The Lego Batman Movie

Spectre

Skyfall

Directed by Sam Mendes.

2012. Rated PG-13, 143 minutes.

Cast:

Daniel Craig

Judi Dench

Javier Bardem

Ralph Fiennes

Naomie Harris

Bérénice Marlohe

Albert Finney

Ben Whishaw

Ola Rapace

Bill Buckhurst

Skyfall opens with the death of James Bond (Craig), in spectacular fashion, of course. No worries, or spoiler alert necessary. His condition doesn't last long. After all, this is a 007 movie. You just can’t go killing him before the opening credits. Besides, both MI6 and M (Dench) are in great danger. Who else is gonna save the day? However, the genius of this movie is that it’s not really so simple as the hero saving the day, despite appearances.

Someone has stolen a list that reveals the identities of all of MI6’s undercover agents around the world and is fond of sending M personal, if cryptic, messages. This is a big problem, as you might imagine. The already difficult task of retrieving this list and/or tracking down the person responsible is made that much more so by the fact that our hero is suffering from fairly significant physical and emotional issues.

Beginning with Bond himself, extending to M, the entire movie is a dissertation on old vs. new. The franchise itself has long understood that its main character is a relic of the Cold War. He is even referred to as such in one of those abysmal Pierce Brosnan outings. Here, the point is driven home. MI6 is under fire from its own government for being antiquated and clinging to its old ways. We’re also reminded numerous times that Bond is not of this generation. His time seems to have past. As evidence, his edges are more frayed than ever before. Daniel Craig continues to play the role brilliantly, both as a man and a super-spy. With three 007 flicks under his belt, it’s debatable whether or not he’s the best Bond ever. It’s inarguable that his is the most human rendition of the character. And the actor is not alone on his quest to make this true. He’s been given scripts that not only allow him to bleed, but to actually feel.

No matter how much emotion our hero has to deal with, it couldn't be a great Bond movie without heart-pounding action and an eccentric villain. The action is terrifically ridiculous. All manner of vehicle is given a whirl, most notably trains. Lots of fun with trains. There’s lots of exciting hand-to-hand combat and plenty of shooting. Oh, and we have some rather large man-eating lizards. The only drawback in the action department is the best sequence opens the movie. We keep hoping something will top it, but none can. What happens with the helicopter during the last big set gets closest. Still, it’s all loads of fun.

As far as our bad guy, Silver, he’s gleefully played by Javier Bardem who brings his usual excellence to the role and has fun with it. Unfortunately, he may have a little too much fun. Silver comes off more amusing, if creepy and eventually pathetic, than menacing. True, he puts our hero into some harrowing situations. I’m just not so sure he inspires feelings of dread. That’s a bit disappointing since the same actor gave us one of this century’s most frightening film villains in No Country for Old Men.

Luckily for us, this is the rare Bond film that doesn’t sink or swim based on its bad guy. That’s because, at the end of the day, Skyfall is probably the most self-aware Bond film ever made. Of the three Daniel Craig entries into the canon, two of them are excellent. The first, Casino Royale, is a brilliant series reboot. Also self-aware, it purposely avoids the cheesiest and most over-the-top aspects of the franchise. Most noticeably, Bond’s gadgets, which the Brosnan flicks were overrun by, are nowhere to be found. In their absence we begin to delve into the psychology of the character along with the action. This is where some tenets of Bond, such as his love for scotch, are no longer seen as just things that a cool and manly super-spy does. Quantum of Solace, an incoherent mess, is the oddball. It’s somewhat enjoyable, but a far cry from its predecessor. Skyfall is a return to greatness. It continuously questions its own place in today’s world. It questions the way its hero and, by extension, the movie itself goes about its business. It even gives us a few gadgets, simultaneously paying homage to Bond’s glorious past and wondering whether they have any place in his future. Even M must face this same judgment, both explicitly by members of Parliament and within the film’s subtext. Much more than just another Bond flick, or an excuse to showcase shootouts and car chases, this is a movie that recognizes the status of its protagonist as a pop-culture icon and his battle to stay relevant.

Wrath of the Titans

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman.

2012. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.

Cast:

Sam Worthington

Liam Neeson

Rosamund Pike

Ralph Fiennes

Bill Nighy

Toby Kebbell

Édgar Ramirez

Danny Huston

Lily James

John Bell

Kathryn Carpenter

Even though he’s half-god, Perseus (Worthington) has made it clear to his father Zeus (Neeson) he wants nothing to do with those snobs on Mount Olympus. Still, the old man comes sniveling back, begging Perseus to save their hides. Zeus’ dad Kronos is a little ornery over being defeated by his boys eons earlier and wants a return match. After Kronos starts killing off gods and threatens both the gods and man alike, you know who reluctantly joins the fray. He enlists the help of Queen Andromeda (Pike), her army and his cousin, fellow half-god Agenor (Kebbell). In case you’re somehow not sure, this is the sequel to the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans.

That last sentence sums up a lot of what people think is wrong with Hollywood. It’s what they point to as evidence of the movie industry’s lack of original though. This is particularly true of the blockbusters flooding the multiplexes every summer; an endless procession of sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and re-imaginings heavy on techno wizardry and light on substance. These generalizations might seem unfair in a review on any one film in particular. However, Wrath of the Titans must wear the shoe it fits.

Sam Worthington adds another to his repertoire of bland protagonists. Liam Neeson does what Liam Neeson does: use his booming voice to give his character an air of authority. However, he spends most of the movie on the sidelines. Pike just looks pretty as Queen Andromeda. Most bizarrely, Kebbell as Agenor seems to be impersonating Russell Brand. As simple as the plot seems, its execution is jumbled. It doesn't always make sense and a general mess is made of Greek mythology. In short, stuff just keeps happening whether it’s logical or not.

On the plus side, that stuff keeps the movie somewhat interesting. There is tons of action as our heroes try to save both the Earth and the heavens. Creature designs are generally fantastic and they tear up things pretty well. The one exception being our main baddy. He’s a little too out of whack with everything else and getting anywhere near him should cause death. Sadly, it doesn't because then our hero wouldn't be able to be heroic. There is some heavy-handedness about father-son and sibling relationships. Honestly, this doesn't bother me since it at least makes sense. More troublesome is the weirdly atheist undertones. As I've said in reviews of other films there are good, even excellent movies from that point of view. The problem here is it feels needlessly subversive to its own subject matter. Combined with all the poetic license taken with the characters we get the feeling the people who made Wrath of the Titans don’t exactly appreciate Greek mythology.

Much like its predecessor, Wrath isn't the worst movie in the world. It’s just not a good one, either. The visuals work very well. Full disclosure: I did not watch either of the franchise’s movies in 3D which I’ve heard complaints about, especially in regards to the first film. The action keeps things moving along nicely and it’s thankfully short at ninety-nine minutes. Unfortunately, the characters are dull and/or given nothing to do and what’s happening around them doesn't always add up.

MY SCORE: 5/10 

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Directed by Louis Leterrier.
2010. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Sam Worthington
Liam Neeson
Ralph Fiennes
Gemma Arterton
Jason Flemyng
Alexa Davalos
Mads Mikkelson
Izabella Miko
Luke Evans

In Ancient Greece, mankind and the gods are pissed off at each other. The Gods think we’re a bunch of ingrates that need to be taught a lesson. We’re behaving…well…like a bunch ingrates that need to be taught a lesson. Of course, there is that thing about Zeuz (Neeson) coming down from Olympus and sleeping with some dude’s wife. Why would a god, the most powerful of the gods, stoop so low? Because he can, silly. Anyhoo, Zeus’ little rendezvous begets our hero, Percy Jackson…er…Perseus (Worthington).

Perseus has got his own issues. He’s all moody because Zeus is a deadbeat dad and the first time he meets his old man, pops asks him to move in like nothing ever happened. The nerve. So, feeling more than a little rebellious, Perseus joins us mere mortals and discovers he might be the only one who can stay out past curfew, I mean kill the Kraken. For ancient Greeks, the Kraken is kind of like the boogie man, only it’s about the size of Delaware with countless arms and teeth plus a very nasty disposition.

The special fx make it gorgeous to look at. I’ve heard all sorts of bad things about how the tacked on 3D effects ruined it in the theater. I saw it in plain old 2D on the very nearly obsolete DVD format and it looked great. The one letdown being the cartoon character they tried to pass off as Medusa (Natalia Vodianova).

Story-wise, it’s dull. Even if you’re not familiar with Greek mythology there’s still no mystery. We find out very early all we need to know. And I hate to come back to this, but if you’ve seen Percy Jackson or the 1981 original CotT or bothered looking at the movie poster or DVD cover then you either already know or figure out very quickly how our hero is going to be heroic.

Sadly, that hero doesn’t have the charisma to negate such a problem with the story. Maybe it’s just me, but Sam Worthington seems to have become the go-to-guy for action movies requiring bland leading men (he starred in Avatar and Terminator Salvation). His look is reminiscent of a young Russell Crowe. Unlike Crowe, Worthington never compels you to watch him. He’s simply there, dutifully blending in with all the techno-wizardry on display.

When it’s all said and done, the remake lacks the campiness and silly fun of the original. However, it amps up the special fx and is still an entertaining watch. There’s just a lot lacking between the action. It’s better than the present day set, unofficial remake Percy J, but that’s not saying much.

The Opposite View: Richard Corliss, Time

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (8/26/10), 29% on rottentomatoes.com, 39/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

The Reader

The Reader
2008. Rated R, 124 minutes.
Director: Stephen Daldry.
Starring Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes, Lena Olin, Jeannette Hain.

Plot: In 1958 Germany, 15 year old Michael has an affair with 30-something Hanna which has a profound effect on both of their lives. At her request, they develop the habit of Michael reading aloud to her before sex. A few years later, they cross paths again. This time, her past comes to light causing Michael much stress.

The Good: You can't begin to discuss this movie without mentioning the performances. Kate Winslet proves she is one of the very best actresses of her era, once again turning in stellar work and earning her first Oscar (Best Actress) in the process. She deftly portrays Hanna as a woman with both a horrendous past and an embarrassing inability. To his credit, director Stephen Daldry handles both well. He reveals her past in a painful instant and hints at her inability but doesn't fully divulge it until it becomes relevant to the story. Now, back to that acting. The unsung hero of the cast is David Kross as the younger version of Michael. Watching him grow from a wide-eyed teen to a jilted lover and then a torn man is a joy. His work renders Ralph Fiennes, who plays the older Michael, little more than a placeholder. Finally, even though its unabashedly a tragic romance, it never resorts to the histrionics of melodrama. This makes the characters feel as if they're people reacting to real situations instead of performers going for their big moment.

The Bad: Two aspects of the movie that could've elevated it are left largely underdeveloped. First, there's young Michael's relationship with his family. It's introduced and peeked at, promises to add an interesting layer but is abandoned abruptly. Second, older Michael's relationship with his daughter needed to be either greatly expanded to build upon the parallellability of his with Hanna or cut out completely. As is, it just seems like a superfluous epilogue.

The Ugly: Young Michael's family dinners - talk about tense.

Recommendation: This is a very good movie but seems to have gotten its Best Picture nom on the strength of it's performances and the fact that it deals with one of the Academy's favorite subjects, the Holocaust. That said, its still a solid drama telling an intriguing story, just not one of my five faves of the year. Prudes beware, Winslet and Kross spend much of the first half of the movie naked.

The Opposite View: Julie Rigg, Movie Time - ABC National Radio

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (6/8/09), 62% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10