Dream House

Skyfall

I’m no expert, but I do consider myself a 007 enthusiast.  During one particularly nasty winter several years ago, I was trapped indoors by a blizzard.  Since I couldn’t go anywhere, I pretty much watched TV the whole time.  It turns out that every James Bond movie ever made up to that point was available On Demand.  I watched easily about 10 movies, give or take. That means I saw all of the ones with Sean Connery and most of the ones with Roger Moore.  I’d seen the more recent entries at that point, which would have included those with Pierce Brosnan.  I’ve bored you with that anecdote so you know where I’m coming from when I say that Sean Connery remains the best to have ever ordered a martini shaken, not stirred.

Although I think Connery was the best, Daniel Craig (Dream House) has pleasantly surprised me, and I’d actually rank him in the top 3 to ever take on the iconic role.  The franchise got a reboot in 2006 when he stepped in for Casino Royale, the first book in Ian Fleming’s series.  Craig has grown on me.  He’s not traditionally handsome, and I couldn’t imagine him in the part until I saw for myself just how capable he was.  He kept momentum with Quantum of Solace, and I expected Skyfall to be nothing short of amazing.  It was pretty good, but not exactly great (to me).

There are certain things that I like about this franchise; I guess it’s my inner geek that enjoys these little hallmarks.   I like the theme, with its typically slow-motioned graphics and scantily clad silhouettes.  I also like Bond’s penchant for harrowing chases and narrow escapes.  All of that was present, but the actual storyline left a little to be desired.  When we catch up to Bond this time, he is in the midst of a hot pursuit.  The movie opened up with immediate action, and as usual Daniel Craig delivered.  Suave yet rugged, he personifies the embodiment of danger and refinement.  When Bond inadvertently gets in the crosshairs of another agent (Naomie Harris, Ninja Assassin), M (Judi Dench, J. Edgar) authorizes her to take the risky shot anyway.  She narrowly misses her intended target, wounding Bond instead.  Believing that Bond is dead, M tries to regroup.

Their grief is short-lived, as Bond resurfaces just as the Boss of the same villain he previously pursued carries out a terrorist attack on MI6.  The nefarious mastermind in question is Silva (Javier Bardem, Vicky Cristina Barcelona), a former agent with a vendetta against M.  To further foul things up, Silva also engineers the release of every active agent’s true identity.  Here we reach my primary criticism of Skyfall: the lack of originality.  A very similar plot was already featured in last summer’s The Bourne Legacy.  The first time I saw a movie where the identity of every secret agent was leaked, I was impressed.  But once something becomes trite or hackneyed, I’m no longer impressed by it.  Although I always appreciate a clear storyline, I thought the writers could have done more.   

Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) conveyed the excitement of the franchise and captured the chemistry between Daniel Craig and well…everybody.  Javier Bardem is a fine actor and made a great villain, but really – will any bad guy he portrays ever rival his turn in No Country For Old Men?  Impossible.  From a visual perspective, the movie was sleek and polished, with some really cool cinematography at certain points.  I didn’t find much fault with the film, but there have been better entrants in the series.  Overall, Skyfall won’t disappoint you Bond fans out there.  Those with a less forgiving eye may be underwhelmed, but by all accounts most people enjoyed it.   I think it’s worth checking out.  Grade: B+

The Bourne Legacy

I love Matt Damon.  I think he’s extremely talented and versatile.  His turn in The Bourne Identity convinced me that he could do nearly anything.  Prior to that movie I never would have pegged him as an action star or deadly super spy.  He ushered in that franchise and made Jason Bourne a household name.  I couldn’t imagine the series continuing without him, yet any plotline involving his character seemed to have been exhausted with the last installment in the trilogy.  Acknowledging that the Jason Bourne plot had run its course, I was receptive to a new take on the franchise.  Enter Jeremy Renner (MI: 4 Ghost Protocol), who has seen a steady increase in popularity since his award-winning turn in The Hurt Locker.

Renner stars in The Bourne Legacy as Aaron Cross, one of many covert spies working for the same entity that produced Jason Bourne years ago.  I can’t say with certainty whether this entity is a government agency or a private defense company, because I honestly can’t keep up with all the intricate plot details.  When we last saw Jason Bourne in the The Bourne Ultimatum, he was tied up with Blackbriar and Treadstone, with the on-again off-again assistance of Pamela Landy (Joan Allen).  Those covert operations are present once again in The Bourne Legacy, only this time the Powers That Be want to disavow themselves from the program all together.  This means that any agents in the field must be eliminated, as they clean house in advance of a very-much-alive Jason Bourne blowing the whistle.  Bourne knows too much and still poses a threat, especially after the way he was betrayed and hung out to dry when we last saw him.  Once the decision is made to 86 the program, past and present agents are systematically destroyed.  This includes Aaron Cross, who was enduring a hellacious training exercise when his bosses sent a missile to obliterate his wilderness checkpoint, killing a fellow agent.  Cross narrowly escapes, eventually making his way back to civilization.

Like Jason before him, Aaron is extremely resourceful and resilient.  His first order of business is to retrieve some “chems,” pills that he took to sustain himself as he completed the training exercise.  If he doesn’t get another one soon, his body may begin to shut down.  A large pharmaceutical company works with the agency in the development of its internal medicine, and Aaron must travel to the plant where it’s manufactured to retrieve some tablets.  Rachel Weisz (Dream House) features as Dr. Marta Shearing, a chemist who works for the company.  She treats the agents and has treated Aaron previously, though she doesn’t remember him.  He seeks her out in the hopes she can get him a pill, but she explains that they have been transitioning agents off the pills.  Aaron was unaware because he had been completing his training exercise and was in remote locations for several months.  His continued ingestion of the pills has made him a more physically imposing spy.  For some reason that isn’t entirely clear to me, Aaron still wants to obtain some new chems.  From what Shearing explained, it sounds like the chems aren’t necessary for his survival.  Yet Aaron is still determined to go to the plant where they are manufactured in the Philippines and get more.  If it were a life and death situation, I would understand that – but it’s not.  Aaron says something about having witnessed what happens when you go off your meds, and he doesn’t want that to happen to him.  Yeah, ok.  Furthermore, it wasn’t realistic to me that there wasn’t a single pill anywhere in the United States.  Nevertheless, Aaron must get more chems and figure out what’s going on, all while trying to evade his murderous employer.

There were some effective elements of the movie, and some that were less successful.  The aforementioned plot point annoyed me, because it just didn’t make any sense.  It’s important to know what drives your protagonist.  The need for survival is a no-brainer, and I got that.  I also understood his need to protect Dr. Shearing, once they became caught up with one another.  But why is he going to the Philippines if she just told him that he basically doesn’t need the chems anymore?  That seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to avoid withdrawal symptoms.  Aren’t you being hunted?  Shouldn’t you lay low?  Despite that plotline, there were some very good scenes – particularly a workplace shooting that occurred at the pharmaceutical company.  It was a chilling scene that had particular relevance, considering the times in which we live.  At any rate, Jeremy Renner was convincing in his role.  I can’t say that he can fill Matt Damon’s shoes just yet, but he is promising.  He nailed every physical aspect, but I didn’t get a sense of his character’s underlying personality.  Jason Bourne was a more layered, tortured character, and I feel like we only scratched the surface with Aaron Cross.  I’m willing to see what’s in store for the future.  Grade: B.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

When it comes to words, I’ll admit that I have a flair for the dramatic.  When I love something, the superlatives flow. Not too long ago I watched a movie on Netflix streaming and proclaimed it one of the best movies I’d ever seen in my life.  That’s that flair for the dramatic I was talking about.  But this time I meant it.  The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a slice of noveau noir that any Hitchcock fan would love.  Even the Swedish dialogue and English subtitles didn’t bother me, and that’s saying a lot.

Based on the popular Millennium series’ book of the same name by author Steig Larsson, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was the harrowing tale of Lisbeth Salander, a computer hacker with a disturbing psychological and criminal history.  Out on some sort of parole, she augments her legit income by moonlighting as a free-lance hacker.  In this capacity she encounters journalist Mikael Blomkvist, while performing a background check on behalf of a wealthy financier named Henrik Vanger.  Vanger wants the journalist to find his long lost niece but must ensure that Blomkvist is fit for the job, given some recent legal troubles.  Lisbeth is hacking Blomkvist, so when he begins to investigate the Vanger disappearance, she does too.  Eventually they team up for what proves to be a mysterious journey into the depths of human depravity.  Lisbeth is dark and brooding on the surface, but her exterior belies a compassion and fortitude that most of the world doesn’t see.  Fiercely resilient and protective, she is a survivor in every sense of the word.  Her physical appearance is a study in contrasts: a thin seemingly fragile frame juxtaposed with harsh piercings and a jagged Mohawk.  Jet-black hair and alabaster skin complete the shocking picture.  In turn, Blomkvist becomes an ally, friend, lover and protector.  His warmth and her initial icy disposition eventually meld together in a natural way, and their chemistry is palpable.

I apologize for rambling on like that, but I needed to convey all of these things about the original version so you’d understand why the updated version from David Fincher (The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) just doesn’t measure up.  The Swedish version was released in 2009.  Are we really remaking 2 year old movies now?  Why, because arrogant Americans can’t bear to read subtitles?  The Swedish version was amazing, and I can understand a phenomenal filmmaker like Fincher wanting to introduce the story to new audiences.  However, when something is fantastic, you have to stay true to it because it’s inherently difficult to improve something that’s already great.  There is source material to work with here.  I have not read the books in the Millennium series, but everyone says that they are fantastic.  Great literary material and a great original cinematic interpretation.  Yet I feel that Fincher found a way to come up short, by comparison.  I saw the movie with two friends who had both read the books but not seen the Swedish version.  One really liked Fincher’s take (I think b/c she had nothing to compare it to) and the other didn’t think it stayed true to the books.  That, my friends spells disappointment.

Despite my dissatisfaction with the movie itself, I want to be clear that I thought the casting and the performances were excellent.  Rooney Mara (The Social Network) and Daniel Craig (Dream House) were great in their roles.  I attribute any lack of chemistry between the two to Fincher, not to their acting.  The original movie did a better job of fleshing out each character’s background and motivation.  We understood why they were drawn to each other and why Lisbeth was so broken after all that she’d endured.  She was a tormented character, and that was not conveyed as ably in the remake.

Perhaps if I hadn’t seen the original version I could let this one stand on its own merits, but I just can’t.  Some things are better left untouched.  When I watched the original I felt like I was watching something special; it was enthralling.  This 2011 version was just another day at the movies: good, but not great.  Try to see the Swedish version first, if you haven’t read the book.  2009 version: A+ 2011 version: B