Change Your Image
krael74
Reviews
Casino Royale (2006)
It's amazing what story and good acting will get you
The beginning of the end for the Bond series was when the schtick began to overtake the story. Though generally entertaining, guys like Roger Moore, Dalton and Brosnan didn't have the swagger or acting talent to save the series from its descent into a parody of itself. Story took a back line to expensive casting. Acting took a back seat to looks. Gadgets and high dollar special effects were left as the only leg the series had to stand on, and in this era of excess, that leg wasn't a very strong one.
Daniel Craig is a workmanlike actor. He doesn't look the traditional part of Bond, yet this in itself makes him a shrewd choice to breathe new life into this franchise. He brings back to the Bond character the sobering fact that the man is a killer, and that his legendary confidence didn't come without its dark side. From the start, this movie dives right into a gritty, brutal groove. What tongue-in-cheek is salvaged is delivered with the sort of finesse Connery once brought this role. Real emotions and drama make their way back into the franchise, and the high dollar sports cars, tailored suits and designer martinis gain life in the backdrop, rather than serving the dominating effect of past efforts. The performances all around are commendable. Craig plays Bond without a care to what came before, yet with such confidence there is no doubt he is Bond. A brutal, headstrong, arrogant and yet troubled Bond, a dark Bond, the sort of Bond that might have been forged into the man he eventually becomes. If the Bond franchise is to be saved, this film was exactly the sort of remedy required. Bond has returned as a vital, interesting character rather than a glorified comic book hero. It works so well. While I can't say with assurance this is the best of the franchise, I find myself very hard pressed to name its superior. It certainly makes the Bond movies of the last three decades almost forgettable, and it has me looking forward to the next installment of a series I assumed all but dead many years ago. To all involved, a triumphant job!
Silent Hill (2006)
Fascinating
On the one hand, I could almost dismiss Silent Hill as another confused bundle of horror convention masquerading as a story, i.e. "The Grudge". However, as sloppy as the plot can get at times, I came away from the viewing tossing this movie around and around in my head. Not having played the video game upon which it is based, it's hard to tell how many of the story elements generated elsewhere, but for what it was I think Roger Avary has created an ambitious storyline that digs a little deeper than its B-rate subject matter. The look of the film is a beautiful mix of looks and colors, shifting smoothly between 'reality' and nightmares. Gans does an expected pro job with this, even lending his CG bogeymen a certain texture and presence many others have failed to do. At no point is the movie ever exactly terrifying, and I doubt Avary and Gans took this as their mission. It's an unsettling tale of darkness and the places it lives. The film never exactly ties together in a satisfying enough way to rate it higher than a seven, however I enjoyed the film and the effort enough to leave it with a healthy 6 1/2. If you like your 'horror' films thoughtful, this is certainly worth a watch.
Miami Vice (2006)
Michael Mann's Vice
It's strange to really enjoy a movie, yet recognize every valid criticism of it at the same time. With Michael Mann, this often proves to be the case. Going in, it was apparent Mann intended something very different than the TV show he helped bring to the screen two decades ago, and he achieved this. This Miami Vice is colder, darker and distant. The often good humored chemistry of Crockett and Tubbs has been replaced by a much less telegraphed partnership. As in many Mann films, the movie stays detached from its viewers. The plot is incredibly simple, yet the breathing space the film lays around it may confuse those looking for the something more they expect. The atmosphere is very tangible. The actors rely more on body language and expression than dialogue. The action comes in climatic bursts rather than steady pulses. For those who enjoy Mann, this movie has a lot to offer. The cinematography and shot selection are a beautiful mix of huge ocean spreads and ominous storm-lit night skies. The settings shift from one bit of eye candy to the next. The actors all put in solid performances, yet I was unexpectedly impressed with Farrell. His Crockett has none of the wisecracking edge Don Johnson's original portrayal contained, yet he brings home the raw emotion of the Crockett character with force and an impressive economy of dialogue. Given the rapidly shifting tempo of the film, he paints a familiar picture of the character without ever quite climbing up on the "hero" pedestal. Jamie Foxx puts in a steady, if abbreviated, job as Ricardo Tubbs. This was one aspect I had hoped for more of from the movie, as Tubbs' character is so understated as to be nearly background. Luis Tosar does more with his eyes than most villains do with words as the drug pin, Montoya and John Ortiz performs with shark-like rhythm as his henchman, Jose Yero.
Those who are not a fan of Mann's often disconnected and often abstract pace likely will become frustrated with this movie. Those who are looking for the chemistry and humor of the show will also find it lacking. However, if you enjoy the mood and restrained grit of a Mann crime drama, this has everything and more to satisfy that hunger. This is absolutely a pure Mann take on Miami Vice, and personally, it left me wanting even more.
Beyond the Wall of Sleep (2006)
Ugh
What makes Lovecraft stories interesting to me is the great sense of foreboding and mystery they manage to build. It's difficult with this offering to get beyond the abysmal acting, over-the-top editing and extraneous atmospherics that feel anything but something out of a Lovecraft story. The eventual monster looks like it was hatched from a Playstation. All in all there is nothing good to say about this movie. Even the stab at tongue in cheek drowns in overall poor movie making, fake blood and gore. Obviously this is a low budget movie, and obviously the director intended to play for some of the over-the-top acting, editing and production, but when the result merely feels cheap, humorless and tedious, I don't think merely having a low budget is enough of a defense.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Heavy-handed, leftist tripe
In vengeance and through the violence that created him, our 'hero' seeks to rectify the tyranny and injustice of a cruel government set in futuristic London, England. Of course, said government is conservative and all of the favorite leftist imagery follows. Nazis. Big brother on your TV screen. Martial law. Covert military and police brutality to silence critics. Mockery of Christianity and its figures. Most of all, our hero. With a theatrical flair and classically educated wit, he emerges as a savior against oppression. His offering? Anarchy. Chaos. All of this he couches in terms like "opportunity" and "hope", but what hope does anarchy ever offer beyond destruction and disorder? Never does our hero offer his vision for a brighter tomorrow. He is a reflection of his real-world counterparts. They have sarcasm and criticism, but never a better idea. They offer only deconstruction, never accord. He thrives by the same tactics as those who he fights, yet it is his example that offers that better, cleaner page? The snide parallels this movie draws to the current political situation are arrogant, melodramatic and clumsy. I find myself wondering if this movie's creators escaped their own secret police raid complete with black bag tied about their heads. Again and again Hollywood rails (but it's only a movie, right?) against the very system and liberties that afford them the privilege of making this swill for a living. It's amusing. Perhaps they would enjoy comparing notes with Cuban, Chinese or Russian dissidents on what real oppression is.
The acting, direction and action of the movie were well done enough, but the story itself was absurd and comically insulting. I can't get past that in rating it, so I give it the lowest possible. One star.
The Constant Gardener (2005)
Preachy bore
While technically a very well shot, acted and put together film, Gardener contains little of interest beyond a heavy-handed political cry from the pulpit. While loosely setting up as a mystery/suspense, there is little mystery involved in the plot and the suspense is fairly dry. The airy, disconnected progression sucks the life out of what little action or drama there is. The characters are all rather predictable and two dimensional and flashbacks steal most of the chemistry that might have been developed. As for the political message, it's the typical government-big biz out to destroy Africa. It never explores the ills Africans have delivered or allowed on themselves. Africa is again a helpless victim, and the white world is both their devil and angel. Of course, it's only a movie...and a very overrated one at that.
Undertow (2004)
Interesting, but tedious
These Hollywood fantasies of Faulknerian southern dysfunction are so repetitive, that the completely over-the-top backdrop for this train of thought style suspense piece almost comes off as a sort of parody.
This movie seemed to bring a lot of acclaim for its direction, which felt, at times, as scatter-brained as the plot eventually becomes. It wasn't surprising to see Terrence Malick attached to this. It has the same lost in a twisted daydream quality as some of his efforts, but with less success. The space between fails to come off as thoughtful. The trumped up meandering in mud, grime and spoiled humanity is desperately heavy handed. It screams for attention, rather than demand it.
The characters are empty, the plot is stretched beyond its bounds and all that is really left is some nice photography and a very nice soundtrack by Glass.
It's worth a watch, and it holds your attention throughout, but it's more like a goofy postcard than a movie. At least, that's one man's opinion.
The Last Samurai (2003)
A pretty bit of tedium
****Some Spoilers Follow****
Here we have the familiar "Dances with Wolves" cliche of the American so disgusted with the evils of his own country and past that he seeks enlightenment in a grossly misunderstood and embattled culture.
Despite the ruthlessness of their initial introduction, the Samurai are cast almost as misunderstood peasants forced to take up arms against an invasive enemy. Despite the fact that said enemy is the emperor himself, the suggestion of blame seems to lie more with western culture...who have poisoned a gentle people with their railroads and rifles. The samurai's reliance on the sword in the face of superior weaponry seems to personify this, but is not a sword - despite it's glamourous hollywood image - an instrument of butchery as sure as a gun? Are those who carry it not just as capable of abusing it? And wasn't it the Japanese emperor himself who requested the presence of the American officers to modernize his military? Yet we are treated to righteous rebuke of the Americans by the same emperor...as if it were they who had forced themselves on the defenseless Japanese.
Cruise's cynicism towards war seems to vanish after his turn. If taken as a rebellion against the acts he had seen and participated against in America, perhaps you'd have a more interesting character. Instead, his turn is treated as an awakening to a higher existence...never mind said existence is leaving just as bloody a trail as the one he left behind. The usual cereal-box treatment of eastern culture is tossed out complete with the gentle imagery of flower blossoms blowing on the wind, gentle snowfall and happy, running children only to be torn apart when the brutal, bullyish forces of the emperor (but not really) arrive to kill, torment and take up swords against little boys...and even among this, we're directed to a hired American officer for our villain rather than the Emperor.
Naturally, in the end, Cruise is the lone survivor of a massacre. Naturally, we're left with western culture to blame...as the American ambassador is sent packing with much bluster. It's familiar ground, just not as well executed.
The movie is nice enough to look at, but unless you go in for this "western root of all evil" hollywood cliche, I'd skip this one. At one point, our wicked Colonel Bagley asks Nathan Algren what he has against his own people. He doesn't answer. Neither does this movie.