If You Get The Allusions, SPECTRE Utterly Fails.

The Good: Acting is fine, Action is entertaining
The Bad: Relies upon the canon to pay off its biggest moments, No deep acting moments, Minimal character development
The Basics: SPECTRE might be an all right action-adventure movie, but it is a lousy James Bond film and relies entirely upon the prior films to make the pass at sensibility.


Every now and then, I run into a film from a movie series that is exceptionally difficult for me to consider on its own. I want to consider each work I encounter - be it a television episode or a film or a beverage - on its own merits, as it stands as a unique creation. Every now and then, I encounter something that is virtually impossible to do that with and the latest James Bond Film, SPECTRE, is one such work. SPECTRE shows a continued lack of understanding among the writers of the James Bond film franchise as to the nature of the beast they are working with, much the way that Skyfall (reviewed here!) did. In fact, SPECTRE goes even further down the rabbit hole of ignorance and ridiculousness by attempting to tie together disparate elements of the James Bond franchise.

The reason I ultimately landed on panning SPECTRE was because it is, very clearly, not intended to be a standalone film at all. Instead, the entire film's final act hinges on understanding the relationship between James Bond and the criminal enterprise S.P.E.C.T.R.E., which was introduced in some of the earliest James Bond films. In other words, SPECTRE only works as a film if one understands the adversary who is orchestrating the carnage against James Bond and the worldwide spy community. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. was the foil of MI-6 and the C.I.A.; it was an international criminal intelligence organization that was out for profit and world domination from the shadows.

The problem is, to understand what S.P.E.C.T.R.E. was and to buy into the concepts of how it is operating in the world now, one has to accept the entire canon of James Bond films that came before. One also has to understand how the intelligence communities in the James Bond franchises work and that is entirely where SPECTRE collapses. The intelligence organizations in the James Bond franchise operate entirely on aliases. M is an alias for the leader of MI-6, Felix Leiter is an alias, Q is an alias . . . James Bond is an alias. In Skyfall we see the transition from one M to another and in prior Bond films, Judi Dench's M is referenced as having replaced the old man version of M. Felix Leiter loses a leg in one film, pops up as a black man with two legs later on. James Bond has not only been recast, but the line in the teaser of On Her Majesty's Secret Service (reviewed here!) obliquely refers from one Bond incarnation to another! Even the trademark "My name is Bond, James Bond," makes more sense in the context of an alias than as an inorganic catchphrase. If one has to condition oneself to recognize themselves by a new name, they would learn it by rote. Multiple people being conditioned the same way supports both the concept of the alias and the unchanging methods of the organization that hired its spies. Even, as The West Wing pointed out, the drink choice by the various incarnations of James Bond is intended as a dupe; it sounds like a specific drink choice, but it is the spy's attempt to remain alert while on duty while having the appearance of imbibing to blend in.

Amid all of the background stuff, the James Bond franchise includes films with specific dates, times, and technology levels, so unless the Daniel Craig incarnation of James Bond is in his 70s, SPECTRE does not work. And the personal nature of the villain in SPECTRE and his key line about their past undermines the potential ambiguity about the alias's going the opposite way. S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'s leader was familiar to a prior incarnation of James Bond, yet is younger than when last he was seen; things in a franchise have not been so muddied since the casting of Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness (reviewed here!). Like that film, SPECTRE relies upon the bang factor of fans knowing the rest of the franchise, while completely betraying all they actually know about their beloved franchise.

Opening in Mexico City on the Day Of The Dead, James Bond is on the hunt for thugs who plan to bomb a theater and then kill the Pale King. Shooting the bombmaker leaves the would-be assassin on the run and their meeting spot entirely destroyed. While Bond recovers a S.P.E.C.T.R.E. ring from the assassin and escapes via helicopter, the crowds below remain ignorant; having just seen what looks to them to be an amazing display of helicopter flying skills. Returning to England, Bond is benched by M and meets with Moneypenny, who informs him that MI-6 is abuzz with rumors that Bond went too far in Mexico City and is on the verge of being fired. Bond plays for Moneypenny a video left by the previous M ordering him to kill Marco Sciarra. Putting his trust in Moneypenny, Bond pays a visit to Q and learns that the double-0 spy program is set to be replaced with drones and all the good tech is being routed to 009.

Stealing 009s car, Bond heads to Rome for Sciarra's funeral, where he meets with the widow. Bond uses the ring he recovered to get access to a high level secret meeting of the criminal organization that is planning the murder of the Pale King. Moneypenny informs Bond that Mr. White is the Pale King and Bond confronts him. Bond keeps his word to White by tracking down White's daughter, Madeleine Swann and trying to keep her safe from S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Q confirms that all of Bond's recent adversaries have been working for S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and as Bond works to keep Swann safe, he unravels the mysteries surrounding the reorganization of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and comes face to face with an old adversary.

Any analogy between SPECTRE and Star Trek Into Darkness is a decent one as both hinge upon moments intended for huge reveal and "wow" factor, but either leave newbies mystified or die-hard fans groaning and rolling their eyes. Take, for example, the revelation in Star Trek Into Darkness of John Harrison admitting that his name is Khan. The moment only lands for those who know who Khan is; Spock Prime's revelation to Spock later on that Khan is the most dangerous adversary the Enterprise crew ever faced is a weak, expository attempt to fill in the gaps for those who have not already seen the prior two works that included Khan. In an entirely analogous way, the revelation of who the shadowy man played by Christoph Waltz is absolutely fails to land if one has no context for him . . . and is utterly baffling for those who do understand who he is supposed to be.

Beyond that, within SPECTRE the time frame makes no real sense; Waltz's S.P.E.C.T.R.E. leader was thought dead twenty years prior . . . which would have had to been on one of James Bond's earliest missions given Bond's age in SPECTRE.

What SPECTRE does well is use the four recurring characters in the James Bond franchise exceptionally well. SPECTRE does not rely simply upon James Bond; this is very much a team effort between Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny to save MI-6 from a hostile takeover from S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Despite containing all the familiar tropes - a villain who makes his plans annoyingly explicit, car chases, a literal ticking time bomb for a deadline and women who Bond appears to love (and at least one other he just shags) - SPECTRE becomes a decent team effort that uses the talents of the whole MI-6 team well.

On the performance front, Daniel Craig, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, and Ben Whishaw effortlessly slip back into their roles of Bond, Moneypenny, M and Q. Their characters may not substantively develop, but the performers work the material as well as they can. Even Christoph Waltz does a fine job as the film's primary antagonist; despite the character not making sense in context.

Ultimately, SPECTRE is more mindless fun than it is substantive. Fans of the spy thriller will get all that this film offers without the baffling continuity issues out of Captain America: The Winter Soldier (reviewed here!).

For other James Bond films, please check out my reviews of:
Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Diamonds Are Forever
Live And Let Die
The Man With The Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
Moonraker
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Never Say Never Again
A View To A Kill
Die Another Day
Casino Royale
Quantum Of Solace

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

(Mostly) Managing To Combat The Notion That “If You’ve Seen One James Bond Film, You’ve Seen Them All,” Skyfall Remains Mixed.

The Good: Acting, Character depth, Specific plot feels fresh
The Bad: General plot is still terribly formulaic, Niggling continuity issues, Pacing
The Basics: Redressing many of the familiar elements of James Bond films, Skyfall manages to make the familiar plot feel fresh and new again.


Before summer began, one of my new friends expressed an interest in seeing all of the James Bond films before Skyfall hit theaters this Fall. I told her that seeing the other Bond films was not at all necessary to understanding the new one and, in fact, the more one sees of James Bond films, the less one feels they need to see the new one. I had no way of knowing how true that would be with Skyfall, at the time, but now . . .

Skyfall is an exceptional example of how style may trump the perception of substance in films and while my instinct is to say that the only people who will be really disappointed by the latest installment in the James Bond franchise are those who are the die-hard fans, the early buzz appears to be just the opposite. I credit that to director Sam Mendez more than anyone else as, objectively, Skyfall contains almost all of the familiar elements of any number of James Bond films, simply dressed up differently. Those raised on SPECTRE and Blofeld may want to extol the virtues of Silva and the other villains of Skyfall, but the similarities certainly outweigh the differences.

In fact, the fundamental difference between Skyfall and most of the other (but not all) James Bond films is the target and the stakes. The world is not explicitly on the line as it is in many of the classic James Bond flicks and the target of Silva’s machinations is MI-6 and M it- and herself. This makes the stakes far more personal for James Bond and M and allow Skyfall to feel much more intimate while it works toward the usual “defeat the villain” resolution one expects from a James Bond film. The attempt to develop the James Bond character is not lost on me; it merely becomes harder to justify or suspend disbelief for with the new, post-Casino Royale James Bond . . . at least for those of us who pay attention to things like continuity.

Skyfall finds James Bond partnered with Eve to stop a villain who has the potential to compromise MI-6, a mission that leaves James Bond effectively dead and on the outside of MI-6. That mission also puts an exceptionally valuable hard drive in the hands of villains who want MI-6 dismantled, a goal that starts with executing embedded operatives around the world and threatening M with the certainty that more deaths will follow. It does not take long for M, the leader of MI-6 (or at least James Bond’s section of it), to realize that the attacks are intended to hurt her personally and weaken her within the organization. So, she turns to the one operative she believes she can trust when he resurfaces: James Bond.

Pulling Bond out of retirement, despite the fact that he is unable to pass the physical and psychological requirement necessary, and arming him with the requisite munitions and information, M and James Bond come into conflict with Silva, a man whose motivations are more grounded than eccentric. Let to Silva through an assassin and then the woman who was waiting to see who would cash in the payment for the assassin, Bond confronts Silva on a deserted island. In combating Silva, James Bond and M find themselves as guardians of MI-6 itself and the stakes in their mission even higher as they capture and lose Silva, resulting in a chase that puts a small personal army on M and Bond's tail.

Skyfall is not bad, though it feels every bit as long as its two and a half hour running time, but it is by no means as original as many of the reviewers praising the film would have one believe. In fact, in several ways – most notably with the appearance of the Quartermaster, Q - Skyfall feels like a “Best Of James Bond” with names, actors and motivations changed (in a Mad Libs insert name/word/weapon here type way) to create the illusion of freshness.

Even so, it works. The reason Skyfall feels fresh enough to recommend is that the combination of the stylistic changes adds up to a film that feels substantive after a long rut of movies that left viewers wishing for (or inferring) a significance that was not actually present in the films themselves. In Skyfall, M becomes a fully viable, interesting, complicated character. In her – and the performance by Judi Dench – the viewer sees the weight of a lifetime of secrets weighing upon her character. In Skyfall, she is not the monolithic assigner of missions or the subtly-smirking leader who accepts the eccentricities of James Bond. Instead, in Skyfall, she is quietly wounded and there are moments when she feels the sting of her adversaries attacks on all she has built.

Fleshing out M allows Skyfall to explore loyalty and the sense of duty James Bond has. On its own, Skyfall excels at portraying a bond of trust and loyalty between Bond and M in a way that feels like more than just platitudes of honor and obligation. In Skyfall, protecting the world and MI-6 has a personal component and that binds Bond and M. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench play that brilliantly in the looks between them and the quieter moments their characters share. In fact, this is one of the difficult aspects of Skyfall to accept in context; this version of James Bond is still rather new to M and the level of trust she has in him is uncharacteristic for someone who has had such a history in an office such as hers. The best comparison I can make would be in the Star Trek franchise; the bond between M and Bond in Skyfall is treated as deep as the one between Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Data in Star Trek: First Contact (reviewed here!). The emotion, the love, that leads Picard to singlehandedly brave the Borg to try to rescue Data after everyone else has abandoned the ship in Star Trek: First Contact is viable entirely because that relationship has been developed for years and years over hundreds of missions where the two have shared risks and explicitly depended upon one another and their judgment. Skyfall’s M and Bond asks viewers to make the leap that Bond would have such a trust for M, despite the fact that she has administered from a greater distance (to extend the metaphor, Skyfall is like watching first season Picard exhibit seventh season loyalty and affection for Data; it makes no rational sense in context).

That said, the other aspect of Skyfall that pushes the film up into the higher ranges of an average genre film is the acting. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench have great onscreen chemistry as M takes to the field more and provides Bond with more of a hand’s on direction in Skyfall. Both performers make the character shifts work (and well!) and that change in chemistry makes the film feel fresh. Equally compelling is Javier Bardem as Silva. Bardem is able to be far more expressive than he was as the villain in No Country For Old Men (reviewed here!) and that makes the Skyfall villain feel unsettling and dangerous. Bardem brings energy to his performance that is matched by the younger performers, Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw, to raise the level of peril in Skyfall; for a change, the Bond villain seems an even match for the resources of MI-6 (not some comic mismatch that makes the success of Bond’s mission seem utterly unrealistic).

As Skyfall develops, the film becomes a battle of wills and strategy between Bond and Silva and the credibility and gravitas of the actors sells the conflict. After so many James Bond movies that feel like generic action-adventure (and innumerable action adventure films that seem derivative of James Bond), Skyfall redresses and reinvigorates the spy drama well-enough to recommend it.

For other James Bond films, please check out my reviews of:
Dr. No
Thunderball
Die Another Day
Casino Royale
Quantum Of Solace

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

I Can't Believe I Missed Lost For This! I Justifiably Pan Revolutionary Road!

The Good: A few moments of performance/character, Soundtrack
The Bad: Melodramatic, Nothing happens, Poor writing, Unlikable characters, Soundtrack telegraphs everything.
The Basics: Boring, jaded and not filled with performances nearly as great as many claim, Revolutionary Road is a flop for director Sam Mendes!


[Note: This review was originally written off a preview screening of the film, but I liked the title and opening, so I am leaving it unaltered. Enjoy!]

It's a tough thing to stand before your fellow critics and ask "What movie did you just watch?!" for a film that is receiving universal praise. However, having just endured the latest Sam Mendez film, Revolutionary Road, I stand up in the community, shake my head, and firmly and loudly shout "Don't go to see this movie!" To add insult to injury, tonight while I was at the screening of this film, I was forced to miss the season premiere of my favorite television show, Lost. That just hurts.

Before the pile-on begins, it is worth establishing that: 1. I like dark films, 2. I like films with great performances, and 3. I was utterly unbiased going into Revolutionary Road; I had not seen a single trailer or read even one review of the film. And because it is worth mentioning, I have been a fan of some of the works of director Sam Mendez, most notably American Beauty (reviewed here!). As we say in the biz; this is no American Beauty!

April and Frank spot one another across a smoky room in 1948 America. They connect and seven years later, they have two children, an unhappy marriage and April's dreams of being an actress have died a very public death. As their marriage falls apart, Frank and April remember the better days, how they found their little house in suburban Connecticut on Revolutionary Road and the time they spent there happy. As Frank begins an affair with a new secretary at his machine firm - where he works in advertising - April contemplates the lack of direction in her life and mourns her missed opportunities.

But April comes across a photograph of Frank in Paris and recalls how it was the one place he wanted to return to. April pitches to Frank that they do just that. So, they begin preparations to sell the house and car and move to France where April will work and Frank will find himself. Yet nothing goes quite according to plan as April gets pregnant and Frank is offered a whopping promotion and raise and their dreams begin to die yet again.

A few years ago, there came a film that did not fare so well called The Story Of Us (reviewed here!) which basically had Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer yelling at one another. Their characters were at the end of a disintegrating marriage and the film was largely unpleasant. The thing is, the critics and viewers seemed to realize that. With Revolutionary Road, most seem to be giving the characters a free pass on substance because they are played by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. The thing is, Revolutionary Road, like The Story Of Us is basically a lot of yelling and one tires of it quickly. Sure, it has some great realism, but it also is not at all entertaining. Does it capture the reality of life women were forced to endure at the time? Undeniably? Is it worth watching? Not really, no.

The reason for my antipathy is quite simple; the film goes nowhere. There is no physical or emotional journey in Revolutionary Road. After the establishment of the relationship between Frank and April, there is a scene that illustrates the two of them married and fighting bitterly over April's flop of a play. We, the viewer get it. What next? Unfortunately, the answer to that is simply "more of the same." Revolutionary Road continues and revisits the same fighting, performances and character issues over the course of the interminable two hours this film runs. There is no catharsis, but worse than that, there is never any real hope, no growth, not even much in the way of events. When looking at the plot of Revolutionary Road it is remarkably simple: Frank and April, in an unhappy marriage, decide to leave the U.S., they have the mentally worn-down John over for dinner, have affairs, are offered promotions and the end comes (far, far too late for most viewers to care). Instead, the movie plods along with little to recommend it as the characters spend the bulk of the time yelling at one another.

Add to that, none of the characters are particularly likable. One of the first things Frank does is have an affair on April. He's not a good husband or a particularly good man and when things have the chance to turn around, he continues to make poor decisions that make it utterly impossible to respect the man. Similarly, April likely suffers from bipolar and she truly suffers. Divorce, as this is set in the 1950s is not mentioned, but she is not exactly blameless for the condition of the marriage, either. She baits Frank and lets him treat her terribly instead of leaving him.

Equally problematic are the supporting characters. The neighbor, Shep, is clearly interested in April, director Sam Mendes makes that so obvious only an idiot or someone who, I suppose, is literally blind, will not see that. Actor David Harbour leers through all of the scenes they share and the film plods along with a sort of "get on with it feel" because the viewer pretty much knows that at some point April will have and affair or Shep is going to rape her. One of those two things will happen, because that is how the guy is looking at her constantly. That Shep's wife, Milly, never seems to catch on is just insulting to all concerned.

The only character with anything going for him is the crazy guy, John and even that is somewhat problematic. It has become cliche that only the crazies truly see things as they are (though I'll abide by that in being a crazy that calls this film flat-out boring). John is just the embodiment of that archetype.

Only slightly better than the dismal characters and utter lack of character development is the acting in the film. Kathryn Hahn, who plays Milly, is so over-the-top in Revolutionary Road that it took me a while to figure out why her performance seemed so familiar. I challenge anyone who has seen Scott Thompson in drag on The Kids In The Hall to watch Hahn in Revolutionary Road and not find her performance derivative of that. Moreover, in his second appearance on screen, Michael Shannon appears to be channeling Heath Ledger's version of the Joker for his portrayal of John.

As for the leads, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio are quite safely within their established ranges in their roles of April and Frank. DiCaprio, for example, is giving his fans nothing that is not within his abilities that we didn't see in the way he played his character in Blood Diamond. He can yell, he can play puppy dog eyes, we get it. What's new? Nothing here. In a similar fashion, Kate Winslet gives us nothing we haven't seen before in other films of hers. She showed more range in her single episode of Extras than she did in this entire film.

Movies that are dark are not to be shunned. There are plenty of films with oppressive moods that are still great. This is not one of them. You can have a movie without much plot, if it still has great characters or amazing acting. This has neither. You can have a film with lousy characters and it can work if they do something interesting, in Revolutionary Road, they do not. And you can have poor acting in a film where there is a story or decent writing or even intriguing character developments. Revolutionary Road has none of those things. If you bother to sit through the film up to the title plaque, know this: you've seen all the film has in the way of acting and a journey.

It's truly not worthy.

For other works with Dylan Baker, check out my reviews of:
Across The Universe
Spider-Man 3
Let’s Go To Prison
Hide And Seek
Spider-Man 2
Changing Lanes
Thirteen Days
The Cell
Requiem For A Dream

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

After A Long Rut, American Beauty Was A Worthy Winner Of The Best Picture Oscar!

The Good: Characters, Plot, Acting, Direction, Soundtrack, SCRIPT!
The Bad: None.
The Basics: American Beauty is a perfect film wherein one man's mid-life crisis spirals out of control. Visually impressive and populated by intriguing characters, perfectly acted, what more could you want from a film?


There was a long period before and after American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar that I lived with disappointment. Until The Return Of The King won, there was a stretch of winners following American Beauty that both left me disappointed and poorer (yea, betting on the Oscars!). As well, following the disgrace of Gladiator winning and my annoyance that Shakespeare In Love (a fine film in its own right, but not at all superior to Magnolia or The Red Violin) won over my two favored films of that year, I felt quite pleased that when American Beauty won the best picture Oscar, I felt it deserved it. How rare is that?

American Beauty is the story of Lester Burnham, American Loser. He's a middle age man having pretty much the typical mid-life crisis. He and his real estate agent wife, Carolyn, have not made love in a long time and it's clear the love is long gone from their relationship. It's quite sad, truly. Lester is also feeling quite alienated from his daughter, Jane. Jane, for her part, has become the target of intrigue of the next door neighbor, Ricky Fitts. Ricky lives with his oppressive (and repressed) Colonel father. Lester attempts to relate to Jane, but instead finds himself attracted to her friend, Angela. And right now, it probably sounds like I'm describing a soap opera.

It's not.

It's not at all. Lester finds himself noticing Angela and as a result, he comes to understand just how much of himself he's lost. So, he extorts his boss at work for a generous severance package and starts work at a fast food restaurant so he can have fun with his life without real responsibility. Carolyn, reacting to Lester's sudden revival, takes a different turn. She begins an extramarital affair and target practice. Of all of them, Jane is probably the most pure, articulating her instantaneous desires, but understanding most of them well enough to know they are not necessarily healthy actions.

There are few films that so vividly capture the importance and vitality of individual characters and, in truth, the film is about the way one life may cause so many others to spiral out of control. Lester's mid life crisis has drastic consequences on Carolyn, Jane, and Ricky. The end is somewhat shocking and yet, understandable.

All of the characters have so much backstory they are bringing to the film and it comes out so well, with a genuine sense that each of the characters is vital and real. It's impressive. The thing is, none of them are particularly nice. And that's the magic of the film: it's an escape for us from the responsibilities of reality. Alan Ball writes a series of characters all of whom have character traits that most of us would find reprehensible in people in our own family and yet, here they appear perfectly accessible and almost normal. Lester is a loser and an extortionist, Jane expresses homicidal disrespect for her father, Carolyn is an adultress, Ricky is a drug dealer and Angela is a habitual liar.

But they work.

The story is woven together perfectly and directed wonderfully with a strong eye for color, movement and stylistic grace. Alan Ball's characters have depth, the story is narrated well with excellent pacing. I'm actually surprised the film is as long as it is; it feels much shorter than 121 minutes.

And the acting. Kevin Spacey deserved his Oscar for best actor, hands down. His portrayal of Lester Burnham is perfect. He plays Lester with a wonderful transformation of slouching and mumbling to upright and eyes perfectly visible. Lester's story is the understanding of appreciating that which is around us. Annette Bening is wonderfully over the top Carolyn. Thora Birch is mature and simplistically beautiful as Jane and Wes Bently was perfectly cast as Ricky. He has a face that makes a first impression as intense and creepy and yet he is able to soften it at critical moment. He's quite wonderful.

The film is a wonderful exploration of a man with a midlife crisis who wakes up to the idea that all around him there is a wonderful amount of beauty. And life. And we, watching it, we can appreciate that. We're not Lester.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, by clicking here!

For other works featuring Allison Janney, please check out my reviews of:
Lost – Season 6
Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip
The West Wing

10/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2009, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |