First Impressions: No Time to Die

Believe it or not, I watched No Time to Die (2021) as a double-feature at a drive-in with Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021). That was two months ago. Let's talk about it! SPOILERS for every Bond movie ever from here on out. To sum up - I liked it. Now let's get into details.

First, superlatives and history and all that stuff. Dan Craig is the longest-tenured Bond by a wide margin, having played the role for the better part of 15 years now. And even if NTTD had come out in 2020 like it was supposed to, he would have still held on to it for longer than Roger Moore, who played the role for a mere twelve years. However, he only made five films, which is well short of both Moore and Connery (even if you count Never Say Never Again [1983] or not). Is it weird that Never Say Never Aagain came out the same year as Octopussy (1983)? Can you imagine having like, a Pierce Brosnan knock-off Bond also coming out this year?

Anyway, the less movies in more years thing is assuredly a product of modern movie-making that takes quite a bit longer than just throwing up whatever on a sloppy green screen. This film feels like it's fighting for attention and relevancy amidst all the other modern blockbusters, while it's always good to remember how Bond lead blockbuster filmmaking in so many ways. It was the original franchise, of course, and continually smashed box office records in the 60s and 70s. Somewhere along the way it assuredly started chasing trends rather than creating them - from Moonraker (1979) trying to be Star Wars (1977) to Casino Royale (2006) trying to be The Bourne Identity (2001) you see it over and over again. So, No Time to Die comes at an interesting crossroads - it is both the culmination of the Daniel Craig era, but it's also trying to acknowledge that the Daniel Craig era was an important thing amidst the simultaneous Era of Reboots, Era of Superheroes, Era of Disney Hegemony, and hell, Era of COVID!

The Craig Bonds seemed to eventually find their niche by just making really good movies. It's the Planet of the Apes method - just straight competency porn. Now, I am actually pretty divided on the Craig Bonds - all the odd ones are pretty good, and the even ones are pretty not. They exist in this weird zone where there's actually an attempt at a coherent storyline through all of them, but through a combination of not having a plan, forgetting the plan over fifteen years and four directors, or just the audience forgetting what the hell happened last time (or we didn't know we were supposed to be paying attention), this all got muddled. How many times can we reveal a secret bad guy that has an even more secret and more badder organization than last time? Every time. That's what's up.

No Time to Die centers around Bond and some French woman who I vaguely remember from S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (2015) combatting a dude worse than S.P.E.C.T.R.E. who wants to kill S.P.E.C.T.R.E. There's some fun here and the latest movies have certainly struggled to find a way to bring Bond out of the 60s and into the modern age. That was always the weirdest part of SkyFall (2012), how the progressive female M was killed to pave way for an old fashioned man to take back control. That's a really great movie but the ending is insanely regressive.

Anyway, remember when Bond was old and washed up in SkyFall? That was like nine years ago and he just keeps trying to either retire or die. I love when he's shot on that desert wall and he doesn't care. Like he's been shot so many times it's just annoying to him. But this movie pulls out all the stops and finds a way to be very Bond-like but also break a lot of the mold. He has gadgets and fun tricks, which have creeped their way up through the Craig Era as it became less ashamed of its pulp, but also Bond has a kid, loses his 007 designation, and then also he dies. Spoiler, although I think he plausibly escaped. Or at least this iteration of Bond is dead forever. Someone keenly pointed out it's the exact same ending as The Rock (1996), which is just great.

So, Rami Malek is a poison-loving dude who makes a nanobot virus that insta-kills specifically coded DNA in close contact. There is some fun when he gets revenge on S.P.E.C.T.R.E. when you think S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is going to kill Bond, although for a major villainous organization that's been supposedly behind everything in this whole franchise, they go out like a bunch of punks. So does Blofield, but I was never that hyped about Christoph Waltz being Bond's long lost brother, so whatever. Bond has to save the day, but for once in his life there isn't an escape. There's no raft to make out with the girl in as it floats away. It's very clear that Craig is so done with this franchise and unabashedly had no desire to return. But also, it's certainly been long enough.

It makes me consider the Era as a whole, and like I said, most of these films have been very good. But Casino Royale feels downright ancient. Remember when they just tried to capitalize on the poker craze? Poker and parkour with a ton of shaky cam - that is such a mid-2000s escapade. I mentioned the competency, this, SkyFall, and to a lesser extent S.P.E.C.T.R.E., really reveled in breathtaking vistas, unique lairs, and a huge sense of scope that I REALLY noticed after watching Venom 2. SkyFall probably still has an edge, but NTtD is easily the second-best looking cinematic Bond of all time, which is saying something for this franchise that is not dying any time soon.

So, how did everyone do? Daniel Craig is fine, he really knows the ins and outs of this character by now, and I've liked the bent that this series has taken where we're not totally letting Bond get away with his trauma and alcoholism. There are the wry one-liners of course, but in this context he's always hiding some significant pain that creates this underlying sadness. Or you can just take the surface level fun.

Lea Seydoux is fine. I guess. It's not much of a role and she's mostly pouty. Ana de Armas is so underused, she really just bursts in, kicks a bunch of dudes in a slit dress and then bounces. I don't totally know why she was even there, but I will always take some Ana de Armas in my life.

Let's spend a little time talking about Lashana Lynch, tho - she takes over the 007 mantle from Bond, and she's fine and all, but I never really got the sense that she was suave or charismatic enough to handle that responsibility. I didn't think she was that great in Captain Marvel (2019), either and thought she was a weird choice here. Now, it's become tough to criticize this diversity move, and I am sure that I will come off as an old racist, but if Lynch is the person to pull this off, the film never gave her a chance to show what she can do. It's ultimately another regressive film flaunting its diversity in an attempt to appear progressive. She even kowtows to Bond near the end, rescinding her 007 designation back to him, which was wholly unnecessary. She needed a bit more to do if she was going to earn this mantle transition. Ultimately the movie was just too packed with Craig goodbyes to make it a transition film, and I'm not sure that's even what they wanted to do.

I don't think they are moving towards having a black woman Bond, I mean, I guess they could, but what makes Bond Bond is the fact that he's a privileged womanizing asshole. I mean...Archer. And I'm not saying this as a way of complementing the character or saying his maleness and whiteness are sacrosanct, but they do inform that specific character, for better or worse (and the Craig Bonds have done a better job highlighting the worse), and it'd be hard to have the same character played by a different gender or ethnicity. I know I'm going to get in trouble for this. That's okay. A black female spy movie would be great, but create a character that's informed by that background. Ultimately it comes down to brand awareness more than anything, so we as loyal manjamunching consumers need to just consume a product with a new character and we'll be all good.

Finally, there's Rami. He's a good actor, I guess, but even though he's a great natural villain, he seemed miscast here. I think the producers were excited to get him hot off an Oscar win and again, he was just born to be a Bond Villain. But he's a little too young here, especially for someone who supposedly encountered Lea Seydoux as a young girl. Malek is only four years older than Seydoux. I remember that's what took me out of Oldboy (2003), too. The ages just don't line up. Also, Malek is 40?! I lowkey thought that dude was like 25, although yeah, I guess he's been around for a while.

But I also struggled to understand his motivation, like, yeah he was pissed at Blofield for killing his parents, but why did he want to destroy the world? They kind of brush past that, and it never seems that strong. Or how he got his face scars. I guess he got burned at some point. Probably got too close to some hamburgers on the grill and they jumped up and got his face.

So, anyway, I really liked this movie. It looked great, it had an engaging, if not convoluted plot, but this is James Bond after all. The character work is solid, even though I complained, and they find a way to make a sixty-year old regressive dinosaur character feel relevant and interesting. It's cool. The Craig Bond just spanned so many eras of blockbuster filmmaking, and we're headed into the murkiest post-COVID world yet.

Super Movie Reevaluation 2009-2012

Every few years we think it's worth it to fully re-evaluate the Top Films for every year we've been doing this site, which means starting in 2009. We first did this in 2014, then 2017. Coming around the bend to 2021 I thought it was worth it to really dive into each year and see which films have stayed with me and which have fallen by the wayside.

I found, to my surprise, that these early lists haven't changed all that much. The Top Films I liked four years ago are still pretty much the top films I like today. We've gotten to the point of canonization where there are a handful of immutable entries that I come back to over and over again. So, this unfortunately may be the last time we do this, at least with 2009 - 2012. At any rate, here we go!

2009:

Trick 'r Treat
Zombieland
Up
Where the Wild Things Are
The Road
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man

The Feel-good movie of the decade!

Back in 2017 I still had Moon and Observe and Report listed high - I've re-watched those in the last few years and neither was as punchy or thrilling as they were on my first viewings. I've debated Funny People (2009) a lot, too, and while I like what it's about, it really isn't constructed well enough to earn a spot here. Over the years The Road, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs have stood the test of time and been here over and over again. I can watch A Serious Man any day of the week and still pick out little nuances, to me it's one of the Coen Bros' most underrated films.

2010:

TRON: Legacy
The Other Guys
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Inception
The Fighter
Get Him to the Greek
Black Swan
Hot Tub Time Machine
MacGruber
The Social Network

American Icon

I can't deny The Social Network, especially in the past ten years its relevancy has increased rather than decreased. Having said that, 2010 is always comedy-heavy, and lacking any other real drama to soak up spots, some of my all-time favourite modern comedies take the cake. I didn't even include Due Date and Dinner for Schmucks that came out this year. My only debate is whether MacGruber should be higher. There are a lot of big studio efforts this year that shine through, and it's one of the last years to have these films genuinely entire my headspace. There isn't a change since 2017 besides Let Me In and Harry Brown being snubbed for TRON: Legacy and The Other Guys. I love those movies, but it's time to shift. I was legit so close to putting The A-Team (2010) on this list, folks.

2011:

Attack the Block
Super
The Tree of Life
Inside Out
Bridesmaids
Contagion
Take Shelter
Moneyball
Melancholia
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2020: The Movie!

2011 has morphed a little bit. I originally had The Sitter and Fright Night on here, I may be the only one who loves those films, but they're great. I just watched Super again, it holds up, but is maybe tenuous here. My number one movie has also shifted dramatically, from Rango to Take Shelter to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which has consistently been one of my favourites of all time. I think it deserves it place here. The Tree of Life, Melancholia, and Moneyball have been other consistent presences.

2012:

Celeste and Jesse Forever
Haywire
Brave
Cabin in the woods
Skyfall
Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
21 Jump Street
Django Unchained
The Master

I should watch this again

I love a world where I put 21 Jump Street ahead of Lincoln. I have begun to firmly believe in putting the best comedy of the year alongside any other great film, and that movie's re-watchability along with it being at this point one of the last great mainstream comedies, earns it that right. Argo is a big drop, along with The Five-Year Engagement, The Campaign, and The Grey. I was so into The Grey, maybe I've just matured beyond it at this point. Still, Zero Dark, Cabin, Django, and The Master are mainstays. I just rewatched Haywire, which is such a perfectly constructed movie that deserves more recognition. Along with Five-Year Engagement, 2012 was a year for weird comedy-dramas, and my fond memories of Celeste and Jesse Forever win out.

Stay tuned, folks, we will re-evaluate 2013 - 2016 in the next few weeks. More recent than that may need some more time to settle. We'll see.

Let's Cautiously Look at Cool 2021 Things

This is going to be real, REAL cautious, folks. It was a tough debate to even do this again this year. Half of these are holdovers from our 2020 Anticipated List. Ahhh January 2020. What an innocent time to be alive. So, there's always a chance these don't actually come out this year, in addition to the super real possibility that everything sucks. Every year I tend to look at my list and think, "Wow, what the hell was I thinking?" We live in a state of constant disappointment, mostly connected to big blockbuster movies that always leave us spiritually unfulfilled. WE'RE PRETTY SURE THAT WON'T HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

So, in no particular order....

Oh, and we're not even bothering to put dates on these. Maybe odds that we actually see them, though!

#1: Godzilla vs. Kong
Odds on Watching: 100%

Did Kong grow a beard?

My strong number one. Listen, I'm a complete convert - this will likely be the last of these, there's just no way this series continues unless it makes a ridiculous amount of money, and its sentencing to HBOMax seems to be a death knell for that. Or maybe it will better expose the series. I feel like it's trying to so hard, each film has been competent and fun in its own way - amazingly, Godzilla (2014) may be the worst of the lot. But I also hate to say, four films in seven years isn't quite enough to sustain an interesting shared universe that is fresh in our minds. There is also no consistency in human characters, which should never matter, but it also feels empty. I clearly don't care about any of that, I just want to lean into the bonkers bent this franchise has taken and see it run wild without consequence.

DUNE
Odds: 95%

DUNE is also set for HBOMax, but it's hard to tell what we'll look like in October. Might we all be over? Might our paradigms shift again to theaters? It's hard to tell exactly. I've never been a huge Duner, I haven't read the novel, I saw the David Lynch attempt and Jodorowsky's Dune (2013), and it's all cool, but my hype doesn't totally come from fandom. It mostly comes from Denis Villeneuve and Blade Runner 2019 (2017). He's the clearest master of contemporary thinking sci-fi. This movie will surely bomb but be awesome.

The Suicide Squad
Odds: 93%

This is another HBOMax hopeful, and one of the few superhero films I believe will not let me down. It's not very fair that DC just keeps getting free re-dos on all its movies, but I still have hype for this. James Gunn has proven himself time and time again, and the vibe feels like it's moving in a truer direction than Suicide Squad (2016), which makes me more angry each subsequent time I think about it. I am not a fan at all of movies playing with definite articles to distinguish themselves, I wish this just went weirder like Suicide Squad 1.5: Suicidier Squad but I am unfortunately not in charge of these things. The cast is bigger, weirder, more expendable, and the general attitude feels more irreverent in a way that fits the property. There has been a lot of good adaptations in other media, though, from the animated Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay (2018), which balanced the kind of mission this group would do much better, the Harley Quinn TV show, which is close enough, and upcoming video games. I have high hopes.

The Tomorrow War
Odds: 86%

It's been an entire year and I know no further information about this. It's a movie about drafting people from the past to fight aliens in the future or something. Directed by Chris McKay, who wasn't done too much besides The LEGO Batman Movie (2017), but that's something and starring Chris Pratt, who needs to recharge his leading man status after a few years off at this point. It's supposed to drop in July, so it should be okay, right? Who knows. I'm always into original sci-fi, even if they are mostly terrible.

Venom: Let There be Carnage
Odds: 81%

Listen, I think the first Venom (2018) is pretty underrated. It's not like....good, but it's a pretty fun movie. The ending fight is just kind of whatever and feels like every superhero movie ever, but there is some really dire antihero stuff leading up to that. It's enough that I'm into another shot at this interpretation. Things that worry me - Andy Serkis is not a proven director after making the far inferior competing Jungle Book adaptation a few years ago. Woody Harrelson still feels egregiously miscast as Cletus Kassidy. And the main villain from the first one was an insane symbiote, so the main villain here is....an insane symbiote? I'm pretty much done with mirrored superhero villains. Why is this on this list? Well, I hope it has more brain eating I guess. If this doesn't make it into the theaters hopefully we'll at least get to see it on Crackle.

No Time to Die
Odds: 78%

I was really thinking about this. Do we need or want a new Bond film? But really, isn't it always a big deal when we get another installment in one of the most storied film franchises of all time? It should be. It is inconceivable that it's been six years since S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (2015), which ties the longest time without a new Bond since the series began in 1962. The only other time was in between License to Kill (1989) and GoldenEye (1995) and that pause was due to heavy fatigue, re-tooling, re-casting, and re-evaluation. Now, obviously this break wasn't that intentional, and I'm not sure if we should be destined to ALWAYS have a Bond film every couple of years, but it's also insane that Daniel Craig was playing world-wearied, old out of shape Bond NINE years ago now in Skyfall (2012).

I straight up don't count Never Say Never Again (1983), but if you throw that in, Connery played Bond for 20 years in seven movies (conversely if you are like me, he played the role in six movies over nine years). Lazenby was one and done of course. Roger Moore did seven movies in twelve years, Dalton two in two, and Brosnan four in seven. All this means that Craig's tenure over fifteen years is the longest ever, if you don't count Connery's '83 outing. He's only done five films, however, ranking under both Connery and Moore.

This was the first big casualty of the pandemic, the studio pulled it last April at the last second. MGM needs a streaming service, huh? Bond ownership has been all over the place. Maybe it'll be streaming somewhere. Universal seems to be creeping up, maybe we'll watch this in between The Office on Peacock.

Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar
Odds: 70%

Kristen Wiig hasn't really gone away - she's had Ghostbusters (2016) and Wonder Woman 1984 (2020), but since Bridesmaids (2011) she's done far more tiny indie films than using its success as a springboard to comedy stardom like a Will Ferrell, or hell, even a Melissa McCarthy who DID use Bridesmaids as that springboard. This feels like the first movie where she's returning to that fun, broad comedy, and damn we need it. She's pairing with longtime writing partner but seldom seen on screen, Annie Mumolo for this. I'm excited. There is no real safety net here, though - we'll see if it gets to theaters!

The Last Duel
Odds: 77%

This is far off, set for October, when the world will obviously be healed and fine. Matt Damon is a medieval dude who wants to fight Adam Driver for supposedly raping his wife. That sounds like a fun time at the cinema if I've ever heard it. It's directed by Ridley Scott, which should be a good thing, like thirty years ago. He's still a good director, right! I forget that he did The Martian (2015). He's also 83 years old. He has pedigree with period pieces - Gladiator (2000) of course, Kingdom of Heaven (2005), uhh...Robin Hood (2010)? It's also written by Matt and Ben Affleck - these are Academy Award-winning writers, people. Affleck also plays the King of France. Do you love it when you just know that accent is not going to sound right? There's enough here that I am pretty interested. Mainly Adam Driver, I guess.

Army of the Dead
Odds: 68%

Zack Snyder directs a Vegas zombie heist film! What the hell is going on? This is like a B-movie but with the pedigree of a big time director. Well, at least a financially successful director. Dawn of the Dead (2004) is what made Snyder, man, this is going to be great. Or it's the high concept that sounds fun on paper but just falls apart because there's not actually anything there. But Zack Snyder is such a master of subtext and nuance - nothing could go wrong!

The Green Knight
Odds: 76%

This looks so cool! Another medieval movie! Why not? Dev Patel is an underrated actor, A24 despite recent flops is not far away from its perfect 2018 territory. It just looks silly and fun but also very serious and fun. I am hoping this can come in and be that underground film that really speaks to me and stays with me for a long time. Or it'll be completely bungled. Either way, this might be my #1 movie that doesn't feature a giant ape.

At One Moment We Looked Forward to 2020

Listen, folks....

This is going to be fun as hell.

Such auspicious predictions for 2020. This will go fast. Most of these films never came out or if they did, were in such limited release I didn't see them, or even if they were in my area, let's face it, I wasn't going to the theater. There are a lot of potentious predictions wider than the scope of this post - the death of blockbusters, the death of theaters, the move to streaming, and you know, whatever else. But let's look back on what we were looking forward to this year and salvage what we can with how things turned out:

2020's deepest revelation: Slavery is bad!

Wonder Woman 1984

It's fun how many Warner Bros films are on this list - who of course made the announcement that their entire 2021 slate would be released on HBOMax and in theaters simultaneously. WW84 is scheduled to drop Christmas Day, so I'll be watching it then - stay tuned for that reaction when it drops!

UPDATE: I watched this, it was definitely enjoyable and I liked most of the last half. It started ridiculously slow, though, and needed a good editor to trim it up. I still enjoyed it quite a bit as a nice Christmas diversion and quite frankly, the big silly blockbuster we needed to end this insane year.

TENET

This was delayed, and then debuted in theaters to more middling acclaim than a Chris Nolan film deserves, but it was also just really caught up in its times. It became a focal point for corona at the movies and a posterchild for blockbusters' inability to function with both limited theaters showing films and a public that didn't want to go out. I was summing up the courage to see it right as theaters locked down. So...TBA.

Deerskin

This is on HBO Max and I'm jonesing for it. I will update soon with thoughts.

UPDATE: Watched it, it was bizarre and fantastic and wonderful. It is by far not for everyone and it can border on incomprehensible if you let it. It's had next to no critical or cultural appreciation associated with its release, so not much of a splash, but if you're feeling frisky, I do recommend it.

Bad Trip

For some reason I'm only now hearing that this film was accidentally released on Amazon Prime for a brief time in April. How was I not on top of that?! Supposedly Netflix bought it for some later release, at which point I will watch it and report my findings. This is fun, guys.

The Personal History of David Copperfield

This got a release in late August and swelled to a massive 1550 theaters over Labour Day. I did not see it. Reviews are a little lackluster than I would have hoped for and despite being a big Iannucci fan, I've been dismayed at Avenue 5 and a re-watch of Death of Stalin (2018) that lacked a little luster. He might be showing some cracks.

Untitled Judd Apatow / Pete Davidson Comedy

This turned out to be King of Staten Island and as it came together I was turned off. I have grown quite weary of Apatow making overlong stealth biopics of quasi-interesting comedians. Funny People (2009) is still solid, but still an absolutely brutal 146 minutes. This is an equally unnecessary 136 minutes. I know this not because I've seen the film, but because Pete Davidson really shouldn't be counted on to carry 136 minutes. I wish this would lean more into slapstick than the comedy / dramedy folks seem to like these days. Anyway, reviews were decent, and it did pretty well on VOD.

Godzilla vs. Kong

Delayed until May 2021, but will be on HBOMax, unless of course, the entire industry implodes on itself thanks to Warner Brothers or we have a vaccine by then. Either way I would love for Godzilla vs. Kong to emerge from the ashes as the last great blockbuster to ever exist. It will be high on our 2021 list.

Dune

Delayed until October 2021. Same deal as G v. Kong, still has a lot of potential, but a delay until October seems insane. I suppose it's good to have some kind of plan, even if that plan may change.

The Tomorrow War

Delayed until July 2021. It's weird that we should have been getting hyped for this around now, but instead we're almost in the exact same position we were a year ago. It was too far out to get rolled in the hype machine. It still might be good!

Other Crap:

We had a lot more we gave a skeptical eye towards. Let's do a quick rundown of delays:

New Bond: No Time to Die, delayed to April 2021. By the way, the six year gap ties the longest span of time we've had between Bond Films since 1989's License to Kill and GoldenEye (1995). That was due to a lot of behind the scenes shuffling and resting and this gap still has the same actor who was playing a weary Bond eight years ago. FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
New Top Gun: Top Gun: Maverick, delayed to July 2021. I think Top Gun (1986) is stupid. I said it.
New Ghostbusters: Ghostbusters: Afterlife, delayed to June 2021. 
New Bill & Ted: Bill & Ted Face the Music, this came out, it was okay.
New Coming to America: Coming 2 America, most cliched sequel title possible. Delayed to March 2021
Black Widow: Delayed to May 2021
Free Guy: Release date TBA
Last Night in Soho: Delayed to April 2021
Trial of the Chicago 7: Came out on Netflix, pretty good!
Antebellum: This came out, I've heard good things and bad things but have not seen it.
Mank: Just came out on Netflix, I need to watch. UPDATE: It was solid, not totally revolutionary, but I enjoyed it.
I'm Thinking of Ending Things: Came out on Netflix, pretty good!

This year was obviously rough, but I usually do watch more films than this! I can catch up on a few but 11 / 21 films I was anticipating were delayed until 2021. Should we just copy and paste for next year? Stay tuned, this will be a living Internet document because why not, I will update as I watch!

Top 10 Films 3.0: 2012-2014

As we did yesterday with years 2009-2011, it's about that time where we re-evaluate our Top Ten film rankings of yesteryear. Attitudes change and some movies hold up better or worse than others over the years. While this is certainly a pointless exercise with no real end year after year, it's definitely a nice way to be reminded of how many good flicks there are out there and an encouragement to see as many as possible. I would postulate that as my tastes have evolved, these latter years won't change that much - based both on their recency matching my current profile and the original lists being more solid and less random and pandering than when I first started this site.

Again, for our first realignment back in 2014, which also holds our first lists, click here!

2012:

The Campaign
The Grey
The Five-Year Engagement
Celeste and Jesse Forever
Life of Pi 
Skyfall
Argo
Zero Dark Thirty
Django Unchained
The Master

When we last met I was but the student

There's only three films that I have retained through the years, four since 2014 which is actually incredible. The Grey has maintained a low spot on the list while Django and The Master have unwaveringly held the top two positions. Other than that I've moved away from the slew of great action films in 2012 like Dredd and Looper in favour of the great comedies like The Five-Year Engagement and Celeste and Jesse Forever. I never thought much of Life of Pi, but it's grown on me, and in terms of big spectacle films I traded The Dark Knight Rises for Skyfall. 2012 is an all-around pretty solid year that I can see switching around quite a bit, while I don't think much can touch those top two giants. Other films like Moonrise Kingdom, Seven Psychopaths, and even Pitch Perfect were tough to leave off, but they're ultimately all too gimmicky. Then again, The Campaign gets the #10 spot as a film that's held up remarkably well as its outrageousness is eclipsed by actual contemporary political campaigns.

2013:

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2
Frozen
Prisoners
12 Years a Slave
The World's End
Pain & Gain
Spring Breakers

Inside Llewyn Davis

The Wolf of Wall Street
Stoker

omg shoes

I really love a list that includes Cloud with a Chance of Meatballs 2 and Prisoners so close to each other. You may have noticed how much I've loved the Phil Lord and Chris Miller films, but I'd argue that the sequel is actually the superior film in many ways. Now, to be sure, my original 2013 list was a total cop-out that just allowed me to list all the films I liked. That's all kind of bullshit. Of the 19 films listed, six remain here. In 2014 I re-ranked and as predicted, the lists are pretty similar, with seven films still cropping up here. The major difference is Stoker, which I just watched and loved, earning it the #1 spot. In future installments I'd be curious if that film's position is tenuous. Other than that this list is crazily similar. Frozen moves from #8 to #9, 12 Years a Slave moves from #6 to #7, and the Top Five largely remain identical besides the downvote of The World's End and the inclusion of Stoker. To be sure, when making the 2017 list I didn't even glance at previous rankings; I literally re-ranked from scratch, which means 2013 is remarkably stable, at least as far as my tastes are concerned. I would like The Lone Ranger to make it someday.

2014:

Interstellar
The LEGO Movie
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Foxcatcher
Snowpiercer
The Interview
Birdman
Gone Girl
Inherent Vice

Under the Skin

Scottish Men only use 10% of their dicks

Some years are weird with titles, like how 2012 has "The" in front of a lot of films. 2014 is all about "In" - Interstellar, Interveiw, Inherent Vice...2014 retains seven from the original list, but in drastically different order, with Under the Skin moving way up and Interstellar moving way down. Birdman I unanimously named my favourite at the time, although it's #4 in 2017. What's more weird is that in 2015 I re-ranked and only five remain from that one just a little over a year ago. Those are basically the Top Four, although I had difficulty leaving John Wick and Dear White People off the list - the former because it's a well-constructed action film that isn't that great of a film, and the latter for just being something that didn't stick with me as much as it did in 2015. Instead, Foxcatcher and Snowpiercer sneak in, both of which I still actively talk and think about.

These ranks ought to be considered Norwegian Morning Wood canon for at least the next three years. I'd be curious to see how anything changes between now and 2020 or if we've somewhat stabilized. We of course JUST ranked 2016 and re-ranked 2015 here, so you may check that out as well. As for the future, we can only guess as to which films rise to prominence, which seem to flash hot then fade, and which barely miss the cut in favour of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2.

First Impressions: SPECTRE

A new Bond film is always a special occasion - after all, we've only got 24 of them. It's the prototype for the modern movie, the modern action blockbuster, a series whose longevity and sustained popularity has guaranteed that everyone in 2015 knows who Ursula Andress is. It's a franchise so eternal that even years of horrible, horrible films in the franchise won't destroy it. It's immortal unlike so many other pretenders to the throne, with a truly interchangeable line-up of actors and directors all contributing to one boozy, womanizing narrative that weaves in the occasional jetpack and mild racism.

Aiieee!! Bond in a tactileneck!

So that brings us to SPECTRE (2015), which comes hot on the heels of Skyfall (2012), which is totally the best Bond movie made in the lifetime of anyone who reads blogs (even if I picked the one that inspired the video game that caused my eyes to bleed in the late 90s). Expectations are pretty high, with most of the core talent returning. The end result is obviously disappointing. We'll get to that, but let's take a second and talk about what works. SPOILERS everywhere, so tread carefully. Or just close the window and never return. I dare you.

SPECTRE unfortunately never gets better than its opening, but holy shitballs, what an opening. It's obviously the best introduction to any Bond film ever, and probably the best of the year. Largely wordless, the camera tracks a Day of the Dead celebration in Los Mexico, in particular one sinister looking douche in a white jacket, and then a mysterious dude in a bones-suit (be Bond for next Halloween!) and mask, strutting with a pretty lady. There's a split second where you see Daniel Craig's eyes, which incredibly convey everything you need to know to identify Bond. It's an intense, analytical focus, scanning his surroundings for both his prey and how he might apprehend him.

It's a little jarring to see Bond in disguise, because he really doesn't go maskless too much. Bond's whole thing is that he never uses codenames, which is what Archer always makes fun of, although he has done worse. But his rapid change into the classic debonair suit gives a solid pay-off. Part of why Daniel Craig works so well is that he can wear the hell out of a suit. He looks so damn good and completely comfortable cajoling around the rooftops of Mexico City, sauntering with determined purpose and an effortless melange of cool, casual, class, and bitter darkness that make it impossible to take your eyes off him.

The scene then escalates more and more with severe repercussions that we eventually learn about. Bond is acting without MI6's jurisdiction here, which makes him more or less a rogue assassin, a point that's eluded to a few times in the picture. All this really deliberate and captivating pacing is lost a bit in the helicopter action sequence that enfolds. There's less an action-reaction flow of beats than a prolonged struggle that gets muddled without significant changes or little consequences to make the action engaging. I wouldn't have totally picked up on this without Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or this video essay. So, thanks a lot for ruining complacent, meaningless action for me, George Miller.

This is something that continuously bogs down SPECTRE. Every time the film shifted into action my mind wandered and waited until we got back to the narrative at hand. So let's talk about John Harrison.

I can see that becoming nomenclature as infamous as "nuke the fridge" but at least Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) is finally leaving a mark on pop culture, as ignominious as it may be. I don't totally understand the rationale there - I suppose it's to create this mystery box where the audience doesn't know that a major antagonist is actually in the movie, but there's not a tremendous point when the reveal makes no difference to the protagonists so nothing is actually shocking. It's weird fan service that's actually disservice because it deprives us of hype. Hype us up!

For those of you lost, Star Trek Into Darkness insisted that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing a new character named John Harrison instead of the most classic villain ever, Khan Noonen Singh from Wrath of Khan (1982). Of course, he was revealed to be Khan, and no one really cared because they were told that Khan was a bad dude rather than experiencing any pain that Khan actually caused that was the original reason for the Galaxy to fear him.

SPECTRE swore to its dying breath that Christoph Waltz was Franz Oberhauser and not Ernst Stavro Blofield, who hasn't been seen on film in an astounding 44 years despite being Bond's most classic nemesis. Of course Waltz was Blofield. Technically he's also Oberhauser in the film, but of course he's Blofield. And he is introduced very well. There is an absolute dread to his introduction scene that Sam Mendes draws out with spectacular precision. But the name doesn't matter at all. Why not just go with Blofield the whole way instead of swearing up and down that you're not doing it?

Despite being in the film for a relatively short period of time, two-time Academy Award winner Waltz's Blofield is a totally sinister presence that perhaps walks a line that doesn't quite know how to straddle between menace and goofiness. The final scene in the derelict, bombed-out MI6 headquarters plays like something the Joker would conjure up for Batman - but is that really appropriate for the character of Blofield? The most feared man in the underworld? It's entertaining but doesn't quite gel with the rest of the film.

I'm also curious what Blofield's evil plot actually was. The film wisely avoids any villainous pontificating, but it's still not really clear. Sure he's going to control the Intelligence of the world's nine most powerful countries and stimulate terrorist attacks to stir fear to get what he wants (echoes of this past Friday's tragedy in Paris run strong - although conflating ISIS with corporate machinations is a dangerous fallacy), but then what? He also wanted to destroy Bond, but it's not like he sought him out. I's more happenstance that Bond followed M's orders and wound up stumbling upon Blofield. Speaking of that, how did M get the tip on the dude in Mexico City anyway? She's SPECTRE!

If you can't tell already, some of these inconsistencies start adding up, and despite a film that has all these really great moments the whole of it feels incomplete. There's almost this complete journey from the stripped down, no gadgets, no help, "realistic" Casino Royale (2006) to SPECTRE, which has a lot more of these classic campy elements, but isn't necessarily a campy film. Compare the torture scene in Casino to SPECTRE. Blofield's mind drill machine emulates nostalgic Bond but also don't really fit with the Casino Royale modern Bond. Not like that's bad, they were still good scenes, but it represents this slight tonal shift that's more on the heels of updating classic Bond rather than tearing it down and rebooting it. One has got to think this is motivated by the success of Skyfall. We even get as close as you can get to a secret Volcano lair without being totally ridiculous.

And actually, the torture didn't work, right? Like, it didn't scramble Bond's brain. What was Blofield trying to do? It ended up being another needless scene that didn't offer any lasting damage. Bond is like, picking off guys with expert marksman precision moments after getting a drill in his brain. What the hell?

This is still the most complete Blofield we're going to get in the modern era. Although the reveal that he and Bond were sort of foster brothers sounds waaayy too much like the Austin Powers / Dr. Evil reveal in Goldmember (2002) for me to be totally comfortable. I'm awfully curious to see if they keep Waltz for future installments, even if more and more it seems like the Craig era is drawing to a close.

As far as other baddies go, Dave Bautista's Mr. Hinx has a name that slides in very well with classic Big Bond Henchmen, and he's a total menace on screen with another great introductory scene, but Bautista is sort of wasted after he showed he can actually do some acting in Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). Not like he's not a huge and terrifying presence whenever he's on screen here, but it seems like a step back for him rather than the step forward it could have been had he had a little bit more personality.

Finally, a Blofield who likes milk!

All of this works to finally truly provide an updated Bond for the modern century, although it did so at the complete expense of the normal Bond continuity that only held its previous movies to the loosest standards. It's clear in SPECTRE that this is all the chronicle of a very specific iteration of Bond in a specific stretch of time. It's an odd thing to complain about, but the film had too much reliance on the previous three films, which bogged it down quite a bit. Perhaps that's just because of the odd things it chose to latch on to. I have no idea who Mr. White is, he was never a major character until now, despite appearing in both Casino and Quantum of Solace (2008). I'm also still to this day confused about the nature of Vesper Lynd's death, and it'd be nice if that was something that they focused on as still haunting Bond, and while it's clear that it is, it's clearly on the periphery. Bond is more notable for being solo outings, these were tenuous connections that came off forced instead of relevatory.

SPECTRE also stood out to me as letting all the other cronies get involved, which seemed novel for a Bond film. It's not often that M, Q, Moneypenny, and even good ol' Bill Tanner are all in the mix in the field. I think I liked that aspect. It's certainly more interesting to have that sort of power structure, even if it'd be nice if Moneypenny fired a gun once in a while. She is a trained agent, after all. It's at least better than this.

And that just about sums up where the Bond Franchise is now. No matter how misplaced or misfired things may seem, when you have a fifty-year history to fall back on there's always someone who did it worse. It allows for a forgiving bent to reviews like this, but I'm left feeling really divided over SPECTRE. If I were to slot it in to that Definitive List of Bond Flicks, I might split For Your Eyes Only (1977) and The Spy Who Loved Me (1981) in the 7th spot. That's pretty good, I guess. Its positives end up outweighing its negatives. At least in the first twenty-four hours of seeing it. Maybe I'll change my tune in thirty years.

Oh, and Monica Bellucci was also totally wasted and probably raped. Why didn't they learn to not have date rape after Skyfall? And this wasn't even date rape, it was like, rape rape. Not really okay.

The Definitive Ranking of Bond Films, from mostly Childhood Memories

I've seen every Bond film at some point or another. More often than not this was during my formative years when I'd crush Bond after Bond from Blockbuster. That's a very old-fashioned sentence. I say this because after seeing a ton of rankings and lists this past week in build-up to SPECTRE (2015), I was compelled to re-examine what I've always thought to be the good ones and the shitty ones. I'm totally influenced by being a 90s kid and typically fueled by fun camp. Before we go any further, I do want to reiterate that there is actually one definitive assessment of every Bond ever, and that's Film Crit Hulk right here. Spend a few days on that (literally) and then come back. I'll be here.

Great. Now let's dive in, and without having seen SPECTRE yet, let's go through the other 23 films so far, with mostly childhood reasons why they are or aren't shitty:

The Super Shitty Ones:

23: The World is Not Enough (1999)

Sweet Joseph, Christmas Jones. Sorry, Dr. Christmas Jones. Needless to say, none of these reviews are going to be good - but I thought this movie was really dumb when I was thirteen years old. Thirteen! Isn't everything dumb, loud, and flashy supposed to be great for a thirteen-year old boy?! My surviving memory is some chase in a pneumatic tube or something. It's amazing how many older movies I have more accurate memories of.

22: A View to a Kill (1985)

This was the one with Chris Walken and Grace Jones and somehow the latter was the way better and more memorable villain. Roger Moore was 58 years old when this came out. 58! Something happened on the Golden Gate bridge, I forget what. Was it like a big gas attack or something? I always thought that that would be the view right, from atop the bridge? Damn ambiguous title.

21: Octopussy (1983)

I'm pretty sure I caught this during those marathons they now run on Spike but I think used to be on TNT or something. I have this definitive memory of sitting down to watch this some November afternoon and looking forward to it because the name is obviously very funny. It's still one of the more blatantly-named bonds (eight vaginas! get it?!), but I can't remember a single thing that happened in this one.

20: Die Another Day (2002)

This is the most modern movie that I remember pretty thoroughly that I also remember being fucking terrible. It was far too outrageous, which I think hampered it in the wake of The Bourne Identity (2002), which came out the same year. If you doubt that, check out the first two Daniel Craig flicks, which are totally Bourne-driven. I did think that that diamond-face guy was pretty cool and the North Korea stuff was a new prescient danger, but this plot made no sense. How did this random Korean guy become the super-respectable British Elite Gustav Graves? And Madonna! For fuck's sake. I'm listening to that now, I forgot just how awful that theme song was.

19: Quantum of Solace (2008)

Film School Rejects ranked this #4, and while I typically respect that site, they're way off on this one. The Opera scene is unique, but the always felt like a whiffed punt after the majesty of Casino Royale (2006). It purportedly was to spend its running time featuring Bond hunting down the secret crime syndicate that murdered Vesper Lynd (or did she kill herself? Why was that death so muddled), only to prove that it would gain a modicum of solace (a...quantum), and thus affirm Bond as this cold and distant lover of women and killer of men. Instead it was about some water shortage in Bolivia. What the hell? It does have one of the best themes, though.

18: You Only Live Twice (1967)

I actually saw this on TV pretty recently and was struck by how damn racist it is. It's not necessarily a terrible Bond film, but holy shit, the racism. So much racism. It's clear that Sean Connery is kind of sleep-walking through the role, and it's not surprising that he bolted right after. Even if it has the best Blofield (Donald Pleasance), it can't get out of the way of its own shittiness.

17: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

I've only really seen bits and pieces of this, which is a shame, because Indie Wire ranked it at #1. It's probably better than I remember, but the presence of George Lazenby in ruffled shirts and winking at the audience is always sort of a barrier to big Bond fans. It's low because it had no influence on my childhood at all, but I need to see it again.

Also as a child I couldn't understand
why Richard Kiel wasn't in JAWS (1975)

16: Moonraker (1979)

Bond in Space! It's about time! No, the plot makes no sense, but who cares, this is Roger Moore. Jaws is back as the most Dick Tracy-like Bond Villain ever for no real reason besides the fact that he's a huge popular monster man. Hugo Drax is a really cool name and the yellow jumpsuit costumes are pretty iconic. That's all I remember.

The Not-So-Great Ones:

15: Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

This was coming off GoldenEye (1995), which as a nine-year old, was my earliest introduction to a new Bond film. It always gained a lot of good will from that, but it's a clearly inferior movie, despite a red hot Teri Hatcher - real and spectacular. And Keira Knightly's dad from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies! He's there! Oh, he's in there.

14: The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

I always thought this concept was really cool - it's a sort of pared down Bond - just him and Christopher Lee being all Saru-Dracula on an island with evil mirror halls and Tattoo screaming at him and giving him chickens and stuff. The investigative murder mystery was pretty engaging and the mono e mono finale is rare for a Bond flick.

13: Diamonds are Forever (1971)

I was about to write this off, but then I remembered that this was a super-Blofield film. I remember something about an elevator shaft. That was sweet. Blofield and elevator shaft. I'm all over it.

12: The Living Daylights (1987)

I'll admit that I never liked the Tim Dalton Bonds as a kid, probably because they were these dark and moody pictures that strayed from the high camp and zaniness of Roger Moore. There's not a lot in my mind that now differentiates these two, but License to Kill (1989) had the coolest title ever, so it gets the bump.

11: License to Kill (1989)

As you can tell, this is a pretty honest assessment based on having not seen a few of these movies in literally like twenty years. For that reason this is partly based on my own experiences, memory, cultural reputation, and public recognition. I remember really wanting a License to Kill as a kid, and then being disappointed that the movie didn't feature enough explosions or goofy side characters.

10: Live and Let Die (1973)

There's not much more you could ask for here. Snakes. Weird shaman voodoo rituals. Partying in Harlem and in the Big Easy. Awkward American local cops. Jane Seymour's boobs. This is the ultimate Bond films for young and dumb boys, which made it a perfect Saturday afternoon for yours truly. Roger Moore's first effort isn't really his best, but I remain a big fan of who is probably the worst Bond.

"I'll find him for three, but
I'll catch him and kill him for ten."

9: From Russia with Love (1963)

This flick is often considered one of the best Bonds, and for that reason I actually watched it again two or three years ago, and I was struck by how damn boring it was. It's a slow burn for sure, and that train sequence against Quint is great, but it couldn't capture my boy attention. I might need to check it out when I'm less tired, because I'm typically a big fan of the slow burns, but for now I'm shitting on this one. It's still just out of reach of the only eight good films.

The Good Ones:

8: Casino Royale (2006)

You might be up in arms because Casino Royale has a weirdly devoted following, but I'll knock points off for it unashamedly jumping on the mid-2000s Poker Crazy, while having Mathis narrate everything like a tool, and then just refusing to end, ever. The intro is still spectacular, but just think - Bond never kills the bad guy, and actually doesn't really do anything significant at the climax. That may make it the best Bond ever, actually, but it has pacing problems that clutter its final act. Which is totally like a fourth act.

7: For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Only because I'm trying to not look it up - one of these Roger Moore Bonds was the one with the skiing, which was pretty sweet, and the other one I remember thinking would be really dumb because of its wimpy title, but instead, it was sweet. I think this had the skiing and the other one was the one that ruled.

6: The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

It's a painful lesson to learn as a little kid -  Bond films with cool titles like License to Kill sucked and ones with wussy titles like The Spy who Loved Me were really good. This remains Roger Moore's most balanced Bond outing before we get into the 80s and a near non-stop string of terrible, terrible motion pictures.

5: Thunderball (1965)

Underwater harpoon shootings! That's my primary Thunderball memory and it's pretty solid. Plus they had that eyepatch guy. Lavro? Largo! Okay, I looked that up. Why did my mind go to Lavro before Largo? These are my reviews.

4: Dr. No (1962)

I don't think I had actually seen Dr. No as a kid for some reason, but I caught it pretty recently, like, within the last five or six years. It's remarkable how much groundwork this laid for the series, which is mostly due to director Terence Young, who was totally just Bond himself. It's so chock full of establishing iconography, from the prototypical evil mastermind's layer to Ursula Andress' beach entrance, which now seems to be referenced every couple of years, even if by accident.

3: Skyfall (2012)

Skyfall is so good that I rank it #3 despite its casual date rape scene and ending return towards proper English patriarchy that's crazily non-progressive. And it's horrible evil gay stereotyped villain is intensely problematic, although I almost like the idea more that he seduces Bond out of the spy's own perceived uncomfortableness rather than a play on the inherent "evil people are gay" thing. So...#3. It's the most beautifully shot Bond ever, has the third best Bond song ever (Behind "Goldfinger" and "Dr. NOOOOOOO"), and is a precisely articulated and orchestrated film with one of the most memorable Home Alone (1990)-themed endings ever.

2: GoldenEye (1995)

Besides introducing us to Pierce Brosnan, who is by far the best Bond to appear in the worst movies, along with some classic Cold War-era villains headed by the perfect evil counter to Bond, and just the right mix of darkness, camp, and intensity, DK and paintball mode, Complex, Power Weapons. Enough said. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the merit of the movie, but c'mon. Jungle. Train. Runway - aaahhh! Runway!

1: Goldfinger (1964)

The best villain, Sean Connery doing his best work as our titular hero, the best Bond Girl, the best plot, the best henchman, and a film that damn well stands up today just as good as it did fifty years ago, Goldfinger is the undisputed end all to all Bond films. I saw it most recently in probably 2007 or 2008, which seems like a long time ago, but hell, that was when Quantum of Solace came out and no one gives a shit about that.

So, what do you think? I need to re-watch a ton of these, I know, but as far as a litmus test of cultural memory goes, it's LEGIT.

Needless to say, Never Say Never Again (1983) doesn't fucking count.

Disagree? You really should. Leave one below.

Dueling Spies - Shady Counter-Organizations are the New Black

By the end of last week we had two new trailers on our hands for a pair of 2015 films that have, for better or worse, somewhat slid under the radar. This is really only due to 2015 being absolutely huge and crazy for the mega-franchises of or day and in another year where these flicks may have swung some heavy cultural weight, they're being a bit overshadowed in the wake of men flying around in tights and triple-bladed lightsabers.

An used image from Tom Cruise: Man of Steel

But these are venerated franchises. The first trailer dropped for Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015), which I really only had a shaky recollection of coming out this year. The second is something we have no reason not to be pumped out of our minds about, the twenty-fourth Bond Film, SPECTRE (2015). Here, go watch their trailers.

What do you think? Maybe it's just because it's been a while since we've had dueling spy films, but I haven't noticed how similar these properties have become. We had this in the mid-90s when GoldenEye (1995) battled Mission: Impossible (1996), and again at the turn of the century during the great bout between Die Another Day (2002), The Bourne Identity (2002), and of course, xXx (2002).

Our spy duel in 2015 seems a little different though, because they're not just sharing genres, but it would seem plots as well. See, there are shady uncover agencies everywhere, even more secret than MI6 or IMF and The Syndicate and SPECTRE are out to get our respective super-spies. And that is really just following up on HYDRA from Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), which is something I never thought I'd say.

Why this sudden upsurge in dastardly evil organizations in mainstream spy thrillers? Maybe it's the aftereffect of terrorist cells like ISIS recruiting your neighbors next door. Maybe cinema's writers have just watched too many episodes of The Americans. There is a sense, though, of suspicion, that anyone around you could be a deadly insurgent, and after all, what better threat to a super-spy than an evil super-spy? And just because these movies all seem similar doesn't mean they'll be terrible. In fact, Rogue Nation and SPECTRE both look a few shades of awesome, with both franchises cashing in on what they've built their bread and butter on lately.

Mission: Impossible has had sort of a strange, tortured road to becoming an A-list franchise. It's built completely on Tom Cruise and is so tied to whatever level of patience audiences have with him at that moment. Looking back on films in the franchise I'm always reminded of the Mission: Impossible staple: not remembering any plot or why anything was happening at any given time for any reason, but there's always one great scene or stunt that stands out. The classic wire-hanging. Cliff-climbing. Keri Russel's brain exploding. Scaling the Burj Khalifa. It's all there. From the looks of it, Rogue Nation is following this up with a compelling remade scene from Black Sheep (1996).

Thanks to the general goodwill steaming from Mission: Impossible III (2006) and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011), people are also expecting a good flick. I think folks have also come around with Tom Cruise, who has actually had a pretty reliable string of early summer films lately. At the very least he has built up a reputation for some awesome stunts, made more compelling by the public knowledge that he does just about everything himself. You know, like a crazy person. He's stayed out of the public eye and avoided jumping on Oprah, which has also allowed us to remember more of how fearless an actor he is than how much of a maniac he is. That bodes well for Rogue Nation.

Why is skiing always a staple of the spy genre?

SPECTRE has the benefit of following up the most successful Bond Film of all time, financially and arguably critically, Skyfall (2012), with the same production team and a really intriguing trailer. Bond has done well lately to trade the exact kind of insane stunts Mission: Impossible loves for more personal, introspective stakes. Sure, Skyfall has its really big moments and explosions, but the funnest part of that film is when it boils down to a farm battle in Scotland between Bond, his nemesis, and the surrogate mother to both of them. There is a lot of complicated pain and relationships in Skyfall, which SPECTRE looks to build on. There isn't a "Tom Cruise hangs from a plane" scene in that trailer, but I find myself re-watching it even more. There's a lot of hope there.

It's interesting to think back nineteen years now, the impossible amount of time it's been between now and the first Mission: Impossible. We've gone through two Bonds in that time and that's with even Daniel Craig is nearing the end of his run. This further proves that Tom Cruise, even after cresting fifty years old, is immortal. I love how he was that semi-retired agent in Mission: Impossible III, which was now a whopping nine years ago. Think of it this way - that year also showcased Daniel Craig as a new Bond while Skyfall showed him rather as an old, rusty Bond. Cruise just keeps barreling ahead.

All this is awesome for Jeremy Renner, who constantly seems on the cusp of A-list stardom, being primed to take over the Mission: Impossble and Bourne franchises but constantly being denied. Even poor Hawkeye keeps getting the short shrift. Maybe he can be the next Bond. No, Idris Elba has a better chance for that than Jeremy Renner.

So, what do you think? Why are shady counter-organizations in this year? Which film will reign supreme - Rogue Nation or SPECTRE? And is there any room for these films as cultural objects of affection in a crowded year filled with Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Avengers, and Hunger Games films? If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on...Paul Blart.

Rogue Nation drops July 31st, while you can check out SPECTRE  November 6th.

First Impressions: Transfourmers: The Age of Extinction

I spent far too long debating how to exactly tackle these impressions. Is it masochism that I voluntarily immerse myself in the Michael Bay Transformers world of insane stupid blockbuster filmmaking while being pretty fully aware of its ill effects on my artistic integrity and pop culture psyche? It's a tricky line to draw. I'm hesitant to write it off as a "popcorn movie" or "summer fun" where our brains should be turned off, because our brains should never really be turned off while trying to understand the merits of any film. I'm also well aware, however, that in any review you can't treat this like a studio prestige picture. I figure that the best way to judge Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) is whether or not it's successful in being the film it's trying to be. Really that should be how we judge all films - is it able to accomplish what it intended? There are plenty of mindless summer action films that fail in this regard (Roland Emmerich always seems to me like he's trying and coming up short of being Michael Bay). There are also dumb popcorn movies that have no idea what they're tying to be (something like Hancock [2008] comes to mind), and those too, are generally disappointing experiences.

Ha! You got hit in yo chest!

But for all the criticism that Bay takes, and perhaps this is why he doesn't really care about it at all, his films are always exactly what they want to be. Maybe not Pearl Harbor (2001). That one could never decide if it wanted to be an historical epic, an explosive action movie, or a cheesy love story. Every Transformers film, though, has a very definitive brand, intention, and execution. Now, if you've escaped the Transformers brand so far, somehow, you may be in for a rude awakening. Age of Extinction is really what you'd expect from this loud, crazy franchise. Even though it's supposedly a "soft reboot" (whatever the hell that is), it's still totally a Transformers film, which means you can't really be on the fence about it. You either dig it or hate it at this point, and you know how you feel. Or you hate it but watch it anyway, then complain that Hollywood keeps making these movies while you're giving them money. Either way, your mind should already be made up - you know what to expect going in to this.

All of this is a preference to say that I liked this movie and it does a nice job of elevating itself even a little bit above the first trilogy (words I never really thought I'd type, for sure), and it absolutely knows what it's trying to be. There is plenty of criticise, of course, but honestly, criticising these movies is like criticising a dog. You can bitch all you want but it's just going to stare blankly for a while and then continue licking its balls. It's just futile. So let's get our bitching out of the way.

One big lesson that Bay learned from Spielberg (yes, that Spielberg) is how to keep the story flowing to feed an emotional response at the expense of logic. This is sometimes slight, depending on the skill of the director. For instance, you don't really notice that suddenly Alan Grant and the kids are climbing down a sheer cliff in the Tyrannosaur pen until the fourth for fifth viewing of Jurassic Park (1993). It's a gap in logic that serves the story beat needs of the story. This is all that Bay does as well, except it's continually insane enough to bring viewers out of the film instead of being alluring enough to keep their attention so distracted that no one really complains. This is probably where most of my criticism comes from. From here on out folks, even though if you wanted to see this movie, you probably have by now, SPOILERS will lurk in the mist.

There are just too many elements of this film that serve nothing but plot. It really fucks with character. Like, apparently KSI's Director of Chinese Operations just a crazy kung fu artist and former cop when the time needs her to defend Stanley Tucci. Same deal with the random Chinese guy in the elevator in Hong Kong. Now I would be curious to see the Chinese cut of the film, which apparently featured more extensive scenes with the Chinese actors (which in itself, is a brilliant move on every level), but these people appear out of no where for no real reason.

There's so much of this. This kind of movie, it's just too stupid to try to list every inconsistency. Optimus Prime sprouts jets in his feet for the ending scene and blasts off into space which...he could apparently have done this entire time. He scans another Peterbilt and instantly heals himself after so much of the early parts of the film deal with him being a rustbucket. KSI's matter shifting technology, I mean, whatever, that's weird but shouldn't their robots need a power source to function? And why are there like three versions of the evil KSI Transformer Stinger? It's still a great twist on "Bumblebee" - not the cute friendly bee, but the dangerous part! - but it's just inconsistent and unexplained. But it's also too cumbersome too explain, which is just all around horrendous.

I love why Darcy exists. She gets this badass introduction in the frozen wasteland, but then fades into the background as a woman for every other character to dump exposition on. And she actually seemed like an interesting female Bay character, briefly. I also dug Kelsey Grammer's character, because as is often the case in movies like this, he's completely reasonable and doing his job really well. The Transformers are causing so much destruction on earth and really should be dealt with with prejudice, but he's just painted as this terrible villain. Stanley Tucci starts off this way but is then actually granted one of the more interesting arcs in the film. And of course, Mark Wahlberg - this was the part he was born to play! Equal parts sincerity and insanity, he's a spectacularly deadpan genius robotics inventor with huge biceps. Michael Bay has been waiting twenty years for this. But all his characters' efforts to save the world isn't going to pay his bills or get his house back. He's still kind of screwed.


He does have more to do than any other
human in this stupid franchise.

I like sequels that sometimes deal with that, actually - that heroes always get screwed. Ghostbusters II (1989) reduced its eponymous heroes to birthday party entertainers, and even Sam Witwicky, especially in Dark of the Moon (2011) is really frustrated by his lack of stature he ought to have received from starring in two world-saving adventures. I'm curious where Mark Wahlberg's adventure takes him, because the film does such a good job of demonstrating how every part of his life sucks, but then the narrative doesn't really solve any of his problems.

And they pulled the voice of John Goodman somehow! Hell, his Hound character really livened things up even if the rest of the Autobots are inexplicably racist or just angry at life for no reason. But at least we get to know these characters, which no Transformers film has really pulled off since introducing everyone with proper articulation in the first film. In every otehr film there's just like, random Ferraris and Chevy Volts. But why does Hound kill those things in Lockdown's ship? And what ARE those things? These questions will never be answered.

Finally, let's talk Lockdown. He's actually a pretty cool villain, and I love when he fights Wahlberg (who somehow deflects against a direct blow by the twenty-foot robot with only an alien gun to brace himself with). But why did any of the protagonists care that Lockdown was going to get the seed with his magnet-o-ship? Didn't he have like 14 of them? It's as if they all forgot the motivations of each villain for a second.

Speaking of that - Galvatron! Finally! It's good that they worked Megatron in, and this is how you do it - there's so much precedence for this transformation, although in spirit he seems more like Nemesis Prime, this evil version of Optimus. But he has no soul! Oh no! I love this movie. There's actually this interesting undercurrent of commentary here on like, the nature of the homunculus or the nature of souls. It's even got this Prometheus (2012)-like vibe of understanding both the responsibilities of creating life and the origins of one's own creation. This is especially true of the ending which features Optimus flying off to find his creators, presumably the Quintessons or even Unicron in a future installment (obviously to be played by the GHOST OF ORSON WELLES). I wouldn't be surprised if he passes Naomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender's head in space, though.

In addition to this possibly interesting discussion of the nature of souls and creation, some out there in Internetland have posited that the film is actually this meta-commentary on filmmaking and criticism or at least a reaction to the outrageousness inherent to modern blockbuster filmmaking. I'm not so sure to go that far, but there's certainly some self-awareness of the stupidness of this whole thing, and how the Transformers themselves are the doom of all the earth. There are scenes that feature Mark Wahlberg chastising the younger dude in the action hero mold for fooling around with his 17-year old daughter, which is not entirely all that different from our fascination with a young Megan Fox in Transformers (2007).

Speaking of that that action dude role - Shane Dyson (played with apathy by Jack Reynor. Yes, I had to look that up) is nearly identical to Cade Yeager (every film needs names like this now), but for his cowardice and actual inability to save his daughter Tessa Yeager (Nicola Peltz). Tessa actually more than anyone else is self-reliant, independent, and capable of saving her father and boyfriend. She's also one of the only reasonable characters in the film, and only really breaks down when they have to climb those insane cables over the city of Chicago, but who wouldn't be?

I'm curious if there is something here with the film's treatment of the Rally Car Driver, Shane. He's totally generic in that Charlie Hunnam / Taylor Kitsch / Garret Hedlund / Luke Evans (jeez there's a lot of them, eh?) variety of random scruffy white guy thrown in big blockbusters. Yet he's totally emasculated, irrelevant, and forgotten about. This film also kills off its comic relief, TJ Miller real REAL quick, which provides some startling stakes early on.

The humans in general are what elevates this film above some of the earlier Transformers pictures. There's no doofy scenes of Shia LaBeouf and his parents running around being silly on pot brownies or cringe-worthy moments like "This is so much better than Armageddon!" or positions under the enemy scrotum. It's all a bit more interesting, serious, and less cartoony, although to be fair, they're still all doing ridiculous things that keep it firmly grounded in the ridiculous.


Yeah, what the fuck was all that Knight stuff?

The action is also crisper and clearer than ever. Trust me, this is true in comparison to the first trilogy. Like I said earlier, little things like limiting the Autobots and Decepticons, introducing them, and giving them all personalities, even if they are stereotypes or racists, goes so far. And the Dinobots. Holy shit, those Dinobots. Their existence makes no sense, even within the context of the film, but none of that matters, because they are spectacularly awesome and get more screentime than Godzilla did earlier this summer. My only gripe is that they have really cool robot modes too that we barely see, but would be so cool in action.

Another thing that's really noticeable here is the product placement. Films can get away with this if it's subtle, but this is getting to Mac and Me (1988) levels. It's great to see Stanley Tucci instantly create Beats audio boxes out of random matter or to see Mark Wahlberg aggressive chug Budweiser aluminum bottles that spill all over the city. It's all insane, but really par for the course in this film.

The "soft" reboot concept is delightful, by the way. It's almost Skyfall (2012)-like in how by the film's end things are basically where they need to be to line up with the main Transformers Universe and to get things rolling on the fifth film. There's a lot of interesting things going on within and around the noise and stupidity of Age of Extinction, but similar to Bay's Pain & Gain (2013) I'm really not sure if it was intentional satire or Bay just being a douchebag. It really doesn't matter. You're going to get out of this thing whatever you want, and whether that's the epitome of big dumb blockbusters or a keen commentary on big dumb blockbusters will probably depend on how inquisitive your mind is and how well you can argue.

Transformers: Age of Extinction is beginning to get slaughtered by Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) so see it in theaters soon. What do you think? Does any of this have merit or should we refrain from intelligent criticism at all? Leave a comment below!