Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service, #994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 

"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Logan Lucky.

Review #984: Logan Lucky.

Cast: 
Channing Tatum (Jimmy Logan), Adam Driver (Clyde Logan), Daniel Craig (Joe Bang), Seth MacFarlane (Max Chilblain), Riley Keough (Mellie Logan), Katie Holmes (Bobbie Jo Logan Chapman), Farrah Mackenzie (Sadie Logan), Katherine Waterston (RN Sylvia Harrison), Dwight Yoakam (Warden Burns), Sebastian Stan (Dayton White), Brian Gleeson (Sam Bang), Jack Quaid (Fish Bang), and Hilary Swank (Special Agent Sarah Grayson) Directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film that I did not see too much promotion for until roughly a week before its release, but I was still interested due to the fact that it seemed to have an interesting cast assembled; while it may not be the biggest success with audiences, I found this to be a neat little caper, having just enough turns and laughs to serve for good entertainment. The main cast (Tatum, Driver, Keough, Gleeson, Quaid, and Craig) have good chemistry with each other, inspiring some laughs because how offbeat (but fitting) these characters are in how they do a caper inventive as this; one of my favorite scenes is Craig explaining the principles of what makes the "bang" to the others. The film is inventive enough to let these characters operate without trying to give them some sort of "sympathy moment"; even the parts with Tatum and his onscreen daughter (Mackenzie) seem charming and relatively useful. The way the film is structured is also commendable, having a good amount of finely set characters and a pace that never drags its cast nor its story in the turns that the heist has. The other members of the cast are fine, with Yoakam, Gleeson and Quaid being pretty amusing in their roles. The film's climax is perfectly satisfactory, even if the parts with the two FBI agents is a bit sluggish (though at least Swank is fine); the (brief) parts involving MacFarlane and Stan aren't too great, though the latter's scene prior to the race is pretty amusing. The film's ending does seem to hint at a sequel (future note: sorry), and whether there is a follow-up or not to this story and its characters, this is undeniably a good experience that has enough charm and brilliance to work at least for now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Skyfall.

Review #572: Skyfall.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Judi Dench (M), Javier Bardem (Raoul Silva), Bérénice Marlohe (Sévérine), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Albert Finney (Kincade), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Ola Rapace (Patrice) Directed by Sam Mendes.

Review
Skyfall tries to do two things: Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Bond franchise without going overboard (I'm looking at you Die Another Day), and to try and make people forget about Quantum of Solace and get back to what makes Bond work. Does it do its goals? Yea, pretty much. Without completely veering off into how even though Quantum of Solace tried its hardest to bring a theme of coldness and still entertain and fail, Skyfall manages to be fun to watch and have a level of change. By the time this film ends, we have a new Q, a new Moneypenny...and a new M. The gadgets are simple (a gun that only firs to the one who holds it and no else and a radio), but the villain is complex, yet enjoyable to watch. Bardem can be energetic to watch, but he can also be a chilling equal to Bond. Daniel Craig is magnificent, it seems he has grown into this role fully, and he works especially well with Dench, who is given more time and therefore is given her moment to shine in Dench's swan song as M. Fiennes is entertaining in the amount of time he's given, and I do look forward to seeing him in the next film soon. The realization of what exactly Skyfall means is a nice twist. In the end, this a good way to continue the franchise that has been chugging for over 50 years now, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Skyfall is Bond's childhood home.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Review #458: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Cast
Angelina Jolie (Lara Croft), Daniel Craig (Alex West), Iain Glen (Manfred Powell), Jon Voight (Richard Croft), Noah Taylor (Bryce), Christopher Barrie (James Hillary), Julian Rhind-Tutt (Mr. Pimms), and Leslie Phillips (Wilson) Directed by Alex West.

Review
The first video game movie reviewed here, and...eh? There's not much to say about Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, it's not terrible, but it's not good either. The actors are okay, except for Jolie, who is probably one of the better actors in this film. The action is a mixed bag, sometimes it looks interesting, but the decent action is undercut by the occasional slow motion shots, which is unnecessary and adds nothing to the film other than making the film about 5 seconds longer. The plot is muddy, and feels like a rejected Indiana Jones script, which either makes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better or worse in comparison. The film doesn't last too long, though I do wonder how you can make a villain so obvious in the first 15 minutes. It's a mediocre film, it strives for adventure and only that, succeeding easily, yet emotionally vacant, so I guess it works for some.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Quantum of Solace.

Review #384: Quantum of Solace.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes), Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Judi Dench (M), Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Anatole Taubman (Elvis), David Harbour (Gregg Beam), Joaquín Cosío (General Medrano), Fernando Guillén Cuervo (Carlos), Jesper Christensen (Mr. White), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Paul Ritter (Guy Haines) Directed by Marc Forster.

Review
I liked Casino Royale (#285), I liked how it could be gritty but have excitement and a fairly decent love story reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Daniel Craig was good and I wondered if the sequel would be better. And...it's like this. If Casino Royale was like OHMSS (#279), than Quantum of Solace is like Diamonds Are Forever in the sense both are only terribly okay. The sad thing this tries to continue from the last film, but even when it does try it manages to be disjointed and feeling rushed as well. Craig is alright, but his supporting cast isn't much help. Kurylenko is an okay lead actress, but the main flaw is the two (Craig and Kurylenko) have no chemistry together. I get it, Bond is meant to be scarred from the last film, but does that mean the film gets dull for it? Even the idea of Bond going rouge has been used before with Licence to Kill, and this doesn't have the excitement of it. Even the villain isn't that memorable. Admittedly, Bond villains can either be memorable for being evil enough or for some deformity (Dr. No, Largo) of such. Greene is neither. He doesn't have much threat or even a plan that makes sense. Come to think of it, Quantum is not really any better than SPECTRE because at least SPECTRE didn't have easy to spy on meetings. Quantum of Solace is an odd title that barely has any meaning, and the only things I liked were Giannini and Judi Dench. Sadly, Jeffrey Wright is given not much screen time to do anything to better his performance from the last film. The action is okay, but sometimes I wonder if you could make a drinking game on the many, many cuts in the action scenes. The film seems rushed at times and aside from boasting many locations in filming, it only barely manages to capture any spirit of Casino Royale, and that's sad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Casino Royale.

Review #285: Casino Royale.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Eva Green (Vesper Lynd), Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre), Judi Dench (M), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Simon Abkarian (Alex Dimitrios), Caterina Murino (Solange Dimitrios), Ivana Miličević (Valenka) Isaach de Bankolé (Steven Obanno), and Jesper Christensen (Mr. White) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - Goldeneye and #220 - Green Lantern)

Review
After Die Another Day (Also known as Buy Another Day or as I like to call it, Ice Another Day) had a mediocre way for Brosnan to end his run as Bond, their would be a new actor and a new approach but with two familiar faces: Martin Campbell, the director of the Bond film that kept the series going even into the 90's (Even if he directed Green Lantern) and Judi Dench back as M. So how is it? Really good. To begin with, Daniel Craig does an impressive job as Bond, reminding me of Timothy Dalton with a bit of Connery mixed in to make a entirely new-ish, yet familiar-ish Bond. This is based off the 1953 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming, which was the first in the series (Yet it wasn't the first made, Dr. No was, which was the 6th written back in 1958.) The story and action is good, a definite improvement from the last film. The supporting cast is excellent, including Dench. The first sign of a new yet better Bond film is the opening sequence. And if you wanted me to compare (compare being a loose word here) this Casino Royale to the Casino Royale (#224) from 1967...The 2006 one wins. Now it's nice to know I've now reviewed a Bond film from 5 of the 6 actors. This is a really good film that might one of the best Bond films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.