A GOOD DAY TO GO SEE "A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD"

            The Die Hard series is a unique animal in the world of film franchises. Whereas some films seem generic and eventually creates its own niche (for better or worse), Die Hard goes the opposite route, starting off with a very unique concept/style and devolves into a generic action thriller with the words “Die Hard” stamped on it. Such is the case with A Good Day to Die Hard. The original was a taut thriller that was plausibly conceivable with a protagonist who could hurt, bleed, and fear for his life; in other words, an actual human being as opposed to a two-dimensional super hero. As the series has progressed, the concept has lost its uniqueness, taking on the more generically traditional action spectacle tropes.

            The plot finds John McClane (Bruce Willis) going to Russia after his son Jack (Jai Courtney) who has assassinated a Russian citizen and is awaiting trial. Being that this is the McClane clan, Jack is estranged from his father, as his sister Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, returning in what is simply an extended cameo) was before him. Therefore, like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, and other 80s action generation-bridging films, the majority of the film is focused on themes of estrangement and (the inevitable) reapproachment. Oh, there’s also something about a Russian scientist/prisoner named Komarov (Sebastian Koch) who has a file that can exonerate him while bringing down a high ranking Russian official (Sergei Kolesnikov) but, this being a Die Hard film, nothing is quite what it seems and the double crosses occur as expected.

            The main problem with this film is that Bruce Willis seems as though he is a guest star in his own film, with the majority of the focus instead going to Courtney’s “Jack”. Courtney gives a serviceable performance and actually makes what could have been a petulant character somewhat sympathetic; but then, that sympathy could be metatextually infused by the viewer given the cinematic history of the series. Initially, Willis seems to be sleepwalking, his time worn, grizzled, hang dog features giving a sense of tired weight to his character. However, as the movie progresses, and though it still looks as though he is phoning the performance in, Willis comes alive with the snarky wise-cracking demeanor that we’ve come to expect from the put-upon McClane. As in the previous outing, Live Free or Die Hard, McClane has evolved into more of the action hero he initially was the antithesis of but, given the characters history, it’s easy to understand how his character can have be allowed some aplomb desipte the increasingly outlandish situations he finds himself in.

            There are a couple of cleaver homages to the first film, if one knows what to look for. However, other than the name, occasional references to the original Die Hard score, and the requisite “Yippie – Kay – Ye” line, there is really nothing that differentiates this film from any other generic actioner. However, that doesn’t mean that this film isn’t an enjoyable romp. Director John Moore (working off a script by Skip Woods) is no John McTiernan. However, despite a slow start and somewhat uneven pacing, the action sequences move furiously.  Moore does, at times, manage the unenviable task of infusing suspense into the quiet moments; few that there are, that is. Willis and Courtney are believable as father and son, but their chemistry is nowhere near that of the combination of Willis and Reginald Van Johnson or Samuel L. Jackson (but much higher than the pairing of Willis and Justin Long). The action sequences border on the ridiculous, but enjoyably so.

            In the end, it’s a good day to go to the theater. Die Hard has, depending on one’s point of view, (de)evolved into a grand shoot-em-up spectacle. It’s nowhere near the standards of the 1988 original, but as an entertaining way of passing over an hour and a half it does the job.

WEAK LEGS SUPPORT "THE LAST STAND"

There is an extended sequence in The Last Stand that takes place in an expansive corn field with nothing but corn for as far as the eye can see, and the field contained less corn than the film as a whole. Outside of two turns in Sylvester Stallone’s Expendables series (and a computerized pseudo-cameo in Terminator: Salvation), Arnold Schwarzenegger has not been seen in a film, much less starred in one, since Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Unfortunately, he chose this poor excuse for celluliod to usher in his comeback. Riddled with more holes than would be produced by all the rounds shot in the movie, the plot revolves around weathered small-town “Sheriff Ray Owens” (Schwazenegger), who must stop Mexican Drug Kingpin “Gabriel Cortez” (the oddly but aptly named Eduardo Noriega) from passing through his town of Sommerton (which I think is the same small town that Thor was set) to cross the border into Mexico in a super-souped-up sports car. Yes, it sounds like something from the films of The Austrian Oak’s 80's action hero reign; too bad it’s nowhere near as entertaining. It makes End of Days look positively enjoyable by comparison.

Directed by Jee-Woon Kim, the film feels like vintage John Woo-lite, where America is seen through a jingoistic lens of fast cars and artillery, because that’s what seems to be the film’s raison d’etre, as each is showcased in an almost obsessively lustful fashion. So much so, it’s at the expense of what passes for characterization.

The performances are annoyingly over the top. Luis Guzman, a reliable, entertaining character actor for which subtlety was never a strong suit, overplays his “Deputy Mike Figuerola” to caricature. As “Lewis Dimkum”, Johnny Knoxville makes what seems to be a lame attempt at channeling John Malkovich’s “Marvin Boggs” character from RED; his performance is nothing we haven’t seen before and done better (though, admittedly, he manages to eke out a few chuckles in a film much in need of them as it takes itself way too seriously). And, in what is starting to look like stock typecasting, the usually marvelous Forrest Whitaker is yet again cast as a law enforcement official who is rendered figuratively impotent through adversarial one-upmanship. As the villain, Cortez is one-note; all he’s really required to do is look rakishly smarmy and drive real fast. In fact, it’s rather unfair to pick out specific “performances” as all the characters are three-dimensional clichés: The weathered warrior, the unrepentant antagonist, the troubled lovers, the frustrated and borderline incompetent federal agent, the plucky side-kick, the sacrificial lamb, the evil henchmen…they’re all here in by-the-book evidence.

The most egregious thing about this film is that it tries so hard to be anything other than a typical Schwarzenegger film (kills followed by witty one-liners, "taking out" multiple villains by himself) it does nothing except call attention to the fact that it’s a Schwarzenegger film. The years have not improved Schwarzenegger’s acting ability. By sight, the actor looks both big and frail at the same time, which in this case befits his seen-too-much character. When it comes down to the action, he can still deliver. Unfortunately, his line delivery is more stilted, and groan inducing, than ever before. He seems out of touch with his surroundings, as if he exists in a pocket dimension outside of his environs; like he’s simply waiting for his cue rather than engaging the other actors. Maddeningly, like most other films of recent years that have showcased the action heroes of decades past, there are a distracting plethora of “grandpa” references at the star’s expense. Enough! We get it! He’s old! Stop trying to justify why someone that “old” would still be an action star. If the intent is to prove that the war horses can still kick ass, the message is being undermined by the underlying derisiveness in the message. Just let the performance and story speak for itself. Yet there’s not much by way of story here. In fact, it even fails as an old fashioned shoot-‘em-up simply due to the fact that Kim’s pacing is ploddingly choppy. There is one, maybe two “that was cool” stunt moments but that is hardly enough to justify sitting through two hours thereabouts of pure, unmitigated dreck.

Hopefully, Schwarzenegger’s return to the worlds of Terminator, Conan, and Twins will give the movie going audience a better return for their box office buck. However, The Last Stand is a waste of both time and money. One hopes that this film's title does not presage the results Schwarzenegger’s comeback efforts.

LES MISERABLES IS FAR FROM A MISERABLE EXPERIENCE

With perhaps a couple of exceptions, I have never been overly fond of musicals. That’s not necessarily an indictment of the genre, just a matter of personal taste. Some people dislike horror films, while others have no use for action adventure pictures. For me, my attitude regarding “spontaneous” breaking into song is akin to those of the residents of Queens’ reaction to Eddie Murphy’s “Prince Akeem” doing so in Coming to America. However, I did promise myself to keep an open mind while sitting through Director Tom Hooper’s big screen adaptation of Les Miserables, itself adapted from the stage musical which was adapted from the eponymous novel by Victor Hugo…and I’m glad I did. It is a film that, despite some serious missteps in terms of casting, proves as powerful and viscerally evocative as any grand Broadway production.

Hugh Jackman plays ”Jean Valjean”, the tortured victim of circumstance whose attempt at kindness dooms him to an excessive 19 year prison sentence. He is paroled under the extreme reluctance from his arch enemy Jarvert (a somewhat miscast but serviceable Russell Crowe). After having seen the depths that he has fallen following his robbing a church where a priest (and only human being to have shown him any mercy) has taken him in despite his larcenous stigma, Valjean has an epiphany. He resolves to create a new life for himself at the expense of his true identity, thus breaking both parole and the law. Jackman’s training as a “song-and-dance man” not only services the musical nature of the film, but in the nature of his performance. What is impressive is that he invokes age not through make up but body language. He never delves into caricature but his body evokes the burden and weariness that age can beget. No more is this evident than when his character makes a fateful decision at the end of the Revolution near the story's end.

Anne Hathaway’s small but pivotal role as “Fantine” is cathartic, as her character is the catalyst that sets the rest of the story into motion. Hence, it is a part heavy with dramatic responsibility. By the time she performs what is perhaps the musical’s signature piece, one is completely bought in by her grief and despair. Hathaway is one of those rare actresses who can portray in turn both ravishing beauty and plain ordinary and in this film she expresses both, symbolizing the theme of chance; of how fortunes can turn at a second’s moment. But this is not the only example of this theme. There is a lugubrious turgidity to Danny Cohen’s deft cinematography that could not be duplicated on stage. The dismal, oft-times CGI-enhanced, atmosphere serves to heighten the existential despair that infuses the plot. The weather and ruinous environs reflect the turmoil that infuses the souls of some characters and the pestilence in others. Is life a matter of existential capriciousness or divine plan? Does God exist or do fortunes change in an instant without conscious provocation? The story does not answer these questions but makes an argument for each in a way that only film-making can. There is one particularly poignant moment at the climax which, due to the manner in which the shots were orchestrated, make a clever inference to a divine plan, but done so subtly that it could itself be intentional or otherwise; as ambiguous an assertion as the spinning top at the end of Christopher Nolan’s Inception. This is but one example of how the format actually elevates the message of the film.

The film’s first casting misstep was in assigning Russell Crowe the part of lawman ”Javert”, a character who engages in a decades-long quest to return Valjean to justice or, rather, to conform to the letter of the law, for justice is not to be found anywhere in the proceedings. As a singer, Crowe ties with Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia in terms of voice-straining lyrical expression. His portrayal of the character itself is a mixed bag, however. He seems oddly detached from the role; nor does he disappear into it. It seems like instead of Javert, its Russell Crowe attempting a musical. However, Crowe does make some interesting choices in his portrayal. His stiffness of bearing mirrors that of his character’s rigid worldview and it is only when his belief system begins to crack near the end is there a slight, subtle waiver of that rigidity (notably the final rooftop scene). However, his enmity against Valjean is palpable when he and Jackman share their scenes. One can come away believing that Crowe, if not Javert, would doggedly pursue Valjean for decades.

The other casting missteps would have, ironically, seemed a perfect pairing. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter portray the larcenous “Thenardiers”, characters who ostensibly, despite the menace they are supposed to portray, bring some much required comic relief to the proceedings. However, Bonham Carter sometimes seems to be “Bellatrix Lestrange” in a different set of clothes, bringing nothing really to differentiate this character from others of the like she has previously portrayed. Most egregious, though, is Cohen. His “M. Thenardier” is oddly subdued, bringing neither menace nor over-the-top ridiculousness which the character requires nor, quite frankly, the actor is known for (his terrible, and the film’s only, French accent at odds with Carter’s out of place Cockney, does nothing to help matters). Could it be that either Cohen, or Hooper made a conscious choice to have Cohen dial down his usual outrageousness so as not to overshadow the other performances? If so it was an egregious error for this role is one that actually calls for that sort of outrageousness. I should not be watching a performance and wishing that it was Tim Curry in the role. It is not to say that their performances are completely wretched; far from it. It just seems a disappointment that there was such fertile acting ground left somewhat unplowed.

Of the supporting roles, Amanda Seyfried as “Cosette”, Broadway actress Samantha Barks as “Eponine”, and young Daniel Huttlestone as “Gavroche” are the most notable. Seyfried takes a role that could have been played in banal fashion and infuses it with an intelligence that makes her more than just a pretty face; her Cosette is aware of her surroundings and in tune with the world around her. She knows things are amiss even when she does not know the reason why. In the role she evidently made her own on Broadway, Barks makes you ache for Eponine’s plight in loving a man who loves another. The two actresses counter-balance each other and further epitomize the theme of circumstantial fickleness. Huttlestone is one of those child actors who can give a natural performance; one wonderfully lacking in the usual “aren't I precocious” pretentions that some child actors evince. It is a very mature performance for one so young.

As far as the pacing goes, the drama unfolds smoothly. Further, unlike many films where a story evolves through the course of years but only seems to take place within the time constraints of the movie’s length, there is a definite sense of the passage of time, thereby infusing a sense of the epic to the proceedings. The CGI is a bit jarring at times, especially at the very beginning, but not fatally so. The drama develops in such a manner that one can disappear into it. This film is notable in that the performers sang on set as opposed to a studio in post-production, with piano and/or orchestral renditions being piped strategically into the actors ears from another location, so the performances and singing happen almost spontaneously, giving a much more organic and natural development to the action which is wonderfully lacking in the bombasity that some film-adapted musicals evoke (as natural as spontaneously bursting into song can be, that is).

I can understand how this film can be a point of contention for those who have seen any Broadway production over the years. However, as a film on its own, it is a flawed triumph. Only the most hardened of souls would be hard pressed not to share a tear at some point before the closing credits begin to roll. Despite its musical trappings, it is highly relatable. These people could be anyone, anywhere. The themes of loss, despair, and dreams unrealized are universal ones, as are hope in the face of adversity.

In the final analysis, though, Les Miserables is a flawed feast replete with themes of loss and redemption whose heights do not soar as highly as it should for its wings are clipped by the limitations of its casting. Yet soar it does and, even if you’re one who has a blasé “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude towards the genre like I do, by the time the final number is being sung, you are moved to sing along with the chorus…even if you don’t know the words.

There and Go Back Again: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is Worth Travelling Through Again.

It has been over a decade since Peter Jackson adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was released, followed in the subsequent years by the adaptation of the Two Towers and The Return of the King, respectively.Since then, there had been speculation as to whether or not Jackson would return to Tolkien's world. After many delays, including changes in director (Guillermo Del Toro was slated to direct) and New Zealand union issues, and much anticipation The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has hit the theatres and, while it is a worthy addition to the series of films before it, it unfortunately doesn't rise to the same heights.

 

But then, that should not be a surprise, given that the stakes in The Hobbit are not quite as high as in LOTR. This story, told as an extended flashback taking place just prior to Gandalf the Grey's (Sir Ian McKellen, reprising the role) arrival in Hobbiton in Fellowship, tells the tale of Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm in "present day", Sherlock's Martin Freeman in flashback), a simple Hobbit who lives simply but is thrust into the company of a band of dwarves in exile led by Thorin (Richard Armitage, Captain America: The First Avenger, Strike Back) who are attempting to reclaim their kingdom and gold from the evil dragon Smaug. Throughout, he is beset with danger and excitement, including a fateful meeting with a certain individual that will change not only the course of Bilbo's life, but the fate of Middle Earth as well.

 

This film is the first of three, built not only from the source novel but also from the appendices from "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Silmarillion", thus serving as a prequel series that bridges the gap between this series of films and LOTR. A serious undertaking, to be sure, but not an entirely successful one. To a degree, the events in this film seem to go on longer than they should, working so much as padding and filler to justify the existence of another three film epic. It should be noted that the events of the novel unfolded at an almost lackadaisical pace, given Tolkien's rich language and attention to detail. On the big screen in modern cinema, however, those who are not devotees of the work would find the pacing to be plodding and borderline repetitive.

 

However, whatever complaints of pacing exist, are made up for by the visual realization of Tolkien's world. There is a certain feel of homecoming in the revisiting of locales such as Rivendell and Hobbiton, though shot at different angles to convey a sense of newness to the familiarity. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson's insistence of shooting the film at 48 frames per second, while giving the visuals a more realistic effect, works against the film as much as for it. Some have said that the film speed makes Tolkien's world too visually mundane; a debatable argument as it did not detract from the artistry of the set design.  However, at times the actors movements are unintentionally sped up to almost comical effect. Also, much of the special effects, almost seamless in the original cinematic trilogy, are jarringly out of place. In many places the CGI is glaringly obvious, and in others, undermined (such as the glow stick nature of Bilbo's sword, "Sting", in distance shots). However, in some instances, the effects have clearly evolved since The Return of the King, as there are very few visual sleight-of-hand cheats in the height differentials of the characters.

 

The performances are nothing less than engaging. Receiving top billing is Sir Ian McKellan, who plays Gandalf as more befuddled than when first encountered in Fellowship, yet bringing a childlike innocence and quality to the performance; especially in his eyes (as evidenced in a scene with Galadriel). Stepping in for Ian Holm as the younger Bilbo is Martin Freeman, "Dr. Watson" of Sherlock fame (who is reunited with his Sherlock co-star and Star Trek: Into Darkness villain Benedict Cumberbatch as "The Necromancer" and the voice of Smaug). He subtly mimics Holms' mannerisms (which would only grow more pronounced with age), while infusing his own take on the character. He manages to make the character his own while still giving the impression that he is the Holm Bilbo. This film in part hinges on that believability and Freeman succeeds in the task.

 

The most intense performance belongs to Armitage as Thorin, who carries the weight of his people and heritage on his shoulders. Irascible as any dwarf, but imbued with a nobility that balances his gruffness and antagonism towards Bilbo. One might not care much for him by the film's beginning, but will come to by its end. Also entertaining, though short on screen time, is Sylvester McCoy (Doctor Who, Eureka) as Radagast the Brown, woodland wizard who advises Gandalf of an evil that poisons forests. He is manic, dissheveled, and lovable; somewhat reminiscent of Billy Barty's "Gwildor" in the big screen adaptation of Masters of the Universe. However, unlike Gwildor, Radagast is anything but annoying.

 

Cate Blanchett (The Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman The White) and Elijah Wood (Frodo Baggins), among others, reprise their roles from the original trilogy looking as though a decade had not passed between films (thanks to the magic of CGI pioneered in Disney's Tron: Legacy). The joy is not just seeing these characters again, but seeing them...relaxed, without the weight of the world on their shoulders, the strum and drang of the coming of Sauron's evil. Even Gollum (the wonderful Andy Serkis), while still a craven little bastard, has a bit of fun in what is perhaps this film's most anticipated scene. 

 

Howard Shore, second only to John Williams in sheer acoustical majesty and pageantry, brings a powerful score to this film, peppered with the themes of LOTR  but anchored by the dwarven theme "Song of the Lonely Mountain", a musical piece that invokes myriad of emotions. Shore is as necessary to this series as Williams is to the Star Wars saga. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking; one deserving of an IMAX presentation.

 

All issues of pacing and film speed aside, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an uneven, padded but nevertheless entertaining spectacle and a good launch to the trilogy. Time will tell if the following films will measure up.

HAVING AND EATING CAKE: "Skyfall" is Entertaining Though It Eschews the Legacy It Is Supposed to Emulate

 

“In ancient Roman religion and mythology, Janus (Latin: Ianus) is the god of beginnings and transitions, thence also of gates, doors, doorways, endings and time. He is usually a two-faced god since he looks to the future and the past. The month of January was named in honor of Janus by the Romans.”

 

While it may be odd to invoke Roman mythology in a film review (especially a definition weaned from Wikipedia), it seems aptly appropriate to me given that, after fifty years of film and sixty plus in print, the Bond phenomenon has become a mythology of its own. Skyfall, the 23^rd entry in the James Bond franchise (not counting the David Niven Casino Royale or Sean Connery’s Never Say Never Again), is a curious entry in the series for it carries its own themes of duality both within the story and metatextually; a film of contrasts and oppositions.

 

Admittedly, after 50 years it’s hard not to retread the same material.  Many of the film’s plot points revisit familiar ground as previously seen in entries such as You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger, License to Kill, Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough, especially. Ostensibly the plot finds James Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to prevent a list of operatives who are operating covertly in terrorist organizations worldwide. However, this plot is a MacGuffin as the plot really centers around M (Judi Dench) and an ex-MI-6 operative named Silva (Javier Bardem, who is just as unsettling here as he was in the superlative No Country for Old Men) who, in echoes of The World Is Not Enough, is out for revenge against her and, in further echoes of Goldeneye, is Bond’s ersatz brother-in-arms and his opposite number.

 

The film is replete with themes of duality and obsolescence: New versus old; Desired youth versus grizzled experience. Yet it’s not only within the story but the film as a whole. There are times it embraces and eschews Bond’s legacy all at once, in some cases, nodding to the past while at the same time disparaging it and, in at least one instance, destroying it. This whole sense of duality is epitomized in Craig’s Bond. I must admit from the get-go that I have always found Craig to be more suited as a Bond villain henchman than Bond himself (my tastes run more towards Connery, Brosnan and Dalton) however, his subsequent performances in films like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Cowboys and Aliens have allowed me to give him more leeway to accept Craig as Bond, if not my Bond. In this film, Bond is broken and much is made of the character’s (and actor’s) age. The Brits call Craig the “Grumpy Bond” for a reason (as his interpretation of Bond is among the most intense, matching that of Timothy Dalton). However, Craig’s Bond finally shows some of the lighter, playful touches of the character, reminiscent of Moore’s and Brosnan’s turns, when paired with a fellow MI-6 agent (Naomi Harris,M ission Impossible II, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest/At World’s End); an agent whose identity is, for those who know their Bond history, immediately telegraphed within the first few seconds of their witty, flirtatious banter. For once, it looks like Craig is actually having fun the role of Bond. It is a welcome change.

 

The thing is, I’ve seen this film earlier before. It was called The Dark Knight Rises. The hero is presented as broken and past his prime, one who must rise up against a force greater than he that was shaped by the very organization that shaped him, and both motivated to some degree by a strong female presence in their lives (in this case, “M”). There are many more parallels to be found between the two films but you get the gist. And, as the opening sequence shows, the influence the Bourne series has had on these films since the advent of Casino Royale shows no signs of diminishing. Where Bond as a franchise had once led the way in terms of how to make an action film work, it is now instead following the trends; instead being more of an action piece for product placement (and trust me, there is plenty of that) instead of being innovative.

 

This is not to say that Skyfall is an excellent movie. Of Craig’s three films thus far, Skyfall is second only to Royale (the less said of the mishmash that was Quantum of Solace the better). If the first film was the apex and the second the nadir, Skyfall falls somewhere in the middle. The film never bores, even in its slow spots. It is also a weighty film with the themes it deals with, but also with the characters themselves. Never before have the characters of Bond and M have been as fleshed out as they are here. In fact, this is the closest we’ll get to a real Bond origin story, I imagine. Even in the film’s fantastical circumstances, these characters feel real. Yet, Bond films were always fun , escapist entertainment, a far cry from the novels that spawned many of them (with perhpas the exception of "Moonraker"), the idea of same no less reflected in  main producer Cubby Broccoli almost casting of  Adam West (!) and Burt Reynolds (!!) as Bond (But then, “off-model” is certainly the current trend. Robert Downey, Jr. is anything but the Sherlock Holmes as conceived by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, yet audiences accept such. If the trend continues, it’s possible that the below could be coming to a theatre near you:

 

 

(Ah, well…a man may not fly, but perhaps he can dream…but I digress…).

 

The supporting players are nothing to sneeze at.  Ralph Finnes is enigmatic as Gareth Malleroy, an intelligence agent who may or may not have it in for “M”. Young Ben Whishlaw makes for an interesting re-imagination of the armorer, “Q”. With nods to the past and an eye towards the future, this is a “Q” for a new generation of Bond. Bérénice Marlohe plays Bond girl Severine, who is somewhat (intentionally) reminiscent of Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye and equally captivating to look at for what time she is actually on screen. Albert Finney enjoys what amounts to an extended cameo suspiciously intended for Sean Connery (especially given the setting wherein the character is introduced). Yet for all that this is a Bond film, the main character is almost a guest star in his own film, as the real focus is “M” (Judi Dench) who is front and center in this film and is fleshed out in a way never before shown for in any of its iterations. Dench proves why she’s one of Britain’s superlative actresses, conveying steel drive with a hint of vulnerability. Ironic that such a cold character (since the reboot) proves to be the heart and soul of the film. And as Silva, Bardem is Bond’s “Joker” and “Bane” all in one: as flamboyant as the former, as dangerous as the latter, and makes for a dangerous combination. The last time Bond was given a villain who was his equal or superior was Sean Bean’s “006”, and Bardem outshines that. It’s the mark of a film villain when his presence is felt even when he’s not on screen, and from the point of his introduction, that presence is palpable.

 

They cinematography is nothing but superb. It has been decades, yes decades, since Bond has felt this exotic and, yes, even epic in scope. Before the age of Internet and affordable travel, the Bond films were the best way for movie goers to be immersed in an exotic world. Skyfall is the first film in the franchise in decades to evoke that response. Sam Mendes’ musical partner in crime, Thomas Newman, is a refreshing change from David Arnold’s repetitively indistinguishable stylings (though not completely devoid of them, as some hints of the Casino Royale score are evident here). The score is strongly influenced by the works of the late John Barry, and the film is stronger for it (and an interesting bit of trivia which adds weight to the musical Barry homage…”M”s flat in the film was actually Barry’s home).

 

All in all, Skyfall is an interesting mix of heaviness and lightheartedness. But by the end of film, the “Bond Begins” experiment begun in Casino Royale is completed in Skyfall. At the end, everything old is new again and a truism is reasserted before the credits, and the familiar gun barrel sequence, begins to roll:

 

James Bond will return.

A Heartfelt Message to All Veterans

Thank you.

Knowledge is Power

Despite the fact that my blog is called "American Culture Critic", I rarely post on political topics as I would prefer to keep my own political ideologies to myself. However, in twenty some days, the course of this country will be re-determined for the next four years. Some will vote for who they consider to be the best candidate, while some will vote for the lesser of two (three?) evils.  Some expect more of the same, while some won't expect even that. I say "some" because while many of you will vote, some of you won't.

 

As Americans, it is your right to vote. It is a hard earned right as over two hundred years ago many died to obtain it. However, they also fought for your right and freedom to recuse yourself from voting. Understand, however, that in not voting you are still determining the course of your country...and it may not be in the direction that you prefer.

 

With that said, for those of you who wish to vote but are confused as to the issues and the candidates' true statnces on them, a very good friend of mine provided me with links to the least biased information websites that might help you crystalize your thoughts, opinions and decision as to which candidate(s) to back. They are:

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://votesmart.org/

 

Use them. Refer to them. Then make an informed decision. In the course of two debates, we've experienced bread and circuses. "Big Bird" and "Binders full of women" becoming comedy gold buzz words, thus taking the focus away from the issues. We've seen an incumbant transform from "Clark Kent" to "Superman" in a two week span. We've heard variations of "you're a liar" with no indication of which candidate's talking points are really the truth. The fact of the matter is the importance of the debates are not predicated on the facts but are instead mostly about who has the better presentation; who's the most photogenic; who can get away with the pithy one-liners.  The truth becomes obfuscated in the "glitz" of the show. Hence, debates should be used as a starting point, not as a clincher, in determining your candidate decision. I've met actors who when they're on screen, they invoke a commanding, charismatic presence, only to have that facade evaporate once the cameras have stopped rolling. While I'm not saying that either candidate was posturing and pandering, I'm not saying that they weren't either. The sad truth is that anyone can say anything. It's the actions (in terms of voting and policy) that speak louder than words.

 

Therefore, before Election Day, do your research. Look at the facts. See how each candidate has voted in the past because in all likelihood that's how they will in the future. Arm yourself. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

And for those of you who don't vote...be sure to accept the personal responsibility for your decision.