Goofy James Bond Is Back in the Uneven, but Still Very Enjoyable, "Spectre."

Spectre

Daniel Craig's tenure as James Bond has been a series of extremes. His initial casting angered many fans while others approved. His four films as Bond have been varied, as well. The critical response to Casino Royale and Skyfall was incredibly high (95% and 93%, respectively, on Rotten Tomatoes) while Quantum of Solace and Spectre saw huge drop-offs (65% and 63%). Fan reactions generally followed the critics, but Spectre is different. The people who dislike Quantum of Solace (I am among this group as I found the story a bit random and the action subpar) hated it for typical reasons regarding plot and action. To be fair, there are plenty of people who dislike Spectre for those very same reasons, but Spectre is different because it marks the first time Craig has portrayed a more traditional Bond; traditional in that he makes more jokes, experiences some physical comedy, drives a car with gadgets, has a special watch, and jokes around with Q. 

A more traditional Bond is probably what a lot of Bond fans have wanted for a while. If so, they will love Spectre above all others. For others (like myself) who don't mind if Bond is more like Jason Bourne than, well, James Bond, then Spectre will be viewed as a lesser entry. While the goofier aspects of Spectre do feel out of place in what has been a super serious franchise as of late (not to mention that this film begins with the ominous, not funny at all, line, "The dead are alive"), it doesn't ruin the film. It just makes it more like a James Bond film, for better or worse. This is actually what Bond should have been the whole time anyway. There are enough Bourne movies to go around, why can't Bond stay on the goofy side? We'll see if the franchise keeps up the goofiness in the next film. Here's hoping they keep it to a Spectre-type minimum and don't go all Moonraker on us just because Star Wars is popular again...

Spectre, judged by itself, is certainly inconsistent tonally, and it is a bit too long (it is the longest entry in the franchise), but it still contains all the stuff that made Casino Royale and Skyfall great. The action, while bordering on the nonsensical, looks great, and certain sequences, like the opening camerawork in Mexico, the shadowy meeting in the middle, and a brutal fight on a train, work great. The problem with Spectre is that the series has asked you to take it so seriously in the last few films, and now it seems to say, "Nevermind! We're going to have helicopters do barrel rolls! Bond is going to chase SUVs with a plane for some reason! There will be physical comedy now too! Like Bond falling off a building...onto a couch!" Once again, all of this is perfectly fine in previous Bond films. It was just jarring to see it in a Craig-Bond film. 

Aside from the inconsistency in general, Spectre is definitely worth watching. Director Sam Mendes has made another great-looking Bond movie, and he knows how to film action. And if Spectre is as silly as Bond gets now that the series is back in traditional Bond mode, then fine. There is something to be said for Bond movies being different by being themselves. Bond trying to be like other modern action stars might make for a better movie in general, but it does not necessarily make for a better Bond movie.

Spectre receives a:

Random Thoughts - Spoilers

My personal ranking of the last four goes like this: 1. Casino Royale 2. Skyfall 3. Spectre (and at a distant)4. Quantum of Solace.

The fight with Bautista on the train was great. I love how it came out of nowhere and ended up being the most brutal action scene in the film.

The opening was easily my favorite part of the movie, and not just because of the one-shot gimmick. Bond in the Day of the Dead getup made for a cool visual.

Waltz being Blofeld is a mistake for the franchise, in my opinion. After Dr. Evil, the character simply does not work. Not to mention, it was way too much like the Harrison=Kahn reveal from Star Trek into Darkness. I like Waltz, but I wish they would have made him a unique villain. And did they really need to give him a cat, too?

Speaking of Blofeld, I don't really buy that he was behind everything in the last few movies. I don't need all the Bond movies to connect like that. I prefer them to be one-offs each time. 

All spy movie franchises need to ditch the plot line about spies being irrelevant in the modern world. We get it, surveillance is everywhere now, but we still need individuals to make it all work. Message received, screenwriters! Just have the spies do stuff without having to battle bureaucracy. I've seen this play out in Mission Impossible and the Bourne movies enough already. 

That said, I did like every scene with Ralph Fiennes, but I think they can find something for him to do without turning the plot into old vs. new.

Try Not To Be Offended and Just Enjoy "Django Unchained"

Django Unchained - Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, and Leonardo DiCaprio - Rated R

 

 

Quentin Tarantino has become a somewhat controversial figure in cinema. There are the Tarantino devotees, who have been on board since they first saw Reservoir Dogs and enjoy every single thing he does (I can nearly be classified as part of this group). Then there are the people that have been less than impressed with everything he has done since Pulp Fiction. I feel that he has become an internet target in that it’s cool to hate him since so many film nerds love everything he does. To be fair, he set himself up for this as his films have turned into a series of references to other, much more obscure films. What is the difference between copying and paying homage? I believe it comes down to opinion: if you enjoy his films, then Tarantino is paying homage; if you dislike the films, he’s stealing. This has been the issue with Tarantino for some time, but he opened up a new debate with his last film, Inglourious Basterds: is it okay to alter history and find humor within very serious situations? Once again, if you’re with the film, then yes, it’s totally okay. Now with Django Unchained, a cartoonishly violent, surprisingly funny film about slavery, Tarantino asks this question of the audience again, and my answer is an emphatic “yes.”

I love most of Tarantino’s work (Death Proof just didn’t work for me), but I rarely take it seriously. I think the filmmaker sets out to simply entertain people, which means he must do whatever he thinks is best to accomplish that. If that’s constantly using cheesy zooms taken from old kung fu movies, or spraying goofy amounts of blood from bullet wounds, or having the precursor to the Klan have a complaint session about holes in bags, then so be it. If it works, it works. This is why there can be laughter during a movie about slavery. Tarantino isn’t pretending to give a history lesson (this is the guy who decided to kill off Hitler in a movie theater, after all). He is trying to get you to enjoy yourself, and I enjoyed myself immensely throughout Django.

Entertainment as a goal doesn’t excuse a film from controversy, however. Some will be, and are, angry about the film. Complaints range from taking the slavery issue lightly at all to the many uses of the “N-word” throughout the film. I understand how all of this can be offensive, but I suppose I’m not easily offended. But be forewarned: this is certainly not a film for everyone. And even if some of the violence is portrayed as humorous, there are still very gruesome and brutal moments that will sicken people.

If you can get past all of the possibly offensive material, though, you will witness one of the best films of the year. The story of the lengthy film is relatively simple. Bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) frees Django (Jamie Foxx) because he needs his help tracking down some slavers. After they’re done, Schultz agrees to help Django find and rescue his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of the delightfully evil Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his faithful servant, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson).

The film ends up being quite lengthy because Tarantino has finally made his spaghetti western, and he couldn’t help but fill it with references. I won’t pretend to share Tarantino’s encyclopedic knowledge of film, but I did enjoy all of the little touches that I picked up here and there. It just feels good to watch the movie with a crowd and notice Franco Nero (the original Django from the 1966 film) and know that I am one of the only people that caught it.

That’s not to say that references alone make this film enjoyable. It’s loaded with Tarantino weirdness. From the hilarious and at times self-aware dialogue to the fact that Schultz drives around a carriage with a giant tooth on top of it; there is plenty here for the uninitiated viewer. Tarantino has struck a great balance of honest storytelling and his trademark weirdness. I like watching his films because I know that anything might happen, even if the story takes place in a historical setting.

Tarantino doesn’t get too crazy with anachronisms, except perhaps with the music. Modern day music, along with some classic songs, is used throughout the film. It might take some people out of the film, but I found the songs perfectly suitable for each scene. Tarantino seems to always find the ideal music for each of his films.

Django is not simply a stylishly violent film with a good soundtrack, though. Tarantino’s scripts have long been ripe material for actors. Jamie Foxx is great as Django, and his transition from frightened slave to empowered bounty hunter is a realistic one. Unfortunately for him, the supporting roles of the film are much more interesting than the title character. Christoph Waltz is gaining attention yet again for his supporting role (he won an Oscar for Basterds) as Schultz. It’s a fun performance, and he makes every line of dialogue lively. Samuel L. Jackson gives his best performance in years as the absolutely evil slave Stephen. His performance is impressive, and hilarious, because he gets to play up the stereotype of the helpful slave, but also gets to show the true ruthlessness of his character. Then there is Leonardo DiCaprio. There’s something inherently interesting about a character that you’re supposed to hate, and DiCaprio fully embraces that. People were up in arms when he wasn’t nominated for the Academy Award, but it’s a packed category this year. Waltz getting the nomination makes sense, but I’m surprised more people are not singing Jackson’s praises. I felt that his lack of a nomination was a bigger snub than DiCaprio. DiCaprio winning an Oscar is a question of when. Who knows when Jackson will take on another prestige role like this?

Django Unchained is the total package for me. It has great action, fitting music, a historical setting, spaghetti western influences, comedy, Tarantino’s style, and fun performances. Honestly, the only thing keeping this movie from being my favorite of the year is Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln. If not for that great performance, Django Unchained would be the best film of the year, in my opinion. Try not to be offended and enjoy Quentin Tarantino’s latest piece of entertainment.

"The Green Hornet"

The Green Hornet - Directed by Michel Gondry, written by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg, starring Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, and Christoph Waltz - Rated PG-13

Balls Deep in Shit-Kickin' Dudes by Kato is definitely on the Evil Kurgan's bookshelf.

Superhero movies have become so prevalent in Hollywood that they are basically a genre to themselves at this point, which means they can be very tiresome unless an original approach is taken. The Green Hornet takes a slightly different approach than most super-serious hero tales and while it may not be the first film to take this approach, it is still an extremely fun film.

The Green Hornet takes a very comedic approach to the superhero genre. In fact, this movie has just as much (if not more) comedy as action. Serious movies like The Dark Knight are great and all, but it’s refreshing to see a superhero movie that doesn’t take itself very seriously. This is possible because the source material is not a comic book with a rabid fan base. The Green Hornet originated as a radio program in the ‘30s and was a short-lived TV show in the ‘60s in its most popular incarnations, so not a lot of mythology (or fans) to have to live up to.

The basic story of The Green Hornet involves Britt Reid (Seth Rogen), an heir to a newspaper, dealing with the death of his father, James Reid (Tom Wilkinson). Britt is a hard partying, pampered rich jerk. But once his father dies his life changes, but not the way you would expect. Britt doesn’t want to take up his father’s quest to help the city. Instead, he gets drunk with his father’s mechanic/coffee maker Kato (Jay Chou) and talks about how much of a jerk his dad was. Britt and Kato decide to go on an adventure not to fight crime, but to vandalize a statue of Britt’s father. It’s only when they stumble across a couple being attacked that they decide to fight crime. And that sets up Britt’s plan to fight crime by posing as criminals.

The plot is more complicated than that, but this movie doesn’t have much payoff in the story department. There is no sense of a need for justice in the streets and you never get the idea that the characters are fighting crime out of a sense of duty or honor. In fact, both the heroes and villains are egomaniacs. That may sound a bit dark but the film is never meant to be taken very seriously. The characters may not be all that likable, but they are fun to watch.

Comedy is, of course, subjective, but for this film it will be easy to predict if you are going to find it funny; just ask yourself: do I find Seth Rogen funny? The film is, after all, written by Rogen and Evan Goldberg, who have also written Superbad and Pineapple Express. The dialogue of The Green Hornet is very reminiscent of those films, though it is cleaned up to a PG-13 level.

Most of your enjoyment of the film will hinge on your opinion of Rogen, but if you’re on the fence about him, maybe Kato can sway your opinion. Rogen handles most of the funny dialogue, but Jay Chou gets all of the cool moments. He has “Kato Vision,” in which things slow down and he can pinpoint weapons and take out plenty of bad guys in seconds. He also has plenty of regular action moments, but the “Kato Vision” sequences are the coolest. Chou’s performance is not just physical, though. He gets his share of jokes. Kato’s disgust and disdain of Britt at times is quite amusing. Kato is not some servant to the Green Hornet. They are equals and, in many ways, Kato is superior, though Kato has ego issues that match Britt’s.

Christoph Waltz represents the Green Hornet and Kato’s opposition in this film, though the role is much more secondary than most villainous roles. Even though he is not a prominent villain, Waltz is given a very funny introduction. (If you want a certain cameo to be a surprise, skip to the next paragraph now.) Waltz is introduced by being verbally berated by James Franco. Franco hilariously cuts Waltz to pieces, critiquing his facial hair, his suit, etc. It makes sense; Waltz does appear to be a bit plain, but there is more to him. Waltz stands out because of his eccentricities (his gun of choice is a strange double barreled handgun) and insecurities (he is constantly, sincerely asking people how he can be more intimidating).

The characters all want to be like comic book heroes/villains. This isn’t a deduction made by the viewer; the characters flat out state this. That is the other aspect that makes this film a bit more interesting than the standard hero movies: the characters acknowledge that comic books and movies exist. It’s kind of like Kick-Ass, in that the film wants to be an entry in the genre while also poking fun at the ridiculousness of it. Much like that other film, though, The Green Hornet fails to make much of a message because it ends up becoming exactly what it was attempting to satirize. It’s easy to forgive that if you don’t take the film too seriously, though.

The story may be a bit disappointing to some, but fans of director Michel Gondry will be the most disappointed. The usually stylish director is a bit toned down in this mainstream effort. There are still visually interesting moments like the “Kato Vision” and a split screen segment, but for the most part this is an ably directed action comedy, no more, no less. There is nothing really wrong with that, it’s just if you’re expecting something along the lines of The Science of Sleep you are going to be sadly disappointed.

Gondry does a fine job of creating chaos, though. The last act of this film is pure action insanity. Leave your disbelief at the door or you’ll be shaking your head so hard during the last twenty minutes you’ll become dizzy. If you can accept the ridiculous action, then you’ll most likely enjoy it.

Concerning visuals for this film, this film was released in 3D, which seems more and more to be a controversial element in movies. This is one of those dreaded post-conversion jobs, but it actually looked decent. The 3D itself wasn’t all that necessary, though. The “Kato Vision” scenes certainly benefited from it, but there are not enough of those scenes to warrant an entire film to be converted to 3D. Overall, it was decent, but not worth the extra price in admission.

Disappointment of the film is based on individual expectations, but it’s hard to believe anyone could enjoy Cameron Diaz in this film. Her performance isn’t all that terrible, it’s just that she is so clearly tacked on for some much needed female presence in the film. There should have been a more fleshed out character added. The conflict the character created between Britt and Kato led to some amusing stuff, but the character itself was very weak.

All in all, The Green Hornet is a surprisingly funny action film in the normally dreary January deluge of dumped films. Rogen and Chou work together well and Waltz gets to be goofy and evil. It may not be what you expect, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. You don’t need to lower your expectations, just change them a bit and this film should entertain you.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I know the gas gun bit was shown in the previews, but the payoff of the joke is still hilarious in the film. The fact that it knocks him out for eleven days cracked me up.

Balls Deep in Shit-Kickin’ Dudes by Kato may be the best title I’ve ever heard.

A minor issue I had was with the timeline of the film. The opening scene (which I found kind of pointless) claims to take place in 1990. The computer on Wilkinson’s desk was not a 1990 computer. I remember computers from that time period and they did not look like that. Once again, minor, but it bothered me.

I loved the fact that the film acknowledges the progression of time when a Britt is figuring out what has been going on. Normally time freezes while this happens in a film, leading the audience to believe that the character just had a moment of instant realization. In this film, Britt thinks it all through, and then a character mentions that he has been staring into space for five minutes.

Cool to see a couple Edwards in this. Edward James Olmos does a nice job playing the serious man to Britt’s man child in the news office. And Edward Furlong was a strange sight as a meth cook, haven’t seen that guy in anything high profile for awhile.

That was excellent use of Johnny Cash’s cover of “I Hung My Head” after Wilkinson died.

Even though there isn’t much of a fan base to please, it was still cool that they stuck with the original design of the car and masks and stuff. I also liked seeing the sketches of Bruce Lee. And the use of the theme song at the end was amusing.

Who’s to say that a car cut in half can’t drive around?

Great...okay, maybe not great, but what I consider to be an amusing line from Christoph Waltz: “I’m ungassable!”

"Inglourious Basterds"

Inglourious Basterds - Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Eli Roth, and Melanie Laurent - Rated R


Tarantino is in top form with this one.



Inglourious Basterds, the latest from Quentin Tarantino, is exactly what you would expect from the director of Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. The stylish World War II Nazi hunting movie is tense, violent, slow burning, hilarious, and jaw dropping. While this might be what a Tarantino fan would always expect, it's not necessarily the film that the previews promised. I've noticed more and more lately that ads for movies either give everything away, or are cut in such a way that they seem to be showcasing completely different films. The latter is the case with Basterds. If you saw the preview, you would expect that this is a Brad Pitt film. If you have to name a star of the film, I suppose you would say it was Pitt, but he's actually in less than half of the film.

The film starts in Nazi-occupied France. Col. Hans Landa, aka "Jew Hunter," played with equal parts menace and civility by Christoph Waltz, shows up at a dairy farmer's house to see if he is harboring Jews. It is set up by a reference to spaghetti westerns ("Once upon a time...in Nazi-occupied France") and that sets the tone for the entire film. Ennio Morricone music blares as Landa approaches. An extremely tense conversation goes on for nearly fifteen minutes before Landa shows his true intention. That is what is so great about his character and the Oscar-worthy performance. Even though he's pleasant and polite, there's an unsettling undertone in every line of dialogue. This man is good at his job, which is where the Basterds come in.

As Lt. Aldo Raine, Brad Pitt gets to have a blast. His southern drawl is perfect as he talks about "killing NATzees." Some people might be put off by the over the top performance, but I enjoyed it. It's a great counterbalance to Waltz's understated portrayal. The other aspect that keeps the performance from becoming silly is the fact that the film doesn't stay with Aldo and the Basterds. As I said, that opening scene is lengthy as are the other tense scenes in the film that set up new characters and lay out the ground work for plans to take out the top ranks of the Third Reich. It's almost as if Tarantino wanted to lighten things up by going from insanely tense with Landa, to insanely funny with Raine. This might seem uneven to some, but it worked for me.

Viewers might be expecting more of an action film from the previews as well. This is a movie about killing Nazis, after all. But Tarantino has never been an all out action filmmaker and this film, despite the previews loaded with gunshots, is relatively light on the action. That's not to say it's boring, it's just that this film is two and a half hours long and the focus is on the tense buildup that leads to a shootout rather than the shootout itself. Remember, Tarantino's first film (Reservoir Dogs), was about the aftermath of a bank robbery and the robbery itself was never shown. He's interested in what happens before and after, and it makes the action memorable and powerful. In one scene there is a twenty minute set up to a shootout that is less than a minute long. When Tarantino does show violence, though, it is brutal and sometimes shocking. The "Nazi scalps" that Pitt requests in the trailer are provided and Eli Roth, as the "Bear Jew," gets to swing away at a Nazi's head with a baseball bat. Tarantino doesn't cut away for that one. We get to see a crazy-eyed Roth bludgeon the Nazi in sickening detail.

It's all part of Tarantino's style and this is not a typical World War II movie and should certainly not be viewed as such. In fact, looking at this movie in relation to other, more serious, WWII films would make it downright offensive and far too tongue in cheek. For instance, Hitler is a character in the film and I do mean character. To trivialize one of the most evil men in the history of the world is quite tricky, but it has happened before. Chaplin poked fun at Hitler in The Great Dictator and comic books from that era featured the likes of Captain America fighting the tyrant. If viewed in that light, this film is pitch perfect and you can ignore historical accuracy and have some fun with it (and I mean completely ignore historical accuracy). People want to see real life evil icons faced with violence and pleasing conclusions, not war trials and deaths in bunkers. Consider Inglourious Basterds as a World War II fantasy film and you probably won't come away offended or angry.

If there is one thing about the film that I took issue with, it wasn't the comical treatment of a serious time period, it was the lack of info given for the Basterds. You get hints at the history of the characters, like Hugo Stiglitz's amusing mini bio, but I wanted each soldier to get his own little story. A few of them don't have any lines, even. I suppose I was expecting more of a Dirty Dozen approach to the Basterds. I'm usually all for ambiguity, like the unexplained intentional misspelling of the group, but I wanted more background from Tarantino on this one. This is only a minor issue I had with this otherwise amazing film.

I'm a strong believer in having the proper expectations for a movie. It can make or break your enjoyment of the film. If you can ignore the previews and go in expecting a Quentin Tarantino film rather than a Brad Pitt movie, then you'll come away very pleased.


I have quite a few more things to get into in no particular order, so here's my addendum to this review:

This is a heavily subtitled movie, so be prepared to read rather than hear most of Tarantino's great dialogue. There is one amusing reference to foreign language early on, though. Landa and the dairy farmer speak French at the start of their conversation, then Landa suggests that they switch to English since they both speak it and his French isn't very good. I always think about the use of English in films that take place in situations where English is not the native tongue. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather hear a movie than read it, but I liked that this movie acknowledged that fact and switched to English. It's also very cool that the use of English in the scene added to the tension.

There are a few amusing references to Tarantino's other work as well. The film is divided into chapters a la Kill Bill, Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel make voice cameos, and he adds text in scenes to point out who some characters are. He throws in little asides as well, my favorite being Hugo Stiglitz's mini bio. I also liked Tarantino factoring in film in the plot as the climax takes place in a movie theater and there are a few conversations about film. Maybe it's him exaggerating the importance of film in society or something, I don't know, but I liked it.