Spectre Review: Return to Classic Bond?

If you track the Bond movies over the years you can see some distinct patterns. The hard edged but not too serious Connery era which really set the tone for pretty much everything to come. Next came the Moore era (which lasted too long for what it was) which is now know as possibly the lowest point in the franchise for many people, with the possible exception of Die another Day.
Next came Timothy Dalton who really reset the franchise to what it should be. The same thing Daniel Craig would do but way before its time.
Its sad to say then that after watching Spectre that it has a distinct and now unpleasant whiff of Roger Moore.



What I mean by this is that there are constant visual gags that would not be out of place in say, The Spy Who Loved Me. Not things we are used to seeing sharing the same screen as our hard edged Bond for the modern world.
Bond himself is almost a different character at points as well with none of the killer instinct and brutality we saw in the previous 3 films and its not a believable transition for the character as his films are supposed to be linked.

Then the other side of the movie kicks in.
The super serious side that wants to think it's way more important of a movie than it actually is. This in essence is why Spectre does not work, the campy half does not mesh with the modern serious side at all and makes for a very jagged structure in which you never know if you are supposed to be laughing or gritting your teeth.

After Skyfall having a film of such mediocrity is extremity frustrating, especially because throughout specks of excellent keep showing only to get over shadowed by something else.
Ben Whishaw is one of these specks, he brings and energy to the role of Q that hasn't been seen before, building very nicely on the character that we saw in Skyfall. I would love to see him continue in the franchise throughout multiple Bond's as he really is scene stealing.

The rest of the MI6 team don't fair so well, they do admirably in their respective parts (Ralph Fiennes as M, Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner and Naomi Harris as Moneypenny) but the presence of Judi Dench is still felt and they can't ever quite live up to that.


The script at points is also really excellent, the quips work well (mostly) and the banter is some of the best we've seen since Connery. It's just not enough to keep the lifeless plot chugging along.
Its basically boils down to a lot of contrived reasons for Bond to go from country to country and it never feels like its progressing naturally.  It also reuses a tonne of things from other (better) Bond films to the point where its just feels like Sam Mendes tried to put as many tropes in as he can.

On such trope that is never unwelcome in a Bond movie however is a car chase, sadly in Spectre they use the rather un-thrilling chase to dish out exposition instead of making it a compelling sequence which was a real shame.
As for the other action scenes, most fall flat with not much choreography and little thrills. However there was an admirable, yet very one note, opening sequence (it does have an absolutely beautiful opening shot however) and a very excellent train fist fight with Henchman Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista) who is very under utilized. This is a shame as the other villains aren't particularly compelling.
Christoph Waltz does admirably with the little he is given to work with but never quite pulls it off as well as he should have been able to and Andrew Scott as C was just quite bland.


 
Overall I don't think Spectre can be called a bad film, just the sum of its parts doesn't equal a particularly good one either, which after Skyfall really just isn't good enough.

Thanks for reading my Spectre review, let me know in the comments if you're planning to see it or have already, would love to hear you'r opinion.

Thanks

-Joe

Spectre Review Incoming

It' taking me a while to formulate my opinions on Spectre so my review will be a little bit late, possibly today or tomorrow.

Thanks for sticking with me.

-Joe

Quick Thoughts: Sicario

Sicario has been out too long to warrant a full review so I will give my quick thoughts on it.

Lets start with the good:

• Cinematography. The cinematography, done by the legend of our time Roger Deakins, is breathtaking. Every shot is a feast for the eyes, especially the later night time scenes that ooze depth and amazingly actually look like night time unlike a lot of other movies.
• Acting. Everyone gives a stellar performance with the main cast of Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro really bringing their A-game. The stand out star though has got to be Del Toro with his excellent layered performance of his mysterious character of Alejandro.
• Scrip. The scrip is wonderfully tight and has realistic and has lots of clever dialogue that brings the intrigue of the plot to life.
• Action. I don't really want to call them 'action' scenes as they are propelled by the suspense created and not necessarily the action, because of this is makes for some of the most suspenseful scenes seen in cinemas this year creating really 'edge of your seat' stuff.
• Characters. While somewhat archetypal they still are very layered and intriguing and are what really tie the film together and keep it rolling through some of the slower sections.

Now the bad:

• Sound-mixing. The sound effects for Sicario were excellent with great gun sounds and the like but it really wasn't mixed particularly well with the action being too loud and and the dialogue being too quiet, this forced my ears to constantly adjust which was irritating and made me miss some of the quiet dialogue and in a movie like this that isn't something you can do without missing important lines.
• Story. The story is a pretty much by the book drug movie with no real surprises and was occasionally a bit hard to follow, this isn't much of a gripe however as it has sky high production values that more than make up for it.
• Sometimes a bit boring. Through some of the longer dialogue scenes I found myself a bit bored and just waiting for the next suspenseful action set piece. This is quite a lot of personal preference however.

Overall I would absolutely recommend this movie to somebody who likes a well acted suspense drama, not unlike Hurt Locker. However if you go to see movies for a bit of fun, I do not recommend Sicario as, while great, has a really dark tone and is not what would be described as a 'fun' movie.

Hope you enjoyed my new 'Quick Thoughts' post. I will be doing these more for films that I see later than I would like. 

Thanks for sticking around.

-Joe

Update

I'm seeing Sicario later today so I will be giving you a new type of article on it that I like to call 'Quick Thoughts'.
Hope you enjoy it.

-Joe

Who Should Be the Next James Bond: My Choices

With Daniel Craig's recent comments about playing Bond again (he said he would rather slit his wrists), it is unlikely that he will be doing another movie after Spectre comes out this winter.
Because of this I have compiled a list of the top candidates for next Bond according to internet buzz and the bookkeeper William Hill and put them in order of who I think should take up the mantle, worst to best.
Disclaimer, I would be perfectly happy if any of these actors got the part but this is my personal ranking.

5. Michael Fassbender
   Odds according to William Hill: 7/1

The Good:
Well he definitely has the look of Bond, he is suave and handsome and at 38 he is around the right age.  He has also shown he has the acting chops for it because he is good in pretty much anything he is in. He has also shown he can do action in most notably X-men: First Class.





The Bad:
If there is such a thing as being TOO famous for a part, Fassbender definitely has it, and since he doesn't blend into his roles as other  high profile actors such as Tom Hardy do he would always be (in my eyes at least) an actor playing Bond as opposed to Bond himslef.

Another reason I don't think he is too suited is because he doesn't have the underlying cold-heartedness that is what makes Bond, Bond. To play a successful Bond you need the outer shell of a confident, suave man but the underlying brokenness and loneliness that makes the character deep and interesting.

4. Idris Elba

    Odds according to William Hill: 4/1

The Good: 

Well Elba definitely doesn't have the problem of being too famous. He also carries enough weight to really nail the emotional complexities that weighs down Bond. He would be a good choice for the political side of things too (outside of the movies) as, being black, it would positively impact the 'whitening' of Hollywood that has been happening recently and show that a black man can be just as successful as a white man.

The Bad:

As author of the latest James Bond novel 'Trigger Mortis' (Anthony Horowitz) said recently, Elba is too 'street' to play Bond, an I agree. He just doesn't have the sophisticated quality that an London-living, middle class agent should/would have. 

Another problem, regrettably, would be the profits. It has been seen that movies with black leading characters don't do nearly as well on average as ones with white leads do, and if we want Bond to keep going strong maybe alienating a big part of the audience wouldn't be so clever.

 

3. Henry Cavill

    Odds according to William Hill: 5/1

The Good:

He is Bond, his looks that is, as they pretty much encapsulate everything one thinks about when they think of Bond.  Cavill is also the youngest of the choices at 32 so if he was chosen he could go on to do Bond for a good while before another re-cast is needed.

If you have seen the movie 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E' that came out this summer you will have noticed that Cavill was excellent as the super slick agent Napoleon Solo.  Minus the American accent he put on for the role, it would be the perfect basis for Bond and potentially a more upbeat Bond like we saw in the 60's. This would make a good change to the serious Bond Craig has portrayed these last 8 years.

The Bad:

My only concern about Cavill becoming Bond is that I'm unsure weather he has the acting ability to accurately portray the complex tapestry that is Bond.

Being Superman may also be a concern because it would be hard trying to share one actor between 2 franchises, especially as Superman will be appearing in a majority (probably) of the DC universe films.

2. Damien Lewis

    Odds according to William Hill: 11/4

The Good:

Lewis is a fantastic actor, this has been shown in many, many things. Because of this I am fully confident that he could adequately convey all sides of Bond.  He has also shown his proficiency in the espionage genre in the TV show Homeland where he was also great. While he might not physically look the part as much as some of the other people on the list he does still posses that charming but lethal quality that is essential.  

The Bad:

He is old, at 44 he is only 3 years younger than Daniel Craig who is getting on a bit for the role at the moment. If Bond 25 came out with Lewis as Bond in a very generous 3 years time (almost defiantly longer with a recast) he would be 47 which is pretty old to be starting your Bond career.

There would also probably be an uproar from idiots if Lewis was cast because he is ginger. It would be like the 'Blond Bond?' headlines we got back when Craig was cast.

1. Tom Hardy

    Odds according to William Hill: 5/2

The Good:

Tom Hardy is absolutely the best choice for Bond. He is the best actor out of the lot and he really looses himself in his roles so he would probably be the most convincing Bond we would ever get. He is also a good age at 38 and definitely looks the part. He is also more in line with how Craig appears as Bond, that is to say rough and ready, so the transition would be smooth and probably keep most people happy.

He has also proven that he can handle the physicality and toughness needed for Bond, especially in the new Mad Max where he did a good lot of his own stunts. 

His recent turn as Reggie Cray in Legend also shows that Hardy can do the charming/suave end of the Bond spectrum fantastically too.

The Bad:

Nothing, there is absolutely nothing bad about this casting if it were to go ahead (in my opinion anyway) as Hardy ticks all the boxes of Bond.

The only thing that might prevent this though is Hardy himself, he is more prone to non-franchise work and normally steers clear of multiple movie deals.

He has also signed to do 2 more Mad Max movies (surprisingly given the previous statement) but seeing how long the last one took to get off the ground and the comments from George Miller (Mad Max director) its unlikely we will see these in the near future.

Also if Hardy does get cast I would love to see a Bond who always has a beard as they look great on Hardy

Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please comment with yours, I would love to hear them.

-Joe

The Martian. Ridley Scott's Best Movie?

Ridley Scott has been somewhat of an inconsistent director over his long career, with some truly great movies under his belt such as Blade Runner and Alien. He also has some not so good to truly awful films too such as Prometheus, The Counsellor and Exodus: Gods and Kings.
One thing that has stayed consistent throughout all his movie however are the visuals and The Martian is no exception to this.  It has stunning vistas of space and the Mars landscape that in 3D are truly breath-taking and when things get more high octane the action is also just as stunning with some very competent camerawork and interesting angles that really show off the most interesting aspects of space travel.


The heart of this movie however is not in how technically impressive it is but in its characters who are all well fleshed out human being as opposed to the cut-outs you see in many other Hollywood blockbusters these days.  They are all bought to life exceptionally by the cast and I am pleased to say that at no point throughout this 2 hour 21 minute film was I ever not fully convinced that they were real people facing a very real problem.
The standout performances come from Sean Bean in a minor role as Mitch Henderson where he really gave above and beyond from the small but integral role he was given. Another highlight was Michel Pena (second time this year he has done an ace performance, the first being in Ant-man) as Rick Martinez who brought wit and a light heartedness to the film.

The real star (obviously) was Matt Damon in what is perhaps his best performance of all time as Mark Watney, the astronaut that gets stranded on Mars. He portrays Watney as a lovable jerk who in the face of danger tries to make the best of things which introduces some very funny lines into what is a surprisingly upbeat and funny movie. He also brings home, with excellent depth, the torn and depressing emotions somebody would go through in a situation such as this and makes you ride the ups and downs with him as opposed to just being an observer.


With Damon doing such an excellent job it is always kind of a shame that the film has to switch back to the events on Earth as they aren't as interesting as the Mars goings on. This is emphasised in an especially long Earth sequence that lasts about 20 minutes that does get fatiguing towards the end, so when it switches back to Damon its like a breath of fresh air to break the political side of things.

This movie also does suffer from being a bit long so when the climax hits it doesn't have the same impact as it might do if the movie was just about 15 minuets shorter. This is probably due to the fact that it doesn't go through many environments, switching from Mars to a grey building on Earth and back again, not giving they eye much to feast on in the last act that we haven't had our fill of earlier in the movie.


Saying this though, the film does come to a very satisfying and intense climax that really kept me on the edge of my seat throughout(even though Neil Degrasse Tyson had already spoiled it for me on twitter). The wrap up scenes don't feel unwelcome or too long as they give us much wanted closure on all the main players of the film that really makes you feel you got your moneys worth when leaving the cinema.

Overall this is an excellent movie with very few flaws that is a fun time despite the depressing nature of the subject matter. Ridley Scott does a great job at the helm, making up for some of his recent flops. Although it makes you wonder if it should really be credited so heavily to him since the source material was so good and did a lot of the work to start with.


Thanks for reading another review and I urge you to go out and see this film, especially in 3D as it is absolutely worth it.
I will be doing a post a week from now on as I am also busy with university work so its hard to fit it in.


-Joe

Is Nicolas Cage a Good Actor: The Final Answer

This quite possibly is the ultimate question when it comes to acting.
Lets start with the arguments for yes.
He has won an academy award for best leading actor for 'Leaving Las Vegas' and surely bad actors don't win awards right? (except Razzies obviously). He has also done some emotionally competent performances in movies like 'Joe' and potentially 'Moonstruck'.
Yes he is over the top in most of his 'good' roles but in said roles it works for the character as they are normally emotionally broken in some way.

BUT

And it's a big but, he is pretty much god awful in a majority of the movies he has made, and not always the same kind of awful.
The first kind is the boring Nick Cage (as I will be referring to him from now on).
This crops up in movies such as the two 'National Treasure' features where he plays boring treasure hunter Ben Gates. His performance in these movie is highly wooden and disinterested like he can't wait to get off set and have a Big Mac or something.
Another such example of the boring Nick Cage is in 'Left Behind' (please, nobody watch that movie!) where he is Rayford Steele, a jumbo jet pilot who is flying when a catastrophic event happens yet he doesn't seem to react that badly to it, except for a forced crying sequence.


The main things these performances are lacking however is the trademark Nick Cage freak out (basically the only reason I watch a Nick Cage movie) but I will come back to this later.

The second type is crazy Nick Cage, this is where his performance is off the wall mad. So crazy it stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the movie and showcases Cage at his worst. This normally happens when the movie is more serious in tone and the casting of Cage throws this all out of wack. A great example of this is 'The Wicker Man', a serious film turned unintentional comedy due to Cage's presence. ( I will link a video below of a Cage freak out montage)

However, there is a few times the crazy Nick Cage can work well, surprisingly.
This occurs in movies that are already insane to begin with and where his presence just heightens the ridiculousness to an even more enjoyable level. Good examples of this would be 'Face-Off' where his performance opposite Travolta is just glorious and makes the movie one of the biggest guilty pleasure titles out there.
The other example would be 'The Rock' with Sean Connery where the same thing is true. His freak outs in these movies are some of the best too (especially in Face-Off) and are insanely enjoyable.


I think the answer to this question really doesn't have a traditional answer. Clearly Nick Cage is a good actor as he has an award to prove it and some of his movies are very enjoyable made even better by his presence (the aforementioned Face-Off). Clearly Nick Cage is also a bad actor as he is terrible in a large part of his filmography (National Treasure, Left Behind to name a few).

Taking in mind these facts, I put it to you readers that, in fact, Nick 'The Cage' Cage is a multiplier.
When the movie is bad/boring to start with and Cage is introduced it gets even worse.
On the other hand if the movie is good/entertaining to start with and Cage is introduced it becomes even better!
That is the definitive answer.


  Nick Cage freak out montage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S73swRzxs8Y
My personal favorite Cage moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDnW5XxjwI8

Thanks for reading guys. I decided not to do the piece on theme tunes as I decided I don't have enough musical knowledge to do so sufficiently, sorry.

-Joe