Q: The Winged Serpent

This flick is like watching an extended episode of the old Night Stalker series, minus Darren McGavin's Kolchak. The whole vibe is that of a monster movie from the 70s, except this one was hatched in the early 80s. That doesn’t just come through in production values, either. Several movies that I watched before this one featured New York City in the '60s, which was all spiffy and glamorous and, well, clean. This outing, however, showcases the Apple in its gritty, grimy 1980s incarnation—mostly in aerial shots, though there’s street level looks, too—where things were rotting and falling apart and you were as likely to see someone on the streets lying in their filth as you were someone in a mink coat. That vibe works well with the story’s monster angle; you can sort of believe that a monster was living atop the Chrysler Building while Ed Koch was the mayor. Speaking of monsters, of a different sort, the film features one of the better career performances from one of the screen's true chameleons, David Carradine, as the cop who is on the case and looking up the Aztecs for insight. Meanwhile, Michael Moriarty chews up the scenery—almost as much as the titular beastie—as the small timer who tries to make it big with his knowledge of the critter. The special effects aren’t all that special, which is glaring from a movie contemporaneous with E.T. and Poltergeist and especially the New York-based Ghostbusters—but that actually gives the film a certain amount of charm, like the old Ray Harryhausen stop-motion classics of a previous era. It would be overselling the thing to declare this a good movie, in an overall sense, but for a willfully cheesy monster movie, it’s not all that bad for killing an hour and a half. Feel free to kick back in your nest and chew on this one when you have an evening to kill.

The Quiet Man

Drunkenness, angry outbursts, violence, squalor: are these how we think about the Irish? It is if John Ford and John Wayne have their way. At least the casting of Maureen O’Hara and her flaming red hair—to say naught of her temper—lend the proceedings a fair amount of verisimilitude. Truth be told, this is a relentlessly silly film, and I can’t say it is particularly to my taste. The visuals are fine to look at, including but not limited to O’Hara, but the rest of the tale comes across as either ridiculous or profoundly cliched, in a way that suggests an outlook that is either too lazy or unsophisticated to try to create something with more nuance. Even the serious background—Wayne’s ex-boxer character is haunted by a death in the ring—does little to temper the story’s more ridiculous excesses. I suppose this isn’t really a bad flick—the execution isn’t incompetent or anything—so I'll spare the flick a HISS, but I couldn’t ever really find a way to appreciate this effort. Irish eyes, it turns out, smile at the weirdest things.

A Quiet Place Part II

The interesting—or, if you prefer, scary—subtext of this sequel: the government today is so screwed up that, if an invasion of alien monsters ever happens, we should expect no coordinated, effective response from authorities. We’ll all be on our own. Such is the story depicted here. That "Part 2" part of the title is legit; excepting a flashback prologue, this movie stands as a near direct continuation of the events of the first film. Though this flick comes with a few quibbles—mostly around the standard horror-film trope of people doing things they obviously shouldn’t do—for the most part this work succeeds in keeping the tale moving, the scenario interesting, and the frights coming at a just-right pace. Eventually, this storyline will burn itself out if it spawns too many sequels, but if they stop at a third ‘conclusion’ part of the story, that would be perfectly acceptable—not something worth shouting about, perhaps, but probably worthy of somewhat muted (but legitimate) enthusiasm.

A Quiet Place

Viscerally, well done. Intellectually, I'm not so sure. It seems like these characters make huge mistakes all along, from the very opening scene. Perhaps part of the idea is to present the case that living without the normal cacaphony of everyday life is nigh on impossible--that life without the ability to clearly and directly communicate is hardly life at all. Maybe (though I sure would like some of the people in my neighborhood to give it a shot). Also, there are inherent contradictions in what's presented; that is, both a family life that is tremendously stripped down, and then at the same time filled with certain elaborate structures and schemes. It all may look good on screen, but it doesn't necessarily pass suspension of belief.  The intent to make a different and breakthrough work comes through loud and clear--but actual success in that vein barely rises above a whisper.

The Queen

How accurate is the version of events depicted in this film? That’s impossible to know, of course, given the character of the personages who stand--or genteelly sit--at the center of this drama. Helen Mirren’s take on Elizabeth II is good, one supposes, though again how could you really tell? The surprising thing is, despite the title, how much this is Tony Blair’s movie, too--and it’s difficult at this remove to accept Blair in the almost entirely good light that shines on him here. (There is, after all, that whole Iraq War thing, which does actually get a slight nod towards the end here.) It does help that Michael Sheen does a terrific job of not just capturing Blair’s persona very well, but imparting him with much of the positive sheen (couldn’t resist) that appears on him here. Aside from those conundrums, viewing the movie strictly on its terms as a story, it’s much easier to say that it delivers an enjoyable, effective, and at times even moving drama. It’s certainly a film worth seeing--just don’t mistake it for a documentary.

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.