The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics Trading Cards Are More Than Enough To Please Most James Bond Card Collectors!

The Good: Comparatively easy to collect, Awesome bonus cards, Some truly decent autograph cards, Good writing
The Bad: Annoying orientation issues
The Basics: The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards are a pretty wonderful expansion on the concept Rittenhouse Archives developed several sets ago!


Until one of my biggest customers as a trading card dealer set me upon a quest to fulfill his James Bond trading card collection, I had not had anything to do with James Bond cards. Now, I deal in James Bond cards, along with Star Trek, Marvel, and DC Comics-themed trading cards! One of the nice aspects of coming late to the phenomenon of James Bond cards is that, in order to get the requisite product knowledge to satisfy my customers, I learned quite about James Bond cards and I have now a perspective to see what has worked for the franchise and what has, alas, not.

While a handful of James Bond trading card sets had a single Throwback set as a bonus card set in them, starting with the 2014 James Bond Archives cards, Rittenhouse Archives started creating trading card releases that had a primary set (focused on a single James Bond film) and three Throwback sets - essentially four sets in one. That format has been fairly popular, though some of the sets have been less successful than others given the bonus cards and autograph selections in them. But one of the solid conceptual winners was the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards!

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards were produced in 2016 by Rittenhouse Archives, one of the biggest producers of non-sport trading cards in the industry, as one of two James Bond trading card releases for 2016. Unlike some of the prior sets that have same basic format, the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards are well-written, have some wonderful bonus cards to flesh out the series and some truly wonderful autograph cards.

Basics/Set Composition

Fully assembled, the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set has 455 cards and is essentially four (or six) sets in one. As well, there is a binder produced by Rittenhouse Archives that does not quite hold the entire set. The set consists of 72 common cards and 383 bonus cards. The chase cards are mostly available in the packs of cards, though seven of them were incentive or promotional cards and could not be found in any of the packs. The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards were released in boxes of twenty-four packs of five cards each.

Common Cards

The common card set for the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards consisted of seventy-two trading cards that look as fresh and new as any current trading card release. The entire common set recaps the plot of The World Is Not Enough (reviewed here!). There are few problems with the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards, but the common set is not at all flawless. Arguably the most problematic aspects of the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card common card set is that the cards are inconsistently oriented. Some of the common cards are oriented with a portrait orientation, though most are oriented with the pictures in landscape format. That makes the set problematic to ty to arrange in any sensible way in a binder. The backs of the cards are universally in portrait orientation.

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card have the traditional UV-resistant coating which is flawlessly applied and the footage from The World Is Not Enough is bright and clear, which makes for a very compelling trading card set. The common card set has decent images and it is hard to complain about some of the obviously reused footage - Rittenhouse Archives used the image on card 58, for example, on a prior autograph card. The writings on the backs of the cards is well-written and compelling, retelling the story of The World Is Not Enough without the tiresome action sequences or occasionally corny dialogue! Despite that, it is irksome to not have a consistent orientation for the common set's images.

Chase Cards

The 376 chase cards that can be found in packs and boxes of 2016 James Bond 007 Classics essentially create three additional "common" sets and two bonus parallel sets, in addition to a handful of high-end James Bond chase cards that are very cool.

The 2016 James Bond Archives trading card set features three bonus sets that require multiple cases to complete. There are retro sets that retell the stories of The Man With The Golden Gun, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Licence To Kill with 50, 60, and 65 cards in each set, respectively. These sets, like the The World Is Not Enough set are inconsistently oriented and are more problematic to try to put into binder pages in any sensible way. The The Man With The Golden Gun and On Her Majesty's Secret Service throwback sets are made of a more retro cardboard stock to make the cards from the older films seem like they were from the period in which the films were released. The set for On Her Majesty's Secret Service is rendered in black and white . . . even though the film was in color. This follows the trend of some of the other sets and is met with mixed reactions from fans. Despite that, the writing for all three chase sets is pretty decent.

One per box there are gold parallel cards for the The World Is Not Enough and License To Kill sets. Each of those sets were limited to only 125 and 150 of each of the cards and the cards are individually numbered on the backs. The gold parallel cards are a particularly boring parallel card; they are distinguished from the common versions of their cards by a gold foil rendering of the film's name on the front of each card and an individual foil-stamped number on the back, at the bottom of the card. The parallel cards lack any real "wow" factor to them, but they are consistent with prior parallel sets and they do look nice enough.

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards feature three high-end chase sets, though James Bond cards have not gotten to the level of difficulty in collecting that sets that have sketch cards have! The most common of the three primary chase cards in the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards are Relic cards. James Bond trading card collectors have had a lot of costume cards over the years and the "relic" cards in the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards are exclusively costume cards - from the three newest James Bond films that were out when the set was released. As a result, James Bond trading card collectors get some new, portrait-oriented costume cards from Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace, and Skyfall. Each one is individually numbered on the back out of 200 and there are thirteen different cards with costumes from a decent variety of Bond villains, Bond girls, and James Bond as their subjects.

Found only two per case (one in every six boxes of cards) were the 007 Double-Sided (Mirror Cards) and they are a generally neat idea, reminiscent of the "Mirror, Mirror" cards from the Star Trek Season Two trading cards (reviewed here!) that Steve Charendoff (the CEO of Rittenhouse Archives) designed when he still worked for SkyBox in the late 1990s! The front of each card in this bonus set featured James Bond and the back of these beautiful foil cards had the primary villain from the film. There are eight cards from this bonus set in the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards, spread out every third film - M1 Dr. No, M4 Thunderball, M7 Diamonds Are Forever, etc. This set is obviously incomplete and will be expanded upon in future sets! This is a bonus set well worth looking forward to the subsequent sets to complete.

Also two per case are one of ten SPECTRE Metal Gallery Cards. The metal cards are, like similar cards produced for sets like Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 2 (reviewed here!) are thick metal cards with big images of the characters on the front and an individual number on the back (there are 150 of each card). The SPECTRE Metal Gallery Cards are metal trading card replicas of the promotional images of the ten essential characters from SPECTRE and they look beautiful.

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards features thirty-three autograph cards, which is another step down from the prior few James Bond sets. Autograph cards in the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set are split between the familiar format of the 40th Anniversary set – which had very small pictures of the character’s head and were oriented in a landscape format – and the vastly more popular full-bleed style which was portrait oriented with giant images of the characters and a minimal signing space at the bottom. The twelve 40th Anniversary style autographs include big names - Roger Moore and Jeffrey Wright - and actors with minimal influence or interest to collectors. Count Prince Mille, Safira Afzal, and Jimmy Roussounis had incredibly minimal roles, though it is cool Rittenhouse Archives tracked them down to get them to sign!

As for the full-bleed autographs, the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading cards had some prime signers - most notably Daniela Bianchi, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Jeffrey Wright, all of whom were first-time signers for James Bond cards! Popular actors like Pierce Brosnan, Maud Adams (as Octopussy this time!), and Sophie Marceau signed full-bleed autographs and they look great, enhancing the overall value of the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics set. This set features autograph cards from Samantha Bond, David Hedison, and Stanley Morgan yet again, but I found there was little to complain about; truly all one could have asked for that was not present in this set would have been an autograph from On Her Majesty's Secret Service, as that was the only of the four films in the primary chase sets not represented with autograph cards!

Non-Box/Pack Cards

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set has seven cards not found in any of the boxes or packs. There are three promotional cards – the usual general release, an exclusive one to Non-Sport Update Magazine, and the binder-exclusive promotional card.

The casetopper for the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set is a fairly bland The World Is Not Enough poster card, which continues the downward trend of casetopper cards (they used to be cool autograph, sketch or autographed costume cards!). The The World Is Not Enough casetopper card is not individually numbered, foil or even sealed into its toploader! The casetopper is essentially a variant poster from the common card #1, which is a pretty disappointing casetopper.

Then there are the incentive cards and these follow the trend of recent Rittenhouse Archives releases! For purchasing six cases, dealers received a silver series autograph of Judi Dench as M. I think it is pretty much impossible to complain about getting another Judi Dench autograph and these look great! For buying nine cases, dealers were given a Daniel Craig gold series autograph card. The two copies of this card I found had fairly anemic signatures from Craig, though he doesn't have the strongest signature. Despite that, the contrast with the gold ink on the black background looked amazing!

The final card in the 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set is the Archive Box exclusive Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore full-bleed autograph card. Found only in the archive boxes, which were randomly inserted into cases in addition to being an eighteen-case incentive for dealers, the Honor Blackman autograph looks great and is a wonderful incentive. Given that Blackman is 91, the fact that her signature looks so good is pretty amazing! The Honor Blackman incentive autograph card is likely to be one of the most enduringly valuable cards Rittenhouse Archives ever inserted into an archive box!

Overall

The 2016 James Bond 007 Classics trading card set is a wonderful tribute to the James Bond films it explores and a nice way to celebrate the franchise with some of the new autograph and bonus cards! The bonus cards look great and this is one of the newer James Bond trading card sets that has a wonderful mix of autograph signers that will thrill James Bond fans!

This set culls images from the James bond films The World Is Not Enough, Licence To Kill (reviewed here!), On Her Majesty's Secret Service (reviewed here!) and The Man With The Golden Gun (reviewed here!)!

These cards are available in my online store! Please check them out here: 2016 James Bond 007 Classics Trading Card Current Inventory!

For other trading card reviews, please check out my reviews of:
2009 James Bond Archives
2015 James Bond Archives
Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 1 trading cards

7/10

For other card reviews, please visit my Card Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Parody Of Itself, Tomorrow Never Dies Is Fun James Bond!

The Good: Some great lines, Decent performances, Good pacing, Entertaining
The Bad: Some terrible, over-the-top lines, Very predictable plot progression, One of the least satisfying endings of any Bond film
The Basics: The final James Bond film I had to watch, Tomorrow Never Dies is remarkably average Bond . . . when it is not delivering laugh-out-loud funny one-liners.


With Tomorrow Never Dies, I am done with the James Bond franchise! As of now, I have seen all of the James Bond films in the franchise (at least until S.P.E.C.T.R.E. comes out later this year!) and I'm ending on an odd note. Tomorrow Never Dies is an emotionally-enjoyable film in many ways, though much of that comes from the writing and casting, as opposed to the film being an objectively good work. In fact, for the first half hour of Tomorrow Never Dies, the film is written in such a way that it seems almost like it is a parody of a James Bond film. A decent portion of the film has incredibly quotable one-liners that are funny and create a surprisingly light tone for the film. But the moment the Bond villain, Elliot Carver, gives his first, over-the-top presentation to his inner circle of slimeballs, the film takes a turn into utterly groanworthy territory.

Such is the "split personality" of Tomorrow Never Dies, a film smart enough to note that (even in 1997) a military incursion into Vietnamese waters by anyone with U.S. tech could be disastrous for U.S. foreign policy and dark enough to include a "long lost love" for James Bond who is horribly murdered, but features more tongue-in-cheek gags and ridiculousness (James Bond is beaten up by three characters who are, essentially, the Three Stooges, while at the Carver Media network launch!) than any other Bond film in memory. I was excited going into Tomorrow Never Dies because of my love of Jonathan Pryce from Brazil (reviewed here!) and my general enjoyment of Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of James Bond. But the positive elements are weighted pretty much equally with the film's detractions, making for an average (albeit enjoyable) movie.

Opening at a terrorist "supermarket" on the Russian border, where MI-6 is monitoring the potential sale of a small army's worth of hardware (including nuclear torpedoes on a Russian jet), James Bond has to outrace a British missile and terrorists when things go south. The H.M.S. Devonshire is in the South China Sea, where it is attacked by a stealth drill submarine operated by minions of a billionaire media mogul, who is launching a worldwide cable news network. The attack, triggered by the Devonshire's GPS system rerouting the boat out of international waters, is designed to bring about World War III and is used by Elliot Carver as the first big story for his news network. With the British Navy 48 hours away from being able to fully deploy in the South China Sea, M tasks James Bond with gathering the evidence needed to avert World War III.

That takes Bond to Hamburg, Germany, where he meets Carver. At the party, Bond meets Wai Lin, a spy posing as a Chinese journalist and he reunites with his lost love, Paris, who is now Carver's wife. Carver utilizes tech genius Henry Gupta to learn that Paris still has a soft spot for Bond and he easily discovers that she has betrayed him to Bond. After Elliot implicates Bond in the murder of Paris, Bond and Wai Lin find themselves exploring the sunken Devonshire together. The pair works together to try to avert a war between Britain and China and stop Carver from attaining world domination through media manipulation.

Tomorrow Never Dies is enjoyable in that it is one of the Bond films that has Bond balanced by a superspy that appears for all intents and purposes to be his equal. Wai Lin is anything but the typical Bond Girl, which balances the especially easy Paris in the film. Wai Lin comes with her own tech and, like the C.I.A. ally of Bond Jack Wade, Bond is forced to rely upon both her help and her assets to achieve his mission objectives.

Wai Lin is credibly played by Michelle Yeoh, who is a martial arts expert and is able to completely sell the film's action scenes. She and Pierce Brosnan have decent timing for the quips their characters deliver. While some might not like how Bond's reliance upon an ally weakens the superspy, after watching dozens of Bond films where Bond alone accomplishes impossible things, it is refreshing to see some level of realism where he cannot achieve everything on his own. Moreover, the realism of the team of super-spies balances the almost cartoonish nature of the film's villain.

Elliot Carver is a great concept for a villain and it is hard to criticize Jonathan Pryce for how he delivers the worst, most over-the-top lines of the film (and the franchise). Carver is a brilliant idea who is written as a quip-spewing maniac who has all the weaknesses of a Bond villain. He details his plans as exposition, he trusts all the wrong people and he is handicapped by a desire for power that is utterly unrealistic. Pryce does the best he can, but the role is a pretty lousy character.

The result is a funny, action-filled film that is filled with ticking clocks, decent actors, ridiculous characters, good lines, chases and gadgets. Tomorrow Never Dies is fun, so long as one disengages much of their sense of reason and just goes with it.

For other works with Geoffrey Palmer, please check out my reviews of:
Paddington
The Pink Panther 2
"Goodbyeee" - Blackadder Goes Forth

5/10

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.
| | |

Casting Works Against Suspense In Goldeneye!

The Good: Decent performances, Moments of character, Entertaining
The Bad: Predictable plot, Opening credits spoil the film’s surprises
The Basics: Goldeneye gives Pierce Brosnan a decent-enough start to his tenure in the role of James Bond . . . a franchise which was pretty stale long before he arrived to it.


As I near the end of the James Bond franchise, I find myself wondering about the long-term appeal of the films. The James Bond franchise utilizes a number of conceits pretty consistently and that makes it tougher to watch them over and over again. Sometimes, it’s tough for me to even get into the new-to-me Bond films. Despite being excited about seeing Pierce Brosnan’s debut as James Bond in Goldeneye, by the end of the opening credits, I was already wary of the film. Goldeneye is a great example of how films can work against themselves and in a spy thriller that hinges on suspense and surprise, that is a severe drawback.

Goldeneye stars Sean Bean and his name is the first below-the-title acting credit in the film. Given that his character is killed in the teaser, it becomes impossible for viewers to believe they have seen the last of his character given the credits. Given how Famke Janssen’s Xenia Onatopp dominates the first third of Goldeneye, her lack of top-billing makes no sense . . . unless Bean’s Trevelyan is going to resurface in the film. So, from the outset, anyone who recognizes Sean Bean will be waiting for the film’s “surprise” to be revealed.

Opening at the Archangel Chemical Weapons Facility in the U.S.S.R., James Bond repels down the structure to break in. Inside, he meets Alec Trevelyan, who assists him in setting charges to blow up the facility. Trevelyan is shot, but Bond makes a daring escape. Nine years later, after the fall of the U.S.S.R., Bond finds himself in a car race with the former Soviet assassin, Xenia Onatopp. After killing an influential man, Xenia makes off with a prototype Tiger Helicopter, moments ahead of Bond reaching the conclusion that she was about to steal it. Bond returns to MI-6, where the intelligence agency has learned of an attack on a Russian weapon’s facility where Onatopp and a rogue General stole the access codes to Goldeneye, a satellite that has the ability (which is soon revealed) to launch an EMP strike. Bond and M, at the MI-6 headquarters, monitor the aftermath of the EMP attack. Bond notices a survivor of the attack on Severnaya and believes that she might know who the inside man at the facility was.

While the Russians downplay the EMP strike as an accident during a training exercise, General Ourumov delivers a false report on Goldeneye to the Russian Ministers. He is alarmed to learn that the hacker, Boris, was not the only survivor of Severnaya. While Bond tracks down Xenia, who leads him to the (very much alive) Trevelyan. Trevelyan puts Bond and Simonova (the other Severnaya survivor) in the Tiger helicopter to try to kill them, but they manage to survive. After a series of captures and escapes, Bond and Simonova make their way to Cuba to find and destroy the second station which controls another Goldeneye satellite. Intending to thwart Trevelyan and Onatopp once and for all, Bond and Simonova find themselves in danger every step of the way.

Goldeneyeuses some of the regular Bond conceits in addition to the un-surprise of Trevelyan, like the flirtation with Moneypenny and the trip to Q’s lab. Moneypenny is upgraded in Goldeneye as a specialist who cites sexual harassment policies as opposed to simply going with Bond’s charm. Q gets the usual quips out of Bond and supplies him with tech and the scene is amusing, but predictable. On the plus side, while Bond movies have multiple chase scenes, Goldeneye freshens the mix some by having Bond chase after Simonova and Ourumov in a tank! That is entertaining, at the very least.

Pierce Brosnan’s first outing as James Bong might be flawed on the storytelling front, but he proves himself an able actor for the part (which is unsurprising given his years on Remington Steele). Brosnan has the ability to present Bond with steely resolve and efficiency to credibly be a superspy. In fact, the only way Brosnan underwhelms as Bond is with the wisecracks. Brosnan plays Bond so seriously and with so little in the way of smiles and innate charm that when he delivers his one-liners, they do not seem to fit the character. Brosnan is by no means stiff in his delivery, but his Bond seems initially so much more serious that the humor does not fit his character.

Goldeneye is one of the few Bond films that bothers to delve into James Bond’s backstory. Revealed to be an orphan, Bond’s personal history is used as a foil for Trevelyan’s. As with Silva in Skyfall (reviewed here!), that gives the villain in Goldeneye a personal grudge against MI-6. Trevelyan would have worked better as an adversary for Bond if only the franchise were a bit more serialized. Trevelyan talks about himself as if he knew Bond for years and was a good friend; that would have worked much better had viewers seen him before he popped up in Goldeneye.

Sean Bean is good as Trevelyan, but the impressive performance in Goldeneye comes from Famke Janssen. Janssen plays Xenia Onatopp as an over-the-top sexual psychopath and the role is completely different from any other that she has played. Janssen is completely convincing as a woman who kills with her body, in addition to other weapons. Her ability to portray delight almost simultaneous to presenting a sense of concentration and ruthlessness is impressive.

Martin Campbell does an adequate job directing Goldeneye, but it is still a fairly typical Bond movie. Those who watch closely will notice a number of odd cuts – transitions between shots that are fairly poor – but otherwise, Campbell makes Goldeneye look good.

For other works with Famke Janssen, be sure to check out my reviews of:
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
The Wolverine
X-Men: The Last Stand
Hide And Seek
X-2: X-Men United
X-Men
Rounders
“The Perfect Mate” - Star Trek: The Next Generation

6/10

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.
| | |

All The James Bond Conceits In One Place: The World Is Not Enough Is Unfortunately Unremarkable

The Good: Characterization of Elektra King, Performances are good
The Bad: Formulaic plot, Dull, repetitive chase scenes
The Basics: By the time The World Is Not Enough pops up in the James Bond chronology, the conceits are overplayed and there is little to recommend the film.


It seems that I’ll manage to finish watching and reviewing all of the films in the James Bond franchise before the release of SPECTRE later this year. That’s exciting for me, though the truth is, I’ve been finding myself far less excited about the films themselves. Today, I finally took in The World Is Not Enough and, despite the intriguing start, soon found it to be plagued by all the most familiar aspects of the franchise with little that is truly original or even intriguing.

So there are chase sequences and The World Is Not Enough seems to have more than the usual two (in this case, speedboat, skiing, a scene formulated like a chase sequence in which the villain removes a nuclear weapon from an underground facility, ). There are the gadgets. There are the Bond girls. There is a megalomaniacal villain (who is essentially a super villain more like a Marvel adversary than a Bond villain). And there are the puns. Oh, so many puns. There is little compelling or even stunning in The World Is Not Enough, which is pretty much the death knell of an action adventure movie.

Opening in Bilbao, Spain, Bond recovers money belonging to Sir Robert King, who has illegally bought MI-6 reports (Bond is trying to determine how). While Bond escapes and is able to bring King’s money back to M (where King is very much alive), it turns out to be a trap that results in an explosion of the MI-6 headquarters to which the money is brought. After a high speed chase, Bond’s quarry kills herself rather than allow herself to be captured. With their only lead gone, Bond realizes that the murder of King is related to the prior kidnapping of his daughter, Elektra, who is now inheriting King’s construction business. M and Bond reason that the kidnapper, Renard, is going to come after Elektra and Bond is sent to Azerbaijan to protect her.

After Bond encounters Renard along King’s pipeline in Kazakhstan where his team is removing nuclear materials, M comes into the field. Alerted by Bond’s suspicions, M manages to survive being captured by Elektra King. Bond and the nuclear physicist Christmas Jones have to recover the plutonium stolen by Renard and King before they can kill M and hold the world hostage with their weapons!

The World Is Not Enough is notable for being the final appearance of Desmond Llewelyn, who has appeared in the Bond franchise as Q (albeit by a different name) since From Russia With Love (reviewed here!). Llewelyn was given a fine exit, which was emotional (if subtle) for fans of the franchise. He is one of the few classic Bond actors who was given a proper send-off (others simply disappeared or the actors died between films).

The other notable aspect of The World Is Not Enough is the character of Elektra King. King is initially characterized as a victim who is fighting to be strong. She is entirely convincing, as an early scene has her and Bond getting trapped in a small area and she freaks out, as one would expect from someone who was captured and confined in a small space. It is rare in the Bond franchise for characters to suffer realistic consequences for their experiences. King starts intriguing and, despite her goals, is one of the more realistic Bond villains, at least as far as her motivations go.

Renard is an adversary who seems initially like a Bond villain before being exposed as an exceptional villain’s lackey. He might not have the name recognition of Odd Job, but he is basically an enforcer like he was. He also has a bullet in his head from 009 which is slowly killing him.

The World Is Not Enough is the Bond film that features Denise Richards and her performance is one of the least-convincing of the entire film. Robbie Coltrane keeps a consistent Russian accent and Judi Dench adapts very well to having M in a more physical role, but Richards is terrible and there are a disturbing number of times when Pierce Brosnan does not get eyelines or emotions quite right. Instead, there are moments Bond is in pain or exertion that Brosnan seems to phone in and that is disappointing (I’ve always felt bad that Brosnan was unceremoniously dropped as Bond and thought he did well in Die Another Day, reviewed here!).

But the mixed performances are not enough to sink the film. The World Is Not Enough is unfortunately formulaic and familiar; the puns fall short, the chases have the tension choreographed out of them and the reversals are unsurprising. Anyone who loves James Bond might enjoy the scope and moments of character in The World Is Not Enough, but the film is entirely unremarkable.

For other works with Robbie Coltrane, please check out my reviews of:
Brave
The Harry Potter Saga
Van Helsing
Blackadder’s Christmas Carol

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.
| | |

The Party Movie Turns Invasion Flick At The World’s End!

The Good: Good plot development, Moments of humor, Moments of actual character development, Effects
The Bad: Opening voiceover is pretty tired, It stops being funny and turns into a very different type movie for most of it.
The Basics: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright take a dumb drinking movie and make it into a surprisingly engaging science fiction invasion film The World’s End.


In recent years, American audiences have been bombarded with films focused on the young and drunk. Since The Hangover (reviewed here!) became a surprise summer hit a few years back, filmmakers have tried to recreate it for a younger and (frankly) dumber audience with movies like Project X (reviewed here!) and 21 And Over (reviewed here!). Comedians Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright decided to go in the opposite direction with The World’s End. The World’s End focuses on five men reaching middle age that act young and dumb when they have quite a bit of alcohol in them.

Fortunately, The World’s End turns into something very different. What begins as an awkward, British comedy with slow deadpans and dull voiceovers evolves nicely into an Invasion Of The Body Snatchers-type science fiction adventure. In The World’s End, though, the protagonist is not particularly smart and certainly not invested in saving the world at large. So, The World’s End has an actual character journey as Gary King evolves from a guy trapped twenty years in his past to a man at the crosshairs of a dangerous conspiracy that threatens the human way of life.

In 1990, five friends, led by Gary King, tried to go bar hopping across twelve pubs in the crappy little village they lived in, Newton Haven (England). When they didn’t make it to the final bar, The World’s End, it left King unfulfilled. Now, King is struggling to get his friends – who are more successful and adult than he is – back together to try to hit all twelve pubs in one night again. His best friend from childhood, Andy, is the most reticent to rejoin the “quest” (whatwith not having had a drink for sixteen years), but pressured by King, the five begin a night of debauchery, though Andy’s is tempered by water as he is in recovery.

The twelve pubs start slow, with surprisingly few people present. Even as they drink, Gary, Peter, Oliver, Steven, and Andy begin to realize that things are not quite right in Newton Haven. People look at the quintet funny and when Gary gets into a fight with a teenager in the bathroom, he discovers the boy is not human at all. Instead, he has blue blood and is a robot. When Gary and his friends confront one of the robots, they find that the others do not like that term, so Gary and his friends start calling them “blanks.” The group is soon joined by Sam, Oliver’s sister, and in trying to protect her and his friends, Gary tries to make the journey through all twelve pubs to The World’s End, while uncovering and doing his best to stop the blank invasion.

When The World’s End stops being about a thirtysomething obsessed with recreating a meaningless event from his past, it really begins to get going and become something special. At that point, the movie transitions from being an awkward comedy entirely dependent upon clunky exposition and entirely contrived character positioning. Especially given all they went through in the past, that Oliver and Andy agree to come to Newton Haven is entirely unrealistic. For sure, Gary lies to Andy, but the lie is a pretty transparent one and that Andy, who seems to be a professional, could have easily checked on.

The character revelations in The World’s End come almost too late for the viewer to care, but Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright seed the important character clues early and the pay-off is worth it. Sprinkled in among the revelation of the robot invader conspiracy are deeper character motivations that are compelling and interesting. Gary is lost and an addict who illustrates well just how people trapped in addictive behaviors can get trapped. He, Sam and Andy have strong motivations that make them seem like real people – if not entirely sympathetic, though the point of Sam seems largely to be to bring someone obviously sympathetic into the film – in what soon becomes an extraordinary circumstance.

The result is something smarter and more polished than The Watch (reviewed here!) and it does not force the humor after a point. Ultimately, The World’s End is an action-conspiracy film that develops into itself and it becomes a worthwhile movie instead of the stiff comedy it begins as. Simon Pegg is seldom goofy as Gary in The World’s End, though Nick Frost dominates the scenes they share as a man who spends most of the film clinging to his sobriety for good reason. Frost makes Andy realistic and interesting and he helps keep the film grounded when it goes into potentially absurd territory.

Ultimately, The World’s End is entertaining, but hardly timeless, making it a good film for the end of Summer Blockbuster Season and one of the few reasons to go out to theaters in September.

For other works with Simon Pegg, please check out my reviews of:
Star Trek Into Darkness
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Paul
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader
Star Trek
How To Lose Friends And Alienate People
Run, Fatboy, Run
Mission: Impossible III

6/10

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

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Everything You Would Expect From A Romantic Comedy. Except Humor. Or Real Romance.

The Good: I suppose the acting; I had not seen Bronson or Moore as lawyers before...
The Bad: Ghastly predictable plot, No genuine character development, Not funny, Not romantic.
The Basics: Tired, predictable and pathetic, Laws Of Attraction offers the viewer nothing genuinely new.


There should be a new word coined to describe a movie whose trailer not only presents the best moments of a movie, but offers a condensed version of the entire film, including scenes at or near the end. Also, people who make movie posters that reveal climactic moments of a film, they should be fired (I'm looking at YOU, people who made the DVD cover to The Notebook!, reviewed here!). I recall seeing a preview of Laws Of Attraction in the theaters, thinking that looked alshone (I'm trying coining now, that's how desperate I am to get this review up to a respectable length!), I don't truly need to see it. Well, the library was closing early today for the holiday and it came down to Laws Of Attraction and the Ashton Kutcher movie Guess Who, so I grabbed this because I have a respect for Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

I respect them both a little less now.

Audrey Woods is a successful divorce lawyer who has never lost a case. She is working along in court when one day Daniel Rafferty pops up as opposing counsel. He, too, has never lost a case and his disheveled appearance causes Audrey to be caught off guard when he turns out to be an amazing lawyer. Soon, they are going head to hear in every major divorce in New York City. As they work the divorce of a rock star and fashion designer, Audrey and Daniel supposedly fall in love and accidentally get married.

Of course, if you've seen the alshone preview, you know how it ends, in fact, there are no real surprises. If you haven't seen the trailer, you can probably figure the movie out based upon the plot summary I wrote above. Being completely predictable is one of this film's chief faults. This film offers nothing in the way of surprises, even for those who have not seen any footage from it.

Sadly, for two respectable actors like Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, the movie continues to suffer either from execution or idea. If it suffers from execution, it is about a romance with alcohol. All of the important events between Daniel and Audrey occur when they are under the influence of alcohol. They make love for the first time and get married both while falling-down drunk. In fact, the only time Audrey seems romantically interested in Daniel is when she is completely wasted. I mean, completely.

If the movie suffers from idea, then it fails because Audrey and Daniel are never genuinely romantic with one another. To hold Laws Of Attraction up as a love story is pretty scary when one looks at it objectively. Two people get drunk, have sex, get drunk again and get married and while that seems fine with Daniel, it's clearly a huge trauma for Audrey. That's not truly romantic no matter what stripe someone is.

So, an especially jaded - but less biased by concept than actuality - interpretation of Laws Of Attraction would be that this is the most successful film about a sexually predatory man to come down the pike in a long time. After all, when they are sober, Daniel is determined, manipulative and goal-oriented. When Audrey is drunk, he achieves all of his goals. You don't get much more predatory than the whole "get a woman drunk to shag her" thing. And yet, it is Daniel who gets everything he wants in this movie while Audrey is mostly just subjected to the machinations that work against her.

The thing that people might want to cling to, then, is the end. They might cry out "Audrey really loves Daniel!" Well, that's true. All of a sudden, Audrey is used to Daniel and literally over the course of a scene decides she loves him. The problem here is completely in suspension of disbelief. I can believe opposing counsel falling in love, I can buy the whole hate hate hate hate love thing, but here it's just a hyperbole. Audrey has lived her life with certain goals that she has wanted and suddenly, in a moment of epiphany she gives them all up. Maybe I'd buy it more if she wasn't a divorce lawyer. After all, with her extensive career as a divorce lawyer, in addition to her recent experiences of apparently making bad decisions while drunk, no one would seem to know the consequences of not thinking through a decision better than her. But then she just makes the leap.

The audience does not.

All that keeps the movie bearable - not even watchable - is the acting. While Audrey and Daniel are inconsistent, poorly-written characters, Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan do the best with what is written on the page. As a result, they do their best to play along with what is written and the film works when it is establishing their characters.

Moore, especially, is completely convincing as Audrey as a strong, professional woman. She has the bearing of a woman who is in charge, has worked hard to get where she is and who has a mindset for success. Moore plays her well as a strong woman and so when Audrey has to get angry for sleeping with Daniel and later for getting drunk and marrying him, she plays that with appropriate fury and frustration. Moore's performance is so good that it makes the viewer wonder why Audrey has anything to do with Daniel outside court after the first time they have sex and better yet, why she blindly drinks with him.

Bronsan is fine as Daniel, though the character he plays is the predictable disheveled genius. In fact, Laws Of Attraction makes me wish that Hollywood would stop producing more "Odd Couple" comedies. We get it, "opposites attract!" We're not dumb, we've seen it so many times, we get it. Bronsan does his part fine oscillating between unkempt and beautifully Brosnan.

It's a shame that they give such competent performances in such an otherwise terrible movie. Save yourself the time and just watch the alshone preview trailer; everything is in it.

For other works with Parker Posey, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Boston Legal
Superman Returns
Blade: Trinity
Best In Show

3/10

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

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Married Life: All The Steps Necessary To Kill Your Wife/Take A Lover In The 1950s!

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting enough characters
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Pacing
The Basics: Good actors are wasted on dull characters in Ira Sachs' period piece Married Life wherein one man plans to murder his wife so he can be with his mistress.


You know you've just sat through a thoroughly average film when you're willing to let a coin toss determine whether or not you recommend it. That is, however, exactly where I find myself after viewing Married Life on DVD. It truly is a take-it or leave-it drama set in the 1950s and populated by a number of actors I enjoy. And yet . . . "meh."

Indeed, I do not think I have ever seen Chris Cooper act poorly (though he has played characters I have not much cared about one way or another, he always seems to play them well). Similarly, Pierce Brosnan is good in almost every role he has been in and while she is far less well-known, Patricia Clarkson always holds her own. And Rachel McAdams is perfectly Hollywood beautiful in this piece, so if anything I was biased toward Married Life going in. Truth be told, I picked this one up because the DVD cover looked intriguing. Let that be a lesson.

Harry Allen is unhappily married to Pat and he confides in his good friend Richard that he is planning on leaving her. Despite the fact that Harry believes Pat is completely devoted to him and has no other real options, Harry plans to leave her because he has fallen in love with Kay Nesbitt, a much younger woman and a widow. As if to garner his approval, Harry has his bachelor friend Richard meet Kay and he makes the case for leaving Pat for Kay.

Jaded and happy to remain unmarried for his life, Richard is struck by Kay's beauty and her poise. Richard begins to spend more time with Kay while Harry strikes up a plan to kill his wife by swapping her digestive powder with a lethal toxin. As Harry makes his plan and his inevitable move, Richard begins to covet Kay.

Unfortunately, Kay is not so much given a say in the film (pardon the terrible rhyme, it was unintentional). The film is told from the perspective of Richard using annoying and pointless voiceovers. I'm not a huge fan of voiceovers and my basic thought is that in almost every context, a well-created film will show what the voiceover says. It is a poor use of the visual medium to have a narrator tell the story. That's the director's job and most of the best works - in my experience - do not include a narrator or voiceovers from the protagonist. There are exceptions, but in the last couple of years, writers and directors seem to have gotten much more lazy and use the voiceovers left and right.

Married Life is such a simple story, nothing is particularly lacking from the movie to have it presented without voiceovers. The story is very straightforward: a married man who has been married for quite some time has a midlife crisis and craves a new, younger woman. Dog. Married Life is not showing us anything we have not seen before. It certainly is not showing us anything we have not seen done better before.

Married Life suffers from its remarkable averageness. I've just flipped a coin, which has determined that I am not recommending this movie, so I might as well pan it. There are no quirks in this movie, nothing that makes it special or distinct in the plot, characters or performances. Indeed, the only element that surprised me at all was that Kay Nesbitt is given a decent amount of screentime to tell Richard about her husband who went missing in the war and after that rather weighty scene, I expected him to pop up at some point to ruin the affairs of Harry and Richard. He does not show up.

But even as Harry is cheating on Pat, Pat is having an affair of her own, which Richard walks in on. The only even remotely impressive philosophical concept in this whole arrangement is the idea that Pat truly does love Harry and she stays with him because she believes absolutely that he would be lost without her. One suspects that Pat having the superior and demanding sex drive was intended to shock the audience and make them think, but instead it seemed normal and obvious. Moreover, because Pat reveals ridiculously early in the movie that she has powerful sexual needs that Harry is not meeting, it becomes utterly unsurprising that she is having an affair. (That David Wenham, who played the white-bread Faramir in the last two Lord Of The Rings films pulls off being a more active and likable lover for Pat, is much more of a surprise!)

So, the film sets itself up with a remarkably few potentials: Harry will either leave his wife or he will not, Harry and Kay will either end up together or they will not. And the moment Harry decides to kill his wife, he either will succeed or he will not. Truth be told, it is pretty difficult to care and as the movie plods along, it becomes increasingly difficult to care.

This is largely because the characters are either unlikable or complete nonentities. For the most part, the characters are nonentities. Every character has more going for them than Richard and that's saying something considering that Richard is played by Pierce Brosnan, who usually steals the scenes he is in and dominates a movie. Despite his character narrating throughout the film, he is essentially telling Harry's story and his scenes with Kay are largely giving her a chance to speak her mind.

Indeed, after a few hours of marinating with Married Life in my mind, all I can recall about Brosnan's performance or Richard's character was that he smoked an awful lot of cigarettes. I get that, too; it was very much a function of the time. But Richard smokes a LOT in this movie.

Harry seems more annoyingly discontent than actually likable or overly affectionate for Kay. Sure, he buys her things like a television set, but when they are together, he does not appear to come alibe any more than he does when he is at the office. This is not for a lack of the viewer rooting for the middle-aged man, either. One supposes that it is pretty much the American Dream to get a woman like Kay and the viewer has no problem wanting Harry to be happy, we just cannot fathom what it is Kay sees in Harry.

Kay and Pat are far more interesting characters than either of the men and in this fashion, Clarkson lives up to the consistency of her performances. As pat, Patricia Clarkson gives an empathetic performance of a woman who is both loving and less loved than she deserves. She has a wonderful sense of body language to portray a woman who has been married for a long time. To wit, at one point Harry comes to bed and Pat, in her sleep, begins to make a move on him. Clarkson makes the movement seem instinctive and rote and that adds a strong sense of realism to that scene.

But it is Kay who is the object of affection for the men of the movie and as Married Life is largely Harry's story, much of the attention is on Rachel McAdams as Kay. McAdams certainly has the look of the time and she is instantly appealing as Kay. But it's pretty much a gimmie for McAdams: you show up looking like she does, you have the role down pat. There is little substance to Kay, at least the way she is portrayed in this film and so it seems like a pretty easy stint for McAdams and, unfortunately, not one of her more memorable roles.

Co-writer and director Ira Sachs makes Married Life look good and despite some pacing problems (it is very slow getting started and it only truly picks up in the last fifteen minutes) he makes a film that is not thoroughly without merit. The problem is, he is simply using performers who are known for their greatness and gravitas with the likes of Clarkson, Brosnan and, especially, Chris Cooper. Unfortunately, he seems to expect that their showing up will carry the work and it fails to work out quite that way.

Those who like period dramas will enjoy the look and feel of Married Life, but actually wanting to sit through the end and buying it on DVD, not a chance.

For other works with Patricia Clarkson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
One Day
Friends With Benefits
Easy A
Shutter Island
Six Feet Under
Frasier - Season Nine
Frasier - Season Eight
The Untouchables

5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Franchise Dies A Little Bit More . . . Die Another Day!

The Good: Action sequences, Acting, Technical gadgets
The Bad: Obvious plot and character twists, Lack of reality in character
The Basics: In a James Bond movie that could have changed everything, Bond quickly gets back in action and the hopeful viewer gets bored.


Let me first say that when I was twelve, I went through my "James Bond phase." I watched all of the movies that were out until then, I read all sorts of books about James Bond, I immersed myself in Bond the way most people immerse themselves in Star Trek or marine biology. For about a year, I thought Bond was the coolest cat in the neighborhood and I gobbled up all I could about Bond and then I was done. It just couldn't hold me. Somewhere before my thirteenth birthday, I looked back at all of the Bond stuff and said, "Wow, this is the same thing over and over." So, I was not initially drawn to watch Die Another Day.

Why did I then? Certainly not just to have a review to write. Actually, I had heard excellent things about how the beginning of Die Another Day changed Bond's character. It was leaked pretty early on that Bond was tortured in the beginning and Brosnan claimed he was playing an edgier, wounded Bond. And that, I thought, was different and worth watching.

Die Another Day finds James Bond captured by the North Koreans. They do, in fact, torture Bond for about a year (a sequence we witness throughout the opening credits), until he is released in a prisoner exchange. Bond then quickly gets back into the swing of being a British spy, this time working outside the mainstream with an American agent named Jinx to foil yet another criminal mastermind who has designed yet another superweapon which will kill us all, this time some satellite-based super heat death ray.

Sigh.

I was promised something different. Pierce Brosnan, I want my seven bucks back! The truth of the matter is that, much like Star Trek Voyager, here you have a story that sets up an intriguing change, a fundamental shift in the character, and then it is completely written over. That is to say that, despite the many times Bond has been captured throughout the series, he was never tortured as extensively as he was in the beginning of Die Another Day. This should have made him realize that he could be touched. Yet, the movie progresses much the same as any other Bond movie.

There is no edgier, shaken Bond here. And what a disappointment! The movie itself might have been fine, save that in addition to not having a shaken Bond, the film went out of its way to put Bond in circumstances that make it ridiculous for Bond to not be frazzled, shaken, wounded. For perfect example, one of the classic ways Bond is tortured is through use of heat and cold. That is to say he is taken from super hot saunas where he is dehydrating and thrown into the coldest meat freezers. It's a classic form of torture. Having experienced that, it makes no sense that later in the movie when Bond goes from a nice warm car interior (because what kind of idiot drives around the glaciers without the heat on?), into freezing water, into a tropic jungle without any evidence of discomfort physical or emotional. Talk about a prime time for flashbacks.

The sad thing is, this could truly have shaken up the franchise. Instead, it's the same old story. Bond goes on mission, encounters people, one who will ally with him, one who will betray him, finds villain, is captured, makes a daring escape, thwarts criminal (if you're reading this review and thinking that gives away too much of the plot, I apologize, apparently you haven't seen more than two Bond movies), makes a wisecrack, the movie ends. And if nothing else, Die Another Day goes to prove the idea that you can't simply tell the same story over and over again, even with improving the cast, and put out a high caliber product.

Sure, Pierce Brosnan is Bond. This was the first outing I had seen where he was Bond. He was fine as Bond, there was not a hint of Remington Steele in his performance. He was good, but he played the character as solid and trusting and sex-crazed as any of the others who had played Bond.

And you have a pretty high caliber Bond woman in Halle Berry. She's fine, but at the end of the day, she's played essentially like any other Bond woman; dependent on Bond. It's a bit of a disappointment that the proposed Jinx movie won't happen, because it had potential to expand the role beyond that. It could even be salvaged if Jinx and Bond worked together from this point onward, but that's unlikely.

The supporting cast of Judy Dench (M), John Cleese (Q), Toby Stephens (Gustav), Rosamund Pike (Miranda) and Rick Yune (Zao) are all fine in their roles, but they play them like the "Bond Types" they are. There's nothing extraordinary about any of them, which is unfortunate because Dench and Cleese are both great performers.

In the end, Die Another Day is simply another James Bond movie, with no real surprises for anyone who has been a fan. It's an action adventure movie and it does that well. But sometimes, I expect more out of a franchise. I guess this one did well enough at the box office that the franchise will live up to this episode's name.

For other works featuring Judi Dench, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Pride And Prejudice
The Chronicles Of Riddick
A Room With A View

5/10

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

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

With A Good Commentary Track, Disney Nature's Oceans Might Have Been A Perfect Documentary!

The Good: Visually stunning, Absolutely amazing audio presentation, Informative, Well-developed and well-researched
The Bad: A little light on information at points
The Basics: An incredible documentary on undersea life and the power of the oceans, Oceans is a stunning documentary that lacks explanatory details.


I am a big fan of documentaries, which is something I never expected to be able to credibly say. I like documentaries, but I am always wary of the ones that make it to the big screen instead of appearing on, for example, PBS. After all, I tend to argue, why does one need the larger canvas of a movie screen to nail home their points? This argument certainly did not stop me from going to see Michael Moore's latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, but the truth is, many of Moore's points are not illustrated any better using the physically bigger presentation that cinema allows. Still, I indulge in cinematic documentaries from time to time and many times, I find the ones featuring animals to be worthwhile and a decent use of the medium. Like many people, I was enchanted by March Of The Penguins and while it was in theaters, my wife and I took in the new Disney Nature documentary Oceans.

Oceans is a mixed bag documentary that might have bitten off more than it could chew, but is very much worth the time (it's only an hour and a half) and expense of seeing on the big screen. While the movie is visually stunning, the current broadcast standard of HD means that the film will probably look at least as good on big screen televisions when it comes to the DVD or Blu-Ray presentation. However, the real reason, hands down, to see Oceans in the theaters is because so very few of us have a sound system that will do justice to the audio track of Oceans. Seeing the film in theaters allows one to have one of the most amazing auditory experiences they are likely ever to have and the result is well worth risking audiences filled with squirming children and texting teens. And, beyond that, Oceans is one of the most incredible undersea exploration documentaries of all time.

Starting with the rather inane question "What are oceans?" asked by Pierce Brosnan (in the English-language/American-release version), Oceans is an amazing, meandering journey through the oceans of the world, following several different undersea lifeforms. Opening with marine iguanas in the Galapagos Islands, the film illustrates the movements of horseshoe crabs, turtles, jellyfish and dolphins off South Africa. Featuring amazing footage of such things as sea urchin larvae, the movie captures rarely-seen (by humans) events like the sardine hunt of a school of dolphins and the other sea animals - birds, sharks, and whales - that get in on the action. All manner of sea creature are exposed, however briefly, from the blanket octopus to sea lions to an incredible sequence featuring opposing migrations of crabs, which devolves into an amazing battle between two great armies.

Oceans illustrates how sea lions hunt and play and exploring them allows the viewer to experience attacks from great white sharks and orcas. There is an amazing territorial battle that has a mantis shrimp combating a crab and, despite what the text at the end of the movie states, animals WERE harmed during the making of this film. In fact, a lot of animals were harmed and killed on-screen during Oceans, just not by human beings making the documentary. But those who are squeamish might find that the "G" rating does little to prepare them for such things as a fish that has had its tail bitten off, flailing until it is mercifully eaten. Animals fight each other, they eat one another and Oceans photographers were there to catch the action in some pretty stupendous shots.

Oceans is definitely for those who love such things as Animal Planet and who thrill for the simple life and death nature drama. There is plenty of such drama in Oceans, but more often than not, the magic of this documentary is in simply being able to experience things that most people would never be able to otherwise witness. Seeing the blinking patterns of the mantis shrimp is entirely fascinating and watching the stonefish and lionfish hunt and snap at their prey is visually spectacular and thrilling. Oceans also manages to catch rare footage of a reef at night and wild footage of an elderly Asian Sheepshead, which was pretty cool. The film is visually spectacular and features a few penguins at play and sea otters using tools.

Outside the narration, there is little of Man in the film and that works well for a nature documentary like this one. Even so, there is pretty amazing footage of a naval vessel fighting through some massive swells to help illustrate the pounding force of the ocean as a natural power. As well, Man is featured in gruesome footage of pollution of the ocean which comes near the end of the movie and drives home the need to preserve the untainted parts of the ocean.

As for the narration, in the U.S. it is Pierce Brosnan who does the voice-over work and he is good with the smooth vocalizations that help the movie flow. The narration helps make the transitions between different animals and locations work and Brosnan has a neutral speaking voice which never overshadows the visuals on screen.

One of the other nice aspects of Oceans is that the soundtrack is non-intrusive. At key moments, there is no musical accompaniment, instead allowing the viewer to hear the sounds of the ocean and the sound quality on this film is Oscar-worthy. Directors Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud assembled and created footage that is at the cutting edge of audio and visual limits. The sounds, for example, of crabs and shrimp are often more impressive than the whalesong the units captured because the miniscule animals create so much noise which is actually presented for the first time (I've seen) here.

My wife and I loved Oceans, but when it was over, I felt there was a lot of information missing and I would love to hear a good commentary track (or two - a technical "This is how we got this shot" and reference "These are the animals in this shot, this is where we found them, this is what they're doing and this grouping was this large" track) because as impressive as the movie is now, it is very light on details, hard information and statistics. That certainly makes it flow better, but for those serious about learning about the ocean, the movie leaves far too much out to be considered perfect. Unfortunately, the new DVD release of Oceans does not have that.

That said, this is one of the most visually and auditorily spectacular films of the year and staying through the closing credits allows the viewer to see some shots of the filming of the movie. Of course within the body of the film there are moments where some of the marine life reacts to the camera, but more often than not, what is truly incredible about Oceans is just how much the film captures of the reality of the open oceans and reefs.

Finally, while the adults in our audience were universally attentive, it seemed none of the children were (there were about thirty in the theater) adequately captivated for the entire screening. As a result, this might not be the best film to bring children to, despite it being family friendly. Bored children making noise ruin the experience for other viewers. Of course, captivated as I was by most of the footage, even children whining to their parents about being bored seldom distracted me this time.

For other films that veer more toward reality than fiction, please check out my reviews of:
Flash Of Genius
Charlie Wilson's War
The Hurt Locker

8.5/10

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

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


| | |

Truly Romantic, Remember Me Gets Better The Longer It Goes On.

The Good: Decent acting, Good characters, Good chemistry
The Bad: Initial pretense is pretentious, Editing
The Basics: Overcoming its own maudlin and potentially campy moments, Remember Me is a cinematic love story that actually has good chemistry and engaging characters.


My wife is not big on romantic movies, which I think is funny, but I make up with an appreciation of love in film on my end. And as New Moon (click here for that review!) made its way to DVD, Robert Pattinson was doing his part for promotion by having his new film, Remember Me released to coincide. As a result, he's was doing press for both films and there were just enough to the clips I saw on television to make me go see the film. But for me, the key selling point was not Pattinson (before or after having seen the film). Instead, I was curious how Emilie de Ravin performed in it. De Ravin was noticeably absent from the fifth season of Lost (click here for my review of that) and Remember Me was one of the projects she worked on while on hiatus from the popular television show.

Emilie de Ravin is what sells Remember Me and it is her performance, as well as the on-screen chemistry she has with Pattinson, that makes Remember Me a winner, even if it does have its schmaltzy aspects. And while I could have lived without some of the set-up and initial characterization of Pattinson’s Tyler, I found myself liking Tyler once the initial premise of the film was abandoned.

Ally Craig is eleven years old when she witnesses her mother being killed. This leads her to be something of a free spirit, even years later as she does her best to live each day as if it were her last. At the same time, it seems to make her father, a police officer, more aggressive on the job and he has a habit of roughing suspects up and being protective of Ally. One person he roughs up is a college kid, Tyler, for his behavior when witnessing a crime. When Tyler and his roommate, Aiden, learn that Sergeant Craig has a daughter, who just happens to go to NYU with them, Aiden forms a plan. Aiden pushes Tyler to start dating Ally as an act of revenge.

This contrived concept puts Tyler and Ally together and while Tyler initially uses his charm to worm his way into Ally’s life, it is soon her charm which causes Tyler to become legitimately invested. Disarmed by how Ally eats her dessert first, Tyler realizes he cannot shoulder the responsibility for hurting her and Ally nudges Tyler toward working things out with his own estranged father. She also starts to open him up to the simple joys in life and despite conflicts, they begin to find themselves drawn to one another.

Sadly, for a film that both embraces and rejects any number of clichés – one of the aspects of Ally that is so likable is that she calls Tyler on his b.s. and the lame moves he tries to put on her, upsetting the frequently formulaic nature of the beginning of the movie – the movie goes for a New York City cinematic inevitability which I cannot discuss as it occurs at the climax of the film. Even though the movie ends up somewhere problematically predictable in a Nicholas Sparks-every-romance-has-to-have-tragedy type way, Remember Me makes good use of the time it occupies and it ultimately works. The viewer does not feel cheated at the climax because once the ridiculous “revenge-on-the-cop” plot is abandoned, Remember Me actually becomes a decent character study and Ally and Tyler make good use of their time together.

Part of what makes the romantic drama work so well is the chemistry on-screen between de Ravin and Pattinson. More than in the Twilight movies, Pattinson shows some real charm. And in addition to being realistically playful in the playful scenes, Pattinson holds his own against the stern façade Pierce Brosnan puts on to play his father. Charles Hawkins is a businessman and while Ally lives each day to the last since her mother’s death, Charles seems to have buried himself in his work in order to cope with the suicide of his other son. But until one sees them on screen together, it is hard to guess that Pattinson could hold his own dramatically with a potential powerhouse as Brosnan – who, admittedly, steals the scenes he is in – and plausibly be Brosnan’s son. While their scenes have a wonderfully realistic, awkward quality to them, they work beautifully and the viewer feels the tension of years of conflict between them.

Even so, Remember Me does have its melodramatic moments, starting with the writing. Will Fetters wrote a screenplay which is remarkably on the nose. There are frequent points where the viewer feels they are watching a movie, as opposed to people who are speaking organically. Fortunately, there are self-referential moments that work and as a result, the pretenses fall away at points and both Ally and Tyler become characters who are raw and very real.

Director Allen Coulter does an equally good job with keeping Remember Me visually interesting and long before the end comes, the viewer has a strong sense of time and place. New York City acts as a decent setting, despite the fact that so many films have been set there and the City acts as a plot device at important moments. Unfortunately, Coulter also cuts many of the scenes abruptly and that also adds to the sense viewers are likely to have that they are watching a movie.

Remember Me is a good film for couples and one suspects that it will do well on DVD, as it should, as a date movie. But as post-Oscar season swelled of movies worth watching, Remember Me steped up as a romance worth seeing that does something too few romances manage to do: it tells a story where the characters work and have enough to plausibly develop a relationship. Tyler opens the door on a stupid premise, but soon the reality of sharing similar pain takes the story in a direction that allows the characters to become vital and viable. It’s hard to think what else a romance could do but that.

Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, Remember Me features two different commentary tracks, which are very informative, but ultimately repeats a lot of information from the sole featurette on the making of Remember Me. Still, those who are looking for a lot of depth into the creation of the movie and the cast's impression of the film, there is a lot here.

For other romantic dramas, please check out my reviews of:
Valentine's Day
Going The Distance
Memoirs Of A Geisha

8/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for an organized listing!

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



| | |