Change Your Image
sarum100
Reviews
Casino Royale (2006)
Film reasonable; Bond great
First and foremost, Daniel Craig is great in this film: not surprising for anyone who saw his performances in Our Friends In The North (on UK TV) or Elizabeth...He had more dramatic depth and emotional resonances than many a recent Bond. He's a real actor, with real presence and real ability and, hopefully, this will be the wider audience breakthrough that will allow us to see him in many different guises.
The film was fine - a typical Bond film: daft plot; fantastic action scenes...
It doesn't, however, live up to the classic Bond films (ie Connery era) in terms of villains or humour. Sean Connery is a good actor. I don't actually think he has the depth of Craig as a dramatic actor, but he caught the suave brutality of Bond perfectly - Bond as both brute and gentleman. Craig comes off as a brute pretending to be a gentleman: with Connery, he was both. Connery and the films of that period, also had the humour nailed to perfection - the modern Bond may carry more angst and conflict within himself, but the film lacks that lightness of touch to offset the violence, that classic Bond films have.
Which brings me to the iconic capture and torture scene. Every Bond film has one. In Connery's case, his most precious equipment might be threatened by a laser, but we know he'll be saved before any potential damage might occur. The modern Bond has to be submitted to a far more tangible S&M experience - such that one seriously wonders how he manages to walk straight in the final reels of the film, let alone jump on his now girlfriend with such abandon. And yet, and yet, the former Connery scene, in all its obvious teasing of the audience, is so much more effective than the knotted rope scene, which just becomes painful to watch. (Edit: from reading around, the scene is pretty much as is portrayed in Fleming's book, so I guess the film makers were just being true to the original Bond vision).
The difference between the two scenes, pretty much sums up the difference between the two Bonds. It is highly possible that the blunter, more inescapably violent, Bond is a better fit for our blunter, inescapably violent modern times - but there's just something about that cruel, brutal, yet playful and joyously inventive earlier film Bond, that entertains more...and that is all that Bond films aspire to do, amidst all of their action, villains, beautiful doomed ladies and gadgets.
The Departed (2006)
Great film
I finally saw this film the other day on DVD - for some reason I never got round to seeing it at the cinema...and I loved it.
A smart, cat and mouse script, where the mice are both cats and the cats are both mice...a wonderful ensemble cast...and catchy, fast direction.
Scorsese is often a director whom I admire far, far more than I enjoy - it's impossible not to be blown away by the styling and look of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull etc, but I can't say that watching them gives me a great deal of pleasure. Strangely, it's when he steps away from that iconic style that I love his films, rather than appreciating them in some distanced aesthetic sense.
The Island (2005)
Enjoyable if lacking in courage
I saw this film last night and really enjoyed it on two levels, but was ultimately slightly disappointed that the film makers didn't have the guts to go with their vision a bit more.
On the entertainment side, the action parts of the film were well done. Criticising an action film for being unbelievable is pretty pointless, as I can't think of any action film that is realistic, when it comes to the consequences of all those deaths and explosions on a city's streets! As an action thriller, it moved quickly, the protagonists were sympathetic, the villains were humanly evil and self-interested and the set-ups well thought out and entertaining. From that point of view, I just found the ending (and the sudden turn around of the Bounty Hunter from pursuer to saviour) irritating and far too corny a plot turn.
On the second level, I thought the premise of the film was really interesting and unusual...yes, it is in many ways a copy of the Logan's Run idea, but with some modern and relevant twists. I also thought this world was well imagined and peopled, though some of the dialogue was a bit clunky.
My regret, ironically, as I enjoyed the action, is that the film makers didn't have enough faith in that vision, to explore it more thoroughly in a more low key, narrative mode. In order to entertain the audience, they had to go for the action hybrid, where the scenario they have put so much effort into painting, just becomes the backdrop for another (well made, but predictable) action film.
I guess it just points up the differences between audiences 40 add years ago and today (Logan's Run was a 60's film?). Whereas the earlier film was more interested in telling the story, the modern one only uses it to support another genre.
On a final note, I thought MacGregor (in particular) and Johansenn were both fine in their roles (as were the other main actors) so I don't really get all of the critical bashing of their casting.
A Good Year (2006)
Very enjoyable - ignore the reviews!
This is definitely the first time I have gone to see an Russell Crowe and/or Ridley Scott film at the cinema, fully bracing myself to be disappointed and...
I am very pleased to be able to say that I enjoyed it thoroughly. It has a very warming glow to it - beautifully played; gorgeously shot. Anyone who isn't just a little bit seduced by Provence after seeing it needs their head (or more likely their heart) examining. The lessons may well have been taught in a hundred films before, but that doesn't make them any less relevant or resonant for the commercial era in which many of us now live...
So, why the terrible reviews? I really don't know. The comedy was not overplayed in the way implied by the critics at all. To be blunt, it was not really necessary, as the warmth and effectiveness of the film and story lies in the romantic drama. The comedy is fine, but doesn't really add anything to the film. However, it does give it a very upbeat, cheerful and likable feel and maybe that is reason enough.
Max's character and Russell Crowe's performance? It's in the quieter moments where Crowe really excels and shows just why someone would want to cast him, as opposed to say Hugh Grant, in a film like this. His reactions to memories and the things that other characters do and say are just so much deeper and more real than Grant is capable of: which is why Grant always comes off as the same character in these films (a variation on the Grant formula) and Max comes off as real.
It almost seems as though the critics have a film with this plot pegged into a box: because they can only see (and can only expect to see) a Hugh Grant characterisation, they cannot accept anything other than a Hugh Grant characterisation. Whereas the actual reason that Crowe doesn't come off as Hugh Grant is because he isn't channelling that kind of characterisation at all. This is a very different kind of film.
Also, the critics seem to be completely off the mark in assessing the character, when they say that he starts off a bastard and ends a bastard too. Actually, this is far more about unearthing other qualities - not completely rejecting those 'bastard' qualities that he begins the film with, but refining and diluting them, as he becomes more and more adjusted to his past. He doesn't change, he opens his heart and mind to qualities that he has been ignoring within himself. You can see that other Max from the moment he opens the letter telling him Henry is dead - but he tries to resist the feelings that are clearly there, in large part because he doesn't want to face the fact that he has let his Uncle down - and all of the guilt that is allied with that.
The film is not the best film I have ever seen. The questions it asks are fairly fundamental, but they aren't startling or especially thought provoking.
But the film is highly enjoyable, from start to finish; and it's warm, something that is pretty rare in films these days.
So, to end, clearly I am not in tune with the critics - but then, increasingly that seems to be the case nowadays. I just think that I see completely different films to them...