QUANTUM OF SOLACE And The Film Babble Blog Best Of Bond

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Dir. Mark Forster, 2008)

I liked but did not love CASINO ROYALE – the 007 reboot debut of the robust Daniel Craig but I was way in the minority, mind you. Folks who never cared for a James Bond movie before, and many who had never seen one before as well, fell head over heels for the intensity of the lead man, the non-stop action set pieces, and the emotional realism that many thought the series would never have.

Craig proved himself as a Bond with a difference; one that really bleeds with a powerful palpable anger bottled inside to form a fierce focus. He’s never in need of a gimmicky gadget to save him or a clever quip to break the tension. More BOURNE than Bond some critics claimed, but this was still a preferable approach to the dated fading status of the superspy.

Helmed by a different director (Marc Forster who has never directed an action film and man does it show) QUANTUM OF SOLACE picks up where CASINO ROYALE left off with Bond in revenge mode chasing down the killers of slain lover Vesper Lynd. His adventure begins with wretchedly cut and ferociously un-involving pre-credits car chase which unfortunately sets the standard for the entire episode.

We follow Bond, who is still into running and jumping from rooftop to rooftop, from one locale to the next- Haiti, Bolivia, Austria (you gotta have globe trotting) as he kills government traitors and fights to bring down the ginormous terrorist organization Quantum, which is the only connection to the odd title (yes, I know it’s taken from a Ian Fleming short story and that with Bond titles don’t matter).

That’s the best I can do with the plot or lack of it. Hard to make that a matter of much criticism when even the best Bond films have had thin narratives but when I didn’t care what the significance of a particular character was or what exactly was happening it’s hard to overlook.

Craig’s performance is the saving grace of this tangled tortured mess of a movie. He has perfected his unique take on the iconic character and has a scorching presence that often helps this material rise above its turgid trappings. It also helps that there’s a strong cast on the sidelines – the always appealing Judi Dench returns as M, Jeffrey Wright again plays Bond’s CIA ally Felix Leiter, and Olga Kurylenko does the best she can with her role as Bond’s requisite love interest Camille.

The elements of sex and humor that I found largely lacking in the previous film are also absent here but what’s worse is that this exercise is sadly sans both style and substance. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a failed follow-up to what I realize much more than before was one of the strongest entries of the Bond canon. CASINO ROYALE didn’t just think outside the box, it ripped the box to shreds and discarded the remains to build its own new box. That the new box is already rotting and needs to be replaced is a shame, but we know James Bond has overcome bigger obstacles and will resiliently return regardless.

And now, for the bloggosphere geek record, and because I feel many of my fellow film bloggers and readers haven’t grown up with 007 like I have, here’s my favorite films featuring the original international man of mystery:

Film Babble Blog’s Top Ten Best Of Bond

1. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (Dir.Terence Young, 1963) Despite the heavily derived from Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST helicopter chase sequence, the fight scenes, and the now obligatory boat chase this is more of a straight thriller laced with romance than the expected high octane action ilk and that’s how I like Bond best. Sean Connery’s second performance as 007 captures him in suave stride as he romances a Russian agent (Daniela Bianchi) while battling SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Filled with finesse from the first frame to the last and still as sharp today as Rosa Clebb’s poisoned shoe spike was back in the Kennedy Camelot era.

2. GOLDFINGER (Dir. Guy Hamilton, 1964) It’s close to a tie between this and #1; this being the fine tuning of a formula that served the series very well. A megalomaniac (Gert Fröbe) sets out to commit “the crime of the century” by literally going for the gold (Fort Knox) but Bond (Connery) foils his plans and gets Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) in the process (also literally). The theme song sung by Shirley Bassey (who later did the better than the movie theme for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER) is as definitive as the film itself.

3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (Dir. Lewis Gilbert, 1977) There’s a bias here because this was the first one I saw as a kid at the theater but it’s certainly considered the best of the Roger Moore Bond movies (Moore himself agrees). It has one of the best Bond babes (Barbara Bach), one of the best Bond theme songs (Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does It Better”), and one of the best Bond automobiles (a Lotus Esprit that can convert to a submarine car). It also has the infamous overlarge henchman “Jaws” (Richard Kiel) who was popular enough to be shamelessly trotted out again in the next movie.

4. DR. NO (Dir. Terence Young, 1962) Yep, like the first 3 Elvis Costello albums the first 3 Bond movies are essential IMHO. Connery assumes the role immediately and this has much evidence of the cold cunning killer that folks these days seem to think Craig created. The shot of Ursula Andress emerging from the water in a white cotton bikini with a knife holster is forever etched into my psyche and into film history. Fittingly the scene was recreated with Halle Berry in DIE ANOTHER DAY and to show the tables have been turned in terms of sexual objectification nowadays, Daniel Craig did the honors at the beach in CASINO ROYALE.

5. ON HER MAJESTY’S SERCRET SERVICE (Dir. Peter Hunt, 1969) Maybe an odd choice to some because it featured a Bond one-timer (George Lazenby - who I believe is Marge Simpson’s favorite Bond) but I think it’s crucial for several reasons, the most important being that this is the one he gets married in. Former model Lazenby may have been a horrible actor but he’s got a grand movie surrounding him with the elegant Diana Rigg (fresh from The Avengers) as his bride, Telly Savalas as the most energetic version of Bond’s arch enemy Blofeld to be found in the series, and the first and still best ski chase Bond’s ever been in.

6. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (Dir. John Glen, 1981) This was a noble and successful attempt to get Bond back down to earth (again literally) after the sublimely stupid STAR WARS cash-in MOONRAKER. Roger Moore’s 5th outing as the secret agent was nicely plotted with a great McGuffin (ATAC - Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator, a thingie that looked like a big calculator) and a toned down sense of self satire, i.e. fewer one-liners. There is genuine drama involving yet another revenge scenario amongst the action sequences which include the expected ski-chases, underwater fights, and a mountain climbing climax which defines the word “gripping”.

7. GOLDENEYE (Dir. Martin Campbell, 1995) Honestly, though I thought he was well cast, I wasn’t a big fan of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films. I felt that it all had been done to death and that the series should retire. This film does address that with M (Judi Dench – the only linking cast member to the Craig Bonds) calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” and a “relic of the cold war”. There is a streamlined effort present to preserve and re-invigorate the adventures of 007 and Brosnan here for his first of five films is well up to the task even if the formulaic packaging falters. That’s not to say there isn’t plenty of fun to be had so it makes the grade.

8. THUNDERBALL (Dir. Terence Young, 1965) Err, make that the first 4 films! Michael G. Wilson, producer and screenwriter of many Bond movies, not long ago remarked “We always start out trying to make another FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and end up with another THUNDERBALL.”

As Bond blue-prints go though that’s a pretty good one to end up with. While it’s bogged down with too many underwater fights, THUNDERBALL has a great villain in Adolfo Celi as Emilio Largo (SPECTRE #2) and features Connery’s last best performance as Bond (he pretty much walked through 3 others after this including the weird remake NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN in 1983). I believe this makes the list again because of my love of it as a kid and my ironic fondness for the swinging theme by Tom Jones. Austin Powers took a lot of notes on this one.

9. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (Dir. John Glen, 1987) Maybe I’m just throwing a bone to everybody’s least favorite Bond Timothy Dalton or maybe I just have a thing for every actor’s first time in the role but this was a fair effort to move the franchise into a new more realistic direction after the parting of Roger Moore. Dalton, who was excellent as the moustache twirling villain in HOT FUZZ a few years back, brings his stage training to the part and while the standard cold war plot (itself a relic) holds no surprises there is considerable charm and a nice chemistry with Maryam d’Abo, definitely one of my favorite Bond women.

10. LIVE AND LET DIE (Dir. Guy Hamilton, 1973) Roger Moore’s first is again a favorite from my youth and one I always stop and watch when coming across it when flipping through the channels. It has the key elements – great theme song (by Paul McCartney and Wings), great action set-pieces (definitely the best boat chase of the canon), a great lovely lady (Jane Seymour), and a great edgy adversary (Yaphet Kotto).

Bond’s brush with Blaxploitation is only marred by the worst, and most embarrassing, deaths of a villain (or of anybody) of all the movies – don’t worry no Spoiler but you’ve been warned.

Whew! Well, that’s my best of Bond. If you are weary of going to see what is surely going to be #1 at the box office this weekend, you may consider catching up with one or two of the classics above.

More later…

ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO - The Film Babble Blog Review

ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO (Dir. Kevin Smith, 2008)



Seems like the world of movie comedy has passed Kevin Smith by these days.

From the many Judd Apatow approved projects to the likes of Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, and Adam Sandler dominating the raunchy guy genre is there really any place or need any more for Jay and Silent Bob? 


Well, thankfully they’ve been left behind (though Jason Mewes does show up) for Smith’s new chance to play catch-up and show he can still make with the crude and rude gross-out gags. 


Highjacking major Apatow-player Seth Rogen and basking in the low budget roughness in which he created his best work, Smith gives us Rogen and Elizabeth Banks (also a Apatow veteran) as broke best friend room mates who...oh, you know the title.


The use of the word “porno” has caused mild controversy with some markets refusing its title and original promotional images were changed to feature stick figures to both appease the MPAA and make cheap fun of it.


The film was heavily edited to avoid a NC-17 but I doubt any of that material was any dicier or outrageous as the film wants itself to be.


The lowdown is that it’s filled with scads of scatological humor, which is mostly tossed of in casual banter, and a lot of nudity (filmed in probably the most unsexy way I’ve ever seen) but nothing that would shock anybody who hasn’t seen the trailer and got already the gist.


That’s not to say it isn’t fairly funny and very watchable - Rogen and Banks are good together with amusing turns from the obligatory real porn star cameo by Traci Lords, Smith stock company member Jeff Anderson (Randal from CLERKS), and the bemused Craig Robinson (The Office, PINEAPPLE EXPRESS).


It appears from the duo’s ideas for a adult movie effort to help pay their bills that Smith’s pop culture reference lingo has really dated - enough with the STAR WARS whatnot! “Star Whores”? Really witty, Kevin. The Star Bucks stand-in “Bean ‘N Gone” that Rogen and Banks work and are forced to film their porno project at (further echoes of CLERKS) reeks of left-over retail complaints you’d think that Smith would be over at this point.


Smith delights in characters and premises that refuse to mature and that's fine, I just wish his film-making would grow up. Crude, badly cut, and just barely holding the narrative together, this movie is not the work of a polished confident director, but I bet he would take that as a compliment.


Rogen carries a lot of the film on his affable back, rolling with a laid back nature while Banks’ spirit and go-with-it timing are a welcome contrast to her current portrayal of Laura Bush in W. They're both big reasons to see this movie whatever your views on the View Askewniverse. ZACK AND MIRI... has the soul of an 80’s teen movie, most definitively the oeuvre of John Hughes.


Its heart and motives are a pastiche of well worn tried and true predictability - the funny audition sequence, the on-the-fly dance number, the aim to make a distinction between sex and “making love”. The fact that it has a heart probably won’t concern those who want old school Kevin Smith shenanigans so the best I can say there is that this is much better than CLERKS II. 

ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO has too much worthy competition (PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, TROPIC THUNDER, FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) to be considered one of the best comedies of the year yet it is still likable enough even though it’s not as laughable as I would’ve liked.

More later...

Seven Years Later, Does MULHOLLAND DRIVE Make Any More Sense?

Short answer: Maybe a little.

Long Answer: Last Friday night as part of a series on film noir, the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh had a screening of David Lynch’s twisted surreal drama MULHOLLAND DRIVE. The film was introduced by Independent Weekly Arts Editor David Fellerath who considers the film a masterpiece and one of the greatest of the last 10 years. 

Fellerath asked how many folks were seeing the film for the first time and a surprisingly huge amount of hands were raised. After some background and an attempt at plot summary, he assured the almost full room that 95% of the film holds up to “logical scrutiny.” I’m not so sure about that, but the film did seem to gain levels of coherence that it lacked for me back in 2001. Fellerath had also stated that if anybody still had problems with the film’s meaning afterwards - “there’s lots on the internet.”

There sure is lots on the internet, starting with one of the lengthiest Wikipedia entries for a film that I’ve ever seen with content headings like "Interpretations and Allusions," detailed character breakdowns, and long intricate paragraphs on the style and critical reception. 

The references for the entry site 82 articles with such titles as “Nice Film If You Can Get It: Understanding Mulholland Drive” (The Guardian) and Salon.com’s “Everything You Were Afraid To Ask About Mulholland Drive” (which Roger Ebert considers “the best explanation”). 

Another worthwhile read is Anthony Kusich’s “Mulholland Drive…Explained” which deals which the 10 clues that Lynch included in the notes for the original DVD release. The existence of the clues is curious because Lynch was quoted in the New York Times a few years later as saying that DVD extras can “demystify” a film. 

Perhaps what Lynch and many critics have proposed is the most sensible way to take MULHOLLAND DRIVE – not to try and make sense of it. Just absorb the mood and visual tones winding through the various narrative strands. Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring are either friends turned lovers named Betty and Rita in a dream or the former lovers now estranged Diane and Camilla in reality or vice versa. 

It appears that Justin Theroux is one of the only constant characters – an arrogant film director who is pressured by Mafioso types, to cast Camilla in his newest film. In one of the most memorably amusing scenes has Theroux meet a cryptic character called “The Cowboy” (Lafayette Montgomery) who tells him: “A man’s attitude goes some ways. The way his life will be.” 

When The Cowboy can be seen passing through the background of a party scene later on it is impossible not to take as intensely comical.

A turning point comes when Betty and Rita doing some detective work because Rita has lost her memory (she took her name from a Rita Hayworth movie poster) locate a woman’s dead body.

Identities then blend (the Igmar Bergman-esque screen capture above says a lot about the merging of identities I believe) with Rita donning a blonde wig and then they shatter completely with the aid of a shiny blue box (that of course appears with no explanation) and then reassemble or emerge from a dream - as when The Cowboy says: “Hey, pretty girl, time to wake up.”

Many elements familiar to fans of Lynch fill the frames throughout - among them the darkened old fashioned back room of the mysterious movie studio string puller Mr. Rogue (Michael J. Anderson) wouldn’t have been out of place in the dreams of Special Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) on Twin Peaks and the creepy Club Silencio that Betty and Rita attend one fateful night is somewhere you would expect to see Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) from BLUE VELVET lounging around in.

Writting before about the “love/WTF?” relationship I’ve had with the films of David Lynch (“Inland Empire Burlesque” and “Hey, I Finally Saw...ERASERHEAD”) I had decided to let go of the idea of determining definitive meanings and just go with the freaky flow. 

Wading through the various analyzing articles previously mentioned of this particular film though is still extremely fascinating because many interpretations can exist side by side, none more valid or more convincing than the other. 

Maybe MULHOLLAND DRIVE doesn’t make any more sense now than it ever did but its captivating spell has indeed grown and its perverse passion is definitely more powerful than when it was first shown in the heady distracting days shortly after 9/11. 

For those who haven't seen it before and lived with it for a while, I have to relate this - while the end credits were rolling at the Art Museum last Friday, a irrate woman who was obviously one of those who had earlier raised their hands, was heard complaining: “I’m very upset - it didn’t make any sense! Even PULP FICTION made sense! At the ending it all came together. I mean even AMERICAN BEAUTY made sense too!” 

So much for discussion, huh?

More later…