SPECTRE

Dustin: 3.5 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 3.25 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Warning: This review contains spoilers.

Dustin: SPECTRE finds Daniel Craig starring in a Sean Connery film. The plot, I guess, is about Bond closing in on a shadowy organization for reasons that take forever to understand, while his employer, MI6, is being shaken up at the administrative level. It’s all an excuse to bring Bond face-to-face with his mortal enemy, Blofeld (oh, was that a spoiler? I guess you’ve never seen a Bond film before/or don’t remember Blofeld has always been the head of SPECTRE).

Nick: So very disappointing is the first thing that comes to mind. Everything I loved about Skyfall is either missing or overdone. The “overdone” would be all the winks and nods to former Bond films. I read something the other day there is at least one reference to every previous Bond film in SPECTRE. The missing is engaging drama, a memorable villain, and a somewhat unique story for the Bond series. Skyfall will live long in my memory, while SPECTRE might not last the week.

Dustin: I caught many references. A lot of it was visual. It wasn’t as painful as Die Another Day where they would reuse exact props from earlier films, but in SPECTRE we see similar sets from Dr. No or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. They also reused some situations, such as the train fight (From Russia with Love), the showdown in a funhouse (The Man with the Golden Gun), and Bond splashing a beaker of his own urine in a henchman’s face to disable him (Never Say Never Again).

The movie has actually grown on me a bit since we saw it. I appreciate what they’ve done in bringing back a lot of the fun, flamboyant elements of the original Connery films. If I had to fault this movie with something, it would be they tried too hard to backtrack and make SPECTRE the force behind all of the villains Craig has encountered. I understand for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, because there was an unnamed, shadowy organization behind the villains in those movies. But Silva had enough motivation on his own in Skyfall that making him an agent of SPECTRE sort of ruined it. I understand Blofeld was the best Bond villain (or a close second to Goldfinger), and the producers have worked forever to get the rights to that character back, which is why they couldn’t kill him off in this film (spoiler). But they didn’t need to backpedal so much. Or, if they wanted to backpedal, they could have made SPECTRE the secret organization behind every Bond film since 1971. The North Korean general who becomes a white person in Die Another Day? SPECTRE.

Nick: He was my favorite villain! Never saw it coming. I think it was the previous Daniel Craig Bond films (minus Quantum) which ruined this new one for me. I was enamored by Casino Royale and in awe of Skyfall. They both move slowly, build characters, have well-developed plotlines and some of my favorite action set pieces in quite some time. So many of the action sequences in this Bond involve a helicopter. So many that it felt like a Michael Bay movie at times. Why does the bad guy in spy movies always try to make a getaway in a helicopter! Even the solid comedy Spy ends with a fight scene in a helicopter. Blofield would have gotten away by car or maybe gotten further considering it’s a Bond film and he is fucking unbelievable!

Dustin: Frankly I’m surprised Blofeld didn’t have an underground monorail already in place.

This movie was good as fan service, and if it had followed Quantum of Solace, I would have seen it as a step in the right direction. As a stand alone movie or a follow-up to Skyfall, it was a bit disappointing.

Nick: Pshaw! Severely disappointing in that regard. Where would you put it on your list?

Dustin: Between The Living Daylights and Live and Let Die.

Nick: Although the action set pieces were perhaps my least favorite thing about SPECTRE, it had one great one in that train fighting sequence. The brutality unleashed by Dave Bautista upon Bond is back breaking, to of course anyone else but Bond. My favorite thing would be the cinematography. There are some very interesting shots throughout this film enough to where I feel as I left with a note of happiness. SPECTRE is truly a beautiful film when focusing on that one aspect.

Dustin: I agree. While this wasn’t a great movie, it had the look of a great one. I also liked some of the touches in the story, like the return of Mr. White, and the way Bond becomes something of a protector of his former enemy’s daughter.

What do you think will be the future of the series? Daniel Craig has hinted he may not be very interested in doing another Bond film, and I almost feel like he has outgrown the character. I kind of liked how this movie ends with Bond walking away as well. Should we leave it at that?

Nick: I think so, this film seems to not try as hard in terms of originality, which is what I was so enjoying about the new Bond era and with the way it is left with the obvious fork in the road I would be happy if they recast. Sam Mendes stated he is definitely not coming back, and Craig said he would rather slit his wrists then make another one at the moment.

Dustin: So now for the fun part of discussing who will be next. If I had to put money in Vegas on who I think will be cast, it would be Henry Cavill. But if I could choose the next Bond, it would be Michael Fassbender, even though he’s from Germany.

Nick: I will gamble with you, my friend. In no terms will they cast Cavill--they tend to cast relatively unknowns, and he has been in many big budget films including two as Superman, be cast as the next James Bond. Fassbender would be an amazing choice, and perhaps Richard Madden (of Game of Thrones) would be another one, but I like the idea of Idris Elba, but only if they call him 007 and not James Bond. Since it’s not an alias, but his actual name.

Dustin: I wouldn’t be surprised if Fassbender was a villain at some point. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Craig’s statement was really his way of holding out for more money, knowing he won’t be able to play the role much longer, trying to get a big payday for his final film.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: The latest X-Man film has the Wolverine’s consciousness sent back to his 1973 self to prevent a catastrophic war in which mutant robots destroy the world while wiping out mutant humans. The Wolverine must rally the forces of two enemies, Professor Xavier (James McAvoy/Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender/Ian McKellen), so their future selves can become BFFs (see Image 1).

Image 1. Actual screenshot from X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Source: twitter.com/SirPatStew

Dustin: So Nick, what did you think of X-Men 7: Days from the Future in the Past?

Nick: A little disappointed, but overall satisfied. Since there are so many characters in the past and future, little is seen of each. While Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) appears the most, it wouldn't be surprising to find out he has the least amount of dialogue of any character. The same could be said of Mystique. We see her a lot, but not too much comes out of her mouth. Or maybe it just feels that way since she is always in a different face.

Dustin: That somewhat sums up my criticism of the entire X-Men universe. There are so many characters, some with multiple powers that sometimes feel made up on the spot, none of them can be more than a plot device, and newbies might feel lost. The reason I never got into the cartoon as a kid was because I gave it a couple attempts and just couldn’t understand the characters or what was going on.

This film, however, does a decent job balancing the characters with the plot. Some characters will probably confuse those who’ve never seen an X-Men film (like the Asian X-(Wo)Man who can apparently open portals in thin air). But most of the screen time is devoted to X-Men who don’t require an explanation, like Wolverine or the Beast.

Nick: While your argument is mostly correct, I would prop up X2 as a shining example of a film that has a plethora a characters, but all follow the same path and it’s ultimately the first Wolverine film. That film follows Wolverine trying to find his “creator.” The rest of the cast is trying to stop the same guy because he threatens all mutants. This is actually brought up in this film quite a lot and makes the secondary bad guy Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage). Every X-Men film should be about one of the many character’s stories with the others going in and out.

Did you notice the actors’ names? The Asian X-Woman you speak of is Blink. Her real name is Bingbing Fan, and Warpath is played by Booboo Stewart. Love the latter’s name!

Dustin: I noticed that when I looked at the cast on IMDb to get the spelling of their names right. I liked that Bingbing and Booboo were an effective pair in the film.

I think this film was emotionally satisfying in the arcs of the main characters, especially Professor X and Mystique (America’s Sweetheart, Jennifer Lawrence). I thought they also did interesting things with young Magneto (Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave). You never know whether he will commit to the good side.

Nick: Really?! I think you can always know he will do the bad thing. Though, I read the comics, watched many different cartoons, seen all the movies, and even had a Where’s Waldo version of X-Men (which I need to find). The only reason it may seem as if Magneto will do the good thing is because of how much belief (albeit false) Xavier has in him. He obviously only realizes the errors of his ways too late. This film sometimes felt like the James Bond story arc I talked about during World War Z. They kept traveling from one exotic location to fuck some shit up. I’ve read many interviews where directors admit to doing this because they like to travel and go places they have never been. Sometimes during Days of Future Past it seems like that.

Dustin: That’s one of the things I actually liked about this film: the variety of shots. You have the bleak future shots, the 1970s New York locations, ‘Nam, Paris, Washington, D.C. I can imagine the director likes to travel, but somehow I doubt they actually visited all those places. The Chinese future sets could have been CGI, you didn’t see enough of ‘Nam to believe it wasn’t filmed on a California backlot.

Nick: I’m not talking about the bleak future setting or the ‘Nam setting, but when Magneto tried to kill Mystique in Paris and Trask is there and the scene cuts through televised images that go to the White House where Nixon (Mark Camacho) is watching. All of sudden Trask is in that room! So Nixon waited like a week to be like what are we going to do about this? Trask was also in Paris to try to give his weapons to the Russians and the Vietnamese, so why did it need to take place in France? The crew actually didn’t fly to many places. From my research I could only find information that most of, if not all, the film was shot in Canada. I was commenting on the feeling of the pointlessness of saying you are in France selling weapons to Russians and the Vietnamese and then segue shot to the same character selling the same weapons to Nixon. How many scenes were of Trask selling his Sentinels (mutant robots)?

Dustin: I think this film did a good job balancing the light and dark elements, especially after the recent Marvel comic book movie, The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The comedy scenes were very well done (Quicksilver breaking into the Pentagon was easily my favorite sequence, Evan Peters stole the show for the few scenes he was in, which is saying a lot). The humorous scenes added variety to the experience of the film, rather than clashing horribly in tone like the new Spider-Man 2.

Nick: Certainly the funniest film I have had the pleasure of seeing in 2014. Quicksilver did steal the show, and when he asked about their flight plans, I almost thought he was going to go with them, but sadly he didn’t. DOFP did balance humor with darkness wonderfully. So many scenes were funny, but then some major characters (while in CGI mode) were torn in half, burned alive or beheaded. The film never lost momentum nor felt disjointed. Bryan Singer is a welcome relief in the director’s chair. Singer directed the first two X-men films, and now he returns for DOFP. One of my favorite sequences was Magneto calmly walking down a corridor in stylish ‘70s garb while playing with two magnetized floating balls. The scene was shot with humor and mystery. The camera was low, which made him seem like such a large presence. The outfits were immense, especially whenever young Xavier looked like a pornographer with his ‘70s threads, long hair, drugged-out face and dirty facial hair.

Dustin: I think young Xavier might have actually been Lt. Dan.

Nick: The drug-addled Xavier was a bit much for a film already spending so much time on other “important” quests. While I liked the idea, the fact that he is supposed to be addicted, but quits because Wolverine emphatically for the fifth time tells Xavier he needs his powers (which he loses if he’s using). They could have had more fun with it like after he says he is going to quit and he uses his powers some, but later when needing his powers he says he is not able again. It felt forced into the film for what addiction is and how it's portrayed.

Dustin: My main criticism of the film is perhaps the epilogue. The only other X-Men films I’ve seen are the first one and The Wolverine (which I made a point of seeing because it stars my sister-in-law--look for her in the background during the scene in Ueno Station). I wanted to go back and watch the rest of the films, but this one, without getting too deep into spoiler territory, seemingly undid the outcomes of previous films during the epilogue. This will definitely take away my suspense if I go back to watch them.

Nick: You should definitely watch X2 (it is still my favorite) and X-Men: First Class. If anything they will give you more appreciation for the subtle comedy and shock throughout this movie.

Dustin: I’d recommend this film to general audiences. It was funny, exciting and pleasing; and you don’t have to be a fanboy to enjoy this film.

12 Years a Slave

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 4.5 of 5 stars Average: 4.25 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: 12 Years a Slave is a story “inspired by actual events” about a black man from upstate New York who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south in the mid 19th century. It stars Nigerian-British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor and is directed by Steve McQueen, “the King of Cool.”

Nick: Did the film grow on you between now and when we saw it?

Dustin: Not really. I did think about it a lot, but I still have the same problems with it as I had leaving the theater. The characters were two-dimensional. The whites in the movie, except for Parker and Brad Pitt (or "Burapi," as his Japanese fans call him), were all pure evil with no other sides to their personality. British actor Suchandsuch Sherlock Holmes/Wrath of Khan remake guy Cumberbund was more complex, but his was a minor role. The black characters were all innocent and faultless, with the minor exception of the slave who marries her master. Solomon and his owner (Michael Fassbender) never showed much depth, which grew more frustrating as the film went on. There were things set up in the movie that were never explained or fleshed out. In one of the opening scenes Solomon (Ejiofor) is seduced by a slave woman. I kept it in the back of my mind the whole film to watch for where the woman came from. She never appeared again. I’ll get into Burapi’s performance later.

What are your thoughts?

Nick: This is a story from one man’s perspective. To me it was just a story of the injustice done to one man in a very fucked up time. Not many characters have a chance of being more than two-dimensional because Solomon doesn’t get to know anybody that well. Then the woman at the beginning is brought back for a second but just in order to explain how he got to the scene. That instance was supposed to be one that made you ask what’s going on instead of who is that woman? It made me think here are two slaves who’ve probably had nothing to be happy about and have had no (welcome) intimacy, so the woman was seeing if having an intimate moment of her choosing would do something, and I feel that the emotions the two show during and after answer the question. Of course this is up for debate.

Dustin: Well, this is all from Solomon’s point-of-view, which is why the characters he doesn’t know so well seem shallow. But did everything have to be so black and white? Wait, I get it now!

Nick: Since this seems to be a major point, what for you does Solomon lack in order to say that he lacks depth?

Dustin: I was waiting for him to show some character flaw that would make him more relatable. He starts out as a educated, talented musician. His only flaw is being too naive perhaps, but that’s more of a problem when other people take advantage of his trusting nature, and not really much of a character flaw. He makes a mistake at the beginning by being too trusting of the two crackers who end up selling him into slavery and the alcoholic overseer he thought could help him. But other than coming home a little bit wiser for his experience, he is just portrayed as a victim throughout the film and doesn’t ever grow.

Nick: Solomon does make mistakes, but to call them such in the circumstance he finds himself in is up to the viewer. When he runs, he runs into a posse hanging up some other runaways. Solomon fights and argues with some of his overseers, which the other slaves tell him is a mistake. He also (technically) commits adultery. What other possible mistakes could a man in his position make? Besides maybe killing some white folk, but Jamie Foxx did enough of that last year.

Dustin: I would like to see a Django-esque sequel to this movie.

Solomon makes some mistakes, but he doesn’t have any human flaws, just as the white characters don’t have any redeeming characteristics. Yeah, he technically cheats on his wife… after not seeing her for a decade and being seduced. Even then he only gets to third base off frame.

Nick: You have already stated that some white people did have redeeming characteristics but you also didn’t answer my question of what human flaws could he have committed in his situation? Also would you want them to change the real Solomon’s story just so it could fit the more entertaining aspects of film?

Dustin: He acts as a moral compass throughout the entire film. They could have had him acting like an asshole at times. Anything that would have made him more relatable.

Nick: So was he not an asshole when he told the black woman to stop crying about her children? Or when he wouldn’t mercifully kill a friend who pleaded for him to do so? I feel that anything he could do, whether good or bad, would not be seen as such because what bad thing could a slave possibly do that would make a free man more than a century later be able to feel more like him?

Dustin: He was helping the woman, telling her to be strong and survive. Same when he wouldn’t kill the woman who asked him to. He wouldn’t give in to defeatism. But you’re right, it is a lot to ask a white person 150 years later to identify with a slave. I couldn’t possibly know what it was like. The movie did a good job portraying what it must have been like to be a slave though, but I didn’t relate to this character, or any character, which made it hard for me to really care about this movie.

Nick: You’re right as well in the sense that he wouldn’t give in to defeatism and that worked for him but for those characters who were defeated I feel they didn’t have happy endings. So from their perspective he might have been being unkind, but it had as much to do with convincing himself to believe. You are also right in that these characters are not relatable, but it didn’t bother me because if someone asked me to relate myself to a slave or a white slave owner I would (hopefully) not find a thing to say.

Dustin: Personally, I would have liked it better if the slave owners were portrayed as more human. Why not have a slave owner who was basically a decent fellow, like Cumberbund was in his brief segment, but needed slaves to get the labor done on his plantation? Instead, the slave owners are about as deep as vaudeville villains, twirling their mustaches.

Nick: I will start by saying I have always hated the Hollywood ideal of a bad white person from the 1800s having a mustache. It’s OK to have a beard and mustache or just a beard, but to have a mustache, you must be one evil son of a bitch! So there was a slave owner who was decent, and then there was a brief stint of another who let Solomon play music for crowds instead of working the fields (though this is hardly shown). I believe that all the “good” white people balance out Paul Dano, Fassbender, Sarah Paulson and the devious duo from the beginning.

Dustin: I guess it’s true in real life bad people have mustaches. Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin. And good people always have long hair, like Jesus, Moses, Brad Pitt.

Nick: I think people just think of those first. Wyatt Earp? Doc Holiday? Wild Bill Hickok? I’m sure I could go on.

Dustin: That was actually supposed to be a segue to Brad Pitt in this movie. Burapi is featured prominently in the trailer, but he only appears long enough in the movie to deliver some ham-fisted dialogue on how slavery is bad, looking like he just came off the set of Che (see image 1, below) in a scene that should have ended up on the cutting-room floor. His performance here makes his character in World War Z seem tragically flawed and totally relatable by comparison.

Image 1. Benicio del Toro (left), Brad Pitt

Nick: I personally think he just came from the set of Witness (see image 2, below)! Though this is one area where we completely agree. His character is so short lived, yet so profound that it doesn’t fit into the storyline naturally. Brad Pitt is actually a producer on this film. He even brought it to Plan B to make, which is a subsidiary of Paramount, who were angry that Mr. Pitt didn’t give them the chance to make it, which he was legally supposed to do. The fact that I knew this going into the film made me even angrier that Pitt ended up as the white man with a heart of gold that the black man needs in order to get out of their bad situation. Although if that is what really happened, then I can’t knock the character, but they should have had his character around a little longer and find him out that way instead of an over the top speech that felt out of place and straight from the mouth of Lincoln.

Image 2. Brad Pitt (left) with Harrison Ford in Witness (1985)

Dustin: Lincoln was actually pretty racist in real life. He believed slavery was wrong, but he still had racist, condescending attitudes toward the blacks.

Nick: Lincoln in the film Lincoln is who I was referencing because his character was just as flawless. More like the image we’re fed of Lincoln than the real person, which is why I didn’t like that movie! HOLLYWOOD!!!!!!

Dustin: When Burapi told Michael Fassbender, “Imagine the laws were changed tomorrow and white people were made slaves,” do you think he was referencing Obama’s secret agenda to turn white people into slaves?

Nick: Is that what Bill O’Reilly’s saying?

Dustin: I reckon.

Now that I’ve run out of steam griping about this movie, what do you think it did well?

Nick: Everything (beyond Pitt’s character). One thing that I loved was the workload it showed of the slaves. So many times it was hard to tell whether they got done sweating, crying or a little of both. The camera angles during the whipping scenes were phenomenal, as well as the scene of Solomon struggling in a noose while people were just going on about their day, noticing him but not reacting as if its just another day. Also Chiwetel Ejiofor has been my favorite actor for the longest time. He’s phenomenal in Dirty Pretty Things and Redbelt. All of his other roles as smaller characters are solid, like in Love Actually, Inside Man and Serenity.

Dustin: The casting was superb. Although all the celebrities in minor roles was kind of distracting, as it took away from the realism. When I’m thinking, “Isn’t that Taran Killam from Saturday Night Live?” it takes me out of the scene. But for the most part, the major roles are filled by unrecognizable actors. The faces of the actors were all wonderful, just like in Captain Phillips a few weeks ago.

Nick: Which I complained for having the major face as the main character and referenced this film for doing the opposite, but I completely agree about Taran and then, also, when Pitt showed his darling face.

Dustin: The movie also did a great job depicting what the realities of slavery must have been like--forcing someone into servitude, ripping apart families, trying to break the human spirit. This all seemed brutally honest.

I found it ironic the plantation owner would whip slaves for picking less than 200 pounds of cotton in a day, but then they would have to use 300 pounds of cotton to wipe the blood off the backs of the whipped slaves. Not only was he a bad slave owner, he was a bad businessman.

Nick: You get a sense in the film that Edwin Epps (Fassbender) ran by his emotions and often lacked composure and a sense of reality. Epps pretty much gets outsmarted by every character he runs in to. When he realizes he’s being outsmarted he loses that composure.

Dustin: Anything else you want to add?

Nick: Steve McQueen (III)--as is his moniker so no one confuses him for THAT McQueen--has made three very solid films in a short span of time. His other ones being Hunger and Shame.  Both star Fassbender and both are fantastic.