I’m hard pushed to think of any franchise, even Rocky, that has reached number 23 and yet Bond is back for just such gruelling treatment. Directed by Sam Mendes, the film was almost not made after MGM hit major financial troubles and had to suspend the project. But today finally saw its general release here in the UK. It is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, Judi Dench’s seventh as M and the twenty-third time a vodka martini has been shaken and not stirred.
There was a time when a Bond film followed a format (Ask Alan Partridge). It always started with a prologue; Bond killing some insignificant villains. Cut into title sequence with lots of silhouettes, usually of naked ladies with titles shooting phalically out of Bond’s pistol. Bond then meets M at MI6 and gets mission. Then he meets Q at Q-Branch and gets gadgets. He’ll fly to an expensive hotel in a Far Eastern location and get DJ’d up for something resembling the Ferrero Rocher Amabassadors Ball. Accompanied by a sexy female MI6 contact he meets the villian in formal surroundings and beats him at cards. Then he has sex with the villians girlfriend, much to the jealousy of his MI6 collegue. Then there will be lots of driving around mountains doing reconnaissance where he uses his gadgets on the villains henchmen (he got from Q earlier? pay attention 007) and the female MI6 colleague would get kidnapped. The finale would consist of Bond going to the villains super lair to rescue her. The lair would contain the villains secret weapon or super-computer designed to conquer mankind but ends up blowing up. With the villain dead he heads back to London, finally having sex with the MI6 colleague. The End.
Craig’s Bond has not only strayed from this format slightly but he has left his own mark on the character. We see a more vulnerable side, learn more about his past and what has made him who he is. Craig’s Bond is less sleazy and cocky. Capable of failing and letting people down, he has his fair share of loosing battles. Consequently we are rid of the predictability of the storyline, raising the stakes and risk for all concerned.
However, many may suggest Quantum of Solace took this reinvention beyond recognition and merely used what we love about Bond in a gimmicky way. I would go as far as to suggest Mendes and the writers are a big fan of Bond. Like Russell T Davies when he was released onto Dr Who, this film has been produced with a love and intrinsic understanding of not only the characters but a nations relationship with them. Even HM The Queen wants to be seen with Bond, that’s how much it matters! This film ticks every box. Bardem’s villain is the best since Christopher Walken. Bérénice Marlohe is the sexiest Bond girl in decades! There are great chase sequences, there are amazing foreign locations, there are great London sequences and a whole world that we get to share with our hero – a classy world, a dangerous world, a wealthy world, a sexy world – that we would never otherwise experience, even if we were royalty (though I have it on good authority that it was the real Queen who parachuted out of the helicopter at this summer’s Olympics!)
Every nation has their hero. America called their superman, rather unoriginally, Superman. The British, in our rare moments of non-sport related patriotism, call their superman Bond. James Bond.
[rating=5]
Any discussion about the Brit-gangster genre is going to contain heavy references to this film. And I can now say, having finally watched it, that I can be party to those discussions! It’s evident to me now where Guy Ritchie gets his inspiration and indeed why they cast who they did in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Most of them cut their teeth in this film including PH Moriarty, Alan Ford and even a young Dexter Fletcher!
I recall John Carpenter saying he was surprised that no-one had made a film called 
Halloween. Likewise, I was quite surprised no-one has made a film called Sinister, especially given the vogue to use bold one word titles! And it could scarily have been a film that was built round a good title without any substance. Thankfully this is not the case and this film comes up with the goods.
The other thing that grinds me about a lot of horror films these days (as I’ve mentioned in numerous previous reviews) is shaky camera footage. But other than the Super 8 footage (which is kinda qualified given the storyline) everything else is beautifully shot. A refreshing change to your average horrors and very atmospheric too. It also incorporates a device I love in films, where there are things that are staring you in the face, the clues are there and yet you only clock them when they want you to, with the deftness and nimbleness of a magician messing with your head. After all, there is skill to making a good horror, not just sudden loud noises and inyaface camera shots (though there are a few of those here nevertheless)
I have never seen the play and was keen to find out what all the fuss was about. Having watched a string of play adaptations to film of late I thought it would be the perfect excuse for me to review the film version directed by Roman Polanski. As I’ve mentioned in a previous review, I found Carnage, the film version of the Yasmina Reza play God of Carnage, to be a fail loosing much in transition to screen (having seen it on stage too) I have nothing to compare this adaptation to. Probably no bad thing given how captivating and dramatic it was from start to finish.
With a set up like that, you know you’re in for a thrilling treat and that’s precisely what you get. Great pace and a great script that takes you to the edge of madness without getting ridiculous. And Dorfman makes poignant political comment that leaves you buzzing with more questions than answers. It’s about power and the need for empowerment, the quest for a recognition of truth and justice, and whether that quest is genuine, noble or even right – in a twisted sense, do the means justify the ends. In other words, despite the cause and revolution being so popular, is the result ever satisfactory?
Alas there are not many actresses in Hollywood who get to do more than, say, four films as leading lady. There just aren’t as many big roles for women as there are for men. That’s what makes Sigourney Weaver’s portfolio so impressive. And it is with a deliberate sense of irony that I vote her “Man of the Match” in this film. Stuart Wilson’s not bad either whilst Sir Ben Kingsley is hard to read which is apt I guess for this role (I find this aloofness a lot with Ralph Fiennes’ acting and it’s not necessarily a great thing either) You will not be disappointed with this. I shall recommend it as a good alternative Halloween choice too purely for it’s mad manic atmosphere!
This 1992 film from David Mamets Pulitzer prize winning play from 1984 shows it’s age. Set in a Chicago real-estate office, it’s salesmen are given the ultimate deadline. The first to pull in a closing sale wins a car, the second wins a set of steak knives and the third gets the sack (There are four salesmen, not sure what the fourth prize is – death?) All they have at their disposal are some terrible “leads” even though there are 500 new “leads”. These new leads will only become available to those who succeed even though each salesmen feels they would succeed with these new leads. Then the office is burgled and two of the salesmen suddenly succeed in closing their deals. And so on. As the IMDB put it, the film is “An examination of the machinations behind the scenes at a real estate office”.
You know when someone does an impersonation of an impressionist doing an impersonation. Likewise Kevin Spacey, Al Pacino, Jonathan Pryce and Alan Arkin all play charactured film versions of theatrical versions of the characters. Lots of pointing, lots of swearing, lots of smoking and lots of gratuitous intesity that suggests hidden layers to their characters etc etc… But with so many big names one couldn’t help feeling this film was just a job for the boys. Nor did this help another thing that nagged me throughout the film – it’s about “the machinations behind the scenes at a real estate office” So what? Why should I give a flying flack about any of these people? Why does this deserve my attention? Mamet failed to make me care. It was theatrical performance on film and was consequently a bit rubbish.
It was a tweet from Mark Kermode that prompted me to check out this film. Perhaps I had my hopes raised too much. Toby Young stars in this horror drama from writer/director Peter Strickland about an English sound operator who gets a big break at an Italian Sound studio making sound FX for a film. He soon realises the film is of a very gruesome nature, more than your average horror film. As he undertakes sessions of smashing watermelons to immitate crushed body parts and spraying water into a hot frying pan to immitate a red hot poker stabbed into a vagina, he becomes somewhat peturbed by the nature of his job. And it is this nature plus relentless workload, pressure, isolation and an angry boss that slowly sends him over the edge. We share in his delusions and hallucinations heavily through the medium of sound.
Toby Jones plays the lead, Gilderoy, who has two sets of emotions – either nervous and apologetic or pathetically angry, nervous and apologetic. A good horror film must have something at stake (literally if it’s Dracula) However, if our protagonist is hard work, too bland, wet and drab, then after a while we tend not to care what happens to them. At the very worst, it makes for an amusing come-uppance. Whilst it was a good performance, I didn’t really make any connection with Jones’ character.
Though not the most original of ideas, this 1992 biopic of Charles Spencer Chaplin sees Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr) recounting his life to a biographer (Anthony Hopkins) from his last home in Switzerland. It follows his childhood success in Music Hall to his move to America and his ultimate life changing summons from Mack Sennett to star in “movies”. It follows the trials and tribulations of his young success (67/81 films were made before his 30th birthday) and the effects this would have on his personal life (he was married four times and had 11 children) including the close bond he had with his brother Sydney. It also touches on his mothers mental health problems. Then from his reluctant transfer to the “talkies” in his seminal work 
This powerful film from Paddy Considine, his debut as writer and director for which he won a BAFTA, tells the story of Joseph (Peter Mullan) – a man battling with his demons and loosing. His violent reactions are taking a huge toll on him and those who come into contact with him. Hiding from himself he storms into a charity shop like a tortured soul would a church. There he meets Hannah (Olivia Colman) who prays for him and becomes a source of calm for him. So begins a beautiful friendship set against the backdrop of their own horrific lives.
I often get anxious about watching “deep” films such as this and approached this one with some trepidation. It’s a block that stems from my college years when people were queing up to tell me what a sheltered middle class upbringing I’d had and that there was no way I could understand the feelings and pain a film such as this evokes, as such feelings can only be truly understood from a life where you’d been there, done it, lived it, got scarred by it and ultimately bought and burnt the T-shirt several times. Twenty years on I still think they were talking wank. Feelings are feelings, fear is fear, love is love, violence is violence and it’s something we all experience daily since our birth regardless of whether we’re middle class, working class, refugee or royalty. It’s only prejudice that disagrees. For this reason I guarantee that if you are equally anxious, as I was, about watching this film, you fears are unfounded. Just watch it!
This classic from FilmFour tells the story of Cal (Ray Winstone) an ex bank robber who has retired to Spain, but gets contacted to do one last job. He’s ready to say “No”, but when he hears that Don Logan is coming over in person to “persuade” him , a heavy Eastenders atmosphere descends. Cue big build up to the arrival of Mr Logan (Ben Kingsley) However prepare for anticlimax as when he does arrive we see that it’s less to do with the fact that he’s a Mr Big as the film would like us to supposedly believe, but rather like a weirdo relative from hell who looks like Ben Kingsley putting on a mockney accent. The reasons for dreading his arrival become apparent for all the wrong reasons. So it’s a comedy? Er, no! I’m afraid not. And it gets worse.
