Wake Up Dead Man

Word of warning: don’t watch this movie if you’re sleepy. I did, and wound up dozing off about 45 minutes in. Is that a commentary on the quality of the film, or just a product of circumstance? Maybe a bit of both. For sure, this story takes its time getting to the heart of the proceedings. That leisurely pace gives the movie a sense of being—somewhat appropriate for a murder mystery—rather lifeless. The film does eventually get going, and in doing so presents an interesting aspect of the script: some intriguing ruminations on faith and the church and their value and meaning. Plus you get to watch more of Daniel Craig inhabiting the character of Benoit Blanc, which is good entertainment. Still, I can’t help but think that this entry in Rian Johnson’s series is a touch below the previous outings. Whether that marks a death knell for the franchise or represents just a momentary dip remains at this point a question still to be answered. Not dead yet, perhaps, but in need of a little more energy—something you can say about your correspondent as well. 

Glass Onion

A few years ago, it seemed like Daniel Craig was certain to be remembered as a guy who played James Bond. Maybe that still holds, but a couple more of these films—we're at three as of this writing—and it may no longer be a sure thing. His Benoit Blanc is arguably a more memorable character, and you can’t deny that it is a persona that is truly Craig’s own, rather than a borrowed or inherited legacy. It helps, too, that these Knives Out movies are good, entertaining, fun and funny, and blessed with a lot of current (at least) cultural currency. In this edition, the story works well, and the cast and setting have plenty of interesting facets (though here the collected characters border on caricature). The fly in this ointment lies in the focus on—and critique of—the ultra rich and their natures. The view has merit and the parody pulls few punches, but it means spending a lot of time with some really unpleasant characters, even if just representations thereof. That aspect of the story does get a bit distracting, one might say…though one can argue the critique is not so much a distraction as the point of the presentation in the first place. I guess it depends on how much you care about the mystery aspect of a mystery, versus character, setting and mood. Me, I’m not so much on the whodunnit angle, so my viewing mind tends to shift towards the other story elements. It works here, though I’m not sure it would in every story. As it is, you can just focus on Craig and let him be your guide to a decent way to kill a couple of hours. I guess this movie doesn’t exactly shatter any expectations, but the fact that it works overall is crystal clear. 

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Late on a Saturday night. I was just looking for some mindless entertainment…and boy did I find it. I don’t know if this flick was meant to be in 3D, but Angelina Jolie’s character certainly was: 3D x 2, to be precise. Lara’s enhanced physique is so prevalent throughout the show that it is almost like a running—and occasionally bouncing and bobbing—joke, which is ironic since one of the key missing elements of this movie is actual humor, as in humor that is a) intentional and b) something you would actually laugh at. Further conceptual follies are found in the story’s half-assed attempts at being vaguely scientific, via some humbug about a planetary alignment, not to mention various other plot missteps. Even the raw action sequences come across as bland and not particularly inventive (a real black mark considering this film was made contemporaneously with the Matrix trilogy). If I had to point to some good aspects of this work, I suppose I could say that Jolie’s performance is decent, and she gets acceptable support from a pre-Bond Daniel Craig, plus the story does provide a bare minimum of entertainment despite its many flaws. Still, you can’t be too generous towards a dunce work like this one. Instead of pulling things out of a tomb, a better idea would probably be to bury this flick in one, and leave it there for a bad long time. 

Knives Out

So this is what qualifies as reinvention these days? That’s a bit harsh, because I don’t want to imply that this is anything but a solid, entertaining bit of cinema. It is that. I’m simply noting that this work is not the world-changing item that some of the hype says it is. The movie really doesn’t need that hard sell; it stands on its own merits well enough. A large quantity of the credit for that accomplishment rests with the two principal performers: a sly, quirky and ultimately deep performance by Daniel Craig, who continues to fashion a low-key argument that he’s among the best actors working today; and a surprisingly powerful and dominant performance from Ana de Armas, who is the true star of this show and carries a great deal of the film’s weight with her. The rest of the ensemble offers quality supporting work with rarely a misstep, but it’s the efforts of the primary two who make this a movie over and above the ordinary. As I’ve stated previously, I’ve never been a particular mystery fan, so the machinations of the whodunnit plot really meant little to this viewer (though it didn’t seem to me that the solution to the puzzle was really anything all that clever). Mostly, the main contribution to the flick's quality—on top of the leads’ efforts—comes from the director’s sense of style, so score one for Rian Johnson, too. You don’t need to effuse into the ridiculous in order to find this a satisfying piece of cinema—and that shouldn’t be a mystery to anyone.

No Time to Die

A fitting swan song for Daniel Craig’s run as James Bond, even if it does get a little too mushy here and there. There are some minor pacing problems, but when the action comes it does so in sequences that rival any in the series. As with any Bond film, the eye candy must be first rate; here Lea Seydoux and Ana de Armas admirably fill that need here. Other cast members do good to excellent jobs in support. Mostly, though, this is about Craig, stating his case as (maybe) the best Bond ever. It may be hard to lift him above Connery--who after all defined the role, and had the advantage of better context (Cold War) and, frankly, better productions (storylines, writing, and that certain, mid-century spy movie joie de vivre) on his side--but the modern man probably sits at at least No.. 2. That's hardly something to be ashamed of. This last trip through the MI6 underworld reminds us how lucky we’ve been to have had the franchise resurrected from its seeming expiration back in the Dalton/Brosnan days, when the joy largely went out and camp was practically king. Our man--or, at least, the original king's man--will return, per the post-credits teaser--but it’s hard to imagine the new guy doing any better than Craig's body of work. (That is, assuming the new Bond is a guy, and that the producers don’t go really far off the reservation with their choice). This Bond may not have gone out with the biggest bang, but he left a big, shining legacy for film history to remember and enjoy.

The Golden Compass

If you read His Dark Materials, you know why this movie was made. If you saw this movie, you know why none of its intended sequels ever got greenlighted. Given all the inventiveness of Philip Pullman's clever story--which made the books so compelling and entertaining--the same characteristic works against a movie retelling, especially considering the need to account for audiences unfamiliar with the source. Thus, we get a lot of expository dialogue in this flick, which is always a burden for a script that's trying to move and make sense at the same time. There is good stuff in here that came over intact from the book--Dakota Blue Richards makes a fine Lyra, and Iorek's battle remains a highlight--but it's also easy to see how a lot of this movie left non-fans scratching their heads. It seems this film was destined to be an orphaned curiosity; that may be the best Pullman fans can ever hope for.

Spectre

Oh, yeah, it’s great and all that, probably among the best Bond movies of all, but...one can’t help but feel like this is more of an ending than a beginning. No wonder there was all that talk about this being the last in the series for Daniel Craig. It would be an odd point of departure; they’ve only just finally put the band together, and now they’re going to break up after one album, so to speak? Leaving such speculations aside, what can be firmly stated based upon this movie is this: Sam Mendes really knows how to direct a movie. He brings a visual flair to just about everything, and it’s a filmmaking sensibility that heightens everything in the picture, including the action set pieces, almost (but not quite) to a level of high art. The other thing is how perfectly Christoph Waltz captures the arch villain's fundamental enigma: a guy who’s smart enough to run the world is also stupid enough to let Bond get away, again...and again....and again. It’s all entertaining as hell--I just wish there wasn’t the constant threat that it’s all going to go away so soon.

Skyfall

An entertaining bit of very self-aware mayhem. This film completes the franchise reboot, and does so with a lot of wit, plenty of style, and some really audacious action sequences. I guess from here on out the series will really be like a new version of the good old days, at least until Daniel Craig is too old for that shit (in about 5 months, probably). So the future is promising, or in doubt, or who knows? Whatever happens, at least we have one more Bond flick that’s truly worth a look. Posted 12/23/13. (Re-viewed and reviewed as part of the 2017 "Watch all James Bond movies in sequence" project.) ETA after re-viewing: Again, perhaps a bit better on a second viewing. The way the film kills off--literally--the series' ties to the old version of the franchise is both amusing and highly appreciable for a longtime fan. The one notable absence here is any reference, however oblique, to the larger story hinted at in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. This one is more of a slight detour for the purpose of giving the old guard its valedictory, rather than advancing the larger story any further; presumably, the payoff for that comes in the next flick. We'll see...very shortly.

Casino Royale

The operative word here is "shrewd." The owners of the Bond franchise made a shrewd choice to reinvent the series by taking their main character back to the beginning; the post-Cold War series had grown rudderless. They made another shrewd choice in bringing in Daniel Craig to play Bond; he is immediately the most hardass 007 since Connery's heyday. And they made the shrewdest choice of all in opting for a very professional execution of this, the first installment of the new Bond series--the production is first rate, the hallmarks remain with the campiness dialed back, and there's a serious tone that tells you everyone present means business. Like many, I had lost interest in the franchise, but I recommend this one, and I'm geared up for the next installment, at the very least. Posted 2/10/08. ETA on re-viewing: It is, perhaps, even better on a second viewing, and more appreciable--less a reboot of the series than a total re-imagination of the franchise. Easily a top five entry in the series. (Re-viewed and reviewed as part of the 2017 "Watch all James Bond movies in sequence" project.)

Quantum of Solace

Strange: I never posted a review the first time I watched this movie. I must not have been all that impressed. Truth be told, that’s understandable, if this film is watched in isolation. This entry in the series is so closely tied to its predecessor that, if viewed without immediate reference to the prior film, a lot of what’s going on here gets lost. Having re-watched this film back-to-back with Casino Royale immediately preceding, this one becomes a much better film: what seems like muddled storytelling coalesces into an easier to follow plot when the antecedent information is fresh in the mind. The one weakness is the relationship between Craig’s Bond and Dench’s M; is she on his side, or not? There’s too much doubt attributed to her character in this two-film sequence, particularly given her appearance in prior films in the same role. In retrospect, there should have been a new M on hand once they took Bond back to the beginning (contractual obligations, perhaps, made for the mistake). Beyond those major matters, the production remains top notch, the performances are fine, and the action is impressive. Overall, this seems destined to bear a legacy as the weakest of the Craig/Bond movies, but that hardly means it’s bad--just not quite what it could have been.

Munich

Moral ambiguity and bad fashion collide in 1970s Europe. Spielberg tells us old news--revenge is an ugly and dehumanizing business--but does so with all the skill you'd expect from an acknowledged master of the medium. Tremendous attention to detail, an inherently fascinating story (the aftermath of murders at the '72 Olympics), and strong performances stand as the film's strongest selling points. There are a couple of minor problems (the washed-out cinematography is distracting, and the film runs just a little too long), but nothing to pull down the overall rating. Oh, and pay close attention to the final shot--if you don't, the maker's message might totally go to waste. Posted .