Labyrinth (1986)

"The bog of eternal stench"-everyone
"The babe with the power" -Jareth

Short:  There is something to be said for flat out weirdness. No quarter given by the artists to external pressure. It's doing trapeze without a net. It's bold, refreshing and often terrible. Labyrinth is all those things and unmistakably 100% original. If you love puppets/muppets, David Bowie, and passion projects then, by all means watch Labyrinth.  The price of enjoyment is an abandonment of preconception. Perhaps there should be a several hour cooling off period in an oubliette pre-viewing?

Long: How is that certain movies can just be so earnest that you forgive them everything? I've been known to give up on Hollywood schlock for minor errors or if one small technical detail fails, yet for Labyrinth, it's many many many errors and silliness just don't matter. I love it. It's just a puppet fantasia with a dark twist. And those puppets are just so awesome.  Each one has character, personality, and presence. I think Jim Henson deserves the dark title of "Master of Puppets". I can't claim or measure what makes a movie forgivable, but I hope you, dear reader, enjoy Labyrinth as much as I do. -Oh and David Bowie, that really should seal it as a classic for anyone.

3.6 or 2.0 stars depending on one's ability to dream. 

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

Kylo Ren: Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That's the only way to become what you are meant to be.

Kylo Ren: The Resistance is dead, the war is over, and when I kill you, I will have killed the last Jedi!

Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. The Rebellion is reborn today. The war is just beginning. And I will not be the last Jedi.

My Gist: See it. The Last Jedi (TLJ) is the rare squared circle that manages to be part of a corporate menagerie and yet art at the same time (flaws and all).

Considering Context: I have had to remind myself that Rian Johnson is 44 years old. His HHS graduation song would have been "Smells Like Teen Spirit".  He's a Gen X-er. And I can't help but wonder how the themes he's playing with are a part of our larger generational communications. George Lucas was a very early boom (b. 1944) The world he grew up in was, in a large part, created to meet the needs of the boomer cohort; new schools, expanded universities, suburbs, power grids, healthcare, etc. With these gifts, the original trilogy can be seen as a promise by Lucas to his forebears to continue and win the fight against the darkness of the past. (Nazi's etc.) The prequel trilogy is in a sense, a treatise on how evil is product of apathy, self-interest, and complacency. A map for how new generations can avoid the same traps.

And here comes, Rian Johnson ,who from having watched TLJ, sees merit in burning down everything, starting from scratch, and killing every sacred cow. One thought is that, as a Gen X-er, he does not feel the same level of need to take on the mantle from Lucas. Gen-Xers existed in a world built for those that preceded them. It had cracks, its reality fell short of its promise, and it didn't fit their particular needs. -Yes, Star Wars is a part of that promise. All this goes double, if not triple, for my own generation. The solutions/conflicts/institutions of the past are relevant, but ultimately shackles on progress. Fire cleanses and rejuvenates.

It doesn't end the story.  The story never ends, but it must evolve.

3.7 out of 5 -There are some pretty glaring story issues for my money, but none of that matters when talking about our shared cultural tradition.

Oh and I didn't really like Rose Tico.  -However, I would encourage use of her character in subsequent movies.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

Hercule Poirot -"Oh Mr. Dickens....hahaha"

The Short: In a fit of old-school storytelling, tradition, and historical style, Murder On The Orient Express was conceived to show-off character performance, ensemble acting, and the power of subtlety. (These are all the things I enjoy!) Unfortunately, despite all of the successes of the excellent cast, production, storytelling, and classic techniques, the whole movie seems wildly mismatched and out of touch. -falling flat only in that the audience has changed (including me). Needless, I am left asking if clinging to my cinematic vanity points is worthwhile. 

Musing: At my heart, I may be a reductionist. I like it when the story, and characters are contained. It creates pressure and tension seamlessly. -Agatha Christie was a master of this. (The bridge is out. The cabin is snowed in. The train is derailed -We'll have to find the murderer ourselves). So, having read the book, I knew that I was in for a contained story, with a brilliant, meticulous set, with limited CGI, and character drama.  The use of above head shots and the train construction were my favorite parts. 

Seriously, what an All-Star cast!  Derek Jacobi has to play the Butler. Johnny Depp has to play the corpse. It's sad that the low performance was Josh Gad. 

But the winner of all things in my opinion was Poirot's moustache. 

One thing that I think upends Murder On the Orient Express is the dissonance between the movie and the trailer Trailer.  It's just sold in the wrong way to jibe with the older style cinema on screen. 

2.7 out of 5 stars.  It's like watching a grand old ship of the line sink in the harbor; glorious, but ultimately surpassed. 

      

A Christmas Prince (2017)

Andy: Where there's a Tiara, there's dirt. Trust me.

Judgement: I palpably feel the judgement of my one consistent reader. Stop it!  This should be a judgement free blog. I bear my thoughts on the media I consume and occasionally I ingest garbage of the highest order. I admit it, I sprayed the film equivalent of whip cream from a can directly into my mouth. -mwhhhh.  AAAAAAAKKKKK!

Musings: A Christmas Prince is LITERALLY the worst. There is really no reason anyone of sound mind, body, and soul need watch it, ever. Thus it can be guaranteed to generate a cult following for its unrepentant schlock. A Christmas Prince is what happens when a large corporate entity knows with precision what its viewers want-like they are collecting data on us. Take the top 200 things that views liked about similar movies and put them together, voila, A Christmas Prince; the most typical princess Christmas holiday movie ever.  Made by a marketing team for the desires of marketable people. Netflix's version of clickbait.  -I guess this now includes me (face palm).

Please check out that even Netflix is throwing shade at people who watch this. I promise I only watched it the once.    SHADE

1.1 out of 5 stars.   It is, in fact, a thing. 

Victoria & Abdul (2017)

Queen Victoria: I am cantankerous, greedy, fat, I am perhaps disagreeably attached to power, but I am anything but insane!

Statement: I am generally a fan of pseudo-histories. They are just enjoyable. They aren't false. They just aren't necessarily true. It's a chance to not play with outcomes, but rather to play with relationships and reasoning. In the case of Victoria & Abdul, the film tells the story of old Queen Victoria and her cultural/spiritual advisor/life coach from India, Abdul. It is historical, completely made up, dramatic, and hysterical all in a confused jumble. And, that makes it an out of sorts wonderful.

Musings: What is stopping more fake histories from being.  -Yes there was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter...but whatever- what if JFK had a secret guru helping him with speeches? -How about Churchill's secret group of D&D players? The ideas are just fun to play with. As to Victoria & Abdul, I was pleasantly surprised with Dame Judy Dench's old Victoria performance. I confess, I knew very little about her final years, but she nailed the funny aspects of abhorrent privilege.

Again, Adeel Akhtar was perfect in his role. -and I will watch anything with Eddy Izzard. He made a great Edward IIV.

3.3 of 5 -Watch it. -thought I suspect there may be wildly divergent opinions on this one. 

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

[the Hulk takes on Surtur]
Thor: Hulk, no! For once in your life, don't smash!
Hulk: But giant monster!

Short:  How is that colourful, if not enchanting storytelling, with capable actors feel so soulless? I really enjoyed Thor: Ragnok, but I can't shake the feeling that something is missing. What that is I can't quite say. (Maybe that's on me.) What I can say, is that Thor: Ragnarok was highly enjoyable return to extremely old styles of telling. It was also very funny.

Musing: I am not generally one to place color and music before emotion and depth, but in this case, my preconceptions were wrong. -Explosive use of color, Framed visual constructs, and a fantastically electro-pop score by Mark Mothersbaugh (of DEVO!!) were essential to the final positive product. On these scales, Thor: Ragnarok is a class above. -Superb. As to Thor representing older storytelling, I've been thinking about why those with one eye, can always see clearer? Odin had one eye. Oedipus lost both his. Urza was the Blind Seer. Zatoichi is unmatched with a sword, and Daredevil. It seemed somehow natural that Thor (spoilers) looses his eye only to fully understand the prophecy of Ragnarok. The destruction one brings will be one's salvation.

3.3 out of 5 -See it. (Listen to it most of all.)

The Big Sick (2017)

Emily: [Whilst using her phone to book an uber] Listen, I had a really nice time, thank you very much. I'm just going to like, call an Uber, go home and I hope
[gets interrupted by Kumail's phone alert]
Emily: Just...
Kumail: [showing Emily the Uber request] Your driver will be ready as soon as he puts on his pants.

Oh what oh what do sad jokes do to turn that corner and generate laughter and empathy? It's like the pain that comes from when one cannot accept that a just world would continue to rain evil spirits on a single individual. -It just gets funnier and funnier. We the viewers demand that the karmic wheels flip over.

That was The Big Sick for me. Yeah it had some levity, but most of the jokes and situations just get worse and worse and worse, and thus long term chuckles ensue. But, if you aren't down for The Office level of cringe worthy pain...this might not be your bag. To me, very understated.

This was my first of two movies, with Adeel Akhtar. IMDB I hope he gets more roles.

3.3 out of 5 -I would encourage viewership.

Their Finest (2016)

"I'll need an Acting Coach credit." -Ambrose Hilliard

Short So, I think Their Finest was meant to be be a comedy and if that was the case, it strayed from its purpose. I didn't really laugh. Yet, I found the drama charming. There was great deal to be proud of in a meta story about the production of a film.

Long: Somewhere around 2013-14 there must have been a rush/buying streak for stories about Dunkirk. There is the film Dunkirk and then Their Finest, which is a film about the making of a movie about Dunkirk. I find it remarkable that there would be such historical credence given to a single WWII story -of an Allied loss, might I add- why is now the time for the film industry to collectively explore how to turn a defeat into a victory? And if so, what do writers, directors, producers think audiences can take away from this process.  Are we subconsciously expecting military/economic defeat in the future? Are we preparing to subvert reality in new and terrifying ways? How can we turn the rise of Nationalists or Anarchists or Birthers into a a heroic tale of defeat with purpose?

3.2 out of 5 -See it if you have the time. 

The Circle (2017)

Eamon Bailey: Circulars, Do you like to share?
Everyone: Sharing is Caring

Eamon Bailey: We're so fucked.

Short: The Circle is an aimless, underdeveloped tech/spy thriller that fails miserably across most if not all measures.  However, if one abandons a historical (or really any) perspective; then The Circle becomes a frighteningly amoral tale of group think futurism run amok. -Chilling.

Long: For some reason, I couldn't help but think that the creators of The Circle were looking to remake 1987's The Running Man. I know you think I am joking, but I am not. Our protagonist commits a crime and suddenly her world is broadcast out 24hrs a day for the entertainment of the masses and as a way to ensure her compliance. Internet masses are the new gameshow crowds. Then later, we/The Circle/the internet find criminals and friends alike through a gamified system. The whole world of the The Circle has become The Running Man.

What's more interesting is that The Circle seems to have been written by a corporate marketing board. And I think that was the intention of the writers. (They buried the point...but brilliantly.) Our future will have been product tested, solutionified, actioned, and branded. The truth will not be entwined with beauty, it will be tied to profits, simplicity, and the death of pain points.

2.78 out of 5: Honestly, this may be the kind of movie that college kids get to watch 20 years from now and talk about our present. I really don't envision anyone every casually coming across The Circle rebroadcast on TBS, so I don't advise making extra effort to see it. -but if you do, listen to everything backwards while on your head looking in a mirror. 

Baywatch (2017)

Summer Quinn: Did you just, uh, look at my boobs?
Matt Brody: I… was not my intention. I didn’t, uh, stare directly at them.
Summer Quinn: You’re looking at them right now.
Matt Brody: Now I did, because you’re talking about them.

Short: Eye candy-slanted towards the ladies, bawdy jokes, and nothing else. Nothing.

Long: I'm glad I was trapped on a plane for this. I would have stopped watching if I had really had a serious choice. Basically, I think Baywatch was destined to be rebooted. The formula is crazy simple. The expectations of the target audience  are low. Quality acting talent is not a prerequisite, and filming is cheap; No CGI. No difficult sequences. Any beach will do. Any back office or standard location will do. Cheap.  Oh and you don't need quality writers.  B+ grad is AOK.  So, in someways Baywatch was a perfect movie. It aspired to very little and met or even exceed expectations. (because they were very low.) Know thyself -An Baywatch clearly did.

Point 1: The Rock was clearly the best actor in this nonsense. Not even close. Give him a little more acting respect please.
Point 2: Zac Efron is too jacked now. It's strange and gross- this is personal opinion.

1.7 out 5 

Wonder Woman (2017)

Diana: This is Ares!

Short: Wonder Woman is leaps and bounds better than its predecessors in the DC Universe. Finally, a DC feature that understands that violence is actually the least interesting part of a story.

Long: I can't say that Wonder Woman was an excellent "Hero pic". It doesn't break the mold. But, it is a serious step forward for Zach Synder-esque sludge and for female led features. I do think that it is a double standard at least in terms of storytelling, casting, writing that a woman hero must be "attractive"; but I attribute this as certain parts, believability (especially given that the story is set in 1918), economic incentives, and social inertia. My own thoughts on progress bend towards radical/structural equality.  Chris Pine was acceptable, a little unbelievable, -but with a fun sacrifice. What didn't make Wonder Woman a home-run for me was the final battle with Ares. It lost all sense of space, time, and meaning in addition to the design of Ares missing the mark. It made me only think of Prof. Lupin as a slag wagon.

2.98 out of 5 stars.  

Sydney White (2007)

Lenny: Did they really make you sing Celine Dion?

Short:  Don't. Just don't. I watched this and this now makes me part of the problem.

Long: So Sydney White (SW) is basically a rebuke to originality and a cliche wrapped in banality and soaked in stock bromide. Yet here it is. It exists. It had producers, actors, musicians who all worked to make something that has so clearly been done before. I cannot exactly say why. The strange thing about having now watched it on Netflix is to consider that SW is just as out of date now as it was to my own college experience 10 years ago. (Go MAC!!) My really only thought was that there was some idea that if they made a Snow White illusion into a 15 year old girl's expectations of what going to college would be like and threw in Revenge of the Nerds for -ya know- its morals. Yup.

2.0 out of 5. 

*oh and I would like to actually praise Jeremy Howard for a shining performance. IMDB

The Man Who Knew Infinity (2015)

"Get on the grass. You're a fellow." -Prof. Hardy

Quick:  Simple story telling does little justice to a rather wondrous tale.  Capable acting by Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, and Toby Jones carry the narrative, but there is little in the way of memorable character development or moments for pause.

Abstract: Why oh why would a movie about such beauty to be found in math shy away from really delving into its subject; math? I would wager that the audience that wants to see a movie about a mathematician from 100 years ago is a little less concerned with the story and more with appreciating the elegant beauty of numbers, harmonics, and equilibrium. Most movies with any amount of math go this route. It may be so as to not tax the brains of the writers, or it also might be that audiences do just truly hate math that much.

3.1415/5 See it, but don't look to hard for engaging substance. 

Baahubali: The Conclusion (2017)

Sivagami: This is my order. And, my order is the law.

Quick: A savage if drawn out conclusion/prologue culminating in intergenerational revenge. Satisfying in a don't think too hard about it kind of way.

Introspection: Imagine if they had released The Lord of the Rings movies with the Return of the King first, then Fellowship of The Ring, then all 3 Hobbit movies, and concluded with The Two Towers.  That's what it feels like to watch Bahubali 2: The Conclusion -even more so if you did not see part 1. *Spoiler* The reveal that Bahubali has a son and that his son is instantaneously grown and played by the same actor is just too much.  It is true that taking segments of story and placing them out of chronological order can be a boon to story telling and make the experience more enjoyable for the audience as they are privilege to future/past information that characters are not. Unfortunately, for Bahubali, this use is a giant fail.

Score: 2.8 out of 5 stars- Again I recommend it as a way to improve one's understanding of Indian (Tamil) cinema, but I wouldn't watch it for its other qualities -maybe the hair.

I want to give a special shout out to Nassar.  -I've been seeing him everywhere across Southern Indian films of late and I think he is excellent. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0621937/

Bahubali: The Beginning (2015)

"I did." -Kattappa (in reference to who killed Bahubali's father -also name Bahubali.)

FYI: Watching the 2 parts of Bahubali should be done in order, but that doesn't make the timelines choices of the creators any less jarring. Alas, this is only a review of part 1. (I unfortunately watched part 2 first and without subtitles, which biases my review.) 

Quick: For the uninitiated an Indian movie can be jarring; songs out of no where, allusions you don't understand, motivations that seem unclear, iconic imagery that lacks pull, etc. While I aspire to be culturally attuned, I cannot say that I took Bahubali into my heart. It came off as a colorful, 80's esque action film with big plot holes and bewildering substance. But it was fun. I really did enjoy the music and the hair. The hair was spectacular.

Thoughts: My big thought upon watching ":The Beginning" was how masculinity is showcased differently in different cultures and at different times. My own response is that I don't particularly identify with the musclebound machismo with a mullet style of man that is presented as the paragon for the many different kinds of Indians. It was like watching Conan: The Barbarian, Commando, and He-Man, but from an Indian perspective and with dancing (and 30 years in the future.). I do find it odd that the movie expects me to accept that Bahubali is royal because of his crazy strength, wit, dance moves, swagger, and incorruptibility. This fact is presented in a manner as to be an, "of course". This may fit into larger narratives to which I have no knowledge, but this immediately broke my suspension of disbelief and moved Bahubali into the realm of farce. I laughed. Often. I don't think I was supposed to.

Thought Experiment: I see that these kinds of films will be some part of the future of global cinema. How will Western markets/cultures react as India/China start pushing their soft power out for the masses? How will it change what I think of as masculinity, and those that grow up behind me?

Score: 2.4/5 I'd say see it. Learn something. Embrace things you don't quite understand. 

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Captain Glover: "All I saw was a skinny kid. I didn't know who you were. You've done more than any other man could've done in the service of his country. Now, I've never been more wrong about someone in my life, and I hope one day you can forgive me."


The Short of It: if you are only going to watch one WWII movie make sure it isn't Hacksaw Ridge. It meets technical requirements but delivers on very little.

The Long of It: I am beginning to misunderstand why we keep going back to WWII for movies. Why? Why not stories of other American wars? -assuming you just need to make a war movie. Spanish American war? WWI? Korean War? American incursions into Mexico in the early 1900's? Why WWII?

Part of me thinks that producers and financiers are simply biased towards stories from the last age of "heroes". It may also be that this was the last war where it was agreed by most reasonable people who was good and who was bad. Yet this doesn't explain why we keep getting WWII movies. There are so many. It goes on and on and on. We keep making them. In 2017 -72 years after VE and VJ days, there appears to still be a market for WWII. We as a society will move on when we do, but my tipping point has been reached.

As to Hacksaw Ridge, I thought Andrew Garfield, Vince Vaughn, and Hugo Weaving were miscast. Each one took some risks in their performances; drawl, trauma, and aggression, but each was ultimately unrewarding. I understand this as based on a true story, but I thought the portrayal of the conflict of conscience honestly a little boring and more than a little played out. Single-man standing up to THE MAN has been done.

I know that Mel Gibson was the director here, but I disagreed with a number of his choices in terms of shot selection and the how he chose to create dramatic tension.

1.9/5: Watch a different WWII movie if at all possible.

Bleed For This (2016)

Kevin Rooney: I mean, you just don't know how to give up.
Vinny Pazienza: No, I do. Trust me, I do. I know exactly how to give up. You know what scares the shit out of me, Kev? Is that it's easy.

-Boxing movies all kinda swish together now. Same plots, same boxing shots, same training sequences. Bleed For This proved to be up to a high standard yet; seen a different boxing movie, seen Bleed For This.

Maybe, I just don't get boxing; (I don't.), but I've seen a lot of boxing movies and I am now seeing that the recipe is wearing thin. In a strange correlation, the boxing movie decline has been a sin-curve behind the fall of boxing as a sport.

Two notes
1:  I may be in the minority here, but Aaron Eckhart did a really good job wit the paunch, the accent, the make-up and the balding. Weird; no doubt, but true commitment.

2:  I keep seeing Miles Teller movies. I don't know why? I haven't liked him, but I keep going back to the well. I think it's time to admit, that the shade I throw his way is out of my own misplaced jealous and confusion, not his lack of skill.  I will change my tune and do my best to get on board with his, so far, meteoric career.  The boy can box too.

2.75 out of 5: See it, but don't go out of your way.

Fantastic Beasts: and where to find them (2016)

Jacob Kowalski: "But why would I have to wear something like this?"
Newt Scamander: "Because your skull is susceptible to breakage under immense force.

Quick: Utter shlock. Pure. Unadulterated Schlock."

I am honestly surprised that I sat through FBaWtFT. I was on a plane and I am incorrigibly lazy, so I had inertia as a part of my decision making.

I hold movies that have to advocate that they look cool in low esteem already.  Not particularly looking cool and pushing Harry Potter to a place it did not need to go is a recipe for hackery. I did enjoy seeing Ron Perlman as a goblin.

What honestly upset me was that Colin Farrell was a reasonable if not excellent villain. *Spoiler* there was no reason to replace him at the finish with Johnny Depp.

I thought this nothing new, nothing non-obvious, and therefore ineligible for a patent.

1 out of 5: Skip it if at all possible.

Passengers (2016)

Gus Manusco: "But the drowning man will always try and drag somebody down with him. It ain't right, but the man's drowning."

Quick: Despite a promising golden age of Sci-fi set up, Passengers is earnestly boring and a little unsatisfying.

The setting of Passengers is one that I can get behind.  What would I do if I work up on an automated spaceship with no one else and it was going to be that way for the rest of my life? I honestly don't know. Solitude and I are not the greatest of companions. But, the struggle I would have internally regarding "a way out" I can only imagine as an ant to a spaceshuttle. The subsequent decision to bring a second person out of hibernation to share in one's pain, is also similarly tragic/flawed/understandable. The ground for this movie was fertile for theatrical exploration.

Unfortunately, instead of the whole film, this section was only given about 30%.  The rest of it is visual crowd-pleasing space movie with little soul and predictable outcomes. The ship is in trouble -Oh no!

Chris Pratt is acceptable, Michael Sheen is wasted, and Jennifer Lawrence just seems out of place (at all times.) The best actor was Laurence Fishburne.  Oh and why did Andy Garcia make a cameo? Was his role important in some alternate edit/draft?

2/5 -skip it if you can, but feel free to fall asleep after the first quarter on a Sunday afternoon.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

"This was the Paris of my childhood." (Belle)
"I let her steal in my melancholy hear. It's more than I can bear." (The Beast)

In short, despite some truly inspired additions/subtractions, this remake lives in the shadow of its animated forebear. A few new songs, a good cast, and nostalgic "prettiness" just don't cut it.

This was a cash grab: pure and simple. So right away, you can know that I will judge the film harshly. Beauty and the Beast was not made out of spite or malice and it was clearly made with the best intentions and some joy. But its core is still economic in nature.  And, that is a strike against.

What struck me was the decisions on what to include and what to leave out of the dramatisation of a cartoon, and thus the difference between 1991 and 2017. How have we the audience changed and how did the creators look to meet our new needs with the same story 25 years apart?

Here's run down of what I saw:

	1991	2017	Difference	Reason
The Beast	Brooding, arrogant, a little scary, but not necessarily repentant.	The same as before, but more self sacrificing, and genuine	Dan Stevens was a great Beast, bringing more humor and bluntness to his decision to let her go.	I think in 25 years we recognize that we too have The Beast inside us.
Gaston	Vile and manly to a tee	Still toxically manly, but now in a sad post-war agression sort of way.	His depravity is more relatable in this way, his motivations of rage and greed more understandable, but less forgiveable.	The ability for "men" to just be "men" without reason, at least US society, has diminished and thus his actions need justification. In the past, they didn't.
La Fou	A Toady's Toady	A fawning, if gay, admirer eventually disenchanted.	Josh Gad is great. And the gay subtext.	1. I think this is just a nod to LGBT inclusion from the producers. Etc. 2. I think the subtext existed in the orignal but now it woul seem strange to not acknowledge it. #Progress
Maurice	a quacky inventor -absent minded	a loving father, who taught his daughter courage and smarts.	Kevin  Kline. And a greater backstory	The original actually doesn't build up the story of father and daughter and it is an important one.
Songs	A+	Impressions +sparkling new additions	The originals are generally better. The 1991 and 2017 ones are.	I think in the quest to make  2017 different they strayed into homage.
Backstory	Very little	quite a lot	25 years of questions. Also, people take actors more seriously than cartoons.	It's not exactly enough to provide just a pretty story. Now audiences want context.

Outcome: 2 out of 5 stars. I recommend the original. But, you could do much worse than see this remake.

Spiderman: Homecoming (2017)

Favorite Line(s)

New format:

Short pithy synopsis mean to bite and be catchy

What it made me think about.

Peter Parker: But I'm nothing without this suit!
Tony Stark: If you're nothing without this suit, then you shouldn't have it.

Duality: An honestly weak direct plot that was strained by the confines the greater universe in which it inhabits. In contrast, a strong character arc, pithy ancillary characters, and decent jokes made for a passable if unremarkable movie going experience.

While I appreciate a call out to an earlier popular work, sometimes it can be too blatant. I love Ferris Bueller, but the homage seemed too family guy for me. What I found very interesting about Homecoming was it's overall emphasis on the forgotten elements of the movies we've all been watching as a part of the MCU- The clean-up crew, contractors, suburban parents, unpowered teens, kids in gym, even Happy. And it kind of reminded me of the tales of Hercules, he should be a GOD -aka an Avenger- but upon an invitation to Olympus he returns to be mortal. (Yes, Tony Stark is Zeus in this metaphor.)  There's even an Icarus corollary in the winged villain in the Vulture.

Thumbs up on:
Tom Holland
Jacob Batalon 
Legos

Thumbs down on:
Product Placement -aka Legos
Use of the Romones as credit footage. 
-I know that it fits, but the HARD no.

Questions:
As I know that "Homecomings" are a particularly American (Canadian, too?) tradition....do foreign markets and audiences understand what was going on?

2 stars: No need to see, but enjoyable.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

I guess Tosca isn't for everyone. - Mr. White


It is strange to me that Quantum of Solace (QoS) even got made. It had all the hallmarks of a Bond movie but just seemed like a continuation of CR. -like direct sequel, which is not typically done in the Bond multiverse. This technical parts of a sustained story were pulled of quite well with character continuation, etc. I just didn't like it very much.

QoS is the first James Bond in my opinion to lack a true villain. Dominic Greene is simply out classed on all levels by every other baddy they've presented. So the audience is left with James fighting against no one of substance.  Leading to a poor film.

As a rule, James Bond's are 2 hours or more.  They grant time to action, plot, and character development. This makes them a cut above the standard banality that passes for a spy action film. Yet, QoS is only 1 hr 46 minutes. This almost puts regresses it to the dross. If there were an action density in film measurement, QoS would be top of the 007 list. All the action, none of the substance.

On a scale of water for chocolate to lady in the water, I give Quantum of Solace 2.34 out 5 stars.

Casino Royale (2006)

Vesper Lynd: All right... by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn't come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else's charity: hence that chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to "orphan," that's what I'd say you are.
[he smiles but says nothing]
Vesper Lynd: Oh, you are? I like this poker thing. And that makes perfect sense! Since MI6 looks for maladjusted young men, who give little thought to sacrificing others in order to protect Queen and country. You know... former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches.
[Glances at his wrist]
Vesper Lynd: Rolex?
James Bond: Omega.

Vesper Lynd: Even accountants have imagination. How was your lamb?
James Bond: Skewered! One sympathizes.

A stunning entrance for Daniel Craig as James Bond. Craig brought back a lot of the classic feel by going for a more vulnerable and icy Bond than Dalton. My only critique is the lack of chest hair. (I am sure that others will disagree but...)

I think often there is misalignment between a directors and producers vision and the decisions of an actor. I think of Thor 1 when I write this. It was clear that Chris Hemsworth wanted to be bombastic, but the director wanted to play it straight like a shakespearean court drama, it works but only kinda. In the case of Casino Royale (CS), the opposite is true. Daniel Craig wanted to be blunt, efficient, and cold. I imagine his director working with him on if he could actually be colder.  Then they went through and wrote in every metaphor they could for brute strength/club. It's basically too much. But, then again there's no such thing.

Now that I am going through all the Bonds, I like the call outs to the villain from Thunderball and the Dr. No on the beach entrance in the Bahamas.

Unexpected high point on this viewing was how creepy and unrelenting Claudio Santamaria is as the silent airport bomber.  I wish him luck in his career and want to see him in more productions.

Expected low point , as with every time I see CS, the movie completely drags after the death of Le Chiffre. The betrayal of Vesper Lynd is important, but it might have made a better opener than a closer. The timing just makes CS seem so slow.

On a scale of High Card winner to Aces over 6's losing, I give Casino Royale 3.67 out of 5 stars.

oh yeah the parkour seems so silly a decade on.  It looks good, but all it does is make me say "Parkour!"

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Dr. Christmas Jones: Wait a minute. Are you going to do what I think you're going to do?
James Bond: What do I need to defuse a nuclear bomb?
Dr. Christmas Jones: Me.

In my mind The World Is Not Enough (TWINE) is the clear second best Bond of the Brosnan era. My only real critique is that Denise Richards is terrible. Awful.

It's a kind of a testament to creativity, that the writers of TWINE can maintain a semblance of a plot while really just providing a backdrop for sexual puns and getting women into wet t-shirts or tight one piece body suits. TWINE may have been actually written backwards with base needs arrived at first and the story created to fulfil those needs. The story they got to ain't half bad. -it's got oil, Russian gangsters, Stockholm syndrome, a man who feels no pain, and a threat of atomic bombs. So it's very much in the acceptable category of Bonds.

But what I want to talk about is the absurdity that is the parahawk fight/chase sequence.  It's a little strange that James Bond always ends up unarmed on skis while other men on skis chase him, but TWINE is the clear winner in ludcrocity.

Flying fan-powered snowmobiles.  Yup. I did not mistype.

Part of me says "That's cool.", but another part of me asks...."who invented those? and why? Isn't it just stupidly difficult to control them and impractical for all scenarios?". Yes and likely yes.

Finally, I will always tip my hat to Robbie Coltrane. Valentine Zukofsky will be missed.

On a scale Bond Villain to SGU, I give The World Is Not Enough 2.77 out of 5 stars. 

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Elliot Carver: The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.

Tomorrow Never Dies (TND) is a highly mediocre Bond, but is perhaps the most prescient and visionary of James Bonds. Watching 20 years on, it's a little like watching Network. Our current state of affairs is actually stranger than the future TND tried to show.

So in terms of strict allegory, our main villain Elliot Carver is combination Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. And the plot is one of using fake news to create real outcry to create confusion, and money. Yup, the plot of James Bond is now just reality. Yikes.

I also can't help but notice the not so subtle pivot to Chinese viewers without actually sending Bond to China.  He teams up with a Chinese counter-part (Michelle Yeoh), and the British tussle with the Chinese (at least in way that requires no visuals). But actually, ol' JB ends up spending the movie in Vietnam. So, much like in MWTGG, Bond goes to Asia and deals with China, but does not go to China.

I just recently went to Saigon and it was interesting to see at least how the city was portrayed 20 years ago. It was full of bicycles and traditional hats on screen in 97'. Today the city is full of cars and buses and highways -just like any big city. I have no reference to what the city was like in 97, but I have to wonder and expect that TND is selling an orientalist fantasy of South Vietnam 20 years ago. The images presented certainly could be and are more accurate to then than now, but I have to think that it wasn't like it was at anytime.

I thought the whole Dr. Kaufman plot to be useless and the torture to be uninspiring.

To the writers, congrats on getting a stealth boat to be a major plot point.

On a scale of Night Rider to Night Boat, I give Tomorrow Never Dies 3.14 out of 5 stars.

Goldeneye (1995)

"I am invincible!!!" -Boris

Goldeneye was where my Bond journey began.  I think I saw it in 1996. I played an enormous amount of the video game.  To say that I have favourable attachments is an understatement. So be it.

As Bond's go, it still holds up, but it has aged and lacks a lot of the luster that once made it special. Now it's just an exemplary member of a group.

Pierce Brosnan is like 1/2 Connery and 1/2 Dalton. 0% Moore.  It's a decent play. Less sexist than Connery -though still sexist, and more humorous than Dalton.

The physics of going after a falling plane don't work. So, what? It's awesome!

I think what is lost on me now is the portrayal and writing of a movie about post-soviet Russia. The Union only dissolved in 1992, so this the first Bond of a new age.  Russians as implacable well trained adversaries are one thing. The exploration of corruption, betrayal and power vacuum is way more interesting. Well done, writers.

I don't like Jack Wade.  Bring back Felix Leiter please. *They may have done this simply because of Felix's brutal murder in LTK.

Robbie Coltrane as a Russian gangster Valentine Zukovsky was a stroke of genius.

Lastly, when I think back on it now, I am sure that producers jumped on the chance to send Bond to Russia -this is the first time.  The soviets probably did not allow or like the idea of Bond destroying their country, but the new Russians were likely looking to show how open they were to the West -probably got some money too.

Yeah so Bond basically destroys St. Petersburg with a tank.  I wonder if there are Russians my age or older who consider Goldeneye a black stain on their history and a victory dance on the grave of their nation?

On a scale of terrorist to freedom figher, I give Goldeneye 3.65 out of 5 stars.

License to Kill (1989)

"He disagreed with something that ate him." -Note on Felix Leiter

James Bond: I help people with problems.
Franz Sanchez: Problem solver.
James Bond: More of a problem eliminator.

Thus ends the Timothy Dalton Bonds, and I have to say that all in all they are completely decent Bonds. No shame, some glory.

That said, License To Kill (LTK) is a Bond aberration. It's grizzly and gruesome. The trick of a James Bond is that it glosses over some of these messy details with fun, zingers, and sexist machismo. No other Bond actually shows the level of blood and murder like LTK. It's honestly a little jarring. LTK is like if a western were reverse made into a ronin samurai story. I say this because usually Bond has a mission and in general respects the orders of M etc. -if cheekily disregards their advice. But, LTK is a strict revenge pic -with a side plot of drugs etc. (The story with Wayne Newton and the drugs is pretty confusing and superfluous.)  So, yeah it's a little out of character for Bond to go rogue.

There were some strange trends and historic points I have to touch on with LTK.

1. Moving on from the Russians
1. So, The Russians had been the heel of Bond films since 64', so why abandon the formula? Here are some ideas. I wasn't quite sure. 
1. Producers just wanted to be different. *This time no Russians
2. The writers were Cassandras and realised that the USSR would be collapsing at right about LTK's release
3. Maybe they just thought that Bond fighting with the Mujahadeen against Russians went to far. -It even makes Bond seem a little like Rambo.  Heroes need to differentiate. 
2. Ladies that can join the fray
1. Carey Lowell as Pam B is the first Bond girl I can recall that actually joins in fight and is not a helpless damsel. It took 25 years, but here is where it starts. 
2. I actually think the idea of a Miss Lowell led revenge pic might have been better than LTK.
3. Hong Kong connection
1. Why was there a complicated Hong Kong vice plot? It was a ring of fire drug play...but
2. I feel sorta bad for Diane Lee. She is featured heavily in the opening sequence, but is only in the movie for like 10 minutes, dies, and has maybe 1 line. 
4. Business strategy for movies
1. Copycatting is a time-honored tradition. I think everyone in the 80's copied Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indy's truck chase after the arc. Bond is no different.  It isn't original, but it works well. 
2. What I am curious about is why the shift to a more gruesome Bond? Lots of other films and genres attempted to move in a darker more gritty direction to locate a new audience?*Look to my post on the Black Cauldron, but another example is Robocop.  
1. Was this new direction financially successful? The results were positive, but not dramatic, but I do think that the lesson gained by producers etc was that explosions, and a little more blood are better for finances than exposition. 

Oh here is a quote from Benicio Del Toro (Yes, he is in LTK) 

-License to Kill is not one of the great Bonds.

On a scale of 1 ronin out for revenge to 47 ronin, I give License to Kill 3.18 out of 5 stars. 

The Living Daylights (1987)

Kara Milovy: What happened?
James Bond: He got the boot.

James Bond: I know a wonderful little restaurant in Karachi. We should get there just in time for dinner.

[James Bond and Kara Milovy snow-slide through customs in a cello case]
James Bond: [yelling] We have nothing to declare.
Kara Milovy: [yelling] Except this cello.

I've now moved into the Timothy Dalton era of Bond.  To be honest, I am not sure why Timothy Dalton gets a bad rap. I actually enjoyed him and The Living Daylights (TLD) a great deal. The song by A-ha is really catchy. I like that Timothy Dalton's growly Bond with more assassin less playboy.

And I will basically watch anything with John Rhys-Davies -even Sliders.

Here is what really could set people off about TLD.  Bond teams up with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to take on the Russians.  -Rambo does this in Rambo III too.  But, in reality this is James Bond teaming up with the Taliban and proto-Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden types.  My my my did we have a different opinion of them in 1987.  They even show up as Kara's guests of honor at an end of film concert.

What about 2017 films will seem off putting in 2047?

My own tastes not tending towards the flashy/gadget and one liner driven Bond movies. TLD is highly enjoyable. Confusing, but enjoyable.

On a scale of a Stradivarius cello named Lady Rose to a cello name Sue, I give The Living Daylights 3.22 out of 5 stars.  

A View to a Kill (1985)

James Bond: And what if I'm thrown?
Max Zorin: Then you lose.


Stacey Sutton: I only have a few leftovers in the fridge. I'm a pathetic cook.
James Bond: Well, I'll lend a hand.
Stacey Sutton: You can cook?
James Bond: I've been known to dabble.

So Roger Moore's last Bond is likely his best. (Or at least in contention with TSPWLM). A View To A Kill (AVTAK) had everything that was required for good James Bond and a decent movie in general.  Christopher Walken and Grace Jones are spectacular.

It is painfully obvious at this point in 1985 that Roger Moore was too old to play JB. It's not that he didn't do a good job, it's just that the age difference between him and the Bond girls is over the line.

I was unclear about why there was a horse racing plot, but it didn't seem to matter. What matters is the great blimp chance to the showdown on the Golden Gate.

Here's somethings I noticed and thought about while watching AVTAK.

1. For 1985, AVTAK is almost nostradamus like in predicting the power of the Bay Area and computers in general.
2. AVTAK actually spells out the plot for Goldeneye at one point
3. AVTAK was much better in terms of practical and inventive gadgets, vehicles, and props.  Huge fan of the firetruck ladder sequence. I hope that the director of Terminator III got his inspiration from here.  It seemed to track with what they did for Arnold. 

From Jenny Flex to Elsa Schneider, I give A View To A Kill 3.2 out of 5 star.

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Fatima Blush: Write! Now write this: "The greatest rapture in my life was afforded to me on a boat in Nassau by Fatima Blush." Sign: "James Bond, 007."

James Bond: I just remembered. It's against Service policy for agents to give endorsements.

Nurse: Mr. Bond, I need a urine sample. If you could fill this beaker for me?

James Bond: From here?

So 1983 must have been just a Bond hey-day. 2 Bonds in 1 year. 

Never Say Never Again (NSNA) is the last Connery Bond and he was 52 during filming. His love interest, Kim Basinger, was 29. That out of bounds of half age plus seven rule. I can understand why both he and Moore were phased out. 

Interestingly, I thought I recognized this story. It was like Thunderball, but not. And, now having read the wiki on the film 1, I can say with confidence that NSNA is, in fact, Thunderball 2.0. Seeing as Thunderball is a decent Bond, NSNA is on the positive side of the pantheon. Yet, it stands out in several key ways.

1. It doesn't have a shadowplay 60's entendre opening. 
2. The song is just awful.  -Please make me listen to All Time High again! Please!
3. It employees a lot of old jokes. 
4. Spectre is back

After so many films, it is almost bizarre to see a different production company and supporting cast take on all the familiar roles; M, Q, Moneypenny, etc. I thought of the alternate universe from fringe on several occasions. 

On a scale of smuggling candy into summer camp to smuggling vodka, caviar, foie gras, and quail eggs to James Bond at a health center, I give Never Say Never Again 2.88 out of 5 stars. 

On a strange point, I find it unsettling that Octopussy outperformed Never Say Never again in terms of financial returns. There is no question in my mind which is the better movie.  

But, the Moore vs Connery battle, in this case, went to Moore.   -But the judges are wrong. 

Octopussy (1983)

General Anatoly Gogol: [contemptuously] A common thief. A disgrace to the uniform!
Orlov: Yes, but tomorrow, I shall be a hero of the Soviet Union.

Q: [being kissed by Octopussy's girls after knocking out a bandit] Cut it out! We don't have time for that! Later perhaps.

Not the worst Bond.  Close, but not. Octopussy (O) has the highest level of stereotyping in the franchise -by a mile. If there is a cliche to be used, O goes for it. It also is the winner in the creepy clown count, too.

This is the Bond where James goes to India. (I always try to diligently remember that while India is one country, it's really more like Europe in terms of people and diversity.)  For 1983, taking Bond to India was a big step in terms of cross-culturalism. (In that context, I think O is a net positive.) On the other hand, O is so ludicrous orientalist and stereotyped filled that it made me uneasy.

Bond:

• pulls a sword out of sword swallower
• walks on hot coals
• snake charms
• climbs a magic rope
• faces down a tiger
• throws money for Indians in the street as a diversion
• uses a bed of nails as a gag

It goes on and on and on. The most outlandish I felt was when James is set loose in the jungle to be hunted from elephant back like "the most dangerous game".

Moving on to other uneasy topics...I often think about ownership of culture or creativity. Did I create something new? Am I copying someone else? Am I copying with what intentions? How do I feel? How do those that I am copying feel? -This is just me. I think that O is on the wrong side of cultural appropriation with regards to clothing and cultural sexual displays. I am happy to see other people trying on different clothing from their standard. For example, I like wearing a yukata when in Japan. But, the sheer number of European women wearing Indian clothing as pure costume and as a sign of sexual display was out of touch from reality and good taste. In fact, the idea that Octopussy can simple be a guru to a cadre of specifically desirable and liberated women in India is off-putting from a power/gender/culture perspective.

Lastly, I seem to be a good prognosticator, Russian American/NATO power politics are the continuing core of James Bonds in the 80s.

Points and questions:

1. Were circuses really that popular back then? I know they are dying/dead in 2017, but how popular were they really in 1983? 
2. Vijay Armritaj -You were great in your role. I was sorry to see you die. IMDB
3. If he wasn't in FYEO, Roger Moore was too old to be Bond in 1983.
4. Roger Moore looks terrible as a clown. 
5. Louis Jourdan was the most non-descript villain of the series. 

On a scale of 1 sad clown in a car to clown car math, I give Octopussy 1.87 out of 5 stars.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Melina: I don't expect you to understand, you're English, but I'm half Greek and Greek women like Elektra always avenge their loved ones!

James Bond: That's detente, comrade; *You* don't have it, *I* don't have it.

I think this might be the most middling of the James Bonds. It simply is OK. This may have been on purpose. After the Space Oddity that was Moonraker, it was perhaps time to bring James Bond back to reality. So, the saving the world from a megalomanic mad-man idea was put on hold for a practical story. Britain lost its "ENIGMA" machine, James Bond needs to get it before the Soviets. For Your Eyes Only (FYEO), feels kinda pedestrian with its bad man (Greek Smuggler [Villain of Last Crusade and Grand Maester Pycelle]) simply wanting to sell "ENIGMA" to the soviets. The big signal for this is that Bond finally kills his nemesis Blofeld in the opening sequence. Just an OK Bond.

Things I noticed:

1. The writers really got creative with how to incorporate every idea they could of winter sports. James Bond even goes off a ski jump. Significantly, better snow battles than OHMSS. 
2. I am not one who thinks of figure skaters in a sexual or romantic sense. Clearly, the writers of FYEO did, or at least they thought men of 1981 would. The whole plot seems bizarre to me. 
3. As to why to include so many Winter Sports, I would point to the success of the 1980 Winter Olympics (Miracle on Ice). This may have been a high water mark for interest in these activities. 
4. I haven't seen yet, but I am going to bet that the Russians will be Bond's general adversary through the 80s. The era of mad-men bent on "Taking over the World" is past.
5. The 80's hair on Eastern Germans on skis was amazing.
6. We're getting to the era of Bond where we can see older actors today when they were young -Looking at you Julian Glover and Charles Dance. 

On a scale of K90 to K120, I give For Your Eyes Only 2.86 out of 5 stars.  

Moonraker (1979)

"Well...here's to us." -Jaws

Moonraker is a disaster plain and simple. Certainly worth watching once cuz it's a Bond..I guess, but not worth rewatching---ever.

And yes, I was right in my guess made in my SWLM post.  This plot and movie were conceived of in post-Star Wars afterglow. Underwater was what IT was and now what it IS is space. So, 007 goes to space.

There were only 3 real bright spots for me. 1. Jaws, 2. The technical weightless effects, and 3. The writers who dared to set a whole fight sequence on a sky gondola. Other than that, mandatorily forgettable.

For 1978 filming, I thought the ability to have multiple people appear to float space-like was rather spectacular. Kudos to those tech guys.

What I really hated was that I could see where Moonraker is a hack. They took what was usable -almost shot for shot from YOLT and combine it with mimic shot for mimic shot from Star Wars. (Though this does not apply to the lasers or space ships- they were awful. It's really ILM or nothing in my book.) Seriously, if I could rename Moonraker, it would be You Only Live Star Wars.

Oh, the Venetian gondola that turns into a hover craft was stupid (It lacked all cool.), and Michael Lonsdale looks, acts, and sounds like Peter Dinklage playing Tyrion Lannister.  Or Peter Dinklage is doing an amazing Hugo Drax impression?

On a scale of Bond in space to Muppets in space, I give Moonraker 1.6 out of 5 stars.