For those who have yet to play Naughty Dog's fantastic Uncharted series- Go ahead and do that first. This film is nothing more than a thin companion piece, and it mostly doesn't work. To start with the good- Tom Holland is an entertaining and a not altogether bad casting choice for a young Nathan Drake. He is funny, energetic, and very watchable. He is about the film's only savings grace. Mark Wahlberg is totally miscast as Sully, but he is actually better than I thought he would be. The real problem with this film is it's paper thin plotting, writing, and characters. They put almost no effort into developing a compelling "search for lost treausre" story, and rush though just about every other aspect of developing believable characters, motivations, and backstory. The movie is basically just a few setpieces strung together. I enjoyed a few callbacks to the games, but the games were much better written and their stories and characters more fleshed out and more compelling. It's still an entertaining couple hours, and there is promise that with a new team behind it, a sequel could be better.
Reviews
24 Reviews
Nathan for You
(2013–2017)
Never fails to make me laugh
27 July 2022
Nathan for You is a completely unique and hilarious show. It often has me rolling with laughter. Nathan, a self professed business school graduate with "really good grades", helps struggling small businesses gain a new footing though his creative solutions. His strategies are completely unique and hilarious. What really makes them work is his deadpan delivery and commitment to carrying out the task at hand with buy-in from the business owners. He finds a way of twisting things just so- In effect holding up a mirror to our behaviors, norms, expectations, laws.. ideas of what is "typical", all to outrageous results. I can't recommend it enough.
Knight and Day
(2010)
Enjoyable
13 November 2021
I mean this movie was never going to win any awards, but that doesn't mean it's not a hell of a good time. Cruise is at his charismatic best, and he shows off some genuine comedic chops. Diaz is a charming and funny co-star. This film is great because it feels light on its feet. It's fast-paced, funny, action packed, and doesn't get bogged down in weighty, manufactured drama or overly convoluted plotting. Knight and Day achieves what it set out to do, and that's why I like it.
The Trial of the Chicago 7
(2020)
Good.. a little uneven.
31 March 2021
Good. But short of being great. Generally speaking, I'm a sucker for a courtroom drama. This one has an important story to tell, but the message gets a little lost due to confusing direction and only average writing. It is not Aaron Sorkin's most compelling work (I am a Sorkin fan, generally) It is still a well-acted, compelling film, and it hits the sweet spot when you need to be inspired by ordinary folks doing extraordinary things. I can't help but think this film would have actually benefitted from a more "linear" script (Think, A Few Good Men). The movie jumps back and forth in time as the court case drags on month after month. I don't think this style necessarily serves the storytelling - we end up waiting and waiting to find out a complete picture of what actually happened at the park- what is the major evidence cast against "The Seven"? All the while, we are tugged back and forth by the opposing legal teams and the ire of a particularly unreasonable judge. It is obvious we should be sympathetic to "The Seven", and agree that their cause is just - but without really knowing what they stand accused of, without knowing how the events played out, it's hard to know what we are rooting for, exactly.
Hidden Gem Amongst the Furious
7 January 2021
Tokyo Drift is a quaint little entry in the bombastic Fast franchise. It brings us back to a simpler time before the series went completely off the rails (admittedly, to fantastic results) In this entry an American teenager (Josh Lucas) moves to Tokyo to live with his father. He must learn to fit in with a decidedly different high school crowd and car culture. He comes to learn that in Tokyo racing is not about raw power or speed, but finesse, skill... Hey do you remember that movie on 'Airborne' that used to play on Disney Channel? With the rollerbladers and Jack Black? It's a lot like that, but in Japan. Replace the hockey and rollerblading with sweet drifting cars. Throw in the introduction of franchise favorite character Han (Sung Kang) and you have a winning formula. I like this one, and I believe you should give it a shot.
Wonder Woman 1984
(2020)
1984's 'Cracked Veneer' - A stronger message than you might think. But messy, long, and Inconsistent
26 December 2020
We are reintroduced to WW when she swings into a shopping mall in a hyper-glitzed neon pink and blue version of the 1980s. The crazes of the day are apparent -spandex, big scrunchy socks, and fanny packs. Nikes and Casio watches. Moustached men in light blue suits. Television blaring in every shopping window. Advertising in your face at every corner. The world presented is deliberately hyper-realized to bring our attention to this culture of "want" this culture of "more".
For her part, Gal Gadot's Diana works at the Smithsonian, an institution dedicated to the preservation of knowledge, to history, to education. She dresses glamorously in elegant suits rather than tight dresses, and it is clear she carries herself apart from the rest around her. She is joined at the museum by a new colleague Barbara (Kristen Wiig). Wiig is full of nervous energy. A doctor of anthropologic studies and a self-described geek. She is good natured but full of self-doubt. She sees Diana and strives to be that glamorous, that cool, that quietly powerful, without really understanding the origins of Diana's aloofness. It is clear early that Barbara's "want" is a desire easily hijacked by external forces - those who tell her what she wants to hear -that they can grant her wishes - to be different than she is, to be seen and heard, to be powerful and influential.
In parallel we are introduced to Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) a delightfully mad con-man selling oil futures on dry land to unsuspecting consumers. Television is his platform, and he uses his persona win the public over. His commercials make the public them feel special, to create desire. We soon see the cracks in his glossy veneer. He is in desperate financial straits. And struggles with his role as a father. He wonders how he can be a role model to his son if he is not a success.
The plot then revolves around these characters and the influence of a particular mythical stone - rumored to grand wish fulfillment to its possessor. Predictably, the stone arrives in the Smithsonian and quickly changes hands. Chaos begins to ensue, and the consequences are great.
The rest of the film is madness. There is plenty action, and the fish-out-of-water humor from the first film is reversed to clever effect. I won't spoil how Chris Pine is reintroduced into the narrative (it is no secret that he will appear - he is listed second in the opening credits) but suffice to say, the dynamic between him and Gal Gadot is still the strongest and most entertaining aspect of the film - and certainly the emotional core.
WW1984 suffers because it takes too long to make its ultimate point. The action gets too big to fast and everyone - characters, directors, writers, seem to loose control of the thing. From a technical level, the CGI seems a little wonky. There is something unfinished about the action in the film. And the sequences are not the most inspired.
Fans of the first film might be disappointed at the grand and unfocused arc of this one. The first film was lauded for being a tightly scripted war-story with a strong core cast of characters. This one is much less so. Frustratingly, this might actually help drive home the point.
WW1984 tackles the ills of a culture of greed and excess in a clever way, by turning the lens on our common desires for change, our wishes for what someone else has. The film asks: What do you sacrifice when you wish for something different, external to yourself? Where are these desires manufactured? Where is truth actually found? Presenting this hyper-glamourous vision of the 80s, a bunch of villains who capitalize on deception, and culture collectively imprudent and increasingly defenseless against consumerisms flights of fancy, we see a tragic superficiality to our reality. Then strength is found within ourselves, in self-love, not in a desire to possess. And love itself is something you give, something shared; it can never be something you take for your own.
For her part, Gal Gadot's Diana works at the Smithsonian, an institution dedicated to the preservation of knowledge, to history, to education. She dresses glamorously in elegant suits rather than tight dresses, and it is clear she carries herself apart from the rest around her. She is joined at the museum by a new colleague Barbara (Kristen Wiig). Wiig is full of nervous energy. A doctor of anthropologic studies and a self-described geek. She is good natured but full of self-doubt. She sees Diana and strives to be that glamorous, that cool, that quietly powerful, without really understanding the origins of Diana's aloofness. It is clear early that Barbara's "want" is a desire easily hijacked by external forces - those who tell her what she wants to hear -that they can grant her wishes - to be different than she is, to be seen and heard, to be powerful and influential.
In parallel we are introduced to Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) a delightfully mad con-man selling oil futures on dry land to unsuspecting consumers. Television is his platform, and he uses his persona win the public over. His commercials make the public them feel special, to create desire. We soon see the cracks in his glossy veneer. He is in desperate financial straits. And struggles with his role as a father. He wonders how he can be a role model to his son if he is not a success.
The plot then revolves around these characters and the influence of a particular mythical stone - rumored to grand wish fulfillment to its possessor. Predictably, the stone arrives in the Smithsonian and quickly changes hands. Chaos begins to ensue, and the consequences are great.
The rest of the film is madness. There is plenty action, and the fish-out-of-water humor from the first film is reversed to clever effect. I won't spoil how Chris Pine is reintroduced into the narrative (it is no secret that he will appear - he is listed second in the opening credits) but suffice to say, the dynamic between him and Gal Gadot is still the strongest and most entertaining aspect of the film - and certainly the emotional core.
WW1984 suffers because it takes too long to make its ultimate point. The action gets too big to fast and everyone - characters, directors, writers, seem to loose control of the thing. From a technical level, the CGI seems a little wonky. There is something unfinished about the action in the film. And the sequences are not the most inspired.
Fans of the first film might be disappointed at the grand and unfocused arc of this one. The first film was lauded for being a tightly scripted war-story with a strong core cast of characters. This one is much less so. Frustratingly, this might actually help drive home the point.
WW1984 tackles the ills of a culture of greed and excess in a clever way, by turning the lens on our common desires for change, our wishes for what someone else has. The film asks: What do you sacrifice when you wish for something different, external to yourself? Where are these desires manufactured? Where is truth actually found? Presenting this hyper-glamourous vision of the 80s, a bunch of villains who capitalize on deception, and culture collectively imprudent and increasingly defenseless against consumerisms flights of fancy, we see a tragic superficiality to our reality. Then strength is found within ourselves, in self-love, not in a desire to possess. And love itself is something you give, something shared; it can never be something you take for your own.
Quantum of Solace
(2008)
No Time to Mourn
30 November 2020
There is an enigmatic quality to Quantum of Solace. This iteration of Bond is rather elusive. I've probably seen 'Quantum' half dozen times now, and each time I am hard pressed to recall exactly what it was about, or what happened. Ordinarily I'd consider that a horrible sign. Yet I keep coming back to watch it. And for the most part I enjoy it. Maybe this is because Quantum operates in a haze. The film unfolds in the midst of Bond's grief and desire for vengeance following the events of Casino Royale (the tightest and best Bond film). As such, loose ends must be tied off, and Bond feels himself fated to a singular pursuit of vengeance, despite the consequences, despite the worthiness of that cause. Quantum is caught between a reckoning with the past and a desire to move Bond's story forward. The filmmakers wrestle with it, as does 007. The result is a messy, exciting, gorgeous, emotionally stunted, cryptic, weirdly tangential blockbuster. The movement of the story mimics Bond's single-mindedness. He operates with brutal efficiency, a recklessness born from anger and grief. The film drives home the point that Bond's own actions tend to bring about the destruction of those closest to him. Still, in his unwavering loyalty to M and country we catch a glimpse of goodness wrestling to the surface of a tormented soul. Quantum stays true to its opening chase sequence. It hits the gas early and rarely gives you a moment to stop and take a breath. The action is original and well-choreographed, and the scenery is vibrant and dripping with lavish detail. Olga Kurylenko captivates, and Judi Dench brings us home. Quantum is a flawed movie, but I keep coming back to it. Each time, I find a new nugget to chew on: some action sequence to appreciate, some line of veiled dialogue clarified, some subtle motivation understood. And at the very least, there are beautiful cars, beautiful scenery, and beautiful people to appreciate. It's hardly an excellent movie. Casino Royale that precedes and 'Skyfall' that follows are surely better. Then 'Quantum' may be viewed as a necessary stopgap in 007's story. It gives us a bit of closure to one chapter, and a tantalizing glimpse of the next, but is necessarily compromised and has trouble existing rightly on it's own merits.
Ad Astra
(2019)
The Weird Indie-Film Space Epic
25 November 2020
Look, you have to get a lot wrong for me not to enjoy a movie set in outer space. Ad Astra teeters right on the edge of total disaster. Yet there was just enough intrigue and grandeur to keep me captivated. It's a moody and bizarre film with some gorgeous scenery. I have no idea why Brad Pitt is in it. The script is half-baked. The plot is sometimes nonsensical. But I liked enough of it to recommend it. It scratches a certain indie-film-in-space itch. Just keep your expectations in check. This is not Interstellar. It's somewhat like...I don't know.. the 2013 film 'Enemy' ..depressing, psychological, bleak, you're not quite sure what the point is, but you don't totally regret it.
Before Sunset
(2004)
Revisit it, down the road
1 October 2020
I said this about Before Sunrise too - I really believe this movie (this series) is worth watching, and then revisiting, years later. As you grow and change, experience love and loss, you will take new meaning from this simple, hopeful, life affirming story. For me at least, a film like this can help me find my center, and from there, can be a beautiful little catalyst for change.
Before Sunrise
(1995)
Worth revisiting, years later
1 October 2020
This is a little gem of a movie, and I think that's well established by now. But I'm here to recommend, specifically, that you revisit it (and its sequals) every 5-10 years. I think you'll be surprised how much you've grown and changed, surprised how much your experiences with love and life have continually re-shaped your perspective, surprised at the new levels of meaning you can take from this simple, hopeful, life affirming flick.
Warrior
(2011)
Mighty
9 August 2020
Top notch performances, thrilling action, and it packs quite the emotional... punch.. (sorry).. Warrior is a film that transcends well-worn fight movie territory and ends up being an intimate and rather special family drama. My favorite movie of 2011. Just an overall excellent, tear jerking, uplifting, ferocious watch.
Lady Bird
(2017)
A sensitive, sharp, and funny film that doesn't quite transcend genre cliches
26 July 2020
What I appreciated most about this film is the it's confident sense of place and the intimate, nuanced family dynamic. The setting - in Sacramento, from our protagonists small home to the Catholic all girls high school she attends, comes alive. The director has a sharp eye for detail, and gives a warmth and tenderness to a place which astutely observes that polarity between comfort, family, and home, with shame, a striving for independence, a striving for experiencing love and life beyond a familiar small world. This setting is rendered with a lot of love and a lot of care. So too did I appreciate the family dynamic. Particularly, I thought the father's character, and the relationship between Lady Bird and her father, was subtle, believable, and beautifully told. Tracy Letts deserves much credit for a small and memorable performance. As of course does Gretta Gerwig, for her restrained writing and directing. The mother, Laurie Metcalf, too is an excellent character playing a central role in the story, and the more commanding figure in the household. (Which, on a second thought, I also very much appreciated - having experienced a similar household dynamic) I only thought the film was somewhat limited by Lady Bird herself. Saoirse Ronan gives a generally excellent performance, but the writing and character development is somewhat limited, or at least pales in comparison to the supporting cast (including her best friend played by Beanie Feldstein, who just commands the camera's attention) We don't get as much insight as I would have liked into why she is the way that she is - which is to say, a teenager, striving for independence, looking for love, navigating a transition from childhood to adulthood. Don't get me wrong, the detail is there for you to put the story together, but I would have appreciated maybe a scene or two that really let us see her vulnerability in a different way. The other overall nitpick of the film is that some of the comedy feels a little tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie. For example, Timothée Chalamet's character, a love interest for Lady Bird, is this broody and hilariously over the top angsty and arrogant kid. He's a pure caricature of "the cool kid", in a film that otherwise toes a deft line between sharp wit and realism. Lady Bird's first love interest, Lucas Hedges, is much more believable and interesting. Both serve a purpose in Lady Bird's character development, but one feels more in-line with the film's tone. A last thing I will say about the movie - I couldn't help but feel it followed a fairly traditional beat-by-beat teenage story. There is a promise that it will transcend genre cliche's, but it often hits the same expected story beats. The difference being, within a fairly unsurprising plot, there is a lot of detail and tenderness to grasp on to.
Ford v Ferrari
(2019)
A Crowd Pleaser
17 February 2020
Ford v Ferrari is nearly exactly what you expect it to be. In this case, that is not a bad thing. The performances are solid, the action is exciting, the stakes are high, and there is just enough background intrigue to create a meaningful central conflict. It's a crowd pleaser and a thrill ride, with appeal for just about anyone. The film never strives to be overtly political, nor does it push a strong social agenda. No, this is a movie about cars and the people who make and race them, and this is a story about American exceptionalism, akin to the space race or the miracle on ice; the difference being, the stakes are contained: Can Ford build a car that can take on Ferarri at Le Mans? And who is going to drive that beast? It's an America vs Italy story; a story of "creatives" - doers - the racers, the mechanics, the visionaries - vs business interests - cautious, profit and image focused. Who will win in the end?
Master of None
(2015–2021)
Powerfully, masterfully human. A funny and emotionally triumphant show.
15 January 2020
This review is primarily about Season 2. This is some masterful filmmaking. I was left quite literally heart sick, not just because I fell madly in love with Francesca, but because of how intimately human every moment is. It's emotional, tender, insightful, and very funny storytelling at its finest. Aziz and Yang and co. put on a clinic in writing and directing with artistry and heart. Master of None makes you feel more human, it makes you feel alive. This is one of the best things to come to Netflix, but more than that, it's one of my favorite series of television ever.
A little messy and erratic, but very entertaining
13 January 2020
This film is a little all over the map. It never stays at one speed for long, and it springs back and forth jarringly such that it almost feels like 3 act play written by 3 different Tarantinos. The mid-late film feels particularly rushed. Instead of the tension building to a natural crescendo, there is an overused narrator who advances time with a lot of exposition. All I could think was "Show! Don't tell." Despite the jarring tonal shifts and pacing that feels constantly unsettled. it is very entertaining throughout. The performances are solid, DiCaprio and Pitt both channel their star-power to great dramatic and comedic effect, and there is a fine supporting cast. Yet, Margot Robbie as Tate goes heavily underutilized, and it's bizarre. For the amount of screen time, she is little more than eye-candy, and she has no particular character arc or importance to the story. At the end of the day, I can't help but feel that this film didn't really have much to say. It feels overstuffed and indulgent. The commentary on Hollywood, TV/Film, Celebrity, Hippies, the 60s/70s is all pretty muddy. But, alas, it's still a very good time, and maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than a big Hollywood fantasy...a fairy tale created in Hollywood about Hollywood, and that's sort of the point and part of the charm.
1917
(2019)
Powerful, beautiful, but often contrived
11 January 2020
Initial reactions - I mean this is a gorgeous film with astounding set design, attention to detail, direction, and cinematography. WW1 comes to life. That much is not overhyped. But the plot often feels contrived. The sequence of events flow into one another without believability. The story hinges upon random things that happen to justify cliches that happens later to tug at your heartstrings (cough - the milk, for one) What could feel like a intimate, character driven war story, a small quest with high stakes, often feels like some like a odyssy like fantasy journey. I preferred the realism and temporal tension of Dunkirk. Where Dunkirk lacked in character building (albeit- deliberately) some may feel that this film took a bigger swing. But ultimately, Dunkirk stuck to it's guns and presented war as it was without telling you how to feel. 1917 often felt like it was desperately trying to make you care, trying to make you feel emotion, and it never quite worked. Very good, worth seeing, go see it, be entertained, be astounded, but recognize it's got a few issues.
Inside Llewyn Davis
(2013)
Reverberates with life, intimate, sad, and darkly funny
31 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The power of Llweyn Davis rests on dramatic irony, That a film can be so beautiful, intimate and resonant with the audience, but in the world of the film, Llewyn can't seem to catch a break, struggling at every turn to convince the commercial music world that his art has value, that he has value. Therein lies the black humor of the film and it is encapsulated in one specific scene, where Llewyn performs in Chicago in order to secure a record deal. Here we find just one man performing for another. Llewyn reveals his soul in a haunting folk melody. The camera slowly creeps in, until nothing exists but Llewyn and his music. The camera then creeps in on the music manager, until it's us and his eyes, dead focused on Llewyn. The performance ends, the viewer enraptured, and then the music manager remarks, "I don't see a lot of money here." It's a brutal and ironic punch to the gut for both Llewyn and the audience. But there is also a redeeming message here. That your soul, your art, is valuable beautiful and incorruptible, despite what you may have come to believe about yourself by how the world treats you.
Immensely Satisfying Conclusion
27 December 2019
This was an immensely satisfying conclusion to the Star Wars saga. Emotional, thrilling, character driven action with just enough classic Star Wars humor and surprising series callbacks. I really do not agree with any of the review bashing happening right now. I urge you to ignore critics and see it for yourself. Hell, ignore me too. Just remeber the internet haters will never be pleased, their expectations never satiated; they had it out for this one. I think it is bogus. This movie rocked.
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
Had potential, ultimately fairly dull and poorly executed
28 October 2019
This is the kind of film that looks fantastic in a trailer. Then you realize that unlike a trailer a feature length film relies on two hours of good acting, dialogue, visual effects, and a script/premise that actually makes sense and captivates an audience on an emotional level. In Prometheus the pieces never quite came together. There is potential in this film. It's certainly not unwatchable. But even with all the Alien intrigue and space action, it was a messy, confusing, and rather dull affair.
The Equalizer
(2014)
Better than expected
26 October 2019
I really enjoyed this film. Denzel Washington proves time and time again he has immense talents, transforming what could be a generic action thriller into something fun and surprisingly emotional. I can't imagine this movie being nearly as good without him. His character moves from gentle and sympathetic to intense and heroic, with frightening efficiency. The movie never fully overcomes genre tropes, but it is a fun ride nonetheless.
At its core, this is an "old man getting dragged back into the game" story, and it spends enough time building a well-realized character with believable motivations. Denzel works a day job at a large hardware/home store, and spends late nights reading at a 24 hour diner. He takes sympathy for a young girl who is involved in a bad way with some Russian dudes. The story soon spirals into "Denzel takes on everyone". He believes is justice and acts as a moral arbiter for the everyday person, the down and out. The action often revolve around Denzel surveilling and taking out bad guys with old-man resourcefulness, incorporating every-day tools and home-goods into the violence. In a way, this is "suburban Dad dream film", and as such, you don't have to take it too seriously.
My major gripes with the film: The main villain is a cartoonish baddie. He is one dimensional and boringly evil. Also, every Boston accent is a travesty. Even for hollywood Boston accents this is not good (Denzel Washington shrewdly avoids attempting one).
At its core, this is an "old man getting dragged back into the game" story, and it spends enough time building a well-realized character with believable motivations. Denzel works a day job at a large hardware/home store, and spends late nights reading at a 24 hour diner. He takes sympathy for a young girl who is involved in a bad way with some Russian dudes. The story soon spirals into "Denzel takes on everyone". He believes is justice and acts as a moral arbiter for the everyday person, the down and out. The action often revolve around Denzel surveilling and taking out bad guys with old-man resourcefulness, incorporating every-day tools and home-goods into the violence. In a way, this is "suburban Dad dream film", and as such, you don't have to take it too seriously.
My major gripes with the film: The main villain is a cartoonish baddie. He is one dimensional and boringly evil. Also, every Boston accent is a travesty. Even for hollywood Boston accents this is not good (Denzel Washington shrewdly avoids attempting one).
A Few Good Men
(1992)
One of my favorites
29 May 2018
This is one of my favorite movies, and one of the best courtroom dramas ever. I can watch it over and over again. It's one of those movies that if I flip the channel and it's on, welp, that's it, I'm going to end up watching the entire thing. (Also in this category: Apollo 13. The constant? Kevin Bacon!) .. A Few Good Men is gripping. It's one of those rare films that is built almost entirely on it's dialogue, and succeeds brilliantly. The script is intelligent and thoroughly engaging. The directing is crisp and suspenseful. The performances are top-notch. Specifically, this is some of Tom Cruise's best work. There are, of course, a few unforgettable quotes, but the build up to these scenes is what makes them unforgettable. As the viewer, you feel like your fighting for justice right along side the cast. Their battle becomes yours, and the movie is all the more powerful for it.
Spy
(2015)
Genuinely funny. Don't overlook Spy.
13 May 2018
This is one of my favorite comedies in the last few years. Genuinely funny all around. My favorite Melissa McCarthy performance, as the likeable every-day hero. Jason Statham and Allison Janey provide a hilarious contrast, often stealing the scene with their supporting work. Spy plays out like a espionage thriller with an deft comedic touch. This movie surprised me with its humor and heart, and if you missed it, definitely check it out.
Spectre
(I) (2015)
A sensory splendor and emotionally impactful story, let down by ambiguous scripting
30 March 2018
This might not be the best Daniel Craig Bond, but it is a great film none-the-less, a visual and auditory feast, which is let down by its script, which could have brought further clarity to what is an emotionally impactful story.
Firstly, the film is technically and artistically stunning showpiece. It continues the Bond globe-trotting experience. Each location is worthy of acclaim. From the opening Day-of-the-Dead sequence in Mexico City, to the closing credits, Spectre is striking. I'm not just talking about the static scenery either. The action is well-choreographed, suspenseful. and, given Bond's penchant for against-the-odds survival, the set-piece moments finely toe the line between 007 and over-the-top outrageous. Even in it's most frenetic, the action is visceral and not reliant on obvious cgi, so 'believability' ultimately wins out. Similarly, the music elicits a awesome and suspenseful chord. There is a constant undercurrent that builds the films tone of looming, pervasive background threat.
On that note, the villain of this film is a throwback to Bond of old but represents a greater universal fear, anxiety brought on by all-seeing-eye of the information age. MI6 too is under attack, by threat of irrelevance, by way of technological progress, and some key architects of this progress. Bond's character is shaped by this impending threat, and the villain looming in the background. HIs tragic existence as a 00 agent is brought into light here.
Bond wrestles with the demon of profound loss, his loved ones jeopardized by the life he chose to lead as an agent. As we come to learn, the film's villain is somewhat like a puppeteer, pulling the strings behind Bond's life and loss. At first glance, this does a disservice to Bond's story, alleviating his guilt by giving him a clear scapegoat for his pent up grief. But, as we come to learn, this connection is not arbitrary, but crucial to Bond's upbringing. As in Skyfall, we are given just a glimpse into Bond's past, of a time when he more human than agent. If throughout the film Bond appears traditionally disconnected, stoic, and dangerous, defined by his desire for cheap thrills of women, drink, and violence, at the expense of those he cares for, that guise in more transparent than ever, and in the cracks in his facade, we glimpse the humanity he wrestles with.
For despite his roguish actions, Bond's fondness for Money-Penny, Q, and M, as well as his reverence for country and honor, are on display as well. He brings the crew into his world by bestowing upon them trust. He allows them to help him, a rarity for a man who built his life and career upon distrust in the world and others. Though this display of trust, Bond reveals his true colors. These MI6 relationships are the backbone of the movie, heightened by excellent work from Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, and Ralph Fiennes.
Ultimately, despite all that I enjoy about this film. I can't help but feel the the script relies too heavily on cliche and ambiguity. I ask: Would it have better served this film to make the storytelling a bit more transparent to the viewer through richer dialogue and character motivations? Spectre's deeper themes may rely too heavily on visual language and extended metaphor to usurp the one dimensional traditional Bond tropes on display . On the other hand, this film is a sensory experience, and perhaps the ambiguity of the scripting and superficial gloss serves to reinforce the themes at play. As one must look beyond Bond's obvious actions to understand the man inside, the viewer must search beyond the film's veneer to uncover the emotional resonance.
Firstly, the film is technically and artistically stunning showpiece. It continues the Bond globe-trotting experience. Each location is worthy of acclaim. From the opening Day-of-the-Dead sequence in Mexico City, to the closing credits, Spectre is striking. I'm not just talking about the static scenery either. The action is well-choreographed, suspenseful. and, given Bond's penchant for against-the-odds survival, the set-piece moments finely toe the line between 007 and over-the-top outrageous. Even in it's most frenetic, the action is visceral and not reliant on obvious cgi, so 'believability' ultimately wins out. Similarly, the music elicits a awesome and suspenseful chord. There is a constant undercurrent that builds the films tone of looming, pervasive background threat.
On that note, the villain of this film is a throwback to Bond of old but represents a greater universal fear, anxiety brought on by all-seeing-eye of the information age. MI6 too is under attack, by threat of irrelevance, by way of technological progress, and some key architects of this progress. Bond's character is shaped by this impending threat, and the villain looming in the background. HIs tragic existence as a 00 agent is brought into light here.
Bond wrestles with the demon of profound loss, his loved ones jeopardized by the life he chose to lead as an agent. As we come to learn, the film's villain is somewhat like a puppeteer, pulling the strings behind Bond's life and loss. At first glance, this does a disservice to Bond's story, alleviating his guilt by giving him a clear scapegoat for his pent up grief. But, as we come to learn, this connection is not arbitrary, but crucial to Bond's upbringing. As in Skyfall, we are given just a glimpse into Bond's past, of a time when he more human than agent. If throughout the film Bond appears traditionally disconnected, stoic, and dangerous, defined by his desire for cheap thrills of women, drink, and violence, at the expense of those he cares for, that guise in more transparent than ever, and in the cracks in his facade, we glimpse the humanity he wrestles with.
For despite his roguish actions, Bond's fondness for Money-Penny, Q, and M, as well as his reverence for country and honor, are on display as well. He brings the crew into his world by bestowing upon them trust. He allows them to help him, a rarity for a man who built his life and career upon distrust in the world and others. Though this display of trust, Bond reveals his true colors. These MI6 relationships are the backbone of the movie, heightened by excellent work from Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, and Ralph Fiennes.
Ultimately, despite all that I enjoy about this film. I can't help but feel the the script relies too heavily on cliche and ambiguity. I ask: Would it have better served this film to make the storytelling a bit more transparent to the viewer through richer dialogue and character motivations? Spectre's deeper themes may rely too heavily on visual language and extended metaphor to usurp the one dimensional traditional Bond tropes on display . On the other hand, this film is a sensory experience, and perhaps the ambiguity of the scripting and superficial gloss serves to reinforce the themes at play. As one must look beyond Bond's obvious actions to understand the man inside, the viewer must search beyond the film's veneer to uncover the emotional resonance.
Tell Your Friends