Quantum of Solace

"What do you know about Bond, Camille? For he is a rather tragic case. His MI-6 say he is difficult to control. Nice way of saying everything he touches seems to wither and die." -- Dominic Greene

If there's one thing the Bourne franchise has done for movies, it was bring the shaky cam technique into the foreground. And with mixed results. When its used right, it can create extremely visceral and exciting action sequences. When it isn't, which is often the case, it just looks like a mess. This is one of the reason why I dislike the Bourne franchise. Quantum of Solace uses this technique throughout, though it is most noticeable in the footchase through Siena, where the camera becomes so shaky you have no clue what it was you were just looking at.

And that is the main problem with that style of shooting. One that Dan Bradley flat out said that if the viewer is confused and doesn't know what it was he just saw, it will make the sequence that much more exciting. Here's a where I disagree. All that does is make the viewer confused, and therefore annoyed. For example, the end of the boat chase still doesn't make any sense simply because the way it is presented to us just doesn't work.

However, the script is what I love about this movie, and is a major point of debate amongst fans of the Bond franchise. Many say their is no story, or that is doesn't make sense. The way Quantum of Solace's story works is this: we are given the dots and are meant to draw in the lines. It starts off with an attempt on M's life by agents of Quantum, thus driving MI-6 to try and figure out exactly who is Quantum. The plot with Bolivia is a sub-plot. A sub-plot that is showing us how Quantum plans to get their money back after Le Chiffre lost it all in Casino Royale.

The beginning does fell a little rough, as if it is simply jumping from one action sequence to another, but the moment Dominic Greene appears, which is rather quickly given the movie's 106min runtime, everything begins to fall into place making the entire show move more smoothly.

Now, for the performances. All the major players are here doing their thing. Daniel Craig is his usual Bond self. Though he does come across as a little colder this time around, perhaps even a little too cold. Judi Dench plays the strictly business M. It is all as we've come to expect from these actors in these roles. Mathieu Amalric plays a very convincing villain. His Dominic Greene is a calm calculating businessman, and is a major player within Quantum. Seeing his character fight is a rather nail biting experience because he is so frenetic, swinging wildly and without abandon, while shrieking at Bond it is really something to witness. Not to mention he knows who to tear into someone verbally.

While Quantum of Solace is not a great standalone movie, it is a perfect epilogue to Casino Royale, and if taken as such if highly enjoyable. This one may not be as solid as its predecessor, but it is definitely one of the best in the franchise.

Final Verdict: 8.3 out of 10

Coraline

Being a fan of Selick's previous work on The Nightmare Before Christmas and to a lesser extent James and the Giant Peach, I had high hopes for Coraline. Stop-motion is easily one of my favourite methods of animation. The CG animation of Pixar and similar companies look astounding, but there is a certain charm to stop-motion that CG will never be able to capture. Plus, Neil Gaiman, the writer of the source novella of same name, is the author of the Sandman series of graphic novels, a series I am currently reading through and am enjoying thoroughly. So with that in mind, I was expecting great things from Coraline.

Visually, the movie was intriguing, but not much more than just intriguing. Some character designs were interesting, while some were just odd, such as the old lady with the impossibly large breasts. The stop-motion was amazingly smooth and was hard to tell at times that it was even stop-motion at all and not just another CG movie. If this movie is in fact completely stop-motion -- save for the few obvious visual effects added afterwards -- Selick is truly a master of his craft.

And since I had mentioned it earlier, let's talk about the 3D. I felt the technology in Coraline was very underused. Yes, all scenes had depth, and shots from the cliff-tops did instill a sense of vertigo, but so did the dive off Isengard tower in Fellowship of the Ring, which wasn't in 3D. However, some scenes would have felt differently had it not been in 3D, such as the tunnel Coraline must crawl through to visit her Other Parents. But the only part that truly gives you a sense that you are watching a movie in 3D is the credits. Basically, I'm still not sold on this 3D business.

The story itself is rather uninspired. Multiple times throughout I felt like I was watching a video game. Coraline essentially goes a fetch quest for the last half of the movie for three different items, and open receiving the first, she hears a voice saying "Yay! You found me! Now only have two more to find!" What I heard: "Thank you Mario! But our Princess is in another castle!" The plot is thin, predictable, and ultimately uninteresting. As I said, its one I've seen in video games throughout the years. It works in games because you're playing the hero, as opposed to watching the hero.

I hate bashing this movie, simply because I had hoped that it would be great. I was hoping that it may be the movie to change my mind when it came to 3D movies. It failed on both fronts. However, it is not without its point of merit: The animation is incredibly smooth. But would I pay the price for a 3D movie ticket if I were to see it again? No. Rent is possible, though not likely.

Final Verdict: 5.3 out of 10

Elgo Versus the Third Dimension

What is with the media's sudden love affair with 3D? It seems every second week a new movie comes out in 3D and there are many more around the corner. Earlier this year we had My Bloody Valentine 3D, which was met with fairly mixed reviews though slightly skewed to the lesser ratings. This coming weekend we have Coraline and in the summer we have Avatar as directed by James Cameron.

I don't have a problem with the occasional movie being shot in 3D, but the notion that there are those in the movie industry that believe 3D is the way of the future, that all movies will be 3D. Well, I have something to say to them: It won't happen. It is just not feasible to have all movies/films in 3D as they just won't work. Imagine a movie like Michael Clayton in 3D. Yeah. Wouldn't work.

And it's not just that. 3D movies will inherently be sub-par because they will always be full of cheesy shots that are blatantly thrown in to have something thrown out amongst the audience. Take this past week's episode of Chuck for example. It was a half decent episode, but there were a couple shots here and there of something flying at the camera that would have been shot differently had it not been in 3D. But that animosity towards Chuck versus the Third Dimension episode is due to the glasses not being so readily available in Canada (Safe to say my eyes were a little sore at the end of the episode!).

Now, before everyone says I'm just a nay-sayer afraid of change, I'm not. I embrace leaps in technology all the time...when they work. 3D is just a gimmick like the POV Cam from Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Quarantine fame. When we first saw this style of shooting, we all thought it was a great step forward. Now any movie with POV style camera-work inherently has a strike against them because we've seen it so much. With all the movies coming out in 3D now it will only be a matter of time when people will stop caring, when people realize that 3D is nothing more than a gimmick.

That is why 3D won't work. It's a gimmick, a fad. And like all fads this one will fade. Which could be the reason why theatre multiplexes are reluctant to make one or two of their cinemas 3D enabled; because it's a phase. Maybe sometime during this weird phase we may actually get a 3D movie worth seeing. We'll see if Coraline falls into this category this coming weekend.

Trailer Follow Up: Franklyn

I don't know why I want to see this movie, but I know that I do. The trailer gives you a good sense of the feel of the movie and the atmosphere, which can be enough to grip someone, but not a whole lot of insight into the actual story itself. We know it has something to do with a 16 year-old that a character failed to protect and through some crazy sci-fi wizardry (not literally wizards) the V For Vendetta-like vigilante has some way of changing that fact. At least that's what I can surmise.

Given that I still don't know what FRANKLYN is about, it's the stylistic choices that intrigue, as well as its similarities to movies I've enjoyed in the past. The little things like cops wearing top hats and strange eye-make up and effects really give FRANKLYN an eerie quality.

This trailer has interested me enough to see it when and if it comes out state-side. It is set for UK release in February but so far, it has found no distributor willing to bring it overseas.

A Comparison: No Country for Old Men vs. There Will Be Blood

This past year at the Academy Awards, there were two contenders that were nominated for virtually every major award being No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. As opposed to writing individual reviews for both, thus creating two similar somewhat redundant entries, I felt a comparison between the two was more appropriate.

When I sat down to view No Country For Old Men, the hype was flashing through my mind like a million camera flashes going off at preset intervals. I had heard about the tense storyline and the outstandingly creepy performance by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh and was excited by the news. However, following viewing I was unsure of what it was that I just saw. Chigurh did not strike me as creepy. Interesting, sure, but not creepy. The only scene where I was just slightly moved was the coin toss scene. Chigurh just seemed cold, lifeless. I’d take Cillian Murphy’s Jonathan Crane for creep factor over Anton Chigurh any day. This is not to say that Javier Bardem’s performance wasn’t good. I believe he nailed it, but his character was not as frightening or unnerving as people had claimed.

All I had heard about There Will Be Blood was about Daniel Day Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview being quite spectacular. And on this point I’d have to agree. Plainview was a complex, intriguing individual that continuously surprised you throughout the film. The equivalent of Chigurh’s coin toss scene would have to be the oft parodied milkshake scene, which I found much more tense than the coin toss of No Country.

From a story standpoint, both are highly complex stories where, if you blink or become distracted but for a moment, you will be lost. Every tiny detail is of utmost importance. But they are written in such a way that the useful dialogue sounds like banter, and tends to be glossed over, thus missing some important point. Only upon further mental processing after the movie has ended will these details emerge, though it will only be a few. Full understanding of movies like There Will Be Blood and No Country will only come after multiple viewings, or really any understanding at all. That is one downside I find with these “higher art” movies. There’s just enough for you to enjoy what you saw, but at the end, you are still unsure of what it is that you saw.

They share the same gritty, earthy look and are set in the Texas area. There are many shots that look similar, usually landscape shots, though that would be due to the two movies being shot practically within shouting range of one another. From a technical stance, they are equal.

So how do I feel? Both left me with the same sense of “What?” when they were over. Both were technically impressive, so it really came down to the performances. Though I feel No Country perhaps had a slightly stronger cast, There Will Be Blood had Daniel Plainview was much more interesting and captivating than the blank faced Chigurh (though it is his blank face that makes him a little unsettling at times). Overall, I’d have to say There Will Be Blood would get my vote for the better film, even though I really don’t quite ‘get’ both.

Quick Ratings Update

Well, it's been a month since I last posted a review, and this is still not a review. However, I have a few movies in the pipeline -- as in I have watched them, and I am going to review them -- but first I felt I should explain my rating system and possibly re-evaluate the movies I have reviewed using said system.

Yes, I am sticking to the 10 point system, but I've given myself some guidelines for choosing the appropriate value to best reflect how I feel about a movie.

10

I have never given out a ten because this means the movie is completely and utterly flawless. So far, I have yet to find that movie.

9 to 9.9

An excellent movie with great cinematography, story, acting soundtrack, everything. What holds it back from being a perfect ten will usually be continuity errors and minor plot holes. (I'll usually become obsessed with the movies in this category)

8 to 8.9

A very good movie with all the major elements done well, though a couple could possibly be improved. The fact that not all of the elements are outstanding is what holds it back from a 9.

7 to 7.9

An entertaining movie that excels in only one or two of the major elements, but it still works as a whole and is worth the money.

6 to 6.9

A fun movie, but there is really nothing special or outstanding about it. A movie you should consider waiting to see as a rental. It is enjoyable as a whole but you wouldn't die over missing it.

5 to 5.9

An unimpressive movie with a few good points that save it from failure. Even then, the "good points" will often be sub-par.

1 to 4.9

I group these together because everything between 1 and 4.9 is a failure, and 1 being a complete and utter failure.

And now, a quick re-rate of my previous reviews using the above guide.

Sweeney Todd: 9.7 out of 10. I still believe this to be an excellent movie, and best of 2007.

Pan's Labyrinth: 8.8 out of 10. It is a great movie with many, many great assets.

Be Kind Rewind: 8.2 out of 10. A well done movie with some great moments.

Now that I have a solid rating system in place (ok, maybe it isn't so solid, but it's good for now), I intend on writing my review for Cloverfield, Horton Hears a Who, and 21. Watch for one each week for the next three weeks.

Be Kind Rewind

"I will shoot you, and I know robot karate!" -- Jerry, as Robo-Cop

Apologies for the delay, but the selection in theatres for the past month have been rather slim. However, amongst the swamp of, at best, mediocre films you will find one that shines. Be Kind Rewind is a breath of fresh oxygen in a sea of carbon dioxide.

Be Kind Rewind is about a behind-the-times video rental store that refuses to make the jump to DVD. When Jerry (Jack Black) becomes magnetised, he unknowingly erases all the tapes in the store. With customers to serve, Jerry and employee Mike (Mos Def) quickly remake, or 'swede', the movies with anything and everything they can find. Even though the sweded films are obviously not the original production, they still become immensely popular and everyone begins to demand sweded versions of their favourite films from Rush Hour to Lord of the Rings.

Part of the charm of this movie lies not in the laughs, but in the recreations of memorable scenes from big budget movies. From standing on a toy car mat to create the illusion of hanging off the edge of a skyscraper to holding a fan in front of the camera to create a flickering old film effect every solution the characters come up with is highly imaginative and inventive. The question now is where did this inventiveness and imagination go in Hollywood?

Is it gone completely? No, not completely. It's just rare to find an exceptionally good movie. It's difficult to find a movie with heart. This movie has it. There are a few holes here and there, like why couldn't they be covered by the parody clause in copyright law.

Be Kind Rewind is a movie with heart; something that cannot be said about many Hollywood movies made these days.

Final rating: 8.0 out of 10

Pan's Labyrinth

NOTE: I realize Pan's Labyrinth released over a year ago, but I have not been able to officially review it until now.

"The world is a cruel place." -- Carmen

This movie is a different sort of fantasy movie and its definitely not one for the kids. AS the posters read, it's a fantasy tale for adults as it is a dark tale of a child who is surrounded by such a horrific reality, she escapes to a fantasy world where she has the potential of becoming a princess: any young girl's dream.

So how horrific is her reality? Young Ofelia (the child) is forced to live with her stepfather Captain Vidal, a man who can bash in young man's face with a glass bottle without a second thought. A man who will kill anyone who crosses him, even his closest of friends. A man whose only weakness is his pride. He would make a great dictator. It's a very bleak reality and Ofelia is expected to behave as she is instructed and be a good little girl.

However, there is this whole other world she wants to explore, guided by fairies, where she meets creatures like The Faun and the Pale Man. This is where the movie truly stands out. The designs and costumes for these two creatures are stunning and stand as a true testament to the classic filmmaking techniques of yesteryear. The Faun itself is a combination of costume, prosthetics and stilts to pull off the movement and feel of the creature. The Pale Man was truly a creepy beast, almost zombie-like.

In this world, Ofelia is given three tasks by The Faun to complete by the time the full moon rises. While not in the world, she has to cope with her pregnant, and very sick mother, and the demands of the very strict and controlling Captain Vidal. Whenever the real world become to much for Ofelia to handle, she runs off to the fantasy world to complete another task.

The basic plot is simple to understand, but its the many little details that truly make this the fantasy movie to watch (if you haven't by now). Nothing is set in stone, and the one question that remains in your mind by the end is by far one of the most discussed topics of this movie: Is the fantasy world Ofelia visits real, or is it all in her imagination? Since both world's are so well portrayed, and the fantasy world is so well integrated amongst the real world, both sides of the debate are valid views of the movie.

So here's my challenge to you: Watch Pan's Labyrinth and join the debate. Which side will you choose?

Final rating: 9.0 out of 10

Perspectives: Cloverfield

In just under two week's time, Cloverfield will make its way into theatres. It is the next big monster movie shot entirely as if it were a collection of videos taken from people's cell phones and video cameras or news reports, etc. So expect a lot of shaky camera movements. The big question is, what is this monster destroying New York? Some people have been saying Cloverfield is basically "Godzilla in New York", but somehow, I doubt that. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if the monster is never actually shown, which would enrage many, but would work best. That way, the inrtigue of what the thing is will not be destroyed. It would be more fun to interpret the movie the way one wants by only showing slight glimpses of the creature and not the entire creature itself. Then the people can think what they want.

The real question, the business question, is will Cloverfield live up the self-generated hype? It does look very promising, but I've seen movies in the past that had spectacular trailers and the movie was a lemon (Spider-man 3). I know of movies that have used their advertising to create a hype that it could not live up to (Snakes On A Plane). Will Cloverfield be one of those movies that out-hyped itself? Or will it truly deliver on what it promises in the trailer? It can go both ways.

With all the hype (yes, the 'H' word again) Cloverfield has garnered, it will perform well financially. But financial success does not mean the same as film success. If a movie makes more money than it costs to make, it is a financial success. A film success is much harder to achieve. It has to achieve financial success, then it has to be a quality film, and still is exciting even after repeated viewings.

This brings me back to the monster. The way the monster is handled will be the life or death of Cloverfield. Those who are excited for this film are wanting to know one thing: what is this monster? If the monster is completely and utterly revealed, which could very much happen, that would kill all the intrigue created in the trailers. Then it is simply a question of will these people get out of New York alive? A much less intriguing situation, but still can be quite intense...once again depending on the nature of the monster. However, if they choose to let the monster remain a mystery, the intrigue will not be destroyed and will leave it to the interpretation of the viewers. When it comes to repeated viewings, the first option will not offer any new insight as you already know what the monster is, and who will survive. The second option, leaving the monster shrouded in mystery, would make the repeated viewings still just as interesting, assuming the clue dropping as to what the monster truly is done right. If done right, on the second, possibly third viewings, the viewer may notice new information about the monster they didn't notice before and thereby change their hypothesis, making the subsequent viewings just as interesting as the first. However, leaving the monster a mystery will outrage many.

So, to me, Cloverfield's success comes down to which poison the producers chose: show the monster, or leave it in the fog. My question to you...which would you prefer?

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

"The years, no doubt, have changed me!" -- Sweeney Todd

Let's start this, the inaugural review, off with a little snippet of me; I'm not a fan of musicals. It's the "Yay! Let's sing now!" attitude of many of them, like Hairspray, or the somehow popular High School Musical. However, despite my dislike of musicals, I do still enjoy classics like The Sound of Music (odd, I know) which is why I still watch them from time to time, in hopes of finding another of similar, if not better quality.

And I think I found one and it lies within the blood-drenched film of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. It is true that 85% of the dialogue is sung, but it never falls into the "Yay! Let's sing now!" category. The songs don't even come across as songs since they integrate themselves so well into the story and really help to elevate the emotional power of the movie.

It's the story that truly captivates as it is not a story you would relate to a musical. Benjamin Barker is sent away on a trumped up charge for life by Judge Turpin, a judge who plans to have his way with Barker's wife. When Barker returns fifteen years later, he has adopted the persona of Sweeney Todd and begins to plot his revenge alongside the eccentric Mrs Lovett. The idea of a barber who slits the throats of his customers is already disturbing as is, but just to make things more twisted, Mrs Lovett bakes the bodies of Sweeney Todd's former customers into her meat pies, which quickly become a sensation.

Johnny Depp plays the revenge-crazed Sweeney Todd and once again does so very well. From Todd's most tender moments when he's caressing his razor blades to the most intense kill, Depp is able to convey the character of Sweeney Todd with grace. He even surprises when it comes to singing. This is the first movie where it is Depp himself singing, and does it fairly well. Is it the best singing? No. Though it is perfect for the performance. As for Sweeney Todd's accomplice, Mrs Lovett, Helena Bonham Carter does her usual creepy routine, but, once again, does it brilliantly. She has been typecast into these kinds of roles, but it suits her and she does it well so there's no sense in arguing the point. The true stroke of casting genius was casting Alan Rickman as the twisted Judge Turpin and Timothy Spall as Beadle Bamford (it's like a Harry Potter reunion tour!). Alan Rickman (aka Snape) is by far my favourite Judge Turpin. The way he speaks, the way he carries himself, the way he punishes those who cross him really come across as a more subdued kind of evil, which Alan Rickman is very good at. Timothy Spall (aka Peter Pettigrew) is the weirdest, most rat-like, and brilliant interpretation of Beadle Bamford, the Judge's sidekick, I have seen. Spall has nailed his performance right down to the gestures and the way he extends his vicious cane.

And with Tim Burton at the helm, you know the movie will be a visual treat. He once again hits his mark with the dark, bleak, silent movie feel. The very grey colour palette of the sets really make the whole location slightly unnerving, if the premise of throat slitting isn't enough. And with the slitting of throats comes blood, and lots of it. This is easily the bloodiest movie I have seen since Grindhouse. Yes, a musical is bloodier than any horror movie. But don't fret, the blood is so red, and so wonderfully over the top, the blood is almost poetic and really adds the film, instead of just having blood for blood's sake (like Grindhouse). The blood spills and sprays without mercy, and is topped off by a more disturbing crunching of the bodies as the fall, head-first, down a chute and colliding with the floor of the bakehouse two storeys below.

From the first astounding note of the theatre shaking organ to the last blood-soaked frame, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street not only entertains, but surpasses every movie released this year in terms of greatness. The acting, the cinematography, the sheer power of the musical numbers all come together and make a dark, and very outstanding package. This movie definitely gets my vote for movie of the year.

Final Rating: 9.7 out of 10