Billy Magnussen – People Talking

Movie Review – ‘No Time to Die’ – Craig’s Last Waltz

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
Written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga (screenplay and story), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (screenplay), based on characters created by Ian Fleming
Cast: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear, Jeffrey Wright, Billy Magnussen, Christoph Waltz, David Dencik, Ana de Armas, Dali Benssalah, Lisa-Dorah Sonnet, Coline Defaud, Mathilde Bourbin, Hugh Dennis, Priyanga Burford, Brigitte Millar
Soundtrack: Hans Zimmer

16 years ago today, Daniel Craig was announced as the sixth actor to play James Bond in EON Productions’ long-running franchise.

There was controversy.

He had blonde hair! He had blue eyes! He wore a life-jacket on a boat!

(As if Roger Moore was tall, dark, and handsome?)

Personally, I wasn’t bothered. Much like Batman Begins following Batman & Robin, after Die Another Day, I was ready for anything new, but I’ve talked about that at length already.

More to the present (and to borrow a joke from Mike Stoklasa): it’s been so long since the last Bond film, it’s almost time for my pon farr!

To be fair, it wasn’t quite the 2313 days between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye, but is the 2163 days between SPECTRE and No Time to Die that far off?

Not really, but what’s important is that the movie is here at last, which means Daniel Craig can finally start to get on with his life (and I don’t mean that disparagingly).

Unlike the previous go around, I didn’t do much to get myself hyped up for this installment, because there’s no way any Bond movie could be worse following SPECTRE (though I would recommend a re-watch before seeing the new one, or at least a read through the plot on Wikipedia).

The reaction so far seems somewhat divided, which makes sense, but like so many things these days, the minority is far noisier than the majority of people who have been reasonably satisfied with the product.

But enough about all that.

To me, No Time to Die feels like the first time in the Craig era where everyone involved (including Hans Zimmer!) said, “Hey, let’s go out and make a James Bond movie; because that’s what we do, right?”

Not that I haven’t liked what they’ve done overall to this point, and not that they haven’t previously pulled inspiration from the original source (Casino Royale especially) and past films, but, in many ways, No Time to Die feels like a movie made by somebody who’s a fan the way I’m a fan. Someone who’s seen every movie more than once and can find something they like in each one (or almost, in my case).

In fact, it’s fitting that the MacGuffin of this movie revolves around DNA, because this feels like the only film in the franchise thus far that truly pulls something from every iteration of Bond: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig himself, and, yes, Ian Fleming’s novels. On top of that, it does an admirable job of picking up the tatters of some poor serialization in the previous entry and finding a thread to carry forward into this film.

And, of course, it’s a farewell to Daniel Craig in the role.

Of all the Bond actors who have had at least four cracks at the character, Craig certainly gets the strongest exit of any of them; which isn’t exactly difficult given that the competition is Diamonds Are Forever, A View to A Kill (which I do enjoy), and Die Another Day, but the point still stands.

Exactly how much of this we can lay at the feet of writer/director Cary Fukunaga, I can’t say for certain, but I wouldn’t be upset if he came back for another one down the line.

If I have one particular criticism of No Time to Die, it’s that there’s some dodgy CGI sprinkled in that I can’t help thinking would have been better handled in the Brosnan era. And I don’t mean that they would have done it 100% in-camera, I just think more effort would have gone into perhaps shooting things in miniature and compositing in other elements.

And yes, the movie felt a bit long the first time I saw it, but upon seeing it a second time, it really didn’t bother be at all.

In the end, I’m hedging myself on a rating a little bit, but perhaps the best compliment I can give is that having seen the movie twice, I do feel a desire to see it at least a third time, and that doesn’t come around too often.

And if you can see it in IMAX, all the better.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Ingrid Goes West’ – Thumbs-Up Emoji

Directed by Matt Spicer
Written by David Branson Smith & Matt Spicer
Cast: Aubrey Plaza, Elizabeth Olsen, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Wyatt Russell, Billy Magnussen, Pom Klementieff
Soundtrack: Jonathan Sadoff and Nick Thorburn

I’ll say this right up front.

I don’t know if this movie works for people over a certain age, and I don’t know if it will hold up five, ten, twenty years down the line, but, for right this second, it’s exactly the dark comedy we need.

Good art often pushes, challenges, and makes people uncomfortable, and that’s exactly what Ingrid Goes West is and does.

The film is a no-holds-barred examination/take-down of Insta-culture, and all that goes with it: “curated” lives, phony relationships, sacrificing what matters for what’s fleeting, the insistence that everything is amazing, avocado toast, etc. The conceit of the movie is that Ingrid has mental health issues (which are set up and which she acknowledges), but most of what she does is only a half-step removed from what millions of Instagram users do every day, which is the core of the film’s resonance.

(Not that I think social media is inherently evil. God knows I use it everyday in my personal life and to promote my writing, but every so often you need to hold up a mirror to yourself, which Ingrid provides.)

However, despite the high percentage of social commentary, the movie is still an effective piece of entertainment, mostly working in cringe comedy territory (a la The Office UK), but with enough spoonfuls of sugar along the way to not be completely overwhelming (there’s a subtle running gag about what Ingrid eats which I found quite humorous).

It may not have made me laugh the most of any movie I’ve seen so far this year (I think that honor goes to Spider-Man: Homecoming), and I don’t know that it’s supposed to, given its comedy-drama classification, but Ingrid works in both premise and execution, thanks largely to the handful of performances that really drive it.

Aubrey Plaza in particular jumps into her character in a way I personally have never seen from her before (performance of her career so far?), Elizabeth Olsen (so hot right now) is her usual rock-steady self, O’Shea Jackson, Jr. threatens to steal the movie, Wyatt Russell provides some necessary down-to-earth energy, and Billy Magnussen is an absolute fire-cracker.

Whereas most comedies these days, even ones intended to be taken a little more seriously, often cross the line in terms of suspension of disbelief (which usually doesn’t matter too much, as long as its funny), Ingrid Goes West does a good job of keeping everything fairly reigned in. There are a couple of small plot holes that I could nitpick if I wanted do (but I don’t really do that here because I don’t really believe in it), but overall the movie never jumps the shark.

Of course, with a film of such quality, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention writer/director Matt Spicer. This is a remarkably impressive debut feature, and I hope he can keep up the good work in the future.

So, there you have it. A dark, dramatic comedy that’s actually funny and makes you think.

Well worth seeing.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Ingrid Goes West opens in select theaters in NY and LA on August 10, presumably followed by an expanded release on August 17.

Movie Review – ‘Bridge of Spies’ – Donovan’s Double Down

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Alan Alda, Amy Ryan, Austin Stowell, Michael Gor, John Rue, Billy Magnussen, Jesse Plemons, Michael Gaston, James Lorinz, Brian Hutchison, Martin Dew
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg.

I understand why: as he’s gotten older he’s maybe lost some of his edge and has made at least one grave mistake; but on the whole I find this rather disingenuous.

First of all, nothing can ever change the fact that he has personally auteured, at minimum, a handful of the greatest movies ever made. Secondly, it’s perfectly natural for an artist’s work to have some degradation over time; I mean, did anyone really expect ‘War Horse’ to be better than ‘Saving Private Ryan’? People get older; it happens. I give the guy a lot of credit that he’s still a major director, let alone that he’s still producing work that’s actually good (it’s a lot more than you can say about many of his directorial contemporaries).

So, where does ‘Bridge of Spies’ fit into all of this?

Well, in some ways it’s more of the same: it’s over two hours long, it’s a period piece, it’s a historical drama, it’s got Germans, Tom Hanks, and sometimes it’s a little cornball.

In other ways it feels like a radical departure. Since 1974, Steven Spielberg has been a director on 29 feature films: 14 of which have been shot by Janusz Kaminski, who shot ‘Bridge of Spies’; 26 of which have been edited by Michael Kahn, who edited ‘Bridge of Spies’; and 26 of which have been scored by John Williams, who did not score ‘Bridge of Spies’.

That’s right. For the first time in 30 years (‘The Color Purple’), John Williams, the Brady to Spielberg’s Belichick (or maybe vice versa; who knows?), did not compose the music for a Steven Spielberg movie. In fact, there’s very little music in general throughout the runtime of ‘Bridge of Spies’, and most of the pivotal scenes aren’t scored at all. Now, according to Spielberg himself, this was the plan all along even before it was revealed that John Williams would not be physically able to compose the score (don’t worry, kids; he’ll be back for ‘The BFG’), but, frankly, the overall absence of music (and John Williams music in particular) is so atypical that I venture to say this is the least Spielbergian Spielberg movie ever. I admit though, not having seen his entire catalogue, I’m not the most qualified person to make such a statement.

Besides that major departure, what else is notable about ‘Bridge of Spies’?

Honestly, the element I was most impressed by was the attention to detail in the production. There’s nothing worse, even if you’re not an expert, than seeing something you know shouldn’t be there while watching a period piece, and in that regard ‘Bridge of Spies’ is top notch. Every set, location, prop, costume, and hair and makeup style looks exactly how it should. It’s not exactly a surprise to learn that production designer Adam Stockhausen won an Oscar for ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, and set decorator Rena DeAngelo won an Emmy for “Mad Men”, and I expect to see their names come next awards season.

Other than that, Tom Hanks is a good as you’d expect him to be, I really liked Mark Rylance in a quiet but vital supporting role (I was totally unfamiliar with him before this film), and I liked the fact that this story was being told at all, and its message of what it means to be to be American. It’s a bit preachy in the first half hour or so, but after that the movie becomes very matter of fact, which I also appreciated.

On the other hand, I do have some minor criticisms. For one thing, I don’t know for sure whether ‘Bridge of Spies’ was shot on film or not, at the very least it looks way better than a Michael Mann movie, but, during the U-2 crash sequence (which is not a spoiler) everything all of a sudden looked real fakey-fake, which, given the realism of the rest of the movie, was quite the sore thumb. Also, especially with a historical film, I generally like to be aware of the time, place, and timeframe of events, and ‘Bridge of Spies’ was lacking in this area. I always knew where things were happening, but outside of an initial title card stating 1957, I could not tell that the events of this movie were taking place over a five year period. Finally, there’s some back and forth movement between James B. Donovan’s story and Francis Gary Powers’ story that I found unnecessary, and could have easily been cut out of the film for the sake of time.

In the end, I liked ‘Bridge of Spies’ quite a bit, and it deserves reasonably high praise, but I also know that not everyone will like it, and quite a few people will likely find it boring. It’s a quiet film, it’s very unreliant on action, and in many ways it feels like a product of the period it’s portraying. It may not add up to much box office success for Spielberg, and I don’t even know that I’d consider it Best Picture material (though, knowing how the Academy works, it probably will be), but if you are a fan of, or at least don’t mind historical dramas, then ‘Bridge of Spies’ is certainly worth your time.

And if you don’t think that Steven Spielberg is an artistic director, the opening scene will definitely give you a little something to chew on.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S. I say this not to spoil anything, but rather to properly manage expectations: the advertising for ‘Bridge of Spies’ makes it appear as if the entire film is about James B. Donovan’s negotiations to exchange a Soviet spy for Francis Gary Powers, but in actuality this plot line doesn’t occur until the second half of the movie. There’s more to the story covered in the first half.