Movies205's Review and Discussion Thread: Vol. 4 - Kingdom of Debauchery and Hackery!

[Episode29]

The Visitor (2008)
Director: Thomas McCarthy
Rating: 9/10

You probably don’t know Richard Jenkins by name. He’s one of those reliable character actor types who can always be depended on to add a certain amount of low-key professional quality to star-driven vehicles. Whether playing Jamie Foxx’s CIA boss in The Kingdom, Heather Graham’s quadriplegic step-father in Say It Isn’t So, or Charlize Theron’s conflicted dad in North Country, Jenkins has been working steadily and skilfully, showing an impressive range and chameleon-like ability to disappear into a role. It’s not uncommon for these kinds of talented actors to spend an entire career lost in the background. Occasionally though, with proper support, they find themselves occupying the lead role in a truly wonderful piece of cinematic artistry.

It is to our benefit that Jenkins has done just that, starring as an introverted economics professor in the powerful new film The Visitor. His character, Walter Vale, is a man who has withdrawn into his own skin, and become removed from the world around him. It isn’t until he discovers illegal alien couple Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and Zainab (Danai Gurira) squatting in his New York apartment that the seeds of spiritual rebirth are planted. A frustrated wannabe pianist, Walter grows increasingly intrigued by Tarek’s musical mastery of the African drums. The duo’s bond over a shared love of music is abruptly put to an end, however, when Tarek is arrested and placed in a detention centre. While Walter searches for a legal answer to his friend’s increasingly serious troubles, Tarek’s fiercely independent mother arrives. Played by Hiam Abbass, she further stirs Walter’s emotional growth, and we are treated to one of the most subtly powerful romantic relationships in recent cinematic memory.

The brilliance of The Visitor is its effortless aptitude for presenting a stirring political statement, the frustrations with the post-9/11 U.S. Immigration system, through the lives and interactions of its characters. Writer/director Thomas McCarthy, whose sole previous helming credit was the well-received but little-seen The Station Agent, shows a startlingly well-honed ability to write fascinating three dimensional characters, as well as a deep understanding of natural human comedy. There is not a single false moment over The Visitor’s entire 104-minute duration. We believe these people and are invested in their hopes, dreams and fears. Its amazing work and will likely lead McCarthy towards a prosperous and creatively rich future.

A lion’s share of the credit must also be given to Jenkins. Dressed in drab colors and owlishly peering out through thick frames, Walter hides behind a projected image of overbearing academic superiority. However, the actor allows the viewer to see through the illusion, and into the soul of the character. What we observe there, Walter’s innate goodness and longings for love and acceptance, makes Jenkins’ portrait all the more moving. Pay close attention to the evolution of how he smiles over the course of the film. Initially appearing as insincere reflections of his discomfort they gradually transform to mirror Walter’s acceptance of happiness, particularly in the movie’s powerful music scenes.

The supporting cast is ideal. Haaz Sleiman is a real discovery, emanating good-will and warmth. We can understand why Walter is so taken with him, and thus his unfortunate situation is all the more heart-rending. His ability to enliven the characters around him is sorely missed when he is separated from them. Equally strong is the impassioned performance of Hiam Abbass, who is a perfect match for Walter. Her determined pride and subdued loveliness is a perfect counterpoint for his drab, reserved mannerisms. It’s a rarity in modern films that we can find enjoyment in the simple act of on-screen conversation, but The Visitor makes their verbal communications as riveting as any blockbuster money shot.

It’s unfortunate that this film is being released now, in this season of superheroes and whip-cracking archaeologists, as one has to wonder whether audiences will care about a story as delicate as The Visitor. The performances and direction are so uniformly fantastic that it may have gained more attendees (and awards notices) in the fall season. Regardless, I emphatically urge you to seek out this gem for yourself. Sometimes it’s refreshing to take a break from the CG explosions and view something with substance and a real comprehension of emotional truth. The Visitor is such a film, and it deserves our support.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The Naked Gun (1988)

Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, George Kennedy, Ricardo Montalban, O.J. Simpson, Raye Birk, Susan Beaubian, Nancy Marchand, Jeannette Charles & Ed Williams.

Directed by: David Zucker

Believe it or not this is the first time ive ever seen this movie and i laughed from start to finish. The spoofy goofball comedy is a hard one to pull off, most have a tendency to forget any form of cohesive narrative and creativity, and instead just pile on scene after scene that spoofs popular movies. Naked Gun is the one in ten that gets it right, the spoofing is mostly of the cop movie genre's cliche's instead of straight to scene to scene parodies, there are a couple of closely spoofed scenes though, in particular a really deft one of Dirty Harry that probably goes unnoticed.

Naked Gun hits the mark 90% of the time with it's gags, the visual ones are superb and vary from the obvious to the subtle, but a large portion of the credit goes to Leslie Nielsen, a lot of the gags are verbal mixed with physical interaction and require great comic timing and delivery, fortunately he is more than up to the task, deadpanning his way from scene to scene with effortless charm and a total lack of self awareness.

The film has a running gag of OJ Simpson's cop who is shot at the start, being inadvertently hurt again while trying to recuperate through a series of clumsy acts by Drebin, the end gag is priceless and works b/c they don't overdo the amount of comedy abuse of the OJ Simpson character throughout the movie, but they lay the foundation for the big final pay off.

The film clocks in at 80 minutes which is perfect for these types of movies, never outstay your welcome should be the motto when making this type of comedy that has no moral message, no romantic attachments and no depth involved, it's a flat out laugher and does it's job better than just about any i have seen in it's sub genre, hence why my mark is so high, i reviewed it on what it was meant to be and how successful it was in achieving what it set out to.


9/10

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Everytime they air this (which is about every month) I watch about five minutes of it. After that I can't take it anymore. Those five minutes are filled with laughter though. Roll-eyd laughter. Some jokes are so incredibly lame they are brilliant.

 

[Superhobo]

Happy Feet 10/10
Directed by George Miller

If you'd have told me that a film about singing and dancing penguins would become my favorite film a year ago, I'd have called you a wanky wankerson. Of course, this would probably be because you neglected to mention that the film was being written and directed by George Miller.

That's George Miller of "Babe" fame, but more importantly of "Mad Max" fame, which I think more applies here. So, I sat down a while back (a LONG while back, but I just got a blog, so) and watched the movie.

What Miller's done here is nothing short of amazing on every level. It's a subtle, complex work of art that's really more in tune with the "Road Warrior" than "Pig in the City," - or, "Watership Down" than "Ratatouille." The characters are involving, the story is moving and thoughtful without being preachy (though some would say otherwise, one needs only to look at who's saying it), and so on.

It's a very spiritual movie, some have called it a neo-biblical epic (I'm not joking - that'd be Hollywood Reporter), and a prophet tale. It shares many of the same traits that run strata through Miller's work, the Campbellian hero story and structure. But here, in the religious and spiritual context the film provides, it takes on a richer and altogether deeper meaning.

The musical sequences are of note, particularly, though. Being something of a hoofer myself, it was in utmost joy that I learned Savion Glover (of "Bring in 'Da Noise, Bring in 'Da Funk" and "that one Jamie Foxx episode" fame, and notably the best tap-dancer of all time) was the one doing the mo-cap for the main character, Mumble. The main sequence, between Mumble and Gloria, voiced respectively by Elijah Wood and Brittany Murphy, has to be the one that stands out particularly, though. I'm not going to ruin it for any of the readers, though; you have to see it.

Really, its the end of the film that's the most spectacular, though. Where most of the kids in the audience (and this film's great for kids, too. Don't get me wrong there) saw just, you know, dancing penguins, there was this great "Close Encounters"-esque scene that's just amazing - at times recalling the ending of "The Abyss" and still others Kubrick and Kurosawa - there are varying interpretations of it though, ranging from a cynical satire -

"That is Happy Feet’s equal-best political joke. The second is the fact that the penguins can only survive because they function as a specific example of how non-humans might titillate humans: that, in short, humanity is too stupid to cope with the idea of animal rights, environmentalism, or whatever we wish to call it. Is the sight of the penguin tribe desperately submitting to the necessity of pragmatically tap-dancing not the most upsettingly pathetic spectacle? Mumble’s political genius does not come from overturning the false traditions of Guin-worship, but in recognising that the penguins’ true masters are not gods, but men. Our hero exposes the materialist basis of his people’s subservience, but only so they might submit to its permanence and invincibility. At the very moment the penguins are liberated from superstition, they are enslaved to reality. I ask you: are the penguins really “freed” to dance, when the alternative is death? These “happy feet” are the most dialectical of symbols."

- to something more hopeful:

"The "second part" of the movie is not just about environmentalism, it's about Mumble's not backing down -- neither to his own kind, nor to an alien menace, nor to the mind-numbingly huge distance that separates them (That distance, and the isolation it creates, is the reason that penguins were the proper casting choice for this movie - although admittedly they have been kind of trendy ever since "Madagascar"). Moreover, this portion of the movie - as in "Close Encounters" - is about establishing communication when words or voices fail."

I could gush on and on about the film, about its scope and all of that, but really all I can say is "go see it," and avoid any prior preconceptions - besides that it's a "George Miller film."

There are several shots, as I mentioned earlier in the review, that recall works by Kubrick and Kurosawa in their composition - the former in a couple of scenes, one of which "2001" is explicitly referenced, and the latter in one of the most beautiful and yet simplistic shots later in the film. If I were to say anything about it, that would spoil it for those who haven't seen it.
As I also mentioned earlier, there's also something about the ending that seems to remind me of Carpenter's original ending to "The Abyss," particularly in the oftmentioned zoo scene.



Amazingly enough, this film has moved "Road Warrior" out of its spot as my favorite Miller film.


Tops, George Miller. Tops, indeed.

 

[Movies205]

Half Nelson
Directed by Ryan Fleck
Rating: 8/10

Half Nelson is an interesting film in that for all its resisting of the hollywood film, it still follows many of the same tenants. The film is made very much in the vein of the punk cinema movement of the late 90s a.k.a. Dogma 95. It employs the long take, shying away from outrageous plot device, lots of natural lighting, handicam, etc. However, like most movements its begun to evolve and join the collective, much like Film Noir has done. So while we've seen Cloverfield (08') take its inspiration from Dogma 95' and remake the monster film, we see Half Nelson do it to the hollywood film.

I make this point based on the fact that the entire cast is littered with pretty faces which is very contrary to the Dogma 95' movement or the use of non-actors. The script while very inert at times and doesn't gift-wrap the story follows a three act structure. Use of a score/soundtrack is used so my point is that Half-Nelson seemingly functions as a bridge from the movement back to mainstream (Even though Fight Club, and many other have already done this). Much in the same way as Mean Streets was to Goddard in the early 70s. However if one is adverse against these slow moving pictures that seem to want to mirror reality as close as possible, I'd advise to stay away.

As for the actual film it is solid. Ryan Gosling gives an incredible performance as a crackhead thats not hammy, preachy, or too understated. Shareeka Epps gives a solid performance, that's neither over-acted or annoying. And I love how the film takes a road of ambiguity and doesn't dictate to the audience what to think about the characters of this world. I'm not against the Dogma 95' style of film-making, however in this film I found the over-use of Rack-Focus in combination with Shakey Cam annoying/distracted. The use of long-cut also while acheiving some sense of drama/realism creates for a rather slow/tedious film. I did enjoy the sound editing of the film in which they segway into a lot of scenes.

What holds the film together though is the story. I shy away from using the word script since I feel its the synergy of acting/film-maker that achieve the level of story telling because quite frankly while the script(which felt improvised quite a bit, not a critique just observation) is very realistic and natural would be on its own rather boring if it were not for the acting as well as directing. The nuances of the characters as well as the amazing heart is what makes the film tick and really reach out to the audience. While it does adhere to a very general idea of the hollywood structure of story telling, don't expect the usual pay-offs.

Over-all its a solid movie with a solid story but is held back by some film-making techiques which make it very slow and hard to sit through.

 

[Matrixo]

MUNICH

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Munich shows the events after the 1972 Munich Massacre, where 11 Israelis were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September. Munich pretty much shows you Israels response to the massacre known today as Operation Wrath of God by Israels intelligence agency,the Mossad (Like our FBI). The squad is lead by Avner, a Mossad agent; Steve, a driver; Hans, a document forger; Robert, a toy maker who is trained to make explosives and Carl, who cleans up after assassinations.

Some of its real, some of it is a work of fiction, I don't care. I had to write a 5 page research on the 1972 Munich Massacre and forgot all about this movie, so last week I was in fye (DVD hunting of course) and bought it for 10 bucks. Not that bad of a deal if I say so. I saw it a day after I bought it and was blown away with what I saw.

Before I watched the movie I was expecting a lot of good dialog and maybe one action sequence, I was wrong. Thats a good thing, it had good if not great dialog but there were way more action scenes then I thought there would be, and there all fantabulous. Yup, fantabulous (Fantastic + Fabulous).

If theres one thing I have a problem with, its the last 30 or so minutes. The rest of the movie is like a roller coaster, its great until it starts to slow down and finally finish. It just slows down too abruptly. Other then that, its all good.

Munich's got a great cast. Eric Bana plays Avner, who is pretty cool in this role. Daniel Craig is also in the movie as Steve, who was my second favorite character. Geoffrey Rush is also in the movie as Ephraim, almost serving as Avner's boss.

The movie is great in almost every way and would recommend it to someone in a heartbeat. If you haven't seen it rent it, look for it on HBO, hell I say buy it if you have a chance.

Matrixo gives Munich a 9/10

 

[Superhobo]

This needs to be stickied.

 

[Movies205]

It's a very spiritual movie, some have called it a neo-biblical epic (I'm not joking - that'd be Hollywood Reporter), and a prophet tale. It shares many of the same traits that run strata through Miller's work, the Campbellian hero story and structure. But here, in the religious and spiritual context the film provides, it takes on a richer and altogether deeper meaning.

I'm going respectfully disagree with your assesment of the film. Don't get me wrong I liked it but I feel your praise is a little too heavy handed toward the film. The first is in the depth you've imbuned on it when in fact it employs the same character/structure as every Disney Cartoon film about an outcast that's come before it whether it be Pinochoncio or Oliver and Company just with some very not-so subtle jabs at the religious right and add in a terribly structure script and you have Happy Feet. Character A doesn't fit in so is exiled meets Odd/Comic Relief Friends that help him in his quest and gets girl or w/e prize he looking for in the end. The only real difference is that Miller heavy handly throws in social commentary and has an incredibly elongated 3rd act.

Really, its the end of the film that's the most spectacular, though. Where most of the kids in the audience (and this film's great for kids, too. Don't get me wrong there) saw just, you know, dancing penguins, there was this great "Close Encounters"-esque scene that's just amazing - at times recalling the ending of "The Abyss" and still others Kubrick and Kurosawa - there are varying interpretations of it though, ranging from a cynical satire -

To me the film was just trying way too hard. Instead of ending properly with Mumble being reintegrated back into society, you have this really terrible and over the top ending involving a Zoo, etc. That makes absolutely no sense given the rules of the world and breaks a rule that has always been inherent in these movies that the animals who talk don't cross that wall and talk to humans(unless that the whole point of the movie). The third act drags so terribly.

Don't get me wrong there's plenty in this film to complement whether it be the animation, music, or even the voice acting. Hell, I find even the enviromental and religious jokes funny and clever. However, its far from subtle and I wouldn't call it particularly deep, or earth shattering cinema. Fantasia, Toy Story, Fritz the Cat, etc these are the films that shaked animation to the core and it has nothing to do with the quality of the film but with what they were doing with the medium. All I see in Happy Feet is convention done well and in some cases poorly.

 

[Movies205]

MUNICH

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Munich shows the events after the 1972 Munich Massacre, where 11 Israelis were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September. Munich pretty much shows you Israels response to the massacre known today as Operation Wrath of God by Israels intelligence agency,the Mossad (Like our FBI). The squad is lead by Avner, a Mossad agent; Steve, a driver; Hans, a document forger; Robert, a toy maker who is trained to make explosives and Carl, who cleans up after assassinations.

Some of its real, some of it is a work of fiction, I don't care. I had to write a 5 page research on the 1972 Munich Massacre and forgot all about this movie, so last week I was in fye (DVD hunting of course) and bought it for 10 bucks. Not that bad of a deal if I say so. I saw it a day after I bought it and was blown away with what I saw.

Before I watched the movie I was expecting a lot of good dialog and maybe one action sequence, I was wrong. Thats a good thing, it had good if not great dialog but there were way more action scenes then I thought there would be, and there all fantabulous. Yup, fantabulous (Fantastic + Fabulous).

If theres one thing I have a problem with, its the last 30 or so minutes. The rest of the movie is like a roller coaster, its great until it starts to slow down and finally finish. It just slows down too abruptly. Other then that, its all good.

Munich's got a great cast. Eric Bana plays Avner, who is pretty cool in this role. Daniel Craig is also in the movie as Steve, who was my second favorite character. Geoffrey Rush is also in the movie as Ephraim, almost serving as Avner's boss.

The movie is great in almost every way and would recommend it to someone in a heartbeat. If you haven't seen it rent it, look for it on HBO, hell I say buy it if you have a chance.

Matrixo gives Munich a 9/10

I really liked Munich though its been almost 3 years since I last saw it so my memory's a little rusty. I say one of the strongest points of the film is that it presents the story without an agenda and is not out to make a political statement but explores the toll the war takes on a man's soul. Some have said the final scenes with Bana in his bedroom were over the top but I loved it. Other points is the detail and the executions as well as the charactesr themselves.

The reason you most likely had a problem with the last 30 minutes is because its an elongated 3rd act(could be wrong, its been a while since I've seen it) but it takes quite a bit of time to examine the effects on the protagonist soul which unlike most movies the protagonist quest is resolved at the climax while in Munich we need to see that last 30 minutes.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Munich is a good movie. Even though it drags terribly in some parts, especially the scenes with the French family. All of the assassinations were terrific.
I'm never quite sure what to think of Spielberg. Sometimes he makes sappy, sentimental movies. And other times quite ruthless or entertaining ones. But when you look at his viual directing, you just have to admit the man's a ****ing genius. Some of the suspense scenes in Munich had my jaw hit the floor, the way his shots are constructed is absolutely astounding.
On the other hand, I hated the overdone camerawork in War of the Worlds. I think it was done to make up for the ******ed script and weak, cliched characters.


BTW: This thread needs a title banner on the front page just like Volume 2 had.

 

[Movies205]

BTW: This thread needs a title banner on the front page just like Volume 2 had.

When I have some time/see a shot I really like I'll make one

 

[Superhobo]

I'm going respectfully disagree with your assesment of the film. Don't get me wrong I liked it but I feel your praise is a little too heavy handed toward the film.

Duly noted, I guess.

The first is in the depth you've imbuned on it when in fact it employs the same character/structure as every Disney Cartoon film about an outcast that's come before it whether it be Pinochoncio or Oliver and Company just with some very not-so subtle jabs at the religious right and add in a terribly structure script and you have Happy Feet.
Character A doesn't fit in so is exiled meets Odd/Comic Relief Friends that help him in his quest and gets girl or w/e prize he looking for in the end.

The thing is, it doesn't really fit that structure, though. Like, at all.

The only real difference is that Miller heavy handly throws in social commentary and has an incredibly elongated 3rd act.

The third act is about as long as the two that preceded it, maybe a little longer.

To me the film was just trying way too hard. Instead of ending properly with Mumble being reintegrated back into society, you have this really terrible and over the top ending involving a Zoo, etc.

That would've been far from the better ending, and would've left too many loose ends of plot strands (the 'Aliens') that were set up earlier in the film - as well as providing an 'ice cream for all' type ending. As far as the Zoo scene being over the top, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but that's by far one of the best scenes in the film.

What exactly was over the top about it, to you?

That makes absolutely no sense given the rules of the world

...What rules? The film was set in much the same type of world as "Watership Down," and films of that nature - par for the dancing, what was presented was a realistic-yet-anthropomorphic world that - I've forgotten how I was going to finish this, given I've just taken a pill, so - heh.

and breaks a rule that has always been inherent in these movies that the animals who talk don't cross that wall and talk to humans(unless that the whole point of the movie).

He never spoke them, though - he couldn't. That was one of the points of that scene, much like in "Babe," although there's a differing underlying point.

The third act drags so terribly.

...How?

Don't get me wrong there's plenty in this film to complement whether it be the animation, music, or even the voice acting. Hell, I find even the enviromental and religious jokes funny and clever.

Well, they're far from jokes - the religious subplot is one of the backbones of the film, or the 'community' subplot, as well as how it relates to the character's development. Miller actually talks a lot about this in interviews he's given.

However, its far from subtle and I wouldn't call it particularly deep, or earth shattering cinema.

I actually have a couple of posts (shameless plug) on my blog (shameless plug) that explore the film even more - you might want to give them a look.

Fantasia, Toy Story, Fritz the Cat, etc these are the films that shaked animation to the core and it has nothing to do with the quality of the film

Wut.

but with what they were doing with the medium.

Indeedy, I agree.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Half Nelson
Directed by Ryan Fleck
Rating: 8/10

Half Nelson is an interesting film in that for all its resisting of the hollywood film, it still follows many of the same tenants. The film is made very much in the vein of the punk cinema movement of the late 90s a.k.a. Dogma 95. It employs the long take, shying away from outrageous plot device, lots of natural lighting, handicam, etc. However, like most movements its begun to evolve and join the collective, much like Film Noir has done. So while we've seen Cloverfield (08') take its inspiration from Dogma 95' and remake the monster film, we see Half Nelson do it to the hollywood film.

I make this point based on the fact that the entire cast is littered with pretty faces which is very contrary to the Dogma 95' movement or the use of non-actors. The script while very inert at times and doesn't gift-wrap the story follows a three act structure. Use of a score/soundtrack is used so my point is that Half-Nelson seemingly functions as a bridge from the movement back to mainstream (Even though Fight Club, and many other have already done this). Much in the same way as Mean Streets was to Goddard in the early 70s. However if one is adverse against these slow moving pictures that seem to want to mirror reality as close as possible, I'd advise to stay away.

As for the actual film it is solid. Ryan Gosling gives an incredible performance as a crackhead thats not hammy, preachy, or too understated. Shareeka Epps gives a solid performance, that's neither over-acted or annoying. And I love how the film takes a road of ambiguity and doesn't dictate to the audience what to think about the characters of this world. I'm not against the Dogma 95' style of film-making, however in this film I found the over-use of Rack-Focus in combination with Shakey Cam annoying/distracted. The use of long-cut also while acheiving some sense of drama/realism creates for a rather slow/tedious film. I did enjoy the sound editing of the film in which they segway into a lot of scenes.

What holds the film together though is the story. I shy away from using the word script since I feel its the synergy of acting/film-maker that achieve the level of story telling because quite frankly while the script(which felt improvised quite a bit, not a critique just observation) is very realistic and natural would be on its own rather boring if it were not for the acting as well as directing. The nuances of the characters as well as the amazing heart is what makes the film tick and really reach out to the audience. While it does adhere to a very general idea of the hollywood structure of story telling, don't expect the usual pay-offs.

Over-all its a solid movie with a solid story but is held back by some film-making techiques which make it very slow and hard to sit through.

Your analysis of this is very well written and quite educational, as a film on it's own merits i pretty much agree with your take, the three central leads drive a rather ordinary story while the directors lack of willingness to choose a right or wrong for these characters is interesting. The semi docu style is indeed at times tedious and can create a disconnect with the audience in scenes that feel like watching someones life from a cam corder tape put in your machine by a friend to show you he can use it.

Gosling in particular shows the talent he has and why he is one to watch, young Epps i felt was good but perhaps over praised in many of the reviews i read, this is Gosling's movie.

 

[Movies205]

Your analysis of this is very well written and quite educational, as a film on it's own merits i pretty much agree with your take, the three central leads drive a rather ordinary story while the directors lack of willingness to choose a right or wrong for these characters is interesting. The semi docu style is indeed at times tedious and can create a disconnect with the audience in scenes that feel like watching someones life from a cam corder tape put in your machine by a friend to show you he can use it.

I've seen the style used more effectively particularly by the guys that pretty much invented it which was the Dogma 95', watch a film called Festen Completely handi-cam using crappy Digital 8 Cams and stuff like that I believe, awesome film

Gosling in particular shows the talent he has and why he is one to watch, young Epps i felt was good but perhaps over praised in many of the reviews i read, this is Gosling's movie.

Well acting is an art, it something that needs to be cultured so I mean good children's performances are ones that actually believable.
=

 

[Movies205]

Duly noted, I guess.



The thing is, it doesn't really fit that structure, though. Like, at all.

Let's take Mulan....

Mulan wants to join army, she doesn't fit in at home, she exiles herself from family and joins army. Meets comic relief characters, things go good and then she's discovered, then completes the last bit of her quest.

Mumble wants to dance but can't sing. Is exile from his home meets comic relief characters and things are going good but then it fails, and he has to complete the last bit(zoo).

The structure is exactly the same.

The third act is about as long as the two that preceded it, maybe a little longer.

Open up any script writing book this is not acceptable, the third act is suppose to be the shortest, when its the longest you have failed as a script-writer. The reason being is that it suppose to be the resolution and its quick and sweet.

That would've been far from the better ending, and would've left too many loose ends of plot strands (the 'Aliens') that were set up earlier in the film - as well as providing an 'ice cream for all' type ending. As far as the Zoo scene being over the top, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but that's by far one of the best scenes in the film.

I realize they were setting up for it but personally I thought it came out of no where and really disconnected from the movie.

What exactly was over the top about it, to you?

That he swims or get taken all the way to the United States or Canada, wherever and then is put in a zoo, and it just keeps going the whole thing was out of place for me.

...What rules? The film was set in much the same type of world as "Watership Down," and films of that nature - par for the dancing, what was presented was a realistic-yet-anthropomorphic world that - I've forgotten how I was going to finish this, given I've just taken a pill, so - heh.




He never spoke them, though - he couldn't. That was one of the points of that scene, much like in "Babe," although there's a differing underlying point.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I respect your opinion but for me its a good film but not earthshattering.

Well, they're far from jokes - the religious subplot is one of the backbones of the film, or the 'community' subplot, as well as how it relates to the character's development. Miller actually talks a lot about this in interviews he's given.

Its a joke, whether its for the plot or not they are funny jokes that are clever...


Wut.

Fritz the cat is not a good film, Ralph Balkshi has never made a good film yet he's rocked animation to its core. Things that are ground breaking don't have to be great but they have ot make people think of the genre in a different way and Happy feet doesn't do that.

 

[Superhobo]

Let's take Mulan....

Mulan wants to join army, she doesn't fit in at home, she exiles herself from family and joins army. Meets comic relief characters, things go good and then she's discovered, then completes the last bit of her quest.

I haven't seen Mulan in a while, so no comment on this.

Mumble wants to dance but can't sing.

With you so far.

Is exile from his home meets comic relief characters and things are going good but then it fails,

And then you lose me. Film doesn't follow this formula, dude - also, you're simplifying. I could take any two films, regardless of their actual content, and strip them down to the point where it seemed their plots followed similar patterns -

(although, we could take into account the monomyth, but that kind of opens up a whole other realm of discussion, there)

the structure is exactly the same.

Except it isn't, haha!

Open up any script writing book this is not acceptable, the third act is suppose to be the shortest, when its the longest you have failed as a script-writer. The reason being is that it suppose to be the resolution and its quick and sweet.

You must hate Kurosawa films, then. I mean, geez. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

EDIT (some hours later) - now I look back on it, the film reaches it's 'black moment' at the break in the Zoo scene, leaving the third act to take up from there, actually - or, somewhere around there. So, this is kind of moot.

I realize they were setting up for it but personally I thought it came out of no where and really disconnected from the movie.

I'm not getting what you're saying, here - you realize they were setting up for it, and yet you still thought it came out of nowhere? Does not compute.

That he swims or get taken all the way to the United States or Canada, wherever and then is put in a zoo, and it just keeps going the whole thing was out of place for me.

Let's take "The Abyss," which we were discussing earlier in the thread. The two endings here share some similarities, apart from the cinematographic ones I mentioned in my review - Mumble's arrival in the zoo could be seen as analogous to Bud's arrival in the mothership, and then on from there.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I respect your opinion but for me its a good film but not earthshattering.

It's all good, man.

Its a joke, whether its for the plot or not they are funny jokes that are clever...

By this logic, any culture-establishment of this kind could be considered a 'joke.' Again, I'll use "Watership Down" as an example here - what with El-ahrairah, and the Owsla, and all that.

Fritz the cat is not a good film, Ralph Balkshi has never made a good film

This I'll agree on - damn that man and his "Lord of the Rings."

yet he's rocked animation to its core. Things that are ground breaking don't have to be great but they have ot make people think of the genre in a different way and Happy feet doesn't do that.

I'll have to disagree there - even if we were speaking from a purely technological standpoint, I'd still have to disagree. But, to each his own, I guess.


I still have to suggest checking out my blog, though. As far as this film and our discussion goes, it might interest you.

 

[Movies205]

I haven't seen Mulan in a while, so no comment on this.



With you so far.



And then you lose me. Film doesn't follow this formula, dude - also, you're simplifying. I could take any two films, regardless of their actual content, and strip them down to the point where it seemed their plots followed similar patterns -

(although, we could take into account the monomyth, but that kind of opens up a whole other realm of discussion, there)

I don't want this to come off as elitist but if you study to be a scriptwriter that's pretty much what they teach you that pretty much all Hollywood film follows the same formula and then you pick a genre. Its not a bad thing but that's how all scripts are written there broken down to that basic level in terms of structure.

You must hate Kurosawa films, then. I mean, geez. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

EDIT (some hours later) - now I look back on it, the film reaches it's 'black moment' at the break in the Zoo scene, leaving the third act to take up from there, actually - or, somewhere around there. So, this is kind of moot.

I love Kurosawa but he follows a similar pattern as well, length of film does not equal length of acts. Seven Samurai's second act ends when all seems lost, the third act is the final battle, which equals out to like 15-30 minutes of a 3 hour movie in relation it is realatively short.

I'm not getting what you're saying, here - you realize they were setting up for it, and yet you still thought it came out of nowhere? Does not compute.

Look we have all these penguins far away from humans being injured and **** by these humans, i would of assume they would of bump into them over there instead they came up with an over top ending where he somehow gets transported hundreds of miles away. It felt like two different movies because that's way too big a thing to happe nthat late in the ball game.

Let's take "The Abyss," which we were discussing earlier in the thread. The two endings here share some similarities, apart from the cinematographic ones I mentioned in my review - Mumble's arrival in the zoo could be seen as analogous to Bud's arrival in the mothership, and then on from there.

Difference is... it fits... The entire movie of Abyss is them going lower and lower into the abyss till he finally gets to the point. Happy Feet goes back and forth from being a movie about getting hte girl and an enviromentalist movie, and so he's off learning how to be himself and then all of a sudden he's hurldled hundreds of miles away. Again not saying its a bad film, I'm just saying I'd rank it at a 7 or 8, and its not a completely flawless movie.





[QUOTEBy this logic, any culture-establishment of this kind could be considered a 'joke.' Again, I'll use "Watership Down" as an example here - what with El-ahrairah, and the Owsla, and all that.[/QUOTE]

I don't get why your so against something be called a joke, I'm not saying its not a plot point or cheapening it. But Robin Williams character being choked by a plastic wrapper and being seen as a prophet is funny, it still a culturally relevant point but its funny.

I'll have to disagree there - even if we were speaking from a purely technological standpoint, I'd still have to disagree. But, to each his own, I guess.

How do you disagree? Any animater will tell you that Balkshi revolutionized animation yet none of his films are particularly good. While something like say The Incredible was a great animated film yet it didn't really particularly change much.

 

[Superhobo]

I don't want this to come off as elitist but if you study to be a scriptwriter that's pretty much what they teach you that pretty much all Hollywood film follows the same formula and then you pick a genre. Its not a bad thing but that's how all scripts are written there broken down to that basic level in terms of structure.

Monomyth, dude. Monomyth.

I love Kurosawa but he follows a similar pattern as well, length of film does not equal length of acts. Seven Samurai's second act ends when all seems lost, the third act is the final battle, which equals out to like 15-30 minutes of a 3 hour movie in relation it is realatively short.

Read latter part of that response.

Look we have all these penguins far away from humans being injured and **** by these humans, i would of assume they would of bump into them over there instead they came up with an over top ending where he somehow gets transported hundreds of miles away. It felt like two different movies because that's way too big a thing to happe nthat late in the ball game.

I can't even make sense of what you're saying here, dude - no offense or anything.

Difference is... it fits... The entire movie of Abyss is them going lower and lower into the abyss till he finally gets to the point.

Not really - are we speaking thematically or in a literal sense here?

Happy Feet goes back and forth from being a movie about getting hte girl and an enviromentalist movie, and so he's off learning how to be himself and then all of a sudden he's hurldled hundreds of miles away.

Uhm...what?

Again not saying its a bad film, I'm just saying I'd rank it at a 7 or 8, and its not a completely flawless movie.

Okay.

[QUOTEBy this logic, any culture-establishment of this kind could be considered a 'joke.' Again, I'll use "Watership Down" as an example here - what with El-ahrairah, and the Owsla, and all that.[/QUOTE]

I don't get why your so against something be called a joke, I'm not saying its not a plot point or cheapening it. But Robin Williams character being choked by a plastic wrapper and being seen as a prophet is funny, it still a culturally relevant point but its funny.

I'm not against something being called a joke when it's meant as a joke, dude. Zuh?

How do you disagree? Any animater will tell you that Balkshi revolutionized animation yet none of his films are particularly good. While something like say The Incredible was a great animated film yet it didn't really particularly change much.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point, dude - I agree with you about Bakshi, but I was speaking about "HF" with that response.

Oh, pills pills pills.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I've seen the style used more effectively particularly by the guys that pretty much invented it which was the Dogma 95', watch a film called Festen Completely handi-cam using crappy Digital 8 Cams and stuff like that I believe, awesome film



Well acting is an art, it something that needs to be cultured so I mean good children's performances are ones that actually believable.
=

I'll keep an eye out for it.

True i just felt that the reviews i read overlooked that context.

 

[Matrixo]

I really liked Munich though its been almost 3 years since I last saw it so my memory's a little rusty. I say one of the strongest points of the film is that it presents the story without an agenda and is not out to make a political statement but explores the toll the war takes on a man's soul. Some have said the final scenes with Bana in his bedroom were over the top but I loved it. Other points is the detail and the executions as well as the charactesr themselves.

The reason you most likely had a problem with the last 30 minutes is because its an elongated 3rd act(could be wrong, its been a while since I've seen it) but it takes quite a bit of time to examine the effects on the protagonist soul which unlike most movies the protagonist quest is resolved at the climax while in Munich we need to see that last 30 minutes.

Yeah I think your right, it felt like it was just dragging forever. But the movie was still great. t:

 

[Hunter Rider]

​

Synopsis

Striking Distance (1993)

Starring: Bruce Willis, Sarah Jessica Parker, Dennis Farina, Brion James, Tom Sizemore, Robert Pastorelli, John Mahoney & Andre Braugher

Directed By: Rowdy Herrington


This is one of those movies where Willis basically does a riff on his McClane character and in truth that is not always a bad thing, it served Eastwood well over his career. The problem in this case is that unlike say Last Boy Scout, the script isn't giving Willis much to play with and his Detective Tom Hardy is merely a miserable version of McClane, without the caustic wit to laugh at his own situation.

It begins reasonably enough, Hardy leaves his home with his father to go to a policeman's ball, now right off it establishes that Hardy is part of a large family of cops and is currently out of favour b/c he has testified in a police brutality hearing against his partner Jimmy (Robert Pastorelli) who also happens to be his cousin. he is also on the Polish Hill serial killer case and he thinks the killer is a cop. Anyway on the way to the ball their radio goes and a bulletin comes across saying that the cops are in pursuit of the Polish Hill killer, so naturally Hardy and his pops join in, now we get a pretty decent car chase here, nothing overly spectacular but well enough shot to give that little adrenaline buzz a good movie chase should. As the chase continues all the cops lose the killer except Hardy and his dad and they eventually shoot out his tires, which leads to him swerving his car into the Hardy's and sending both vehicles plummeting down a hill, when Tom awakens he is being pulled out of the car, his father has been shot and the killer has escaped......what follows is Willis on crutches, a stooge being fitted up quite clearly as the Polish Hill murderer and his cousin Jimmy leaping off a bridge that his Mom had leapt off years before when he is found guily of the police brutality charges, this devastates Tom and his uncle Nick (Dennis Farina) And his cousin Danny (Tom Sizemore) who tries to attack Tom......This part ALL happens in the space of about 5 or 6 minutes and is so strewn with plot holes you could drive a truck through it.

So we fast forward 2 years, the stooge is set to fry for Tom's dad's murder and the Polish Hill killings and Tom has now been kicked out of the force for stating on TV that he believes his father's death has been covered up and that the real killer is a cop. He is now working as a river patrol officer.

Now i am guessing if you read this far you already can see how stupid the plot is, let's see, Willis has said over and over again that a cop is the killer, his family are all cops and for some reason after the car crash the killer shot his father and left him to live ?.....Oh yeah, i wonder who the killer is gonna turn out to be....Now in fairness ive seen this movie before so i knew, but even the most casual of thriller watchers can figure where this is going.

What follows is Willis being a bad boy only minus the charm and getting given a female partner Jo (Sarah Jessica Parker) who inexplicably falls for him, Oh she's also an undercover IAD agent, with a 4 year old daughter, who lies on the stand to protect him when his Uncle Nick tries to have him thrown off the water........why would his uncle do this ? Ah yes, bodies of dead women are turning up in the river and Willis tells his Uncle that the killer is calling him, just like the Polish Hill killer did to the cops back in the old case "It's the same killer Nick and it's a cop" yells Brucie, another hint ? nah.....His uncle Nick refuses to listen, he keeps saying the murders aren't connected b/c the victims are shot rather than strangled and they have the Polish Hill killer, despite every other detail being the same. Danny turns back up after 2 years in LA and he seems kinda strung out, what was he doing there ? why did he go ? why has he chose now to come back ?....Hell if i know, the film never bothers to explain but i guess he may be the red herring.

In between the debacle of a plot Willis and SJP take down a boat with bad guys doing something bad, this doesn't really do much other than try to show SJP is competent, it's essentially just an excuse for a brief shoot out. Also every time Willis runs into the other cops that are all dumb, they tell him he's a rat and he cusses at them b/c he's grizzly and badass. Now we have another nice little thrown in plot piece here, there's a 3rd body in the river....and Bruce knew her, he'd taken her to prom, but wait....he'd also known both the other women as well, only one of these women did the cops know he knew, these are indeed Pittsburgh's finest.

Bruce has twigged that the killer is targeting women he knows and dumping them on his patrol route, so SJP could be next, They are heading down the river on their patrol and they see a guy in a car dumping what they think is a body off the overpass, they give chase and Bruce blows the guys car up with a flare gun, but the baddie escapes and it turns out he was just dumping a rug, it was a ploy to make him look bad deduces Tom and blasts "A cop would know our route" ......At this point if you're wondering if the killer might be a postman, the answer is no.

This mess leads to Tom being hauled in on a competency hearing where he discovers the true identity of SJP as she testifies, but she lies for him and he sees she's really a good gal despite not being honest with him from the start. So it's off to the finish line as the killer kidnaps her and phones Tom to let him know, as Tom sits there looking concerned he sees the picture that had been seen briefly earlier on, of him and his cousins Jimmy and Danny at an old cabin in the woods, it fits into the triangle on his map where the bodies have been dumped, just then his cat wanders across the table and leaves bloody paw prints, what could this be!? Tom runs into his bedroom and sees blood and a gun on his bed, how had that gotten there ? best not to question, So Tom races outside to his boat and sees a body lying in the water next to it, he yells out thinking it's SJP, but it's not, it's the girl that works the radio tower at Tom's River patrol HQ who appeared in one scene, Tom hurries off just as the police arrive and he gets to the cabin, as he enters so does Danny and then Tom is zapped by the Taser of the killer.

When he wakes up, himself, SJP and Danny are all tied to chairs and the killer stands over them, it's Jimmy!!! he wasn't dead after all, So now it's time for some comically bad acting as Pastorelli does a cartoon psycho act and Tom Sizemore cries.....probably for real.... Jimmy doesn't bother to explain why he was actually killing the first set of women, although one can guess it's b/c his mom jumped off a bridge and left him as a boy.

Uncle Nick now enters the scene, he knew Jimmy was the killer, he'd let him go 2 years ago when he arrived at the site of the crash fortuitously before anyone else and discovered a bloody Jimmy crawling out of the wreck, he had also killed Tom's dad by accident as he'd tried to shoot a fleeing Jimmy, oh and i guess he was cool with his son's new set of murders as he wasn't doing anything to stop him, until now of course, there's a shoot out and a fight and Jimmy runs for it with Tom in pursuit, they have a boat chase and then fight off a bridge and into the water, Tom chokes Jimmy down and it's over.....NOT! Suddenly the taser, amazingly still working, comes out of the water for one last shot, but Tom catches the hand and turns it on Jimmy killing him.....Now it's over, nice and neat with a closing shot of Tom back as a cop putting a wreath on his dad's grave as SJP and her daughter wait for him.


So what did this movie have, well on a Saturday evening when you're feeling under the weather (as I am) and your brain doesn't feel like working you have a pretty slickly shot thriller with decent action sequences and Bruce Willis, who even at his poorest makes a movie worth your 90 minutes. The director Rowdy Harrington is pretty competent in the action department, lensing and editing his sequences crisply and making the most of the River location using some great wide shots. All in all it's brainless but in a funny way and has enough action and Bruceness to tide you over if you're in the mood.

5/10

 

[Hunter Rider]

​

Synopsis

Hard Rain (1998)

Starring: Christian Slater, Morgan Freeman, Randy Quaid, Minnie Driver, Ed Asner, Ricky Harris, Michael A. Goorjian, Richard A. Dysart & Betty White

Directed By: Mikael Salomon

This is a movie that came along in the 90's when the fashionable thing was to be known as " Die Hard in/on a (Inset word) " The most successful of these movies were Cliffhanger (Die Hard on a mountain) and Under Siege (Die Hard on a ship) Hard Rain i guess is " Die Hard in a flooded small town " But in truth it does enough to separate itself from the tag and actually has the feel closer resembling old westerns, in particular the John Wayne starrer, Cahll: US Marshal.

The first 15 minutes really sets everything up nicely, Slater and his old uncle ride the armoured car together, the flood is coming in and they are on route to pick up as much of the money as they can from the banks in a set of small towns. Morgan Freeman leads a crew of misfits who want to hijack the armoured van, Freeman is charming as charismatic leader Jim and is only after the money but in the attempted hijacking one of his young crew members shoots Slater's uncle and in the ensuing chaos Slater flees with the money and hides it, they give chase and a cool sequence takes place on Jet skis through a flooded school.

From here we meet the other main characters. Disgruntled Sheriff (Randy Quaid) His deputies and pretty church window restorer Karen (Minnie Driver) who smacks Slater on the head and takes him to the jail when she thinks he's a looter, here Slater tells Quaid what has happened and Quaid vows to sort it out, but his deputy leaves Slater in the cell and he is almost drowned as the jail floods, thankfully Karen has came back for him and helps him get out.

The movie belts along from this point as a pure chase movie with everyone now in pursuit of the money, there's some decent action sequences and Slater finds out his old uncle was in on the heist from Freeman. then there is the big double cross as Quaid's Sheriff decides he's had enough of the small town life and wants the money for himself, this leads to Slater and Freeman teaming up to take on the Sheriff and his 2 corrupt deputies.

Hard Rain for me is one of the better action movies of the 90's although it lacks the wow factor of the greats. It's setting is impressive and interesting, providing some greatly exploited potential for action and visuals, and it's characters all have a little something about them to make them enjoyable to watch. It also has a good dollop of humour that is well judged. Director Mikael Salomon started out as a cinematographer and this shows in the way he manages to make a flooded town at night visible and eerie and believable for 90 minutes, without ever looking like they are just in a water tank at a studio with floodlights. He also shows a dab hand at action with only one sequence having clumsy editing that takes you out of the moment, he has mainly worked in TV since but his list of show credits is for some damn fine series'.


7/10

 

[Superhobo]

Bump.

Next review coming soon enough, aye.

 

[Superhobo]

This one's from IMDb, so it's pretty brief -

Babe 9/10
Directed by Chris Noonan

- I remember first seeing this when I was younger - eight or nine, around there, and it hasn't been until recently that I've revisited it. Up till' then, the most I could remember of the film were scant snippets from that moment when the young niece is screaming about her Christmas present.

I'd watched the sequel "Babe: Pig in the City," over and over again, many a time, and I don't think I'm really alone in believing it to be the superior film, but, that being said, this film is great in it's own right - Noonan "directed" this about as much as Steven Spielberg directed "A.I."; this is very much George Miller's film, from the trademark cinematography, to the screenplay (although, admittedly based on a book published a decade prior, he manages to imbue his own style into it).

Everyone, from James Cromwell to Mrs. Szubenski, does a great job here, but the standout performance has to be Hugo Weaving as "Rex," the sheepdog - apart from his voice which, even as a man myself, gives me the shivers, his vocal performance is nuanced, and just my favorite out of the entire cast.

The one annoying thing about this film - and really, this brings down "Pig in the City" a peg too, because they both fall victim - are the 'Chapter Mice.' Oh, how I loathe them. But, that's just me.

Miller is one of those directors that I don't think is ever going to really get his due recognition. Frequently, I see his films on best of lists - This and The Road Warrior are a favorite, and Happy Feet is up for a spot on AFI's top fifty animated films of all time - but rarely do I ever see his name mentioned. It's an odd paradox, because he's by and large a better filmmaker than Lucas and Weir (both filmmakers whom I respect immensely - Weir in particular for "Fearless,"). Alternatively, I could just say 'give it a few decades,' as has been the case with quite a few directors.

Well, enough of my ranting. See this film.

 

[Superhobo]

Casino Royale (2006) 7/10
Directed by Martin Campbell

I'm a Bond fan. There, I said it. It has been really hard for me to say that these past six years, since Die Another Day and the 'invisible car.' But, I am. I've read Ian Fleming's books backward and forward, some of Gardner's, a little Benson, and the one novel that Kingsley Amis did.
I'm a fan. What can I say? Now, back in '02, I was all for letting the series die with what little dignity it had left, which wasn't a lot (after "The World is Not Enough" I lost all faith, almost, what with the stereotyping of the Anarchist as a soulless terrorist, who likes to blow up things and say "deep things about capitalism" that sound like they were stolen from a Livejournal entry, and the inclusion of Denise Richards to the cast, among other things). I figured it had had a good run. Let it die now before we start having on screen conniption fits, I mean hell.
Flash forward two more years, to me, still a Bond fan, reading that production on the next Bond film has started, and it is to be "Casino Royale." "F#ck," say I, "now they're ruining that?" And, still dismissive of it, I kept a watchful news eye on the proceedings, until in late 2005 or whenever it was I heard than Daniel Craig had been cast as Bond. "Hmm, that's a little bitta' good news," say I, "he was alright in Layer Cake."
So, then, on November 17th, I walked into the theater, minding my own bid'ness, and trying not to attract attention, my form covered in trench coat and fedora. Since the news that he had been cast, trailers and press releases had somewhat raised my spirits a bit, but that had happened before, and I was cautious.

Then I saw the movie. From the opening sequence (which takes you off -guard because you THINK you know what to expect), to the very last line (I won't say it here, but if you know Bond at least passingly, you know the line), this movie has brought Bond back from the dead, as well as doing something most Bond fans thought couldn't be done, which was doing "Casino Royale" as anything but a period piece.
The story is essentially that of the book, except updated to our present, instead of the fifties - and with some of the locations swiveled around (from Royale-les-Eaux to Montenegro, and so on). If you've seen the film, or read the book, you know what happens - they haven't made any huge alterations besides introducing a subplot regarding the character of Mathis that I'll get to later. The biggest change, to me, was the gambling game being changed from baccarat to "Poker Texas Hold 'Em." There doesn't seem to be any real reason for this change, aside from the familiarity of "Texas Hold 'Em" as opposed to baccarat, which is admittedly pretty hard to follow. But, it was done well enough in that old "Climax!" episode (one of the rare things done right, heh), so - huh.
Some of my problems with the film come in with their treatment of the villain, Le Chiffre - and, by extension, their marketing of this film as 'a harder, rougher-edged, more realistic Bond -' this works against the film, because, while we're by no extent seeing invisible cars, there's still the glossy yachts, the gadgets, and on and on - and the horrible one-liners that seem to have been carried over as well - which creates an odd sort of disconnection from the other portions of the film, which actually delivers what's promised. The villain himself, who in the book was a much more down-to-earth character, is here presented with the obligatory physical defect - he weeps blood. But, don't worry. It's nothing sinister.
While they did a good job in resurrecting the franchise, I felt they could have done so much more with the source material, something in the vein of "From Russia With Love," with a dash of "The Good German." To be sure, a lot of interesting things are done here - as it is a film in the Bond series, set pieces are territorial, and what they've done with Vesper's death (as opposed to the simpler ending of the novel) is actually a genuinely exciting scene, as are a lot of the other scenes in the film as well.

There are quite a few 'clinkers' scattered through out the film - lines that just erked me to no end, and this is nowhere more apparent than in the scenes at the hospital, during Bond's recuperation (oh, I can guarantee you, you won't think of ropes the same way. That much is certain - oddly, one of my favorite lines is in that scene - "The whole world's - world's gon - gonna know you died scratching my balls!"). And there's an entire subplot with the character Mathis that doesn't really resolve itself in any satisfying way - even though how it's set up is interesting.
But, on the whole, the film works. And, I've got to say, I love what they've done with the character of Bond, himself - you can tell that this is a man on company dime, who dines on 'finest veal' when abroad, but when he's home in whatever kind of shabby apartment M16 provides him with, he's a 'vienna-sausage in a tin-can' kind of guy. He IS rough, and not the prettiest looker - Craig does a great job, as do most of the cast.
There are shots here - oftentimes during the aforementioned set pieces, but there are some gems here and there as well - that are beautiful. I hope Phil Mehaux returns for this up and coming one - I haven't read anything about the film, so he might have already. (EDIT - I've read that he's been replaced by Roberto Schaefer. Shame.)
Inexplicably, Dench's 'M' is back - my brain nearly exploded.