In 2015, I listed Alex Garland's debut directorial effort as my favorite film of the year. It was a provocative science fiction film that had big ideas and themes to build around. It reminded me of a lot of 70s science fiction films and the ending was a bit nihilistic. like the three Charlton Heston sci fi films of that era. I waited on his second film "Annihilation", because something in the marketing warned me that it was going to be a tough go. I watched it finally, just a few days ago and my instinct was correct. "Annihilation" is beautifully mounted and skillfully assembled, but the story feels incomplete and there is not an discernable theme to pull it together. I don't need the theme to hit me over the head but when it is so obtuse that I don't care to think about it, I believe the film maker has come up short. That brings us to his newest film, "Men". Will this be a thought provoking horror film, one that potentially says something about the title subject, or will this be an exercise in abstraction, satisfying only those who have enough imagination to impose an idea on the film?
Let me make a couple of comparisons for you that might make my point clearer. Robert Eggers has directed two films that I have come to loathe, because of his instance that internal logic and a plot are less important than mood and exaggerated characterizations. David Lowery, made a movie that I loved, a reimagining of "Pete's Dragon", that mixed sadness with hope and a clear story. He then followed it with the acutely dense, slow and cryptic "A Ghost Story" and last years "The Green Knight", both of which have much going for them, except a point. I'm afraid that Alex Garland has joined their cult of artistic ambiguity and instead of prompting thought, his films now stimulate irritation. "Men" is a horror film that works on atmosphere in the first two acts, and then revulsion in the third, all in aid of shrugged shoulders as some might ponder what it was all about, and others ponder why they bothered.
The set up of a woman, damaged by a marriage that ended in a tragically ugly way, seeking solace in the countryside, seems perfectly fine as a starting point. There is a juxtaposition of beauty in the natural countryside with the ugliness of people she encounters in the small village and the manor house that she has leased for a few weeks. It won't take you too long to figure out why all of the men she encounters become increasingly creepy. The subtle similarities are there for us to catch on to, and that is great, but it is not clear why her fears are manifesting in this manner. There is a very strong suggestion that all of this is a projection of her feelings about her husband and their relationship, but there are also signs and evidence that this is far from just a mental breakdown, and in fact there is a malevolence that is imposing itself on her in real life. I don't see a third way to explain what is going on and the bifurcation of sources here is never really resolved which is very deflating to the film. When a final character appears at the very end, there is another element that evokes possible meaning, but the strain that you would have to go through to get there is not worth the effort.
If there is anything to recommend the film more positively, it is the three pronged fork of Rory Kinnear, Jessie Buckley, and the special effects team that does dramatic work in the last act. Kinnear is a prolific television actor in British episodic programs. He has been best known to me as Bill Tanner, "M"'s Chief of Staff in the James Bond films of Daniel Craig. Here he manifests some startlingly different character traits, across a plethora of opportunities. It is best to let you discover those on your own if you are inclined to see the film. Jessie Buckley has captivated me since "Wild Rose" and her character here is vastly different than that role. Harper, the woman Buckley portrays, is emotionally fragile but also self sufficient and a bit stubborn. She can scream with the best of them, but she can also fight back, and in an interesting way at the end, her battle is the most passive strategy you can imagine. I'm not sure it makes sense, but she sells it. Finally, if you are a fan of body horror and creatively grotesque visual effects, the climax of the film will impress you as far as the gore facto is concerned. There is a Russian style nest of dolls sequence which will nauseate you enough to at least get an ick factor out of this horror film.
The aggressively woke title of the film, seems to mean nothing in the long run. If you were expecting a political or social commentary from the film, prepare to be disappointed. At best, the theme of one man's obsessive possessiveness , is cloudy. It might be there, or it might just be a figment of your imagination. Whoa, that's the same problem as the whole film, imagine that.
I'm not sure there is a better way for a teetotaler like me to celebrate St. Patrick's Day than to spend two hours immersed in Irish countryside with two great stars of the past. Skip the Blarney Stone and shamrocks, give me John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in John Ford's "The Quiet Man" and I will feel like I have been transported to Ireland for a short time on this day.
John Wayne was the biggest star in movies for years and that is in large part due to his many appearances in Westerns. He made other types of films as well, War Movies, Historical Dramas but undoubtedly, his greatest role outside of the oaters was as Sean Thornton, in this 1950 classic which is basically a romantic comedy. Paired with Maureen O'Hara for the second of their five on-screen performances, the two of them really manage to convey sexual chemistry in an otherwise staid setting. There is a moment when they are trapped by the rain in a ruin of a church, where she accepts his jacket for warmth and his white shirt clings to him as it gets wet, she seems to be doing the same thing.
While the romance is supplied by Wayne and O'Hara, the comedy is supplied by the cast of supporting players in a variety of ways. Barry Fitzgerald as Michaleen Oge Flynn, cabbie and matchmaker, has a dozen wisecracks that will make you smile and a sly take on all the romantic goings on. Ward Bond, Mildred Natwick and Victor McLagen all provide moments of laughter as well, and the dozens of townsfolk all add in their two cents here and there. It's certainly not politically correct but it is funny when a local woman provides Sean Thornton with a stick that he can use to beat his wife. As usual, context is king, so watch the scene before you judge.
This really is a cultural journey as well into the country traditions of Irish courtship. One of the big conflicts concerns Sean's unwillingness to press the issue of Mary Kate's dowry payment. It is a big enough issue of face to her, that she refrains from the marital bed in spite of clearly longing for the physical presence of Sean. That it is resolved by her chucking the cash away after it has been obtained shows that the money was not the point but her status was. Of course no one other than the Protestant Minister knows the reason that Sean is reticent to raise a fist to his brother in law, and that probably contributes to the culture clash even more. An American audience would probably see the issue Sean's way, but he has to finally understand it from her perspective, which is what a real marriage is about anyway, and shows that they truly do belong together.
John Ford won his fourth Oscar for Best director for this film and it is easy to see why. The romance, although nearly instantaneous in attraction, still plays out over the course of the film, letting us get to know the two characters really well. There is just enough time with the townsfolk for them to be seen as charming rather than overbearing, and frankly the movie looks gorgeous. As Sean and Mary Kate escape their chaperone on a tandem bike and ride around the countryside, it is easy to see how someone could fall in love with a place and wish to be transported there. For the length of the film, that's what Ford manages to do, put us in the Ireland of our imagination and make us fall in love. Happy St. Patrick's Day all.
I have seen several comments in social media over the past few months, which question the need for a new Batman movie. That is a little understandable since the character has been trotted out a dozen times or more in the last thirty years and the D.C. Extended Universe has not made the best use of the character possible. That last bit has been rendered obsolete by the latest film which does in fact make "The Batman" a relevant character and which manages to give him something a lot more interesting to do than battle interdimensional beings from outer space. Instead of trying to fit Batman into a super hero story modelled after the MCU Infinity war, director Matt Reeves and co-writer Peter Craig have set him in what may be the most realistic version of Gotham City we have seen in the movies and given him a task that doesn't require technology from the future.
It seems that every iteration of the caped crusader in the last couple of decades has gotten grimmer and grimmer, and this is the current end point. The Batman is facing a job that makes him the equivalent of Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman in the movie "Se7en", he must track down a serial killer who has a hidden motive and a set of elaborate clues that he leaves behind. This story goes to some bad places, and it might be appropriate to nickname our hero "The Darker Knight". The killings are gruesome, the clues are also pretty forbidding. We are spared seeing some of the crimes, but we do see enough to be put off by the actions of the villain, even though some of the victims seem deserving of some kind of retribution. The killer is known as The Riddler because he leaves clues that are language puzzles, for the Batman to figure out. For two thirds of the film, the character is only seen in a get up designed to limit any forensic clues and to hide his face. There is a vocal performance but it may be enhanced through audio technology. When actor Paul Dano finally appears on screen as the character, he sparks up the movie considerably, having been built up so well in the first couple of acts, his mild mannered dementia is plenty creepy even though he is not a physical threat to the hero.
This story is set relatively early in the career of "The Batman", and we don't get the usual origin story, we are simply dropped into the set up as if these activities have been going on for a while. Lt. Gordon has a tentative working relationship with the masked vigilante, and that connection is resented by most of the cops but the authority of Gordon allows Batman into crime scenes where he is both forensic investigator and profiler. This film could aptly ne subtitled "C.S.I. Gotham". The puzzles are sometimes answered quickly by our title character but just as often, he and Gordon struggle to come up with solutions and they follow a macabre path to the next clue to try and bring them closer to the killer. Gordon is played by Jeffery Wright, who is making a career out of playing second fiddle to the main characters in films (see James Bond and The Hunger Games). His low key persona and low modulated voice are good counterparts to the title character. "The Batman" is played by Robert Pattinson, who seems to have shed the "Twilight" baggage and is building a very credible resume of films, including "Tenet" from two years ago. Usually, the actor cast in this role gets his best moments as Bruce Wayne, but this is the least Bruce Wayne heavy Batman film I have seen. Wayne is a secondary character and The Batman is front and center for the key events in the movie. The Wayne Family plays a more prominent role in the film than Bruce himself does.
Gotham is a dark place with lots of evil around every corner, but much like the Nolan Trilogy of films, the city looks fairly normal, except for the fact that no one turns on a light and it rains almost continuously. The thing that is disturbing is how much the corruption, feckless law enforcement, and gang related violence shown in the movie, mirrors the cities like Chicago. It is taken as a given that the politicians are craven tools of special interests, in this case the mob. Two characters that are known to officials, including the police, but for which no one seems able to do anything about are Carmine Falcone and his underboss known as The Penguin. It is an open secret that they run the city and why The Batman and Gordon should be surprised at who all turns up as a victim of the Riddler is unclear. The targets are pretty well marked. The Riddler is starting at the top of the Official List and working his way down. What is a surprise is how easily one of the victims fall prey to the serial killer when he should know that his role in the crime world is connected to the first two victims. The part of the Penguin was secondary, but it was significant enough to draw Colin Farrell to it, even though he is unrecognizable in costume and make-up. As a lynchpin to the story he does have a very solid sequence that includes our introduction to the new version of the Batmobile.
The movie looks great when seen on a big screen, I am less confident that it will translate to home viewing, unless home audiences are willing to change the settings on their televisions in some dramatic ways to see what the hell is going on on screen. For a nearly three hour movie, there are not as many action set pieces as you might expect, although there are plenty of hand to hand fistfights where Batman punches the crap out of dozens of opponents. It's not quite at John Wick levels of preposterousness. Pattinson's Batman has a temper and he definitely takes it out on the bad guys. When he punches someone in the face, he is not doing so indifferently, he means to punish them, without necessarily killing them. There are no real light moments in the film, but the presence of "Catwoman" Zoë Kravitz, does give us some quiet moments with a hint of romance. Her character is like Farrell, a keystone for the story but not a main character. Wright and Pattinson are the dynamic duo in this film and Dano is the formidable opponent. There is a hidden villain who shines in the few scenes he gets and that is John Turturrow's Falcone. Be aware that there is a surprise plot turn in the last half hour of the film, That storyline is only partially set up and it feels a little tacked on, although is is explained in a very effective way.
Some people have gone so far as to say this is the best Batman film ever, and have even called it a masterpiece. I can't go quite that far but it is top tier and on a par with the Nolan trilogy, but be warned, the seriousness of the plot up until that final turn, will remind you more of "The Silence of the Lambs" than any previous Batman film. Not a lot of humor, but some good characters effectively realized and a main plot that is driven more by detective work than the action man with the marvelous toys.
The usual top ten list for the previous year was split up between theatrical and streaming because theaters were closed and product was sparse. Although everything is still not as it once was, I can say things are better and we return this year to a list of films that were seen for the first time in theaters. There were a number of movies on the list that could be accessed at home, but this site continues to be devoted to an "in-theater" experience for the most part. I may make mention of a couple of streaming products, but most of those were not covered on the site before so there will be no link to a review for them.
Ten Favorite Films of 2021
As I have said in the past, my opinion on the list reflects my reaction to a film, not always it's aesthetic qualities, although those often line up.
10. The King's Man
I have loved all of Matthew Vaughn's films. Last year I participated in a podcast reviewing his work and discussing with the hosts whether he qualifies as an auteur. You can find that discussion on The Popcorn Auteur at this link: Here. The films in this series have usually been frenetic exercises in action and violence, laced with a heavy dose of humor. "Kingsmen: The Secret Service" is basically an absurdist James Bond fantasy that is well aware that it is exactly that. "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" did what a sequel usually does, expand the universe that it is operating in and adding characters that we will want to see in further entries. "The King's Man" goes in a different direction. In essence it is an origin story of the organization that we were introduced to in the first two films. It is a clever mix of the fictional with authentic history. There are some absurd concepts here, like the idea that Mati Hari seduced Woodrow Wilson, but it is kind of in keeping with the way U.S. Presidents have been portrayed in the other two movies, so it least Vaughn is consistent.
The film has not received the same enthusiasm from critics and audiences as the first film did, but I found it to be very entertaining and I was happy it finally got a release. The movie has been ready for two years and it finally escaped Covid jail during the recent holiday season.
9. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is gearing up the next phase in their agenda, and that requires new heroes to step in for the departing leads in the Avenger's films. Captain America, Iron Man, and Black Widow are now off stage.
The Hulk appears to be semi-retired, but Thor is coming back and the second wave of Marvel Universe heroes are still kicking around. "Shang-Chi" introduces a new character to the films, a sort of magical Bruce Lee character who gets an origin story in this film from the very end of the Summer season. The story is really solid, and we get some characters that will be fun in small does as well as the main lead who is great. The villain in the stury is also excellent, and is played by a respected Asian actor with a long history of good films, Tony Chiu-Wai Leung.
There was a lot of enthusiasm on the Lambcast when we covered this in September. The film also seemed to open the valves a little on the slowly awakening box office.
8. Nightmare Alley (2021)
I need to include the year of release here because this film is a remake of a noir classic that came out in 1947, and we would not want the two of them to be confused with one another. Admittedly, that is unlikely because the current version is directed by Guillermo del Toro, who has an incredible eye, even though his storytelling skills are sometimes a bit underwhelming. Stanton Carlisle is one of the great Noir figures that actually has crept into the vernacular. Carneys, grifters, psychics and fortunetellers can pick out a fellow traveler when they admit that they are a friend of Stanton Carlisle. In this version, Tyrone Power has been replaced by another handsome face, Bradley Cooper.
The elaborate production design and incredibly deep cast is used to support a horrifying outcome for a man who we follow and probably root for, but for whom we should have no sympathy. The ambitious huckster manages to think he is the smartest guy in the room, only to discover that there are people even more vile than he and sometimes more clever. I think the film pokes along a little more slowly than is best, but the story still works and the movie looks great.
7. Nobody
This was a movie that came out of nowhere for me. Prior to seeing a trailer, I had no idea it existed nor any reason to be interested. Once I saw the premise however, I had high hopes that it would be just what the doctor ordered. Theaters around the country were not all open when this film dropped last March. Too many people were still reluctant to go out to a film, but not me. I was ready for this and when it was over I was gassed. This hit every button on my lizard brain and made me so happy, I actually watched it as a rental a few weeks later when I spent an evening back in California with my friends.
"Nobody" is a John Wick style action film with a less than likely badass as the central figure. Bob Odenkirk from "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" doesn't look like an intimidating tough guy, and that is part of the pleasure of this film. He is a guy that people underestimate when they look at him, but know to fear when they learn who he was. The fistfights are not kung fu battles but brutal beatdowns using basic force. The gun battles are stylized, but they are not the elegant special effects works of Matrix style action. This movie was simply the most fun I had at a movie next to one other film on this list.
6. The Sparks Brothers
At the start of the year, the Edgar Wright film that I would have most been looking forward to was "Last Night in Soho" . I was not even aware that Wright was doing a documentary, much less on a band with a cult following in my hometown and in Europe. Sparks was a band that I was a fan of in the 1980s, but they fell off of my radar for 30 years. Apparently, they just kept making the great, odd music that they had always done. There were projects that went nowhere and albums that did not generate sales, but the creativity never faltered and this documentary shows it.
Wright includes the usual talking heads but spices it up with performances, videos and animation to cover the history of the band in a mostly chronological fashion. The movie is not just informative about the bands travails, it is also entertaining as heck and much of that is provided by the two brothers that make up the band.
5. Spider-Man: No Way Home
This is getting people back out to the movies, it is setting records for box office and the full theaters seem to be a good indicator that people will come out of their covid induced hibernation if a movie is only available in theaters and it is something people want to see. "No Way Home" is the third Spider-Man centric film to star Tom Holland. Although he appears in three other MCU films, the ones with Spider-Man as the main character seem to harken to the early days of comic book movies when the stories were fun and not just grim exercises in creating worldwide threats.
We were led to the idea of a multiverse by the animated Spider-Man movie "Into the Spiderverse", just a couple of years ago. This film takes advantage of the concept by dipping into the previous Spider-Man films for stories, villains and some other potential fun. The audience gasp at particular moments in the film, lets you know that this is a movie that is connecting with it's fans. The term "fan service" is often used to deride elements of a film that are designed to pander to the audience, but when used properly, this "service" represents the connection that a franchise has with it's fans and that relationship is an important one for most of us who love movies.
"No Way Home" gives us a chance to reconcile our feelings about plots that were left dangling in the earlier Spidey films and allows us to reassess those movies and somewhat repair them in our memory. This was the movie that was the most fun that I had in a theater this last year and I look forward to catching it again as soon as I am able.
4. Ghostbusters Afterlife
Everyone who was waiting for a Ghostbusters sequel which did not suck, finally got their wish in November of 2021. "Ghostbusters Afterlife" had been delayed more than a year and a half by the Covid-19 reshuffling that studios had to do to try and save their projects form theatrical disaster. The really unfortunate part of this is that "Afterlife" was a perfect Summer release, and now it will be a fond memory, but not of sunny days and warm nights spent in a theater.
The young cast that carries this film is impressive, but even more impressive is that this is a true sequel and not a reboot like the 2016 misfire. The original characters are in the story for just a bit, but it is a juicy bit and it does not take away from what the new cast has done to bring us into the story. Down the road, this may get the most rewatches by me of any film on the list, it is fun and when June gets here, I will be looking for this as a companion to the original "Ghostbusters".
3. Free Guy
This is an original concept but it feels like a franchise film because it operates in the world of videogames. This is another film that had multiple release dates but finally escaped in the summertime to give all of us a reason to go to the movies. The premise felt convoluted the first time I saw a trailer, but it turns out to be relatively straightforward once you are watching. A video game character becomes self aware in the game he exists in and interacts with a real player to foil a villainous plot. "Free Guy" is an odd name choice, but the character is Guy and it just makes sense.
Ryan Reynolds proves that he can be his own most valuable player when the material is good. I have not tired of his casual, relaxed vocal style yet. His manner is perfect for a non-playable character in a computer game. This film also has the benefit of the best trailer for a movie this year. See it when you click on the link to the review.
2. Dune (2021)
A visionary film from a visionary film maker. Denis Villeneuve has made two terrific science fiction films before this, Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival. The visuals in those two movies were spectacular and they promised a great deal for a revised version of "Dune". This movie lived up to that promise. This is an ambitious film, that is attempting to do something very difficult, translate a book that is full of ideas, into a movie that is more than just the visuals.
I'm a big apologist for the David Lynch version of the story, but Villeneuve has something that Lynch was denied back in 1984, time. This movie is only part one of a two part film. It is already longer than the Lynch film, and we still have the second half to look forward to. I am not the biggest fan of Timothée Chalamet, but he manages to be convincing as Paul Atreides, especially in the early part of the story where Paul is supposed to be young and a bit uncertain.
There is a great cast in this film and we will certainly see more of them in Part 2 when it arrives in two years although the electric Jason Mamoa will be missed as Duncan Idaho's part in the story is complete at this point. Baron Harkonnen is barely used and will be more prominent down the road, and some characters from the book have not even been hinted at in the film so far.
1. Belfast
When I see a film, I always hope to connect with the characters and share the emotional ride that the story takes us on. "Belfast" is a personal reminiscence of writer/director Kenneth Branagh, harkening to his youth in the violence torn hometown. While "The Troubles" are a part of the story, the real focus is on the family at the center of the picture. A young boy is confronting the confusing world he lives in while being nurtured by a fiercely stubborn mother, an unwillingly absent father and nurturing grandparents.
The emotions and hopefulness are engulfing, just the way I like. Some may see it as sentimental clap trap, they can take a flying leap. This is a wonderfully acted drama that has more heart and cares more about it's characters than any movie that has come along in a long time. Frankly, it was not even close to being dethroned from my top spot, despite how great some of the other films are. It is small, in black and white and emotionally perfect. The actors are also fantastic.
A few months ago, I was a guest on "The Popcorn Auteur" podcast, and we discussed director Matthew Vaughn. While we all agreed that his style and visual flare are distinctive enough to call him an auteur, not every one of his films was a hit with the hosts. I on the other hand, can safely say I have not been let down by a Matthew Vaughn film yet, and that winning streak continues with this third entry into the "Kingsman" cinema universe. On the Sunday podcast, my colleague James Wilson was not particularly forthcoming with his dislike of the film, maybe to spare my feelings, but I was not worried because I have faith in Vaughn and this time he did something else that pleased me, he surprised me.
"The King's Man" does have some of the outlandish action scenes that Vaughn is noted for, we will discuss those in a moment. Although ostensibly the genesis of the Kingsmen franchise, this film has several elements that are clearly different from the other films. To begin with, it focuses on a real conflict, not something invented by the authors. Vaugh and his collaborators do graft on a subplot that suggests that WWI was the result of manipulation by a secret cabal, much like SPECTRE, but masterminded by a shadowy figure referred to by acolytes as "The Shepard". Historic figures like Mata Hari and Rasputin are then crossbred with the group to accomplish the machinations of the organization and bring the powers of Russia, Germany and Great Britain into conflict with one another. This retconning of history is fun because actual historical incidents and events are mixed with the fantasy of the film to create an interesting story. I hope that young people don't fall for the idea that Woodrow Wilson was blackmailed as a reason for delaying U.S. entry into the war, that would be too easy an excuse for his behaviors.
Another way that the film feels different is the war context itself. The fight wit Rasputin is entertaining nonsense, but the realities of the battlefield in WWI make this film sometimes feel like an outtake from "1917" and that switch in tone is maybe the hardest element of the film to reconcile. As a drama segment it works well on it's own but it does feel like a betrayal of the fun the film is trying to have with the outlandish premise that they have created. Tarantino was able to get away with this because the whole plot of "Inglorious Basterds" was at odds with reality. I will say with a slight warning of a **spoiler**, there is a plot twist that is wholly consistent with the first movie and it changes the direction of the story in a striking moment.
The fight sequences are the things that distinguish Vaughn's films from others of his ilk. They are manically choregraphed and filmed in creative ways. The perspective in the battle with Rasputin for instance, changes on the moment of contact and then momentum. The fighters look like ballet dancers twisting in the air but with sudden changes in orientation that alter their strategic advantage moment to moment. In the sword fight at the climax of the film. the villain is revealed and a battle with our main hero takes place. There is an amazing shot of the crossed swords that is technically complicated and extremely beautiful, it lasts just a second but it also reflects the care that goes in to composing the fight scenes in a Vaughn film.
Ralph Fiennes as Lord Orlando Oxford, adds dignity to the whole enterprise while also showing how he might have been a good choice for Bond back when Daniel Craig took over. His aristocratic air may have handicapped him in that choice but works perfectly in this context. Rhys Ifans plays Rasputin in a role that is really an extended cameo rather than a starring part, but he takes full advantage of the weird combination of mystic and barbarian, to outlandish effect. He has a couple of moments with Fiennes that are truly odd and hilarious at the same time. I am sure that his fighting skills are a combination of stunt work and CGI, but he nevertheless is the face of the character and one of the memorable things about the film. Daniel Brühl appears in a standard villain role as a parallel to Rasputin only in Germany. He is poised to come back if ever there is a continuation of the story as suggested by a mid-closing credits scene. Gemma Arterton, Djimon Hounsou, Matthew Goode and Charles Dance all do their parts to fill out the cast of the Kingsmen Service in one fashion or another. Tom Hollander gets to play multiple parts and that is fun for reasons that you will see when you watch the film.
I suppose I can understand why some are not enthusiastic about the film. It is highly stylized and the tonal changes are often not very smooth. On the other hand, the clever twisting of history to tie into the conceit of the story is just delicious and you get the signature action scenes that Vaughn is noted for, so I feel no need to apologize for my opinion, it was a great time at the movies.
Any of you who have visited this site in the past probably have a pretty good idea of how I feel about the James Bond Franchise. If you are new let me summarize, 007 is my favorite fictional character and I have a passion for these movies. The break between "Spectre" and "No Time to Die" was supposed to be five years, much too long in my opinion for we addicts. Then along came the pandemic, MGM and Eon pulled the film off the schedule, wisely seeing that the venues for films were being closed in many places. The movie got pushed back to October, then to the following April again, and then to a second October. It has now been 18 months since the originally scheduled opening of the film. I have been impatient and frustrated with each delay and now that it is finally available, I have issues.
I will preface my comments with an acknowledgement that there is not a 007 film I would not watch again in a heartbeat (except the 1967 parody Casino Royale), and that includes this new entry, the 25th in the official canon of Bond films (excluding "Never Say Never Again"), so take what I say to you now with that perspective in mind. I am disappointed.
When the decision was made to follow up Daniel Craig's first outing with a direct sequel, I was Ok with that. "Quantum of Solace" has flaws, and my reaction was muted. "Skyfall" on the other hand changed all that into a bundle of enthusiasm that I still feel nine years and two more films later. Although there were references to earlier Craig films, "Skyfall" felt like a stand alone 007 film and it worked incredibly well, providing a fresh story but also providing a good deal of fan service. In 2015, "Spectre" stepped back into making the Craig films into an extended narrative, and that was one of my initial reservations about the film. As time went by and I saw it more often, my attitude changed and I think it got right what "Quantum" was trying to do in keeping a story line in place. "No Time to Die" is an attempt to wrap all of this up but it trips over some of the traditional tropes of the Bond series. I much prefer the closeout that "Spectre" presented to us than the package we got this week.
Looking at just this movie now, instead of worrying about the five film story arc of Craig's run as Bond, the first strength that it presents is the mash up of two pre-title sequences. The callback to Madeleine Swann as a child, ties in nicely with a story she told in an earlier film. It is visualized very effectively and uses an overhead perspective in an interesting way that accentuates that what we are seeing is a memory. When Bond and Madeleine travel together on a pilgrimage to a grave, we get a nice travelogue, followed by a terrific action sequence and then the titles. So far so good. The Billie Eilish performed song is substantially improved with the title sequence behind it. That said, it is still not a dynamic song for the film to build it's themes around. The best music cues in the rest of the film come from earlier Bond films, including "Casino Royale" but most noticeably, "On Her Majesties Secret Service". The title sequence begins some of the fan service call backs that we can expect from Craig's swan song. Polka dots and silhouettes appear in the background, bringing the spirt of Saul Bass for a visit to a James Bond film.
Now we get to the first main issue that weakens the film for me, the recruitment of 007 for this mission by Felix Leiter in an off the books C.I.A. plot, that somehow runs afoul of MI-6. I will try to explain this without spoilers, but the mess that Bond is going to try to clean up, is a result of his own former service's mistakes. In another tip to older Bond films, one group is playing another group against two other groups. In "From Russia with Love" the Soviet agency SMERSH is being played by SPECTRE against the British. Here, the Brits are being played against SPECTRE, who are being shined by a new unidentified group, and the C.I.A. is an accidental tool for pulling it off. How can this be? Well simple, "M" suddenly loses the moral convictions that guided him in the last film and the intelligence he had shown since "Skyfall". Ralph Fiennes was one of the strengths of the two previous Bond films and now his character Mallory, is a liability. This shortcut to plot development also requires that Felix Leiter, as played by Jeffrey Wright, loses about twenty percent of his IQ. Maybe the idea here was to tear everything down and start anew, but it feels like a fast way to get another plot going without developing the villain any more than you did in the first five minutes of the film.
Second major flaw in the film is, as is way too true in all sorts of films, the Villain. Rami Malek is fine for what he is asked to do, the failure is not in the performance it is in the writing. Safin appears as a character in the first scenes of the film. His performance there is wordless and we get right up to a key moment when there is a jump cut to a point many years later. We never learn how he got from point A to point B, to become a nemesis of Spectre and a threat to the whole population of the world. When we get to the monologuing in the third act, there is a lot of yammering in low key soft voiced menace, but there is no motivation whatsoever. There is no plan, or financial gain or philosophy behind his actions. The idea that the weapon can be isolated to killing only particular people was undermined by the fact that if they have DNA alleles in common, which would be a family connection, then the nanobot virus jumps. Six degrees of separation people, the world is connected genetically and there will be leaping. No explanation is offered as to who is supposed to be spared or why or how. This is a completely random plan, that is supposed to be targeted, but no targeting explanation is offered and they undermine their plan with this flaw in the DNA process that they are using for only an emotional plot point.
The third thread of problems is the relationship between Madeleine and James. I can believe in their love, and that James has overcome his emotional complications with Vesper, but it gets wiped out by an inference that while reasonable, could also be dispelled with some investigation. His willingness to severe a commitment like this on his conclusion without looking into it further is out of character. Her acceptance of it and then inclusion into MI-6's interrogation of Blofeld is after the fact odd (although it was a leap I was willing to take for the purpose of suspending disbelief). That she is being manipulated as a tool of Safin is shown, but not really explained. There is a good scene between her and Safin in her office, they interact in an interesting way, but it does not make her motivation clear. The incident between them a quarter of a century earlier is supposed to be the explanation, but it really does not explain anything. Bond and Madeleine rekindle their romance after he discovers a secret she has, and that makes a little sense, but this same plot device was widely criticized in a 2006 comic book movie, and I can see a similar response here. I don't have an issue with it, except that it is being used as a manipulation of the characters to justify the conclusion of the film.
Final acts are difficult, and the final act of this film, and the fact that this film itself is a final act in the story arc, makes it even more so. The resolution that they chose, undermines the emotional set up that was created to make a dramatic point. Safin has manipulated the DNA of the characters so that they can never be together physically again. That would also preclude a relationship with the secret character that has changed Bond's perspective. Fine, that is a emotional gut punch that would make Bond have to suffer, but the solution that the writers came up with was to eliminate that immediately through a much more certain outcome. It was unnecessary, and if you are looking to finish with an emotional slap to the face, the DNA imposed separation would have stronger resonance.
There are other points that are bothersome as well, but little things can be overlooked when everything else is working. Obviously, things were not working for me so a couple of things I might have let slide by, jumped out at me instead. How the greatest asset that British Intelligence has, manages to get the most sophisticated bionic technology in history, planted in his eye socket while he is under their control is beyond me. I guess "Q" had the weekend off when that surgery was arranged. As much as I like what they have done with Ben Whishaw's version of "Q", he seems to miss some opportunities to stop problems or to explain how a problem could be stopped. Case in point, the EMP watch that 007 uses in going after the island fortress of Safin. If it can blow out an electronic eye, would it not do the same to the electronic ear that Bond is wearing? Story consistency is an issue in a lot of places.
There are a lot of things I liked in the film, I just wanted to get my reservations out of the way first. Ana de Armas and Lashanna Lynch are welcome to any future Bond films, although with the rebooting that will be required, I'm not sure how they will manage to do this. Paloma, the CIA?, contractor was a hoot in the Cuban sequence, and her action creds were established in a definitive and funny way. Nomi, the new designate for the prime number, was bad ass although she needed to do a little more as part of the insertion team at the end. M will need agents like her to cover for his future mistakes if they plan on keeping that character in his current mode. The chase scene though the Norwegian forest was very effective, I liked the subtle way Bond adjusts his choices given his passengers. I also thought the by play between Bond and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld worked well, that was a solid scene even if in the end it had little to do with what is happening in the story.
Okay. I am off to see it a second time right now. When I get back, if I have more thoughts I will add them here.
Addendum/Second Screening
Well it was a good decision to go back for a second time, because my opinion of the film substantially improved. I'm not sure if my attitude was different because expectations were altered, or if some of the choices they made were clearer in hindsight.
For instance, it is a lot clearer now why Madeleine cooperates with Safin's plan for Blofeld when she and James meet up at the prison. Blofeld's dialogue also makes more sense in hindsight, although how he obtained his information is still unclear.
M's motivations are a bit more focused when you see what is going on, although it is still very clear that his character's ethical standards have shifted entirely away from the point of view that he had in the previous film.
There are several characters I did not mention earlier that ought to get a quick note here. Logan Ash, the State Department CIA wannabe, is such a trope in the Bond Universe, it would have been more fun to go the opposite direction with him. As it is, the part contains no surprises and the only creative element to him, his fanboy admiration for Bond, doesn't get as much use as it should.
Speaking of not getting much use, Naomi Harris returns as Moneypenny, but she mostly sits in the office like in the old days. It would have made sense to give her some of the tasks that Q got shoved his way, and then her contribution would be more meaningful.
Primo, who Bond dubs Cyclops, is your standard henchmen with a quirk. In line with Odd Job and Jaws, he has a physical distinction that is a minor part of the plot. I do think that the electronic eye gets used for comic relief more than anything else, and that also feels like a slightly missed opportunity. The link between him and Blofeld could have made it a stronger place to provide exposition, instead of making us try to figure out what is going on. Oh, there is another plothole here as well since he escapes the attack on Spectre in Cuba for no clear reason at all. As a member of Spectre and Blofeld's prime surrogate as a walking Zoom call, you would think that Safin and Obruchev's hijacking of the plan to eliminate Bond would have targeted him especially. Speaking of comic relief and exposition, the ping pong acquisition of scientist Valdo Obruchev, worked for the most part. His secondary villain status reminded me substantially of Boris Grishenko from "Goldeneye". The Russian accent probably accounts for that because the Frank Oz look alike they have in the part certainly appears different.
These insights are a little random right now. I continue to try to avoid spoilers, so I will discuss some of the plot elements that will make this film controversial among 007 fans, in a post down the road. I at first thought the pacing seemed flat and that the direction by Cary Joji Fukunaga was off. There is probably too much quick point and shoot in the finale, James Bond should not be John Wick. On the other hand, the locations are beautifully shown, and it seems like they went a long way to allow Safin to get Bond's toothbrush. Let me leave off by saying after my first viewing, I felt let down. Going a second time, probably for the reasons I mentioned, resulted in an encouraging shift in perspective. I still have reservations but ...
I am particularly piqued with Great Britain today, they get "No Time To Die" now, and we have to wait a week. I suppose it is acceptable since Bond is a UK export, but since we have added 18 months from the originally scheduled release, I feel like I have been more than patient. Anyway, as it turns out, AMC noticed that we were being tortured so in an effort to put balm on the sore, they are running "Skyfall" for a week at a discount price. This is good news since "Skyfall" is the best Bond film since the early 60s.
There is so much to love about this film, regardless of what you might think of the story (which I think works great). The addition of Eve Moneypenny as an active part of the story may have been easy for most to spot, but I still liked the fact that they wait for the reveal until the end of the film.
The fact that she nearly killed 007 makes for an interesting dynamic for future stories, and her active status makes her involvement down the road more believable.
When John Cleese was introduced as the new Q back in the Pierce Brosnan era, it was clear his persona would mimic that of Desmond Llewelyn, that of a prickly bureaucrat with technical know how. Ben Whishaw is still a bit officious as "Q", but the humor is more a part of the story and less punchline delivery. His youth in contrast to Bond also makes some sense and adds some more places for natural repartee to exist.
I also thought it was a clever move to show us how "M" could have gotten the job in the first place. Gareth Mallory starts off as the political hatchet man for the administration in moving the previous head of MI-6 out of her role. When he picks up the gun and starts shooting back at the attackers in the Parliamentary hearing room, it is clear he is not simply a political animal. Ralph Fiennes could have easily been the choice for 007 a decade earlier, at this point he was much more appropriately cast.
The real treasure of the film however is the redoubtable Judi Dench, who made Eight appearances in the role, including one after having vacated the position. This is the meatiest storyline for the character in any of the 24 films from EON. I liked that she never lost her sardonic tone, even when the character is besieged by politicians and the antagonist of this film.
This film came out nine years ago, on the 50th Anniversary of James Bond on the Big Screen. Much was made of the fact that the gun barrel sequence did not appear until the end of the movie, but that was really just the exclamation point for the anniversary. There were so many things that were special about the film, it was nice to be reminded of them today. It may be a bit of fan service, but calling the Aston Martin DB5 back into action was a thrilling moment. The final act confrontation was very well staged and technically looked terrific. We also got a great 007 Theme song from Adele.
For me, the final thrill is in the new office for "M", when Moneypenny takes her place and Bond enters through the padded door that felt so familiar, and he addressed Mallory as "M". I was ready for the next film that minute. It happened again today when my screening was finished.
Long in the tooth and slow in the gait, Clint Eastwood still has enough star power to wipe most other performers off the screen. This 91 year old national treasure keeps working and making the cinema world a better place as a result. While "Cry Macho" may not be up to the standards of his greatest films, it is certainly entertaining enough and it speaks to issues that seem contemporary, even though the film is set forty years ago.
Many Eastwood films have featured him in the role of mentor to a younger character. "Gran Torino" was all about a cross cultural lampooning and deconstruction of supposed "toxic masculinity", so it is not really a surprise that this film treads familiar ground. Clint's character Mike Milo, is a used up man, without much to look forward to except release from this world. When his estranged friend and former employer played by Dwight Yoakam enlists him to go to Mexico City and essentially kidnap his 13 year old son from the Mother that he has divorced, Mike sees red flags but also a chance to find some purpose to his continued existence.
There are a couple obvious problems that I want to discuss early and get out of the way. The dialogue in the two set up scenes is not good and the performances by the two leads live down to that quality. The film starts to feel like it is just conveniently setting up the road trip for us without bothering to make the characters that inspire it feel believable. The "antagonists" in the movie are the kid's Mother and her boyfriends and entourage. They are also not very believable, in fact there is one moment that may cause a spit take from the audience. But...once Clint and the kid connect, the picture is on much steadier grounds and the characters begin to feel more as if this is a story worth telling. Young Eduardo Minett is a slightly more natural actor than his counterpart in "Gran Torino" was, but both performances feel a little amateurish. The character of Rafo does start to grow on us, in spite of some adolescent faults that are irritating early on.
The connection between the man and the boy is of course the main point of the story, but there are some surprising detours along the way, including some time spent in a small Mexican town and the people of that town. In particular, the two fugitives, find a stronger familial bond then they have experienced in a long time. This interlude is the strongest part of the story and will make you want to forget what has been set up and instead settle down with the possibilities that are now presented to the man and boy. Eastwood's directing style which has always focused more on character than cinematic flamboyance, seems a perfect match for this section of the movie. There is some gentle humor and only a little tension during these sequences. Once they hit the road again, there is an opportunity for Clint to do some basic action that is still acceptable for his age. The tension in his film "The Mule" from a couple of years ago was mirrored almost exactly when a couple of federal Mexican police pull over the two and we get some sly dialogue that apes the earlier film.
Admittedly, Clint may be a decade past where he could pull this off without difficulty. Still I think his performance here works. The romantic elements of the picture have little to do with sexual attraction and instead focus on the sorts of qualities that people really should be looking for in one another. There is a conundrum built into the mission when we get a plot point revel later in the story. Mike will not be able to resolve it, but he has prepared young Rafo well enough to be able to figure his way out of the issue when it comes up, sometime after our movie ends.
The film will have to make due with an older audience because the things that draw in the typical movie crowd these days are largely missing from this. No real gunfights, barely any fisticuffs, no action scenes per se and a romantic relationship between characters that could be their grandparents. This may be a film that works with Warner's HBO Max/Day and date simultaneous release. I hope older audiences will go out to see the movie, but if you can't bring yourself to do that, click the watch button and enjoy an efficient little drama that starts off shaky but finishes well.
Here is my take on this long delayed film, I will try to explain why but I am not sure I can articulate it as clearly as I would want. Black Widow is an entertaining, mid-level MCU film. It left me unmoved by the events but I can live the action scenes and over all story. There is very little connecting it to the Avengers, except the presence of Natasha, Scarlett Johansson, and the fact that she is an Avenger. All of the other characters are new to us and although there is an attempt to develop character for all of them, some of it is a bit rushed.
For those of you dying to know, this takes place between "Civil War" and "Infinity War". While hiding out after thwarting Secretary Ross's attempt to arrest her, the Black Widow is lead by to her origins by a mysterious package that shows up in her effects. Several chase scenes and hand to hand combat sequences later, we get a clearer explanation of what is going on. The totality of the Budapest story that she and Clint made reference to back in "The Avengers", is not revealed, but there is enough detail to understand why she has regrets and feels that there is so much "red" on her ledger.
Maybe the reason I had difficulty connecting to this emotionally is that the secondary characters are all new. There is one, a fixer that Agent Romanoff has used before, who is treated as a longtime ally and associate. This is the first time in any of the films he has been referred to. He is not really given a backstory but the character is represented to us as one we should appreciate without knowing anything more, and that does not quite work for me. The movie starts with a flashback story to 1995 and we see a family coming together for dinner and suddenly taking flight from pursuing dark forces. Maybe the fact that we are being asked to sympathize with a Soviet Sleeper Cell, operating in Ohio, which is killing pursuing FBI agents, just does not sit well with me. This is a Post Cold War world, but those of us who lived through that war may have a hard time deleting the suspicions that we have. The character of the Red Guardian is slipped into this segment only vaguely, and when he returns to the story, we have to build another relationship.
The one new relationship that works well is that of Natasha to her supposed sister Yelena, played by Florence Pugh. The combat ready reunion was a bit much but it does establish the creds for this character as well as the other Black Widow zombies that the villain is creating. Pugh does great with her action sequences and is a believable female badass who can get the job done and stand toe to toe with Natasha. I enjoyed their banter a great deal, and they need more time together to make this the key relationship of the story. Unfortunately, there is a Mother Figure, Father Figure and villain who also need time with the main hero and that makes the plot points feel a little repetitive and it sucks up a lot of time.
Look, I know this is a comic book movie, and maybe I'm overthinking it a bit, but it needs some explanation. How did this Soviet Era Program continue, go private, and remain hidden? How was it funded? There is technology here that the Avengers would be envious of, but there is no Tony Stark or Russian version of S.H.I.E.L.D. visible. It feels like a 1970s Bond film with a secret lair that would be impossible to keep a secret. Maybe that's why the movie that gets interrupted on Natasha's TV is "Moonraker". It's a subtle attempt to nudge us more toward the fantasy world that exists outside of the MCU and use that to justify some shortcuts.
Hawkeye and Black Widow are master assassins, and they took on a job twenty years prior to this story. How is it that they could botch up their mission so much as to leave their actual target alive, much less the collateral damage that goes along with it. There is no explanation of why that happened, even after we have witnessed an explosion that is immense and would have killed any other character in this universe, except for those from space. It feels like lazy writing. There are three screenwriters credited, one was at least partially responsible for Thor Ragnarok, but also episodes of WandaVision and Agent Carter. Maybe the styles just don't mesh well or the fertilizer is showing and too much of what we are getting is set up for future projects.
David Harbour and Rachel Weisz are able to play both young and older versions of themselves with only slight assistance from CGI. Harbour is doing comic riffs with a Russian accent and that is funny. The Prison escape is fun to look at but it does little to advance the plot, it was merely an obstacle that gives the two women a chance to run an elaborate action sequence and have some comic relief along the way. I like Ray Winstone as an actor but his part in this is underwritten and it consists almost entirely of monologuing with the heroine.
I was happy to see the film finally open. I was thrilled to see that the theater was sold out and that people are going out to the movies. I was surprised by the number of people who have already forgotten that MCU films tend to have stingers at the end of the credits and lot of folks left before the last scene. I was just not blown away by the film. I will certainly see it again, but if you are looking for a ranking in the MCU, put this at the top of the bottom quarter of the films. I liked them all but let's keep some perspective, they can't all be the greatest thing since Ironman.
It's been two years since my on-line friend and fellow blogger Eric, published his first book, "It's Strictly Personal". I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it to any of my readers as a way of looking at movies in a slightly different perspective. As I said at the time, it's an autobiography of someone that you don't know but it is a story that all of us know. Eric has attempted to talk about movies in the most personal way possible, by showing us the things that the movies he loves say about him. Anyone who is a movie lover will be able to relate to this concept.
The time has arrived for the inevitable sequel. It is a bit ironic since Eric frequently has distain for Hollywood's insistence on repeatedly going to the same well. The dearth of creativity in film making is one of the points that the author tries to convey in his work. However, there have been plenty of sequels that are worthy and even occasionally outshine their predecessor. The question in today's review is whether he has managed to do with his second book what others have failed to do with their second bite of the apple.
Comparisons are always problematic because the things being compared are going to have differences and the fear that apples and oranges are being looked at the same way is a real one. "It's Still Strictly Personal" is different from the first volume in some important ways and I think those differences matter to a large degree. The original volume is heavy on nostalgia for the era that the films discussed were released in. There is a childlike enthusiasm for going to the cinema and experiencing the culture in a new way for a kid. Eric's first book centered on his life from eight to sixteen, when, in spite of some family turmoil, childhood remains a fairly innocent time. The neighborhood kids that you were friends with and the adventures you shared with them seeing movies in a theater or surreptitiously on cable after your friend's parents went to sleep seem warm and fuzzy memories. When we get to high school and college however, all bets are off. I'm willing to guess that most of us experienced the greatest degree of upheaval, personal drama, and emotional tragedy in our adolescent and young adult years.
This volume of the autobiography is a more challenging read because we have to identify with someone who is struggling to find himself as a person. The thing that makes this story relevant to us is how the author manages to use the movies to accomplish that. The simplest example I can think of from Eric's story is the bookend films that match up with his parents turbulent second shot at marriage. "Kramer vs. Kramer" and "The War of the Roses" are not stories with soft landings. Even though the former has a hopeful conclusion, it was hell to get there. Ten years later, Eric sees the later film as being particularly relevant if not exactly literal, to his families own circumstances. The analogous emotional upheaval in these stories is how Eric relates to us, and he finds movies as a key to the cipher of growing up.
The eight year period this part of the story covers includes for instance the teen focused works of John Hughes. Teens could relate to some characters in those films. You might see your life as being parallel to John Bender, the sullen outcast from "The Breakfast Club". It's possible you admire the gumption and attitude of Ferris Bueller as he outfoxes the school authorities and his parent in pursuit of a perfect Spring Day. Eric doesn't accept any direct connection to a character, but he does see the shy and awkward Brian, the so called "brain" in detention that day, as someone he does share personality traits with. All of we movie fans have seen those kinds of connections. When we see part of ourselves on a movie screen, we are being exposed to that section of the Johari Window that is referred to as the blind area. Movies let us in on who we are sometimes, without us even being aware that that is who we are.
Over the years that I have followed Eric's Blog, "My Movies, My Words" , he and I have agreed on many films. There are of course some movies that we have very different thoughts on, and those examples in the book are some of the things that make this read more challenging. Eric never apologizes for his opinion, why should he, that's how he feels. There are times in the story here however when his distain for a film seems to not be limited to the movie but to the people who have made the film and anyone who actually enjoyed it while he did not. Part of this comes from the experience he was going through at the time. If your romantic life is frustrating, that may bias the way you view an actor or story. Eric's book is organized by films as the chapter references. He has Eighty six movies that he talks about in some detail, I have seen all of the films he mentions except four. We are simpatico on the vast majority of them. There are however eight or nine that I feel quite differently about than he does. Nothing wrong with that, but sometimes the negative view he has of a movie is flippant, and I don't always see how it adds to our understanding of his personal growth. Usually, these are just minor incidents rather than major events in his story, so I sometimes think they might have been left out and then I would be able to accept the rest more easily. Let's not forget that for the reader it is personal also.
I like the fact that Eric ties events in his life to the movies that he is seeing. Sometimes they are moments of revelation, such as discovering a foreign language film that moves you when you have not been immersed in that world before. I appreciate when he connects the dots between a film makers style and the movie he is writing about at the time. Often the movie is just background for the personal story of his college years and disappointing romantic entanglements. Even if you are indifferent to Eric as a person, which I don't think I can be, you will still find merit in the story he tells about the times. I think he is honest as hell about the women in his life. That sort of thing matters so it is relevant. I did sometimes feel short changed by not hearing more about the friends in his life. I know some of their names, but I don't always feel like I know how they influenced Eric. A couple of exceptions occur when he has a vastly different reaction to a film than his companion does, and I wish I'd been more of a fly on the wall for the conversations he had with them about the movie. The problem is that he is in his fifties, recalling events from before he was twenty one, and who can remember what we said over coffee thirty plus years ago after a night at the movies?
One of the most unusual reactions I had to his story came from a movie that his family saw together several times, and that I would require a big incentive to sit through again. "The Woman in Red" is a small blemish on the career of Gene Wilder. I dislike the film but I do like how Eric explains his families fascination with it. I like that his folks wanted to sit through it a second time. Whenever I went to the movies with my family, and that happened, it was a special moment for me. A story like this is a bit like watching the lives of your neighbors through the living room window. We get a glimpse into how others live, and it is often very different from the way we live ourselves. That's the value of a book like this. I never lived in Manhattan, I never had to trade schools midway though my education, I never went to summer camp for weeks at a time. This is a life very different from mine, but I still understand it because movies let us share references and feelings and the ability to empathize is enhanced as a result.
Someday, Eric and I will meet in person. I hope we can take in a James Bond movie together and then talk about it afterward at a diner that he knows or a Mexican restaurant like El Coyote. We are movie lovers who tell the story of our life through the films that shaped us. I feel like we are old pals because I know his history of hurt and success. Life is not all sunshine and cupcakes, and we all have to grow up. "It's Still Strictly Personal" let's us see how we are doing that. And there were movies...
I have been writing this blog for over ten years now, and I have resisted putting up a list of my favorite films for that whole time. As the Borg say "Resistance is Futile!"
This year I am marking another year in my sixth decade of life. I did several birthday posts in the past and enjoyed them immensely. The last two years my heart has just not been into it. This year however, I am trying to push my way back into normalcy, but I don't have the energy to generate 63 things for a list. So what I am going to do is a ten day countdown of my favorite films.
Every year when I have posted a top ten list, I always point out that it is a combination of quality and subjective enjoyment that creates that list. Those are the guiding principles here as well. I will not claim that these are the ten greatest movies ever made, although I know several of them would be deserving of a spot on such a list. Instead, these are my ten favorite films as it stands at the moment. In a month, I could reconsider or remember something that I have tragically left off the list, but for this moment here is how they rank.
#10 Goldfinger (1964)
There may be bigger James Bond Fans out there than me, but I have yet to meet one in the flesh. Since I was six years old, the idea of 007 has been in my head. The first Bond films I saw were the first four that were made, and that was enough to imprint on me for a lifetime.
Other Bond films may have more spectacular stunts, or complex plots, or may be speaking to our times in some way that is important, but no 007 film has had the power that Goldfinger has had, both on me and the world we live in.
The plot of the movie is pretty simple, James Bond must stop a raid on Fort Knox. The process of discovering the plot and meeting the antagonist tales up the first third of the movie, and it introduces us to some of the most iconic elements of all the James Bond Films. The AstonMartin DB 5 is introduced in this film. The dangerous henchman became a trope as a result of Odd Job as seen in this movie. After the famous line where Bond introduces himself, the one quote that most people can recall from a Bond film is Goldfinger's retort to Bond when asked if he expected 007 to talk, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
Shirley Eaton sprawled on the bed in gold paint, Shirley Bassey belting out the theme song and Sean Connery at the apex of his time as 007, complete the significance of this film on my list. It is the Bond film I have seen the most, and I think you will discover that most 007 fans see it as the best of the franchise. Who am I to deny this type of acclaim? Why would I want to? Goldfinger is cinematic perfection.
