Showing posts with label Reboot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reboot. Show all posts

Saturday, October 6, 2012

BONDATHON: THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

The idea of the reboot is fairly new. The concept of starting a franchise over to correct irrevocable harm done by a previous incarnation, gained a lot of prominence in the 2000's. Usually there is an all new cast, and an origin story to returns to the "edgy roots" of the franchise. In 1987, The Living Daylights became a rough template for this modern idea. This film is not the origin story it was initially conceived as, but it does shake up the cast somewhat with a new Bond (Timothy Dalton) and a new Moneypenney (Caroline Bliss) and most importantly, it captures the tone of the Ian Fleming stories better than any of the other Bonds until 2006's Casino Royale.

What's impressive about the film is it's momentum. Other Bonds have struggled integrating story and action, usually having to chose between one or the other. Living Daylights manages to have lots of action and 3 times as much story as the average Bond adventure. We meet our new Bond, as he foils Soviet assassins that have invaded a mock combat exercise. Then, before we've had a chance to recover, he's off to Czechoslovakia to help extract a KGB defector who has knowledge about a new program to kill foreign spies. But something about the whole thing seems fishy to Bond, he's dealt with the Russian general who's supposedly behind it all and he doesn't seem the type for unprovoked attacks. There's also the matter of the female cellist/sniper Bond foiled back in Czechoslovakia and the arms dealer (Joe Don Baker) and the Afghan opium ring.

The film is a bit of a coming out party for director John Glen, who directed all of the late period Moore films. But his down to earth style never fully jived with the whimsy of the Moore-era, but it does fit with Dalton. Dalton plays the role with an intensity and tenacity that are more reminiscent of Fleming's Bond than Connery's or Moore's. He's a killer and he enjoys being a killer. Very few things are as satisfying in cinema as people who enjoy being good at their jobs. Credit should also go to veteran Bond scribes Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson for actually creating a script where Bond is genuinely interested in the mystery and does proper espionage instead of bumbling about until he gets captured by the bad guy. 

The strong script keeps the films many action scenes from feeling gratuitous. The scenes are well done even if they still depend more on gimcrackery than craftsmanship. Oh, it's been a while but we also get our first real Bond gadget car since Spy Who Loved Me. I'm really surprised how rarely the series gives 007 a gadget car seeing how I grew up in the Brosnon-era where they were as obligatory as the shaken martini's. This one is an Aston Martin Vantage and it resembles the 90's Bond cars quite well, it's bullet proof, naturally, and has heat-seeking missiles, snow skids and a rocket engine. Or as Bond calls them: "extras."

While we're on the subject of formula elements, lets talk about music. After the success of the Duran Duran single for the previous film, it was decided that this film would have not one but three original songs. The title track is by a-ha (I've never heard of them either) and the other two are by The Pretenders. All of them are pretty terrible as is the score by John Barry (his last for the series). The 80's school of pop just feels so out of place in this darker, more serious Bond. At the very least it dates the film badly.

Despite some bad music, this is one of the better entries of the Bond franchise. The strong script and the darker tone is a welcome break after 7 Moore films. Dalton is a fantastic Bond and it's a pity he'll only get to do one more film.

Grade: B+

The Living Daylights is currently streaming on Netflix Instant.



Enjoy these other Bondathon entries:
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 
Diamonds Are Forever
Live and Let Die
The Man With The Golden Gun 
The Spy Who Loved Me 
Moonraker
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy  
A View To A Kill
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Casino Royale
Quantum of Solace
Skyfall

 

Sunday, July 8, 2012

BONDATHON: ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE


Bond producer's Saltzman & Broccoli had been trying to make On Her Majesty's Secret Service for a number of years. It was initially chosen to follow Goldfinger and then Thunderball but was always delayed for some reason. In the meantime Connery was growing restless. Being James Bond is tough. By the time You Only Live Twice was shooting, Sean Connery was getting tired of the whole affair, everywhere he went, he was hounded by press. There’s the famous story about Connery being followed into a bathroom by a reporter seeking an interview. On top of that, his commitment to the Bond pictures meant turning down lots of other movies. So Connery called it quits (for the moment) leaving producers in the lurch. Today the franchise would probably be rebooted with an all new cast, probably with the promise of getting back to Bond's edgy roots. But in 1969 there was no standard way to handle a situation such as this. At some point the decision was made to simply re-cast Bond and continue the series as if nothing had changed. To this end, producers selected Australian model George Lazenby to play 007 in one of the most unusual films in the Bond series, On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

In the two years since You Only Live Twice, Bond has been traveling the world looking for Super-villain Blofeld (Telly Salvalis stepping in for Donald Plesence). One night Bond is on a beach in Portugal, spying on a woman (this is Bond after all) when suddenly she tries to drown herself. He saves her. Later, he saves her again when she intentionally makes a bad bet. Her name is Tracy (Diana Rigg) and she loves danger. Women have always been a bit of an issue In the Bond cannon because they're so disposable. But Bond takes an interest in Tracy, and they fall in love. Not “action movie love” but full on “riding on horseback while Louis Armstrong plays in the background” sort of love and decide to get married. This comes in handy as Tracy’s father is a shipping magnet/criminal who has an idea on where Blofeld might be. So the now betrothed James Bond goes to Switzerland disguised as an expert on family trees and infiltrates Blofelds “allergy treatment clinic.” There are loads of beautiful women and Bond discovers that Blofeld has an evil plot to sterilize English crops and livestock using mind-control. As far as evil plots for Bond to foil go, I doubt the series will ever come up with a more natural threat for Bond to fight against than sterillty even if it isn’t his own.

The film has the potential to be one of the best Bond-films, but it also has a litany of problems. Firstly, Tracy is supposed to be the woman that Bond loves and the pivot of the whole film, but almost as soon as we really start to believe that Bond is really changing, she disappears for a good 40 minutes. She shows up again for the 3rd act and that’s all great, but her absence is felt by the audience, though not by Bond who continues to bed women like it’s 1969 (which, to be fair, it is). Bonds status as a timeless sex symbol is not served by such behavior. It's actually very typical of the Ian Fleming novels where Bond is usually introduced having some sort of interesting personal issue leaving the reader intrigued as to how Bond will deal with it... and then Fleming drops the issue as soon as Bond gets his main mission and never mentions it again (Goldfinger is the best example in which Bond experiences Spy Who Came In From The Cold level angst about his job, barely knows what country he's in and then all that is forgotten as soon as the plot shows up).


Then there’s the way he and Tracy fall in love. Tracy’s father basically offers her to him in exchange for Blofeld’s location. Why does the father do this? Because she’s too wild, “She needs a man to dominate her.” It's irritating because it really is fascinating to see Bond have something of an emotional arc. The idea of an action hero who changes and grows over the course of a series is something Hollywood is just kinda starting to figure out now with it's comic-book films (Spider-Man 2). Seeing a series attempt it in '69 is fascinating, no mater how cringe-inducing it's set-up is. 

None of this ambition is helped be Lazenby in the lead. Outside of a commercial, Lazenby had never  acted before and it shows. It’s not that Lazenby is bad, but he plays Bond too close to the Cary Grant mold that inspired the film version of the character. Connery arguably did the same thing, but added a blue-collar, rough and tumble twist to the persona. Lazenby plays Bond without such a twist, and since no one can play a better Cary Grant than Cary Grant, Lazenby just comes off as lesser right off the bat. It doesn’t help that longtime Bond screenwriter Richard Maibaum writes Lazenby’s Bond as if it where still Connery. He’s still obsessed with the temperature of his Don Peringione and able to tell you exactly where that caviar came from, never mind the continued direct references to the Connery films which do nothing but remind us that Lazenby is decidedly Not-Connery. The film spends so much time trying to convince us that this is the same Bond when it should be selling us on how great this new Bond is, even if he isn't.

At least this Bond has real hair.
Despite these serious issues, Her Majesty is still a very entertaining film. Part of it’s virtues is the direction by Peter Hunt. Hunt had edited all of the previous films and earned his chance to direct. His style can only be described as unique for this genre. It's easily the most visually striking film in the series so far

it seriously is.
He brings a dream-like, psychedelic feel to many scenes. Also, he amps up the high-speed editing style used on the previous films. Lots of sped up action and dropped frames during the action scenes. He’s not afraid to sacrifice spacial reasoning for visceral thrill. The result is still a recognizable, mainstream action film, but it does feel as if Hunt had been watching Breathless and The Prisoner (a psychedelic spy show that’s essentially the 60’s version of Lost). Also, whatever Lazenby’s issues are as a dramatic performer, it’s clear that the man is in better fighting shape than Connery was and the film reclaims the brutality that the last two entries lacked. On top of this, there are several very memorable action scenes. The opening fight on the beach is interesting. But there’s also a very extended escape from Blofeld’s compound on ski’s that’s exceptionally done and has been copied again and again (True Lies, Inception, other Bond films).  

It’s a shame that the film was made at this point in the series. To have made this film earlier, with Connery, with that ending, would have represented a huge shift in the series. What we get still suffers from a script that has no understanding of women. It's not the best Bond, but its strong, iconoclastic style, and attempts at greatness force it to rank as the best effort since Goldfinger.

Grade: B 

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is currently streaming on Netflix Instant.
Previous Bondathon entries:

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

So we’re not going to get any more Sam Raimi/Toby Maguire Spider-Man movies. They had a good run, and despite a lackluster 3rd outing, are pretty well liked. It’s ridiculous that the series is being rebooted this soon but that’s where we are and we should accept it.

The biggest reason we should accept it is that The Amazing Spider-Man is actually pretty decent. The basic strokes of the story are the same: awkward teen Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, The Social Network) gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider and develops super powers which he uses to fight crime after the death of his uncle (Martin Sheen).
The similarities to the old franchise are inescapable as they’re both adapting the same mythology, but we got a few substitutions from the old films. Instead of Mary Jane Watson, Peter’s love interest is Gwen Stacy, a science intern played by Emma Stone (Superbad). Instead of news reporter J. Jonah Jameson we get Gwen’s cop father (Dennis Leary) in the Spider-Man hating role. As for the villain, we have geneticist Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who’s research into cross-species genetics will inadvertently give Parker his powers (Oscorp labs has the worst security ever) and turn Conners into The Lizard.

The film goes into a lot more detail than the Raimi films. I liked that Spider-Man screen-prints his costume and that he builds his web shooters. He has electronic locks on his doors and is generally a tinkerer. But despite his expertise, he’s still a reckless teenager with his superpowers. This Spider-Man is more of a wise ass than I remember from the old films. I like that Spider-Man is playing games on his phone during a stake out.

Director Mark Webb (500 Days of Summer) was an odd choice to helm a big action film, but it works well enough. The action scenes are few, but all are pretty decent. There's a rescue of a child on a bridge that stands out. I really like that Spider-Man gets shot during one sequence and has to limp through the rest of the film. He also handles the dramatic aspects beautifully. Parker's parents abandoned him as a child and his need for closure drives a great deal of the film’s plot. Emma Stone is great as Gwen Stacy. I really like that Gwen is clearly smarter than Peter (who's already brilliant). She still needs to be rescued a bit, but Webb never overdoes the damsel stuff and to be fair, there is a 15 foot evil lizard out there killing people. As a vilian, Lizard feels too much like the stock Mad Scientist. He wants to change the world into Lizard people and has an evil lair in the sewers, how he avoids maintenance workers is beyond me.

Is this reboot really necessary? Not really, but it’s here and it’s fun. I'll miss the out-and-out cartoon quality of the original's but I like this version of Spider-Man, and I look forward two or three more installments in this world before we get some sort of more radical reboot. Can we get Spider-Man in space next time? Played by Donald Glover?

Grade: B

Note: there is a scene during the credits. So stick around if you want to see that, but it's not very good.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

AVENGERS RECAP: HULK/THE INCREDIBLE HULK

After the success of Iron Man, Marvel Studios went forward with the next film in their Avengers prequel project - The Incredible Hulk. The Hulk is, arguably, the most well known of the Avengers team, due to being the subject of a popular and still beloved 70's TV show. But the angry, green giant had some baggage too in the form of the 2003 film Hulk directed by acclaimed filmmaker Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). Even though Lee's film in no way ties into The Avengers, I thought it might be valuable to look at it before moving on the the main review. Those uninterested in Ang Lee's Hulk can feel free to scroll down to the second picture of the Hulk.

In Lee's Hulk, Bruce Banner (Eric Banna) is a micro-biologist trying to get along with his coworker/recent ex-girlfriend Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). One day there is a lab accident and Banner is exposed to an ultra lethal dose of Gamma radiation. He really should have been killed, but he's fine, except for the fact that he now turns into a giant, green monster whenever he gets angry. Eventually we learn that the reason that Bruce survived is that, as a child, his father David (Nick Nolte) had experimented on him giving him regenerative, absorption powers that allowed him to be transformed by the radiation rather than killed. So it's not a question of the radiation turning Bruce into something new as that it brought out something that was there all along. Late in the film David refers to the Hulk as his real son. This issue of parentage, while a wild diversion from the comics, is at the core of Lee's film. Betty also finds herself dealing with daddy issues of a different kind. Her father Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (Sam Elliot), is an over-bearing, emotionally distant army general who want's Hulk "neutralized." There is a point in the film where we realize that no matter how much they struggle, Bruce and Betty will always be living with the consequences of the choices their fathers made for them, that some shadows are too big to step out from.

Nick Nolte once quoted Ang Lee as saying about Hulk: "I don't know how to make a comic book, but I do know how to make a Greek tragedy." For better or worse, the film bares this out. Hulk is one of the most emotionally involving films of it's genre. Performances are top notch across the board. The central Bruce/Betty relationship feels real in every way (having them broken up at the start is a nice touch). Lee's use and execution of theme is impressive. Before we ever see Hulk in the flesh, we see him in Bruce's dream, not as an alter-ego, but a manifestation of repressed memory.

However, it's that very willingness to be experimental and abstract that nearly destroys the film. Lee didn't want to make a comic book film, he wanted to make a film that physically resembled a comic book. This concept takes the form of a extensive split-screens, picture-in-picture effects, and strange wipes and dissolves. At times the style is mesmerizing, at times it is disorienting, and at times you wish that Ang Lee would just pick a camera angle and stick with it! It's nice to see experimentation in a big-budget tentpole, but sometimes Lee's love of digital editing just gets ridiculous.

An actual, unaltered still from Hulk— no, really! 
It's a shame because apart from a little-loved fight with mutant dogs and some less-than-stelar (even by 2003 standards) CGI, the film's style is its biggest flaw.

But that said, Hulk has a quality to it. A tactile emotional reality that is deeper than any other superhero movie I've ever seen. I complained about Iron Man using character development as window-dressing, well Hulk does it right. Even Batman Begins doesn't get into it's protagonist's inner life as deeply as Hulk does. If Lee hadn't edited the film is such a severe style, or at least shown some more restraint, we might be talking about Hulk as one of the classics of the genre instead of as an ambitious failure.

Lee's attempt to re-invent film grammar was met with luke-warm box office receipts and extreme disappointment from fans (apparently fans really hate it when movies radically change the things they love). Afterwords, Marvel has been wary of letting big-name directors near their films. It seems that Marvel CEO/Film Producer Avi Arad would rather lock out a Christopher Nolan type than risk another Ang Lee.


To this end, Louis Leterrier (Transporter 1&2, Unleashed) was hired to direct the 2008 Avengers themed reboot: The Incredible Hulk. The new film had an all new cast and a new origin story (shown in the opening credits) more in line with the TV show/comic books. In this new version Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is still a micro-biologist, but this time he was experimenting on himself and the Gamma blast was completely intentional, less planed was the transformation into the Hulk. 

The film finds Banner hiding out in Rio. He's still on the run from General Ross (William Hurt) who want's to use Hulk as a weapon. Ross has the help of a British marine named Blonsky (Tim Roth). Eventually they find Bruce and he has to hit the road again. Bruce has been getting help from a mysterious scientist who might be able to cure him, but not without biometric data that can only be found at the university where Bruce's accident tool place. It's there that he runs into his old flame Betty Ross (now played by Liv Tyler).

As expected, there's not a really any connective tissue between Lee's film and Leterrier's film, not in story theme or ambition. Leterrier's film has nothing on it's mind other than being exactly what it is: a solid action construct with a few good laughs that periodically drops references to other Marvel properties to build anticipation for Avengers. The film is slick, well shot, well edited, it's in focus and everything. There are some nice touches: Banner wears a pulse monitor so he knows if he's close to Hulking-out. The film keeps track of time by counting "days without incident." The performances are all good enough.  Roth is especially compelling and has the only character who really shows a dramatic arc in the film.

The action scenes themselves are numerous and explosion heavy but with the exception of one, where Hulk is attacked by sound-cannons, they're all pretty dull. The real problem with The Incredible Hulk is that it's lacking soul. There's nothing here that doesn't feel off the shelf. It's not bad, but it's not blindingly good either. It's the reverse of Iron Man's problem — too much action, not enough personality.

Through the magic of corporate synergy The Incredible Hulk features several moments designed to set-up The Avengers: Nick Fury and Stark Industries are mentioned in the opening credits. The Super Soldier Serum that created Captain America plays a key part (though why it worked on Captain America and mutated Blonsky is something I'd like a comic-book fan to answer). S.H.I.E.L.D. is mentioned and Tony Stark (Iron Man himself!) shows up at the end to brief General Ross on The Avengers Initiative.

Before sitting down to re-watch the two Hulk films, I tried to see what I could remember about both films. From Ang Lee's version I remembered the crazy split screens (of course) but I also remembered the drama, the feeling of being moved by the sweep of an epic tragedy. From Louis Leterriers version I remembered the sound cannons. 

Grades:
Hulk: B+
The Incredible Hulk: C+

AVENGERS RECAP DIRECTORY:
Iron Man
Hulk/The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Captain America