Tag Archives: movies

THE THROWDOWN – Sean Connery vs. Daniel Craig

by

27

The Throwdown

Wednesday is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects, pit them against each other, and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and more. I’ll make a case for each and then see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new Throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

With November’s release of “Skyfall”, the 23rd installment of the James Bond franchise, I thought it would be good to do a 007 Throwdown. Since the 007 franchise spans so many years, there have been an interesting array of actors who have taken on the role of James Bond. I decided to make this the old versus the new. Sean Connery versus Daniel Craig. Both actors have cemented themselves into Bond lore and rightfully so. But this is all about who is the best. As always you decide with your votes. Who is the best James Bond? Is it Sean Connery? Is it Daniel Craig? Is it Connery’s suave and slick old-school charm or is it Daniel Craig’s tough and gritty new era Bond? Vote now!

Sean Connery VS. Daniel Craig

BOND VS

Daniel Craig ushered in a new moodier and edgier era of James Bond and I have loved it. Craig has the style to sell the ladies man superspy angle that the series is known for. But he also brings a toughness and physicality to the role that gives the character an entirely fresh and new feel. This was never more evident than in the first sequence of Craig’s first Bond movie “Casino Royale “. What an introduction to today’s Bond. While many have had issues with his second 007 picture “Quantum of Solace”, I found it thoroughly entertaining even with its flaws. But he was back in top form with this year’s “Skyfall”, a brilliantly crafted spy thriller that mixed traditional Bond with the Craig interpretation. I’m all onboard with Craig in this role and I hope he continues for as long as he fits the part.

Sean Connery could be considered the Godfather of the James Bond series. He helped launch this wildly popular franchise in 1962 with “Dr. No”. He would go on to make six 007 pictures between the years of 1962 and 1971. He would even return for one more stint in 1983. There were a lot of doubts when they cast Connery but they proved off base. He was fabulous as Bond and the role catapulted him into stardom. He brought a suave and sexy sophistication to the role but he could be a tough cookie as well. More importantly, Sean Connery was instrumental in launching and making this adored James Bond franchise into the huge success that it is today.

So, the ball is now in your court. Who is the better Bond? Is it the classic Sean Connery or the new kid on the block, Daniel Craig. There will only be one winner and you decide who it is. Vote now!

REVIEW: “Dream House” (2012)

by

10

Don’t you hate it when you buy a new house only to find out it was the scene of some grisly murders? Such is the case with Jim Sheridan’s schizophrenic psychological thriller “Dream House” – well, kinda. This is a movie featuring loads of talent and at its core a familiar but fairly interesting story. But it’s also a movie plagued with amateurish writing and an off-the-rails ending that undermines everything the movie tries to do.

The film starts with the standard yet pretty interesting haunted house treatment. Will (Daniel Craig) has quit his job as a successful editor to spend more time with his wife Libby (Rachel Weisz) and his two daughters in their new suburban home. As always things seem lovely at first. But through several discoveries they find out that five years earlier some horrible murders had taking place in their home. Their weird-acting neighbors and the uncooperative Police Department sends Will on an investigation of his own.

It’s here that the movie offers a big twist, and then another twist, and then another twist. Now I’ve always appreciated when a movie tries to shake things up. But here it’s done in a hamfisted and clunky way. The first big reveal does offer promise although it doesn’t necessarily take things in a better direction. From there the story launches into several different directions mimicking everything from “Shutter Island” to “The Shining”. This wouldn’t be a problem except everything feels fractured and manufactured and the constant shifts in tone are jarring. It just keeps throwing things at you right up to its ludicrous and off-the-wall ending. I mean the finale is so poorly conceived, so under developed, and utterly preposterous.

A lot of what does work can be contributed to the committed performances from Craig and Weisz. While the material is all over the place the two do inject some energy and spark into the script and I enjoyed them on screen. On the flip side, the usually good Naomi Watts seems bored playing a neighbor who knows more than she’s letting on. And then you have an equally flat performance from Marton Csokas as her jerk ex-husband. He ends up having a fairly important role in the movie but he’s without a doubt the worst written character in the entire film.

“Dream House” is ambitious and it starts on a pretty good note. But all of its ambition ends up being its undoing. Yet while critics have universally panned it, there are certainly worse thrillers out there. In fact, “Dream House” is a very watchable movie and it’s easy to digest. But it’s also an easy movie to forget and unfortunately it’s plagued with too many faults to forgive. And the biggest bummer is that all of this great talent simply goes to waste.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Snow White and the Huntsman” – 4 STARS

by

29

Call me a sucker for fantasy pictures, but I really enjoyed “Snow White and the Huntsman”. In fact, I would go as far as to call this movie one of the biggest surprises of the year. In cinematic terms, this darker retelling of the classic Snow White fairy tale is pure fantasy through and through. We get trolls, dwarves, fairies, and magic but there is nothing lighthearted about it. Unlike the other Snow White movie of 2012 “Mirror Mirror”, “Snow White and the Huntsman” aims for a broader audience by creating a dark and often times creepy fantasy world that doesn’t shy away from cool horror elements and death. In the end, it was an effective approach that completely caught me by surprise.

One of my main concerns about the movie centered around Kristen Stewart in the lead role. After seeing her previous work I was never convinced she was a good actress. “Snow White and the Huntsman” does nothing to change that. But the writers seem aware of that and the script cleverly limits what Stewart is required to do. Much of her story unfolds through the words of other characters so Stewart isn’t asked to do much. It was a smart approach and I can’t help but think the movie benefits from it. For the most part Stewart is a good Snow White. She runs, rides horses, and innocently looks in wonder at the new world around her. It’s only when Stewart is asked to rouse the crowds in the third act that you’re reminded of her past work.

The movie takes the key ingredients from the popular fairy tale and mixes them with several unique twists. As a child Snow White witnesses the murder of her father the king at the hands of her wicked stepmother Ravenna (Chalize Theron). Queen Ravenna takes over the entire kingdom and throws Snow White into a tower prison cell. Ravenna is dependent on dark magic for her power thanks to a spell cast on her by her wicked mother. She maintains that power by draining the lifeforce of the young girls from the nearby villages. Years pass and Snow White has grown up yet is still confined to the tower. Queen Ravenna learns from her magic mirror that Snow White is destined to topple her so she figures it’s time to suck the life right out of her competition. Snow White escapes into a dark and marshy forest where the Queen’s powers can’t reach. The queen bribes a drunken widower (Chris Hemsworth) who has survived the forest to lead her forces in order to capture the princess.

While Hemsworth seems to be falling into the same type roles for each of his films, I still really like him. Once again he plays the tough and rugged sort and once again he’s very good. It’s a pretty simple role that fits the fantasy character model well. He has a decent chemistry with Stewart which is helped by the fact that the script doesn’t force anything on their character’s relationships. And what is Snow White without dwarves, right? Several fantastic actors played the dwarves, or at least had their faces placed on different, smaller bodies. It’s a remarkable bit of animation. Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, and Toby Jones are a blast to watch in the roles. But it’s Theron who steals the show as the wicked queen. She sells each calculated expression and devious grin and she opens up a fairly layered character. Theron has a lot of fun and it shows.

Another standout component to the movie’s success are the wonderful special effects and cinematography. The fantasy environments are well done and often times stunning. There are several cool creatures, beautiful landscapes, and some really slick magical effects. As alluded to, “Snow White and the Huntsman” isn’t necessarily a kid’s movie and some of the effects attest to that. Maybe that’s one reason it worked so well for me. It helps make the movie more closely resemble “Lord of the Rings” than the Brothers Grimm classic fairy tale. And as a fantasy fan, that’s a really good ingredient to this incredibly surprising movie.

“SKYFALL” – 4.5 STARS

by

32

Skyfall” may be the best James Bond movie ever. Better yet, Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. Now before the Bond diehards come at me with torches and pitchforks let me make something abundantly clear. I am not the biggest Bond guy. I haven’t seen even half of the Bond movies. So I certainly don’t consider myself a Bond expert. In fact I may not even qualify as a true Bond fan by some. I’m not well versed on Bond lore, the Bond girls, or the history that has surrounded this universally loved character for the last 50 years. So I don’t live under the false assumption that I’m an expert when it comes to the James Bond franchise. But I like to think that I know a good movie when I see one and “Skyfall” is a very good movie.

My Bond apathy changed in 2006 with the release of “Casino Royal”. It introduced a grittier, more grounded Bond in the form of Daniel Craig. He wasn’t as prim and polished and a sense of reality was brought to the character that I had never seen before. It was also a fantastic movie that I thoroughly enjoy. The Bond appeal grew for me in 2008 with the lesser but equally entertaining “Quantum of Solace”. And now he’s back with “Skyfall”, a 007 film that’s every bit as good as “Casino Royale” and for my money even a bit better. Sam Mendes directs the film, the 23rd installment of the franchise. Mendes tips his hat to several of the previous 007 films and has fun with many things that Bond fans should love. But he also maintains the emotional edge to Bond that has made Daniel Craig’s run so effective for me.

The film starts with a jaw-dropping opening chase sequence that uses cars, motorcycles, trains, and cranes. It moves through market streets, on rooftops, through tunnels, and finally on a huge bridge where Bond is inadvertently shot off of a speeding train by a fellow agent at M’s command. Believed dead, Bond goes off the grid and submerges himself in a life of anonymity and alcohol. Now the movie never gives a satisfying reason as to why Bond became a closed off boozer. We get a few hints of it later but it seemed pretty drastic and off-the-wall. But we wouldn’t have a Bond movie if 007 wasn’t spoiling evil plots with his well-pressed suits and assorted gadgetry. He makes his return after MI6 is devastated by terrorist attack with M seeming to be the main target. Judi Dench returns to the role that she first played in 1995’s “GoldenEye”. This time she’s not only a terrorist’s target but she’s facing heavy political pressure concerning her handling of MI6. As with each of her other performances in the series, Dench is marvelous and here we get to see a different side of her and her relationship to 007.

The big baddie this time is none other than Javier Bardem. He plays Raoul Silva, a psycho former MI6 agent with a rather large grudge against M. Bardem is deliciously villainous and once he makes his appearance the movie’s intensity amps up. Unfortunately he doesn’t show up until well into the film. Now that’s not a knock on the first part of the movie. But I wanted more of Bardem and I couldn’t help but feel that they could have built up the character and his motivations more in the early parts of the movie. Some of the movie’s best moments feature Bardem. There is a tense first meeting between Bond and Silva that you can’t take your eyes off of. There’s also a fantastic “Silence of the Lambs” styled exchange between Silva and M that sets the table for what’s to come later in the movie. It’s one of my favorite exchanges in cinema this year.

Another new addition to the cast is Ralph Fiennes. He places an ex-military man and current government intelligence official who regulates MI6. Fiennes is rock solid, as you would expect. Albert Finney also has a fun role as an old family friend of Bond’s and Ben Whishaw steals several scenes as Q, the gadget granting quartermaster. All the performances are good and this is probably the best overall cast in a Bond movie yet. They are helped by a crisp, intelligent, and perfectly paced script that pulls absolutely everything out of these characters. And the screenplay knows how to be respectful of the franchise while also having fun with it as well. There are several good laughs but for the most part this is the same serious, no-nonsense Bond that we got in the last two films and I’m thankful for that.

There are several other things that worked incredibly well that I could mention, most notably Roger Deakins brilliant camera work, the wonderful editing by Stuart and Kate Baird, and Thomas Newman’s perfect score. But not everything worked that well. The Bond girls have become almost as popular as 007 himself. But with the exception of the unconventional M, these Bond girls are bland and for the most part forgettable. Now Naomie Harris is fine as a fellow MI6 field agent who holds her own with 007. She has some really good scenes when working in the field, but she also has a couple of almost obligatory flirt scenes with Bond that didn’t work as well for me. Then you have Bérénice Marlohe who certainly looks the part but disappears almost as soon as she arrives. Also, I know Bond is a ladies man. But there are a couple of scenes featuring out-of-the-blue “romance” that are thrown in just because its expected from the character. Never mind that they clash with the tone and pacing of the story. Both are scenes that were poorly conceived and I could have done without them.

While these few flaws may keep “Skyfall” from being a perfect movie, they don’t stop it from being great movie. More importantly, the Daniel Craig era of 007 movies has won me over to the point that I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment. There has been a lot of internet buzz lately over who may be the next 007. But for my money Craig has earned the position for as long as he’s willing to take it. And as long as the studio is willing to surround him with a fine supporting cast, intelligent writers, and sharp directors, the possibilities are endless for this iconic character. One thing is for certain, I’m now officially a Bond fan and “Skyfall” only cemented that. Bring on oo7 #24!

REVIEW: “Conan the Barbarian” (2011)

by

12

For the past few years Hollywood has been consumed with remaking movies from the 1980’s. I have to admit, “Conan the Barbarian” was one I could see being remade with satisfying results. I’m a fan of the original 1982 fantasy film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a gritty and violent movie jammed with swordplay and sorcery. This time Jason Momoa takes on the role of Conan and while he does a good job channeling the Barbarian’s grunts, growls, and muscle flexes, ultimately the movie’s story runs out of gas and the special effects don’t live up to what you would expect from a 2011 movie.

We’re introduced to Conan at the time of his birth on the battlefield during an intense attack. His mother dies and he is raised by his father Corin (Ron Perlman), the leader of a tribe of barbarians. Conan grows into a young boy who’s agility and skills with the blade are beyond his years. It’s during this time that his village is attacked by an evil warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) who is seeking the pieces to an ancient mask he believes will resurrect his deceased wife and eventually lead to his rule over Hyboria. Doesn’t it always come down to that?

Zym and his army destroy young Conan’s village and leaving the boy to witness his father’s death. The story then catapults ahead to an adult Conan working as a mercenary. Still thirsty for revenge, he finds a trail that he hopes will lead to Zym. Zym still hasn’t figured the mask out and now is seeking a monastery that houses a pure-blood descendant (Rachel Nichols), blah, blah, blah. Conan ventures from location to location before tracking Zym down, falling for the descendant, and getting caught between saving her and carrying out his revenge.

The story has promise especially for those who love these types of fantasy films. It has moments that captures what made the original film a cult favorite particularly during the first half. But it hits a point where it begins to lose steam, turning into becomes a conventional and predictable fantasy tale. There are plenty of action scenes featuring snarls, sword twirling, and blood splatters. Some of them work well, but much of the action lacked context and seemed like nothing more than dressing. And I also found the finale to be as underwhelming as the buildup to it.

It’s also surprising to see how bland the special effects turned out to be. Many of the location shots look like hazy paintings instead of lived-in lands. There is also a creature battle close to the end that certainly doesn’t stand up to the visual accomplishments of today’s effects. But there is a really good effects-driven sequence where Conan is battling a group of sand warriors conjured up by Zym’s witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). It’s clearly the best the movie offers.

As I mentioned, Momoa is a soild Conan and Nichols is a good match for him on the screen. Perlman is a nice choice for Conan’s father even though it’s a relatively small role. Stephen Lang isn’t as bad as he was in “Avatar” but once again he seems to be following the “How to Play a Movie Villain” handbook. He overplays several scenes and he’s never the slightest bit menacing. McGowan, his co-antagonist, feels like a bigger threat even though her character is pretty shallow and forgettable.

Forgettable is also a good way to describe “Conan the Barbarian”. It’s not a terrible movie but it squanders a lot of potential. It does do a few things right especially in the first half. There are also moments that made me reflect back to the original film and how I responded to it as a kid. Unfortunately this one can’t sustain a compelling story and the visuals don’t feel like a worthy enough upgrade. This was one remake that I expected a lot more from.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2-stars

“RUSHMORE” – 4.5 STARS

by

16

Whenever you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie, there’s no denying that you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie. The writer and director has made a number of films that feature profound uniqueness that set them apart. His quirky humor is unique in itself but Anderson is also known for his own visual style and presentation, his clever use of music, and familiar reoccurring themes that you can’t help but notice. In 1998, Anderson released “Rushmore”, his second feature film and one of his many collaborations with old friend and co-writer Owen Wilson. “Rushmore” is a perfect introduction to Anderson and his special brand of humor. And while the movie – just like all of Anderson’s pictures – won’t appeal to everyone, I found it to be an infectious comedy from start to finish.

“Rushmore” was the film that launched Wes Anderson’s career. He and Wilson began working on the story a few years prior to the release of his first film “Bottle Rocket”. The two took memories and experiences from their childhoods to form the foundation of this truly hilarious story which also flirts with some darker underlying themes. The movie also launched the career of Jason Schwartzman who plays Max Fischer, an eccentric and egocentric 15 year-old student at Rushmore Academy. Max is a underachiever in the classroom but is by far the most extracurricular student in the school. He’s the leader of school groups ranging from the French Club and the Debate Team to the Calligraphy Club, the Rushmore Beekeepers, and a goofy dodgeball club called Bombardment Society. It turns out Rushmore is his life but he finds himself in jeopardy of expulsion due to his horrible grades.

Max develops an unusual friendship with a wealthy but disenchanted business man named Herman Blume played by Bill Murray. Murray is fantastic and he delivers some of the story’s more straightforward laughs but he also adds lots of humor through his straight-faced, deadpan performance. Blume is a miserable fellow not at all happy with his life. But despite his troubles, particularly with his whacked out kids, he’s drawn to Max, so much so that he offers him a job and funds some of Max’s outlandish school “projects”.

But Max and Herman’s friendship takes a hit when they both end up falling in love with the same woman, Ms. Cross (Olivia Williams), a 1st grade teacher at Rushmore. Ms. Cross becomes aware of Max’s infatuation with her and tries to head it off. But Max is impervious to the truth that she is too old for him. It’s here that the movie is really intriguing. Their “relationship” leads to some really funny moments in the picture. But on the flip side, it’s here that we do get hints of a darker more troubling component to the story. There were several scenes where the internal struggle within Max felt real and in turn made him into a really sympathetic character. But Anderson would then draw out a good laugh from the most unexpected place. So it’s safe to say that “Rushmore” had the uncanny ability to make me laugh out loud in one scene and then feel uncomfortable in the very next one. In other words, there’s much more going on underneath the surface.

Anderson also employs several visual gimmicks that I’ve noticed in the handful of his other films that I’ve seen. Some people don’t really respond to his approach but I thoroughly enjoy it. He never frames an ugly shot and while some of “Rushmore” quick snippets may seem jarring to some, I think they brand the film with a quirkiness that I love. Helping out “Rushmore’s” presentation is the interesting choices of music including a selection of 60’s pop songs that feel surprisingly at home even though there doesn’t seem to be a single connection to the story. But again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), this is typical for a Wes Anderson picture.

True comedy is subjective and that is never more obvious than with “Rushmore”. Many people wrestle with Anderson’s unique sense of humor and visual flair. But I found myself laughing all through this movie and the style of storytelling really helped the quirky humor. The cast is superb and it’s easy to see why Schwartzman took off from here and why this helped rejuvenate Bill Murray’s career. “Rushmore” is a genuinely funny movie laced with some darker undertones that will cause you to laugh and squirm during the same scene. Considering the majority of modern comedies, that’s something I can really appreciate.