It has been eleven years since Goldeneye, the last good James Bond film, in my honest opinion. While the other Pierce Brosnan offerings had their moments, they felt more like generic over-the-top action films with the character of James Bond shoe-horned in as an after-thought, to the point of feeling like a self parody. It’s almost as if the various directors and writers had a checklist of James Bond-related clichés and were marking them off as they went along.
Casino Royale changes all that. After a decade of mediocre Bond installments, Casino Royale gets back down to the basics, and by that, I mean the very first Ian Fleming Bond novel and the genesis of the character.
M (Judi Dench), the director of MI-6 (England’s Secret Service) has just appointed a new Double-O Agent, James Bond (Daniel Craig), and is already regretting her selection. There’s a mysterious terrorist organization out there and MI-6 need to bring one of their henchmen in alive. Not an easy task, considering the terribly green 007 keeps botching his assignments. However, after getting something right, Bond is paired with the lovely Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and sent to the Casino Royale in Monte Negro. There, Bond will engage the underground banker, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikklesen), in a high-stakes poker game where the pot is over one hundred million dollars. If Bond can best the professional gambler, Le Chiffre will be rendered broke and forced to divulge his secrets to MI-6 in exchange for protection from his enemies. If Bond loses, the money will go to the mysterious organization and England will have directly funded terrorism.
This is a very different sort of James Bond film and all the better for it. Despite the required high-octane action sequences, this is decidedly more low-key than most Bond films. There’s no ruthless supervillain out to take over the world, no doomsday devices…just Bond playing Poker with an evil French banker. And it really works, I must confess. After years and years of Bond being played up as a superhero, Batman in a tuxedo, it feels so refreshing to see the series get back down to legitimate spy-novel intrigue and suspense. There are plenty of thrilling action sequences and mind-blowing stunts, so don’t worry, Casino Royale is most certainly not just two hours of Europeans playing poker.
I don’t want to call this film a “prequel” since, in all honesty, it really isn’t. Although Judi Dench reprises her role as M from the Pierce Brosnan series, Casino Royale most certainly doesn’t fit in any timeline in regards to previous Bond adventures. If anything, it’s more along the lines of a “reboot” or a “fresh start”, reintroducing the character of James Bond to a new crowd and paying much better attention to his characterization from the original Ian Fleming novels. Casino Royale had been adapted once before in 1967, but that was as a parody film starring Woody Allen; few even consider it a “real” James Bond installment. So I wouldn’t go so far as to call this film a remake, either.
With this being touted as “the first James Bond adventure ever!” the audience is of course going to expect some sort of origin for the character. Just don’t be anticipating any sort of detailed history about Bond’s childhood or anything of that nature; this movie simply covers his first assignment as a Double-O Agent and the events which molded his character into the James Bond we recognize. So, as a result, this is a different sort of James Bond. He’s a whole lot meaner, getting his hands pretty dirty, and also tends to lose his temper over and over. He’s more personal, particularly with Vesper, and a lot less emotionally detached from humanity. His attraction to Vesper seems genuinely sincere, unlike Bond’s other female relationships where he’s basically just a “man-whore”. Bond also isn’t the Mr. Perfect we all come to view him as. He messes up. A lot. It’s really rather entertaining, seeing James Bond learn from his mistakes and gradually turn into the super-agent pop culture depicts him as.
Daniel Craig is a pretty good James Bond, all things considered. He plays Bond as a real character with faults and emotions, and not as a stereotype or self-parody. He does seem a little…”old”, though, considering Bond is supposed to be rather green in this film. Craig is 38 years old, so he’s not really that old, but he isn’t particularly young, either. I enjoyed his performance and I look forward to future offerings.
Casino Royale is definitely the best Bond film to come along in a very, very long time. It’s noticeably different than previous installments, but in a franchise that has become so stagnant, that’s honestly a good thing. I’d definitely recommend it to anybody with even a remote interest in James Bond. And if you aren’t interested in Bond, then I recommend you see the film, anyway, as it’s a fresh start and a good point to jump right in.
Grade: B+
Watership Down (1978)
When I first saw this animated feature directed by Robert Mosen and based on the novel by Richard Adams, I was maybe 5 years old at the most. My Mom picked up the Beta cassette for me at Erol’s Video because it had adorable cartoon bunnies on the cover. She had no clue what the story was about, she just figured I’d like the bunnies. Watership Down remains one of the most disturbing elements of my childhood and was possibly the catalyst for my love of horror and violence. I don’t know whether to thank my Mother or hate her.
While grazing out in the warren, Fiver, a rabbit, has a terrible and frightening vision of the fields turning to blood. Fiver convinces his friend, Hazel, that all the rabbits must leave the warren or they will certainly die. The head rabbit dismisses Fiver’s warnings as ludicris, and along with his enforcers, prevents the rabbits from fleeing. With the help of a rogue enforcer, Bigwig, a small band of rabbits escape the warren in the dead of night, beginning a trek that will lead them to a new home. Along the way, they are met with many challenges, including carnivorous predators, man-made traps, and enemy rabbits. Eventually, they settle in a warren called Watership Down, however, all is not well. A neighboring warren called Efrefra, run by the ugly and blood-thirsty General Woundwart, wants them out. Soon the two warrens erupt in a bloody war.
It sounds absolutely surreal, doesn’t it? That these rabbits are waging war over land, freedom and ideology, it seems so…human. Indeed, Richard Adams painstakingly maps out the hierarchy of warrens and the way “rabbit civilization” is structured. The details are mind-blowing, going so far as to create a new vocabulary used by the rabbits as well as their own religious beliefs regarding creation and death. And very little of this is done in a “cartoonish” manner. The rabbits presented in Watership Down are all very lifelike save for animated features which give them greater expression and personality. You’ll never look at rabbits the same way again.
One thing I and many others recall best about this movie is the intense amount of violence. These rabbits kill each other and the audience are rarely spared the gruesome visuals. The final battle is especially gruesome, as Bigwig and Woundwart face-off, ripping and mauling one another to pieces. And then there’s the dog. Good lord.
It’s also rather scary. You see everything from the point of view of the rabbits. From cars, to owls, to badgers, it’s all done in a manner that makes the audience feel just as small and fragile as the rabbits themselves. Everything takes on a sinister new appearance and you’ll actually find yourself jumping when the head of a badger with bloody lips pops out of a bush. The one scene which frightened me the most as a child, however, and usually resulted in me ejecting the video cassette and swearing never to watch it again, was the flashback sequence about the warren Fiver and the rest fled. A human construction crew filled in all the rabbit holes while working, causing all the rabbits to become buried alive. The visuals are haunting, as you see dozens of rabbits crowded together, scratching at the dirt, trying to dig their way out, moaning and screaming as they suffocate. It still freaks me out.
Watership Down is rated PG, much in the way that Jaws and Poltergeist are rated PG…debatably. It’s very violent and sometimes very scary, though the story and animation is strong and timeless. I’d recommend this to an older children’s audience. It’s certainly not for 5 year-olds, anyhow. There was a newer adaptation produced in 1999 which tones down the violence and mature themes, but at the same time, robs the film of its heart and depth. I’d avoid it if I were you. The original Watership Down, however, gets a solid A.
Grade: A
The Prestige
Batman vs. Wolverine? Awesome. I wasn’t sure what to expect when I went into this movie. I mostly went at the behest of my brother, who wanted to see it quite badly, telling me the fellas over at IMDB were rating it exceptionally well. Well, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised with this film. Certainly Oscar-worthy material, without a doubt.
Rupert (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred (Christian Bale) are both up-and-coming magicians working for a showman named Cutter (Michael Cane). However, the difference between the two is that Rupert likes to keep things traditional, afraid to get his hands dirty, while Alfred thinks the magician-gig is stagnating, in desperate need of new material. After a mishap during one show, Alfred inadvertently causes the death of Rupert’s wife. And so begins a heated and ugly rivalry which goes on for years. Both magicians are constantly out to one-up each other, and at times, kill each other. It all leads to the enigma of the greatest trick in the business, “the Transporting Man”, though the truth behind the trick may be too horrible to imagine.
The Prestige, the movie, is in many ways like the illusionists it features; keeping certain things just out of sight yet within the audience’s grasp at all times if only they can manage to figure it out. The movie is set-up in a rather non-linear fashion for the most part. Christian Bale’s character is delivering a narrative from the journal of Hugh Jackman’s character, while simultaneously, Hugh Jackman is delivering a narrative from the journal of Christian Bale’s character. Each character gradually drops a piece of the puzzle in place, all leading up to a very shocking ending. This back-and-forth style of story-telling can be a bit confusing at first, and unless you’re paying attention, there’s a chance the audience might get lost. I wouldn’t recommend getting up and going to the bathroom during any part of this movie.
The lead characters are both very troubled, bitter-sweet people. There is no clear “good guy” or “bad guy” as they both do horrible things in the pursuit of their trade and their rivalry. Bale and Jackman are fantastic in the roles; Bale can get so smug-looking at times you just want to deck him in eye.
Then there is the best part of the movie, the part everyone leaving the theater is talking about: the twist. Although I managed to figure it out well before my brother, I was only able to do so because I had seen a cartoon on “Oh Canada” some many years before which had a similar plot. However, my ability to deduce the plot did not diminish its impressive power. It’s difficult to see coming, and even after you think you’ve figured it out, they’ll throw a few more curves at you.
The Prestige is one of those films you see in the theater and walk out knowing it’s going to win an Oscar. Everything necessary to earn an Academy Award is there: the acting, the direction, the script…everything. I have to give it an A. Do yourself a favor and see this movie. Then, do everyone else a favor and *don’t* spoil the ending. Please.
Grade: A
Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
A very influential horror/suspense film of its day, Rosemary’s Baby is a pretty entertaining film if you’re willing to have the patience to watch it. Rosemary’s Baby is a very slowly paced movie, taking a full 2 hours to build-up to the finale. It’s a bit like a puzzle, with all the pieces given to you at the right time, but not coming together until the end. And done well, might I add.
Guy and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) Woodhouse have just moved into a gorgeous new apartment in New York City. The happy couple plan on starting fresh and raising a family. They soon meet their new neighbors, the elderly Castevet couple, who are very nice but excruciatingly nosey. Guy quickly befriends the Castevets, much to Rosemary’s chagrin, and immediately meets new success in his stuggling acting carrer (though it is success at the expense of his competition). Guy then wants to have a baby, much to Rosemary’s delight. However, Guy has Rosemary go to a doctor recommended by the Castevets who gives her some unorthodox advice. Rosemary begins to feel uneasy, as she can tell there is something wrong with the baby. Rosemary investigates the Castevets and uncovers a terrible secret.
Rosemary’s Baby, her actual baby, does not show up until the very end of the film; the last 15 minutes. And, as you’ve probably heard, you do not get to actually see the baby-itself. Some complain about this, as they find it weakens the ending, but personally, I think the less-is-more approach is appropriate. Can you imagine how goofy this movie would have been had they shown some cruddy, rubber demon puppet at the end? It would have completely killed the film. The exact same thing happened to the original Thing from Another World, where they showed the mysterious monster at the climax and it looked like a pro-wrestler in a Frankenstein costume.
The 2 hours leading up to the birth of the baby is more like a suspense-thriller film than a horror movie, requiring a certain level of patience and attention from the audience. The only real moment of “horror” during the film is the rape-sequence. It’s the most frightening/disturbing portion of the film, as Rosemary is drugged and hallucinates that she is being raped by a strange beast: the Devil. It’s a very shocking, surreal moment, as she mixes reality with a bizarre nightmare while being throttled by this hairy monster.
Rosemary’s Baby is, well, kind of boring. Its old fashioned filmmaking for certain, which isn’t exactly a bad thing, but it does stretch things out a fair bit too long. After you’ve seen it once you’ll feel proud that you’ve finally watched it, but you’ll most likely never want to see it again. Rosemary’s Baby is a good, old fashioned suspense movie, but not something you’d watch during a night with friends or a horror movie marathon.
Grade: B
The Shining (1980)
I have three favorite sub-genres when it comes to horror films: Slasher, Zombie and Haunted House. In regards to the Haunted House films, “the Shining” from 1980 ranks at the very top. An eerie, unnerving tale that could only be realized to its full potential by the master of the surreal, Stanley Kubrick.
Struggling author, Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson), has been hired to be the winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, secluded far away in the mountains. Jack, his wife (Shelly Duvall) and their son, Danny (Danny Lloyd), get accustomed to the cavernous hotel as the staff gradually leaves for the winter. All save for Dick Hollaran (Scatman Crothers), who sticks around long enough to have a few words with Danny. Danny has a bizarre gift: the ability to read other’s thoughts and see visions of the future. Mr. Hollaran has that ability, called the shining, as well, and warns Danny to be careful. The Overlook Hotel has a bad history and can cause men to go out of their mind. Soon, the Torrences are left all alone in the Hotel, confined within the premesis by a frigid snowstorm. As the weeks progress, the Hotel begins to “speak” with Jack, chipping away at his sanity. Jack is about to snap, and that means trouble for his family.
The Shining isn’t just a scary film, it’s downright creepy from start to finish. Even when nothing is going on, the scenery, the music, the lighting…everything comes together to deliver a very uncomfortable feeling to the audience. Stanley Kubrick directed many stellar films in his career, but out of them all, the Shining is easily my favorite.
Stephen King didn’t like it so much, though. It takes numerous liberties with the source material (King’s novel), and as a result, offended King to the point of demanding his name be removed from the credits. A stricter adaptation was later made as a TV miniseries in 1997, but despite being more accurate to the book, it was downright terrible.
The shining uses special effects sparingly, and instead, relies on a fantastic performance from Jack Nicholson to really convey a sense of dread and terror. Jack Nicholson has always been a pretty scary-looking guy, but he’s just a monster in this film. While his performance is magnificent, there is one problem I did have. From the beginning, even before they reach the hotel, you sorta get the feeling that Jack is a little nuts and quick to anger, as opposed to a normal Dad driven over the edge of sanity. While Jack’s gradual transformation into an axe-wielding lunatic was still excellent, you get the impression he had already started down that path long before the first scene in the movie.
The more visually stimulating horror effects are about as memorable as Jack Nicholson’s performance. The elevator spilling over with blood, the old hag in the bathroom, the cobwebbed room full of corpses, and, of course, the most frightening moment of them all, the scene with the furries. Brrrrr! All of these moments are delightfully frightening and not soon to be forgotten.
“The Shining” narrowly trumps “Poltergeist” as my all time favorite Haunted House picture. It’s a fanastic movie on all levels and should be scene by everyone at least once in their lifetime.
Grade: A