One of the best political satirical comedies in years! ‘In The Loop’ is a spin-off (kind-of) of the fantastic British comedy ‘The Thick of It’, and follows Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), a Cabinet Minister who makes a series of unfortunate slip-ups, the first is when he tells an interviewer that he believes war (always referred to as the invasion or the war, but never Iraq or potentially Afghanistan) is “unforeseeable” before telling journalists under pressure that you have to conquer a mountain of conflict on the path of peace. These mistakes place him in the middle of a diplomatic mine-field as both, the anti-war constabulary led by General Miller (James Gandolfini) and the Assistant Secretary of Diplomacy Karen Clark (Mimi Kennedy), and the gung-ho supporter of war Linton Barwick (David Rasche) - so crazy he keeps a live grenade as a paperweight - want Simon as a transatlantic partner to support their cause. Should he put his conscience or his political career first? Oh, and throw in hilariously vicious Senior British Press Office Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) and a bumbling Advisor to the minster (Toby played by Chris Addison) and you have one of the best political satires to come from Britain in years.
What makes the film work so well is the incredibly sharp witty script from a collaboration of writers that keeps the gag-per-minute counter ticking. Every meeting, confrontation political mishap is cradled with joke after joke whether they are subtle references to the cynicism and underhandedness in the current (or foregone) political climate or simply one of Malcolm Tucker’s fantastic rants – “I’m going to tear out your shinbone, split it in two and stab you to f**king death with it” - at ineptitude of everybody around him. Every actor and actress involved give solid performances as the flawed members of the tense political world. While Simon’s central story keeps the film on the ground despite a few diplomatic detours (that are still hilarious, even though they take up little of the running of time).
Armando Iannucci has already proven to the British public that he can create entertainment for the TV-masses and ‘In The Loop’ proves he also has the skills to replicate this on a wider, international, big-screen scale as well. It’s intelligent, it’s offensive, and it’s bleeding funny. See this film!
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Crank 2: High Voltage - Dir. Neveldine and Taylor
Jason Statham returns as the indestructible Chev Chelios, first they poisoned his system and now they have taken his strawberry tart (heart), and he will go to every single violent-induced length to get it back. However, despite the film being incredibly outrageous with plenty of violence, nudity and gratuitous swearing on show, the film lacks any of the charm that the first film threw in your face at a ridiculous speed.
Jason Statham pulls his one-sided acting persona of a man on a revenge-trip out of the bag (mind, he has it down to a tee now...) and the supporting cast has very little in the way of dialogue, except for when they are screaming for mercy or aiming various weapons at Statham. Yet the most interesting aspect for me was the way in which Neveldine and Taylor used various hand-held cameras to get ‘into the heart of the action’, which worked at times and created some incredibly interesting action shots, but was let down by the editing, which to me, made the majority of scenes (combined with the soundtrack) seem nothing more than extended music videos (especially with the constant juxtapositioning of parallel shots side-by-side).
‘Crank – High Voltage’ is the epitome of the ‘no-brained action flick’. It seemed as if the directors had decided to see how far they could go after the trivial success of ‘Crank’ and while the film contains every aspect available to get male testosterone pumping, and that’s all the film does. It’s more outrageous than ‘Crank’, but in no way better than the first film.
Jason Statham pulls his one-sided acting persona of a man on a revenge-trip out of the bag (mind, he has it down to a tee now...) and the supporting cast has very little in the way of dialogue, except for when they are screaming for mercy or aiming various weapons at Statham. Yet the most interesting aspect for me was the way in which Neveldine and Taylor used various hand-held cameras to get ‘into the heart of the action’, which worked at times and created some incredibly interesting action shots, but was let down by the editing, which to me, made the majority of scenes (combined with the soundtrack) seem nothing more than extended music videos (especially with the constant juxtapositioning of parallel shots side-by-side).
‘Crank – High Voltage’ is the epitome of the ‘no-brained action flick’. It seemed as if the directors had decided to see how far they could go after the trivial success of ‘Crank’ and while the film contains every aspect available to get male testosterone pumping, and that’s all the film does. It’s more outrageous than ‘Crank’, but in no way better than the first film.
Monday, 30 March 2009
The Damned United - Dir. Tom Hooper
Brian Howard Clough. “The greatest English manager never to manage the English National side.” Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, everybody knows Brian Clough was one of the great personalities of the game. Based around David Pearce’s bestselling novel ‘The Damned United’ (which Johnny Giles called: “fiction based on fact”), the films narrative follows the events preceding and during those fateful 44-days of management from the perspective of Cloughie (played by Michael Sheen).
Sheen turns in, yet another brilliant performance as the arrogant, stubborn, distant, bitter, intelligent, yet highly flawed man who went on to become a legend of British football. From his mannerisms to the way he speaks, Sheen projects the outward personality of Brian Clough through to the audience to a tee. And more importantly he takes the film away from the touchlines of simply being ‘another football film’, and instead creates a human drama about one man’s battle with jealously, bitterness and ambition and how that can destroy everything around you, quicker than Billy Bremner could break your legs. While Morgan’s script keeps up the dry wit and humour, and Hooper’s direction carries the colourful scenery of 1960’s and 1970’s Britain, the film could have spent more time centred around the other players on the pitch, more specifically Clough’s second in-command in Peter Taylor and the Leeds United side of the Revie era. They are shown to be Revie’s surrogate sons and nothing more. With that said however, I found it a hugely enjoyable film that went way beyond the stereotypical association we have football films today and instead created a profile of a man who encompassed everything that was good, bad and all that in between about the beautiful game.
Sheen turns in, yet another brilliant performance as the arrogant, stubborn, distant, bitter, intelligent, yet highly flawed man who went on to become a legend of British football. From his mannerisms to the way he speaks, Sheen projects the outward personality of Brian Clough through to the audience to a tee. And more importantly he takes the film away from the touchlines of simply being ‘another football film’, and instead creates a human drama about one man’s battle with jealously, bitterness and ambition and how that can destroy everything around you, quicker than Billy Bremner could break your legs. While Morgan’s script keeps up the dry wit and humour, and Hooper’s direction carries the colourful scenery of 1960’s and 1970’s Britain, the film could have spent more time centred around the other players on the pitch, more specifically Clough’s second in-command in Peter Taylor and the Leeds United side of the Revie era. They are shown to be Revie’s surrogate sons and nothing more. With that said however, I found it a hugely enjoyable film that went way beyond the stereotypical association we have football films today and instead created a profile of a man who encompassed everything that was good, bad and all that in between about the beautiful game.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Watchmen - Dir. Zack Snyder
Decades in movie purgatory. Years in production. Months of anticipation. Zack Snyder’s film adaption of the graphic novel ‘Watchmen’, once deemed ‘unfilmable’ by Terry Gilliam, has finally hit theatres across the globe, and its hit them like a sucker-punch to Alan Moore’s groin. With the most important question at the forefront of proceedings being, not who would be watching the Watchmen, but who would enjoy the Watchmen. Would the source material be sacrificed for a larger potential general audience, or would they be alienated due to the faithfulness of the adaption? I myself would say the latter, to an extent...
Zack Snyder’s biggest achievement of the ‘Watchmen’ project has been his ability to replicate Alan Moore’s source material as close-as-humanly possible. He has shown that while the project was clearly not ‘unfilmable’, it was, and always will be impossible to replicate a motion-picture clone of the graphic novel to an idealised reader’s perception of perfection. However this did not stop Snyder from creating a film as faithful to the novel as we are most likely ever to see. It also did not stop him from alienating the potential move-going public outside of the Watchmen universe. The ‘Watchmen’ set in an alternative 1985, follows a group of second-generation (first generation were called the ‘Minutemen’) vigilante’s who prowl the streets to keep society in order, however after the 1977 Keene Act was passed (it prohibited vigilantism), some members decided to retire and ‘live normal lives’, others built empires upon their fame, while the film’s main protagonist (to an extent) Rorschach has decided to disobey the law and continue his acts of vigilantism against the evils in society. However, the group is drawn back together when one of the members known as ‘The Comedian’ is murdered in cold blood. Is someone or something hunting down the masked-avengers? Or is something more sinister afoot? And so the Watchmen experience begins.
The film conveys a linear narrative which in-turn and in due course examines the backgrounds and motivations behind the ‘main’ characters allowing those with no knowledge of the alternative period in which the novel is set to become acquainted, to an extent (which is down to how much the audience is willing to hand the film and receive back), with the new world in-front of them. That is not to say the film is perfectly paced and layered, at times the action is split between two contrasting events which can send the viewer from solemn conversation to vicious, blood and guts violence in a matter of seconds creating a complex structure which may have certain viewers scratching their heads slightly. However, this is one of those inevitable problems that come with trying to reproduce the source material as naturally as possible.
Even the most stubborn admirer of cinema and the world around the medium must recognize the beautifully stylised scenery of the near-apocalyptic society in which the film is set. Pop-culture references abound, the streets lined with disgust, animosity and the raving magnitude of the conflicting personalities of the Watchmen members. While the sets, props and costumes draw you into a world of awe and astonishment, the brutality of the choreographed violence on-screen almost throws the audience off-balance and takes the viewer even closer into a world they may or may not have been familiar with. With the use of slow-motion in the various critical action sequences, Snyder allows the audience to take in every detail of every punch, of every strike and of every grimace of pain. Even those with the iron-clad stomachs may feel the need to turn and shudder as a meat clever is dropped into the suspecting skull of a local criminal. This is the Watchmen after-all, and they don’t do things by half.
This is an alternative, dystopian future and thus deserves characters with such ominous flaws and attributes that would accompany such a rich, illustrated world. The United States of America and the Soviet Union are at the heights of Cold War tension, with doomsday on an ever gloomy horizon, despite the emergence of the one, true superhero among the ranks of the Watchmen members. Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a blue, shimmering being of infinite power, who can distort the rules of nature i.e. large-scale teleportation and who also single-handedly, won the United States the war in Vietnam (which allowed Nixon a third term in office). Behind the glistening body of Dr Manhattan, you have Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), a billionaire entrepreneur and self-proclaimed ‘smartest man in the world’, who is one of the few Watchmen members to release their identity after the Keene Act and build an empire upon this image. The sexy ‘Silk Spectre II’ (also known as Laurie Jupiter) is portrayed by Malin Ackerman, the latex-costumed female of the group who took over from her mother who was in the first generation ‘Minutemen’ (Sally Jupiter played by Carla Gugino) and despite her relatively large role in the sub-plot with ‘Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg’ (Patrick Wilson), her performance at many times falls flat emotionally and she is weakest character in film full of strong, male performances. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is ‘The Comedian’, a twisted individual murdered at the beginning of the film, a man with a mutated conscience and morals who strives on the ability to get a job done at any cost. While Patrick Wilson as the second ‘Nite Owl’ and Jackie Earle Haley as ‘Rorschach’ give the most vivid performances as two complex characters, one a man fighting to find his identity beyond his persona as a crime-fighting vigilante dressed as an Owl and another without an identity, a hollow-shell of a human being who has lost faith in humanity and the emotions and logical conventions which make us human beings. ‘Rorschach’ is the closest towards a protagonist we are shown in the film and the graphic novel, because in this mutilated society, there are no heroes left.
After watching the ‘Watchmen’ film I was left with a profound sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. Of course this wasn’t perfection in the art film-making, the film had its visible flaws which is inevitable for any film of such a large-scale magnitude, however these were unnoticeable when I was drawn into the story, the lives of the characters on-screen. I had only previously read about the characters and their motivations in the dystopian world in which the Watchmen film is set, but to see them alive in such a visual spectacle, roaming, fighting, embracing, engaging, was nothing short of a joy to watch. And for those that have not read the graphic novel, and have reservations about seeing and ultimately being able to ‘understand’ and take pleasure in Alan Moore’s Watchmen universe in two hours and forty minutes, I say this; just give the film a chance, and I guarantee you will enjoy it in one aspect or another at least, because today a Comedian died...
Zack Snyder’s biggest achievement of the ‘Watchmen’ project has been his ability to replicate Alan Moore’s source material as close-as-humanly possible. He has shown that while the project was clearly not ‘unfilmable’, it was, and always will be impossible to replicate a motion-picture clone of the graphic novel to an idealised reader’s perception of perfection. However this did not stop Snyder from creating a film as faithful to the novel as we are most likely ever to see. It also did not stop him from alienating the potential move-going public outside of the Watchmen universe. The ‘Watchmen’ set in an alternative 1985, follows a group of second-generation (first generation were called the ‘Minutemen’) vigilante’s who prowl the streets to keep society in order, however after the 1977 Keene Act was passed (it prohibited vigilantism), some members decided to retire and ‘live normal lives’, others built empires upon their fame, while the film’s main protagonist (to an extent) Rorschach has decided to disobey the law and continue his acts of vigilantism against the evils in society. However, the group is drawn back together when one of the members known as ‘The Comedian’ is murdered in cold blood. Is someone or something hunting down the masked-avengers? Or is something more sinister afoot? And so the Watchmen experience begins.
The film conveys a linear narrative which in-turn and in due course examines the backgrounds and motivations behind the ‘main’ characters allowing those with no knowledge of the alternative period in which the novel is set to become acquainted, to an extent (which is down to how much the audience is willing to hand the film and receive back), with the new world in-front of them. That is not to say the film is perfectly paced and layered, at times the action is split between two contrasting events which can send the viewer from solemn conversation to vicious, blood and guts violence in a matter of seconds creating a complex structure which may have certain viewers scratching their heads slightly. However, this is one of those inevitable problems that come with trying to reproduce the source material as naturally as possible.
Even the most stubborn admirer of cinema and the world around the medium must recognize the beautifully stylised scenery of the near-apocalyptic society in which the film is set. Pop-culture references abound, the streets lined with disgust, animosity and the raving magnitude of the conflicting personalities of the Watchmen members. While the sets, props and costumes draw you into a world of awe and astonishment, the brutality of the choreographed violence on-screen almost throws the audience off-balance and takes the viewer even closer into a world they may or may not have been familiar with. With the use of slow-motion in the various critical action sequences, Snyder allows the audience to take in every detail of every punch, of every strike and of every grimace of pain. Even those with the iron-clad stomachs may feel the need to turn and shudder as a meat clever is dropped into the suspecting skull of a local criminal. This is the Watchmen after-all, and they don’t do things by half.
This is an alternative, dystopian future and thus deserves characters with such ominous flaws and attributes that would accompany such a rich, illustrated world. The United States of America and the Soviet Union are at the heights of Cold War tension, with doomsday on an ever gloomy horizon, despite the emergence of the one, true superhero among the ranks of the Watchmen members. Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a blue, shimmering being of infinite power, who can distort the rules of nature i.e. large-scale teleportation and who also single-handedly, won the United States the war in Vietnam (which allowed Nixon a third term in office). Behind the glistening body of Dr Manhattan, you have Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), a billionaire entrepreneur and self-proclaimed ‘smartest man in the world’, who is one of the few Watchmen members to release their identity after the Keene Act and build an empire upon this image. The sexy ‘Silk Spectre II’ (also known as Laurie Jupiter) is portrayed by Malin Ackerman, the latex-costumed female of the group who took over from her mother who was in the first generation ‘Minutemen’ (Sally Jupiter played by Carla Gugino) and despite her relatively large role in the sub-plot with ‘Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg’ (Patrick Wilson), her performance at many times falls flat emotionally and she is weakest character in film full of strong, male performances. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is ‘The Comedian’, a twisted individual murdered at the beginning of the film, a man with a mutated conscience and morals who strives on the ability to get a job done at any cost. While Patrick Wilson as the second ‘Nite Owl’ and Jackie Earle Haley as ‘Rorschach’ give the most vivid performances as two complex characters, one a man fighting to find his identity beyond his persona as a crime-fighting vigilante dressed as an Owl and another without an identity, a hollow-shell of a human being who has lost faith in humanity and the emotions and logical conventions which make us human beings. ‘Rorschach’ is the closest towards a protagonist we are shown in the film and the graphic novel, because in this mutilated society, there are no heroes left.
After watching the ‘Watchmen’ film I was left with a profound sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. Of course this wasn’t perfection in the art film-making, the film had its visible flaws which is inevitable for any film of such a large-scale magnitude, however these were unnoticeable when I was drawn into the story, the lives of the characters on-screen. I had only previously read about the characters and their motivations in the dystopian world in which the Watchmen film is set, but to see them alive in such a visual spectacle, roaming, fighting, embracing, engaging, was nothing short of a joy to watch. And for those that have not read the graphic novel, and have reservations about seeing and ultimately being able to ‘understand’ and take pleasure in Alan Moore’s Watchmen universe in two hours and forty minutes, I say this; just give the film a chance, and I guarantee you will enjoy it in one aspect or another at least, because today a Comedian died...
Friday, 26 December 2008
Slumdog Millionaire - Dir. Danny Boyle
“If you get the answer wrong Jamal, you lose everything.”
Danny Boyle is back behind the camera with a change of scenery and a story of one slumdog's rise from nothing to something in the blink of an eye on the Hindi version of 'Who Wants To Be Millionaire'. Nobody believes what is happening, not the presenter, nor the police, however as Jamal Malik continues to defy convention by getting question after question right, we are not only watching a potential millionaire in the works, but are also thrown into the distant journey of his past. With one question separating Jamal from an astounding 20 million rupees, one question remains; why is Jamal really on the show?
‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is a story of love, life, family, poverty and ultimately one man’s rise from the foundations of dirt to the creation of gold through life itself. In a world where wealth can be won in an instant, it is only those who strive for the inspiration and delve into their own determined mind that can achieve this, which Jamal is, an underdog. And we all know how much we love to connect-to and adopt an underdog no matter whom, why or where he or she is.
From the first scenes where we see Jamal being tortured in the Police Station as he is held in the same contempt as a common thief to the final suspense fuelled moment, Danny Boyle manages to tug on every heart string available to viewer all at a swift pace. From heart-warming entertaining scenes, such as when Jamal and his brother Salim pretend to be Taj Mahal tour guides to the foreign tourists, we are juggernauted and catapulted into the emotional opposite with Jamal constantly fighting the demons keeping him apart from the only girl that brings to a smile away. It is this constant emotional battle that keeps our eyes open and our mind ticking. Why? Because we simply want to know how Jamal got there and where he is now headed.
Danny Boyle is almost flawless in his melodramatic direction of ‘Slumdog’; he allows the film to build without ever dragging out a section of the film to the point where you wish Jamal would stop ‘reminiscing’. However I mustn’t overlook the other technical and stylistic aspects which allowed this film to flourish, most importantly Anthony Mandle’s beautiful cinematography of the various contrasting lands of India and Chris Dickens smoothly worked editing guarantee that the brilliantly written script from Simon Beaufoy flows effortlessly into creating a wonderful modern fairytale that will by the end make you laugh, smile or cry, or all three.
When I first heard Danny Boyle, the director of Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Sunshine among others, was attached to direct a Romantic Drama set within the deep confines of Indian culture and society, I laughed. However it’s Boyle who is having the last laugh, as he has created a chilling, yet warm, frightening, yet uplifting film that touches upon pretty much every human emotional response available, but will definitely leave you exiting the cinema with one feeling fresh in your mind and your gut; that you have seen something special.
Danny Boyle is back behind the camera with a change of scenery and a story of one slumdog's rise from nothing to something in the blink of an eye on the Hindi version of 'Who Wants To Be Millionaire'. Nobody believes what is happening, not the presenter, nor the police, however as Jamal Malik continues to defy convention by getting question after question right, we are not only watching a potential millionaire in the works, but are also thrown into the distant journey of his past. With one question separating Jamal from an astounding 20 million rupees, one question remains; why is Jamal really on the show?
‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is a story of love, life, family, poverty and ultimately one man’s rise from the foundations of dirt to the creation of gold through life itself. In a world where wealth can be won in an instant, it is only those who strive for the inspiration and delve into their own determined mind that can achieve this, which Jamal is, an underdog. And we all know how much we love to connect-to and adopt an underdog no matter whom, why or where he or she is.
From the first scenes where we see Jamal being tortured in the Police Station as he is held in the same contempt as a common thief to the final suspense fuelled moment, Danny Boyle manages to tug on every heart string available to viewer all at a swift pace. From heart-warming entertaining scenes, such as when Jamal and his brother Salim pretend to be Taj Mahal tour guides to the foreign tourists, we are juggernauted and catapulted into the emotional opposite with Jamal constantly fighting the demons keeping him apart from the only girl that brings to a smile away. It is this constant emotional battle that keeps our eyes open and our mind ticking. Why? Because we simply want to know how Jamal got there and where he is now headed.
Danny Boyle is almost flawless in his melodramatic direction of ‘Slumdog’; he allows the film to build without ever dragging out a section of the film to the point where you wish Jamal would stop ‘reminiscing’. However I mustn’t overlook the other technical and stylistic aspects which allowed this film to flourish, most importantly Anthony Mandle’s beautiful cinematography of the various contrasting lands of India and Chris Dickens smoothly worked editing guarantee that the brilliantly written script from Simon Beaufoy flows effortlessly into creating a wonderful modern fairytale that will by the end make you laugh, smile or cry, or all three.
When I first heard Danny Boyle, the director of Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Sunshine among others, was attached to direct a Romantic Drama set within the deep confines of Indian culture and society, I laughed. However it’s Boyle who is having the last laugh, as he has created a chilling, yet warm, frightening, yet uplifting film that touches upon pretty much every human emotional response available, but will definitely leave you exiting the cinema with one feeling fresh in your mind and your gut; that you have seen something special.
Friday, 28 November 2008
Waltz With Bashir - Ari Folman (2008)
It's rare that I usually leave the cinema speechless, before engaging in hours (literally) of discussion with those around me, but 'Waltz With Bashir' is no ordinary film for no ordinary audience. Emotionally enthralling, yet uneasily shocking, 'Bashir' follows director Ari Folman as he visits various friends and foes trying to rekindle the memories he has forgotten of the Israeli-Lebanon War in 1982. Shot in memorizing animated visuals, it is a thought-provoking ride through the rediscovery of one man's forgotten nightmares.
From the opening surrealist shot of twenty-six dogs rabidly racing down the Tel Aviv streets towards the 'dreamers' (Ari's friend) home, to the ending where the animation is sacrificed for a few short minutes to show the real, unaltered horrors of the Sabra and Shatila massacre from news reels and archive footage. Surrealism is constantly mixed with the truth, making you wonder, what did Ari really want to find out and to what end? Is this all he and those remembered, or what there memories would allow them to keep encapsulated.
A frighteningly stark look at a young soldiers life, and how war can effect everybody involved, not just those remembered as a statistic on a board of casualties. As we delve further into his regained memories, we are made to wonder, is this journey exercising his demons, or simply just reigniting them? With the stunning visuals keeping you emotionally at arms length, detracting you from the events, before quickly dragging you back in with a horrifically haunting ending.
'Waltz With Bashir' is compelling, thought-provoking viewing.
From the opening surrealist shot of twenty-six dogs rabidly racing down the Tel Aviv streets towards the 'dreamers' (Ari's friend) home, to the ending where the animation is sacrificed for a few short minutes to show the real, unaltered horrors of the Sabra and Shatila massacre from news reels and archive footage. Surrealism is constantly mixed with the truth, making you wonder, what did Ari really want to find out and to what end? Is this all he and those remembered, or what there memories would allow them to keep encapsulated.
A frighteningly stark look at a young soldiers life, and how war can effect everybody involved, not just those remembered as a statistic on a board of casualties. As we delve further into his regained memories, we are made to wonder, is this journey exercising his demons, or simply just reigniting them? With the stunning visuals keeping you emotionally at arms length, detracting you from the events, before quickly dragging you back in with a horrifically haunting ending.
'Waltz With Bashir' is compelling, thought-provoking viewing.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Quantum of Solace - Marc Forster (2008)
The problem with 'Quantum of Solace' was always the expectation the fantastic series re-boot 'Casino Royale' bestowed upon the Bond faction, however if you manage to avoid trying to place both films side-by-side, then you'll enjoy 'QoS' a lot more for what it is, a decent romp of an action-flick that deserves to be in any Bond aficionados collection.
'QoS' continues literally straight on from the end of 'Casino Royale' as Bond is on a mission for vengeance, and we are thrust straight into the action from the very beginning with a stunning car chase, the pace is set. From then on, we follow Bond across the globe as he jumps from country to country trying to find out just what the 'organisation' is and what they're up to while managing to destroy everything in his past(oh and there's a little residing hatred from the death of Vesper).
Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko both deliver strong performances as two characters drawn together over the notion of retribution and Mathieu Amalric is surprisingly chilling as the humanised antagonist in a universe usually populated by the slightly exuberant villain. And with a smart script to-boot, one of 'QoS' strongest area's is also it's weakest. While the high octane action is fast, violent and frenetic, it is also incredibly disjointed by Forster's use of quick editing and his inability to judge what shots create thrill-seeking enjoyment and others that just cause confusion in the way that you don't know what you've just seen.
With all being said, I enjoyed 'Quantum of Solace', it was a decent action flick that ticked most of the conceptual boxes on what a Bond film should contain.
'QoS' continues literally straight on from the end of 'Casino Royale' as Bond is on a mission for vengeance, and we are thrust straight into the action from the very beginning with a stunning car chase, the pace is set. From then on, we follow Bond across the globe as he jumps from country to country trying to find out just what the 'organisation' is and what they're up to while managing to destroy everything in his past(oh and there's a little residing hatred from the death of Vesper).
Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko both deliver strong performances as two characters drawn together over the notion of retribution and Mathieu Amalric is surprisingly chilling as the humanised antagonist in a universe usually populated by the slightly exuberant villain. And with a smart script to-boot, one of 'QoS' strongest area's is also it's weakest. While the high octane action is fast, violent and frenetic, it is also incredibly disjointed by Forster's use of quick editing and his inability to judge what shots create thrill-seeking enjoyment and others that just cause confusion in the way that you don't know what you've just seen.
With all being said, I enjoyed 'Quantum of Solace', it was a decent action flick that ticked most of the conceptual boxes on what a Bond film should contain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)