Casino Royale (2006)
NO SPOILERS

In the many, many years I’ve been an avid film-goer, there have only been three times I have actually heard female audience members openly gasp in shocked pleasure at displays of unexpected male beauty on the silver screen.

One was the beach volleyball scene in Top Gun, which made a superstar out of a little known actor named Tom Cruise, the second was a shirtless dumb-but-purty blond Texan hunk that was a one night stand for one of the women in Thelma and Louise. He became the mega-star Brad Pitt. The third time happened a few weeks ago when I was watching the newest James Bond flick.

A NEW HUNK STAR IS BORN

In Casino Royale we are introduced to the newest James Bond in actor Daniel Craig. For the first 40 or so minutes of the film, he plays a thuggish hit-man with an ugly demeanor who is trying to earn his newly-gained Double-O status. Then out of the blue – or in this case a blue Bahamian lagoon, a drippy blond speedo-wearing Daniel Crag rises from the water. (Cue female gasps) Later, as the Blond Bond crawls into a shower to console a crying woman, his white cotton tuxedo shirt turns almost transparent as it clings to his torso and arms. (Cue more gasps)

BUT DOES JAMES BLOND PULL IT OFF?

By now we’ve established that the new man to don the Bond moniker of this film is a hottie (at least from the neck down) judging from the audience reaction. But, can he act? Can he play a believable Bond?

The answer is an unqualified yes.

While Craig may not be the best bond to order a martini, he probably has the best acting chops. Never before have any of the previous actors approached the Bond character with such the honest earnestness that Craig displays in the role. He fully inhabits the predatory thuggish slab of beef as Bond was written in the original Ian Fleming novel.

NO MORE MR. SPY FI

This new bond also is a creature of the post 9/11 action cinema with brutal, bloody violence. The villains are no longer unbelievable megalomaniacs bent on world domination, but are terrorist zealots plotting a very realistic attack.

The whole movie is based on plausible realism and is a far cry from the traditional James Bond flick with its wink-nudge self awareness. There is no camp here.. and sadly, no gadgets.

The James Bond films of 30-so years ago gave rise to a new genre in fiction, spy fi. With its mystery and intrigue draped with futuristic gadgets and semi-science fiction trappings, Bond developed an expectation among fans wanting such things as ejector seats and submarine cars.

But alas, in this new grittier Bond, the technology although whiz-bang is still plausible. Some of it can currently be bought off the shelf. The new bond has done away with all of the science fiction elements that had become a trademark of the series of films.

THE FINAL JUDGMENT

All said, the newest installment of the James Bond series is quality film making and well worth the price of admission. The action scenes are thrilling. The women (and men) are both beautiful to look at and skilled actors.

Two minor points of caution.

1. The film is overly long. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, surely the editor could have trimmed out some of the slower scenes in this flick.

2. One scene involves a rather brutal torture of a naked Bond. (Thank God they didn’t get Roger Moore to do the strip-down in this scene). The violence inflicted upon Bond may be too disturbing for some viewers.

Ultraviolet (2006)
NO SPOILERS

If you’ve been dying for the first big-budget live-action anime film, the good news is your wait is over. The bad news is that it comes in the form of Ultraviolet, the new wire-fu sci-fi flick from Sony’s Screen Gems genre studio.

The plot revolves around a concept that sometime in the future, scientists will stumble upon an ancient disease (one for human vampirism) and modify it in hopes of creating a super soldier with enhanced, speed, strength, intelligence and healing ability. Things go awry and the virus mutates to become very infectious. Society devolves into a war to save itself, led by a pseudo-religious inquisition bent on the extermination of the infected.

(No that wasn’t a spoiler because it is never fully explained in the film, although an attempt is made over the beginning credits.)

The film stars Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil, The Fifth Element) as Violet, William Fichtner (Invasion, Armageddon) as Garth, Cameron Bright (Stargate: SG1, The Butterfly Effect) as Six and Nick Chinlund (The Chronicles of Riddick, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, X-Files) as Daxus.

A few things work very well in this film. A true fan of free-form plot anime or wire-fu (Matrix, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) films will probably thoroughly enjoy this film. The special effects are stunning, the camera shots are gorgeous, and the feel is very … Japanese.

As a semi-silent film or a work of visual art, this film succeeds.

But alas, films in the American action-adventure tradition tell a story with a clear beginning, a clear middle and an end that resolves something. Ultraviolet lacks these conventions. Now, for an audience that doesn’t care, that can be a good thing.

But, for an audience who wishes to find a good hour-and-a-half of swashbuckling fun, this lack of clearly defined story is not good at all. For the vast majority of the American film-going public, Ultraviolet will probably be seen as boring or confusing. The writers and director fail to explain to the audience why they should care if the main character lives or dies.

Otherwise it is a gorgeous, dreamlike and exciting film destined for cult status.

But as a mainstream film, something is missing – something big.

After watching Ultraviolet, I left the theatre with a definite feeling that I had witnessed a film with much potential that just didn’t live up to its promise. In essence, there was no there there … to borrow Gertrude Stein’s famous quote.

For: Fandominion

Nanny McPhee (2005)
NO SPOILERS

Of all the so-called family films I’ve seen in the past 12 months, two have stood out as films I’ve told adults to go see – whether they have children or not. One is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the second is Nanny McPhee.

This film is a modern classic. Like the latest potter movie, and like the classic Disney films of the 1930s and 1940s, the makers of Nanny McPhee know that evil and dark times are required to make the good times matter.

In the title role, Emma Thompson plays the magical Nanny McPhee, who takes on a physical appearance that matches her charges’ behaviour. The more ugly the children’s behavior, the more ugly the Nanny appears.

As the best-known actor cast in a major role in the film, she succeeds in keeping her supporting role from overpowering the other actors and plot of this sweet film. In a bit part, the films biggest star, Angela Lansbury,
does a delightful turn as the pompous Aunt Adelaide, who is near sighted in more than one way.

The true strength of this delightful film is that it is a true family film. It falls happily into a category of its own. It isn’t mind-numbingly boring to adults like most movies for children. Emma Thompson also wrote the script, which is adapted from the Nurse Matilda series of children’s books by Christianna Brand.

It is no wonder that Thompson has won an Academy Award for her abilities to adapt literature for to the big screen. With Nanny McPhee she again does an outstanding job. Here the adults have human faults and the children talk like children, not miniature grownups.

Thompson has a gift for dialogue which is rare, Thompson sets a rhythm and lyrical quality in all of her scripts that are reminiscent of the playfulness in some of Shakespeare’s farces.

Nanny McPhee is one of those films that didn’t set the box office on fire, but is destined to live for years as a classic family film due to its magical mix of wit and moral relevance.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang Poster Online (themovieblog.com)

Underworld Evolution (2005)
NO SPOILERS

Every so often a stylish little film comes out of nowhere and becomes a cult hit. That happened in the fall of 2003 when a lower budget vampire and werewolf movie called Underworld opened in theatres. To almost everyone’s surprise, it was the top movie of the weekend and went on to attract a sizable audience and made a handsome profit for the studio.

The film was full of chemistry. A mixture of nihilistic sexiness not seen since 1983 when Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie and Susan Sarandon steamed up the screen with The Hunger, did a vampire film get so much attention in fandom.

After the debut, fans were pleased to hear that both a sequel and prequel were already written for Underworld. Sony, the studio in charge of the film, set December 2005 as the debut for the new film.

But things started to go sour. First, Sony moved the debut of Underworld Evolution, as the sequel was named, out of the prime holiday season. Second, when the film finally did debut on the weekend of January 20, 2006 – the studio refused to pre-screen the film to critics.

That is usually a bad sign. It usually means that studio honchos are afraid of bad word of mouth since they think the film is poor quality and do not want to take a ribbing from critics.

Well, I’m breaking out the ribs.

Underworld Evolution is one of those sequels like Jaws 2 or the Matrix sequels that leaves many fans befuddled and annoyed. Like those films, this movie achieves the rare and dubious honor of making the original film appear less special in hindsight.

Quite frankly it is a movie that should never have been made.

The special effects are sub-par, the story is predictable and boring and the acting talents of the talented cast are wasted since it seems the studio was more interested in showing the scenery and action than any emotional depth or character development.

If you like the Underworld mythos and world of the original movie and want to get more of it. I suggest skipping Underworld Evolution the movie, and instead head over to your local bookstore and buy the novelization by Greg Cox.

The book costs less than a movie ticket, lasts longer and is better written.

King Kong (2005)
NO SPOILERS

This movie is proof that director Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings trilogy) is no one trick pony. This newest – and possibly best – version of King Kong had even the most jaded movie goers squirming in their seats and jumping at startling moments.

Somehow this film pulls off being a lyrical fantasy, an action adventure, a horror film, a comedy, a tragedy, a road movie, a biting commentary on exploitation of the innocent by the powerful, a buddy film and a love story all rolled up in one. It really is that good.

Some critics have complained about this new Kong Kong‘s length; usually saying something akin to how at three hours, it could use a good trimming. I’m not so sure.

In Peter Jackson’s hands, we get a movie that starts out on a slow burn – like the first big hill of a rollercoaster. The extra-long buildup is worth the payoff of the second half of the film.

Jackson gives us time to become involved in the lives of the characters of this film. We get to know them – and suffer and laugh with them. We feel for them.

This version of King Kong is a movie with a soul.

The Breakdown:

ACTOR HIGHLIGHTS: For a good portion of this film, there is no dialogue. Lead actress Naomi Watts (The Ring, Tank Girl) plays “Ann Darrow,” the beauty. But in this 2005 version, she is not played as much a damsel in distress as a survivor and fighter. Watts has that gift some great actors have of being able to communicate through her eyes, emotions and intent pouring out of her. Her meaning and intent crystal clear without the need to actually utter a word.

Can a computer-generated “cartoon” act? After I saw this film, I’d have to say yes. King Kong himself pulled off the most surprisingly good performance. He was “played” by Andy Serkis (“Gollum” from Lord of the Rings) who also pulls off the dual role of playing the ship’s cook. As Kong, Serkis acted out all of the gorilla movements, which computers captured and converted into a computer-animated 25-foot-tall silverback gorilla.

SPECIAL EFFECTS: The scenes of Depression-era New York city are flawless. The scenes on Skull Island are pulled off with near-photo realism. Kong himself looks alive.

WRITING: The original story by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace was expertly adapted and fleshed out by writers Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. For true fans of Kong, they included nods to the original movie and cast peppered throughout the film.

But by far the best touches were the back story on Ann Darrow and the growth of the friendship between her and Kong.

This is by far the best fantasy genre film of 2005.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)
NO SPOILERS

If only I were 30 years younger, I’d probably adore this film.

First of all for the avid C.S. Lewis fans, rest assured, that by far this is the best film adaptation of this book ever, it easily eclipses previous TV versions filmed in 1967, 1979 and 1988.

For non-fans of C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (LWW), is a nice little family film that at times is reminiscent of Lord of the Rings, but without its touches of masterpiece. Also unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this Narnia film has slow parts that some viewers may find utterly boring.

And to put one so-called controversy to rest for good. There has been a lot of hype in the media about this film’s Christian overtones. Sure they are there as broad themes – but that’s it. No where in the film are the words “God” or “Jesus” spoken.

I’m suspecting that the PR people at Disney created this controversy to get media attention away from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – which is a better movie, by the way.

But back to this film. Ever since the first teaser previews started appearing in theatres for this film, I was caught up like many others in anticipation of this film. After having seen it, I can say it was well worth the ticket price, but I’m not sure I’ll be buying the DVD when it comes out.

I think the main flaw with this version of LWW is that I am an adult and at its heart, this is a Disney film. When a hero kills a villain with a sword and is told to clean it, I expect to see blood on it – or at least some consequence of the violent act.

As an adult without children, this film was just too sanitized. The violent deaths and blood and … realistic consequences to deadly action happen off camera. That’s OK in many cases. There really is no need to show blood and gore for blood and gore’s sake in a movie like this.

But in this case, I think the film makers went a little overboard. It has been so scrubbed clean … it verges on being boring. And with some of the best special effects, wonderful acting and gorgeous scenery – that was a hard thing to do. But somehow, the makers of this film turned what should have been a blockbuster into something merely OK. Too bad.

Despite that, I found some parts of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe to be brilliant, including:

• Direction by Andrew Adamson (Shrek, Shrek 2). Here Adamson uses his skills honed in 3-D animation to perfection. He also knows enough to play up the comedic parts of what could have become a preachy film.
• The computer-generated animals. It is amazing how far this technology has progressed. The animals actually look and act like real animals. I was astonished at the realism and how seamlessly the live actors blended in with what are basically high-tech cartoons.
• Tilda Swinton (Constantine, Vanilla Sky, Orlando) as the “White Witch.” With this performance, we see one of the best villains to appear on screen in the past decade … or longer. Swinton’s witch is pure evil in a befittingly original and chilling way. You actually believe that she is capable of doing the acts she does in this film.
• The two youngest cast members, Georgie Henley as “Lucy” and Skandar Keynes as “Edmund” shine. These two, and Swinton carry this movie. They saved this show from the mediocrity the producers seemed hellbent to create.

Aeon Flux (2005)

Aeon Flux is a hit-and-miss live-action big screen adaptation of a series of animated shorts that first appeared on MTV’s Liquid Television series (which also spawned Beavis and Butthead and the film Office Space) in 1991. The film succeeds in capturing the look and feel of the original cartoon, which was virtually a silent film – but fails where it departs from the original as cheesy dialogue mars an otherwise entertaining film.

Imagine a society 400 years in the future when the entire population of Earth exists behind the walls of Bregna, a single city of 5 million. The rest of humanity has been killed off long ago by disease associated with industrial activity.

This is the world of Aeon Flux, starring Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron in the title role. She plays a Monican agent working covertly to overthrow the oppressive government, led by the Goodchild dynasty.

The Goodchilds are similar to the old Chinese dynasties and rule with a caring, iron fist. Under their care, Bregna has grown into a very well-manicured and very ordered society.

Imagine Singapore – where instead of being publicly caned (beaten) for violating laws after the fact, the landscape itself smacks down violators of the social order. You don’t need ugly “Keep of the Grass” signs when the grass itself is beautiful, but razor sharp enough to cut through flesh, bone and soles of shoes.

The plot of the film revolves around Monican agents trying to take out the Goodchild dynasty – and a mysterious ailment (of which only the government knows) that threatens the few remaining humans.

Directed by Karyn Kusama, whose only other film was 2000 female boxing movie Girlfight, and starring Oscar winners Theron and Frances McDormand (Fargo) as well as Oscar-nominated Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda), the film has a definite feminist slant. And that is a good thing for this movie.

In what could have devolved into a fetishist exploitation flick with scantily-clad women with guns (like some of the scenes in Sin City), Kusama pulls off a lyrical film that is stunning in its visual beauty, but cold and distant – like the call of a mourning dove.

This cold distance means Aeon Flux is not a film that will find a mass audience. It is more of an art house science fiction film, with more in common with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Brazil than Star Wars or War of the Worlds.

Aeon Flux also is a little heavy-handed in its anti-science and anti-genetically modified themes. Bregna takes lethal measures to keep wilds of nature from encroaching upon its over-manicured walls.

But the weakest point in Aeon Flux is the writing. Audience members were openly snickering or even outright mocking some of the clichéd dialogue. I haven’t sat through dialogue this bad since George Lucas unleashed Attack of the Clones teen angst love scene between Anakin and Padme upon us a few years back.

The screenplay by the writing team of Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (Crazy/Beautiful and The Tuxedo) steals many of the one-liners from Peter Chung’s original MTV series, but fails to capture any of the excitement or cutting-edge mood and attitude.

This flaw is probably why the studio chose not to prescreen Aeon Flux to film critics. Probably from fears of dealing with reviews like “Aeon Sucks.” Because, frankly, parts of this movie really do suck.

Thankfully, the stunning art direction and top-quality acting save this film. It is worth seeing for the visuals alone.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Before I begin this review, I have to admit that although I am an avid reader, I have never read any of the Harry Potter books. And, although I have seen all of previous three films, I would not consider myself to be a Harry Potter fan.

Although I am a fan of good juvenile fiction, the Potter series always struck me as … well … to juvenile. The stories were a little unoriginal and dealt way too much with the fictional sport of quidditch… ugh. (I’m not a big sports fan either.)

But for some reason (yet another one of the things we do for our spouse when we are married!) I found myself standing in a VERY LONG LINE on opening night a couple of Fridays ago. In the brisk autumn air, I tried my hardest not to be annoyed by the throngs of giggly school girls who also were standing in line, gossiping loudly and obnoxiously about boys and the weird “nerd” fan adult types who made up the other large portion of Potter premiere night in-line standers.

After we finally made it into the theatre and were seated, the movie started.

Now, not being a Potter fan and not having much in the expectations department for this flick, I sat there underwhelmed… for about the first 4 minutes.

Director Mike Newell, (best known for chick-flicks starring Hugh Grant or Julia Roberts like Four Wedding and a Funeral and Mona Lisa Smile) deftly used his chick flick creds to pull the emotional strings befitting a tale involving teen angst. It’s been more than two decades – not since John Hughes’ Brat Pack-era triumphs of Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club has a film involving teens been so entertaining.

But it didn’t stop there. The action of the film was superb. The dark moments were very dark Newell even added a few frights that one would not expect in a children’s film. He made the dangers seem real – and dangerous.

The best praise I have for this film is that for a two-and-a-half hour film, it didn’t feel like a long movie. I was interested throughout.

The weakest part of the film, I’m sad to say was the writing, which was consistent with the rest of the series. I know J.K. Rowling has made millions of dollars on the back of the Potter franchise. But I found the story to be on the contrived side and a tad derivative.

The young cast and director did wonders with what they had to work with and pulled off a film that not only pleases fans. But also reaches out to people like me who do not consider themselves to be Potter fans … yet.

Serenity (2005)

Having just seen Serenity, a film that will probably go down as the best science fiction film of 2005 (beating out more-hyped fare such as War of the Worlds), I feel compelled to tell folks they must see this film.

This movie singlehandedly raises the humble space opera up from the paint-by-numbers audience expectations of recent Star Trek fare to an artform – a true opera – in the Wagnerian sense.

Under the direction of Joss Whedon, a story that could have been a run of the mill action-adventure flick tackles some of the grander themes in life; as we face them today. How much say should governments have over our daily lives? Who watches those who watch over us?

Deep themes like these infuse a movie that already works as a kick-’em-hard action thriller. But somehow, one is left with the sense that Whedon duped Hollywood bigshots into making a sci-fi flick with a brain – and a heart.

The script, which Whedon also wrote, is filled with cliche-busting dialogue. Dozens of times the audience laughed with glee as Serenity, which could have easily retread all-to-familiar territory for a spaceship-based film, takes an abrupt and human turn as characters react as only real people would in impossible situations.

I highly encourage all movie fans who feel underwhelmed by the quality of speculative fiction cinema this year to see this film without delay. Not only does Serenity prove science fiction can have brains as well as special effects, the movie also is an uproarious good time.

Some adult themes and violence may be unsuitable for small children, even when accompanied by an adult.