Cancer, Cults And Carl (Jung)

Well, the end of the year is nearly upon us, and I finally watched the last few films I needed to reach fifty! Now, partly because 2012 is close to ending, and partly because the blogs would have been really short, I've put the last three movies together. I'm sorry for the lackluster reviews but in all honesty, there isn't a huge amount I can say on them.

Before I go any further, I should remind people of something, even though I will post this reminder for my movie round-up of the year. The movies of 2012 I'm doing, I'm going by Australian release date and availability at the time of cinema release. If I can't see it with ease, and it was released at the tail end of 2011, it counts. Hell, the film I review below, if I remember correctly, ONE cinema in all of Victoria got it this year (much like The Cabin In The Woods). But I finally got to see it on DVD, so here's 50/50

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finds out he has a malignant tumor in his spine, which will require chemotherapy, and it's only a 50-50 chance of survival. He starts seeing a therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick) and with her help, and the help of his best friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen), he attempts to beat his illness.

Much like A Dangerous Method further on, whether or not this works for you relies a great deal on cast interaction and convincing acting. Thankfully, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the lead, in what I'd say is a banner year for the guy. As an actor who's finally getting the respect he deserves, he offers up a damn good performance, relate-able and sympathetic.

Seth Rogen plays... well, himself. Again. Snarky guy who can prove he has a big heart and gets a moment to chew out a person who's done wrong. I like Seth Rogen and all, but I have to wonder if he can play anything else. Wait, scratch that. Monsters Vs. Aliens. He was hilarious in that. And while he's bad here, can we give the man a challenge worthy of his skills?

Being criminally underused as Adam's mother is Anjelica Huston, delivering perhaps my favourite performance of the movie. Constantly doting on her son, while taking care of a husband with Alzheimer's, it reminds me of why she's great, and why she needs more work.

On the other end of the spectrum, Bryce Dallas Howard plays Rachael, Adam's girlfriend seen in the first half of the film. Her performance isn't actually bad, but from a character perspective, she's detestable. Not wanting to support her sick boyfriend by staying by his side while getting treatment is one thing (it may be hard for some people to sit through and not want to burst into tears, so it can be forgivable) but cheating on him is unforgivable. Despite what I said about Rogen earlier, his dismissal of her and calling her out is a highlight of the film. Good thing we have Anna Kendrick's character, who is a much better fit.

Outside of the acting, the movie doesn't have that much more going for it. It's pretty much about Kyle helping Adam through his cancer and anything outside of that isn't really noteworthy, besides Adam's interactions with Katherine.

A good effort, but I have to wonder why people think so highly of this. I've seen much worse, but this really doesn't add anything new to the table. I mean, not every movie has to, but from the reactions I've seen, you'd think this was a potential game changer. 3/5

Ages ago, I talked about a movie I wanted to see, but was unable to since it skipped my local cinema. And despite getting it on DVD a few months ago, I've been neglecting it for other DVD's or new things in my life, like the stream. Well, now's the time to finally review this movie, Martha Marcy May Marlene.

Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) has escaped from a cult, and reunites with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and goes to live with her and her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy). But she never tells Lucy and Ted of her experiences, and as such, has a hard time readjusting to the world around her.

Going off that last sentence, that's arguably the film's biggest problem. Now, having not been through what Martha has, I can't begin to imagine the pain and torment she suffered. It's not the sort of thing I'd wish upon anyone and I can understand not wanting to share it with the world at large. But tell me, why does it seem like she has no idea how the world works? Like when her sister tells her off for swimming naked. Martha responds like a child that doesn't know they've done anything wrong.

Her sister and husband don't get let off the hook, either. Not really wanting to help, just to bitch at her and lose their patience when they have no goddamn right to.

Despite that, Elizabeth's acting is sensational, and she carries the film. She is the best thing about it, which is good being the title character and all.

A good film, but should have been better. 3/5

Speaking of movies I wanted to see but had to wait for DVD, here's the last of the year, A Dangerous Method.

Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is taken to a psychiatric hospital in Zurich, with a case of hysteria. Swiss doctor Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) tries a new approach to treating her, based somewhat on Freud's (Viggo Mortenson) own findings, and it is largely successful, to the point where the two men collaborate and Sabina becomes a student of psychiatry.

What makes this a hard one to review is that there's only one question you need to ask: besides the terrific cast, is there anything else to expect from this movie? Well, no. Which is kind of a problem. If you don't have a good enough cast, your movie falls apart. Luckily, everyone involved is amazing. Michael Fassbender can put another great role under his belt, Viggo's as great as expected and Keira is the standout. Hell, her traumatic experience-acting is better than Elizabeth Olsen's in the movie above!

Her chemistry with Fassbender is really believable too, and I hope the two of them get do act together more in the future.

If there is another aspect to note, while the use of music is minimal, it's rather nice, and fits right in with the movie's general direction.

If this were a play, it would be a knock-out. As a film, it's not great, but the acting more than makes up for it. 3.5/5

I apologize again for the lack of meat to these reviews, if I had watched these movies sooner, I wouldn't been pressed for time and felt the need to compact three reviews into one blog post.

But at least now, all fifty movies for the year are undone! And over the next week or so, I'll do a three-part blog ranking those movies, same as last year. So, keep an eye out for those.

It's Lloyd Approved, What More Can I Say?

Oh boy. This... this review is going to be tricky.

For anyone who has seen my tribute for the fourth year anniversary of Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses, they'll know I'm a fan of the site, and the personalities within (the ones I'm aware of, anyway. And I will get around to watching more in the new year).

Among these personalities is Brad Jones, better known to the fandom as The Cinema Snob, among other characters. On The Cinema Snob (which you can find at the TGWTG site, http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/, and his own, http://thecinemasnob.com/ ), Brad Jones reviews movies of an exploitive nature, mostly gory horror or pornographical material. He started off doing reviews on YouTube, until his review of Nail Gun Massacre caught the attention of the DVD distributors, and that led to him being kicked off of YouTube, and starting his own site, which I have listed above.

The man's got many projects under his belt, most of them being series still occurring to this day, like The Big Box (a look at movies on VHS and the covers they come in) and 80's Dan (a sitcom about a hard partying 80's guy who somehow time traveled to the present day), as well as other films (which I have yet to see, and I should make that a priority in the new year) and he and his dedicated friends (affectionately named Team Snob) have created some of the best videos you'll see on the web today (like the aforementioned 80's Dan series).

Someday, I should do something more in depth about Brad's site, but until then, let's look at the feature film about his best known character, The Cinema Snob Movie.

Craig Golightly (Brad) is a screenwriter who's eager to get his exploitation film, Black Angus, off the ground, but the head of the local film club, Dan (Ryan Mitchelle, also the director of the film) refuses permits to Craig. Craig opts to go undercover into the film club, under the guise of a pretentious film snob, and winds up in a murder mystery situation.

In my opening line, I mentioned that this was going to be a tricky one to review. That's for three reasons:

1. Being a fan of something, it can come across as bias, even if you were to review something in a negative light. For example, being a huge Batman fan, and a lover of Christopher Nolan's films, my reviews of his Batman trilogy may come across as “fanboyish”, due to the two intertwining. And I admit, on some level, my love for the Batman mythology shines through in those reviews a lot.
   At the same time, that doesn't mean every Batman film is pure gold. Batman And Robin sure as Hell isn't. I don't hate it with a fiery passion, but it is easily the black sheep of the family. And The Batman Vs. Dracula gets a very resounding “meh” from me.
   What I'm getting at is due to the fact that Brad and the gang know their stuff, their ability to make better films is already without question. That doesn't mean I won't find a flaw or something like that, but I'm going in knowing what to expect, and it's going to be hard to be disappointed. Despite the fact that it follows a different format to the show, the roots of the movie are clearly trenched in the exploitation genre, a subject Brad could write a book on (Hell, with the amount of projects he's done, I wouldn't be surprised if he is writing a book right now).
   Now, being a fan of something big like a comic book character is different to being the fan of something comparatively smaller. Brad may not have millions of fans who have grown up with him as the years have passed, but what the fanbase lacks in numbers, they make up for it with fierce loyalty and support. So, on that end of it, should I trash the film, I'll get attacked for “not getting the movie” or something like that. But if I praise it too much, I'll be seen as a suck-up who can't find even the tiniest of flaws in the work of someone I respect. Sometimes, you just can't win.
2. It's hard to recommend this. Not because of quality, Lord no! But it's a bit under the radar, and you can't exactly buy it in stores either.
   If we look at things from a “mainstream” approach, it's not going to appeal to a wide audience because of lack of familiarity with the character, the actors or even the style. It might be a little too meta or self-referential for some, but I think it works. Really, there's no other style Brad and Ryan could go with.
3. I actually don't have a lot to say about it, outside of praise for the acting (especially for Brad, Jake Norvell and Jillian Zurawski), the dialogue and the shifting of the genres working so well.
   It starts off as a Kevin Smith-styled comedy (which already appeals to me, because I love that man's work. Well, a lot of it.), and slides into a murder mystery as I mentioned above. A murder mystery with creative kills. Comedy and murder, never a bad combination in my books. Also, the music at the start and end remind me of Woody Allen films, again, not a bad thing.

The long and short of it is I really liked this movie a lot. Filled to the brim with pop culture references, ranging from obscure to popular, and a lot of lampshade hanging (like at the end, with the whole “bad guy reveals their whole backstory/motivation to the protagonist for seemingly no reason” trope), realistic reactions (well, Jake's are a little mood-whiplashy but that's WHY the character works, because he makes you laugh without taking you out of the moment), and much like Brad's character in the series, the film could be seen as a commentary on film culture today, with the exploitation genre not in good health these days, and the idea of the snobby critic who tries to find the art in everything.

I'm not going to try and analyze it because I think I'd suck at it (OK, I suck at analysis in general, but that's beside the point) but all I have left to say is if you're a fan of the Cinema Snob series, the movie should be right up your alley. If you've never seen an episode in your life, watch some of it, to get a feel for the character and the actor. It's a hard beast to review, but very much well worth your time.

Well, actually, I do have two things left to say:

If I do have a flaw with the movie, it's about something that baffles me. Maybe it's in one of the commentaries, maybe I just need to watch it again, but this movie is supposed to serve as a prequel of sorts to the show. Fine, no problem with that. But aside from the continuity errors that creates (so he goes from having a beard to being clean shaven in his first episode? And the change in location?), it doesn't really explain why he becomes the Cinema Snob. OK, we know why Brad does the role, but the way the movie ends, it's not like he's made some declaration to start picking apart bad exploitation films to reclaim the genre from the hacks or something. It's not that big a deal, but maybe it would have worked better if it was a side-story or something, like the anniversary specials on TGWTG. Or maybe I missed something and I'm just an idiot (I'd put all my money on that option).

Also, a movie mentioned within that Craig wants to make, about people trapped by floods in a casino with sharks (the title is Card Shark), I will throw money at that to somehow make it happen. Hell, the title is hilarious, how bad could the rest of it be?

An easy 4/5 from me. I'm sorry the review wasn't more informative (if I ever get a copy of the Angry Video Game Nerd Movie next year, I'll probably have the same troubles), but it's the kind of thing you need to see to really understand.

I'll Just Keep A Wanderin', Thank You

I don't think a lot of people have talked about the movie I'll be reviewing below. Well, there must be reviews, but it's not used in the same sentence with movies like Prometheus, Ted, The Avengers or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Hell, I only know one person who's even seen it, he's a friend of mine. And he wasn't kind to it. Will I be any different or is he right?

At any rate, let's look at Wanderlust.

George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) are a married couple with high hopes for the future in their respective careers. When things take a bad turn, they go to live with George's brother, Rick (Dan Marino). On the way, they encounter the commune Elysium and choose to live their lives there instead. Until they find out commune living may not be for them.

I once saw a poster for this film at my local cinema, only to find next time it had been taken down. My first thought was “I guess it's going straight to DVD instead”, which turned out to be the case, since next month, there it was. After watching it... yeah, I can see why they made that decision.

It isn't the worst movie I've seen this year, but there's a lot that could have done to fix this movie.

For starters, I'm confused about what the movie is trying to say. At first, I thought the central message would be “People need to be more carefree in their lives, and worry less about money or material goods, so embrace a simpler life”, which I would be fine with. But the people at the commune... well, a lot of them are douchebags. They pick on George because he's not “attuned” to their lifestyle (he's been there barely two weeks, what do you want from him?), like in a scene in which George and Linda are confessing truths, and everyone seems to gang up on George, even though he's more in the right than Linda.

Now, Linda makes documentaries for a living, which is fine, more power to her. And George worked in an office, often supporting the two of them. And this is somehow a bad thing? I'm sorry, but I'm on the side of “Money= good”. And this isn't a sexism thing, I'd support Linda if she was the one working in an office. Linda criticizes George for going to that job, since it pissed him off and he doesn't even have it anymore. To address the second point first, George's boss was arrested, so the company ceased to be. His lack of job happened through no fault of his own, and she knew that. But to the first point, THAT'S HOW THE WORKING WORLD WORKS! It's not all fun and games, it's often very demanding, that comes with the territory of the working stiff. But we do it because we need the money to survive in a world that doesn't run on dreams. Sometimes, you have to put your own happiness and passion aside to carve out a living. So for her to call him out on this just screams ingratitude and self-centeredness.

Also, for something that celebrates a lot of freedom, there are apparently rules and things that are frowned upon. Like when George kills a fly, something that comes naturally to a lot of us, and he gets chastised for this act, being compared to a murderer of soldiers. Again, he's been there for under a fortnight, he hasn't conformed to your meaningless lifestyle yet. But also, for a place that lets people be free, you're kind of pushing him into your way of life, aren't you?

That's pretty much why I hate fictional characters with that attitude, one that's so “free and in tune with nature”: they're hypocrites, but often get portrayed as being in the right because their outlook on life is less aggressive.

Speaking of poorly done characters, the “villains”. A bunch of developers who want to take the land of Elysium and make it into a casino. Oh wow, wonder how this will play out? You're truly breaking new ground, here. So, naturally, the king douche of the hippies, Seth (Justin Theroux) has to turn out to be in league with the bad guys, to drive it further home how much we want him to drown in a lake.

Also, one of the hippies wants to throw a rock at the developers. Oh, so George kills a fly and gets treated like he's a future Hitler but you want to throw a rock and nobody pulls a “What the Hell is wrong with you” on her?

Not helping that particular scene is Linda going topless to support the cause of keeping Elysium safe, in front of a news crew. It's not so much the her-going-topless aspect, but the reactions of the news team back on the show, most of them are lewd comments made towards the lone female of the team. Uh, guys? You're on the air. And even if you weren't, that's a sexual harassment suit right there.

One last thing: early on in the film, one of the people at the commune, Eva (Malin Akerman) shows attraction to George and after he and Linda agree to experiment with other people while still being married, she goes off and sleeps with Seth (that's yet another problem I have with this film, since she sleeps with him a few hours later), and encourages George to go after Eva. So he spends a few minutes psyching himself up in front of the mirror, and keeps talking about his penis and what he's going to do with it. I didn't time in, but the whole thing goes on for far too long. It's almost as bad as some of the jokes on Family Guy, with its padded length. It wasn't funny from the start, and it's not funny at the end. And he ends up saying more in front of Eva anyway, just when I thought they finally killed the joke.

So, you're probably asking, did I like ANYTHING from this movie?

Well, acting-wise, Paul Rudd does a pretty good job. But then, much like I'll discuss in my next log post, he's playing a role that's not too far removed from his usual schtick. And I hate to say that, as I love that guy! He's one of my favourite actors still present on the scene today.

Jennifer Aniston, I think she's gotten better since her days on Friends. Now, I didn't hate Friends (it's actually a really good show, I need new copies of the entire run on DVD too), but Rachel was my least favourite of the six leads, so it's nice to see her so removed from that role. That being said, if you want a great movie with her in a leading role, I recommend The Good Girl (or even in a really good supporting role, Horrible Bosses).

The big draw for me, however, is Alan Alda. That guy's awesome. And in this movie, he's easily the best thing about it. Despite being one of the founders of the commune, he's way less restrictive than the other members. Actually, that could make for a metaphor on how the messages from our elders get polluted and corrupted by young people who think they know how the world works.

Alan's character, Carvin, doesn't get involved with a lot of what's going on, but he doesn't come down on anyone like a disciplinarian. In fact, he even breaks a few of the rules of the commune itself, mostly by sneaking off to a diner every Sunday for various plates of meat. His conversation with Linda is the highlight of the movie, with Carvin coming across as a little fatherly and wise, without disparaging her former lifestyle. The fact that Alan Alda is the last name in the opening credits seems disrespectful to me. The man was Hawkeye Pierce for the love of God!

So yeah, the cons outweigh the pros. It's not a terrible movie, but I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to rent it or watch it on TV. Or skip it altogether. 2/5

If You Go Out In The Woods Today, I'm Sure You're About To Die

I love the works of Joss Whedon. Buffy was one of the first shows I got into and started collecting on VHS (remember when that was a thing?), and it lead to Angel, my absolute all time favourite TV show. I still hope for a Firefly return, I eagerly await the release of Dollhouse Season 2 down here (speaking of DVD's, I really need a copy of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) and The Avengers was a knock-out.

So naturally I was excited for The Cabin In The Woods. Before I even knew he was involved, I was intrigued. When I found out he was co-writing and producing, my response was basically “SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!”

But does it live up to expectations or have I put too much faith into this movie?

Dana (Kristen Connolly), Curt (Chris Hemsworth), Jules (Anna Hutchison), Marty (Fran Kranz) and Holden (Jesse Williams) are college students who go to a remote cabin in the woods for some vacation time. What they didn't count on was being the focus of an operation, completely unknown to them, in which they are expected to die.

Normally, I post things here and there to talk about a movie's ending, with the spoiler tag and such. But even though it's mentioned heavily on its own TVTropes page (Hell, the page is split into “Safe Tropes”, which are the Tropes used but you have to highlight the blank sections for the spoilers, and “Spoiler Tropes”, which just outright tell you what direction the ending is heading for), I will not spoil the ending or even bring it up, except for this one remark I want to make: it is the best ending for a horror movie I've seen since Drag Me To Hell (and on the subject of that movie, I freaking love it).

But I guess I may have spoiled how I feel about this movie a little soon. Yes, I love this film. Some of that MAY be due to the fact that Joss is involved. OK, a lot of it, because of the concept and writing. But nevertheless, this is a fantastic horror movie.

But here's the thing: while the acting is great, what I remember most is the concept itself, and how it's handled. This movie might as well be called “We Take Standard Horror Archetypes And Play Around With Them”.

For example, despite the five being set up as stereotypes, they exhibit traits that don't keep them pegged down in their pre-determined roles. Curt is set up to the your average jerk jock, aggressive and stupid. However, the character is well-meaning, friendly and smart. You'd only say he's the jerk jock because we've seen that character type for so long, we've come to expect it.

The movie impressed me early on with a scene in which Dana is undressing in one room, and Holden is watching briefly through a two-way mirror (which Dana does not know, she thinks it's an ordinary mirror), before letting her know he can see her. Now, he could have just kept on watching and made faces like he was getting aroused, but he did the gentlemanly thing. That makes him awesome and and he's easily my favourite character because of his chivalry.

Just because the acting isn't what I loved about the movie doesn't mean the film is slack with that aspect. Chris Hemsworth continues to be awesome (or should that be “begins his awesome”, since this was filmed in 2009), Fran Kranz brings the funny in, and hey, it has Amy Acker, what more do you want? Well, actually, I do know one little thing I want: more Tom Lenk! Seriously, if I had one complaint, it would be he needed a bigger part!

Thematically, the film runs with the idea of society forcing us into roles and labels (something the operators of the experiment count on) but sometimes, we rebel. And what makes it even more brilliant is that they choose this particular time to assert their independence when they are being relied upon to fall INTO their pre-assigned roles, for the sake of... well, not revealing that here, but suffice it to say, there is a lot of table turning here.

It's also a bit of a jab to the audience, who come expecting slaughter and gore, like the characters are gladiators in a Colosseum and we are the spectators cheering for the lions to come out.

Now, I do love me some Saw-style films, but for a few different reasons, not the whole “BLOOOOOOD! GIVE ME MOAR BLOOOOOD!” sense. I love horror movies for the atmosphere, the idea that things could change at a moment's notice, and that almost no one is safe anymore. Of course, bad horror films will still fall into a formula, and from there, the only thing it can coast on is how cool the villain is/the kills are.

The Cabin In The Woods instead offers to challenge our perceptions of not just the roles of society and the stereotypes we place on people, but on the way horror conducts itself these days. In this movie, the characters get treated with respect, and not like cattle sent off to die. The experiment operators are us, and we are the experiment operators.

Joss has always had a knack for creating three dimensional characters that keep surprising us, and this is no different. He and co-writer Drew Goddard (who also directed, so let's be clear about that, since a lot of people think Joss himself directed it) have done wonders in making us care about what happens to the people in this movie, and the movie is all the stronger for it.

An easy 4.5 and an outstanding film not just for horror, not just for Joss' career, but for 2012 films. I never got the chance to experience it in the cinema, but I'm glad I own the DVD.

And with that, I'm down to my last five films of the year. Now to pick which is next.

Some Flowers Just Need A Little Love

I've read a few books that were adapted into films for this year. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Hunger Games, The Hobbit (well, I read that one years ago but the film is due here very soon as of writing), and recently, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. The difference between this book and the first two I mentioned is that while I think the book is on par or better than the film, it's a very different story with this story.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is an introverted kid who is just starting high school. On his first day, the only friend he makes is his English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd).

That soon changes when he meets two senior students, Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson) and is introduced to a world he never imagined he would be a part of.

So yeah, pretty much a “coming of age teen drama”. Not an easy thing to pull off well in this day and age. You need three things to make it work: solid writing, believable cast and kick-arse music.

First, the writing: well, the screenplay was adapted by the book's author, Stephen Chbosky, who also directed the film, so clearly this is a project near and dear to his heart. As such, he's had to pick and choose what would translate best to film. And it works. The dialogue feels organic, it's not cliche, and there's real feeling behind it. And a lot of the good lines go to Patrick, the joker of the group.

Which brings us to the cast. We should probably get this out of the way, since a lot of people would want to know: does Emma Watson deliver the goods in her role or does she distract? In my opinion, the former, by far. Her American accent is amazing and it's almost enough to make you forget she was even in the Harry Potter series. Her character is such a delight and if it weren't for almost everyone around her, she'd be the woobie of the cast.

Speaking of woobies, let's look at our main man Charlie. Between the book and the film, the performance is the key difference. In the book, due to its format (Charlie writes letters to an unknown person, and EVERYTHING is retold in letter form), Charlie comes across a bit... well, simple, for lack of a better word. And it all comes off as stiff and robotic. The film fixes that, not only by having a better grasp of emoting, but also by pushing the letter writing angle to the sidelines. It is still there, but nowhere near as prevalent as the book.

Because of this, Charlie comes across as more emphatic and likeable, and that's what we need him to be, since he's the outcast. He doesn't always pick up on social cues right away, like his scenes with Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman, who is awesome in this), but his time with Sam and Patrick helps him understand the world just a little bit more.

Patrick is the last of the trio (and here I thought I could go a whole blog without making references to Harry Potter beyond Emma Watson. Whoops) and is on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Charlie. He's confident, attention-seeking and comfortable with who he is. This also makes him the most emotionally fragile, and Ezra let the character's vulnerabilities unfold naturally.

He and Emma are tied as the cast stand-outs for me, but throw Logan in and it makes the whole package complete.

As for the last aspect, the music? It rocks. One of the biggest pieces of praise I can shower upon the movie. It has Dexy's Midnight Runners, The Smiths, New Order AND David Bowie (more than once!) making up the soundtrack, what more do you need?
Not to mention the constant references to Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I will never demean anything that promotes Rocky Horror (except Glee, because I don't think Glee really understands half the songs it picks sometimes), even using footage from the movie itself.

Do I have issues? Yes. The movie's not terribly long, which isn't the issue. What is the issue is the removal of a subplot or two from the book, mostly involving Charlie's sister getting pregnant.

If I recall the book correctly, she gets pregnant to a guy who treats her badly. He hits her, Charlie witnesses this, and his sister says he is not to speak of it to their parents. Well, in the movie, that's the last time he's seen at all. He's mentioned twice after, but he's no longer a physical presence.

So... what was the pay-off for that then? If you weren't going to do anything with it, why bother including that part at all? That screen-time could have been used to fix the other issue I have.

That issue being: not enough screen-time for Paul Rudd! Seriously, both book and film, I loved his character! Hell, the movie doesn't even have the character's wife! He gets shafted from appearing near the end of the movie! And it's Paul Rudd playing a straight role. I mean, he's funny, but not “wise-guy” funny, like he normally is (though he's dynamite at that), and he doesn't do that a lot.

All in all, a nice movie, well worth your time. I prefer it over the book, but I still recommend the book too. 3.5/5

Today's Bond Movie Is Brought To You By The Letter 'M'

50 years of James Bond in film. Can you believe it? And the character's been around even longer, with the novels of Ian Fleming being the genesis. He's an institution these days, and will continue to be so.

So what better way for Bond to celebrate five decades of entertaining us through film than with the latest, and possibly most introspective Bond film, Skyfall.

After a botched information recovery attempt leaves him for dead, Bond (Daniel Craig) lives his life the way he wants to. But when MI6 is attacked, he returns to active duty in order to find the person responsible.

Wow, that may be the shortest synopsis I've ever written for a movie. But then, I think you know what to expect with a Bond film when going in.

…

Or do you?

When James Bond was rebooted back in 2006, the seeds were planted for a new Bond to grow. While still maintaining the traits of Bonds past, the films themselves have gone down a more... well, “realistic” tone for lack of a better word. That's not to say there isn't a sense of realism, but with Bond, escapism is also heavily prevalent.

Skyfall still has that escapism factor, but it also has a personal touch, as this film is not just an exploration of what makes Bond such an endearing concept throughout the years, but what made Bond in the first place (well, not entirely, but there is a lot of psychology on display).

We get to learn a little more of Bond's past, his upbringing, his home life. Not too much to kill off the mystique, but not so little so that you feel it's a dead-end. In fact (small spoiler here), most of the third act of the film takes place at Bond's home. Called Skyfall. Yep, that's where our title comes from.

Really, the big question of the film is: are men like Bond still relevant in this day and age or are they relics of days gone by?

Well, if the box office is any indication, Bond is still very much relevant, and he'll always be welcome. And in my opinion, he is indeed always welcome, especially if films like this are being offered up.

From an action standpoint, it's a treat. It's less about Bond looking like an absolute badass with a gun while shooting mooks, and more like actual survival, particularly in the third act, when it's three against a large group, including the main villain.

But some of the earlier scenes are solid too, in particular Bond tangling with a sniper, his fist fight on top of a train at the beginning, and the absolutely amazing shot of a train crashing down beneath the tracks.

Acting-wise, everyone's a top choice, but if I have to hand out awards for this film's performances, the clear winners are Judi Dench as M, and Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva.

That's not to say that Daniel Craig has slipped as Bond. If anything, he's getting better, and he was already great to start with. Now he's become a much more stoic Bond, who can show emotion but is an expert at hiding his true feelings. Even when he comes close to anger, his face never changes. He could easily win every staring contest ever.

However, this is just as much M's movie as it is Bond's. The villain is after her personally, and even her own government is challenging her, but she never backs down and is always ready for a fight (even if it's with a snarky remark). It's more apparent in this film than in any other how much of a mother figure she is to Bond, and the fact that the two of them end up fighting Silva pretty much on their own (well, there's this awesome supporting character called Kincaid too) gives the two of them enough screentime to let the audience know how far they've come together.

Speaking of Silva (spoilers abound)... hoo boy, he's quite a different villain. Most Bond villains, their motivation is money or power. Silva, he has both, but that's not what he wants. He wants vengeance. Vengeance on a country that betrayed him when he worked for MI6, largely directed at M, who he sees as a mother figure too.

Its this viewpoint that actually makes him rather sympathetic. At the end, when he confronts M when she's virtually all alone, he breaks down with tears after seeing her in her current condition. He's like a little boy who wants approval from his mother and despite trying to kill her himself, he can't bear to see her in pain. He even wants her to kill the both of them, one shot to the head. I also like the symbolism of his death: Bond throws a knife into his back. Now, this time it's a literal backstabbing. 

Actually, this movie has quite a bit of symbolism, especially with Bond's answer in regards to a question about his hobbies: "Resurrection". Indeed, this does feel like a resurrection for the franchise itself, much like Casino Royale, especially after the mixed reaction of Quantum Of Solace (also a terrific film, in my opinion).

It's rare to see a Bond villain you feel kind of sorry for, regardless of their terrible deeds, and Javier makes him a memorable villain, ranking up there with Trevelyan, Bolfeld and Goldfinger for classic Bond villain status.

Throw in some solid support, with reintroduced Bond characters like Moneypenny (Naomie Harris, not a spoiler, even with how the film ends. Cute, by the way, and please note my sarcasm. We knew she was Moneypenny before the film began, and the way you hid it makes no sense. New fans won't know who Moneypenny is, old fans wondered why you bothered keeping it a secret. Consider this my big gripe with the movie, though Naomie and Daniel work well together) and Q (Ben Winshaw, who I've never heard of, but I approve of his Q and hope he returns) and you have a film well worth your time. 4/5

(One last note: Adele's theme song? Oh, just so amazing! It's easily one of THE best Bond films, with its sombre tone, and determined lyrics. Combined with the opening sequence, it's a thing of beauty, and is probably the best credits sequence I've seen in a film this year since The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo).

Well, seven more to go now. This is the end... aaaaand, now the song is stuck in my head again. As it should be.