Changing The Way I Review Stuff

This is something I really haven't been sure how I wanted to tackle for awhile now. Ever since I was in college, I would rate the movies I saw on a grade scale, and that was my definitive answer. But, lately, my views on movies have been changing, for a number of different reasons. I've been getting a lot more easy-going, and a lot less snobby (if you've known me IRL for awhile, then you've probably been able to tell). I'm going to admit: I was a huge film snob. See, even right there, calling it "film" instead of movies. Honestly, what's the difference? I feel like now when I hear someone say something to the extent of, "Oh, the art house is showing some terrific films" I want to throw up a little bit. I shudder to think that that used to be me not too long ago. I'm not trying to say I don't appreciate a great film when I see one, but why can't a movie like Raging Bull be in the same category as Anchorman? To me, both movies are great for their own very separate reasons. Anchorman I feel I can watch whenever I want and enjoy it immensely. Raging Bull, though, is the kind of movie you have to be in the mood to watch, but when you do, there's a lot of terrific, artistic things going on. That, to me, is the best thing about movies. Movies can be the best form of art and be something to study for years, but it can also be a great way to forget about the problems of the world for a few hours, and have a great time doing it.

So, I'm going to change things up, a lot. While I like how my movie rating pages are very clean, with the grades separating each movie (oh, you haven't seen my list pages? Click here for my 2011 movies, here for 2012, and here for my top ten movies from 2010 and 2011), they're just not practical for the way I'm looking at movies anymore. Easy example: I gave The Avengers an A-/B+ on the old scale, but when I think about the movie and talk about it with people, I constantly regard it as an awesome movie. So, what's the point of trying to break down every movie into its own individual category? It makes it easier to say to someone, "Hey, The Avengers is awesome; The Amazing Spider-Man isn't", instead of, "Well, The Avengers is very much an A-, while Spider-Man is more of a C, C-." Easier; not as snobby, right? Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to go around saying that the new Twilight movie is spectacular, mind you, but I feel like this new system makes me sound less like a film snob, and more like a guy just talking about something he loves to write about.

I'm also going to try and review different things when I can, like games, CD's, and the occasional book or graphic novel. None of these will be as consistent as a movie review, but I hope to have a few up sometime soon. I've also decided I want to go through the huge task of watching and writing a review for each movie I own. This is where the new scale comes very much into play, because, for instance, even though Forgetting Sarah Marshall isn't exactly an Oscar type movie, I think it's great, and I'll point out the reasons why I think so, instead of trying to analyze it. There's times for that to be sure, but there's also times to just have fun and talk about a good movie.

So, here is how my reviews are going to break down from now on. There's going to be five different ratings, each one a pretty obvious statement on what I think about the movie.

Awesome: This is a movie you should see as soon as you can. Definitely worth the full price at movies nowadays. Think Alien, Back to the Future, or Anchorman (that's easily the most random three movies ever put together, but it sort of gives you the idea of what I'm going for).

Pretty Good: While there's nothing really wrong with the movie, there's a few reasons why it's not "awesome". Maybe the ending isn't as great as the rest of it, or it's a little long. Think Sherlock Holmes, 21 Jump Street, or Titanic.

Meh: This is the kind of movie you might enjoy for a little bit, but there won't be much you remember about it awhile after you see it. Borrow it from someone (or hey, your local library!). Think The Amazing Spider-Man, Green Lantern, or The Hangover Part II.

Lame: Not good. Maybe it's a comedy that just isn't funny, or an action movie where the action is boring, this is a movie to avoid at almost all costs. If you feel like you have to see it, catch it on TV. Think J. Edgar, Transformers 3, or Resident Evil.

Awful: Such a waste of time. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and it should really be ashamed of itself. If you really, truly, absolutely have to see it, this is one of the only times I'd promote illegal downloads. Think Batman & Robin, Twilight: Breaking Dawn 1, or The Happening.

Hopefully this makes me feel better about the reviews I write, and the way I present them isn't as snobby as it used to be.

Two Quick Reviews: Lincoln and Flight

I was really hoping to get a review of Lincoln up before the movie was released wide today, but I ran into too many other things to do. I also had the opportunity to see the Denzel Washington movie Flight when it was released, so here now are two very short reviews on these two movies.

Flight comes from director Robert Zemeckis, best known for the Back to the Future trilogy and Forrest Gump. Flight is his first live-action film in more than a decade, and also his most adults-only film. Denzel Washington soars (sorry for the awful pun) as an airline pilot who becomes the center of an investigation after a plane crash reveals something disturbing about its crew. Without giving too much away, Washington plays the performance with great care for the material: not going overboard as he possibly could have. The crash in the beginning is amazing and one of the top scenes of the year. Special note goes to James Badge Dale, who only has one scene, but absolutely steals the show, and his words resonate throughout the rest of the movie, and probably deserves an Oscar nod for it. Washington is more than likely a sure fit for a nomination, but the subject matter and ending may keep it out of the bigger categories. A-

Lincoln is pretty much the movie I expected it to be. This is both good and bad. Daniel Day-Lewis is terrific as the 16th President, but the real star is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. His work will more than likely get him a nomination, along with Day-Lewis. However, I have to say there really isn't anything fantastic about the movie other than the acting. Steven Spielberg really doesn't do anything all that extordinary with the movie, like I was hoping he would. I feel like if it wasn't Daniel Day-Lewis and Steven Spielberg attached to the movie, it wouldn't be getting half the attention it is, or half the praise for that matter. It's good, but not memorable. Lincoln will have its share of acting nominations for sure, and probably because of the star power it has attached, a Best Picture nomination as well. B+/B

Skyfall Review

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is no other series in the history of pop culture like the James Bond movie franchise. Really, nothing matches or tops it. Not all of the movies are fantastic (actually, only a few of them rise above "pretty good"), but the series has been a staple of popular culture since his first big screen appearance 50 years ago in Dr. No. Six men have played Bond over 23 official Bond movies, and while Skyfall isn't the best movie in the franchise, it is the one the series needs desperately at this point in its run.

After a botched mission leaves Bond (Daniel Craig) pronounced dead in the eyes of MI6, his boss, M (Judi Dench), is targeted by cyber-terrorist Silva (Javier Bardem), whose intentions stem from a personal vendetta he has with her. Bond brings himself "back from the dead" in order to protect M and stop Silva from destroying the British Secret Service. It's a classic Bond story with it's own twists that are perfect for the time we live in now.

People have been saying that Skyfall is the movie Casino Royale should have been, but I have to disagree. Casino Royale was a necessary reboot of the character in order to bring him into the new world of the 21st century. It stripped away most of the elements that make up a classic Bond movie, and by doing that, it reinvented the character for a post-9/11 world. To me, Skyfall ends a sort of trilogy for the character. Casino Royale brought Bond down to a gritty, realistic level we hadn't seen in decades. Quantum of Solace saw Bond coping with the effects of Royale's ending, while also slowly becoming a Bond we recognize. Skyfall completes the origin by honoring past Bond movies, while also moving the franchise in new, exciting, and bold, directions.

One of the great examples of this is the incorporation of a younger, more hipster looking Q (Ben Whishaw). This is the character's first appearance since Die Another Day ten years ago, and it's likely the most amount of time he's had on screen. In past movies, Q was simply the man who gave Bond the gadgets he'd use throughout the movie. He'd have one, maybe two, scenes in each movie. He was more scientist rather than geek. In Skyfall, Q plays an important role in helping Bond on his mission, playing the part more as a technology guru rather than a scientist. After giving Bond just a gun and distress radio for his mission, Q tells him, "What did you expect, an exploding pen? We don't really go for that anymore." Their dialogue together is some of the highlights of the movie, and hopefully Whishaw stays on to play Q in further movies, because he is a great fit for the role. It will be real exciting to see him and Craig play off of one another in future movies.

I feel like the movie is a little too long, and tends to drag in between the action sequences. The movie clocks in at 2 hours and 23 minutes, and honestly, I felt it could have been trimmed down to around 2 hours and been just as good of a movie. Some of the sub plots are too distracting to the overall story arch, and many of the scenes in between the action sequences take us out of the story a little too much. There needs to be a good balance between action scenes and down sequences, so that when the action sequences do come, they don't feel as jarring or forced. The action scenes, though, are some of the best of the year, and when the movie does get to them, they're all the more satisfying.

In many respects, Skyfall isn't James Bond's story, but more M's. Her past literally comes back to haunt her in the movie, and I would be willing to go so far and say that M is the Bond Girl of Skyfall. That''s really weird to say, given the history of what the title Bond Girl entails, but considering the strong relationship between the two characters, on more than just a professional level (getting even weirder...they're like mother and son, okay?!) is really the backbone of Skyfall's story. Although the third act does a nice job of humanizing both Bond and M, I really couldn't help but keep comparing the action to Home Alone. Yes, THAT Home Alone. It's not really terrible in a sense, but it took me out of the movie for a few minutes, and on a second viewing, I still couldn't shake the thought from my head.

One thing to note: Javier Bardem gives what is arguably his finest performance. Which is really saying something, considering his track record. Even though his character isn't introduced until about an hour in, he's still very much a terrifying presence in the movie. His entrance scene not only does a great job of introducing the character, but is probably my favorite scene in any movie so far this year, which is all thanks to the way it's handled an executed with the camera. 

Roger Deakins did the cinematography for the movie, and while I'm not the kind of person to view a movie like a snob (well, not anymore at least) and say, "Oh, that was a fantastic shot", I have to say, Skyfall just looks gorgeous. The color really pops from the screen and looks amazing even in a standard theater, and even better on an XD or IMAX screen. The scene I mentioned earlier with Silva's entrance, is just the highest point in a long line of great shots and scenes that are really all thanks to Deakins' vision. The title sequence, which is standard for every Bond movie, is one of the better ones in the series, I think. The sequence does a terrific job of hinting at events to come in the movie, and even touches on some of the themes. The "war in the shadows", for instance, plays a major role. It even hints at what Skyfall actually is, and various other elements of the movie. The sequence is even more satisfying on a second viewing, when you see the clues after knowing their significance. It's the type of sequence I would love to look at a little more in detail once the movie is released on DVD/Blu-Ray, and one that I hope the movies to come look to for inspiration.

Even though Skyfall sometimes feels like it could have been trimmed around the edges, it still makes for one of the better Bond movies we've seen since the end of Sean Connery's time with the character. I wouldn't put it in the same category as Casino Royale or Goldfinger, however. I will say this, though: I have never been more excited for the next Bond movie as I was at the end of Skyfall. There's several elements of the final scene that I really can't go into; but they make you realize that what you've been watching, not just in Skyfall, but in the past three movies, is the creation of a character we've known and loved for 50 years. I can't wait for Bond to get back to work.

A-/B+