Naomie Harris – 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 – ‘SPECTRE’ – Tell Me Something I Don’t Know

Directed by Sam Mendes
Written by John Logan and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (story and screenplay), Jez Butterworth (screenplay)
Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, David Bautista, Monica Bellucci, Ralph Fiennes, Simon Lenagan
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

As I said in my review of The Man from U.N.C.L.E., it’s been a great year for espionage-action films. We’ve had the aforementioned U.N.C.L.E., we’ve had another wonderful installment of Mission: Impossible, and we started off the year in grand fashion with Kingsman.

But, let’s be real here. SPECTRE was always slated to be the crown jewel for 2015.

Expectations have been sky high, and rightfully so. You’ve got the same critically-acclaimed director from Skyfall (Sam Mendes is the first consecutive Bond director since John Glen in the 1980s), the same writing team from Skyfall (Logan, Purvis & Wade, plus Jez Butterworth, who co-wrote the screenplay for Edge of Tomorrow), a cinematographer and an editor who know how to handle big, beautiful movies (Hoyte Van Hoytema and Lee Smith shot and edited Interstellar, respectively), plus, you’ve got the key cast back (Craig, Whishaw, Harris, and Fiennes), and you’ve got Christoph Waltz, who played one of the top two villains of the previous decade (much like Javier Bardem), as the bad guy in this movie.

AND, if that all wasn’t enough, this is the first official (that is, Eon-produced) 007 movie to use the SPECTRE organization since Diamonds Are Forever in 1971.

So, what happened? Does SPECTRE deliver? Or is it crushed under the weight of so much expectation?

Well, as a Bond movie fan who’s seen every single last film (you can read my documentation on the subject here, here, and here), I have to say, the result is a bit muddled, like a dirty martini.

To be sure, there are many wonderful moments in SPECTRE, but the movie as a whole is a bit long and a bit overly serious, making for an experience I find troublingly hard to recommend outright.

Not only that, but I found the story frustratingly predicable, and I don’t know if it’s because I’m such a James Bond fan, or if the movie just generally telegraphs its punches to anyone watching, or perhaps a little of both, but when a movie like this doesn’t have anything to surprise you with, it dulls the experience considerably.

The main strength of SPECTRE is, without question, the visuals. There are many beautiful establishing shots of both cities and natural landscapes, there are some wonderful-looking explosions, and we know who’s punching who in each action scene. The pre-credits sequence also features some great cinematography, with some nice long shots that track all around.

Performance-wise, love him or hate him, Daniel Craig is still doing his 007 thing, and Christoph Waltz, as we know, is a wonderful villain. I can’t say I was truly impressed by anyone else though, but I venture to guess that has as much to do with the script as anything else.

If it wasn’t obvious already, the story and screenplay are the biggest weaknesses of this good-looking (though not as beautiful as Skyfall) film. There’s not too much I can say without getting into spoiler territory, but let’s just say some elements compare to Star Trek: Into Darkness, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. That’s not to say there aren’t some brilliantly quotable lines, but you have to wade through so much other stuff to get to them that I began to question if it was worth it. Frankly, for a movie as long as SPECTRE is, and given that it does tie in the three previous Craig films, I didn’t get as much closure about certain things as I would have hoped from an overall story perspective, and that’s disappointing.

Also, I didn’t like how many of the characters were handled, as if the writers felt compelled to give them something to do even though it’s unprecedented for them to be doing anything of the kind. If you see the movie, you’ll know exactly what I mean.

As I’ve said before, James Bond movies are meant to be solid entertainment, and if they veer too much away from that core, either too campy or too serious, things start to break down. If I was going to compare SPECTRE to another film in the franchise, it would have to be The World is Not Enough: nice to look at, but leaves me feeling a bit empty inside. Perhaps I’ve been conditioned by the other spy action movies of this year to expect that such films should be fun experiences, but I stand by my statement nonetheless.

And, you know what else? I didn’t like the main titles sequence at all, either visually or the song.

The ultimate question is, of course, is SPECTRE worth it? I’d say yes, but don’t feel self-conscious about seeing it at a discount price. And, given how long it both is and feels, make sure you put a premium on comfort.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

P.S.
I’m sure some people will comment that Monica Bellucci is too old, but she’s still fine by me.

Movie Review – ‘Southpaw’ – I AM PREDICTABLE

Southpaw

Directed by Antoine Fuqua
Written by Kurt Sutter
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rachel McAdams, Oona Laurence, Forest Whitaker, 50 Cent, Naomie Harris, Beau Knapp
Soundtrack: James Horner (God rest him)

What a disappointing week.

First, the USMNT gets knocked out of the Gold Cup by Jamaica, and now I have to talk about this movie.

Let me say this first: if, for some reason, you have not seen the trailer for ‘Southpaw’, but still want to see it, do it; you have my blessing, but do not, not, not watch the trailer before paying to see it.

Because, for whatever reason, the people marketing this film decided to put all of us moviegoers in a Catch 22. They wanted to draw us in by capturing our attention with the trailer, but, unfortunately, seeing this movie after seeing the trailer is a largely futile, and, dare I say, boring experience. I hate using the word ‘boring’. I like to think my attention span is better than the vast majority of people out there, but ‘Southpaw’ forced my hand on this.

I hope I’m making myself clear here.

I desperately wanted to like this movie, I really did, and it almost, kind of, sort of won me over in the end, but not enough to recommend it; because right off the bat I spent more than 55% of the running time feeling my buttocks go numb, because no matter how hard the movie tried to grab me by the heartstrings, it just couldn’t, because I almost always knew what came next, because the trailer had already told me.

And it really is a waste, because, by and large, ‘Southpaw’ is well done. It’s competently shot, the performances are pretty good all around, and they did a great job of getting the real world of pay-per-view boxing (including HBO’s Jim Lampley and Roy Jones, Jr.) into the film, but there’s nothing special enough to transcend the predictability of the script. To be sure, it starts to get better in the second half, and eventually it did tug on my heartstrings, but it took way too long to get there, and for that reason I can’t recommend people seeing this theatrically if they’ve already seen the trailer.

The production values are certainly better than most direct-to-video garbage out there, but, unfortunately, ‘Southpaw’ is barely worth a rental.

Rating: ★★½ out of five

P.S.
Despite being a movie about a boxer, I would not call this a “sports movie”. It’s more of a straight drama that happens to be about an athlete. Just to be clear.