Half-Assed Movie Reviews

November 2, 2008: Casino Royale (2007)

(Note: I’ve recently implemented a new policy here at Half-Assed Movie Reviews, of actually re-reading my writeups just prior to posting.  Typos should decrease, but we’ll see whether the quality of the writing improves or degrades.)

I once watched the original Casino Royale.  I know I should revisit it, but it’s really hard to let that one bubble up to the top of the priority list.

I never used to watch James Bond movies in the theatre.  When I was growing up, they were strictly TV-based entertainment for me.  That changed with the Pierce Brosnan era, more likely because of my age and my possession of some amount of money than any particular revelation that I should be spending my hard-earned dollars to see these goofy lightweight movies in the theatre, rather than waiting to see them in pan-and-scan and full of commercials on TV.

And that brings us to 2007 with Daniel Craig as the new James Bond, revisiting the novel that started it all in 1953.  I have read a few of Ian Fleming’s James Bond books, including this one, which I think really helps to add depth to this reimagining of Casino Royale and the bond movies in general.  Incidentally, reading the books also helped to devastate my opinion of the films from the Roger Moore era.  The updated Casino Royale really is much more representative of the James Bond from the books, who was always flying much more by the seat of his pants, catching a more realistic balance of both tough breaks and easy breaks, and never quite sure he was going to get the job done.  Being a superspy involves a lot of thinking ahead, a lot of preparation for the task at hand, and a lot of thinking on your feet.  It’s not simple.

Here we have a plot which is similar to that in the novel, a high-stakes gambling event put on by a man (Le Chiffre) who handles money for criminals, who needs to generate some quick cash to make up for his unintentional loss of a large amount of powerful bad men’s money.  What better solution than some high-stakes gambling?  James Bond is sent in to try and win at the event, which would leave Le Chiffre in over his head and hopefully lead to the exposure of the bad men when the government offers to protect Le Chiffre instead of being killed by his angry clients.  The gambling event is changed from Baccarat in the book to a 10-player no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em tournament in the movie, probably a wise move to engage the kids of today by featuring the game du jour, but leading to what can only be described as a ridiculous final hand and conclusion of the tournament (unrealistic play by at least 2 out of the 4 or 5 players in the final hand).  I won’t spoil the story and tell who wins.  Let’s just say that I was yearning for the “realism” of the two pivotal Hold ‘Em hands in Rounders (BOTH TIMES one player is all-in, and both players have a full house).

I saw this in the theatre, and was very impressed by the action set-pieces, the verbal sparring between Bond and the latest Bond girl (Eva Green), and the pacing of the whole story.  Having Judi Dench returning as M is an important win for the franchise, and they would be well advised to keep her on for as long as she’s willing to do the work.  Eva Green is better than this material, but she’s game to play along and enjoy the spotlight afforded the Bond girl of the moment, between weightier roles.

Upon this recent re-viewing of the film, I was struck by how the pacing didn’t flow as smoothly as I remembered.  It seemed that there was a long lead-up to the main poker event, and that not a lot of time was spent at the gaming table or even on the happenings during the breaks from the gaming.  Mind you, examining the contrived Texas Hold ‘Em happenings in a movie too closely, or dwelling too long, can really kill suspension of disbelief, so that’s well handled, but I guess the first half of the movie just dragged a bit more for me on a second viewing.  Tighten that up by 10 minutes and a lot can be gained.  The multiple false endings were still well-constructed, and the arc actually seemed more believable than when I first saw it and could predict where it was going.  It’s confusing to find my perception backwards in this case.

I can be counted as a fan of the new Daniel Craig version of James Bond, and he really does seem well suited to the part.  Not all will agree, and it probably depends a lot on the Bond you grew up with.  Those who grew up with the Connery Bond typically refuse to give him up.  Those who were raised on the Moore or Brosnan Bonds are far more likely to overthrow their former favourite and latch on to Craig.

September 17, 2008: Righteous Kill

The casual Half-Assed Movie Reviews reader might wonder why I continue to bombard myself with known crappy movies, rather than pursuing potentially more rewarding cinematic avenues, such as my stated goal to have filled in the gaps in my Best Picture viewing back to 1960 prior to the awarding of the next Oscars.  Should I be watching the Billy Wilder classic The Apartment, or should I be watching a contrived and overwrought police thriller just because Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are both headed towards senility and decided that this would make for an easy paycheque?

I’m a De Niro fan.  He’s a perfect storm of my love of 1970s cinema, Martin Scorsese, gangster films and, yes, silly comedies.  Go and see Meet the Parents.  It may sound like a dumb idea for a movie, but De Niro is great at comedy when he puts his mind to it.

I’m a Pacino fan.  While for some reason I don’t love Serpico the way everyone else seems to, you can sign me up any day to watch any Godfather movie, Scarecrow, The Panic in Needle Park, …And Justice For All, or just about any of his other 1970s output.  His 1990s entries are more hit-and-miss in my books, but Carlito’s Way is a forgotten gem, similarly Donnie Brasco, and Frankie and Johnny is a nice departure from the norm for him.  I even happen to like Scent of a Woman, although I haven’t reviewed it recently so I might find myself cringing as I see the actual turning point when he transformed into the crazy yelling and screaming Pacino who built through the 1990s and has been omnipresent in mid-budget filler for the last 10 years.  And I suppose a mention of Scarface is essential.  While not an obsessive fan of the film as some are, the Special Edition sits proudly on my DVD shelf and I sometimes immerse myself in that early-1980s aesthetic and one of Pacino’s most passionate performances.

What am I not a fan of?  Poorly-written movies with predictable or stupid dialogue and predicatable or stupid twists.  The two leads are playing a mix of caricatures of themselves and caricatures of their intended characters, and while a full-assed reviewer might know whether to pin these issues on the writer, director, or the studio exec who greenlighted this in the first place, I’m simply left baffled.  Sure, I knew it would be bad.  I can read reviews.  Two of the acknowledged greatest living actors are appearing in only their third film EVER together (and only the second in which they shared any screen time aside from scene fades), so I’ve got to give it a chance, but is it unreasonable to expect it not to suck?

The thing is, the supporting cast is pretty good.  Carla Gugino, John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg seem to be far better written and taking the proceedings far more seriously than their towering co-stars.

Does that make it worth watching?  Nope.

September 13, 2008: Adam Resurrected

I’m a Paul Schrader fan.  I love that whole 1970s Hollywood era, when the new generation of film-school auteurs (Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, etc) were given free rein for a while, and ultimately became the power players of the Hollywood of today.  Paul Schrader made his name writing screenplays for Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull), but wrote and directed a handful of his own films along the way, including Blue Collar, which I consider to be one of the lost 1970s gems starring Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto and Harvey Keitel.

Here in 2008, we have Schrader directing a film he did not write – Adam Resurrected.  It’s about a post-WW2 German clown/entertainer who seems to have become mentally ill.  He goes to spend some time at an asylum with which he is familiar, and as he turns his attention to helping a young boy struggling with reality, it seems that Adam may have found the way back from his troubles as well.  It’s an interesting idea, and some elements of the execution are brilliant.  But this is a seriously flawed film and it’s difficult to recommend it.

A friend of mind had pointed out that Jeff Goldblum’s attempt at a German accent was very weak, and that it distracted significantly from the film.  I didn’t find it to be quite as jarring, more along the lines of Kevin Costner in JFK where his southern accent is OK except when he’s yelling or otherwise emoting in any way.

The movie is also kind of dull overall, and certainly overlong.  Some viewers may enjoy this deliberate pace, but I found it to detract seriously from the whole.  I’d still happily go to see anything to which Paul Schrader attaches his name, but with the knowledge that it can be a crap shoot.

September 12, 2008: L’Instinct de la Mort

I’m not sure when I discovered Vincent Cassel.  It might have been in Irreversible, which is certainly not the prettiest way to be introduced to anyone, though of course he fared better in that film than others did…  He was in a weird little French movie named Sheitan that I caught at a Toronto International Film Festival Midnight Madness screening a couple of years ago.  And I don’t like to mention Ocean’s Twelve, but he does seem a reasonable addition to that crew, despite the grossly overindulgent plotline of that particular movie.

I like him as a leading man, so I was looking forward to L’Instinct de la Mort, a French-language look at noted French gangster Jacques Mesrine who ended up spending a good chunk of time in Canada.  I knew going in that this was intended to be “Part 1 of 2”, but I hadn’t expected it to cut off so suddenly, in the vein of Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, or Back to the Future Part 2.

The movie follows Mesrine’s life after he returns from fighting in a war, and we learn how his callousness goes right to the core, as he destroys people, property and relationships left and right as the years wear on.  He’s fearless and stubbornly loyal (to a fault) not to anyone, but to his own convictions.  He’s going to do what he sets his mind to, and if he has to die trying, so be it.

The feeling I got watching this movie, unfortunately, was that it just never sought to cut very deep.  It’s a retelling of a story, with minimal depth to the interpretation of the character, so we’re left with a bunch of action set pieces and a fiery performance by Cassel, but with nothing really to say about any of it.

The value of a film like this is that it brings some part of a real-life historical story to a larger audience, inspiring the desire to learn more about the real history and further details.  In this respect, the movie succeeds, but as a gangster flick it’s pretty hollow, and as a biopic it leaves us wondering what’s the point of putting all of this up on the screen.

September 10, 2008: Martyrs

Midnight Madness runs every night at the Toronto International Film Festival.  There’s always at least one gore-fest for the raging crowd of midnight moviegoers.  Saw and Hostel both showed up here before they hit the mainstream theatres.  Last year, a French movie called A L’Interieur pushed boundaries with a crazy woman (played by Beatrice Dalle, no less) stalking another woman and trying to (literally) steal her unborn baby.  According to the official write-ups, Martyrs would make A L’Interieur seem like a walk in the park.  Gotta see it to believe it.

What follows is some detailed description of the plot, which I present in this case due to the unlikelihood of many readers actually seeing the film.  Possible spoilers ahead.

Martyrs is about a couple of girls, one of whom is haunted by visions of someone stalking her and beating her up – this manifests itself by the physical reality of her injuring herself.  Her friend is supportive but doesn’t understand the core terror, or how she came to live this way.

The girls track down who they think is the demon in the one girl’s head terrorizing her.  This demon turns out to be another abused woman, who they discover in a torture chamber in a secluded suburban house.  Some battling ensues in the house and ultimately, the haunted girl finds peace in the only way the terrorized ever seem to do it in the movies.  With her out of the picture, that leaves only the second girl, who is captured when the nasty homeowners arrive on the scene.

It turns out that what this team of nasties has been trying to do for a long time is to take people to the edge of death and slightly beyond it, so that the “martyrs” (i.e. victims) can explain what the experience of death is like.  This involves a long period of captivity, violence, healing, more violence, abuse and spirit-breaking, and finally the gore set-piece which everyone is waiting for.  As a concept, it is effective.  As a movie effect, it doesn’t quite convince.  That said, the ending is satisfying, with the appropriate bad guys dying in appropriate ways, with some quiet introspection on the part of the big baddie at the time of her death, rather than the over-the-top skewering often seen in such flicks.

I wouldn’t say that the gore and violence factor was necessarily greater than A L’Interieur, but the emotion and intensity of what’s happening certainly is.