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

Labels: André Dussollier, Emmanuelle Devos, film, Mathieu Amalric, movie trailer, Sabine Azéma

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

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 follows Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric (The Story of Richard O)) who is struck down by a stroke. Bauby wakes in a hospital bed, completely paralyzed with the exception of his eyes. He copes with his debilitation and finds a way to still experience life. With the help of his physical therapist, Bauby writes a book, the one from which the film is based. He communicates the text by blinking his left eye. His story is certainly one of perseverance. A majority of the film is shown from his point-of-view, meaning from a bed behind his blinking solitary eye. This may seem gimmicky, but it turns out to be a striking dramatic tool. The reason a person is going to read the book or see the film is to satisfy the fear of disability. Like it or not, there’s the whole “I hope that never happens to me” element in approaching this movie. Director Julian Schnabel (Before Night Falls) makes a brilliant choice by putting the audience in the hospital bed, with blurry vision, people swooping in from all direction. This choice has a solid dramatic punch. When Bauby loses one of his eyes to infection, literally cutting his functioning body by 50%, it is sewn up by a dismissive doctor. Schnabel puts the audience behind Bauby's eyelid as the final seconds of sight from that eye is taken from him as he pleads for mercy. In addition, we are kept from seeing Bauby until he himself has a chance to view his own face in a distorted reflection. This slow reveal heightens Bauby’s terror and fully shows the man’s circumstance. High credit goes to Schnabel for working Bauby's peril to full dramatic effect.

The film is more than just seeing the world through Bauby's eye and playing off common fears. Once this is covered, Schnabel moves to Bauby's life and how those around him have reacted to the tragedy. It becomes clear that many of Bauby's associates are ill equipped to dealing with this level of a change in their friend. The film loses some air at this point since Schnabel loses his device of using Bauby's point-of-view, but the stilted interactions between Bauby and others still is fascinating. The relationship between Bauby and his estranged wife and their children is particularly interesting. Where the film really hits its stride are with the scenes between Bauby and his father, played by Max von Sydow (The Adventures of Bob & Doug Mckenzie: Strange Brew). Von Sydow perfectly displays the torment of a parent who is forced to see their child in pain. Nearing the end of his own life, Bauby’s father has his son drift away slowly in a bed far away. Unable to visit his son, he is forced to say his goodbyes over the phone. If for no other reason, this film is worth the price of admission to witness the moving scenes between Sydow and Amalric as father and son.

Overall this is not a brilliant film but it is a well crafted and touching one. Bauby's struggle is plainly shown and done so with intelligence and care. Most movies treat the disabled with kid gloves and in completely sympathetic light, this movie does Bauby the honor of showing him warts and all - treating him as a real person, not just as a disability.


Cautions: This film does contain full frontal male nudity. Bauby is shown being bathed and this scene is very frank with his nudity. There's also bad language and constant reference to Bauby's strained relationship with his wife (due to an affair).


Worldview: As he becomes more communicative and settles into a routine, Bauby is taken to a priest by his physical therapist who is a “devout Christian”. Instead of the usual reaction, Bauby remains unimpressed by the church and denies God. While this is contrary to the reaction one would expect normally, if you listen to Bauby’s words and review his life it isn’t terribly shocking. He was a European elite and acted as such. This refutation of God is the film’s only contact with the deity.

In the end of the film, Bauby’s publication of the book is presented as a majestic feat. To be fair, of course, it was an arduous task but in reality the only reason it was published was because he was a well connected European elite. If he had been a fisherman or baker with the same aliment, it would be doubtful the same book would make it past the proposal stage.

The feat of publishing a book falls somewhat flat as a grand result of his torment. His person seemed to remain unchanged, there was no revelation, no resounding altering of his heart. If he had listened more closely to God knocking at the door, a transformation could have taken place. Yes, he was stuck in the “diving bell” of his motionless body but the change into a butterfly never appeared to have happened – he simply ended up an author.


Related Reviews:
Movies about the disabled
The Sea Inside (2004)
Murderball (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
Film-Forward

Labels: film, French cinema, Mac von Sydow, Mathieu Amalric, movie review