Change Your Image
harryrgrove
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Spectre (2015)
Silly, simple and stylish
Recently, Spectre has had the greatest hype of any Bond film of all time, and hype comes with expectations. Did it live up to my expectations? Just about. It was another inventive, over-the-top and fun action movie.
The opening shot of the film is maybe the greatest of the franchise so far: a more than two-minute-long tracking shot introducing the setting and Daniel Craig's character. I cannot begin to tell you how utterly overcome with joy I was at this cinematic decision: not only did I admire the spectacular technicality of the shot, which effortlessly glided through rooms and across crowded streets - it also gave the entire sequence a stylish sheen that would have been otherwise difficult to accomplish.
I suppose the action is really where I should start with the review: it is the basis for any bond film, and this one was no exception. There are maybe four chase and fight scenes that I would have been glad with as the centrepiece of the film. And all of it was directed incredibly, with a beautiful blend of wide and close up shots and stunning choreography, which was above all creative (and somewhat even plausible). All of it is, of course, ridiculous, but the action was possibly the best of any Bond film yet, with only Skyfall and Casino Royale to rival it.
However, excellent action is just one thing that a truly great spy film needs, and another is a villain. It is unfortunate to say that, despite being Bond's archenemy, Blofeld was not as strong a villain as Silva or Le Chiffre. Mendez seemed to forget that he was a person too, and in Bond's (painfully short) encounters with him, he never lost his air of indestructibility, and was on top of Bond almost constantly. He was especially disappointing considering the expensively significant backstory that was wasted on his character, as well as his magnitude: one wishes that the leader of what was meant to be the world's greatest corporation would come down to Bond's level, be less immune and more charismatic.
The secondary characters were also quite a mixed bunch, although the majority were strong, completely compelling and very well developed. One of these was Ben Winshaw's Q, who, partly due to the portrayal, had an excellent comic timing and was a ray of light whenever he appeared in the script - sometimes I was routing for MI6 because of his character as much as Bond, who was again brilliantly conveyed by Daniel Craig, who continues (and possibly ends) his legendary run as Bond. Another character who added much to the film was C (or Max), played by Andrew Scott, who has always been a favourite of mine with an excellent role in the hit show Sherlock. I think that Scott, although very subtle, was maybe the best actor of the whole cast, with his performance single-handedly adding a dismissive and arrogant air to his character that the script frankly lacked.
On the other hand,I left the cinema feeling like as many characters, such as Miss Moneypenny and M, lacked the depth that they had the potential to have: in the last film, it seemed that M was somewhat ominous in the previous Skyfall, but it seemed that his character was simplified to a politically central "good guy", as was the case with Moneypenny. This is of course not to take anything away from the performances of Ralph Fiennes and Naomi Harris, because both took the script to its limits. I also feel as though Rory Kinnear's Tanner was one-dimensional at best, and requires development going into the next instalment.
This over-simplification was also the theme with the plot. It seemed that it was not as masterfully structured as its predecessors Skyfall and Casino Royale, and Bond stuck to one aim for the vast majority of the movie, which I think is a totally missed opportunity on the behalf of the writers. There were only truly three major scenes that I could consider landmarks or turning points in the movie. Of course this fulfils the three act structure traditional in bond movies, but the third, and maybe most interesting act in which we only then see the full potential of all characters, is too short, and the second, which is frankly the least interesting, is too long. As a moviegoer I was disappointed that they didn't fit more in.
Finally, I believe I should discuss is how 'Bond' this film is. As to this point, my review has been mixed, but something that I am delighted to say the film captured brilliantly was the true spirit of the franchise, which was achieved through the distinctive atmospheres of the settings and through well placed throwbacks to old-school bond movies, such as subtle references to "The Man With The Golden Gun" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". In fact, I can honestly say that, out of all of the Daniel Craig Bond movies, it is Spectre that is the most 'Bond'.
Overall, Spectre is a very good action movie, with wonderfully memorable and wholly original action sequences, and, while some of the characters and the plot lack the depth seen in Skyfall and Casino Royale, it grasps the idea of the franchise better than any. One last thing: should Daniel Craig continue for one more film? No. While he is the best bond ever, I believe that Spectre gave a good round-off to his character by linking all of his films superbly, and his character seems in a fit state to finish.
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
A beautiful, charming, fairytale of New York
The Coen brothers are maybe best known for their action thrillers, such as 'No Country For Old Men' and 'Fargo', or possibly their romping comedy 'The Big Lebowski'. In 'Inside Llewyn Davis', however, I saw something entirely different: a quieter, almost silent, tale of character - a sad and yet funny film about a week in the life of a young New York folk singer (excellently portrayed by Oscar Isaac).
The title "Inside Llewyn Davis' is a curious one. It seems to promise an insight into the understanding of the principal character, and this is exactly what we get. In the opening scenes, I saw a charismatic and mysterious character, but as the plot rolls on, I began to learn more and more about this character, and also like this character more and more. This is the genius of the film: the protagonist is an excellent example of a character who is not lovable - in fact at times he seems detestable - but he gets such a bad hand that we as the audience are inclined to feel sympathetic.
Another aspect of the film that is completely nailed by the Coens is the tone. It seems like a dull take on a somewhat dull life at the beginning, but by the end of the first act of the film I began to realise what was not a dull mood but one brimming with character: sometimes the mood was soulful, sometime it was sad, and at others it was plain heartbreaking. This mood was helped along by a series of aspects and devices: first and foremost, I must talk about the cat. The use of the cat to describe the situation of the plot and to brilliantly convey humour may just be the loudest and brightest example of the genius of Joel and Ethan.
The cat isn't all that the writing of the film excels in. During the scenes of dialogue, I felt as though they were real, creeping upon me and connecting with me deeply. They were emotional, devastating and hilarious all at once. The script was helped, of course, by a truly magnificent performance from Oscar Isaac - frankly, it was a crime that he did not receive so much as a nod from the academy. I should add to this that boy, can he sing! All songs in this film were performed live, which I cannot acclaim enough and adds a whole new dimension to the screenplay.
The other major way that this film builds such brilliant tone is through the cinematography. I expected something good from Bruno Delbonnel, but what I got was sensational. Perfectly capturing every scene in every frame is a true challenge in film making, and Delbonnel has done it as well as anybody could have. Again, I must refer to the academy: I am so glad they nominated the cinematography, but I thought, although Birdman was the better film, that Delbonnel deserved the Oscar over Lubezki.
The main criticism that most of the audience are having from this film is "What actually happened?" which in some ways I can understand: the story literally finished in the same place it started. However, I believe that the people saying this have missed the point of the film completely. 'Inside Llewyn Davis' is a journey into, and with the character, of Davis, and therefore the audience should not require plot development or, at a stretch, much character development: I was compelled to watch and re-watch this film because of the technical aspects and characters of the move. A good plot does not a good film make.
Inside Llewyn Davis is a quiet but masterful work from the Coen brothers, as they continue to hop to and in between many genres - in fact, in may just be one of their best. I would ultimately recommend the film to any fan of Joel and Ethan Coen, or any fan of film in general, with this triumph of script and character.
District 9 (2009)
Original, but not perfect
Today, originality is rare, especially in the sci-fi genre. When we look at the wonderful blockbusters of recent days, such as Inception, we begin to notice a pattern: almost all major science-fiction films fundamentally have been made, albeit slightly differently, before. In Inception's case we can consider The Matrix, from which many major ideas have been recycled.
Maybe, in District 9, we have something different. In a realistic story that focuses on the politics of an alien invasion as much as the action, I found myself watching a story somewhat unlike any that I had ever seen, in which morals, the true ideas behind characters and who to support in a non-binary are not necessarily clear.
Sharlto Copley gives a strong, charismatic and believable take on the character 'Wikus'. This main character is not overly likable but not annoying. However, this is not the brilliance of the characterisation: the character goes on a physical and mental arc, in which his moral compass, ideas and form are changed in numerous ways. These changes make the character brilliantly compelling and watchable.
The design of the aliens are also a positive of the film: they look strong but not wholly evil, which is representative of their place in the story. However, one must question in a film where most aspects seem realistic, whether this design is to be believed, and the answer is, unfortunately, no. The aesthetics of these aliens are too humanoid for the audience to believe that they developed outside of our world, and the idea that they can survive here without any side-effects is overly convenient.
It is this convenience in which I believe the film is flawed. The plot may be the film's greatest asset, in the fact that it is original, but it is also its weakness, as the ridiculous coincidences of some events can distract from the aspect of realism that the film otherwise maintains.
The plot, unfortunately, wasn't the only weakness of the film. For a sci-fi action movie, the action seemed somewhat lacking in creativity; it never looked as though it was going to advance past the stage of immature and unnecessary violence - like people getting blown to smithereens with alien laser guns - and this gives it a painful Michael-Bayesque feel. I wish there were more scenes of exciting hand-to-hand combat of the likes that we saw in 2014's greatest (in every sense of the word) flop Edge of Tomorrow, or 2010s Inception, which certainly was not a flop in any way. To me, it seems a tragedy that these films were not sufficiently recognised by the academy, whereas District 9 (the admittedly inferior film) was.
When we see originality, we must forgive its overly convenient plot and the frustratingly uninventive fight scenes, and focus on what is a surprisingly political story with an interesting message.