Quantum of Solace / **** (PG-13)

James Bond: Daniel Craig
Camille: Olga Kurylenko
Dominic Greene: Mathieu Amalric
M: Judi Dench
Mathis: Giancarlo Giannini
Agent Fields: Gemma Arterton
Felix Leiter: Geoffrey Wright
Gregg Beam: David Harbour
Mr. White: Jesper Christensen

MGM and Columbia Pictures present a film directed by Marc Forster. Written by Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade. Running time: 106 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of action and violence, and some sexual content).

Dear Roger Ebert,

Let me first say that I am a big fan of your work and what it has done for movie criticism and the way many people view movies today. We’ve met, although you’d have to have some sort of miraculous memory to pick out one of thousands you must have met during book signings. I jokingly asked you if you could help me get Gene Shalit’s job. I’ve had a conversation about actor Dennis Haysbert with your wonderful wife Chaz at the Overlooked Film Festival.

I have a great respect for your opinions, and your reviews throughout the years have probably had more influence on my own critiques and movie tastes than any other. “Quantum of Solace” certainly doesn’t mark the first time I have disagreed with your thoughts on a film, but the words of your two-star review came as a shock to me.

You praised 2006’s “Casino Royale” for breaking away from the mold of James Bond films that had become old hat—as many other critics did. You said, “I was becoming less convinced I ever needed to see another (Bond film).” And the new direction “Casino Royale” took the franchise in changed that. Suddenly Bond was fresh again, freed from all the kitsch and overdone clichés of the long-running series.

“Quantum of Solace” picks up right where “Casino Royale” left off, both thematically and quite literally. You say the opening car chase has “no connection with the rest of the plot.” Not only does it have much to do with the plot of “Quantum of Solace”, but it also has a great deal to do with the plot of “Casino Royale” and presumably the next installment of the franchise and maybe more down the line. Bond carries cargo in his trunk during that chase that ties all of what is going on in these movies together—Mr. White (Jesper Christensen, reprising his role from “Casino Royale”).

Mr. White is a classic bond villain in the vein of Bond’s early arch nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Like Blofeld—a character that was represented in the earliest Bond films as a faceless figure that demanded Bond’s head over a speakerphone while petting his Persian cat—Mr. White is not seen much but holds all of the secrets of the organization that is behind the events in both this movie and the previous one. One difference is that Mr. White does not appear to be the commander-in-chief of the Quantum group as Blofeld was for SPECTRE.

But without much screen time for Mr. White, Bond must still face a villain we can all invest in. Here is it Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric, “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”). Like many Bond villains of the past, Greene is merely a small cog in the wheels of the Quantum group, so his villainous plot is minor is the grand scheme of things. Le Chiffre’s greatest crime in “Casino” was gambling with Quantum’s money.

Your complaint about Greene’s name not carrying some of the flair of past Bond villains is missing the irony of his scheme. A guy named Greene hoarding water supplies in a dessert country? This is from a guy who hides his evil intentions behind an environmentally progressive company. Greene is the perfect name for this Bond villain. It is usually the henchmen who have the wackiest names in Bond films (i.e. Oddjob, Jaws) but I don’t think a character with a name like Ozone would fly with today’s audiences. Maybe Gore-monger would work?

Speaking of Bond names, you expressed your displeasure with the rather plain choice of the name Camille for the lead Bond girl (Olga Kurylenko, “Max Payne”). Admittedly, this is a rather dull choice for a Bond girl name, but the lead Bond girl usually has a more conservative name than the supporting ones. It makes it so much easier to take them seriously.

But “Quantum of Solace” doesn’t leave us without a typical Bond girl (Gemma Arterton, “RocknRolla”). How much more Bond can a girl’s name get than Agent Fields’ full name? She is the one that James seduces. But what is this redhead’s full name? The fact that screenwriters Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (I don’t really know which one is responsible for Ms. Fields) don’t spell it out for the audience exemplifies the confidence they show in their audience’s intelligence. Not something past Bond writers could be accused of. And anyone with a working knowledge of British pop culture can figure it out.

The treatment of technology is another subtle touch on the filmmakers’ parts. You complained that the Q division had been dropped from the Bond tradition. But just like Bond’s emergency defibrillator in “Casino Royale”, the gadgets of Q division still exist in “Quantum of Solace”. They just don’t have some pun-delivering scientist prophesying just what situations Bond is going to find himself in later in which to use them.

Plus most of inventions of Q’s have become commonplace in our modern society. Maybe our cars don’t shoot rockets out of their headlights, but my wife’s minivan could spin Q’s head. Who doesn’t carry their own personal compact communicator that allows HQ to know where they are at any given minute these days. It just takes the simplicity of Bond’s cleverness to trick one of Greene’s stooges into turning his own cell into an instant homing device. And really, how cool is that wall of instant information in M’s office? I can almost hear Moneypenny’s filing cabinet rusting in some lonely warehouse.

But these are merely quibbles with your sentimental observations on the old versus the new. The statement you made that really fired me up was the leading theme of your critique that “James Bond is not an action hero!” I don’t believe I have ever read such a bold misstatement about any aspect of the film medium. “James Bond is not an action hero!” Roger, are you kidding me?!

There are 40 years’ worth of James Bond movies that beg to differ with that theory. Just watch the alpine skiing meets cliff jumping opening of “The Spy Who Loved Me”, or the bungi jumping/skydiving into an airborne plane opening of “Goldeneye”, or the transvestite fisticuffs to jetpack escape of “Thunderball”, or the stunning “free running” opening chase scene in “Casino Royale”. I don’t see how you can watch any Bond pre-credit sequence and say with a straight face that Bond isn’t an action hero.

You praised the final two Brosnan Bonds, “The World is Not Enough” (1999) and “Die Another Day” (2002), for increasing the amount of action sequences. “Quantum of Solace” is only conforming to Bond tradition by attempting to one-up the previous film in the series with its amped up action. And it does so in spades. This is easily the most action-packed Bond to date.

You criticize the “obvious” and “incomprehensible” CGI work in the opening chase sequence. Well, I couldn’t see the lines, and it wasn’t half as obvious as the goofy night surfing CGI work in “Die Another Day”. Talk about incomprehensible.

I understand what you are saying about the quick-cut editing of the action sequences, however. This style of editing is often a turn off, but here I found myself so riveted by the grittiness of the scenes, I wanted to rewind and see how they did it.

Marc Forster adds “accomplished action director” to his resume with this movie. Where he showed restraint from typical Hollywood melodramatics in his emotional “Monster’s Ball”, here he embraces Hollywood’s overblown mentality to provide an action movie that never stops to morn its victims. Even the most delicate piece of spy work Bond performs in the film—the scene in which he smokes out several members of the Quantum group during a private/public meeting—is juxtaposed against the backdrop of the performance of Puccini’s betrayal opera “Tosca” on a floating stage whose production design brings to mind echoes of the great Bond art director Peter Lamont and production designer Ken Adam.

But Forster doesn’t abandon character development for the action. No, instead “Quantum of Solace” provides the strongest relationship ever seen in a Bond film and fills in some unexplored character motivations in Bond himself. You say Bond is not an action hero, when he is actually not a typical action hero. That’s what keeps him above other action heroes. Now, Daniel Craig (“The Golden Compass”) is a different Bond. Before violence was a necessary inconvenience of Bond’s profession, now just about everything is. But he’s good at what he does—so good that sometimes not even his matriarch boss M (Judi Dench, “Notes on a Scandal”) can discern his motivations. But in the end his devotion to her and his country is always his ultimate motivation, as it should be for the world’s greatest spy.

You say you think with Bond 23 the producers need to start from scratch yet again, which is what they have done every time a new actor has taken up the mantel of Bond. But that is just what they are doing with Craig. This time instead of doing it all within the confines of one movie, they are taking their time in the process to build a better Bond than we’ve ever seen. Usually, they just rebuild the surface of the franchise. The faces changed, while the whole gimmick remained the same as it did in the original Bond film “Dr. No” (1962). With “Casino Royale” they stripped away all the kitsch and gimmicks. In “Quantum of Solace” the filmmakers have gotten down to the essence of Ian Fleming’s superspy—Queen and country above all else.

Of course, yours and mine are just opinions, and neither of us are alone in ours. My concern with your comments deriding this new natured “action hero” Bond is that it gives fuel to those who say you can’t please a critic. We clamor for something new in our movie going experience, and then when we get it we say we wished it were back the way it was. Perhaps in this day and age we do need a lighter-hearted Bond. And certainly he is the only action hero we might be willing to accept that from. But when it comes down to it, I’d watch “Quantum of Solace” again before I would “Die Another Day”.

My sincere respects,

Andrew D. Wells

Read Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun Times review of "Quantum of Solace" here.

Quantum of Solace

Ebert's response

When you've written a couple of hundred reviews of different movies, you often try to look at different ways to approaching each one. You try to keep it fresh, so every review isn't exactly the same. I often feel I fall into the rut of: here's my initial thoughts, here's the synopsis, here's a couple reasons why I felt the way I did, here's my conclusion. So any time I can, I look for a different pattern.

I was so enthused by the new 007 "Quantum of Solace" that I knew I wanted my review to be special. Because I felt so strongly about it, I just had to know why a critic I admire so much as Roger Ebert didn't. Once I read his review of the film, I had my unique approach to my review. I would write him a letter to him detailing exactly why I felt he was off the mark.

The funny thing is, it never occurred to me until after I had written the review that it was actually a letter to Roger Ebert, and therefore should be sent to him. So I did. The only place I could find to send it was his Answer Man reader mail feature on his website. I did not really intend for him to publish it on his site, nor has he. I just wanted him to read what I had written to him.

Sunday evening I received my first e-mail from Roger Ebert. Perhaps I am making an overblown deal out of this, but this was a communique with a man whom I hold a great deal of respect for. He didn't say much. Understandable, since he must deal with hundreds of e-mails from complete strangers like myself every week. But he took the time to read what I had written and gave me a grand compliment in his response. Although, he sent it to me personally, it was a response to something I wrote to him on this website and I wanted my readers to be able to share it. Yeah, I suppose I'm bragging a bit, but mostly I am honored.

Here's what he wrote:

"Re: Quantifying 'Quantum'

Well, you make good points. Although I've seen every Bond movie, I admit I am not a scholar of them. Anyway, congratulations on your blog, and on your writing. You have a clear and persuasive voice.

RE "

I don't think I'll be deleting that e-mail anytime soon.

Read my letter to Roger here.
Read Roger's review of "Quantum of Solace" here.

J. Edgar / *** (R)

J. Edgar Hoover: Leonardo DiCaprio

Clyde Tolson: Armie Hammer

Helen Gandy: Naomi Watts

Annie Hoover: Judi Dench

Robert Kennedy: Jeffrey Donovan

Colonel Schwarzkopf: Dermot Mulroney

Charles Lindbergh: Josh Lucas

John Condon: Zach Grenier

Bruno Hauptmann: Damon Harriman

Warner Bros. Pictures presents a film directed by Clint Eastwood. Written by Dustin Lance Black. Running time: 137 min. Rated R (for brief strong language).

“Reputation is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit, and lost without deserving.”

       —William Shakespeare, “Othello” Act II, sc. 3.

John Edgar Hoover, the man often credited with the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, could hardly be accused of being an idle man, but in the eyes of many of his detractors he was best seen as an opportunist, worst as a fraud. Clint Eastwood’s new movie “J. Edgar” explores the motivations that drove this somewhat reclusive public figure who changed the course of crime science at a time in this country’s history when the criminals were being touted as folk heroes. All the while, he hid a secret that would eventually alter public perception of a man who dedicated his life to his country. Was he really a homosexual? I’m not sure Eastwood is as interested in the facts here as he is in how that possibility may have shaped the man who held great power over every president that served while he was director of the nation’s police force.

Directing from a script by Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”), Eastwood presents Hoover’s story under the framing device of a manuscript Hoover dictates to young FBI agents throughout his final years as director. Hoover tells his own story in flashbacks, alluding to his rumored homosexuality, but never stating it. More important to Hoover in the manuscript is his reputation as the man who altered the course of the country’s law enforcement system through the implementation of the criminal sciences.

Hoover begins his story with his involvement in countering the Bolshevik Revolution as it spilled over into the U.S. in the form of terrorist attacks against political figures, including his own boss at the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer (Geoff Pierson, “Dexter”).  Hoover was appointed director of the newly formed Bureau of Investigation in 1924 as Palmer left public service. Eastwood and Black play with the facts a little here, suggesting that Palmer did not survive the restructuring of the Department of Justice by the newly elected administration. Many of the facts are flexible in this screenplay as it toys with the notion of Hoover as a master manipulator both politically and with his own self-perception.

Hoover’s primary influence in life is his mother (Judi Dench, “Quantum of Solace”). Annie Hoover fosters his ambition. She sees his father and brother as failures, and may have driven them there with her harshness and overt favoritism of John. Certainly, she fuels him professionally and personally, yet, she warns him against his personal choices for their threat against his career.

Mrs. Hoover is not the only woman in his life. Ever present is his career-long personal secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts, “King Kong”), to whom he makes an awkward proposal early in their careers. The scene proves Hoover knows nothing of the emotions of love, but feels he must copy what he has seen in terms of courtship. Despite his superficial advances, Gandy remains loyal to Hoover throughout his career, even dispatching with his infamous confidential files once it’s clear that the Nixon administration is determined to end his legendary run as the FBI director.

The most important relationship in Hoover’s life, however, arrives in the form of a stunning young lawyer by the name of Clyde Tolson. Armie Hammer made a splash last year playing both Winklevoss twins in the award winning “The Social Network”. Here he provides another emotional performance as Hoover’s would be lover. This is where Black’s screenplay really shines with the subtle management of the men’s feelings for each other. Both are career-minded men. Both know if any hint of their feelings were known, even to each other, it would mean the end of all they’d worked for and achieved.

Surely, the most talked about element of this movie will be its central performance by Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover. It’s one of those transformational performances where an actor has obviously studied his subject to the point where he has absorbed Hoover’s essence. Like his performance as Howard Hughes in Martin Scorsese’s underrated “The Aviator”, Dicaprio doesn’t so much imitate Hoover as he does channel the man. Even in old age make up, he’s able to capture the dichotomy of a man driven by ambition and pained by his own personal secrets. There’s no mistake that a man with such a big secret to hide is obsessed by keeping tabs on the secrets of others. I liked how his use of the confidential files to intimidate and influence those around him is more about keeping what’s in them secret than threatening to expose them.

“J. Edgar” is not the strongest Eastwood film to come from the master director. Of course, with the decade long string of excellence Eastwood has produced prior to this movie, it would be hard to continue to top himself. The inaction of keeping secrets does little to draw the audience in. The relationship between Hoover and Tolson goes almost the entire running length of the film before being acknowledged in any definitive way. Even so, “J. Edgar” turns out to be one of the most unique biopics I’ve seen because of its supposition of the facts. Unlike most biopics, “J. Edgar” is not based on any sort of source material, but is original unto itself. Even Hoover might approve of its use of allusion above revelation.

The Best of 2008

Ah, the ever-popular “Top Ten List” that critics put out every year. Our own little way to push our opinions on our readers one last time before a new batch of theatrical pleasures and heartaches come our way in a new year. One last attempt to get people to rent or screen theatrically those films we personally loved during a given theatrical release year.

I don’t think I’m alone among critics in thinking this is one of my favorite and most loathsome essays to write each year. It is my favorite for the very reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph. I loathe it because it is cause for defense about something that is incalculable, something that cannot be described about a particular movie, an innermost feeling that this or that was the best movie I saw this year. And to claim one movie as the best is ignoring one of the primary ingredients of a great film, a sense that there is no other experience exactly like this particular film. As such it is incomparable with any other film, and therefore none of the great films can be the best.

But I digress. As a critic, it seems even if no one demands it, I must divulge a list of what I feel were the best movies of the year. This year I awarded 11 four-star reviews to individual movies (actually, 13 including documentaries, which I have separated from fictional films for the first time this year). But much as I did a couple of years ago, I found it very difficult to order them into a numbered list from the worst of the best to the best of the best. They are all great movies, and should be observed as such rather than say this one was the very best and that one not so much. So instead of a numbered list, I have chosen to list my top ten alphabetically and added a special jury prize for the most unique of those eleven top-rated films.

I have also included four documentaries that are as entertaining as any of those eleven. And included a list of ten other films that, while not being the best movies of the year, should be considered as great entertainments. I have also included a list of the worst movies of the year. There were eleven of those as well; but since “The Onion Movie” was not released theatrically, I cut that list back to the standard ten entries.

Last year, due to a hard drive crash that limited the amount of time I had to compile my list, I left out best of lists for specific film achievements in acting, direction and writing. Those lists are back this year in a slightly altered form. There is a list of ten directors of note over the last year. There is also a list of ten writing assignments of note from original and adapted works combined. And I have included all 20 of my performance nods in one category instead of separating them into leading and supporting roles and genders. And finally, I have included eight noteworthy voice performances from the 2008 release year.

But enough of how, it’s time for the what and why.

The Best.

Chop Shop. This ultra indie by director Ramin Bahrami is an intimate study in survival for a kid who lives and works in the streets. Finding both job and home in a back alley chop shop, the young Ale lives by his wits in a world that requires him to be as strong and resourceful as the greatest of citizens while living in a forgotten and mostly unseen community of our urban poverty. Bahrami presents a revealing portrait of a way of life invisible to most Americans, yet one that exists as a right of passage for many underprivileged urban dwellers.

The Dark Knight. While possibly not the greatest superhero movie ever made, “The Dark Knight” is perhaps the greatest movie ever made based on characters created for a comic book. This movie takes the hero out of superhero and provides a study on the relationship of good guys and bad guys. Suggesting that heroes and villains are drawn out by each other, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan use the Batman mythology to argue that no matter what, the hero is necessary because evil exists in the world whether we like it or not. Someone has to face that responsibility, and it is one that must have its consequences.

Doubt. John Patrick Shanley’s 1960’s based Catholic school drama about a priest who may or may not have sexually abused the school’s first black student is near perfection in dramatic structure and cinematic style. “Doubt” looks at the clashing personalities of the two nuns who bring suspicion on the priest and the priest himself. It also looks at the fragility of social change, with four of the year’s best performances by Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis.

Gran Torino. Continuing a streak of Eastwood’s best films, “Gran Torino” proves that some directors and actors just get better with age. In his latest, Eastwood plays and old codger living after his wife’s death in the same neighborhood he has his whole adult life. But the neighborhood around him has changed, becoming a community of the Chinese Hmong people. Despite his racism, the old man takes a Hmong boy under his wing after the boy tries to steal his vintage ’72 Gran Torino. Through his acceptance of others, the man goes on a personal journey discovering truth through his staunch stance of right above wrong.

Paranoid Park. While Gus Van Sant’s late year entry “Milk” (still unseen by me) has reaped in awards for the longtime indie favorite director, his early year release “Paranoid Park” has been fairly well forgotten by most critics. Taking on a very different subject matter, “Paranoid Park” concerns itself with a high school skateboarder who finds himself involved in a murder mystery after visiting a skateboard park. Unlike the star-studded “Milk”, Van Sant made “Paranoid Park” in much the same manner as his powerful “Elephant”, using non-actors in all the primary roles. He mixes in the elements of a structured mystery into a keenly observed portrayal of teenage life.

Quantum of Solace. The reinvention of James Bond continues in his latest adventure “Quantum of Solace”. In this first-ever direct sequel in the franchise, Director Marc Forster picks up the action right where the incredibly successful “Casino Royale” left off, and he ups the action ante. The action in this movie is so non-stop that it plays like the ultimate action movie, but it also provides a great deal of motivation for just why James Bond is the womanizing secret agent that will do anything for king and country with no thought for his own welfare or image.

Redbelt. David Mamet continues his quiet film writing and direction mastery with yet another fascinating and complex confidence game in the martial arts-themed “Redbelt”. Like his underrated “Spartan”, the movie itself is a confidence game—seeming to be about a jujitsu teacher struggling to get by teaching a pure form of the discipline out of a modest dojo, but soon there are Hollywood movie producers and Vegas mobsters involved in this man’s fate. But the keys to the teacher’s survival are the very ideals supported by his jujitsu philosophy.

Shotgun Stories. In the tradition of David Gordon Green’s contemplative dramas of the Southern American experience, Jeff Nichols makes his auspicious writing and directorial debut with this harrowing and funny drama about two families from the same father that can’t seem to break their destructive hatred of each other. Yes, I said it was funny too. Along with the beautiful cinematography by Adam Stone, Nichols provides a witty observation of the unique way one set of siblings knows and understands each other in the way only family can. There is no doubt Nichols will be an important filmmaker and no surprise that Green produced this little known film commodity. (Green released a couple of his own films this year to be discussed later in this list.)

The Signal. Three writer/directors combine their efforts to tell three separate chapters of a horror story where a television signal turns people into mindless killers. This rather standard horror story is told in one of the most original horror film in years. Framing this horror premise is a lover’s triangle with each chapter depicting the events from a different person’s perspective. The middle section adds the surprising element of humor to the horrific events by following the jilted boyfriend’s search for his girlfriend and her lover after he has already been affected by the signal.

WALL•E. That loveable janitor robot that stole everyone’s heart this year stole mine as well. Pixar once again proves their dominance over the animation genres by providing intelligent family entertainment that appeals to all ages. In this story of a lonesome robot that suddenly finds he is not alone in the universe, we get adventure, romance, and even social and environmental commentary about how we can all be better to each other and our planet. I dare you not to find something to appreciate about this movie.

Special Jury Prize.

Sukiyaki Western Django. In perhaps the strangest movie of the year, we get to see the marriage of two genres from two different cultures that have been fascinated with each other ever since their individual film industries developed. Japanese genreist director Takashi Miike takes us on a wild ride based on what might happen if the samurai films of the Eastern culture were to exist in the world of the Spaghetti Western. In it we see the similar themes and situations of those once popular genres set against a highly stylized production where warring samurai clans fight each other with swords, Gatling guns, and dynamite, all in the search of a mythical treasure. In the middle is a man with no name who plays both clans against each other to protect the innocent lives of the civilians caught in the middle.

Documentary.

Encounters at the End of the World. A nature documentary is the last thing in the world anyone would expect from eccentric German filmmaker Werner Herzog—himself included. But Discovery Docs financed him on a trip to Antarctica where he vowed not to make “a movie about penguins.” But it is in a sequence where he does document penguins that it becomes evident how Herzog can turn any subject into a Herzog film. The amazing thing about this doc is that you can just enjoy it as a beautiful nature documentary, or you can look at it as one of Herzog’s scrutinies of the loneliness of man as a self-destructive force.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Fans of the great Gonzo journalist are already aware of the insane life of the man whose pinnacle books include “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72”. Perhaps this mostly talking head documentary isn’t insane enough to truly reflect the man whose life it depicts, but it fills in the gaps of the life of this truly original American institution.

Surfwise. “Surfwise” is the fascinating documentary of a family that lived life off the grid due to their father’s unique philosophy of life. With a family of eight children Dr. Dorian Paskowitz and his wife raised their family amazingly in a Winnebago. Paskowitz’s strange beliefs would eventually tear the family apart, but through it all they had one binding force beyond mere relation—the need to catch a great wave.

Young@Heart. Now, I’m not going to pretend not to be a sucker for a good old fashioned feel good movie experience. A sucker I am, but no movie will make you feel better about life than this documentary about a chorus of elderly retirees that sing everything from Gershwin to Sonic Youth. There are smiles and tears to be found here, but mostly there is the joy of the music that gives these old folks a purpose in their golden years and will have you tapping your feet until the last of the credits roll.

Near Best Noteables.

The Bank Job. Roger Donaldson’s historical heist picture is one of the best in recent years, bringing 1970’s filmmaking ideals back along with the same period’s wardrobes and politics.

The Happening. Yes, M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening”. His best movie since 2000’s “Unbreakable” suffered from a marketing campaign that suggested an R-rated horror gorefest. Instead it is a wonderfully Hitchcockian thriller with the impact and import of H.G. Wells’s cautionary “War of the Worlds”.

In Bruges. A shout out to the Golden Globes for bringing more attention to this wonderful dark comedy about two hitmen who are sent to the beautiful but dull Belgium town of Bruges to lie low after a botched hit.

Iron Man. Proving that a successful superhero franchise doesn’t have to be as dark and brooding as “The Dark Knight” to be great, “Iron Man” put the fun back into superheroes and summer blockbusters with a sparkling cast and an intelligent script to boot.

Marley & Me. The surprise of the year was that Hollywood didn’t turn this story about a man and his dog and their family into a cutesy gosh-darn-it comedy, but instead took a serious look at just what goes into raising a family in the realities of everyday life.

Pineapple Express. Director David Gordon Green turns away from his serious indie dramas in this hilarious romp of a movie that supposes what an action thriller with two potheads as the heroes would look like.

Snow Angels. Earlier in the year Green also helmed this more personal drama of love, loneliness and a missing little girl. In it, Kate Beckinsale proves she is more than just a pretty face with the best performance of her career.

Stuck. The director of the cult classic “Re-Animator” Stuart Gordon helmed this unique thriller based on the true story of a woman who ran down a man with her car and left him stuck in her window alive in her garage over the weekend before being discovered.

Tropic Thunder. Ben Stiller and company define comedic genius in this zany spoof of Hollywood blockbusters that depicts the production of Vietnam War film that goes terribly wrong when the cast finds themselves in the middle of a real war. Filled with incredible supporting performances by Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Cruise, Danny McBride, and Nick Nolte.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe. X-philes were disappointed not to see the “X-Files” signatures they had come to love from the television series. Others just stayed away. What nobody seemed to notice was a skillfully made, if moody, FBI procedural in the vein of “The Silence of the Lambs” and “The Cell”.

Worst.

27 Dresses. Just what we needed, another romantic comedy about a woman who isn’t the bride but wants to be, all the while not seeing the man of her dreams right in front of her face.

American Teen. If teenagers really are this stupid, then there ain’t nothin’ Barack Obama can do to save this country.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Really?!

Drillbit Taylor. The writers of “Superbad” and “Pineapple Express” should have left this one inside the Trapper Keeper in which it was composed.

The Love Guru. Oh, how the mighty will fall.

Mamma Mia! Loved the music. Hated everything else.

Max Payne. Will anyone ever make a movie based on a video game that is actually worth watching?

Meet the Spartans. The absolute worst movie of the year. Possibly the worst spoof of all time.

Mirrors. Perhaps someone should have looked in this mirror before they sent it out of the house.

One Missed Call. I wish I hadn’t screened this call.

Performances.

Alejandro Polanco as Ale in “Chop Shop”—Never has a child performance looked this genuine.

Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”—I never saw the seams in this performance, and that cannot be done with CGI and makeup alone.

Cate Blanchett as Daisy in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”—As seamless as Pitt’s work with less scenery to hide behind.

Heath Ledger as The Joker in “The Dark Knight”—I can add no more insight into this bold performance that hasn’t already been said better by others.

Amy Adams as Sister James in “Doubt”—As the audience’s eyes, Adams allows us to have the doubts that the other characters in this film deny themselves.

Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius Beauvier in “Doubt”—Unquestionably the best actor of her generation.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Brendan Flynn in “Doubt”—If he did it, Hoffman is the perfect slime for the part; but with surprising charm, Hoffman forces doubt on his character’s guilt.

Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller in “Doubt”—In the course of one scene Davis lets us realize the fears of an entire generation.

Russell Brand as Aldous Snow in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”—Brand steals the show with surprising witless charm.

Clint Eastwood as Walt Kowalski in “Gran Torino”—They call them the golden years because of the grace Eastwood has attained throughout his years.

Neil Patrick Harris as Neil Patrick Harris in “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”—Has anyone ever parodied themselves with quite the same success as this former child M.D.?

Colin Farrell as Ray in “In Bruges”—With the most difficult role in this complex comedy, Farrell’s Golden Globe win was well deserved.

Paul Giamatti as John Adams in “John Adams”—Watching Giamatti gives one the impression that Hollywood would be missing something vital were he never discovered.

Laura Linney as Abigail Adams in “John Adams”—Linney’s strength as Abilgail makes you believe such strength was the only course of survival in such times.

Laura Dern as Katherine Harris in “Recount”—Dern lets you believe that buffoonery is a necessary element in modern politics.

Kate Beckinsale as Annie Marchand in “Snow Angels”—As a lonely woman who can’t find the right man to love, Beckinsale is despair in this movie.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tommy Burgess in “Stop-Loss”—In a movie that steps way out of line in its final moments, Gordon-Levitt is shiftless as an Iraq War vet who first turns to alcohol then staunch patriotism as his way to deal with the horrors of war.

Robert Downey, Jr. as Kirk Lazarus in “Tropic Thunder”—Even though his line “I’m the dude playing the dude, disguised as another dude,” really makes no sense, neither does anything this character does. That’s why Downey is so great here.

Tom Cruise as Les Grossman in “Tropic Thunder”—Who cares if he jumps up on your couch when he’s this funny doing it?

Richard Jenkins as Walter in “The Visitor”—The longtime under-noticed character actor gets his shot at a leading role and nails it.

Voiceover.

Hank Azaria as Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsberg in “Chicago 10”—The one vocal performance in the film that represents the real people he’s depicting rather than the actor chosen to play that person.

John Travolta as Bolt in “Bolt”—If only for the way his voice cracks when a wiener dog sniffs him and he asks, “What are you doing?!”

Susie Essman as Mittens in “Bolt”—The accent sells the character, the inflection sells the performance.

Werner Herzog as Narrator in “Encounters as the End of the World”—I could listen to Herzog pontificate on the images he finds until my dying day.

Will Arnet as Vlad in “Horton Hears a Who!”—Both the cancelation of “Arrested Development” and the existence of “The Brothers Solomon” are a shame for this man who has one of the best vocal instruments in the industry.

Randall Duk Kim as Oogway in “Kung Fu Panda”—Were this a live action film, people would be calling for a repeat of Pat Morita’s Oscar nod.

James Arnold Taylor as Obi Wan Kenobi/4-A7/Medical Droid in “Star Wars: The Clone Wars”—If I didn’t know it wasn’t Ewan McGregor revisiting his live action role in this vocal performance, I most certainly would think it was.

Ben Burtt as WALL-E in “WALL-E”—He gave us the blurps and beeps of R2-D2, now he makes us love them.

Direction.

Roger Donaldson “The Bank Job”
Ramin Bahrami “Chop Shop”
John Patrick Shanley “Doubt”
Clint Eastwood “Gran Torino”
Werner Herzog “Encounters at the End of the World”
Gus Van Sant “Paranoid Park”
David Mamet “Redbelt”
Jeff Nichols “Shotgun Stories”
David Bruckner, Dan Bush, Jacob Gentry “The Signal”
Takashi Miike “Sukiyaki Western Django”

Writing.

Bahara Azimi and Ramin Bahrami “Chop Shop”
Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer “The Dark Knight” based on characters created by Bob Kane
John Patrick Shaley “Doubt” based on his play
Martin McDonagh “In Bruges”
Gus Van Sant “Paranoid Park” based on the novel by Blake Nelson
David Mamet “Redbelt”
Jeff Nichols “Shotgun Stories”
David Bruckner, Jacob Gentry, Dan Bush “The Signal”
Ben Stiller & Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen “Tropic Thunder”
Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon & Pete Doctor “WALL-E”

As usual there are many films I didn’t get a chance to see this year that could’ve made this list, most notably Oliver Stone’s “W.”, Gus Van Sant’s “Milk”, Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire”, and Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon”. And I will likely see many of them in the next few months as they get wider theatrical releases and are released on DVD. This is a problem I face by living where I do, but it allows the search for movie greatness to continue into my own living room. I hope this list bring some into yours.

Skyfall / ***½ (PG-13)

James Bond: Daniel Craig

M: Judi Dench

Silva: Javier Bardem

Gareth Mallory: Ralph Fiennes

Eve: Naomie Harris

Sévérine: Bérénice Lim Marlohe

Q: Ben Whishaw

Tanner: Rory Kinnear

Kincade: Albert Finney

MGM and Columbia Pictures present a film directed by Sam Mendes. Written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and John Logan. Based on the character created by Ian Fleming. Running time: 143 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking).

James Bond has now been thrilling audiences for 50 years. “Skyfall” marks the 23^rd official Bond film and is the third starring Daniel Craig as the British secret agent, having been awarded the role for the redefining “Casino Royale” in 2006. In many ways this film is a kind of reconciliation between the Bond films that came out that redefinition of the character and the Bonds that came before it.

Roger and Me

In 1989, a then unknown documentary filmmaker named Michael Moore released his first film about his attempts to sit down and have a conversation with then GM CEO Roger Smith about his decision radically downsize the auto manufacturing company’s Flint, Michigan plant in Moore’s hometown. Moore’s earnest style and his signature of breaking the documentarian’s rule of placing himself into the facts of the subject matter marked the birth of a new major filmmaker. As a teenager growing up in Topsham, Maine at the time, it might’ve seemed unlikely that I would care about such a film let alone even know about it. But I did. The reason I did is because of another man named Roger.

Roger Ebert is universally thought of as the pioneer of modern film criticism. Without his efforts it is unlikely a seventeen year old in Topsham, Maine would ever have sought out a documentary about the economic downturn of a Michigan city that he’d never heard of. I hadn’t yet fully developed the obsession with film that Ebert had a very large part in cultivating, but I did watch “Siskel & Ebert & The Movies” almost every Saturday morning to find out what was opening and if it was any good or not.

Penny Thoughts ‘14—Octopussy (1983) **

PG, 131 min.

Director: John Glen

Writers: George MacDonald Fraser, Richard Maibaum, Micheal G. Wilson, Ian Fleming (stories “Octopussy” and “The Property of a Lady”)

Starring: Roger Moore, Maud Adams, Louis Jourdan, Krystina Wayborn, Kabir Bedi, Steven Berkoff, David Meyer, Anthony Meyer, Desmond Llewelyn, Robert Brown, Lois Maxwell, Michaela Clavell, Walter Gotell, Vijay Amritraj, Albert Moses

Sochi has inspired me to watch some Russian themed movies. First up, “Octopussy”. Huh? Yes, one of the least impressive James Bond movies sees the end of The Cold War coming and invents a plot where a Russian general bent on keeping up the image of Soviet strength is caught up in a counterfeiting ring to raise money for and implement a war by detonating a nuclear devise on an American military base located in Germany. It’s all done under the cover of a Circus run by the mysterious Octopussy, who is apparently a pawn in the game.

Penny Thoughts: June 4-17

Quantum of Solace (2008) ****
Director: Marc Forester
Writers: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright

QoS never got the love that the James Bond reboot “Casino Royale” did, except from me. Upon my second viewing of it, I still feel justified in calling it the second best James Bond movie. It did not best CR. It seems it was mostly criticized for going the Jason Bourne trilogy route, but it has a much more intricate plot than Bourne to go along with its high-octane action. When viewing CR recently, I was surprised by how much slower it was than I remembered, not so with QoS. But QoS still touches upon all the James Bond franchise signatures, and director Marc Forester really flexes some superior direction muscles in many sequences.

Read my original review here.

Spartacus (1960) ***
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Dalton Trumbo, Howard Fast (novel)
Starring: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Gene Simmons, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton, John Gavin

The historical epic has changed a great deal since their heyday. “Spartacus” is thought to be one of Hollywood’s pinnacles of its time, but time has not been kind to this too pretty look at the slave uprising against the Roman Empire lead by the slave-born Spartacus. The casual modern mannerisms and speech used throughout this epic are almost laughable by today’s standards. The battle is good for the time period, but doesn’t stand up to the more realistically choreographed fight sequences of today, and you’ve go to wonder whether property masters had ever actually seen real blood back then, way back in the 60s. Usually, I have a leniency toward older filmmaking, and overall this is an enjoyable movie, but there’s a reason modern audiences don’t catch on to the classics all that easily. The most interesting aspects of the movie are the political maneuverings between the Olivier and Laughton characters, which still have reflections in today’s politics.

Crazy Heart (2009) ***
Director: Scott Cooper
Writers: Scott Cooper, Thomas Cobb (novel), Stephen Bruton (songs), T Bone Burnett (songs)
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jack Nation, Collin Farrell, Robert Duvall

“Crazy Heart” is a deserving performance for Jeff Bridges to win his overdue Oscar. It’s a good movie. It’s filled with wonderful music. It isn’t the most original exploration of a character I’ve seen, but it’s very well done my writer/director Scott Cooper. However, the movie didn’t thrill me half as much as the music. I could listen to Bridges and Collin Farrell put the country back into country music all night. I would’ve loved to see the entire concert where Bad opened for Tommy, and I sure hope Bad did join him on stage for those two songs instead of selling his CDs. It’d be a shame if he didn’t since their duet during Bad’s set was so good. And one other thing, Maggie Gyllenhaal just makes me smile.

Heavy Metal (1981) **½
Director: Gerald Potterton
Writers: Daniel Goldberg, Len Blum, Dan O’Bannon, Richard Corbin, Bernie Wrightson, Angus McKie, Jean Giraud
Starring: Rodger Bumpass, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Alice Playten, Harold Ramis, Richard Romanus, John Vernon, Jackie Burroughs

I’ve been listening to a lot of Cheap Trick lately, and it occurred to me that they had contributed two original songs to the “Heavy Metal” soundtrack. Well, obviously I needed to watch “Heavy Metal”. Now, I had purchased the DVD back when it was originally released in that format about ten years ago. As I recall I watched it then, and a couple times in the following years with affection for that nerdy, gamer fantasy universe of bucksome babes and barbarians and spaceships, just as I had when I was much younger. This time through, it all seemed very dated. One reason might be the terrible image and sound transfer that I had never really noticed in the early days of digital home entertainment, but is glaringly obvious today. Another reason might be the crude and often sloppy animation (even for the time in which it was released). They do a good job in alternating the visual style with each individual story segment, and some do look very good, but for the most part the visual quality is a muddy mess. I still like those bucksome babes, though.