I Approve of This Movie (Twice): Skyfall

We've been expecting you, Mr. Bond.

The short version: 

Everything a James Bond adventure should be, almost nothing it shouldn’t. And it’s just as enjoyable, if not more so, the second time.

The longer-than-usual version:

This review is the first of a slightly different perspective. Specifically, I wish to look at the film from a second viewing, home video perspective and see what stands out.

While this film has left most theatres now, it snuck up and arrived for purchase less than 3 months after opening. While the gap between a film opening in theatres and releasing on video has been shrinking every year, this is almost unheard of. Skyfall was still soaking up the box office grosses when the DVD and Blu-Ray editions launched on February 12. Grosses which as of February 24 were an estimated $1.1 Billion worldwide. 

In only 108 days.

All this is quite mind-boggling, but I suppose if any franchise... any character could pull it off, it would be James Bond. I mean, after all, he can do anything, right?

Does everything. Makes look easy.

Well, you may think that, but historically he’s not been as bullet-proof as we’ve made him out to be.

If you’re a fan of the series then no doubt you at least have an opinion (possibly a strong one) of which Bond was best – not only the performer but which adventure as well. Regardless of which camp you fall into, even the most ardent fan will admit that the series has its fair share of turkeys. Big ones too. And we’re not all agreed on which ones they were.

Who wore it best?

For example, I grew up in the 80s when Roger Moore’s rather silly take on the character was still wildly popular, with myself as much as anyone. I hadn’t seen every film that had been made – things like TBS’s 13 days of 007 marathon didn’t exist yet – but there was one I had been told in no uncertain terms I was to avoid at all costs: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

It wouldn’t be until last year that I finally had the chance to see it for myself and form my own opinion. And, my my, was I surprised. Not only did I think that all the negativity lobbied at the film was unfair, but actually found it to be one of the more enjoyable entries. Certainly not perfect, but far from the complete and utter disaster that I had been led to believe. It just goes to show, you can’t simply let someone else’s opinion be your own.

We all think this is terrible, so you should too.

This brings me to Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig's previous outing as Bond. A film which has a paltry 64% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and among the top-rated critics a mere 38%. In the lead up to the release of Skyfall it was endlessly ribbed by pundits as a horrid flop in the James Bond canon and the biggest reason why Skyfall needed to be (and ultimately was) a return to form and overhaul of the whole series.

Yes they are, James. Yes, they are.

This irked me for two reasons.

The first is that I am, to this day, one of Quantum’s few defenders. I don’t make excuses for the film and its flaws – yes, stylistically it is similar to a Jason Bourne film – but I firmly maintain that, like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, it was unfairly maligned. It dared to toy with the Bond formula and suffered the consequences. I feel it’s also a victim of one of the unspoken truisms of film reviews: the pile-on. Like sharks scenting blood in the water, I feel that many reviewers (particularly the lesser-known ones) see a trend in the market and join in on the fun. Or put another way: they let someone else's opinion become their own.

The second is another trait that seems to permeate punditry: amnesia. To say that Skyfall is a resounding return to form and a bold, fresh new reboot for the series is to forget that other film to which all those superlatives apply: Casino Royale. 

Oh right. That awesomeness happened.

My, how quickly we forget. When it was released critics were falling all over themselves to hurl appreciation upon it. It was fresh. It was bold. It was a return to form and yet a stunning new direction for the character. Why just a few years ago everyone was ready to declare that Daniel Craig was the best Bond ever, after only one film. Now it seems they’re ready to declare the same things all over again, with no sense of history, let alone irony.

But all of this has little to do with Skyfall. And that is what I’m here to talk about.

Now, as I said above, I don’t wish to review the movie in the traditional sense, but rather talk about what it was like viewing it the second time. This, I feel, is an important perspective to examine because the first time you see a movie you often miss a lot of detail. Or often you watch with glossy-eyed wonder, skimming over parts and dialogue that don’t quite hold up on repeat viewings. Or you have that surprise of not knowing what will happen next. The second viewing does away with all of that and is, in effect, the crucible: if the movie doesn’t survive well on the second viewing it rarely will get seen again.

So, how did Skyfall fare? Gloriously.

Pundits: Silenced!

Yes, this was truly no box office fluke. This was not a massive hit because of a populace starved for a great James Bond flick, still reeling from the unmitigated disaster that was Quantum of Solace (tongue firmly planted in cheek here, people). It was a truly excellent film, filled a few excellent set pieces, some wonderful dialogue and character development and a few surprising – even shocking – twists. But I’m assuming you knew this already. I’m assuming you’ve seen it, so without further ado: 

Spoiler Alert. You’ve been warned.

We begin at the beginning. My first reaction was: a) wow, does this look smashing in high-definition, and b) wow, this foot/car/motorcycle/train chase feels even more exciting than the first time I watched it. Initially it was a bit of a disappointment, perhaps partly due to a middle-aged gentleman sitting next to me who would not shut up for the first twenty minutes. But more than simply suffering from Mr.Peanut Gallery, I felt that the chase seemed… subdued somehow. Like they weren’t really trying. Like all the right ingredients were there, but it wasn’t being served up with as much unrelenting adrenaline as would befit the first Bond Action Sequence in four years. After such a long absence I was expecting to have a wee accident in my seat at seeing the man & myth back in action.

Not so upon the second viewing. Now, it should be said that I was the only person I knew who expressed this feeling after seeing it in theatres, so you might dismiss my reaction out of hand as an anomaly. But after seeing Skyfall for a second time – devoid of middle-aged loud-talkers – I saw that my assessment wasn’t as unusual as it may have seemed. It wasn’t the staging, the angles, the editing that made the sequence seem reserved. It was Bond himself. When you have time to look a little closer, you see that Daniel Craig is playing the scene as if he’s only somewhat invested in what’s happening. Like Bond is a bit disinterested. Like he’s been there, done that. 

James Bond: Bored Spy

And that right there is what Skyfall did so masterfully. It sets up a James Bond who has been playing this game for a long time (assuming he’s been busy while offscreen for four years) and has lost a bit of the youthful edginess he had in the previous two films. He’s older, wiser, wearier, and maybe just a bit off his game. Not quite as sharp as he once was. It certainly would explain why he let the situation spiral so far out of control that M was forced to have Eve take that fateful shot. Eve is certainly a suspiciously poor shot for a field agent, no doubt for the sake of the plot. But nevertheless, the reason Bond gets shot is because he couldn’t quite get the job done – not quickly enough anyway. M basically says as much when they have their grumpy reunion.

Just a sea of grumpy faces.

Speaking of M, Judy Dench really does own this film. Not so much as to completely outshine Daniel Craig – it’s still his story – but man, does she get more complexity and nuance to chew on than every single other performance of that character in Bond’s 50-year history. It was an eyebrow-raising move to make M a woman in Goldeneye. In Skyfall, it’s a downright tear-shedding turn to have that come to an end. How Judy Dench imbued that character with such feisty, steadfast, cold-yet-caring qualities is really only answerable by the truly great actors and actresses, but if nothing else it makes clear that the character has always had something of a motherly quality, and it was only until Dench came along that we truly realized it.

Bastion of British Tough Love

Another thing I noticed during the sophomore screening was that, while obviously MI6 takes a serious blow due to the bombing of their headquarters and the outing of many of their undercover agents around the world… umm… where are the other double-O agents? I know, Bond has been and always will be the only License to Kill agent we’re concerned with, but I found it amusing that he was essentially the only spy in the whole British network available to help them get out of that mess. I guess it’s because he was only sort-of dead. 001-6, 8, & 9 must have been really dead.

Other things that stood out were a few quibbles I had the first time around that seemed less noticeable. For one: the Komodo Dragon. I had heard before I saw the movie in theatres that the CGI work on them was good, but a bit… noticeable. And when I did see it the first time I definitely noticed, though you could argue my experience was tainted by the foreknowledge. But it all evens out in the end because this time they looked quite good – better than before, even in hi-def, which usually reveals special effects flaws more noticeably.

The second: Silva’s death. Without question Javier Bardem catapulted his character into the top tier of Bond villains with his introductory unbroken monologue alone. However, I dock a few points for the filmmakers resorting to that tried and tested villain resource: the rogue MI6 agent. Like Alec Trevelyan before him (also with horrid facial disfigurement!), making a villain out of someone who used to be a friend, or at least a co-worker, makes for good drama but it’s almost too easy to go back to that well. It also bugged me that this rich, compelling, funny-yet-frightening character got such an ignominious death. The scene in which Silva meets his end at the hands of Bond isn’t really about him, more about M and her tortured relationship with the agents whose lives she must often sacrifice for the good of the Commonwealth. It’s a mirror for her relationship with Bond and shows what could have just as likely happened with him, rather than Silva. That is pure cinematic gold. We see our hero not as a hero at all, but rather as a man with a very dirty job, working for people who rarely have his best interests at heart, and who could very easily have become the villain of the story. But he doesn’t. His unfailing loyalty (like a dog – a visual metaphor used twice in the film) to Queen (in this case M) & Country is what saves the day and he smites the villain, not with his customary Walther PPK, but with a cruder instrument: a knife.

When you listen to it written out like that it all sounds great. Like the end of a Greek tragedy or any number of Shakespeare plays. But when you watch it, it happens very quickly and the subtext is left for you to glean yourself. To the film’s credit that’s giving viewers a level of respect not often found in action thrillers. It also saves us from a long, drawn out ending where everyone talks about their feelings rather than getting on with the pointy, stabby business. But for such a strong character that had been built up in such a short time – not appearing until the second half – I found it all a bit quick.

Why did you kill me so easily, Mr. Bond?

However, all this complaining about the villain's end is from the first time I viewed the film. The second time, it bothered me much less because I was able to absorb all the subtlety I spoke about. This is one of the great luxuries of owning and rewatching a film – you get the chance to really think about a film and discover new things you many never have known were there. That's why I'm glad films get entered into the National Film Registry and the like. And why revisionist historians like George Lucas should stop their tinkering. But that's a rant for another day.

My final observation is one of curiousity, maybe even hesitation: where do we go from here? The end credits assured, as they often did in the good old days, that Bond will be back. So, what then? If you take the time to think of the chronology of this rebooted series, how many adventures does this current incarnation of Bond have left in him? Yes he has his mojo back, but Skyfall made clear that he’s getting on in years. Daniel Craig is now 45 years old. Granted, Roger Moore was 46 when he joined the franchise, but that was back when Bond films were far less physically demanding of their lead actor. Craig has said that it is extremely difficult to get his body in the shape that the role requires. That should only become more difficult as time marches on. And how quickly do they plan to launch the next film? I should think that based on Skyfall’s rampant success the producers will be very eager to get started, but they have a lot to live up to now, so that should deter them from rushing too hastily. And now that Moneypenny, a classic M, and the classic office are all in place what is the intention? To continue Bond much as he was in the 60s with a modern flair? That seemed to be the mission statement for Skyfall, what with references to exploding pens, the classic Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat, and a wonderfully classic Bond theme (Thanks for the Oscar, Adele). It all leaves me hopeful, yet hesitant for the future of the franchise. As much as this was a fresh injection for the character and his world, I’d hate to see all that fall flat with the next entry.

I suppose we’ll have to see if, once again, there is nothing that this man can’t do.

I'm going to have to save all this again, aren't I?

My Name is Rick Ames and 

I Approve of This Movie. Twice.

I Approve of This Movie: Phantoms

Stereotypical 90's thriller poster for the win!

The Short Version:

Dean Koontz's Phantoms manages to overcome most of its B-movie trappings to earn the distinction of being the best feature-length X-Files episode never made.

The Long Version:

I love to read Uncle John’s Bathroom Readers. I love to read in the bathroom period, so to have books that are tailor-made for the job is a real treat of Western society. The reason I bring this up is because the books often feature obscure movie gems and other things left in what they delightfully term the “Dustbin of History”. I think if we were to go sifting through that place more often, we’d find a whole bunch of things we wished we had but thought didn’t exist.

Dean Koontz’s Phantoms has most definitely taken up residence in the dustbin of movie history. Or as they call it these days, Netflix.

In case you missed it, this 1998 thriller had most of the requisite elements to become a modest hit at the time:

• Based on a best-selling novel

• Simple, easy-to-remember title

• Full usage of the “Stephen King’s” principle of name recognition

• Cast of hot, young 20-somethings

• Peter Freaking O’Toole

Omar Sharif wishes he was that cool.

Yes, that last one was not a mistake. Lawrence of Arabia himself – the man so awesome he turned down a knighthood – was in a low-rent 90's thriller with a bunch of Teen Choice Award hopefuls. What was he doing in it? Some might call it ‘slumming it,’ or ‘paying the rent.’ I prefer to think of it as ‘adding a touch of class to an otherwise lesser film.’ I will give the producers credit: if you’re going to have a character whose job is mostly to lend the proceedings credibility by espousing much exposition, you could do worse than hire Peter O’Toole to do it. I for one could listen to that man read the phonebook. Or lyrics to horrible songs:

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Since I know of precisely two other people who have seen this movie – in theatres no less! – I can safely assume you, dear reader, are in the dark as to what I’m going on about. Phantoms is a movie that is chalk full of scary movie clichés:

1. Two sisters return to their sleepy Colorado town to find that nearly every single person in town has vanished very suddenly. 2. Things get spooky quickly and soon they run into the hunky still-alive Sheriff, his screw-loose deputy and another soon-to-be-dead deputy. 3. Tension builds as they attempt to find a) anyone who’s alive, b) a car that works, and c) a way to contact the outside world to call in the big guns. 4. The latter finally happens, you think the pros will get to the bottom of things, it all goes horribly wrong, the evil something-or-other reveals itself and its intensions which requires the help of... 5. the one man in the world who is wise to this terror that’s been lurking in the depths, Peter O’Toole. Or, you know, his character.

It all sounds pretty horrible. And by all rights, it probably should have been. But for some uncanny reason there is enough meat on this bone and enough special sauce that it’s been drenched in to set it apart from the million other dishes that are just like it.

Let's have a look-see here, shall we?

It starts by bringing in one of the classiest thespians ever to grace the screen. But it goes beyond that. For starters, Peter O’Toole’s character doesn’t show up until roughly the half-way mark. So for the movie to not have been unbearable up to that point must mean they did some other things right.

What things you may ask? Well, I wouldn’t say the rest of the cast was stellar, but it was certainly competant. Phantoms big pull for the younger audience was the newly-minted leading man, Ben Affleck. To look back at Affleck’s early career trajectory now is something of a head-scratcher. Here was a man who had just won an Oscar(!) for co-writing the Good Will Hunting screenplay. Yet his next movie after Phantoms would be Armageddon, a film which time has not been kind to. His J-Lo/Gigli debacle was a few years away but I think we can all agree it took ‘Fleck a few years to find his footing. He has never really had the sheer acting chops that his mate Matt Damon does, and that shows in Phantoms. Yet for all his inexperience at this point in his career, he does a decent job of leading the show, even if he looks hilariously too young to be the town Sheriff, fiction or not.

Sheriff Babyface

The other hot commodity that this movie cashed in on was Rose McGowan. Well, when I say hot commodity I mean she was a recognizable name that had been in a few decent hits up to that point. Frankly, I’ve never been the biggest fan of her acting, but I’ll give her points (and the writers) for not making her character gratingly annoying, since she was the most obvious candidate for the classic “stupid hysterical person”.

The real diamond in the rough that Phantoms managed to pull from its bag of tricks was in casting Liev Schreiber. I took notice of this actor from an early age and have been a big fan ever since. Even in spectacularly bad films he still manages to come out cleanly. Which is not all that surprising for an actor who can convincingly play Orson Welles in all his narcissistic glory. Liev is the real surprise treat of the film and manages to unnerve you more than any spooky special effect.

Zero context, still creepy. That's talent, people.

On that note, I do want to give credit to the creators of the film for not grasping at CGI straws they couldn’t afford. While this movie came out at the beginning of what I call the Second Age of CGI – The Matrix was only a year away – the filmmakers used it very sparingly. Which is good, because on a small budget film like this bad CGI is the first thing to show the cracks in the illusion, and often has the effect of making you laugh instead of jump. This film is yet another example of how effective practical special effects can be at creating tension or fright when used simply and properly.

Hello? Any creepy monsters out there? No? Ok, good.

In fact, Phantoms seems to borrow heavily from the Jaws principle of: Less Monster is More. Through virtually the whole film you never see the whole thing – until the very end which almost invalidates my previous point on CGI, but I digress – and the film is much stronger for the restraint. Part of this wisdom can be laid at the feet of Dean Koontz himself, who also wrote the screenplay. This actually brings up a point I think more films could learn from: let the original authors at least have a go at writing the screenplay for their own material. No one knows these worlds like the people who create them, and it also deflates the common fanboy complaint that someone butchered the novel in translation because they didn't get it.

The other person that deserves a lot of credit for this movie being more creepy than craptacular is director Joe Chappelle. His filmography is almost non-existent, but he’s a veteran TV director from such shows as The Wire and, more importantly, Fringe. The Fringe connection is very important, so I hope you’ll indulge me as I go full nerd on you for a minute:

WARNING: FULL NERD ALERT

1. Chappelle not only directed a number of Fringe episodes, he also served as Executive Producer on the series. 2. Fringe was in many ways indirectly (and even in a few winking references directly) the successor to The X-Files. 3. The X-Files was one of the greatest spooky, sci-fi, thriller TV shows ever made and frequently had storylines and monsters that fit Phantoms’ description to a tee. This is why I call Phantoms the greatest feature-length episode of The X-Files never made.

The X-Files: sentient black oil that takes possession of its host.
Phantoms: sentient black goo that absorbs, then mimics its host.

Honestly, if you go into this movie with that mentality you’ll enjoy it much more than you might if you were expecting Invasion of the Body Snatchers-level of fright. Heck, at 96 minutes, the movie is short enough to be considered a TV series two-parter. The look is decent but the camera work, the angles, the feel of the movie is that of a really good episode from a series like The Outer Limits or The X-Files instead of a shiny blockbuster.

Hey fellas! What's up?

And Peter O’Toole’s appearance? It’s like a celebrity guest star during sweeps week. What’s funny is that, while this may have just been a job to pay the bills for him, it actually looks like he’s having fun. Clearly he knows this is not Shakespeare, but he gives it a go and makes the movie better because of it.

As for the film’s monster I would imagine that this creation of Koontz’s is primarily why the movie got made in the first place. While giant, sentient, malevolent… somethings lying in wait underground are not new to movies (or other media for that matter) this film takes a bit of a deviation by having this particular sentient goo become convinced that it is in fact, The Devil. That little twist makes the beast that much more terrifying because if you believe you are incarnate evil, you’re liable to do some pretty horrible things based on that assumption.

That being said, this isn’t a movie that revels in buckets of blood and stomach-churning levels of gore. In fact, overall it’s fairly tame in what you actually see on screen, which again shows a certain wisdom on the filmmakers part. As we all know, there's no horror like implied horror.

I wish more scary movies would get that idea through their thick skulls. 

Feel that implied horror. Feel it!

This movie is currently available on Netflix Canada

Be forewarned, it's in... Full Screen!! 

My Name is Rick Ames

and I Approve of This Movie

I Approve of This Movie: Les Misérables

Happiness awaits.

Editor's Note: This is a guest review by Kelly Ames.

The Short Version:
Hooper’s film is a pleasing adaptation of the widely loved staged musical. However, an already strong film could have been made stronger by making different casting choices.

The Long Version:

My first encounter with the musical Les Misérables happened when I had just turned 13 while in London, England. A girls choir I was a part of decided to bring us to London for a week to see the sights and sing in Westminster Abbey. It was pretty unreal. Especially seeing that I was twelve years old and had to celebrate my first birthday as a teen away from my loving family. All that was made more bearable by good friends, toilet paper streamers, and the West End. Oh yes… my love of musicals took flight on this excursion.

Marketing team, you've earned a slow clap.

Don’t get me wrong. We were in the nosebleeds of nosebleed sections and needed to pay ten pence to use the attached opera glasses to actually see what was happening on stage. But, you know what? It didn’t matter. Boublil and Schönberg had written such an incredibly captivating musical based on the Victor Hugo book that even a just-turned 13 year-old adored it and could understand this story from miles away (or at least it felt like it). The music catches me every time. I immediately bought the soundtrack tape (cassettes. remember those?) and repeatedly, REPEATEDLY borrowed the “Les Misérables” reference book and libretto from the public library. I belted the entirety of the soundtrack from memory and even tried singing ALL the parts in “One Day More”. (Yah, that’s not even possible.)

Now that you know that, you can understand that I was ecstatic to hear a movie version was being filmed with no less than Hugh Jackman. Though, I did get a little concerned when I heard some of the casting choices...

Uh... why?

Fast-forward to now, and two good girlfriends/fellow Mommies and I are sitting in the theatre waiting for the show to start. I know Rick has already mentioned this, but since the arrival of our darling Izzy, we’ve needed to be more selective with our movie choices (HOLY COW, the amount of money we spent on entertainment and eating out before she arrived). When it’s a movie your significant other doesn’t really have an interest in seeing… good luck. So, I was super excited to be able to see this on the big screen before it left theatres.

Thank you, Oscars!

My thoughts? Simply put, Wow. Hooper did such an admirable job of trying to stay true to the musical, as well as the book, and even added his own flair. The cinematography marveled me on more the one occasion, though there may have been one or two too many of the sweeping vertical crane shots. Still, holy crap. I loved it. I cried continuously in the theatre (that’s a good thing) even though I knew every single thing that was going to happen. *sigh. Before I go on, I really have to mention the set decoration. In the first 15 minutes of the film, want to know what your first thought is besides, ‘Hugh Jackman, I adore you’? That thought would be: ‘Hmm, glad I didn’t have to live there’. Dreary, disease, violence, abuse of power, and rain.  Always, ALWAYS raining!

Someone get Eponine an umbrella!

But, I’m an actor and that tends to be what I focus on. How were the performances of Les Mis? Concisely, I could tell you it was a mixed bag from ‘absolutely incredible’ to ‘why did they cast you again?’ Obviously, I’ve made clear my love for Jackman. I had the immense pleasure of seeing him perform in his one-man show in Toronto (thanks Hubs!) and could not get over how excellent of an entertainer he was. Hearing that he was cast as Jean Valjean set my heart a-flutter and I knew this film was in good hands. Jackman really captured the essence of the character. He also really embraced the new form of recording, where the cast had earpieces with live piano accompaniment streaming in so that the performers could literally do whatever they wanted to with the music. That meant musical decisions were being made based on the character’s emotions and thought structure, not on what sounded best with the orchestra. Seriously, watch this featurette:

Notable performances would be Samantha Barks as Eponine, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thénadiers, and a surprisingly compelling Anne Hathaway as Fantine. I didn’t know what to expect with Hathaway playing this tragic character due to the fact that I had heard her sing and it wasn’t mind-blowingly good. What I discovered was she devoted her entire soul to playing Fantine and that, though it may not always have been a vocally-pleasing sound, my gosh, did she nail it.

However, those thoughts do not extend to the entirety of the cast. Russell Crowe as Javert really left me wishing he gave more. Javert needs to be played with ferocity, strength and viciousness that I really felt Crowe didn’t even bother trying to attempt. I dug his choice of being a “good” and devoted man, but you need more. One example is the scene between Valjean and Javert in the hospital room after Fantine dies. In the original cast recording you can hear the strength needed for both characters. Particularly, when both parallel lines join on the word “Javert!”. They didn’t even TRY in the movie version which kind of left me with soul crushing disappointment. It’s called “The Confrontation,” for crying out loud. 

Handy 'Confrontation' Comparison

1. How the movie did it:

2. The correct way to do it:

I’m not saying Crowe did a poor job of acting. I’m just saying that his voice was not able to match his acting choices. I had similar feelings for Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, as well. Good actor, but had a voice that distracted me from her performance.

As to being true to the stage musical, I truly do feel Hooper tried his best (considering some of the limitations of the actors chosen). I know that there has been some flack from fans regarding the additional songs and scenes, however I can appreciate how the additions work cinematically. Particularly, when Hooper answered the question of how the heck Valjean and Cosette get to Paris.  Another addition I adore is the Valjean song “Suddenly”. Call me a sentimental fool, but I got weepy and remembered my own experiences holding my own precious daughter for the first time and marveling at how much I loved someone so deeply after just meeting them. I leave you with that and hope you enjoyed my little guest review.  Sorry to my editior (aka Rick) for my long-windedness. :P

(Ed: Ha! You call that long-winded?)

SIGH.

My Name is Kelly Ames

and I Approve of This Movie