  The first movie was the decapitation, and the second and third movies will be the inevitable parading of the disembodied head around town square.  Watching The Hobbit for me was akin to watching a three hour funeral.  Just knowing that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema are raiding my childhood is good enough. I don't need to sit back and watch them do it, too.

Verdict: 5/10

Reggie Evans article for The Good Point

http://thegoodpoint.com/2012/12/reggie-evans-flopping/

Movie Review - Elf

  Elf (2003)

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Will Ferrell, Bob Newhart, Ed Asner

Watching Elf, one thing struck me: the whole "Will Ferrell being Will Ferrell" shtick, while still funny, isn't nearly as fresh or as charming in 2012 as it was in 2003.  I guess it shouldn't be surprising that watching Will Ferrell play in traffic or eat used gum was funner nine years ago; after all, Elf came out well before the collective Will Ferrell fatigue we all suffered as a result of the deluge of like-minded movies starring the comedian that hit from 2004 to 2008.  In a way, Will Ferrell is the 21st century Adam Sandler: an SNL alum with a very specific, largely family-friendly brand of comedy that made him an enormous star over a relatively short period of time. I think that Ferrell is funnier than Sandler (not saying much), but the comparison is interesting.  Where the career of Ferrell has differed from Sandler has been his willingness to branch out and take on more diverse roles (something Sandler admittedly did with Punch Drunk Love, but that was much later in his career).  Bewitched, Stranger than Fiction, and Eastbound & Down were all attempts by Ferrell to take on roles distinguishing himself from those that made him famous in movies like Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers. 

But Elf was released in 2003, and at that point Ferrell was a rising star whose biggest movie was still Old School. Anchorman was a year away.  But Ferrell was coming off a lengthy run as the consensus funniest and most respected cast member on Saturday Night Live: the Kristen Wiig of his era.  I don't know how many would have predicted it at the time, but Elf was an enormous hit.  In fact, I was shocked to learn how big of a hit this movie actually was.  Filmed on a budget of $33 million, Elf earned $220 million.  Surprisingly, that makes it the second highest grossing Will Ferrell movie ever after Wedding Crashers.  Perhaps the most surprising part about that success is that there hasn't been a sequel.  According to IMDb, it hasn't happened because Ferrell turned it down, but I doubt we are out of the woods on that one yet.

Of course a sequel wouldn't be the wost thing where Elf is concerned; the movie is just as charming as I remembered, especially when you're conveniently watching it around this time of year.  Ferrell is of course the ultimate buffoon, and he is masterful at conveying the child-like wonder and naivete of Buddy.  A lot of other actors in this role would just come off as a jerk, or as pandering: Ferrell plays it just right, and he's charming as hell.  Zooey Deschanel is predictably cute as a button, and James Caan has some really hilarious moments as the grumpy Dad (I like to imagine that Sonny actually survived in Godfather, moved to New York, and thirty years later  experienced the events of this movie; of course that's how I imagine every James Caan role).  There are also tons of cameos from various comedy icons and notables celebrities, and none of them, not even Ed Asner and Bob Newhart, seem like they're slumming it.  Amy Sedaris also has a minor role, and Andy Richter and Kyle Gass are absolutely hilarious in their brief appearances.  Peter Dinklage also pops up in Elf, and my suspicions were confirmed: I will never see him in a movie again without thinking of Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones.

Elf has become somewhat of a modern holiday classic, and deservedly so.  It contains just the right amount of sentiment without becoming sappy, it stars genuinely funny people who are funny in it, and it never aspires to be anything more than it is.  Also, perhaps most importantly of all, Will Ferrell has enough charisma to keep it all chugging along smoothly. What more can you ask for?  Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of credit for all this too: he's actually one of the more underrated directors in recent memory.  Sure, he has some flops on his resume, but a lot of directors would kill to say they were responsible for movies half as entertaining as Iron Man and Elf.  So this Christmas, if you are looking for a relatively recent holiday-themed movie that you can watch with anyone in your family, and won't offend your sense of good taste, you can't do much better than Elf.

Verdict: 6/10

Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 6 "Hounded"

"Hounded" proved to be just the slump buster I was hoping for from Walking Dead after a string of mediocre episodes like "Say the Word".  In fact, this episode was a fine example of just how good Walking Dead can be when at it's best.  One area where the show has struggled throughout it's run is pacing.  The show always seems to pump the brakes at the most inopportune moments, slowing things down for largely superfluous scenes mostly devoted to "character development" or "farming 101".  Of course, the problem with that is that Walking Dead has always featured a disproportionate number of characters who are unlikeable to begin with, and most scenes involving them and what apparently passes for character development to the creators of the show has usually been awkward, forced, or just plain uninteresting.

"Hounded" by comparison is lean and well-paced.  Most of the characters we don't care about (Andrea, Carl) stay out of the way, and the ones we do care about (Rick) are usually doing something interesting.  The episode has that nice sense of forward movement and frenetic energy that the best episodes of Walking Dead all have.  And, thankfully, the heretofore completely disparate Woodbury and prison storylines of the show have actually made some progress in coming together.  Yes, six whole episodes into season three, Rick finally met Michonne (although they still have no dialogue; that will have to wait for episode seven)!  And a member of the prison crew other than Andrea finds out that Merle is alive (something the audience rightfully assumed from the moment Rick and crew discovered that disembodied hand on the roof back in season one)!

Speaking of Merle, I would like to take a moment to praise the work of Michael Rooker, not just in Walking Dead, but in general.  Rooker is one of the most consistently entertaining and under-praised character actors in movies today, and his work as Merle is typically great (although he is admittedly to some degree just playing himself, as he often does).  "Hounded" featured plenty of Merle being Merle, and other characters had great moments as well: Darryl reunited with Carol.  Michonne, who became immediately awesome upon escaping the vortex of suck that is Andrea, took out a slew of gun-toting henchman all by her lonesome.  And T-Dog was still dead. 

Unfortunately though, The Governor really had nothing to do in this episode other than sleep with Andrea (just the latest character on the show to enjoy Shane's sloppy seconds).  To say that The Governor has been a hit or miss character this season would be an understatement, particularly given how eagerly awaited his appearance on the show was.  It's like he, and the writers, can't really figure out the balance of sincerity, deception, charm, and menace that he should be displaying at any given time; the problem is so severe that he comes off like a completely different character in different episodes (and not in a good way, but rather in a schizophrenic one).  The show (and perhaps actor David Morrissey) would be wise to take cues from Rooker, who does a masterful job of portraying Merle as a charming backwoods neighbor one moment, and sadistic, manipulative killer in the next.

It's usually a good sign for Walking Dead when Rick has a good episode, and this was a good Rick episode.  The scenes with him on the phone were actually quite good and impressively acted, although the end result (the calls were a manifestation of his id, or guilt or whatever) was predictable.  The scene where he finally embraces his newborn child, and the ending one with Michonne were also quite good.  Ultimately, "Hounded" was a fine episode, and gives the show some much needed momentum heading into the likely cliffhanger that will end the first half of season three.  Now that things are getting exciting again, I can only hope that The Walking Dead will maintain this energy going into future episodes, rather than squander it as they have in the past.

The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 5 "Say the Word"

After a great start to the season, "Say the Word" continues the recent trend of mediocre Walking Dead episodes.  It seems that the "mid-season slump" has become a tradition of sorts for Walking Dead, and season 3 has been no exception thus far.

So what went wrong in this episode?  Well, like "Killer Within" before it, the lack of forward movement storyline-wise is disconcerting, particularly where the issue of Woodbury is concerned.  It's hard to believe that it was only a few episodes ago that the residents of Woodbury and The Governor where first introduced, and I sang the praises of each at length.  At the time, it seemed like the town of Woodbury would be a breath of fresh air within the often stagnant Walking Dead universe, and that The Governor would be a rich and compelling character.  Well, the Walking Dead has a way of wearing out the welcome of certain characters and settings, and they've gone and done it again here.  The Woodbury storyline is advancing at a banana slug-esque pace, and The Governor has just been boring recently.

Even the big "reveal" near the end of this episode (that The Governor and his people are staging mock gladiatorial bouts in walker-lined arenas) failed to impress me.  Sure, it's kind of a messed up , but we've seen plenty of messed up stuff over the course of this show, and The Governor's explanation of the situation actually kind of made sense.  Andrea has never been one of my favorite characters on the show (possibly because she has only one facial expression), and I thought she came off as preachy and reactionary during that sequence.  I've been waiting a while for some terrible secret of Woodbury to be revealed, and while I think there is more yet to come, I'm afraid that Walking Dead is falling into the old familiar trap of waiting too long to show it's hand; however impressive that hand may be.  Instead of all this boring exposition about the nature of the town, I would love to see some actual progression in the way of merging the Woodbury storyline with that of Rick and his crew, and soon.

So what are Rick and company up to this week?  Well, the death of Lori has driven Rick insane, and he goes on a one-man walker killing rampage that was actually pretty bad-ass.  That isn't the freshest or most subtle development in the history of The Walking Dead, but it is the most interesting Rick has been in ages, and it provided some very cool zombie slaying action, so I won't complain too much about that.  Other than that, though, nothing of note really happens.  Darryl and Maggie go on a side mission that further establishes Darryl as a stand-up guy (something we already know well at this point), but failed to be very exciting or accomplish much of anything else otherwise.  And the episode ends with Rick picking up a ringing telephone.  In theory, the final scene of "Say the Word" could lead to somewhere interesting, but I'm more than a little worried that the next scene will reveal the ringing telephone as a "Crazy Rick" hallucination.  At this point in season 3 of Walking Dead, there have been as many very good episodes as so-so ones.  We can only hope that the next episode, "Hounded", tips the scales back in a positive manner.