So I hadn’t been out to the movie theatre in a few weeks, mainly because there hadn’t really been a whole lot out there I really wanted to see. And even though there were a couple of movies that looked halfway interesting, I had enough other things going on that I just didn’t make it out to the theatre. Well, that finally changed weekend before last with the release of Will Ferrell’s latest film, Stranger than Fiction. From the very first trailer I knew this was a must-see movie, and it proved to be every bit as good as I thought it would. It was funny, touching, heart wrenching, and just bizarre and surreal enough to absolutely be my kind of movie.
Now before I get started on the movie itself, I’d like to take a moment to express my deepest respect and admiration for the editor(s) of the trailers for this movie. In my opinion, they were among a small handful of what I would call almost perfect trailers. They gave you enough of a feel for the movie to know whether it would be something you’d want to see or not, but without giving away any key scenes of the movie. As a matter of fact, there are a few things about the movie that come as a complete surprise to you because they aren’t even hinted at in the trailer. And this is wonderful, considering that the trailer very much has to give away the biggest plot detail – mainly that Will Ferrell’s character has started hearing the voice of an author in his head who’s planning to kill him.
Luckily the movie holds so much more than that, and so knowing that detail doesn’t spoil your enjoyment of the movie at all. And that is the key thing that so many trailers completely screw up. Which is why I had to take a moment to praise the creators of Stranger than Fiction's trailers (since most trailer editors I’d like to see tarred and feathered). I mean, ask yourself, how many times have you seen the teaser for a movie and thought, “Hey, that looks pretty cool, I might have to go see that,” and then the full trailer comes out and suddenly you’re like, “Gee, now I know pretty much know exactly how the movie is going to play out.” Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a perfect example of this. The teaser strictly shows them trying to kill each other, which really peaks your interest, but then the full trailer adds just enough shots of them together fighting somebody else that you know exactly how the movie is going to play out – they find out they’re assassins and are ordered to kill each other, that doesn’t work out and so they decide not to kill each other, and so their employers decide to kill both of them and they have to fight it out to stay alive. Now admittedly, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a great enough movie that it’s still fun to watch, but I’d have been just as happy seeing this all play out as I’m watching the movie, as opposed to knowing exactly how it’s going to develop before I ever get to the theater.
And that’s hardly the worst example. The worst for me would have to be the trailer for the Colin Farrell/Al Pacino spy thriller The Recruit. The whole point of this film is that Colin Farrell has been turned into a double agent by Al Pacino, while the whole time thinking he was one of the good guys who was LOOKING for the double agent. But the key scene where he’s told that no, it’s actually him who’s the bad guy is in the bloody trailer!! What should have been a great movie was completely ruined for me because I knew the big secret of the movie before the opening credits rolled. Personally I think the moron who edited that trailer should be forever banned from Hollywood. What the hell was he thinking?!
But enough ranting about the goods and bads of movie trailers. Let’s get back to Stranger than Fiction. The movie is just brilliant. And I loved Will Ferrell’s performance, which was very understated compared to his normal over-the-top comedy. He actually reminded me of William H. Macy, who is the master of the quiet, befuddled character. Dustin Hoffman is also really fun to watch (but that’s not really a surprise). I don’t want to say too much more about the movie, but if you enjoy odd, quirky comedies, then this is a movie you’d likely enjoy. Four stars.
So last weekend was of course the release of the latest James Bond film, Casino Royale, starring brand new Bond Daniel Craig. I, however, spent the entire weekend helping my uncle butcher this massive bull elk he shot. It was a lot of work and some long days, but I now have a freezer full of elk meat, which is good. Consequently, though, I never made it to the theatre. Luckily I was able to correct that Wednesday, since the office closed early for the holidays and I got most of the afternoon off (and what better way to spend an afternoon off than at the movies).
And I must say it was an afternoon well spent. While not necessarily the greatest Bond movie ever (I am a big enough fan of the old Sean Connery films that they will be very hard to beat, although Pierce Brosnan is certainly a close second for best Bond). The movie is interesting in that it is jump-starting the series (much like Batman Begins did with the Batman franchise) by going back to the beginning and showing us how James Bond became 007 and going from there. And I have to say, the scene at the start of the film where we see Bond earning his 00 rating is brilliantly done.
The big controversy with this movie has been the new actor portraying James Bond, Daniel Craig. A lot of people were bitching and moaning and complaining the minute he was cast, long before any of them had actually seen the movie (which annoyed the hell out of me – just as a general rule I hate people who judge something, or more specifically condemn something, without ever actually having seen it. But that’s a whole other topic I could rant on about for hours, going off on conservative groups who attack TV shows and video games, etc., etc.; but we’ll save that one for another time). So I saved my judgment of the new Bond until after I’d actually seen him in action before deciding on how fit he was for the role.
Now that I’ve seen the film, I have to say my feelings are mixed. First off, I have to say that regardless of what all the naysayers out there might think, Daniel Craig I think is a fine actor, and did a very good job with the role. I don’t think anyone can legitimately criticize his performance in the movie. On the flip side, however, I found myself having a really, really hard time picturing him as James Bond. I don’t know if it was the blonde hair, or the way he played the character, or maybe the way the character was written, but I just didn’t see James Bond up there on the screen.
A lot of it, I think, has to do with the nature of the story, and the fact that they are starting the franchise over from the beginning. The reason I say this is that what we get in this movie is not the suave, sophisticated Bond that we’re used to. He’s a less disciplined, less experienced, more raw of a character than we’re used to. He’s more aggressive, less subtle in his tactics, closer to his military roots and less the sophisticated super spy. Which is exactly what he’s supposed to be. And that’s where I defend Daniel Craig’s performance. What we get isn’t the James Bond we’re used to or are expecting, but he’s not supposed to be. But the way the movie plays out, I’m really looking forward to the next one just to see how they develop the character, and how Daniel Craig grows into the character, because Casino Royale if nothing else leaves us with a lot of potential for future films.
As for the movie itself, it does indeed get back to basics (something the producers made a big deal about all through development). There is no Q present in the movie, and thus no super gadgets present, something that was always a staple of the Bond movies, but something that got a bit out of hand in the recent Brosnan films, so I think it’s something the movie can indeed live without. However, I think it still had too much of the big budget summer action blockbuster to it, and still not enough of the spy thriller elements that I was really hoping for (as far as spy movies go, I’d still take either of the Bourne films over Casino Royale). But that didn’t keep this from being a fun, fast-paced, exciting movie.
Dame Judi Dench returns as the hard-nosed M, and is as brilliant as ever. She has the absolute best line in the movie, in my opinion. Bond has just hacked into her personnel file, and when she catches him, he comments that he thought ‘M’ was a random letter designation, and didn’t realize it actually stood for her real name. Of course, he’s just about to say her actual name, when she cuts him off by saying, “Utter one more syllable and I’ll be forced to have you killed.” And she says it with a cold conviction that tells you she’s absolutely deadly serious. It’s just brilliant. And that’s just one of the many great lines from the movie. I have to say, the dialogue of the film is probably one of its strongest points, including a number of very humorous lines (among them a sly reference to Miss Moneypenny, who like Q isn’t in the movie).
All in all I was pretty impressed with Casino Royale. I think they’ve got a good foundation to build on for future Bond movies, and I think given a chance Daniel Craig will turn out to be a very solid James Bond. I have only two real criticisms of the movie. The first is the presence of a couple of very, very blatant product placements. Which is sadly something we’re seeing more and more of in both TV and movies, and so I guess you just have to shrug it off and not let it bug you. The second complaint I have is the desire by the producers to be more politically correct with the movie, and get away from some of the chauvinistic (for lack of a better word) elements of the earlier movies that were so a part of the James Bond films (but at the same time werer very much a part of the 60s and 70s eras that the movies were made in, something the producers are trying to get away from). For starters, we still have the complex, somewhat surreal opening credits with lots of crazy visual elements that’s just fun to watch, but nowhere to be found are the silhouettes of naked women that are a trademark of the opening credits of the Bond films.
The other thing they felt the need to take away was Bond’s blatant womanizing. They make a point of letting us know he prefers married women (since there’s less strings attached), but beyond that the only woman he actually goes to bed with is the romantic interest in the movie, who he falls for about two thirds of the way through the film (and who he doesn’t actually sleep with until AFTER he’s fallen for her). Now before the feminists start attacking me, I will admit that earlier Bond movies are fairly sexist in their portrayals of women, but at the same time it was always just so much fun to see Bond seducing several women through the course of every mission he went on. Hell, that’s a big part of what Bond is famous for – he’s the suave, sophisticated super spy who can have any woman he wants (and usually does, sooner or later).
So while I understand the producers desire for a more modern, less sexist Bond, I think I’m going to miss the Bond of the past. But that’s okay, because I’ve got the first two box sets on DVD, and will have the second two as soon as they come out, so I can always go back and watch the originals (I do have to comment, though, that I'd like to just slap hard across the face whatever marketing jerk decided to mix and match the movies so you get a couple from each actor in each box set, as opposed to releasing the damn things in the order the movies came out. But heaven forbid someone buy just the Sean Connery movies or just the Roger Moore movies. No, they have to make damn certain if you're buying them you're buying the whole bloody series. Which I had planned to do regardless, but I still stay it's a screwed up way to release the DVDs).
Well, I think that’s it for this entry. Tomorrow being my birthday, I will of course be at the theatre doing a double-feature, so look forward to another entry in the next few days (hopefully I can get it done before the weekend is over; we’ll see how it goes).
No comments:
Post a Comment