Skyfall

Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw

Dir. Sam Mendes
Scr. Neal Purvis, Robert Wade & John Logan

After the disappointing Quantum of Solace, fans have been holding their collective breath, hoping that Bond can be restored to the wonderful grittiness that was Casino Royale. Well, everyone can finally exhale – Mendes has delivered not only the best Daniel Craig Bond, but the best Bond outing …. (wait for it) …. ever. Well, maybe that’s overstating it, but not by much. Skyfall is not just a great Bond film, but a great action film, period – more than a sum of its Bond-ish parts, Skyfall walks a fine line and walks it well.

As is tradition, from the very opening scene, Skyfall drops us right in the middle of the action. Bond (Craig) is hot on the heels of a stolen list of undercover British agents, when he is shot and presumed dead. Of course, he isn’t dead and resurfaces when M (Dench) needs him most – MI6 is under attack, from an unknown enemy and from inside the corridors of political power. Bond is tasked with finding the list and restoring order to the universe.

It’s a pretty simple story, which is somewhat of a relief. The rule of thumb seems to be the more convoluted a Bond plot, the more awful the film. In Skyfall, the actions of a madman (Bardem) are driven by that most wonderful and visceral of motivations: revenge. And for Bond and M, this is a story of redemption and resurrection. This allows Mendes and his cast to delve, to reach down deep, and bring to the screen the most emotionally honest Bond to date. Sure, you don’t necessarily want every Bond film to be Skyfall, but this is a real emotional injection in the arm of a franchise which has certainly suffered from its fair share of two-dimensional characterisation.

Mendes also manages to navigate the fine line between a good film and a good Bond film. Without the knowing, and sometimes humorous, nods to the past, Mendes was in danger of making a film that simply wasn’t Bond. Without making fun, Mendes manages to homage the past and bring it right into the present.

The action on offer here is spot-on. Not too frantic or detached. But retaining a style and finesse that is all Bond. The whizz and bang of the London underground scene made my teeth rattle. I could have lived without all the product placement, and loudly scoffed at one particular moment when the camera lingered a little too long on Bond’s Omega wristwatch. But what’s a little mid-action advertising between friends?

For my money, Skyfall offers some of the best acting in a Bond film ever. Craig has already shown us he is more than cut out for this role and his performance here doesn’t disappoint. Dench is her usual wonderful and slightly cantankerous self. Bardem completes the oddly-Shakespearean trio, with a performance that possibly tops them all. Darkly camp, if there is such a thing, he is perfect. Fiennes is a welcome addition to the cast, giving a restrained and understated performance. Whishaw, as the new Q, is a delight. And Finney, well, I thought he was dead. Turns out, not so much.

I hugely enjoyed this film. I slapped my knee and whooped at one point, quite against my will. And the opening credits were simply the best (but being an Adele fan, I would say that). I highly recommend Skyfall, and not just to Bond fans. This is a fine action film with surprising emotional depth.

--------------------------

M: Dignity! To hell with dignity! I'll retire when my goddamn job is finally done.

Argo

Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan

Dir. Ben Affleck
Scr. Chris Terrio

Critics have piled praise on Argo, heaped it on, up to its eyeballs. I have to admit I was underwhelmed. The film does one thing very well – tension. I felt nearly physically sick from the opening scenes until near the end of the film. It’s uncomfortably tense, which is good. But aside from that … It just was. Not terrible. Just not particularly memorable either. If you have an interest in the era and the events, I imagine you’ll enjoy it, so by all means see it. And if you’re Canadian, see it – it’ll give you warm fuzzies.

Argo is based on true events. In 1979, angry revolutionaries stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage. A group of six escaped and took refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence, holed up for weeks while awaiting some sort of rescue. Enter the CIA and a plan so crazy that it just has to be true. CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck), posing as a movie producer scouting exotic locations for a sci-fi movie called “Argo”, attempts to retrieve his fellow Americans and leave Iran right under the noses of their wannabe captors.

Argo is a ‘film within a film’ film, a classic caper flick. And while there is certainly humour – some of it quite dark, some of it in-jokey – this is a pretty grim film. It’s sobering and, as I said, tense. Interestingly this doesn’t jar against the Hollywood satire elements of the story, although it certainly (on paper) had potential to. And all credit to Terrio and Affleck for this. While it doesn’t jar, it doesn’t always mesh either. It tends to jump around a bit too much not to be distracting.

My biggest problem, however, was that I just didn’t care enough. The onslaught and maintenance of tension didn’t necessarily equate to actually being concerned about whether the diplomats lived or died, were rescued or not. It’s a cold film, which is hardly surprising. But a certain something is lacking that meant not only didn’t I care, but I had also largely forgot about the film hours after seeing it. I accept that I seem to have taken up residence in an extremely lonely minority on this, but it is what it is.

The acting is mixed, though I don’t think it’s fatal to the film. Affleck is just fine as Mendez. He’s never going to set the world alight with his acting prowess, but he’s not awful here. And he has pleasing and era-appropriate facial hair. The actors playing the hidden Americans are largely forgettable, which is unfortunate and certainly problematic. There are some shining lights. Cranston, playing Mendez’s supervisor O’Donnell, is his usual excellent, watchable self. And Arkin and Goodman – the Hollywood connection – are funny and engaging.

Argo seems to be a little confused about what it’s trying to be. Is it a caper? Is it a docudrama? Should it have been funnier? Or less funny? For me, it didn’t gel and it certainly didn’t shine. And that’s seems quite unforgivable for a film with so much crazy plot potential. See it, by all means, I don’t care. I don’t recommend or not recommend. Which is an odd place for me to occupy.

--------------------------

John Chambers: You need somebody who's a somebody to put their name on it. Somebody respectable. With credits. Who you can trust with classified information. Who will produce a fake movie. For free.

Looper

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Noah Segan

Dir & Scr. Rian Johnson

I’m a complete and utter sucker for time travel movies. Often, though, they get so bogged down in explaining themselves, the joy of the whole idea is whittled away. Looper is certainly not without its faults. It’s hugely derivative, full of holes (pretty glaring holes, if you want to see them) and is, at times, unintentionally funny. But, you know what, I had a ball watching this film. Not your run-of-the-mill time travel tale, Looper has humour and thrills and horror and a pleasing amount of heart. The performances are all well above average and, in the case of the two leads (which are, errr, the same lead), stellar. A truly entertaining night out.

In the not-too-distant future, 2074, time travel has been invented and instantly outlawed. Offing people in this particular future is not an easy task, so the mob uses time travel to covertly send people back in time to be killed and disposed of by “loopers”. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a young looper, in a grim 2044, living the high life with the blood money he gets paid. The only way out of the business is to “close your loop” – when the loopers’ older self gets sent back for the younger self to kill and collect a massive pay check. When Joe fails to close his loop, letting Old Joe (Willis) escape, all hell breaks loose – both men are on the run, each trying to protect their own future.

This is a creative, surprising, thrilling film. Without offering up plot spoilers, it takes the audience in unexpected directions – it’s science fiction, sure, but it also has a healthy dose of horror thrown in. This isn’t jarring though – writer/director Johnson handles the action with ease and the story moves along at a pleasing pace. For a movie of just under two hours, it sure felt like he managed to get a lot in. Although we do get some Looper Universe 101 at the beginning, Johnson (to his credit) doesn’t get bogged down in explanation or revelation.

Sure, there are holes. I won’t go into detail, but let’s just say, time travel mythology isn’t easy. One glaring scene in the middle of the film hangs by a tenuous thread of explanation. And the whole second half of the film – where the two Joes exist in the same time, with largely their own memories – defies belief. This will frustrate some viewers, those of the pedantic persuasion. I suspect most will just let it ride. For me, there is an emotional weight to the film (lacking in so many of this genre) which makes its flaws much easier to forgive.

Much of that weight comes from some very fine performances. Gordon-Levitt transformed himself for this role. His appearance is only one part of this – he has Willis’s mannerisms and speech patterns down to a fine art. And it’s a credit to him and a boost to the film. Willis himself is somewhat against type. A not-so-nice man driven by pure selfishness to protect his future. We’re so used to rooting for Willis in movies; it’s refreshing to be conflicted. Willis also brings a lot of the emotional highlights. When he first does the particular thing that he thinks he has to do (sorry, vague I know, but it’s for your own good), his reaction is gut-wrenching and almost had me in tears. The conversation in the diner between the two Joes is a particular highlight for both actors. Blunt is, as always, wonderful. Tortured but utterly strong. Dano’s appearance is brilliant but all too brief as Joe’s fellow looper, Seth. And Daniels, as mob kingpin Abe, is delightful, with some of the best dialogue at his disposal.

This highly-stylised science fiction/horror/action film manages both depth and heart. Quite a feat. It’s compelling, entertaining and exciting. Highly recommended for anyone who likes the genre and recommend even for those who don’t.

---------------------

Abe: This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg …

Dredd 3D

Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey, Wood Harris, Domhnall Gleeson

Dir. Pete Travis
Scr. Carlos Ezquerra, Alex Garland & John Wagner

After the absolute debacle that was 1995’s Judge Dredd, it’s not surprising that no one has touched the comic book franchise until now. But with a legion of loyal fans, fans who tend to be men in their 30s and 40s with plenty of disposable income, Dredd and his fellow Judges were always going to appear on the big screen again. And, damn, it was worth the wait. Dredd 3D is ultra-violent, ultra-stylised and awfully good. There was even cheering and whooping in my screening. I’m already looking forward to the next instalment.

Set in a futuristic America, where daily violence and hardship is commonplace, the police from the Hall of Justice have the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner. Judges, as they are known, are uber-cops. And Dredd (Urban) is the most uber of them. Teamed up with a rookie with psychic abilities (Thirlby), Dredd takes on Ma-Ma (Headey) and her gang who deal in the reality-altering drug, Slo-Mo. Explosions and generally a lot of violence, along with a pleasing smattering of super-dry humour, ensue.

Dredd is both super ambitious and utterly unambitious. Each in perfect measure. As mentioned, taking on Dredd again after Stallone managed to mangle the character so utterly was a risky venture. And to do so in pricey 3D, with an 18 certificate and an unknown lead took some guts. But there is certainly a market for Dredd alongside the shinier Captain Americas and Iron Mans. Where Dredd is unambitious is its storyline. A snappy Future Reality 101 lesson and we’re into the action. And the action itself is confined to a single building block with a suitably evil villain and her henchmen. This simplicity suits the action and the mood very well. It’s bloody and violent and grimy and very effective.

The 3D, as much as it pains me to say, isn’t bad. Not overly gimmicky but, when it is, it’s pretty effective (mostly in portraying those high on Slo-Mo). I’m unconvinced that outside the Slo-Mo moments it adds a great deal, but it wasn’t too distracting.

There is, of course, a wonderful New Zealand connection that comes with this flick – Dredd himself. And Urban does a truly splendid job. Acting within the confines of a helmet that he (thankfully and faithfully) doesn’t remove, his strong jaw and serious scowl are perfect. He utilises the pause and tilt of the head to great effect. It would be so easy to descend into hamminess (see Stallone or, for that matter, don’t), but Urban manages to deliver Dredd’s signature lines with authority and subtlety. And his drier-than-dry comic delivery is spot on. Thirlby, as the rookie Anderson, is nowhere near as annoying as she has the potential to be. In fact, she does a great job as the very human face of the film. Headey is absolutely horribly wonderful as drug baroness and criminal queenpin Ma-Ma. And a very good turn from Gleeson, son of Brendan, as Ma-Ma’s troubled computer nerd.

Dredd is certainly not for general consumption. I had to hide behind by hands a couple of times. But if you can stomach it, see this film. This is how comic books should be adapted. It doesn’t try to be more than what it is. And what it is, is very entertaining indeed.

------------------------------

Judge Dredd: In case you have forgotten, this block operates under the same rules as the rest of the city. Ma-Ma is not the law... I am the law.

Jagten (The Hunt) - GUEST POST

Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen and Annika Wedderkopp

Directed by Thomas Vinterberg
Written by Thomas Vinterberg & Tobias Lindholm

Have you ever been accused of doing something that you know you didn’t do? Have you ever felt the cold, pitiful, disgusted stares directed at you simply for walking into a crowded room? Or, putting it another way, have you ever accused anyone else of doing something - without proof - and without thinking about the effects it can have on their life? Bold questions to start a review with, sure; but these become even more profound in the hands of a director as visually and narratively attuned as Thomas Vinterberg is in 2011’s Jagten (The Hunt).

Mads Mikkelsen is Lucas, a teacher forced to take a job at a kindergarten after his school closed. Divorcee, father to a teenage son, friend to many in his small Danish community, and unjustly accused by his best friend’s small daughter of molesting her, his once serene life is quickly upended by the hysteria that follows. The common, relatable life he leads is filled with such warmth that by the time the movie winds down 111 minutes later, you cannot help but literally despise the very place that sucks you in so convincingly in the first act.

And this is the main ‘problem’ with writing a review for The Hunt. How do you reflect on a film that is so unrelenting, so utterly bleak - that literally makes you feel sick to the stomach to watch - and still find positive things to say about it? In no small way is it due to Vinterberg’s maturity as a filmmaker. Gone is the forced ‘realism’ of the Dogme-95 movement that he founded with Lars von Trier; in it’s place is a sumptuously close style of filmmaking that is more authentic than The Celebration ever could be. Kudos must also be reserved for cinematographer Charlotte Bruus Christensen. Together, these two make the material so welcoming to look at that it becomes more bearable to watch. The real hero (unsurprisingly) is Mikkelsen, delivering what has to be his best performance to date. The Jury at Cannes clearly agreed, awarding him 2012’s Best Actor award for his profoundly real turn as the tortured soul who takes this film from good to great, all the while making it look like - forgive the pun - child’s play.

The film isn’t without flaws though. Holes in the plot, which other critics have drawn attention to in their reviews, manage to take the film’s impact down a notch. Lucas’ failure to call for legal assistance immediately beggars belief, as does his decision not to cut off all contact with his child-accuser and her family. These don’t cripple the film, but they certainly hold it back from being an entirely taut piece of cinema. It is hard to say whether this was all intentional, designed to play up Lucas’ own naivety, or simply a narrative misstep. Either way, it is jarring enough to distract you from an otherwise tidy tale.

The Hunt is not the first movie to make us look at how quick we are to judge others unreasonably. However, unlike the pretentiously unsatisfying Doubt (dir. John Patrick Shanley, 2009) which traversed similar territory, this latest offering from Thomas Vinterberg is a gripping, marvelous piece of cinema that manages to rub every raw nerving ending and eviscerate any hope for a happy ending that festers in a viewer more accustomed to syracuse-laden Burbank offings available at the mega-cinemas down the road.

------------

My sincere thanks to guest reviewer, Clark Hennessy, for taking my tickets to The Hunt off my hands and then showing me up by being a better reviewer ...

Into the Abyss; Bully; Searching for Sugar Man

Into the Abyss – Dir. & Scr. Werner Herzog
Bully – Dir. Lee Hirsch; Scr. Lee Hirsch & Cynthia Lowen
Searching for Sugar Man – Dir. & Scr. Malik Bendjelloul

Recently, at the Wellington International Film Festival, I took in a documentary threesome. All three reminded me how documentaries can move an audience and how powerful a voice a documentary filmmaker can have. And, no, I’m not talking about the likes of Michael Moore, who is too fond of seeing himself on scene for my liking. A good documentary doesn’t force a message down your throat. And while all filmmakers have a bias, a good documentary filmmaker owns up to it but doesn’t let it overpower the story. Into the Abyss, Bully and Searching for Sugar Man – three very different films – succeed to varying degrees. And when they do truly succeed, it’s quite something.

Into the Abyss is the latest from Werner Herzog (Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Grizzly Man, Encounters at the End of the World) and is an examination of why people kill and, in turn, why the state kills. Following the story of death row inmate Michael Perry (who is scheduled to die within days of filming), his crimes and those affected by his crimes, Herzog explores murder and capital punishment in a very personal way.

Bully is Lee Hirsch’s look at peer-on-peer bullying in American schools. He tells the tragic story of youngsters who take their own lives because of the trauma they experience at the hands of other kids. He also follows a few victims of bullying in their day-to-day lives, notably a socially awkward teenage boy called Alex. We are asked to not only examine and question the actions of the bullies, but the inaction of parents, school administration, law enforcement and communities.

Searching for Sugar Man is Bendjelloul’s debut film and follows the story of two South Africans who set out to discover what happened to 1970s singer/songwriter Rodriguez. Virtually unheard in the US, his homeland, Rodriguez is a legend in South Africa. A mysterious legend who they know next-to-nothing about. That’s all the description I’m willing to give. Trust me, the less you know about this movie going in, the better.

The filmmakers in each of these movies are largely invisible – just a voice asking a question. And, in my mind, the relative success of each film is largely based on how much they attempt to direct our outrage or opinion. Or, in the case of Sugar Man, how much they choose to reveal to the audience as the story is told.

For my money, Into the Abyss is the most successful of the three. Perhaps it is helped by having a seasoned pro at the helm. Herzog is a master. But even I was surprised by how little he seeks to colour proceedings. We know very early on his bias – he tells Perry he does not think the state should kill. And I know from interviews with Herzog that he is vehemently opposed to capital punishment. But he does not preach to the viewer. Into the Abyss is a grim, powerful, poignant film in which we are left to make our own judgments and reach our own conclusions. Without question, one of my films of the year.

The least successful is Bully. It is compelling and moving, for sure. But I felt hammered by the director. It’s hard-hitting and, I suppose, that’s the whole point. Hirsch’s aim, it seems, is to shame as many of the “baddies” of the story as possible. At times, it is less a film, more a campaign. But in its quieter moments – as we follow Alex in his efforts to simply blend in, or when we are introduced to a mature-beyond-his-years boy whose best friend killed himself – Bully is extremely human and utterly powerful. Just too selective and manipulative for my taste.

Somewhere beyond Bully but not quite in the same league as Abyss, is Searching for Sugar Man. A film I hadn’t even considered seeing until hearing an excellent and extremely cagey review by BBC Radio’s Mark Kermode. And, boy, I’m glad I did. And I’m even gladder he was so unforthcoming with the details. If you know Rodriguez and his music, this film will be a treat. And, if you don’t (as I didn’t) you’re in for a lovely surprise. Bendjelloul tells the story of the singer, weaving his music throughout the film, through the eyes of some of his biggest fans. And what a story it is. Sure, I’ve no doubt Bendjelloul has been somewhat selective (in fact, I now know this isn’t the whole truth and nothing but the truth). But I simply didn’t care. Sugar Man is an uplifting, amusing, rewarding film. And technically so good that I can’t wait for Bendjelloul’s next outing.

There are a lot of very bad documentaries out there. Preachy, predictable, tedious. These three films have a lot to offer and help to bolster my faith in the genre. I recommend them all.

The Bourne Legacy

Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach, Scott Glenn

Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy & Dan Gilroy

The Bourne trilogy – Identity, Supremacy, Ultimatum – were smart, visceral, tightly-plotted films. They challenged Bond to step up his game and made Matt Damon a truly bankable star. And I wasn’t really expecting more. So the idea of continuing the Bourne story without, you know, Bourne, was intriguing and a tad terrifying. Legacy is a good film. Some great action, solid performances, a spark of chemistry and a good (if somewhat convoluted) plot. But I left the cinema asking ‘why?’ and lamenting opportunities missed.

Legacy picks up towards the end of Ultimatum. While Bourne has come back to the US and is going after his creators, we are introduced to a couple of his fellow “outcomes”, including Aaron Cross (Renner). Because of Bourne’s actions, their continued existence is a liability. Armed with the knowledge that there is a target on his back and an overwhelming need to get more of the meds that make him what he is, Cross tracks down Dr Marta Shearing (Weisz). Together they try to outrun the shadowy forces that want them dead.

It’s not an easy story to summarise into a paragraph. The first 30 minutes are a whirlwind of intel and jargon. I don’t really see how this would be a rewarding movie-going experience if you hadn’t seen the first three instalments and some would say that’s a major flaw. I don’t disagree, but I have bigger fish to fry here. While it moves along at a clip and is a compelling film, Legacy really misses out on an opportunity. By the end of the film, the story is near identical to Identity. I just don’t know where they can go from here. What makes Bond work so well and for so long is that he is employed by someone. Sure, he falls out with his bosses frequently. But, ultimately, he’s answerable to something. What we have here is another story of a highly trained agent who wants to break free, does so, and now what? I fear the next film, if there is one, will be a rehash of Supremacy. And so on and so forth. They really missed a trick on potentially taking this story in a very different and interesting direction. And while the action scenes are thrilling, they are also copies of what we’ve seen before. In fact, the last hour is so similar I thought I was in the wrong film.

Having said all that, there are elements introduced in Legacy that viewers can really sink their teeth into. The conspiracy we have come to know in the first three Bourne films is certainly more sinister and far-reaching than we ever thought.

What I really can’t fault are the performances on offer. Renner is star waiting for a star-making vehicle. I’m not sure this is it, but he shows here that he can easily carry a big budget film and do so with depth and charisma. Weisz is extremely good in support and takes to the action like a fish to water. What’s more, there is palpable chemistry between them that draws the viewer in. Norton, the baddie of the piece (although, baddie is a relative in the Bourne universe), is cold and calculating and very good indeed. Characters from the previous films are incorporated with finesse.

Legacy is a good film. But, when it comes to Bourne, I expect more than good. I expect new and surprising and intriguing and thrilling. What we have is largely a rehash, which is disappointing. I will, however, watch with interest to see what they do next. Maybe Renner and Damon in a double-act big-bang finale? Stranger things have happened.

--------------------------

Eric Byer: Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg.