Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell portray the Bielski Brothers who lead a group of upward of 1,000 Jewish refugees in Nazi-occupied Europe. They survive by hiding in the Belorussian forests living meekly and constantly worried about being discovered. They eventually hook up with the Russian resistance and then there's lots of guns and fire and stuff.

This should be a great movie and it isn't.

Daniel Craig, while perfectly fine in many roles involving brooding, violent men, doesn't work here. He can look convincing when he hits a man, he looks like he can put some stank on it. However, he shows here he has a little trouble hitting a man and making us care he's done so. His James Bond physical presence has its place and he's great at it. It simply has no place in a film about Jews scraping a living in a freezing forest.

Opposite Craig is Lev Schreiber who offers what I think is perhaps his best performance. He strikes the right tone for dramatic action. Throughout the film it occurred to me that he should have been cast in Craig's role. This should have been his chance to graduate from supporting to lead role.

The film as a whole is far too long and often too concerned with punching up conflicts. The audience is asked to hop from one crisis to the next, always preoccupied with a moment of peril or someone screaming at someone else that it is hard to settle down enough to really care about the proceedings. By the third act, my interest was exhausted.

Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond) not only drags the production out too long, he fails to provide a useful villain. If that wasn't bad enough, he never brings the audience into the living conditions of the refugees. We are told and shown that it stinks to be hiding out in the woods in the dead of winter - we know this. We are never asked to feel how terrible the conditions were, to really have any understanding of their predicament.

Put simply, this is a missed opportunity.




Related Reviews:
Daniel Craig movies
Layer Cake (2003)
Casino Royale (2006)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Critical Mass Film House
ReelFilm Reviews





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, Jamie Bell, Liev Schreiber, movie review, World War II

Even if you are a fan of the rebooted Bond, which I am not, this outing may disappoint. Yes, there is interesting sequences, but the film is missing a soul and any real value.

Daniel Craig returns as the brooding version of James Bond - the existential Bond, the Bond who bleeds, the Bond distracted by the stinging, gaping hole in his soul…the Bond that’s no fun and far too moody to like. The Bond franchise had run its course. It had become a sad parody of itself. It had become the paunchy forty year old man hanging around in college bars buying the co-eds drinks and still going home alone. Instead of putting the toy away, the producers felt the need to revise the classic hero. This wasn’t done by revisiting the core of the character, going back to the original films and discovering what made him work. No, they looked at their competition, Jason Bourne, and decided to mimic what he was doing. Now, we have an odd hybrid of Bourne and Bond. The chase scenes are entrancing cinematic candy, but when everyone stops to talk the flaws in the movie are quite noticeable.

Daniel Craig’s Bond isn’t the kind of guy you’d want to be. He’s not even the kind of guy you’d want to befriend, talk to, walk by or know that he existed. His personality is as pleasant as chewing gravel. He’s stuck with a “oh, I’m so wounded – poor pitiful me, look I’m burning with rage because I’m so distraught” thought bubble over his head throughout the production. In this production, his pouting nature is exasperated by his illogical actions. He’s just lost his love but he muscles through his grief to not only kill countless bad guys, but also bed a good looking redhead and then move on to kill more bad guys. So, what’s we’ve expected to believe is that Bond will go through a life threatening car chase, ruthlessly slaughter villain and civilian alike – stop, throw the back of his hand to his forehead, expel a whimper, continue on killing people in his moral vacuum, mope some more, and top it all by diddling his co-worker? He's gone from being sensitive to being sociopathic.

The film is a jumbled mess. The previous film, Casino Royale, had its moments – except the six hour long card game that made its final act. This film is an inferior sequel. The action sequences are better, but the story itself is lacking. This is partially due to the lack of logic that was applied to the proceedings. I’m sorry, but to believe that M’s closest confidant is a double-agent…if she’s so inept as to allow her private guard to be double agents, then why would she trust Bond or anyone else? Why wouldn’t they be just as likely to be double-agents? Why is she allowed to continue in her position if she can’t even keep control of her own office? This is the first of a long line of logic issues the film distributes but fails to resolve. The evil plot that drives the film, which I won’t go into so I won’t ruin the movie for those of you who insist on seeing it, is likewise illogical. The Bond villain Dominic, played by Mathieu Amalric to great effect, is a creepy businessman. His machinations all lead to a concept that doesn’t really work and doesn’t quite seem worth the effort involved. This is where the film runs into its biggest issue – and this will happen on all of these rebooted Bond films. When you recast Bond as a more “realistic”, existential hero, this means your plots need to be more realistic as well. The glory of Bond in the past was that it was all done with a wink. Everyone understood it was all a lark. This reboot takes itself so seriously, but still wants to be able to still retain the overblown Bond plots. It is a disconnect and it doesn’t stand.

To sum this up, will people like this? Most will enjoy the flash and bang of the chase sequences. If you loved Casino Royale, there may be enough here to tickle your fancy. If you love film, you will be frustrated. This is a fatally flawed film that doesn’t avoid the potholes of the new direction the franchise has taken but strikes each one as they pass along.






Other Critic’s Reviews:
Black Sheep Reviews
Cinema Autopsy

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, James Bond, Judy Dench, Mathieu Amalric

Short Review: Like John McCain, this thing is ugly and unpleasant but can still be very useful if used properly.

There is much to commend in this film. There is also much to discourage me from recommending it.

Matthew Vaughn (producer of Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch) has created a very effective “guy movie”. This thing is as sexy and as violent as Guy Ritchie’s films but without the overbearing and distracting stylization.

Leading man Daniel Craig provides an career marking performance as XXXX, an intelligent business man/drug trafficker. Craig handles his sharp character with a smartness and class that really makes him shine in the role. Moreover he is supported by the likes of Colm Meaney and Michael Gambon. The acting in this film is top notch even when the accents get too thick to understand clearly – don’t these guys have the common decency to speak American?

On the vein of acting, this film holds the record for best punch. There is a moment where Colm Meany decks Daniel Craig and I swear he made contact. The execution of a realistic stage punch is a hard thing to pull off effectively even on film. There are so many details involved in the process that isn’t obvious to the audience. From the trust between actors, to proper camera angles, blocking, timing and a dozen other stupid things that can go wrong, it is just a hard piece of business to pull off. I say watch the film for this blow, it’s a gem.

The flip side of this film is its amorality. I know I harp on this a great deal, but it needs to be harped about. Crime stories are fine but crime stories without a proper moral at its closing is just condoning the evil shown. Yeah, usually things don’t end well for those doing wrong but in many cases (as is the case with Snatch and other heist films) is that there is no actual morality played out. We are left with meaningless karma retribution which is actually turned into a strange nihilistic charge. There is no redemption in films such as this and the audience member is the worse for it. Crime stories without a clear moral line drawn are no different than consuming stupid slasher movies. You’re just trading one sin for another. To live vicariously through Jason chopping up girls and you live vicariously through XXXX pulling off his drug deals. Both are murderous behaviors and neither are judged by their producers.

That said, you should really see how Meany belts Craig. Man, what a shot!

Films such as this one can be useful however. This film presents horrible characters doing horrible things but in a digestible form and with the exception of a few scenes, without violence. Christian and/or conservative filmmakers can look to this film for how to present wrongdoing in a realistic fashion. In many cases Christian filmmakers show criminals as cartoons to keep from dealing with how actual criminals behave. They do this to keep their audiences comfortable. I believe they should deal with people as they are made and show them for what they are.


Related Reviews:
Daniel Craig movies
Infamous (2006)
The Golden Compass (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
eFilmCritics

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, movie review

Short Review: Two hours of Bond crying in his martini.

The James Bond franchise, while still successful, had become tedious and struggled for years to come to terms with the rise of socially sensitive audiences. In a post-modern age, Bond felt like a throwback to a bygone era. Today, male characters are supposed to be introspective and not allowed to walk with a swagger. Like most of our society, Bond was in need of a “re-envisioning”. Throw out the classic Bond (tall, dark, handsome, cool, collected, charming) and replace him with post-modern Bond (tall, blond, receding, brutish, wracked with guilt and generally unpleasant). The things in our culture are being redesigned for us by the elites to remove heroism from the public sphere. This “updating” is happening all over the place (Batman, I'm looking at you).

Gone is the man of the cold war and in comes in the post-modern half-man. He’s sensitive, he’s troubled by his masculine traits, and he’s oh so grumpy. Everything needs to be more “real”, meaning the heroes and bad guys remove their white and black hats and settle for nice moody gray hats. Instead of our heroes holding set morals and making clear, decisive choices everything is a wash of existential muck. The heroes of our modern myths have been knocked down from their pedestals and replaced with brooding mopes.

I have never been a huge fan of James Bond. I’ve always found the films to be too corny for my tastes. I always understood his draw however. Complaints that the franchise had become to heavy with gimmicks and flash are reasonable and the films could have done with more plot and less goofy antics. The inability of producers to keep Bond from his descent into irrelevance was killing the series. Bond was in need of attention, they gave him an overhaul. Daniel Craig was cast in a striking move to abolish the physical remnants of the previous incarnations of Bond. With his villain’s eyes, pumped up body and blond hair, it was clear when he was cast Bond was in for a change. The plot and its devices changed dramatically as well. Gone is Q and his gadgets, goodbye Miss Moneypenny and sayonara to all of you overblown villains. The plot in this new version of Bond is more serious, more real. The problem with the piece is that Bond isn’t about being serious and it’s certainly not real. Yes, this piece is closer to the original books but that’s isn’t important anymore. Bond is a cinematic brand. Its like McDonalds trying to sell whole foods.

When an audience goes to see a Bond film they know what they can expect to see. This film sets to break all of these expectations. It does this successfully by ignoring its pedigree and showing the darker side of 007. As a separate movie, this film is pretty good. Not great, but good. The structure is somewhat disjointed but it still works. Craig is a convincing hired killer and the story has some interest. This is a good film, but it is not Bond. With all other Bond movies you could remove the music, his name and that whole “shaken, not stirred” routine and you’d still know you’re watching a 007 film. This movie is missing the central heart of the franchise and is only connected by the frivolous references thrown in as an awkward reminder of who we’re watching.

I liked (not loved - liked) the movie and chances are that you will like it as well. If you want the same ol’ 007 you’re used to, you’re out of luck. There’s a new sheriff in town and he needs therapy. In effect, this is like redesigning Star Trek without Spock and making Kirk longing for emotional love and respecting other people's boundaries. The name is the same but the formula has changed.



Related Reviews:
Daniel Craig movies
Layer Cake (2003)
Infamous (2005)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Critics United
Roger Ebert

Labels: 007, Daniel Craig, Eva Green, film, James Bond, Jeffrey Wright, Judi Dench, movie review

Screenwriter: Baillie Walsh
Director: Baillie Walsh
Actors: Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), Harry Eden and Eve

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, movie trailer

I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand the idea of Jewish resistance movement fighting off the Nazis is an interesting place to begin but I see this is an Edward Zwick film. He's a hit or miss guy. He's capable of Blood Diamond and Glory but then again he's also kicked out Legends of the Fall and The Last Samurai. Regardless, it's a certainty the movie will be about thirty minutes too long and lined with emotionally manipulative scenes.

Here's the heart of my concern for the movie: Daniel "James Blond" Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell are playing brothers...eh? Brothers? Wha? Why not just have Seth Green, Dolph Lundgren and Conan O'Brien play the roles?




Screenwriter: Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai) and Clayton Frohman (Under Fire)
Director: Edward Zwick (Glory)
Actors: Daniel Craig (Layer Cake), Liev Schreiber (The Omen) and Jamie Bell (Flags of Our Fathers)

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, Liev Schreiber, movie trailer, World War II

Labels: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, film, James Bond, movie trailer

Screenwriters: Neal Purvis (Casino Royale), Robert Wade (Johnny English) and Paul Haggis (Crash)
Director: Marc Forster (The Kite Runner)
Actors: Daniel Craig (The Golden Compass), Mathieu Almaric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), Judi Dench (The Chronicles of Riddick), and Olga Kurylenko (Hitman)

Labels: Daniel Craig, James Bond, Judy Dench, Mathieu Amalric, movie trailer

This film is propaganda. There is no other fair way of describing this effort. Now, someone who wants to lob a partially cobbled together defense of the film may respond that all films are a form of propaganda. To a degree, this is true. All films have a worldview and that worldview is promoted by the work. This film however, is bald-faced propaganda with no illusion of fairness, and no counterpoints. The purpose of the film is to establish the groundwork for a series of movies - geared towards children - that defile the Christian faith. Writer/Director Chris Weitz (American Pie) had hoped to make an atheistic version of Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia. His opus wouldn't be some clever analogy, speaking vaguely of sin and redemption, but one that would carry its agenda on its sleeve.

The film, and the ones that were to follow it had this one not bombed so completely, was based on the series of books by atheist author Philip Pullman. The books, and this film, tell the tale of little Lyra Belacqua, a precocious girl who lives at a college. She hears a conversation about a mystical particle that has the ability to unite the dimensions of the universe. She begins a journey to find said particle and to rescue her friend who has been kidnapped...or something like that, there's armored bears and all matter of goofy people, its all a hod podge of half-baked fantasy gunk thrown together. At its heart, its about a girl looking for this particle while dealing with the evil machinations of the horrible Magisterium, a cruel theocracy which aims to rule the world.

This story may work on paper, but on screen it appears tired and forced. Chris Weitz does a horrible job selling every aspect of this film. His script is rushed and presumptive and its delivery is distractingly pedestrian. The fantasy elements of the film are shoved at the audience with an abrupt hand, as if Weitz were simply barking out the rules of the world - "everybody's got a cat or mouse or monkey or whatever hanging around them all the time - they're called Demons, they're supposed to be cool - got it - alright now, there's this thing called the Magisterium - they're religious - they're bad - got it - okay, now..." No patience at all. The parts of the narrative that aren't fantastic, the human element, are stock and boring. There's no charm at all. The relationships aren't supported by any emotional connection. They never rise above seeming written rather than organic and real. This combined with the mishandled fantasy portions are what doom this film to the bargain bin at Wal-Mart.

On the subject of the bargain-bin, Nicole Kidman fronts this movie. She's the Dan Ackroyd of modern film. This actress seems intent on making so many bad movies that it comes to define her rather than the fact she was screwed up enough to be married to Tom Cruise. Kidman is a sign of a bad production. Her choices are almost all overly agendized (yes, I know it not a real word) films that also have the distinction of not being well made (The Stepford Wives, The Interpreter, Eye's Wide Shut, The Peacemaker, Happy Feet, Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus). This is just another turkey feather in her cap. Kidman saunters around the screen trying to ooze villainy. She just looks like an aging actress attempting to be noticeable. Her performance is lifeless except for brief moments of snottiness. Opposite her in the cast is Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra. Richards is a child actress and comes across as such. She's talented enough to maintain her scenes, but not charismatic enough to get us to care. The poor thing is hampered by the blocky script so I can't come down on her too hard. Even the greatest actors can be tripped up by poor dialog.

Overall, this movie is almost too boring to count as being an embarrassment. Even if you don't care about the fumbling agenda, heck, even if you support it, this movie is simply at its core just a bad flick. It fails to sell itself and it does so with a misplaced haughtiness that serves to make their missteps just that much more irritating. Skip this one with extreme prejudice.


Related Reviews:
Anti-Christian films
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Stigmata (1999)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Ill-Informed Gadfly
Christianity Today

Labels: Daniel Craig, film, movie review, Nicole Kidman, The Golden Compass