REVIEW: Quantum of Solace (2008)

Summary: The 22nd Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, is a direct sequel to the 21st, Casino Royale, which rebooted the whole franchise in a grittier, more human direction. The story continues 20 minutes after the previous movie, and shows Bond stopping an evil plot by the mysterious organization that left him betrayed in Casino Royale. But its all about revenge for Bond.

Thoughts: I was never really a Bond fan until this reboot. I've only seen one of the old ones (Thunderball), but it just didn't seem to suit me. I rented Casino Royale on a whim one night last year and loved it. It had humor, action, suspense, and a reality that I think the originals were missing. You got into Bond's head a little and find out what makes him tick. Quantum continues this trend. In fact, it continues it so much, that you HAVE to watch them together. Not only will you be less confused about the plot, but the movies complete one another.

Let me explain: I was going to write this review as somewhat middling, because the basic plot is just that, basic. Revenge, blah blah blah, betrayal, blah blah blah. The action sequences were incredible, and were mostly lacking in Casino Royale, so that was good. Casino Royale was a bit heavy on plot and light on action, which Quantum was heavy on action and light on plot. It was only after reading Bill Hunt's mini-review on thedigitalbits that I realized that I shouldn't be comparing these two movies. They complete one another. They weren't written together like some movies that come in two parts (Kill Bill, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows), but they fit together so well that it would be a shame to not watch them together.

I really can't talk about Quantum of Solace without spoiling both it and Casino Royale, so I'll leave you with this: If you liked Casino Royale, you'll like Quantum. If you didn't see Casino Royale, don't watch Quantum until you do. You'll only be confused and left a bit empty. If you didn't like Casino Royale, I'm sorry.

Overall: A great companion to Casino Royale.
4/5

Bonus!

On a majority of prints you find a trailer for JJ Abram's Star Trek. It's unlike anything ever seen from a Star Trek before. For those of you not aware, yes, they're making another Star Trek movie. Yes, this is number 11. But like the 21st Bond, pretty much everything has been thrown out of the window and they're starting from scratch. So far, its looking like this is what The Original Series would be like if it was made today and no one had ever heard of Star Trek before. It's a prequel in that its young Kirk and crew and explores their origins more than the series and previous movies ever did. But its a reboot in that things are different in some ways (which could be explained by the presense of a time-travelling Leonard Nimoy). Overall, I think it looks good. It has potentional for either greatness or lameness. But I'll see it with an open mind as a revitalization of one of my favorite franchises and I encourage my fellow Trekkies to do the same. I think even if you've written off Star Trek before, you should give this movie a look.

Official Site
News

REVIEW: Tropic Thunder (2008)

Summary: Ben Stiller directs and stars in a comedy about the making of a Vietnam war movie that goes off the rails when the actors are left in the Vietnamese jungle to fend for themselves.

Ben Stiller plays the stereotypical action hero who wants to finally have a serious role after trying and failing to Oscar-bait by starring as a mentally-challenged stable boy.

Jack Black plays the stereotypical comedy star who is in it for the money to continue is drug habit.

Robert Downey Jr. plays a 5-time Oscar winning Australian actor best known for his complete immersion in a role for months at a time. He also had surgery to portray the black sergent to challenge himself further.

Thoughts: I thought this movie was hilarious. Everything about it was great. Each character in the movie starts in reality, but is taken to obscene comic heights. The only character who isn't very well developed is Stiller's (who wrote, directed, and produced), who keeps his acting role to a minimum I think to make room for his other roles, unlike when he was the title character in Zoolander in addition to writing, directing, and producing it. The other characters are perfect portrayals of the actors who appear in movies today. The over-the-top comic, the method actor, the rapper-turned-actor, and the actor who actually takes his job seriously, all come across pretty convincingly. The ridiculous movie producer is a character you won't soon forget, especially after you realize who is playing him.

The dialog was funny, if extremely vulgar. Some of it is vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, but that is probably how Hollywood behind the scenes actually is.

Downey is the stand-out star of this movie, cementing this as the Summer of Downey. His character's unwillingness/inability to break character is hilarious but sad in a way. Ironically, Downey rarely broke character after filming stopped, immersing himself in a character who is a parody of actors who immerse themselves in their characters.

This movie is what parody/satire is all about, not Disaster Movie or Meet the Spartans. I heard that Ivan Reitman (director of Ghostbusters 1 & 2) said that sign of a good comedy is that you can take out all the jokes and it still be a good movie. By that definition, Tropic Thunder is a good comedy.

Overall: A great example of what satire should be.
4/5

REVIEW: Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

Summary: In between Star Wars Episode II and Episode III, three years of war between the Clone Army of the Republic and the Droid Army of the Separatists were skipped over in the movies. The first attempt to document these battles was the traditionally animated "Clone Wars" micro-series of 25 mini episodes. I thought these were good, but sometimes a bit over the top. The first two mini-seasons had little plot, and the third mini-season's plot was weird until it lead directly into the opening battle of Episode III.

The Clone Wars (note the "the") takes place between seasons two and three of the micro-series, after Anakin is knighted but before the events leading up to the Battle of Coruscant that starts Episode III. Basically the pilot for the upcoming TV show (also titled "The Clone Wars"), the movie seems to consist of the first three half-hour episodes of the TV show expanded and edited together to make a 90 minute movie.

Jabba the Hutt, intergalactic crime lord, is upset that his son has been kidnapped. The Republic, eager to make peace with Jabba to get free passage through Hutt space, send Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, and Skywalker's new apprentice, Ahsoka Tano, to retrieve Jabba's son. However, not all is as it seems, because the Sith are behind the kidnapping, and hope to manipulate things to their advantage.

Thoughts: It's hard to figure out how best to judge this movie. Do I review it as I would any other movie? Do I review it as a die-hard Star Wars fan? Or do I review it keeping in mind who the movie was designed for, that is, 8 year old me? I think I'll try giving all three perspectives, just to cover all of my bases.

General Review: Honestly, I found the movie to be exactly what was advertised: the pilot for what amounts to a Saturday morning cartoon. Most reviewers seem to think this is supposed to be Episode II.5, a legitimate piece of film making meant to be taken seriously as a contender for Academy Awards. They don't seem to understand that Lucas watched the first few episodes of the TV series and said to Warner Brothers "Hey, we could release this to theaters."

As a theatrical release it left many things to be desired. Mostly, pacing. Much like the prequels, some shots seemed to linger too long, some scenes seemed pointless, and others just seemed to drag on and on. In fact, about an hour into the movie I found myself wondering how much was left. And during a 90 minute movie, that's a terrible sign. Anakin and his padawan had nicknames that they called everything, which got annoying after a while. However, I didn't find the padawan as annoying as I expected. The same with the Hutt baby. Heck, the baby was adorable!

The voice acting was excellent. James Arnold Taylor, who does the voice of Obi-Wan, does an incredible Ewan McGregor impression, and if I didn't know better I would have sworn it was him. Matt Lanter does a better Anakin than Hayden Christensen, which doesn't seem too hard. Tom Kane is always an excellent Yoda, while Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu) and Anthony Daniels (C-3PO) reprised their roles, as underused as they might have been in the movie. Christopher Lee made a surprising (to me) return as Count Dooku, who actually played more of a part in this movie than either Episode II or III.

The facial animation was alright for a TV show. Without a movie budget or time, it was expected, but I'm not sure it was ready for a theater, almost like it was rushed. The movement of bodies and ships was great. The battles, even if they did last too long at times, were fun to see. Helmeted clones and battle droids, without faces, worked the best, I thought.

Star Wars Fan Review: Looking at the movie from the viewpoint of the whole Star Wars universe was interesting. I found myself tying things into other parts of the universe, and was actually surprised to hear at least one of them explained on screen. A little more explaining could have saved some other critics' complaints, because in the books Hutts are described as being hermaphroditic or able to choose their sex at will. This would explain why Jabba's "uncle" Ziro was so effeminate. It also could have been explained by simply making Ziro an "aunt" and avoiding the confusion altogether.

Other things explained in the other movies are ignored in this movie, as is usual for Expanded Universe content (things not happening in any of the numbered movies). Asajj Ventress shows up again from the "Clone Wars" micro-series, who is a Sith Assassin. But as Yoda mentions on screen in Episode I and is explained in great detail in several books, there isn't supposed to be more than two Sith at a time, one who has the power and other to crave it. But during the Clone Wars, there is Sidious and Dooku, with Dooku having a kind-of apprentice in Ventress and another in General Grievous (who thankfully isn't squeezed into this movie). Maybe because Sidious was about to control the galaxy again he felt that having more than two Sith was a good idea. Or maybe because neither Grievous or Ventress have "Darth" titles they are not truly "Sith", but they might as well be.

Comparing it to the other Star Wars movies shows that it has much in common with the prequels. Even though Lucas didn't direct it, I could see shots and scenes where his fingerprint was visible. Of course, the thin plot and the questionable dialog really tied it into the prequels. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you don't hate the prequels. The problem is that most people, especially most Star Wars fans, do.

Another comparison is the lack of an opening crawl. There is an opening narration instead, which is great for kids who can't read well, but the announcer voice is a bit over the top, sounding like a political ad from Starship Troopers, almost like they want you to join the Army of the Republic against the eeeeeeeeeeeevil Separatists.

The soundtrack was also lacking. I can understand them not being about to convince John Williams to work on it, but besides the obvious Star Wars themes, it sounded nothing like the numbered movies. Maybe they meant to do that, but it was weird to see those images without the classically composed score.

Kid Review: I asked a couple of the kids in my theater who had just come from McDonald's bearing Star Wars Happy Meal toys what they thought, but they were too embarrassed and only said "I didn't think anything." They weren't talking to each other or laughing, or even racing their toys around like they were before the movie. I didn't take that as a good sign.

Thinking of the movie as a kid would is difficult. Would I have forgiven some of the faults that adults seem to harp on? Would I have been even more excited about a TV series after seeing the movie? The thing is that I don't know. I think if it dragged on at times for me as an adult, I'm sure younger people were bored out of their minds. Even when it picked up again towards the end, would it have regained my interest? Could kids follow the convoluted plot as Dooku's plan was revealed?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure that it hit all of the marks with its intended audience as it would have hoped to. I don't know what processed Lucas to released this to theaters (wait, money), when he could have released it on DVD just as easily and avoided all of this critical failure. It didn't need to be released to theaters to generate interest in the series. If anything, all of this negative attention is really bad for the future of the series.

But the negative attention mostly comes from people who would never watch Cartoon Network anyway. Will I give the series a shot? Sure. Am I it's intended audience? No. I think the shorter run times of the episodes will help the series fare better than the movie, but I doubt the plot will get any better, especially since we know how it all ends.

Overall: An average string of episodes from a children's television show, released to theaters.
2/5

REVIEW: The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience (2008)

As usual, no spoilers.

Summary: The Dark Knight is the direct sequel to Batman Begins, the dark restart of the Batman story without the campiness that usually happens after people are tired of trying to make such dark subjects entertaining to the masses. This time out, Gotham has a new "white knight" in the form of Harvey Dent, a new district attorney not afraid to stand up to the organized crime that is destroying the city. But the organized crime syndicate have a new ace up their sleeve, a villain so unpredictable, so evil that no one can control him. A man without a name or history. A man they call "The Joker."

Thoughts: The Dark Knight embraces it's darkness, giving us a story that few would dare before this point. So many themes are handled throughout the two and a half hours that it's impressive they fit it all into one coherent movie. Basically it all comes down to what it means to be a hero and how sometimes it takes a hero of a different kind to make a real difference.

The movie is impeccably directed and cast, with the acting going above and beyond the call of the script (except for Maggie Gyllenhaal, who reaches the very low bar set by Katie Holmes in the first one, but maybe that was the point). Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, are all incredible actors who make you believe their roles.

Heath Ledger, however, takes believability to a whole new level with his Joker. There's nothing funny about his performance. When you look into The Joker's eyes, The Joker is all you can see. Completely unpredictable, without remorse, a true (to bring in some Dungeons and Dragons lingo) Chaotic Evil character. I spent the whole movie on the edge of my seat because you literally have no idea what he's going to do next. Heath Ledger's Joker makes every other villain I've ever seen pale in comparison. I'm not sure where the "Oscar buzz" will go, but Heath Ledger's performance is something more, a total immersion that I believe drove him to the depression and sleep anxiety that killed him. He gave everything he had to this role, in every sense.

Everything about this movie is top notch. It had more scares than any horror movie, more action than any action movie, more suspense than any suspense movie, and was probably the first "comic book movie" that truly deserves to have that mentioned second, if at all. It's hard to imagine clumping it together with X-Men or, heaven forbid, Fantastic Four. I still love Iron Man and think it was tons of fun, but this was such a good movie no matter how you look at it.

Overall: A great movie that happens to be based on a comic book.
4.5/5


The IMAX Experience Review: Since this was my first IMAX experience and The Dark Knight has a special version for IMAX theaters, I figured I'd give it a mini-review.

IMAX is big. Really big. Like I've heard about the bigness, but it was ridiculous. And LOUD. Every punch, every explosion, every bass note in the soundtrack shook the whole room. My extremities were literally numb towards the end of the movie.

The Dark Knight had some scenes filmed in IMAX, so there were sections when the frame expanded beyond the widescreen format to fill up the whole IMAX screen. A few of the major action pieces and all of the helicopter shots of Gotham were expanded. The regular theater versions just have the IMAX screen cropped down to fill theirs, so you're not missing added content really, just added immersion.

There was a mini-trailer before the movie began for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at IMAX. The last few movies have been at IMAX, but just enbiggened not enhanced in any way. HBP is going to have "selected scenes in IMAX 3D." So, who wants to go with us to Indianapolis November 20th to see the midnight showing?