Skyfall (4/5 Stars)

Arthouse Bond

M recites Tennyson; Q critiques an oil painting, Adele sings the theme song, and the villain displays homoeroticism and serious mommy issues. This is not your father’s James Bond and considering how this movie ends will probably not be your father’s Bond for several more movies.

What is a James Bond movie? I do not count myself as a huge expert in the franchise. I have seen all of the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig movies but only two or three of the Sean Connery ones and none from the 70s and 80s. What I can tell though is that they all have a similar format: Action Sequence: either escape or chase. If in cars be sure to run into fruit carts - Song and Credits – Mission Briefing – Gadgets – Exotic Locale – Exotic Woman - Disfigured villain with crazy plans – Action Sequence: guns if men, melee weapons if women – Sex – Action Sequence: explosions this time? – Pithy one-liners over martinis and poker – Action Finale: use any gadgets not previously used – Sex: if not all gadgets have been used, here is your final chance – Credits and hook for next movie.

Of course, the problem with any formula movie is that they tend to be formulaic. At the same time, if one tried to do something that strayed from the formula, they might capture the wrath of die-hards that flock to these movies to get just what they have come to expect. It’s the franchise paradox: Do something original and make the core audience uncomfortable or do something standard and succumb to a barrage of comments that the first movies were better. It’s a lose-lose situation (not counting the box office.)

It is kind of amazing then that “Skyfall” can be persuasively debated as the best James Bond movie in the fifty years of the franchise. It is actually debatable. Whether this is true or not should be left to someone who has seen all the movies. (Not me!) I do however feel comfortable in saying this: This is the best-looking James Bond movie ever.

In this sense, the franchise has embarked on something truly original. It has gone through the trouble of hiring an Oscar caliber heavyweight duo to be the director and cinematographer of this movie. I am speaking of Oscar Winning director (American Beauty) Sam Mendes and his frequent collaborator and perhaps the world’s best living cinematographer Roger Deakins. I do not know the name of many cinematographers but many a time I have seen a truly good looking movie, looked up the credits and found the name Roger Deakins. Amazingly he has never actually won an Oscar, but there is hardly a year that goes by where he has not been nominated for one. His list of nominated movies include: True Grit, The Reader, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Wasn’t There, O Brother Where Art Thou? Kundun, Fargo, The Shawshank Redemption.  I believe after Scorsese finally won for “The Departed,” Roger Deakins has rightfully taken over the title of most snubbed. He should be nominated for this movie it is about time that he finally won.

Outside of a Tarantino movie or something from China, this particular skill is rarely used in action thrillers. But here it is. When James Bond engages in a fistfight with a sniper on the 50^th floor of a building, they are silhouetted against a serene vision of skyscraper blue. When he tussles with some heavies and a couple of komodo dragons in a casino, the scene is ensconced in delicious Chinese red. Back in Scotland the moors are distinctively gray, bearish, and heavy with the past. When there are explosions, the characters are framed just right for the audience to feel the full effect of the raging fires. Take your girlfriend to see this movie and if she doesn’t approve of the sex and violence tell her she does not appreciate great art. How many times after a James Bond movie do you expect to truthfully be able to say that again?

But hey we did not see this movie for the beauty of it, did we? Let’s talk about sex and violence.

The action has thankfully been returned to “understandable” after that sojourn into chaos, which was “Quantum of Solace.” I especially liked how each set piece differed in the type of action from the chase scene in the beginning to the standoff in the end. It’s good stuff and people die well, especially the victim of that giant lizard.

The women are not especially memorable and Daniel Craig continues his trademark Bond style of not being particularly focused on swinging his way through his movies. This is the third movie in a row where a female is introduced, seduced and murdered (by the bad guys) in a span of let’s say five to ten minutes. In fact, I think it is fair to say the Bond Girl in this movie is none other than Judi Dench, as the MI6 boss, M. Her part in this movie is substantial as the bad guy’s plot revolves around specifically exacting revenge on her. Much has been said about the misogynistic nature of James Bond, but like “Casino Royale,” this movie provides an actual excuse for his behavior. Bond is already taken. He is married to England and M, well, that abbreviation may as well be for ‘mother.’ At least that is what the bad guy, a disgruntled ex-MI6 agent out for revenge, played by Javier Bardem, seems to think.

It has been noted before that the novelty of franchise movies is contained in its villains. They are after all are the newness of the installment. I think it is a less of an insult to Javier Bardem’s Julian Asssange tinged cyberterrorist and more of a big compliment to the sure-handed competence of the last three movies to say that Daniel Craig’s orphaned thug of a James Bond still remains the most interesting character in these stories. That’s a big thing. This is not just a great Bond movie; it is a very good movie in general. Not just for diehards, for everyone.

The Bourne Ultimatum 09/15/07

Pam Landy (Joan Allen) enters a hi-tech room in the CIA headquarters. She's greeted by David Straitharn who proceeds to introduce the rest of his staff, an entire room of techies stationed at a big desk with lots of computer screens. "Let's get to names later, What's the situation?" She asks. She is told and you know what, we never do find out who those people in the room are. They never are introduced. They certainly are yelled at alot by Straitharn, and they seem competent for his directives are always carried out, but they aren’t really characters in the movie. They are a modern movie cliché: A bunch of people in a control room who are shouted at and magically provide answers by typing rapidly on a keyboard. 
This is the third Bourne movie. The first two villains were Brian Cox and Cris Cooper respectively. We've got two more this time in David Straitharn and Albert Finney. If they make another one, I bet the bad guy will be Jon Voight. After that, who knows, I think they would have killed off every second tier dramatic elderly actor in the business. (Ian McKellan and Ben Kingsley maybe but I wouldn't call them second tier)
Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass reunite to give us not so much a movie as a really good television episode. By that I mean it didn't have any real gravity to it, no more extensive character development than an episode of the Sopranos. People do come to realizations, but you kind of get the sense that nothing substantial has changed. I don't think it would lose any intensity if they ran commercials through it every twenty minutes, maybe before and after every chase sequence, which is literally every twenty minutes. But I'm not just degrading the movie; I'm also complimenting it. An enormous amount has been done with very little and if it weren't in the sure hands of Damon and Greengrass this movie would not be worth seeing at all. 
This movie shouldn't be seen so much as it should be studied. It's the sort of movie that one would show in a film school. "Listen kids, this is how you film a car chase. This is how you stage a fight. This is how you shoot a roof chase in Morocco. Now all you have to do is add motivation." The techniques used here are ingenious and exciting in every way, and yes, if Greengrass directs it, I probably will see the next Bourne movie. It's a safe bet that I will get my heart pounding action and great dramatic acting. What isn't sure is that they'll offer closure of any sort. Like a television show it's afraid of any real change or character arc. They are deliberately inching their way to that point where the series 'jumps the shark' and they finally have to end the show.

A Good Year 01/16/07

resh: Ridley Scott's new movie is about a successful London stock exchange man, Russel Crowe, who inherits his uncle's French vineyard. He at first wants to sell it but after a good deal of nostalgia he decides to not only keep it but to move there leaving behind his old life.
This might seem like a cliche movie and it is, but the way that Ridley Scott tells it makes it feel like new. There's so many techniques he uses in the beginning part of the story that speeds up the story. Why? Because Max is a stock trader and is life is supercharged all the time. But as he spends more time at the estate the movie itself slows down. Most movies start slow and end fast. This one starts fast and ends slow. It's a very smart way to tell the story and it makes this movie worth seeing. It isn't a must see of any kind. But its a short, clean, and complete movie. Very good.
Of course another good reason to see this movie is the kid Freddie Highmore. He plays the young max and shares many a good scene with the really old Albert Finney. It was kinda cool to see the kid had grown since the last time I saw him in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I hope someday someone puts that kid in a movie with Dakota Fanning. I think that would be positively righteous.

Corpse Bride 10/02/05

This movie is beautiful. Beautiful in the way that is shall we say, Burtonesque. Does that say it all. I think it does. Mr. Burton has spent over twenty years now constructing his glorious and glamorous version of death and decay and has earned him the right of his own adjective. Let the dictionary now contain Burtonesque, and have this movie pictured right next to it. Like all of his movies, the strength is visual. A cascade of charicatures of characters and dazzling sights of the underworld. It has a certain real-life feel for the obtuse characters that only comes from the 3-D clay animation. The plotline here is not incredibly grand but complements the style well. The claymation acting is extremely well done, and moves unnaturally smooth. All the songs by Danny Elfman are enchanting. It's good all around. How we say a tight picture. As good as it can be. Nothing spectacular, but still nothing to miss.