Rant Time: Moments don’t make the movie

Over the last few years there has been a common concern between fellow filmgoing friends and myself. Mainly that while popular films might have incredible moments sparsed throughout their runtimes, those moments don’t represent quality storytelling overall and that spectacle drives ticket sales while cinematically speaking some films have been lacking. I know there comes a time to debate what type of film deserves what level of expectation, but this has happened enough, even discounting blockbuster carnage a la ‘Transformers’ aside, that it is a legitimate concern.

This was most recently brought back into the forefront of our minds upon an initial viewing of ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2’. Yes, a bit late, but none of us had been particularly enthused with the first outing with Andrew Garfield’s attempt at the character, so it took awhile before any of us were that excited to see the sequel that ruined Sony’s Spiderverse anyways. This film is a prime example of what I’m talking about. Many, but not all, of the Spiderman scenes in the film were fun and more accurate to the character than the initial film, bombastic, aerial, slow-mo fun. That being said, those were almost entirely the only points of the film that either made sense (When did Peter Parker become so whiny and quote “Edgy” anyways?) or were even all that engaging. I could probably cut twenty minutes of the film where Garfield is simply staring open mouthed like an idiot for no reason at all. Admittedly, I am biased here, this film is not my cup of tea, or my Spiderman to be honest. There are fleeting moments when Garfield pulls off aspects of the character wonderfully, but they are tarnished by its overlong runtime, questionable tonal shifts, and musical score throughout.

Godzilla was another hit that confounded me entirely. Let me say first however that I do have a love for monster movies, particularly for ‘The King of Monsters’ himself. Gareth Edwards adaption’s popularity is so very odd to me in that it A) killed off the only compelling character in the first twenty minutes, B) focused on easily the most useless and uninteresting protagonist I’ve seen onscreen in years, and C) ignored its title character for most of the movie. Don’t get me wrong, there are awesome moments here and there, but the film denies us several fight sequences, tries desperately to get us to care about a character that doesn’t even seem to want to be involved in the story much less lead us through the plot, and wastes the few good actors they do have in its ranks, namely Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe, and Elizabeth Olsen. If only they had killed off Aaron-Taylor Johnson instead, the film would have been far better.

James Bond returned this year in ‘Spectre’ which brought Bond back to the Whiz-Bang adventure stylings that would be more fitting for Pierce Brosnan’s Bond than Daniel Craig’s. While there are indeed moments of excellence, that opening sequence alone was worth the price of admission, they cannot mend serious flaws that hurt the film otherwise. What’s particularly disapointing here though is that the last James Bond film ‘SkyFall’ had been a profound story for the character, questioning whether or not He is still needed, the film challenged the audience to rethink what Bond meant to them and his relevancy in the medium, ‘Spectre’, on the other hand, nestled back into the tired tropes of the double O agent and neglected to challenge the character, or audience, hardly at all. Relying on a formula that’s been done time and again can only do so much, especially when the shadow of the previous film stands as tall as ‘Skyfall’ does. Audiences’ memories aren’t that bad.

So, we should come to expect more from our films given how many we churn out each year, right? As an informed audience, we should want our art to challenge us, ask us the hard questions, show us the hard truths, and be better than we expect. Not all movies have to go through the gauntlet because of audience demands though, and I get that, but shouldn’t we want more substance out of our stories than just being entertained? Some films are simply pure entertainment, and that’s fine! However we shouldn’t let this permeate a majority of the movies being made. A variety throughout the cinematic landscape is certainly wanted, and needed! Personally, I want to see more films that inspire people, make emotional connections, and showcase ourselves onscreen in the best light.

It should also be noted that this is by no means to say that we don’t have nuanced and complex films solely relying on spectacle. This year alone has had many worthy additions, ‘Mad Max’, ‘Inside Out’, & ‘Creed’ are all magnificient in their own rights and are only a fraction of the quality content out there. So, my point is get out and see a film outside of your comfort zone, it might challenge you in a way you never thought possible! See something new!




Review: 007’s Spectre, Superb-but its no Skyfall

*Warning: Spoilers*

Spectre opens with, quite possibly, one of the most fun, brash, and intense sequences in all of James Bond’s onscreen adventures. It’s a shame the rest of the film doesn’t live up to that standard. Heading into this movie I wasn’t entirely sure if this iteration of MI6’s most famous secret agent would be a more direct sequel to Daniel Craig’s previous films, or simply another standalone adventure in the spy’s long gestating cinematic history. Let me tell you now, this movie heavily leans on Daniel Craig’s Bond legacy. If you want to fully appreciate all that ‘Spectre’ has to offer repeat viewings of the three previous Craig films would do you well (Although it would be understandable if you skipped ‘Quantum of Solace’).

Now, you might ask, with the 007 series reaching 24 films long, is ‘Spectre’ worth the price of admission? Overall, I say yes. There is enough the film accomplishes here to merit it a success within the terms of what people come to expect from Bond films.  That being said the biggest shadow looming on ‘Spectre’s horizons is ‘Skyfall’. ‘Skyfall’ reshaped Bond’s world in a way that was unprecedented in the series’ history. What made ‘Skyfall’ a standout was that it continued what ‘Casino Royale’ started in adverting expectations and wowing us with a Bond for the new millennium. More visceral, grounded, and gruff yet still suave and classy. ‘Spectre’ has a problem though, its not entirely sure what kind of Bond film it wants to be. The film relishes in larger set pieces, more visually captivating locales, and a host of other well trodden established Bond tropes. Bond reverts to the more Sean Connery style of persuasion with women, he exhibits far more reckless behavior than past Craig offerings, and black turtlenecks. Which I might add, I thoroughly enjoyed purely out of my adoration of the cartoon, ‘Archer’. So you might ask, ‘do any of these aspects weaken the overall experience?’ Well, that depends on what you expect out of a Bond film. Were there car chases? Did Bond have/drive/crash an expensive car? Did Q and Bond have an argument/moment? Was there a torture sequence? Did he get the girl? Did Bond go fist to fist in a brawl with an overly large henchman?  The answer to all of these questions is ‘Yes, most definitely’. If that is enough for you as the viewer, then it is enough, just don’t go into ‘Spectre’ expecting a reinvented wheel. This film is in love with its own past, and it seems to be racing to check off all the boxes of Bond’s world so quickly that it doesn’t even realize that the audience can feel the expectation of the plot as it happens. Every time a box was checked I was happy that it was, though it felt as if we’d all been here before. ‘Skyfall’, again, looms large.

Speaking of Henchmen, Dave Bautista’s ‘Mr. Hinx’ is one of the truly standout performances of the film. The bulky and brooding heavy hitter barely utters a word his entire time onscreen, but this doesn’t mean he isn’t an unrelenting challenge for every second of his time with us. Mr. Hinx will definitely be remembered in the long line up of Bond baddies for his introduction alone, forgoing eloquence for complete brutality in the juxtaposition of the orderly and organized ‘Spectre’ boardroom that the scene takes place in. The organization at the heart of the film’s title is one that largely rests its image on the shoulders of Christoph Waltz’s Oberhauser. I am at the same time both content with, and let down by, this performance. It has nothing to do with Waltz’s acting ability, I think he was fine, I was just expecting a bit more out of it. This may have been unfair of me to do so because of my comparing the character of Oberhauser to that of Hans Landa, Waltz’s infamous Nazi from Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Basterds’. Oberhauser is a far more restricted, internal character of sorts, in short, I simply had brought a different level of expectation to the role than if it had been a different actor. The slow burn of his introduction in ‘Spectre’ is handled enticingly well in my opinion though. Oberhauser is however part of the film that, in my opinion, asks almost for too much from us.


‘Spectre’ attempts, and ultimately succeeds, in asking the audience to retcon the last three Bond films into one cohesive piece of storytelling. Partly in building the mythos around the shadowy organization ‘Spectre’ the film constantly throws us little reminders of villains of Craig’s past as bits of evidence tantamount to the tentacled group being, as Oberhauser himself describes it in one particular line, “I am the Author of all your pain James Bond”. But is he really? Oh and the big reveal that Oberhauser is actually ‘Blofeld’ shouldn’t have been all that much of a surprise to anyone knowing the history of the organization in the film series’ past. I think the idea at face value is a bit of a stretch, though they handled it effectively enough in the film, but the less time you spend analyzing it, the more you will enjoy it. If they had gone further with the idea I think it would have been too much, but done as it was, it is acceptable.

It is also worth mentioning that from ‘Skyfall’ to ‘Spectre’ there was a change in the guard of cinematographer from Roger Deakins to Hoyte van Hoytema. It might not be the most apparent change from film to film but the loss of Deakins style can be felt throughout. The use of Q and his relationship with Bond was also more fleshed out than in ‘Skyfall’ so that was a welcome addition. There was also the subplot of Andrew Scott’s ‘C’ merging both MI5 and MI6 operations while simulataneously nixing the double O program in its entirety. He is also the link between ‘Spectre’ and MI6 as he hurries to get international approval for a new global initiative of blending cutting edge technology with George Orwell’s worst nightmares. Hey, a dash of ‘Winter Soldier’ never hurt, right? The film also tries, ever so briefly, to peel back more layers of Bond’s childhood past and psychology, but again, ‘Skyfall’ did this better and in a more compelling fashion.

All in all, this is a fine James Bond movie. If all you are looking for is a competent, rousing, and entertaining action spy movie, then you’re in luck, because ‘Spectre’ was made for you. If on the other hand you wanted just a bit more from Daniel Craig’s latest, and possibly last, outing as the double O, then you might be left wanting more.

Final Score: 8/10


2015: Year of the Spy movie

When thinking of the biggest films of this year the average moviegoer will probably cite “The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “The Martian”,  and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, or “Pitch Perfect 2”, maybe even “Inside Out”. Rarely however will somebody name off one of the many Spy films that are out, or have yet to come out. Which is a surprising notion as there are a lot fo spy oriented films when you take the time to look.

Kingsmen: The Secret Service

This movie by Matthew Vaughn arrived, seemingly, out of thin air.  Hugely stylistic in nature this spy movie, adapted from the comic “The Sercret Service”, is hell bent on delivering unique action with sensible modesty in this very gentlemenly of motion pictures. The story follows the recruitment of a young and promising, if a little bit unrefined, street kid in London by the name of Gary “Eggsy” Unwin into the prim and proper spy organization known as, The Kingsmen. With a proper mentor in Colin Firth’s master spy character the young Eggsy is placed into the Kingsmen’s highly competetive selection process. All the while Samuel L. Jackson’s evil character moves world threatning pawns into play with a character that admittedly could have been borderline too over the top, but he ended up leveling out nicely in the performance. This was quite the unexpected box office hit and a sequel is already in delevopment. Check this one out if you have the chance, it was better than expected.


This film, out of all the options listed here, is the standout in terms of genre. This is a fun and self aware comedy that lives in a Spy’s world. Jason Statham and Melissa McCarthy work in tandem in Director Paul Feig’s gutbuster of an action comedy.  In the flick McCarthy stars as Susan Cooper, a frumpy CIA analyst with surprisingly good combat skills that steps up when fellow agent, Jude Law, gets into trouble. She then teams with Statham’s agent Rick Ford to avenge her comrade, and be empathetically exuberant while doing so. Sharp, electric, and downright fun, this might be the best comedy to come out of the summer. If you want to have the pace of an action film with a good hearty side of laughter, go see this one!

Mission: Impossible Rogue nation

This summer also saw the return of Ethan Hunt, the legendary IMF (Impossible Missions Force) agent with a penchant for getting in over his head, and always coming out on top. For a series five films deep Mission Impossible has had to evolve over the years in its revolving door of impressive creative teams and this film does no less. Reuniting Tom Cruise with Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames in an ultimately solid and satisfying sequel. This time the IMF is disbanded right from the gate by Alec Baldwin’s CIA  director who crushes and absorbs the agency in the film’s beginning.  The team continues to track a new deadly organization that has been organizing strategic terrorist attacks in order to change world events and eventually wipe out the IMF in entirety, The Syndicate. Cruise ends up teaming with a double, or possibly triple, agent in the form of Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa to prove the existence of the shadowy and elusive organization. Rhames, Renner, and Pegg give the film a nicely balanced comedic routine while Ferguson herself injects a strong female character into the film without just being there for Cruise’s character to prove his own masculinity to the audience. Speaking of Cruise, this is another example of why the man is still making these movies, and still doing all of his own stunts, he’s excellent at it and has few competitors or contenders in this realm. The film overall has a slightly edgier feel than it’s predecessors and is tense throughout without forgetting to have some fun while they do it. While I must admit I’m not quite sure if the film exceeded the last franchise film, Ghost protocol, in quality, it is however a valiant and entertaining effort that should not be avoided because of this. Writer, Director Christopher McQuarrie excels in his take on the franchise and proves his worth onscreen once again, especially after penning last year’s surprise Sci-Fi wonder “Edge of Tomorrow” or “Live. Die. Repeat.” by the same name.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Guy Ritchie’s charming spy movie takes place in the early 1960’s at the height of the Cold War. The film pairs Henry Cavill as Napoleon Solo, a slick and suave American CIA agent, with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, the deadliest KGB agent. As far as adaptions of television shows goes, this movies excels in giving what the original intent promised, an almost psueo spy vs spy feel that forces adversaries to cooperate in flashy and masterful style. The story here centers on the bitter rivals working together despite strong aversions to one another for the ultimate good of mankind, to stop former Nazi’s from getting the components to build a nuclear weapon. Here is a case where the argument of style over substance is less negligible than in other films as Guy Ritchie’s unique flair is often what keeps the film aflot over a structurally sound, but expected plotline. That’s not to say the film isn’t a hell of a ride mind you, just that it won’t be blowing anyone’s mind with plot twists anytime soon. This movie is more concerned with it’s set pieces and performances from the engaging leads as well, and everybody making or starring in the piece knows this, which is probably why it works as well as it does. A solid, if slightly underwhelming, film that I still strongly suggest people go and see!

Bridge of Spies

Even Steven Spielberg is going to be throwing his hat into the spy genre ring this year. Another period piece set in the early 1960’s, “Bridge of Spies” looks to be wandering close to Oscar territory again for Mr. Spielberg. I wouldn’t be surprised, when the legendary director fires on all cylinders he ascends to that special zietgeist of “Movie Magic”, and if the trailers are anything to indicate it looks as though he has done it again. Tom Hanks stars as an the American attorney tasked with negotiating the release of a U-2 spy plane pilot who was shot down over Russia at the height of the Cold War. With the Coen brothers writing the script and a knockout cast surrounding Hanks, this film is sure to stand out and engage people. I for one will be seeing this flick as soon as possible.

007 Spectre

After the massive success of “Skyfall” Daniel Craig has cemented his James Bond performance in the anals of cinema history. This follow up is hopefully more “Casino Royale” than “Quantum of Solice” though. With Sam Mendes returning to helm the sequal and new villain (most likely) in the form of Christoph Waltz please-be-Blofeld-please-be-Blofeld-please-be-Blofeld.. I feel more than secure with the franchise in these hands. Not much is known about the plot at this point and much like JJ Abrams, I am okay with this. Secrecy has its place in moviemaking and I don’t necessarily want a trailer pointing out every plot point for me before seeing the film. I’m looking at you “Terminator: Genisys”. With all the talent behind this one after the brilliant “Skyfall” in particular, who needs to know any more than that to be excited?

B.O.O. Bureau of Otherworldly Operations

This last entry I hadn’t even heard of until looking up any spy themed movies I might have missed but it looks like a fun little animated movie.  The film stars the voices of Rashida Jones, Bill Murray, Matt Bomer and Melissa McCarthy and was slated to come out this summer but was pushed back for unknown reasons. The film is about fresh faced agents at the Bureau of Otherworldly Operations uncovering a plot to destroy the organization itself. So in all likelihood this seems like a fun little adventure coming out of Dreamworks and hey, it’ll be the second time Melissa McCarthy has been in a spy oriented movie this year! So there’s that. I feel like this could have a “Monsters Inc” feel to it, hopefully the final cut lives up to the potential of this premise.

So there you have it people, a bunch of very different and unique Spy films to sate your need for supreme secrecy, and espionage adventure! If you haven’t seen any of these flicks, besides the one that have not come out yet I highly recommend them all, each has their own rightful merits upon which they all stand. Maybe next year the popular genre will be Ninjas, or Ninja Musicals, that’d be new. Until next time!