The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 (2015)

** ½ out of ****

I can sum up my feelings about “Mockingjay Part 2” with one sentence: it tries to be too many things to be really good at any one of them. It's an action movie, a political drama, an ideological soapbox, a sci-fi flick.... there are just too many directions happening. Whereas I loved the first Mockingjay movie, I found that this one doesn't have quite the same impact, visually or emotionally.

When we left Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) she had just barely survived a reunion with her betrothed, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who tried to lay a Boston Strangler on her. He's been reprogrammed by the Capital to believe Katniss is the root of all evil and to kill her at any cost. Meanwhile the revolution goes on as the districts rebel against the oppression of the Capital. The “president” of the revolutionary forces, President Coyne (Julianne Moore), has decided that Katniss is much too valuable as a figurehead to risk in the war, and won't send her to the front lines for the final stages of the battle.  Katniss of course resents this, as she should.  She's not only been the ignitor and leader of the revolution, she's also been its most effective fighter.

The problem now is that Katniss, in her mind at least, has left the revolution behind.  Now she is obsessed with only one thing – killing President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Her rage over what he's done to Peeta (as well as the oppression of the last hundred years or so) has her single minded, and eventually she takes charge of her PR-based army unit and leads them to the Capital to try to accomplish that assassination. Unfortunately, the Capital has made it nearly impossible to reach with a complex layer of booby traps throughout the outskirts, which Katniss and crew must navigate.

Meanwhile, Katniss is also becoming suspicious of Coyne, whose philosophies seems to be becoming more dictatorial than democratic. But Coyne still seems the better alternative than Snow, who continues to be utterly ruthless in what he will do to protect the Capital's position. The politics of this film are more layered than the previous films, and I believe necessarily so,, but it just adds another level of intrigue to confuse the movie's younger audiences. In the last reel Katniss does something pretty extreme (though it was pretty obvious what she was going to do).  This action made good sense to me but had my 11 year old flipping out yelling “What did you do!?!?!”

As a movie, it's a pretty good watch and a fairly nice conclusion to the film series. It also pretty closely follows the novels, which was also the case in the previous films. But personally, I found that this one was a real let-down after its predecessor, which was able to much better connect the viewer emotionally to the characters and their cause. This one departed from that connection, as the cause became a lot more convoluted and the action overtook the emotion.

I'd recommend it, and suggest it wraps things up fairly nicely. I simply found it a letdown after “Mockingjay Part 1” was so very good.

Creed (2015)

*** out of ****

Every time Sylvestor Stallone's career seems to be over, he resurrects Rocky Balboa and the Philly battler yanks him back from the brink. But being completely honest, and despite my love for them, the movies are by-and-large not all that good. When “Rocky” came out in 1976, the reviews were universally glowing, not only for the movie but for Stallone's performance. Roger Ebert compared him to Marlon Brando and said (in a sentence he probably later regretted), “"Rocky" isn't about a story, it's about a hero. And it's inhabited with supreme confidence by a star.”  The original was surely every bit as good as the critics thought it was at the time.

But the success of the next four movies hinged only on the Rocky character's sheer likeability. Stallone made Rocky a caricature of the original character – sad eyes and long speeches, and losing everything about what made him great in the first place. But you loved him and rooted for him anyway.  Then the sixth film ("Rocky Balboa" 2006) found that old character again, and I would have been completely okay with it being left there – it would have been an appropriate swan song for one of Hollywood's most enduring characters.

But the Hollywood wanted more of him.....and now that I've seen it, I'm glad.

“Creed” brings the original Rocky completely back to life. With a screenplay NOT written by Stallone (for the first time in the franchise), new blood is pumped back into the character, and Rocky is once again the haunted, self-doubting and somewhat timid guy he was back in 1976. “Creed” is easily one of the best performances of Stallone's career.... and he's not even the star of the movie....

Adonis Johnson (Michael B. Jordan) is the illegitimate son of Rocky's old friend and ring adversary, Apollo Creed. He is plucked from a group home around the age of 12 by Apollo's widow (Phylicia Rashad), who raises him quietly, away from the public eye. He is educated and successful, but he burns with the desire to be a prizefighter. But when his father's old gym won't have anything to do with training him, he heads to Philadelphia to seek Apollo's old friend Rocky Balboa who continues to be a small-time restauranteur.

The first half of the film is primarily about Adonis, as we see him trying to make a life for himself in Philadelphia, training alone, living day-to-day, and finding a girlfriend (Tessa Thompson). This part of the film is so good it's ridiculous... we watch and root for Adonis to achieve what he dreams of. Rocky initially wants nothing to do with the fight game anymore, but eventually starts to come around and take part in his training.

That first half of the film is unlike anything else in the Rocky franchise, and it has it's own clear identity. The second half of the movie becomes like a standard Rocky film, with training and fights and characters overcoming adversity, but it is all still done extremely well. Rather than standing completely alone in the franchise (as many are claiming it does) it blends itself into the fabric of “Rocky” in a good way and truly becomes part of the Rocky legend.

One dichotomy – the fight sequences. When Adonis fights his first real contender, I believe that 2 round fight is the single best movie fight ever laid to celluloid. Shot as one long sequence, winding around the fighters as the action goes on, it is truly astounding and extremely realistic. Unlike most Rocky fights, where the beatings are so bad someone surely would have been killed, this is very much like a real fight and I can't say enough about how good it is. It's worth the price of admission on its own.

But I can't say the same about the ultimate fight in the movie, where Adonis fights “Pretty” Ricky Conlon (Tony Bellew), which is more like the standard “Rocky” fight.  Both guys would have been dead or permanently brain damaged at the end of this bruising battle; totally unrealisitic, though the production values are just as good..

Now for one small spoiler.....   Paulie is dead – we see his marker in the graveyard (d. 2012) when Rocky goes to visit Adrian's grave. Micky in “Rocky III”, Apollo in “Rocky IV”, Adrian in “Rocky Balboa”, now Paulie in “Creed”.... All the original characters are dead. And in this film I missed Paulie, whose love-you-hate-you brotherly relationship with Rocky was one of the highlights of “Rocky Balboa”. But I guess it made for a character development item for Rocky himself – he is now alone in the world. That's probably why he is able to find room in his life for Adonis in the first place.

Overall I preferred “Rocky Balboa” (2006) to “Creed”, but not by very much. This is a really terrific film and a very worthy addition to the Rocky legacy. If you liked ANY of the others, you'll love this one.

Southpaw (2015)

** ½ out of ****

I am a sucker for the sport of boxing – I love a good fight more than just about anything. And I am an even more uncontrollable sucker for boxing movies; I've seen them all, most of them about ten times. Just this weekend there was a “Rocky” marathon on TV and before I knew it I had watched four of them in their entirety, and spent a lot of time pointing out scenes that had been deleted or edited for TV.

And “Rocky” (1976) really is the gold standard that I hold them all against. It was a film that was entirely character driven, and the characters' motivation was always their own fear and frailty. Add in the beautifully realistic dialogue, the heart-pounding soundtrack and exciting fight action (something none of the later “Rocky”s had), and you end up with the perfect boxing movie. So I went into “Southpaw” hoping it would hold some kind of candle to that standard.

It doesn't.

Not to suggest it sucks though. Jake Gyllenhall is Billy Hope, the world light-heavyweight champion who through a series of bad luck loses his wife, his fortune, his title and his daughter, in that order. Only by an act of sheer will is he able to hold onto his sanity. But that all lays the groundwork for what they were trying to do with this movie, which is to make it a drama about a lost man trying to get his life back on track, and just happens to be set against a backdrop of boxing.

After his wife is accidentally killed, Billy delves into booze and drugs, eventually leading to his daughter being placed in foster care. With his fortune gone and his boxing license revoked, he takes a job pushing a broom at a local boxing club run by Tick Wills (Forrest Whitaker). Together they start to try to rebuild Billy both as a fighter and as a person, as he battles the courts to get his daughter back and battles himself to re-discover his skills and desire.

Gyllenhall is in ridiculously good shape for this role. He looks exactly like what he is playing, a world class light-heavyweight fighter. Lean and trim, he is plenty muscular and clearly well trained in how to move and punch like a boxer. But it is Whitaker that really steals the show. His sad but tough character, vulnerable and mean at the same time, is the most “real” character in the film, and Whitaker delivers it with his usual aplomb. Not to take anything away from Gyllenhall, who does everything he can with the the script he was given, but Forrest is the real star of the show.

And the boxing scenes..... well they are just plain fantastic. Too many films (and the later Rocky films are the worst offenders) are totally unrealistic, with the protagonist taking punishment that would kill a dozen two-ton bulls. Here the action is intense but realistic, especially the climactic fight, which turns into an event that in reality would be guaranteed to win Ring's "fight of the year" award. It's action packed and punishing but never goes too far, and leaves it believable throughout.

Overall I found this film to be worth a watch, and it had some solid performances and very good action sequences. However I thought it was a bit too ambitious, trying to add up to more than the sum of its parts, where it falls a bit short. It's worth seeing, especially if you are boxing fan, but overall it's not one that will be remembered as any kind of classic, even within the genre.

The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

**** out of ****

I have a confession to make..... I have never read “The Grapes of Wrath”. I know, I know, I should have, it's an American classic, blah blah blah. I tried to read both “East of Eden” and the play “Of Mice and Men” and failed on both occasions due to sheer boredom. I saw that the stark realities that Steinbeck was writing about were very well described, but I just didn't find them interesting enough to finish in print.

But I read Mad Magazine's “The Wrath of Grapes”, if that counts.....

In contrast, the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is a classic on every level. I understand it is quite different from the novel, particularly at the end, but it provides a very realistic and gritty look at dust bowl migrant farmers during the depression. Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) has just been released from prison after serving four years for killing a man in a fight. He arrives back at his parents' farm to find it deserted – it turns out that all the local sharecroppers have been forced off the land by the landowner, who is heavily industrializing. Tom finds his family in short order at his uncle's farm, where the entire Joad clan is preparing to make the trek to California.

The family has placed their faith in a handbill suggesting California is a land of milk and honey, lots of work for high wages. So with barely enough money to cover gas, they set off looking for that better life. Along the way they encounter many a hardship, including the death of the grandparents that are along, car trouble, dwindling funds and the fear that their faith was misplaced. And when they arrive in California they find their kind is considered even lower than carpetbaggers – just vagrants looking to ruin any town where they settle.

Add to this the fact that all the migrant workers are shamelessly exploited for labour – underpaid, overworked and forced to live in subhuman conditions. The landowners are able to get away with whatever they want due to the sheer number of migrants that need work. Fifteen cents per hour was a terrible wage when you need thirty just to feed your family, but fifteen is better than nothing. Almost everywhere the Joads travel, they find the same conditions.

Tom and his friend Casey (John Carradine) end up becoming involved in the labour movement, planning to fight for better wages and conditions for the workers. Strikebreaking abounds and the threat of violence is always at hand. Tom has to be even more careful than most, as he is a paroled felon and could be sent back to prison for almost anything.  But despite his best efforts he finds himself in bad trouble with the landowners and the law almost all the time.

Joad eventually is forced to leave his family behind to keep them from being caught up in what is sure to be his eventual fate, and he gives himself over completely to the fight. He doesn't care if he dies, as long as he dies on the side of right. That leads to the immortal film speech by Fonda that goes:

“I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad.”

“The Grapes of Wrath” is considered a film classic, and rightfully so. However it is anything but a typical movie. There is little to feel good about, and while it isn't completely without hope it shows just what depression era people were up against. Death was a daily threat and when it came it was a matter of course, something to be dealt with and moved on from. Nothing is uplifting in the movie. There is no feel-good vibe. It is just stark and real, and sad and wonderful, and a film everyone should see at least once. 

While there are no poor performances in the film, Fonda is absolutely fantastic as Tom Joad. My favortie performance of his came many years later in “On Golden Pond”, but this one is every bit as good. Jane Darwell won a well deserved Oscar for her portrayal of Ma Joad, and John Carradine is John Carradine (nothing else need be said). This is not a movie to watch for fun, but one to watch for simple, great storytelling. I couldn't recommend it any more highly.

American Heist (2015)

* out of ****

I really wanted to like this movie. It stars one of my favorite actors, Adrien Brody, and it's a heist movie.  All the ingredients were there to make something really enjoyable, but instead it's a total bore and completely unbelievable. And (I hate to say it) it features a TERRIBLE performance by Brody – probably the worst of his entire career.

Brody is Frankie Kelly, who just got out prison. He comes to see his brother Jimmy (Hayden Christianson) who feels he owes Frankie a lot. Turns out that the caper Frankie went to the slammer for was one they had equal part in, but Frankie took the whole rap to protect his kid brother. Now he's out and wants to involve Jimmy in a new caper.

But since Frankie went away, Jimmy has turned over a new leaf. He has a job he likes and a girlfriend and he has no interest in getting back into a life of crime. But Frankie (predictably) manipulates and coerces him into becoming involved, and they plan the armed robbery of a bank with a few guys that are little more than small time hoods that don't care at all about them.

I won't waste a bunch of time describing this one, as the above pretty much tells the whole story. The heist itself stretches credibility beyond all limits, and despite a decent performance by Christianson (whom generally I don't find to be very talented), the film literally has nothing else going for it.   Brody's portrayal of Frankie is so over-the-top (think Dick Van Dyke in “Mary Poppins”) and stereotypical it's borderline caricature. Even a last-minute twist falls flat.

I hate to say it, but this movie simply stinks. Want to watch a good bank robbery movie? Try “Dog Day Afternoon” or “Heat”. Stay away from this one, unless you're stranded on a desert island with a DVD player and absolutely nothing else to watch.

Vacation (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I won't lie.... I laughed. But I'll keep it in perspective.... not nearly as much as I should have.

“Vacation” finds Rusty Griswald (Chevy Chase's son in the original film series, now played by Ed Helms) all grown up with a family of his own. He is almost a carbon copy of his father, a good-hearted man trying to do right by his family, but with very few social graces and absolutely no concept of what is or is not appropriate. He overhears his wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) telling a dinner guest how much she and the children hate the cottage Rusty rents every summer, and he decides to recreate the trip to Wallyworld his dad took the family on in 1983.

Rusty gets stuck with his own version of the Griswald family truckster at the rental agency, and off they go. In the backseat are his two sons, the older of which is a very inward-looking kid and the younger is a bully that takes full advantage of his brother's kindliness. The brothers' relationship leads to many of the real laughs in the movie... I happened to watch this film with my 70 year old mother, who cracked me up by commenting that, “That young lad is a real asshole.”

As they travel across America the Griswalds run into problems similar to the original trip, including swimming in a sewage pond and nearly perishing at the hands of a suicidal white-water-rafting guide. Probably the most fun in the whole movie is when the family stops to visit Rusty's sister Audrey (Leslie Mann) and her husband Stone (Chris Helmworth). Stone pays a visit to the Griswald's bedroom to make sure they're comfortable that is really, really hilarious.

There are some terrible sequences that just don't work – the visit with mom and dad (Chase and Beverly D'Angelo) is painful, as is a stop at Debbie's old college. Couple that with the simple fact that with a couple of minor exceptions the characters are mean-spirited, stupid and unlikable, and you have a film that isn't even on the same plane of existence with the original. No question there are some really funny moments, but they are few enough that I can't even come close to really recommending the movie.

Worth seeing only for the purposes of comparing it to the original (no comparison) and Helmsworth's terrific couple of scenes. Other than that, completely forgettable.

Love & Mercy (2015)

*** out of ****

Has there ever been an actor quite like John Cusack? He's been in iconic films as a teen (“16 Candles”, “The Sure Thing”, “Stand By Me”) and blockbuster movies (“Con Air”, “2012”), but for the most part has a had a quiet career making some of my favorite low-budget indie-type films (“High Fidelity”, “Being John Malkovich”, “Identity”, “Grosse Point Blank”). He even made one of the scariest horror movies of recent years ("1408"). And he's been wonderful in just about everything, and has been consistently recognized by critics (if not necessarily by movie audiences) as an incredible talent.

So imagine my surprise when, even though he gives a terrific performance in “Love & Mercy”, he is outshone by young Paul Dano. Both play Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, Dano in the 1960s and Cusack in the 1980s. Dano is truly fantastic as Wilson, as the pressures of being a star coupled with increasing drug use make him gradually lose touch with reality. Watching him act out Wilson' creative process during the “Pet Sounds” through the “Smile” eras is fascinating, doing things in the studio that nobody had ever done before. His part of the story gets a bit uncomfortable as you see him losing his mind, but only because he has made you care about the character so much.

Told in sequence with the earlier Wilson story is Cusack's part of the movie, with Wilson in the 1980s. He seems to have recovered, but appears at all times to be subdued and very paranoid. He beings a relationship with a Cadillac salesperson (Elizabeth Banks) who finds that Brian is hopelessly addicted to prescription drugs and completely under the control of his doctor, Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti). She falls in love with Brian and is devoted to rescuing him from the clearly vampiric doctor, but Landy won't easily let go of his cash cow. His control over Wilson is so complete that he and Banks end up engaged in a battle for Brian's very life. It's absolutely fascinating to watch.

The actual Brian Wilson has gone on record as saying that Giamattis' portrayal of Landy was so accurate that it nearly made him physically ill to watch it. And while his performance is great, and Cusack and Banks are also terrific, the real wonderkind in this movie is Paul Dano as the young Wilson. He is just absolutely authentic in every scene.

It doesn't hurt that the music in the movie is fabulous as well....

As a fan of Wilson and the Beach Boys, I knew the general outline of most of this story, but with these actors it really came to life. It was much darker and more uncomfortable than I expected, but sometimes it's good to have your expectations completely shaken. A really good movie filled with really good performances. Admittedly less interesting to anyone who is not a fan of Brian Wilson, but overall just a really terrific film. Highly recommended.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I have mentioned on this blog before about going into a movie that you had low expectations for, and then being swept away by a wonderfully surprising and enjoyable film. Well, there's a flipside to that coin; when you go in with low expectations and are disappointed to find the film is even worse than you thought it was going to be....

It's 1963 and the cold war is raging. CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) is in East Berlin to rescue Gaby (Alicia Vikander), who he believes the Soviets are on their way to kill. Admittedly, this early sequence is the very best thing in the film, as Solo and Gaby race through East Berlin trying to reach the wall and escape before being captured. Pursuing them is Illya (Armie Hammer), a KGB agent who is tenacious and acrobatic, and very difficult to shake. This is a very exciting and extremely well sequenced chase scene.

Unfortunately, it's all downhill from there. Gaby's father has been missing since the end of the war, and it turns out he has been developing a nuclear bomb for a criminal organization of Nazi sympathizers. Solo and Illya team up (at the order of their respective organizations) to prevent it the bomb from ever being used. I would explain more of the plot, but I can't.... it's so convoluted and full of gaping holes that it was hard to know exactly what was going on much of the time. All you need to know is that Illya and Solo hate working together and throughout the film engage in countless dick-measuring contests that are supposed to be fun and entertaining, but aren't.

There is one more really good action sequence involving their escape from a facility that they have covertly broken into. It even has a great laugh in it. Sadly, this is the only thing in the last ¾ of the movie I found worth watching.

The biggest hindrance I had with the film was Hammer's portrayal of the KGB agent. His Russian accent was just awful, and to call his performance wooden would be insulting to wood. I really enjoyed him in “The Social Network” (2010) as the Winkelvoss twins, but since then I have hated pretty much everything he's done. Cavill is slightly better, but he spends the entire film trying to act like a Roger Moore James Bond, leering at everyone and trying to make the whole thing an innuendo-laden joke.

Then there's Alicia Vikander. This is an actress that may end up being underappreciated due to her great beauty, but she's a star. This is only the second film I've seen with her (the other being the fascinating “Ex Machina” 2015) but she has been endlessly impressive in both. Can't wait to see more of her.

Overall, I would call this film a time-waster.... if you have absolutely nothing better to do, give it a shot. The film is very well produced and visually interesting, but the male leads and the plotline are pretty empty. My recommendation is to skip it altogether. I know I won't ever watch it again.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

*** ½ out of ****

I was born in 1970, so there really has never been a time when Kirk, Spock and McCoy weren't a part of my life. Thanks to syndication, when I was a kid I could watch an episode of the original Star Trek series pretty much whenever I wanted. And I wanted to a lot. Then came the movies, The Next Generation and the TNG movies, all of which I loved. No doubt I was a bona fide Trekkie (though never oddball enough to refer to myself as a Trekker).

So when my 11 year old son, who had never shown any interest in Star Trek, suddenly asked if we could watch the movies together, I was inwardly rubbing my hands together with glee. And I could help him avoid the pitfalls – especially by first starting him off "The Wrath of Khan" instead of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, which is the most horrible film you could possibly show to a newcomer to the franchise. It would certainly make him think the whole Trek thing was a snore. So Seti Alpha Six, he we come....

Even with all the Star Trek universes we have seen, there is nothing quite like the character dynamics of the original series. That's why the first Star Trek movie was so disappointing – it tried so hard to be impressive looking that it forgot the interpersonal relationships that made the original series so great. Happily, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” realizes the strengths it has and plays directly to them throughout, certainly making it one of the most enjoyable science fiction films ever made.

The Enterprise is starting plans for a new 5 year mission. James T. Kirk (William Shatner) will no longer be captain, as he has accepted a promotion and is now an admiral of Starfleet. Cadets are training to prepare to be the new crew under his watchful eye. He is approaching his 50th birthday and clearly feels that his time has passed, but he is rueful of the loss of his youth. Even Spock tells him it was a mistake to accept promotion - that being a starship captain is where he belongs. This remains a powerful theme throughout.

Meanwhile the Enterprise's old navigator Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig) has been assigned to the USS Reliant. The Reliant's mission is to find a planet suitable for testing of “the Genesis Device”, a powerful subatomic reactor that can reorganize lifeless matter into living organic cells. During this search, on planet Seti Aplha Six, Chekov accidentally stumbles onto the crew of the space freighter “Botany Bay” led by Khan Noonian Singh (Ricardo Montalban). If you're a fan of the original series, you'll remember them as the genetically engineered rebels banished to space in the episode “Space Seed”. Over the 15 years since their encounter Khan has grown to hate Kirk for marooning him and his crew on a desolate planet, and takes this opportunity to seek his vengeance.

What I love most about this film is how the characters revel in their true age, instead of trying to disguise it as they did in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”. And, of course, I love the way the characters fall back into their old roles during times of tension. DeForest Kelly as Dr. McCoy and Leonard Nimoy as Spock were never better than they are here. Add to those relationships a fascinating storyline and a powerfully acted role for Montalban, and it becomes something really special.

Much has made of the conclusion (and I think after 33 years I can take the chance of the spoiler here that Spock dies saving the ship), and rightfully so. It's well written and even better played, and you feel a real sense of loss. Even Kirk's sad but somehow uplifting elegy makes your heart ache. Of course, the final scene of the movie leaves you anxious and excited rather than sad, which I still think was a bit of a copout (the sequel would have been every bit as good without the “we can't leave the audience without hope like that” ending of Wrath of Khan).

I absolutely realize that “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home” and “Star Trek: First Contact” are probably the best films in the series, but “Wrath of Khan” is my favorite. I would venture to say it's the favorite of almost everyone that grew up watching Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty and Uhura on TV, as it was the film that was most like the original series. Fun, exciting, soulful and just wonderful on every level, this is the film that should be used to introduce any new fan to the franchise.

So welcome to the Star Trek universe, my son. You're going to love it here......

Spectre (2015)

*** out of ****

Back in the Sean-Connery-as-Bond era, there was a villain that kept popping up time and again – one Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the head of the criminal organization Spectre. The very definition of a “super-villain”, Blofeld is the character that “Dr. Evil” was based on in the Austin Powers films. But other than a brief comic appearance in “For Your Eyes Only (1981), Blofeld suddenly vanished from the Bond franchise 45 years ago, not to be seen since.

So when “Spectre” was promoted to be the return of Blofeld, I was excited to see what they were going to do with him. Daniel Craig's first three Bond films have given us two fabulous movies and one really good one, so it seemed that this had the chance of being another great film. And while it's a darn good one, it doesn't quite measure up to the last few installments.

As usual, MI6 (the “double 0 division”) is under the gun with the British government. Thanks mostly to Bond, it is seen as outdated and archaic, using brutal 20th century techniques despite the new world order. This puts M (Ralph Fiennes) in a precarious position, though thankfully it gives him much more to do in this film. He has to battle against “C” (Andrew Scott), the new head of MI5 who is trying to take down MI6, and ends up participating in the field with Bond against a criminal conspiracy. In all honesty, it is great to see Fiennes with a more prominent role this time around, as he adds greatly to the film.

Bond discovers the criminal conspiracy Spectre, which he finds is run by Blofeld (the as-always-wonderful Christoph Waltz). And in what I thought was a pretty shocking move, they actually steal some Dr. Evil background and incorporate it into the movie, making Bond and Blofeld foster brothers. Turns out that Blofeld killed their Dad as vengeance for the man's preference of Bond over himself, and he has been working to destroy every aspect of Bond's life ever since. I found this copying of Dr. Evil's background to be INCREDIBLY weird.... but it's presented in a light where it isn't toooooo hard to swallow. It was a plot twist I think the film would have done better without though.

Bond finds that Spectre has sent an assassin to take care of a former associate, Mr. White. Bond finds him first, and in return for information Bond promises to protect White's daughter Madeleine (Léa Seydoux). She is stunningly beautiful, and of course leads to sexual tension with Bond, but as he “protects: her she becomes central to the plot of finding and bringing down Spectre. Seydoux looks familiar in the role, and I finally figured out why - she played the French assassin in "Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol".

There are a lot of things about this film that are really good. The action sequences are spectacular, and the combination of CGI and pryotechnics are a real treat. After his introduction to American audiences in two Tarantino films, each of which he gave performances that were almost perfect, I have found Christoph Waltz to be one of the finest actors I have ever seen. He doesn't disappoint here. Easily the best Blofeld ever, he isn't a gleeful villain – he is cold, ruthless and businesslike. His hatred for Bond, though never presented as a spit-through-the-teeth vengeance, is single minded and relentless. I hope we see him in the role again.

“Spectre” is unquestionably worth seeing. With the heights Bond has hit since Daniel Craig took over the role, particularly “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”, it seems a bit of a disappointment, but if you look at it as a stand-alone film it is still far superior to any Bond film made by the previous three Bonds. Action packed and fun, if perhaps a bit overlong, it's still one of the 5 or 6 best Bond movies, and sure not to leave fans of the franchise with anything but a good feeling.

And let's hope Blofeld shows up again, and lets hope even harder that it's Waltz in the role.....

Django Unchained (2012)

*** ½ out of ****

Tarantino often walks a very fine line with his filmmaking. He loves to pay homage to earlier films and directors, often to the point of making parts of his own films silly or close to caricatures. I found he went over that line with the “Kill Bill” films (especially the first one) and got it just right in “Inglorious Basterds”. With “Django Unchained” he dances right up to the line quite a bit, but never goes too far. Which leaves “Django” as a wonderful, violent, gruesome, offensive western that is almost endlessly entertaining.

Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave in 1858 being moved across Texas, when his group encounters “King Schultz” (Christoph Waltz). Schultz is a bounty hunter who needs Django to identify a couple of murderers he is seeking that Django had known at an earlier plantation. As Schultz hates slavery he makes a deal to offer Django his freedom in exchange for his help. But over the course of seeking these bounties, the two men become good friends. And when Schultz finds out that Django's wife has been sold to other slavers, he offers to help his find her again.

After investigating they find at Django's wife Hildy (Kerry Washington) was sold to a large plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo Dicaprio), one who would never deign to worry about a single slave. So Schultz and Django hatch a plot to seek out Candie and make him believe they are interested in the “Mandingo” game so that they can get close to him. “Mandingo” is the name given to (for lack of a better analogy) slave “cockfights”, where each slave-owner offers a combatant to fight to the death. In reality it is largely considered fictional, but here the Mandingo game becomes one of the central parts of the second half of the film. Schultz and Django try to convince Candie they want to buy fighting slaves when really all they want is to buy Hildy and whisk her away.

While some have complained that “Django Unchained” is unnecessarily violent and gruesome, I tend to think that it's because this is such an unconventional western. And there are times when it dances right up to the line of good taste, especially in it's gore and over-the-top treatment of most of the slave-owners. While these guys were villainous historically, they are universally ridiculously villainous here. Tarantino had to work very hard to make those characters real rather than caricatures, and I feel he did it very well. In particular, Don Johnson's role as “Big Daddy” is not only effective, but borderline hilarious.

Everyone in the cast is fantastic, but Christoph Waltz as King Schultz is the real star of this film. His two turns in Tarantino movies (he was also Hans Landa in “Inglorious Basterds”) are possibly the best roles played by anyone in any movies in the past ten years. Foxx and Dicaprio really shine, but it's Waltz that runs away with it. Sam Jackson as “Stephen”, Candie's head house slave, is also delightfully evil in his role.

If you only like westerns like the old John Wayne flicks, you probably won't know quite what to make of Django Unchained”. But it is a truly excellent piece of movie-making, and a worthy addition to Tarantino's catalogue. Don't miss it.