Skyfall

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

Skyfall

Release Date:   9 November 2012                                                     Runtime:   143 Minutes              

Review Date:  12 December 2012                                                      Rating:  5 (of 6)

While many are heralding Skyfall as the best Bond ever, I’m left wondering if they’ve seen Casino Royale.  While it’s a good installment to be sure, I’d say the poorly received Quantum of Solace even edges it out.

Quantum of Solace was slower paced and perhaps had less action than its predecessor (which I think is part of the reason the audience didn’t take to it), but Skyfall is painfully sluggish—you’re 80 minutes in before you even meet the villain.  Keep in mind, some movies are only 80 minutes long!  Yet, here you’ve practically watched an entire film and still don’t know who the antagonist is and, in his absence, the antagonizing wasn’t as strong as it should have been.

Once Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) is introduced, things do get more interesting, he being a formable opponent that’s fun to watch, and the pace then does pick up for the remaining 63 minutes.  If the movie had just been edited to start in the second half, then I might have jumped on the second coming band wagon but with the first half intact it has a lot to make up for.

The only personally clear cut thing that Skyfall did better than Quantum of Solace was their title sequence.  Skyfall probably also does slightly more character developing, but barely a noticeable difference on this front, and adding shades of Home Alone at that.  And on that note, if all that was saved from an estate sale was one rifle, would they really have had kept as much ammo around that was accessible?

*SPOILER ALERT*  What Skyfall does do is introduced 007 mainstays that have since been absent from the rebooted series.  Both are reinvented and refreshingly so.  Kudos!  Unfortunately, while filming, I had read they were casting the parts and it would have been more fun not knowing their involvement and being surprised when they appeared.  In fact, one is particularly molded to be a surprise but those casting notices mentioned the big difference from the old and I was able to pick the character out immediately.  Not to say it wasn’t still enjoyable, just not the big surprise they were building up to for viewers of the original series.  Actually, I don’t know why I’m talking in code because any 007 fans of the originals know exactly what 2 characters have been thus left out and will have figured out who I’m talking about by now (hence my spoiler alert).

One thing that did disappoint me was realizing they weren’t exploring an opportunity I momentarily thought they were.  In the You Only Live Twice novel, Bond had gotten amnesia and recouped, shacked up with a native, far away from the UK, everyone he knew thinking him dead.  I was excited to think they were incorporating this into the new series, only to find out that here Bond was only merely brooding before returning to work.

Taken 2

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Taken 2

Release Date:   5 October 2012                                                        Runtime:  93 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

As a sequel, Taken 2 is pretty decent, though not as good as the original.  I had been skeptical going in, to retread the premise of the first without making it seem totally unbelievable was a concern I entered with.  It was a concern I need not have.

My gripe comes in the small details.  In the first film, Kim (Maggie Grace) had just turned 17 and shortly thereafter left for Paris on summer vacation.  This film ultimately takes place almost a year later during her spring break—I say “ultimately” as the opening, setting up the plot of this film, shows the bodies of the men Bryan (Liam Neeson) killed in the first film being shipped home and buried as revenge is vowed and I’m sure it didn’t take that long after the first film took place for that to transpire.

The problem here is that Kimmie is just going for her driver’s license NOW.  For one, California residents can get their license at 16.  From the first film, we know Kimmie lives with her wealthy step-father who showers her with expensive things—a life of luxury.  So, why then didn’t she get her license back then, she nearly being 18 now?  And why wouldn’t she have her very own car, too?

That aside, the driving issue rears its head again while they’re in Turkey.  Early in the film it’s established that Kimmie has now twice failed her driving test, which she was taking in an Escalade.  Yet, when called for, she’s not only driving a car through the narrow roads in Turkey, avoiding many obstacles as though she were an experienced driver but the car is MANUAL!  While they don’t actually show her shifting gears, the numbers on the stick along with the three pedals on the floor establish that it’s manual transmission.  If she couldn’t pass her driving test, TWICE, how does she automatically know how to drive manual?

An otherwise good film, my mind just kept coming back to this and doing laps, distracting me from the unfolding story.  I guess the film is tailored more for the ignorant and unobservant.

Conveniently, Bryan’s ex Lenore (Famke Janssen) is going through a rough patch and separated from her husband, however, all indication in the first film was that there were no problems and they were happy.  The separation didn’t bother me though, it was the instant familiarity Bryan had with her, calling her “honey” several times when she arrived for a completely platonic vacation with their daughter.  Yes, we get his character still loves her but also know the distance that had come between them and while one could pass it off as him easily falling into old patterns, that’s not something I’ve come to expect from his very disciplined character.

Other than that, the story itself was good and the fast paced editing did help move us past these oversights.  Well, those of us that weren’t “like a dog with a bone” once we noticed.

Sinister

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Sinister

Release Date:   12 October 2012                                                           Runtime:  110 Minutes  

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                            Rating:  4 (of 6)

Sinister, while may not be the best movie, lives up to the horror name and is plenty creepy.  The musical score definitely enhances the piece and I’d recommend this one to anyone looking for a scare.

The only issue here is the scorpion that appears in the attic.  Ellison (Ethan Hawk) seems pretty nonchalant about finding it and the officer he relays the encounter to wasn’t fazed either.  Yet, this took place in PENNSYLVANIA. 

As someone who spent his first 26 years in New Jersey, I can tell you if a scorpion was found in your house in New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania, you’d be scratching your head and nervously asking, “what the fuck?”  Scorpions are not indigenous—they only live in the southwestern states—and aren’t regularly seen unless you work in a pet shop.  While its presence can easily be explained in the context of the movie, the characters’ reactions cannot.

House at the End of the Street

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

House at the End of the Street

Release Date:   21 September 2012                                                     Runtime:  101 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                          Rating:  3 (of 6)

Not a bad flick, but House at the End of the Street gave me a case of the blahs.  Now, had the entire movie been what the last 15 to 20 minutes were, they would have had more of a hit on their hands.

Without giving anything away, I'll simply say there were surprises I didn't see coming.  One plot hole that bothered me early on was explained near the end so it wasn't a plot hole at all.

The only thing I really didn't buy was the secret room in a secondary basement below the regular basement.  If the house was previously built, I don't see how the parents could have had it constructed secretly.  And during the course of the movie, we find out it was actually the grandfather's house inherited by the parents, which makes it even more of an anomaly.  Maybe they'd be able to pass it off somehow if it took place in Kansas and it was supposed to be protection from twisters but the setting is Pennsylvania. And, all in all, it didn't look up to par to pass as a bomb shelter either.

But, if it's a rainy blah day, you might not mind sitting through this movie.  If you want some eyecandy in the form of Jennifer Lawrence, you've got it, but I'd say if that's your pleasure, Hunger Games is more enjoyable.