Spectre

There are few things I like more than going to the movies. I love it, pretty much regardless of the quality of said movie. So when it's from my favorite franchise with one of my all-time favorite characters...yeah, I'm on-board. Even when reviews are decidedly mixed like they were here, I was GEARED UP and ready to go for the latest James Bond flick, 2015's Spectre.

After a mission in Mexico City goes successfully if slightly awry, MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns to London and gets an earful from his new boss, 'M' (Ralph Fiennes). He's put on a sort of suspension while things are figured out, things 007 isn't telling M. It hasn't been too long since the Skyfall incident although MI6 is part of a new merger that could completely shake up -- if not destroy the 00 program (the license to kill agents) the entire organization, especially Bond. Trouble or not though, Bond has his objective. Not long after the death of a superior, he received a clue in the mail telling him what to do next. That mission? Pursue a man (who he found in Mexico City) and go to his funeral. From there, he'll figure it out. Now, it's all up to Bond to see where the clues lead. This time, the clues and evidence appear to lead to a sinister organization that is far larger, far more powerful than anything Bond, M or MI6 could have thought of.

This latest Bond installment -- the 24th in the series, 24! -- was in a bit of a lose-lose situation if you ask me. Director Sam Mendes returns to helm 'Spectre' with Craig and much of the cast returning from Skyfall. The issue? Skyfall was an all-timer, one of the great Bond movies and one of my personal Top 5. How do you follow up franchise perfection? The reviews have been pretty mixed, and it's fair to say 'Spectre' isn't a great Bond film. What is it then? Pretty damn good. The criticisms I've read are fair -- the movie's length, the writing, the lack of action -- but none of it is a deal-breaker. I seemed to have liked it more than many reviewers, but I came to a realization as I watched. I think it's better than okay, but for the sake of a quick-hitting review, even an okay Bond movie is still better than most action movies out there.

Ah, Bond, how I missed you. As high as the bar was set with the franchise's previous entry, 'Spectre' is still pretty good, Mendes, Craig and Co. showing a comfort level with the iconic character that seems to get more comfortable with each passing movie. Bond is globe-trotting (as expected) so we get some great location shoots in Mexico City, London, Rome, Austria, and Tangiers. Composer Thomas Newman's score is solid, especially in the second half, with the big sweeping touches in the BIG moments, but also the quieter moments. There is a style and glamour and impressive scale to these movies -- especially since Craig took over as 007 -- that is necessary, perfect consistent throughout the movies, no matter the story or cast or reviews. That's what I love so much about these movies.

So that Daniel Craig fella....man, he's good at bringing James Bond to life. It's been cool to see Craig do his thing as the iconic British agent, making him more than a ladies man, a one-liner spewing killer, a smartass with no actual humanity. Craig makes him a human being, and 'Spectre' again dives into Bond's personal life, especially his childhood. It's little moments where we see Bond as he really is, in a conversation with the Bond girl (more later), in a surprisingly funny conversation with a mouse in a hotel room. We see a man who is very good at his horrifically dangerous job. Death awaits on any given day at any given moment. Craig is smooth and suave, able to deliver a one-liner as necessary, but as he's shown in the other films, there's a menacing edge, an intimidation factor to his Bond. Most importantly though, he's human.

Who else to look for? Bond movies don't disappoint in the cast department so there's no worry here. Christoph Waltz looks to be having a ball as the villain and thankfully it's more underplayed than usual, a little more subtle. His Oberhauser is dripping with intensity. Wish he'd been around more actually! I thought Lea Seydoux was excellent as Madeleine, the beautiful Bond girl who thankfully is no damsel in distress. Pretty and brains, can't go wrong! Along with the always reliable Fiennes as the new M, also look for Naomie Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q) and Rory Kinnear (Tanner) as our familiar faces at the ever-changing MI6. I loved that Whishaw's Q is given a lot to do, especially some great in-the-field scenes with Bond. Good humor, solid chemistry between the bookish Q and the tough agent. Also look for Dave Bautista as Hinx, a brutal Spectre enforcer (an excellent, imposing part), Monica Belluci, and Andrew Scott as C, a new high-ranking official in the British intelligence community.

This next observation seems rather divisive among fans and reviewers. The Craig Bond movies have been connected, parts of one story impacting the next. Most of the previous entries were stand-alones, some characters popping up from time-to-time but no connecting story. 'Spectre' continues to delve into that angle, both Bond's past (Jesper Christensen's Mr. White makes an appearance) but also a criminal organization that's pulling powerful strings all over the world. There's some twists with Waltz's Oberhauser that I thought was pretty cool, and I'd think many fellow Bond nerds would appreciate but I'm seeing otherwise as I read message boards and reviews. The twist going back to Bond's teenager years was unnecessary, that much I can admit. I'm a diehard 007 franchise fan, and I'm curious where things will go going forward with future entries.

The biggest complaint I've read is the story, a modern world where old-fashioned MI6 and its 00 (License to Kill) agents are dinosaurs, a thing of the past. Sound familiar? It was dealt with in spectacular fashion in Skyfall. It is repetitive (if appropriate in technology-heavy 2015) and not developed rather well. We're watching the Bond movie so...you don't really need to convince us. I would have liked more Bond's background, more Bond and Madeleine, whatever, because the story itself is interesting. We just don't need to be hit over the head with the message. On the cool side, 'Spectre' is full of little moments, nice little nods to previous Bond movies from Goldfinger and From Russia With Love to The Man with the Golden Gun and many others. For the most part, they're subtle, but Bond fans will get a kick out of them for sure. I especially did.

What else? I could ramble for days about a new Bond movie so let's keep it focused! Ah, the action, a staple of the franchise. The cold open is brilliant, Bond chasing an assassin through Mexico City during a Day of the Dead festival. The payoff in a careening helicopter is an absolute doozy, a real whopper. 'Spectre' isn't an action-heavy story and is a bit of a slow-go through the first hour or so. Things pick up about the halfway point with the second half finding a groove. High points include a brutal fight between Bond and Bautista's Hinx, a stylish car chase through Rome (Newman's score is excellent here) between Bond and Hinx, and a mountaintop showdown up and down a mountain with Bond in pursuit of Madeleine...while flying a plane. Yeah, pretty cool. The finale is nothing huge but a more personal action sequence, a cool capper to all these espionage shenanigans.

It ain't perfect, but it's still pretty good. The opening credits are very cool, but Sam Smith's song is unfortunately completely forgettable. As for Craig, it's not a lock, but I'm pretty sure (book it, go to Vegas!) he'll be back for a fifth and most likely final venture as everyone's favorite secret agent. If he doesn't, the ending is a fitting one, a nod to one of the more infamous endings in the franchise -- if you ask me at least, I could be overanalyzing. As for me, I'm a sucker for a good Bond movie, even if it isn't great. That gun barrel opening, the familiar musical theme, those notes kick in and I get a chill up my back. It isn't as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale, but it is a solid, definitely above average James Bond movie that struggles to deal with some flaws.

That said...it's JAMES BOND. Go see it!

Spectre (2015): ***/****

Road to Perdition

Right up there with pizza, hot dogs, baseball and the Windy City nickname, the city of Chicago is often remembered for....you guessed it. Gangsters! From Al Capone to the Untouchables and a whole lot of violence in between, Chicago's gangster history is well-documented, a feature well covered in film and pop culture. One of the best though? It's not based on a true story, but you can definitely see it happening in real life. Here is the excellent, beautifully told, stylish gangster drama, 2002's Road to Perdition.

It's the late 1920s and young Michael Sullivan (Tyler Hoechlin) is your typical 12-year old. He fights with his younger brother, struggles some at school, and loves reading about heroes of the old west. That relatively peaceful life is about to be thrown for a loop. His father, Michael Sullivan Sr. (Tom Hanks), is a brutally efficient enforcer for an Irish mob boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), in Rock Island, Illinois.  One night, Michael follows his father on a nighttime job and witnesses a hit that he clearly was not supposed to see. The unintentional incident steamrolls into something far bigger and far deadlier than young Michael ever intended. Now, father and son are on the road, hiding out and simply trying to survive, all the while a sinister hired killer, Maguire (Jude Law), hot on their trail. The elder Sullivan is now looking out for himself, his son, the killer hunting them and at the same time enacting a plan to exact vengeance on those who have wronged him.

That's not my best work putting together a plot synopsis. I don't want to give too much away in terms of the story because there are some genuinely good twists that do come as a bit of a shock. A lot going on in terms of storytelling overall, but getting there is half the fun in this 2002 gangster/crime drama.

There are more action-packed gangster flicks, more mainstream than this film, but I don't know if there's too many better. You look at the entire package, and this is one excellent movie, a classic if you ask me. This is director Sam Mendes' follow-up to 1999's American Beauty, and 'Perdition' is a gem. I'll get more specific as we go, but there's just so much going on and it all flows together. The story is exceedingly simple but with complex layers mixed in. It's not always clear where it's going, but Mendes know where it is going, and that's what is most important. The characters, the story, the filming techniques. It is all pretty flawless if you ask me. My recent viewing was the first in many years, and it resonated more now than in previous viewings. Scary to think 'Perdition' is already 13 years old but this is a film that has definitely held up.

This isn't a perfect movie. But judging it solely based on technical features? It's pretty perfect. The cinematography, the set design, the style, the musical score, the scene-to-scene visuals, my goodness, 'Perdition' is on point. Cinematographer Conrad L. Hall (earning an Academy Award win) is at the helm of a gorgeous movie. It's not a colorful movie -- lots of dark tones -- but entire scenes appear almost as if they were lifted out of a painting. You feel like you're in 1930s gangster-dominated Chicago throughout. The cars, the sets -- including Chicago locations -- the wardrobe, everything feels like you've time-traveled. Some movies, they don't call attention to these things. 'Perdition' does it in effortless fashion. It doesn't call attention to its prowess, it just does it and lets you appreciate it all. Also picking up a nomination (albeit without the win) is Thomas Newman for his musical score, a heavily Irish-themed score that elevates the movie in so many scenes, one after another. Give it a sample HERE.

The guts of the story is the father-son relationship between Michael Sr. and Michael Jr., but also between Michael and his surrogate father of sorts, Newman's Rooney. There's also Rooney's tortured relationship with his own son, Connor (Daniel Craig). Hanks plays against type a bit as Sullivan, dubbed the Angel of Death, a hard-edged man who is far from an emotional father. He struggles to be close with his eldest son mostly because he sees so much of himself in his son. Likewise, the son wants to be close to his father but isn't quite sure of how to go about that. Through the most unfortunate of situations, they're forced to become closer on the road, running for their lives, and with Michael trying to exact revenge against his previous employers. Their scenes together are quiet and understated, two individuals getting to really know each other for the first time. An excellent performance from Hanks as well as young Hoechlin who holds his own and then some.

Across the board, there isn't a weak performance in the cast. As John Rooney, Paul Newman is a scene-stealer in an emotional, quiet part. Not a ton of screentime, but he steals those scenes like a true pro. It's cool as well to see a pre-James Bond Daniel Craig as his weaselly son, Connor, always causing trouble that he can't get himself out of. Also in the playing against type department, Law is perfectly creepy as Maguire, the sinister hired killer who's tracking the Sullivans as they're on the run. Yeah, he's efficient and almost emotionless, but he clearly gets some enjoyment out of his horrifically bloody work. Also look for Stanley Tucci as Frank Nitti, an Al Capone underboss in Chicago, Jennifer Jason Leigh as Michael's loving wife, Liam Aiken as Peter, the younger Sullivan brother, and Ciaran Hinds as an underboss for Rooney who may be in some hot water.

For a gangster/mobster movie, the action isn't left and right machine gun pacing. When it comes, the violence is quick and startling but not horrifically graphic. Because it isn't used as much, when it does pop up on-screen, it is far more emotionally effective. One late shootout is easily top 5 most stylish action scenes I've ever watched, silence and darkness lingering in the air. The immediate follow-up is equally memorable, an extended shot following one character through an elegant Chicago hotel with quite the punch of a finale. The ending isn't especially surprising but it is especially effective. A great movie, one I really enjoyed catching up with and can easily and highly recommend.

Oh, and just as a trivia tidbit, my Uncle Bob is an extra in the movie. He's clearly visible in one scene a little over halfway through the movie as Hanks' Michael walks into a bank. Yeah, he steals the movie.

Road to Perdition (2002): ****/****

Skyfall

The beauty and downfall of a successful film series is a razor-thin difference. How do you keep fans interested without showing the same movie over and over again? Now 50 years since the James Bond franchise started with 1962’s Dr. No, 007 himself has gone through funks of sorts. The producers and writers always seem to have a knack for bringing him back in high gear. So after the disappointing Quantum of Solace, Bond comes back with a vengeance in 2012’s Skyfall.

Working a mission in Turkey, MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is in pursuit of a man who holds a stolen hard drive with the identities of every MI6 currently working deep within terrorist organizations. In pursuit with the threat the man could get away, Bond is accidentally shot by a fellow agent when M (Judi Dench) fears the hard drive will get out in the open. Feared dead, Bond disappears, only reappearing months later when MI6 Headquarters is attacked in a terrorist bombing. The culprit? A former MI6 agent and brilliant mind with technology and computers, Silva (Javier Bardem). The former agent is looking for revenge, and his sights are set on M herself. Severely wounded in Turkey and wasting away via pills and booze, Bond has his work cut out for him if he hopes to stop Silva from releasing the list of MI6 agents on an international level.

Like any Bond movie, that plot synopsis is about as concise as I think I’m going to get it. Moral of the story? It’s a gem. After the average but mostly disappointing Quantum of Solace, the Bond franchise gets back to basics for its 50th anniversary and 23rd film overall. For starters, they found the right man for the job directing, Sam Mendes of American Beauty, Revolutionary Road, Jarhead, Road to Perdition and many other non-Bond like movies. He brings a different eye to the franchise. The script from a trio of writers as well is about as good as it gets, but more on that later. As a visual medium, ‘Skyfall’ is a stunner, not just a great-looking Bond movie, but a great-looking movie in general. Credit there goes to Roger Deakins, director of photography. Also worth mentioning, composer Thomas Newman’s score, nothing flashy, but it’s different enough to be interesting. Of course, having the James Bond theme from Monty Norman never hurt any score….EVER. So again, it’s the little things that we might not always think of, but the behind-the-camera angle works perfectly.

I have long said Sean Connery is the best James Bond of the six actors who have portrayed him with Craig (his legacy still to be decided) in close second. After Skyfall, that opinion has changed. I think it’s a push. As I mentioned in the Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace reviews, Craig is able to make James Bond, 007 himself, a real-life, 3-D human being. He’s not some indestructible hired killer without emotion or feeling. Following the thrilling pre-credit sequence where Bond is shot, we see James at his lowest. When he comes back to MI6, we see an agent who has lost some of his edge, his hard-earned ability gone. Now, he must fight his way back to some sort of 007 normalcy. The story develops, and we see more of his character as Bond gets some development, including the first-ever (that I can think) revelation about his childhood. No real spoilers here, but the final 30-45 minutes delves into the myth of the Bond character like no others have even tried. I can’t wait to see where the character goes next.

This next statement is nothing new. Countless other reviews have made the point, but it’s key. It’s 2012. There is no Cold War, no enemy Russians hell-bent on destroying the free world. Worldwide, international villains are harder to identify. So what is MI6 supposed to do? It’s not Russkies vs. Brits anymore. These villains are different. M, her actions, and MI6 come under fire in ‘Skyfall.’ What’s the point of them even being around? Does a modern world need individual agents patrolling the world in the shadows (as M so simply and eloquently puts it)? Bond fans can now answer in unison…YES. So in that sense, Mendes, Craig and Co. get back to basics. In a world unlike anything we’ve seen before, maybe we need agents like Bond more than ever. That’s where I think Skyfall is special. Much of that extraneous “stuff” (for lack of a better word) is stripped away. This is Bond at his simplest. A highly-trained agent with a gun and a radio transmitter, nothing else. No gadgets, no gimmicks. The best part? Nothing else is needed.

So let’s dive in. Mendes assembled one impressive cast to work with here. Craig as mentioned is basically perfect as the very-human Bond. Judi Dench is given her most fleshed-out part as M, MI6 head of agents who must now defend every single one of her actions. Not surprisingly, Dench does not disappoint with more screentime. Already previously identified as one of the great villains of all-time from No Country for Old Men, Bardem is a breath of fresh air in the Bond villain department. His Silva quickly moves into the top 3 or 4 Bond villains. It’s not a stereotypical bad guy part though. We learn more about his back story, more about who he is and what drives him. Also making Bond aficionados happy, Ben Whishaw is cast as Q, Bond’s quartermaster, supplying him with everything he needs. Ralph Fiennes plays Gareth Mallory, a government higher-up associated with MI6 and working to help M. Naomie Harris plays Eve, another agent working with Bond while Berenice Marlohe is memorable in an underused part as Severigne, a link to Silva. Rory Kinnear is solid too as Tanner, M's assistant who works with Bond to get back his edge.

With a story focused on character development and a great visual appeal, fans need not worry. The action is incredible. The pre-credit sequence chase via foot-motorcycle-train gets things going at a lightning pace. Adele’s theme song – Skyfall, listen HERE – is a winner too. What works about the action is that it flows so well and effortlessly with the story. Bond fights a rival assassin in Shanghai in a back-lit skyscraper in a sequence that seems almost art-house in style. I don’t want to give too much away in terms of the action, but I’ll leave it at this. It works. It just does. It is stylish without being flashy, and thankfully leaves that hyper-active editing behind with Quantum. We can see the action, and that makes all the difference. The best is the end, a showdown with Bond, M, and Kincaid (Albert Finney, a scene-stealer as a man from Bond’s past) shooting it out western-style at an isolated Scottish manor house with Silva’s small army of machine gun-wielding henchmen.

In making Skyfall, I think the producers/creators made a wise decision. They didn’t try and change a successful franchise. They take what works and build off it. In that way, it comes across as a quasi-homage to the best Bond movies while still carving out its own identity. We see Bond’s original Aston Martin (ejector seat included), we learn more about Bond, and in the end, we have a final scene with two key points and sort-of twists. Again, no real details here. Enjoy and discover the movie for yourself. The point though is simple. While advancing the series, franchise and character, they’re sticking to what works. There is a simple perfection when these movies work well (Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, Goldeneye, The Spy Who Loved Me), and Skyfall gets it done on a huge scale. A great movie, and another great Bond story. I can’t wait to see where 007 heads next. Check out the trailer below.

Skyfall (2012): ****/****

Quantum of Solace

After the ridiculously successful franchise reboot in 2006, Casino Royale, loyal James Bond fans wanted to know where the series would go next. 'Casino' was everything a Bond film should be, and it seemed to re-energize the franchise. The follow-up? That's 2008's Quantum of Solace which I revisited recently for the first time since seeing it in theaters.

In the aftermath of the fall-out at Casino Royale, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is trying to get Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) to safety for interrogation. White has ties to a completely clandestine organization that has ties in everything internationally; business, government, even MI6. With some help from an agent in deep cover, White escapes, but Bond is on his trail. The vengeful 007 follows the clues to Haiti where he finds Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a supposedly up-right citizen with ties to a charity focused on saving the planet. With help from Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman who wants to kill Greene, Bond discovers Greene's ulterior motives, but time is running out.

First off, I loved Casino Royale. It quickly went Top 3 Bond movies ever for me so I was naturally psyched to go see this follow-up. I came away....disappointed. Having rewatched the movie, I still can't quite put my finger on it as to why. It's entertaining throughout. Daniel Craig shows again what perfect casting he was. It's action-packed, it has that dark humor that the best Bond films had, and it isn't based in an out of this world environment where super-villains are trying to take over the world. So what happens? For one thing, at 106-minutes, it feels short. The ending is somewhat disappointing, but even that isn't it. Let's think about this.

Where 'Casino' had some epically impressive action sequences, 'Quantum' ratchets up that formula. Unfortunately, it isn't always for the better. And here's where I think the issue is. 'Quantum' tries too hard to be a Jason Bourne movie, not a James Bond movie. The action is cut so ridiculously quick with hyper-active shaky cam that it becomes almost indecipherable to watch. The opening car chase through the Italian mountains should be a gem, but it's almost impossible to keep up with everything. Not all the action is that bad -- most of it is very good, would have been great if we actually saw it -- including a chase in/around Palio di Siena as Bond guns for a double agent. Some encounters are quick (a hand-to-hand fight with an assassin) and brutally effective while others are on a larger scale (Bond flying an ancient plane through narrow canyons). It's weird to say this with a Bond film, but there may be too much action. I know. Sacrilege, right?

What isn't in question though is the continuing and developing character of James Bond. I don't know who didn't think Craig wasn't a great choice for 007 after seeing Casino Royale, but 'Quantum' should put those doubts to rest. This isn't a cardboard cut-out of a secret agent. This is a flesh and blood individual, in this case a highly trained, brutally effective killing machine gunning for revenge. Like an exposed nerve, Bond wants revenge and answers for Vesper's death (from 'CR'). He's fed up with the proper way of doing things, and does things his way instead. Craig makes Bond a real-life person, and that's huge. I liked the movies, but did you ever get that sense from the Roger Moore entries? Me either. Also, and always a bonus, Craig is a beastly presence on-screen, handling much of his own stunts. Badass much?

His supporting cast again is very solid for the most part. Kurylenko isn't your typical Bond girl, and like Vesper, she's given a hard, tough edge to her. She can handle her own as well, not a damsel in distress. Amalric's Green is an average villain, smart and manipulative but not a presence enough to be a threat to Bond while Joaquin Cosio is General Medrano, Greene's South American dupe. Judi Dench is a scene-stealer -- as always -- as M, Bond's MI6 supervisor, and Giancarlo Giannini is given too small a returning part as Mathis, the possibly treacherous agent who may have double-crossed Bond in Casino Royale. Gemma Arterton plays Strawberry Fields, a consulate agent who meets Bond. Also in a small part is Jeffrey Wright as Leiter, Bond's CIA counterpart, a criminally underused part.

Through the negative, there are some impressive positives. We're talking great positives. There are times where 'Quantum' is a frighteningly effective art-house secret agent film. Director Marc Foster shoots on-location in Italy, Haiti, Chili, Mexico, Austria and England. Some scenes are hard to top. Bond follows Greene to an elegant outdoor theater where members of Greene's organization are meeting in secret. The fall-out? A silent scene with the opera music playing over Bond's shootout escape is a gem. Later, Bond and Camille -- in their black suit and little black dress -- descending out of the desert is surreal, aided by David Arnold's score. The finale at a hotel in the desert is almost apocalyptic, making up for a lack of scale with a bizarre, other-worldly feel.

So where does this one fall? Not great, not awful, but slightly above average. What it gets right is a home run. All I can figure with the negatives is that it isn't a Bond film in the traditional sense. It tries to be what the secret agent movie has become following the immense success of the Jason Bourne movies. Worth watching, but not a classic. Bring on Skyfall!


Quantum of Solace <---trailer 1="1" br="br">

Casino Royale (2006)

Ah, here we are, just days out from the release of the newest James Bond flick, Skyfall. Why don't we take a trip in the way back machine to 2006 when the incredibly successful franchise was being rebooted. A casting choice that concerned fans was chief among the issues when 2006's Casino Royale hit theaters. Ask most Bond fans -- including this one -- but those concerns were ill-founded.

Fresh off receiving his '00' status (license to kill), MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is pursuing a bomb-builder in Madagascar and stumbles upon clues to an international terrorist financier, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). The infamous financier is up to something, and Bond manages to stop his plan, but it causes another. Le Chiffre is now in the hole over $100 million to various terrorists he handles money for. Desperate and seeking his money, Le Chiffre organizes a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. The biggest problem standing in his way? Bond, who with a $10 million buy-in from the government -- and treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) -- has a seat at the table. Win? Eliminate Le Chiffre's business. Lose? Then, MI6 and England will have directly funded terrorism.

By 2002, the Pierce Brosnan James Bond movies had all been played out, closing with the atrociously bad Die Another Day. Even with the progressively bad Brosnan efforts (no fault of the actor, just the scripts), fans still objected to the casting of Craig in the iconic role of James Bond, 007 himself. It's understandable. Everyone has their favorites, even their perception of who/what Bond is. What was the end result in this 2006 reboot from director Martin Campbell (who also directed the Brosnan venture Goldeneye)? A throwback but modern effort, encapsulating all the style and action that fans have come to expect while also breathing fresh life into the franchise. Big picture? It's one of the best Bond films, and easily in my top 5 overall.

Throw aside the gorgeous locales, beautiful women, cool gadgets and ridiculous action, the success of 'Royale' is simple. It's Daniel Craig as Bond. Yes, all those other things are there, but this is James Bond as author Ian Fleming originally intended and wrote about. At the character's heart, Bond is a hired killer; a brutally effective, even obsessed killer. He's cold, sinister and has little sense of humor. Thankfully, Craig doesn't go that deep. He takes the best of the previous Bonds -- Connery's toughness, a toned down humor of Roger Moore, and the general suaveness of Brosnan -- but manages to spin it into his own character. Handling much of his own stunts, Craig is incredibly believable in the part and makes a fictional character more believable. He doesn't feel like a cliched stereotype. Instead, he's a secret agent, sometimes willing himself to survive the hellish world he's working in.

On top of the perfect 007 casting though, 'Royale' does all the little things right. The first is that style that these films always deliver on. The locations have us bouncing around from Venice to the Czech Republic, Lake Como to the Bahamas like globetrotters. The look of the film is a stunner as we follow Bond's exploits. Chris Cornell provides the theme, You Know My Name (listen HERE), and composer David Arnold's score is a gem, playing on the familiar Bond theme with a mix of action-packed music and quieter, romantic moments. From behind the camera though, Campbell most importantly gets it right. This isn't just an action movie. Yes, there are boatloads of action (more on that later), but there's also an interesting, twisting story, quieter moments between Bond and Vesper that feel authentic, and that incredibly dark humor that rides along with the story. Like I've said before, it's the little things that make a good movie a great movie.

Now to be fair, yes, all those other things are very important to a Bond movie. But let's be honest. Bond is a secret agent, and that means A-C-T-I-O-N! 'Royale' is a great movie, but it's also a great action movie on a whole other level. The opening sequence has Bond pursuing a bomb-maker (Parkour/free runner Sebastien Foucan) through a construction site; Bond's physicality vs. Foucan's effortless movements. Watch it HERE. That scene is an essential one in showing how Craig's Bond will stop at nothing to accomplish a mission. Another highlight has Bond chasing down a hired gun trying to take out the largest airliner ever built in a ridiculously cool back and forth chase on an airport tarmac. The other action sequences are on the small scale, hand-to-hand combat, more personal fights that are effective in that smaller scale. All together though, they're a gem. In a weird way, the poker scenes are like action sequences; packed with tension and adrenaline.

And how about the rest of that cast? Green is not your typical Bond girl, but in that sense, she's perfect. Her Vesper is similar in character to Bond, making them an ideal pair as they basically hate each other for much of the film. Mikkelssen too is an atypical Bond villain; not one bent on destroying the world, just staying alive and getting his money back. However you cut it, Green and Mikkelsen are ideal casting choices. Giancarlo Giannini is a scene-stealer as Mathis, Bond's ally in Montenegro. Judi Dench returns as M, Bond's veteran MI6 superior, and doesn't disappoint while Jeffrey Wright is a new and welcome addition as Felix Leiter, Bond's CIA counterpart. In the Bond eye candy department, look for Italian beauty Caterina Murino in a small but key part.

I'm a diehard James Bond fan, but I am able to judge the flicks for what they are -- some classics, other good to great, and a few just plain bad. But this 2006 film -- the 21st in the official franchise -- is about as close to a perfect Bond film as you can get. It has everything going for it, and the capper is the final line, a perfect end to the film if there ever was.

Casino Royale <----trailer (2006): ****/****

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Having died in 2004 from a heart attack at age 50, author Stieg Larsson never saw his trilogy of novels and the success they've had unfortunately. Originally published in Swedish, the 'Girl' trilogy has become a worldwide hit, and has even been turned into a Swedish movie trilogy, and hopefully an American one. For now though, we start with the series opener, 2011's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Having been found guilty of libel, Swedish business journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is at a bit of a career crossroad. An opportunity presents itself when aging businessman Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) approaches him with a proposition. Henrik would like Mikael to write his biography, but that's really just a cover. He wants Mikael to investigate the 40-plus year mystery of the disappearance and possible death of his great-niece that's gone unsolved all these years. There's a twist to Henrik's offer, but the damaged journalist agrees to help. At the same time, an anti-social and uniquely odd investigator, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), is investigating her own case, one that will eventually hit a crossroad with that of Mikael's.

I'll get this out of the way early for fans of the book, the first of Larsson's trilogy. I read the book, loved it, and went into the American film with high expectations. They were very much met. Fans of the book will no doubt enjoy the movie. The transition from novel to film must have been a daunting one, but for the most part, all the changes that were made work out. Unnecessary supporting characters have been dropped. Some subplots among characters has been cut too. The only significant change comes in the finale, but for the sake of the movie it works in a more stream-lined fashion. Moral of the story is simple. In a time when so many adaptations struggle to channel a source novel's power and enjoyment, this one very much lives up to expectations. Now, onto the movie.

From accomplished director David Fincher, 'Dragon' is a true movie. With movies like Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Social Network to his name, Fincher doesn't attach himself to just any movie. He doesn't just tell stories, he tries to make his films viewing experiences. In a story focusing on sexual/physical violence against women, corruption in business, cowardice in journalism, and a general disgust with human beings, that's quite a task. Filmed in Sweden, Switzerland and Norway, the visual look is dark and muted, especially gloomy in reflecting the darkness of the story. Fincher's ability with a camera is impressive; quick cuts without being frenetic in its movement. The soundtrack from Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is a gem, even getting an Oscar nomination. It's acoustic and loopy, almost an updated sound of a Vangelis or Tangerine Dream in an electronic way. Lots of style points, and all for the better.

Heading into my reading of the book, I knew who would play certain characters which isn't always a good thing, but it works here. Showing again that he's not just James Bond, Craig is an ideal choice to play beaten down but crusading journalist Mikael. He really makes the character come alive. It's the little touches. He's confident but not cocky, just aware of his abilities. When interviewing or investigating, his glasses hang from one ear, rocking below his chin. Questioning at first, Mikael too becomes obsessed with the case. Casting Mara as Lisbeth took some heat (and some changes from the book have been made), but the then-25 year old actress does a phenomenal job. I didn't always like Lisbeth in the novel, but I was always interested in her. A survivor of physical, sexual and mental abuse, she is a ward of the state in Sweden, but she in reality is a brilliant individual in her way. The two characters together -- vastly different but eerily similar in others -- is an Odd Couple match made in heaven.

The most important characters -- obviously -- make the jump from print to film, starting with Plummer as Henrik. It's just a quick appearance (Henrik is kept in the background more here), but a professional like Plummer makes it worthwhile. Steven Berkoff is a scene-stealer as Frode, Henrik's lawyer who sets up the job and investigation with Mikael. Stellan Skarsgard and Joely Richardson play members of the Vanger family, both actors memorable in smaller parts. Robin Wright plays Erika, Mikael's long-time lover and fellow publisher/editor at the magazine they own. Also look for Yorick van Wageningen, Goran Visnjic and Donald Sumpter to round out the cast.

At its heart, 'Dragon' is a murder mystery, and a really good one at that. The premise and background of Harriet's disappearance is laid out early, and Fincher allows the story to develop as at first Mikael but then Lisbeth too becomes more involved in the case. In an investigation long since trapped in a dead end, the clues and pieces start to come together. It's a mystery at its best, and enjoyable to watch from beginning to heartbreaking end. Craig and Mara are perfect, Fincher a talent behind the camera, and I'm looking forward to seeing where the trilogy hopefully goes...and the novels too.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo <---trailer (2011): ***/****   

Cowboys & Aliens

When I first read that the movie was going to be made, my first thought was that it could possibly be the stupidest idea for a movie I'd ever heard.  When I heard that James Bond and Indiana Jones/Han Solo were then going to star in said movie, I was slightly curious.  Then, I saw the trailers this past spring and thought once again "Dear Lord, that looks like the biggest pile of drivel I've ever seen....should I go to the midnight show?"  You hear the title and right away you've made up your mind. Are you going to go see it?  That's 2011's Cowboys & Aliens.

As I write this review, I've written over 100-plus reviews in a little less than three years of westerns.  When I first started doing this blog, I debated doing an exclusive western movie review blog. If you haven't figure it out by now, I L-O-V-E westerns.  Even the worst ones I watch -- usually with an open mind -- so that's what ultimately pulled me into this science-fiction western.  Not surprisingly the western aspects of the story appealed to me more, and it's got a lot of them; the quiet, lone drifter, the tough as nails old man, stock characters galore, big, wide open locations, the dusty one-street western town, and a showdown in the end that will settle everything once and for all.  There just happen to be aliens around who want to wipe out mankind so yeah...that's the movie.

In the Arizona desert in 1873, a man (Daniel Craig) wakes up miles from civilization with no idea where he is or more importantly, who he is. All he knows is that he's got a weird contraption on his wrist that he can't remove. He makes it to the nearest town where he figures out who he is, an infamous bandit named Jake Lonergan.  As he's about to be put on an armored stage to Santa Fe, something weird appears in the sky. Fast-moving, powerful spaceships swarm all over, blasting the town to pieces and in the process, kidnapping countless townspeople. A posse is formed to pursue this new species by the local cattle baron, a Civil War veteran named Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), with Lonergan and his wrist cannon along for the ride. What do these alien creatures want, and more strangely, why are they kidnapping people left and right?

I don't know what to say or where to start here.  You head into this movie knowing that you will in fact be watching a movie where cowboys fight aliens, but then manage to still be surprised when you see it.  How often -- if ever -- do you see a genre-bending movie with such two different genres, science fiction and western?  What works best (and remember, this is coming from a die-hard western fan) is the western elements of the story.  The movie looks great, the California and New Mexico locations being a great scene-setter.  Harry Gregson-William's musical score works without being overbearing or obnoxious -- it is at its best in the quieter moments -- but isn't particularly memorable.  There's something unexplainable why I did like this movie, mostly because it is a western, and they are becoming few and far between, especially major studio productions.

So how can you go wrong with James Bond and Indiana Jones? Long story short...you can't. Craig is at the point in his stardom where if he's in a movie, I'm in line to see it.  The British actor looks extremely comfortable in the western setting, an easy fit for the silent anti-hero, a drifting gunman with little ties to hold him down.  He belongs in westerns, and I'd be curious to see what the result would be if just made a straight western, hold the aliens.  Ford plays against type to a point, not quite a bad guy but not exactly a good guy either.  His Dolarhyde is the tough as dirt cattle baron who growls and grimaces and glares as forms of communicating.  It's hard to believe Ford is almost 70 years old, but whatever his age, he's still cool as hell.  That qualifies for both men; two badass leading men kicking some alien ass.  If that doesn't appeal to you, steer clear.

Watch a western, and you're going to see stock characters appear repeatedly.  Director Jon Favreau assembles a crazy (in a good way) supporting cast, making these familiar characters interesting and worth watching because of the talent involved. Olivia Wilde is Ella, a beautiful woman who seems to know more than what she's letting on, a lady with a secret. The mystery comes out late, but who am I kidding? Wilde is drop dead gorgeous so it doesn't matter. Then there's Sam Rockwell as Doc, the saloon owner, Clancy Brown as Meachem, the town preacher, Paul Dano as Percy, Dolarhyde's entitled son, Adam Beach as Nat Colorado, Dolarhyde's Indian tracker, Ana de la Reguera as Maria, Doc's Mexican wife, young Noah Ringer as Emmett, the wide-eyed kid, Keith Carradine as Sheriff Taggart, and Walton Goggins, David O'Hara and Julio Cedillo as members of Jake's former gang.  Familiar characters but fun characters too.

There is something primal comparing two genres that are so loved as the western and science fiction. There is something cool about seeing cowboys with Winchesters and six-shooters going toe to toe with aliens wanting nothing more than to wipe us out.  The action scenes are that perfect mix of CGI and actual stunts, blending nicely together. The action is on a large-scale but without overdoing it.  The ending goes on for a little too long, dragging in parts, but the final shot is an appropriate one, an ending any western fan should be able to appreciate. The movie has its flaws -- the violence is pretty grisly, there isn't much dark humor when there was the potential to have it -- and I'm probably overrating it a bit, but I did like this weird little oddity of a movie.

Cowboys & Aliens <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Layer Cake

As much as I loved Casino Royale and everything Daniel Craig brought to the part of James Bond, it isn't my favorite part of this fast-rising star. It's easy now to just think of Craig as 007 and nothing else, but he's a talented actor, capable of pulling off drama, action and humor all in the same scene, much less a whole movie.  So as good as Craig is as Bond, I'd recommend any Daniel Craig fans out there to see 2004's Layer Cake, one of the best films to come out of the 2000s and a criminally underrated one at that.

This is one of those movies you stumble across almost by accident, love it, and then can't convince enough people to watch it.  I watched it based solely because I was a Daniel Craig fan, and shame on me, the DVD box looked cool.  I've seen it called all kinds of things, a Guy Ritchie knock-off especially, but it's one of those rare great movies that works almost in spite of itself.  Based off a novel by J.J. Connolly, Layer Cake has too many characters, more style than substance often enough, and twists and turns so much it took me a couple viewings to piece everything together for sure.  All that out of the way, I love this movie.  I'll explain later.

A high-end drug distributor, a man known only as XXXX (Craig) has quickly risen through the ranks of the very stylish but still cutthroat underworld.  In fact, he's done so well with his crew of chemists, bodyguards and distributors, that he's calling it quits at the age of 30 and going into early retirement.  Not so fast, his boss (Kenneth Cranham) has two more jobs for him, and then he'll let him walk away.  First, a shipment of 1 million ecstasy pills is on the market, and they're just sitting there for the taking.  Two, the daughter of an old friend of the boss is missing, and she must be found before something happens to her.  Completely backed into a corner unless he wants to risk a bullet in his head, X takes both jobs in his effort to leave the business cleanly.  But as he so well knows, nothing comes easy, and nothing here goes as planned.

The basic idea of the last job is nothing new here as X tries to pull off these last two jobs.  The novel is a great jumping off point -- even if the ending sucks in the book -- and director Matthew Vaughn runs with the idea. The movie has the action style of a Bourne movie, the look of a glossy British crime thriller, the dark humor of a Scorsese gangster flick, and the twists and turns you'd expect from a Shyamalan movie.  What's so odd is that all these vastly different pieces click together and work so smoothly.  It's stylish without overdoing it, violent without being gratuitous, funny without pandering for laughs, and keeping you on your toes without trying to straight out confuse you.  A winner on all accounts.

As I mentioned earlier, Craig is a huge bright spot here, showing a different side as an actor.  He hadn't yet done a Bond film so he's not in crazy, ridiculous physical shape here.  He's on the thin side which is important because he isn't this superhero dealer.  X explains, "He's just a business man" and a highly intelligent one at that.  Nothing about these two jobs is as simple as they seem, and he's got to figure everything out before it's too late.  X is smooth, smart and very capable of handling himself...although if the chance arises he'll hire someone who is also capable of handling themselves.  His narration is spot-on, especially in the movie's opening (watch HERE) and sets the stage perfectly for the rest of the movie.  The tone is going to be cynical with its dark look at the criminal underworld and all its shady dealings.  As a front man for this movie, Craig was a perfect choice.    

Don't get confused though and think this is just Daniel Craig's movie because the cast has so much more to offer.  Where to start, where to start? Vaughn assembles this great list of British actors to play this long list of eclectic, often rather eccentric characters.  Here's just some, starting with George Harris as Morty, X's security with a checkered past, with Tom Hardy and Tamer Hassan as X's crew. Cranham is Jimmy Price, X's shady boss who pawns off much of his work on Colm Meaney's Gene, X's link to Jimmy. Sienna Miller is Tammie, a club girl who X instantly feels a connection too.  Miller is sexy as hell, check here out HERE. Michael Gambon is Eddie Temple, Jimmy's old friend and current rival, ready to throw X for a loop in his perfect plan. Then there's Dexter Fletcher, Steve John Shepard, Stephen Walters, and Louis Emerick, all recognizable faces if you don't know their names in great supporting parts that requires barely more than a scene or two to establish who they are and what they're up to.

What's funny as I write this is that the list previously mentioned is only the key characters. Yeah, there's more characters that bounce in and out as needed.  Almost every single one of the above characters mentioned is so well-written that they could all get their own movie.  So throw all these individuals in one movie -- with surprising amounts of background -- and you've got a gem.  Harris' Morty and Meaney's Gene stand out from the rest, two quick flashbacks revealing all you need to know about them.  With X, Morty, Gene and the crew, there is a perfect chemistry, a relationship formed from men having worked together in difficult, strenuous situations and bonding through it.  A great scene between Craig, Harris and Meaney has them talking about strategy, what their next move is as the walls start closing in on them.  It reminded me of a scene that Peckinpah would have used in The Wild Bunch, Scorsese in Goodfellas, John Sturges in The Magnificent Seven.  Would it have been great to see a 4-hour version where every single character gets his chance to shine? Sure, absolutely, but Vaughn somehow finds a way to weave all these people together and make it work.  Kudos to you, Mr. Vaughn.

What else is there to say?  I love this movie, and try to watch it at least once a year.  It's one of those hidden gems you're beyond happy you stumbled upon.  Stylish, funny, entertaining with some gunplay, some sex, and a story that will keep you guessing right until the end.  Make sure to watch all the way until the credits because the ending is a whopper of a surprise.  It says it all in a movie that doesn't need to deliver a message but does anyway, a good one on the irony scale.  For all the epic moves and detailed planning, it can be the smallest detail that ends up making the biggest impact.

Layer Cake <---trailer (2004): ****/**** 

The Golden Compass

Is there a harder task when it comes to making movies than turning a book, a respected and much-loved book, into a big screen movie? First, there's almost no way to appease all the fans because there's no way you can do everything right. Second, many books would be better presented as a miniseries with plenty of time to develop plotlines and characters. Unfortunately, 2007's The Golden Compass falls into the category of a less than successful translation from book to big screen.

Just last week I finished the first book of author Phillip Pullman's trilogy dubbed His Dark Materials on a recommendation from my aunt and cousin. I typically avoid series like this, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight, but this one sounded interesting. It takes place in a universe similar to ours in a time that's hard to classify (Victorian England, early 1900s maybe?) that is full of great characters, an exciting story and a darkness to the proceedings that surprised me. Unfortunately, the movie struggled to deal with the story.

For one, director Chris Weitz says he shot enough footage for a 2.5-3 hour movie, but the final running time is a crisp 113 minutes. In other words, a lot of the story got left on the cutting room floor. There is a ton of potential in Weitz's movie, but it never lives up to what it could be. A 3-hour movie could have helped remedy this, but as is the story is muddled at best, characters go in and out for long stretches of time with little development, and the ending is changed pretty drastically from the book's ending which comes as a complete surprise and a perfect springboard for the rest of the series, which I am looking forward to reading. The plot description's going to be a doozy so brace yourself.

Living at Jordan College in England, Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) is an orphan, a young girl growing up without a care in the world as she explores the college and city with her friend, Roger (Ben Walker). One day her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) comes to visit her but to also ask the college for funds for a trip to the North Pole to explore a route to other worlds. Lyra desperately wants to go along, but Asriel refuses and leaves her behind. But strange things are happening, children are disappearing, including Roger, with no clues left behind as to what happened. For Lyra, a beautiful, polished woman of the world, Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) shows up asking if she'd like to be her assistant. Before she leaves, the president of the college pulls Lyra aside and gives her something, a Golden Compass, a device that can reads people's true intentions.

Everything is not so rosy as it seems with Mrs. Coulter, and it's not long before Lyra and her daemon (soul in animal form) Pantalaimon (voice of Freddie Highmore) must escape and head to the north in search of Roger and the other lost children. Along the way, she meets a variety of characters including John Faa (Jim Carter), Farder Coram (Tom Courtenay) and the Gyptian people, Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliott), a Texan aeronaut, Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green), a helpful witch, and Iorek Byrnison (voice of Ian McKellen), an armoured bear exiled from Svalbard, home of the bear kingdom.

Overwhelmed much? I read the book, and I'm a little overwhelmed at the amount of information thrown out there in the story. The obvious difference is that Pullman's book has a lot more time and space to introduce these many characters whereas the movie has about 2 hours to get this all accomplished. It's a shame because the casting is strong across the board. As Lyra, 13-year old Richards was a perfect choice. Craig makes the most of a small appearance as Asriel, and Kidman as Coulter is a nice twist on the typical character she plays. McKellen's voice didn't work for me as Iorek, but an armoured polar bear? Still cool. Sam Elliott is as always, very cool, as Scoresby.

Reviewing this movie is tough because there is A LOT going on, and a lot I could complain about from the overuse of CGI to the alterations to the story and the order it is dealt with to the different ending. Big picture is this, the movie as is in its 2-hour form is not very good. I don't know how much better a 2.5 or 3 hour movie could be, but it certainly couldn't hurt. I'd say give Pullman's book a try and then give the movie a try, not the other way around.

And I feel like I have to mention the Catholic Church's objection to this movie which I think is ridiculous. The Catholic Church is that paranoid guy who thinks everyone is always talking about him regardless of whether they actually are. In this case, a thinly veiled dig at the Church has a "Magisterium" trying to make its believers follow blindly with no thought. Like I said with the objections to the Da Vinci Code, if anyone takes their beliefs from a movie or a book, basically a work of fiction, the Church has bigger issues to worry about. End of rant.

The Golden Compass <----trailer (2007): **/****

Defiance

Somewhat disappointingly, Defiance has struggled at the box office these last two weekends so before it completely slipped out of theaters I went and saw it today. Really, how can a movie with Daniel Craig going up against Nazis not be worth the price of admission? I ended up liking it, but not loving it. First off, it's not the action movie it has been presented as in the trailer and commercials on TV.

That's not a bad thing here as the action scenes are highly effective and feel very realistic. For one, not everyone hits at what they aim at. I "love" action movies where the good guy always hits his mark. It kind of takes the suspense out of things. Back to the movie though, it tells the story of four brothers, the Bielskis, who take to the woods in 1941 Belorussia, now German-occupied territory, after SS squads and local police start rounding up Jews, some of whom are shot on the spot and others transported away to ghettos and labor camps.

By far the strongest part of the movie are the two leads, Craig as Tuvia Bielski, the oldest of four brothers who emerges as a leader, and Liev Schreiber as Zus Bielski, the second oldest who loses his wife and child to the death squads. Hiding in the woods, they begin to draw attention, in a good way, as other fleeing Jews look for safety. Soon, the Bielskis must start to protect and provide for hundreds of fleeing Jews who start new lives in the relative safety of the woods.

Tuvia and Zus are about as different as two brothers can be, but they have one obvious thing in common; survival. Tuvia does not want to fight back against the Germans unless absolutely necessary. His 'defiance' will be by living the life they tried to take away from him. Zus couldn't disagree more, he wants to take the fight to the Germans and ends up joining a Russian partisan outfit. The tension between the brothers drives the movie as we see the two paths diverge and meet again several times in the story.

Back to the action, there are several running firefights including a few as the Bielskis first take on the Germans, learning what's effective, and then developing into bigger battles. The finale is a good one, director Edward Zwick is no stranger to moving battle scenes, as the Bielskis and Co. are caught out in the open by a German tank and supporting infantry. Watch the finale to 1989's Glory (massive SPOILERS if you haven't seen the movie) and tell me it isn't one of the most powerful battle scenes ever made. I get teary-eyed just thinking about it. My issue with the adversaries, the Germans, is that no face is put with the "bad guys." They're more of a presence than anything, looming in the woods and towns waiting to strike.

Because the movie is mostly set in camps in the woods, parts do drag a bit in the middle in between battle scenes. Other than some slow-moving scenes in the middle, and a forgettable score by James Newton Howard (typically as reliable a composer as is out there), this is a WWII drama worth recommending, notably for the performances of Daniel Craig, quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and Liev Schreiber. It's a moving tale of survival based on a little known true story from WWII that shouldn't disappoint. Just don't blink or it may already be out of theaters!

Defiance trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8OI0JP50

Rating: ***/****