Movie Reviews

Saw the Bond movie last night; the only thing it lacked, for me, was enough shirtless Daniel Craig. Other than that, it was pretty good – especially that bit where he walks along the inside of the balcony in the hotel, that was totally delightful. I’m glad they’re giving Judy Dench more to do, ’cause I like her, and I’m glad that Bond’s suits t so beautifully and that his eyes are so blue.

Quantum of Solace is still a stupid name; I get it, but it’s stupid, and they should’ve picked something else. I like how the Bond series is getting less ‘women-are-liberated-and-we-can’t-fucking-deal-with-it-so-we-go-over -the-top-in-objectifying-them.’ I’ve seen a bunch of the Bond movies; I don’t get the attraction to Sean Connery, and the old fight scenes are sloppy and diluted, and the plots are convoluted and ridiculous.

The beautiful fight scene in QS in Italy at the beginning of the movie is all grappling and uncoordinated movement, but whomever choreographed it is a genius, because they found the beauty in that movement and it didn’t feel completely unrealistic. However, jumping onto moving buses/trains/etc. is a total pet peeve of mine; I just can’t suspend my disbelief, no matter how enjoyable it is.

I give Quantum of Solace 3 forks, one for a stupid name and two for not-enough shirtless Daniel Craig.

The Bond movies have always pretty much sucked; now they’re driving for a baseline ‘decent’ and coming off pretty well, I think.

The only saving grace of the Bourne movies, in my mind, is that the entire trilogy is absolutely devoid of larfs. There’s not one witty or funny comeback line, really. They don’t try to make Matt Damon look cool (impossible task), they don’t try to exist in any real-world setting (I mean, money is apparently no object for this guy, but we don’t see his means of support, and we learn in the second movie that he wasn’t siphoning funds with the other bad dudes).

Somehow, despite the interminable chase and fight scenes that do nothing to advance what little plot there is, I enjoy the movies enough to watch them. This is probably the first time I’ve found Matt Damon even remotely likable, and there’s nothing really redeeming about any of the other characters, and so I can’t tell you what it is that makes it possible for me to sit through these things.

By any objective measure, they collectively eat a dick. So why have I seen two of them several times?

I honestly can’t tell you.

Why did they feel that the character or story was compelling enough to make two (ridiculously titled) sequels?

I also can’t tell you.

Or, maybe I could tell you, but then we’d have to go through twenty minutes of choreographed hair-pulling and I’d have to blow something up with a toaster.

I mean, there wasn’t even anything sexy about these movies.

No forks rating for this one; I honestly just don’t know.

I just watched the Coen Bros.’ Intolerable Cruelty. Every once in a while, a movie comes along that is just a total pleasure to watch, and this is one. I mean, I like sexual tension, witty repartee, George Clooney in a nice suit and Catherine Zeta-Jones (though I think she’s looking a little thin and peaked in this one). It’s kinda goofy, in a fairly melodramatic, almost vaudevillian cinematic style that must have been an absolute joy to work in. I mean, you can see Clooney having fun; the slapstick stuff is clever without ending up stupid; the jokes are mostly smart, and the timing is dead on. This is how one does Romantic Comedy. It’s just an absolutely charming piece of cinema. I’ll give it 3 forks. There was nothing wrong with it, per se, but it also doesn’t really stick in one’s mind. I mean, I thought O Brother Where Art Thou? was a bit tedious, though very well made, but it wins for memorability.

I also really like that the Coen Bros. seem to have a really strong sense of music; unlike Tarantino, they can also integrate plot, good acting, good writing and humour into their movies
(Sorry Quentin, it has to be said that you are a great creator of mixed tapes and witty lines but a terrible filmmaker. If it wasn’t for editing and soundtrack, all you’d have would be a lot of snoozefests).

Anyway, this is the kind of movie or play I would really like to be in. One where you commit to acting unnaturally. Commedia Dell’arte, french farce, melodrama – that’s what I’d like to do. Something emotionally light and intellectually/physically challenging. I’ve done enough dark and disturbing theatre. It’s just brutal to do, and not in the end very rewarding, because you’re always defending it and usually the only people who say they like it are assholes who are trying to prove how edgy they are. I’m not saying I’d never do ‘gritty’ theatre again, just that I neither think it proves you’re a great actor, nor is it worth it if you don’t really enjoy it.

In a land of total overactors (acting in Peterborough = shouting with facial contortions), I’d like to up the ante; I’d like to overact on purpose, which is much more difficult than just standing there overacting because you don’t know any better and the director is too busy fellating themselves to notice.