Craig Silliphant's Blog

Dir:  Marc Forster   Stars:  Daniel Craig, Judy Densch

Synopsis:  Picking up where Casino Royale left off, Bond follows his need for revenge until he stumbles upon international intrigue.

It did a whopping 70 million smackeroos at the box office --- shows were already sold out when I showed up for the Friday night screening (always buy advance tickets for shows like this...).  I'd have to say upon first blush that Quantum of Solace isn't quite as electric as Casino Royale, but since Royale was also oddly anti-climactic, Quantum feels like a tighter movie.  It's also only 1 hour and 47 minutes --- the shortest Bond movie I can ever remember.

They've done a good job of hiring a proper director --- Marc Forster.  In the days of Brosnan, they were still using lame Micheal Bay-style directors like Lee Tamahori.  Forster directed such smart fare as Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland.  I think they must have borrowed this model from the Bourne movies (among other aspects of the movies), who used brilliant indie directors like Paul Greengrass to re-invent the spy/action genre.

The reviews have been mixed --- some people complain there's not enough character development.  People --- we're watching a Bond movie here.  Since when does that ever involve character development?  I would suffer to say that Bond has enjoyed more character development in the last two movies than he's ever had!  Judi Densch is a force to be reckoned with, and she and Craig light up the screen in their all-too-brief scenes together. 

Daniel Craig is the real strength behind this movie.  He smolders with vengeance and carries a lot of the movie.

When all is said and done, you'll be happy to watch this movie on Christmas Day on TBS during one of their Bond marathons.  It's a slightly above average entry into the cannon --- however, there's not much to distinguish it from other Bond or spy movies.  Casino Royale made us see Bond in a new light, and Quantum of Solace continues that, even if they don't have more to offer than Royale did.

3 and a HALF Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.

Dir: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath   Stars (voices of): Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Sascha Baron Cohen, and many more...

Synopsis:  In this sequel to Madagascar, the New York Zoo animals are stranded on Madagascar.  When they try to leave the island, they crash land in the wilderness of Africa.

Wow!  63 million dollars for opening weekend!  There are only a handful of CGI animated features that I can really get behind, and all of them were made by Pixar (Toy Story I & II, The Incredibles, and Wall-E to name a few).  Madagascar is made by Dreamworks, a studio that seems to focus more on pumping out product than taking the time that Pixar does to develop the project.  If you hold this movie up to something like Wall-E, you're going to be disappointed.

That being said, the first Madagascar was one of the better Dreamworks vehicles, and I could say the same of this sequel.  Plot and structure-wise, it's very similiar to the original, with a few bits nicked from The Lion King.  The characters get a bit more fleshed out this time, which is great.  The animation also looks very slick, better that the first movie.  I think they've generally improved on the first movie, which is good news if you were a fan of Madagascar.  However, if you're not a fan of the original, this movie probably won't win you over to the team.

3 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.

Dir: Kevin Smith  Stars:  Seth Rogan, Elizabeth Banks

Synopsis:  Two roommates make a porno movie to pay their mounting debts, but things get complicated when romance enters the picture.

This movie really reminded me of Knocked Up.  You've got Seth Rogan and an attractive female co-star.  You've got a movie that's both raunchy and sweet.  I would think it was a rip off of a Judd Apatow movie if it hadn't been made by Kevin Smith, who has been making these movies since he exploded onto the scene with Clerks. 

Zack and Miri doesn't re-invent the wheel, but I laughed belly laughs all the way through --- which is how I judge a good comedy (how else would you, right?).  Elizabeth Banks, who I get confused with Rachel McAdams sometimes, does a good job, and I can never say enough about Seth Rogan.  He's likeable, and funny, with a great sense of comic timing.  Ladies --- is it a stretch that Rogan always gets such pretty ladies in these movies?

The movie is a lean hour and 41 minutes, which I love.  Why should a dumb little comedy be 2 hours plus?  My only problem with Knocked Up was that it could have had 20 minutes trimmed out of it.  I would also note that this movie is very vulgar.  But really, who goes to see a movie called "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and can't believe how foul the language and content is?  The movie isn't getting the best of reviews, and I would chalk that up to one thing:  either you think vulgarity is funny, or you don't.  A lot of people might say that vulgarity isn't funny, because it's, well...vulgar.  I happen to disagree.  But I grew up on Eddie Murphy, and like most men, I have an arrested development that puts me at the mental age of about 10.  So stringing obscenities together in as many neat new ways as you can come up with is funny to me.  If you're like me, you'll enjoy this movie --- if you don't like bad language and sexual situations, then Zack and Miri isn't for you. 

This isn't an epic, sweeping movie that will win awards and accolades --- it's a simple little popcorn movie.  I can't say it's my favourite Smith movie, or even that I'll be quoting lines from it --- but in the hour and a half I was watching it, I was entertained.  I was drawn into its world, and I left the theatre smiling.  You'd be surprised how much that DOESN'T happen to me, considering the amount of movies that I see.

3 and a HALF Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.  Above average, but not quite a 4 Dork dealie.

Dir: Gavin O'Connor   Stars:  Ed Norton, Colin "The Greasebag" Farrell, Jon Voight

Synopsis: After several NYC cops are killed, one brother must investigate his own family.

Pride and Glory doesn't do much to distinguish itself from other cop procedural dramas.  We've already had the very similiar Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg movie "We Own the Night" this year.  Pride and Glory sat on the shelf at New Line Cinema for a year or so before finally being released --- never a good sign.

There are some interesting scenes here and there, as well as some gritty moments of brutal violence, but the film eventually folds in on itself.  It's well directed, and intense in places, but the predictable plot and truly horrible dialogue stop it dead in its tracks.  There's also a cringe worthy scene where Colin Farrell threatens a baby with a hot poker, so some of it was over the top.

The Director's father was a real life cop, so the police parts of the movie feel genuine, but the movie too often indulges in hilariously implausible acts.  In one scene, they are surreptitiously burning a car underneath a bridge --- sure it looks cool, but don't they realize that there would actually be hundreds of possible witnesses?  Some people got no sense!

Ed Norton is good as usual, but Jon Voight and Colin "The Greasebag" Farrell are both guilty of overacting.  There's a lot of shoving guys up against the wall and shouting exposition at them.  I think theis movie could have been something good, but it was totally mishandled, mostly from the writing end of things.

2 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter!

Dir:  Paul Gross   Stars:  Paul Gross, Caroline Dhavernas, Gil Bellows

Synopsis:  Passchendaele is not only hard to spell --- it's also the story of writer/director/star Paul Gross' grandfather, Michael Dunne, a soldier who served at the Battle of Passchendale.

10 Second History Lesson!!!  (Got your timers ready?  GO!)  The Battle for Passchendaele happened in 1917 when Canadian and South African troops took on the Germans for control of the Belgium village of Passchendaele.  The battle was famous for being synonymous with the misery of combat in thick mud and rain (which also looks great on film, incidently).

The movie Passchendaele looks like a war movie in the trailers, but it's actually more of a romantic drama about sweethearts separated by duty that plays out against the backdrop of war.  The romance borders dangerously on melodrama, some of the writing is cliched, and some of the acting is over the top.

The film is careful not to paint a pro-war message --- it often comes off as a heartfelt tribute to Canadian troops fighting their first international war.  And it's either a film at odds with it's own message --- OR --- it successfully captures the contradiction in such thinking.  What I mean is, one minute the film is about heroes and sacrifice, and the next it's showing us the brutal modern reality of war.  Two ideas that don't often work well together.  In fact, it will be interesting to see how Passchendaele plays in the international market.  Films about honour and glory aren't real popular these days.  The battle scenes, by the way, were shot in Calgary and look stellar.

Passchendaele is like a cross between Titanic and Saving Private Ryan.  It's likeable, but hammy in places.  I really want to express though, that I'm very proud of Paul Gross as a filmmaker for always pushing to play big and capture a slice of the popular entertainment pie, but I wish he could turn that into a movie that's a bit more rebellious and better written.  He raised something like 20 million dollars to make this movie.  He understands that the funding has to be there to compete with similiar Hollywood fare, and that lack of money has always been a big part of the failure of Canadian mainstream movies to make an impact on even it's own citizens.  I think if Gross mixed his big thinking with quirkier stories, he'd really break through, but Passchendaele is a movie that I think most Canadians would get something out of.

3 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter!

Dir:  Ridley Scott     Stars:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Mark Strong

Synopsis:  Based on a book by a Washington Post columnist, Body of Lies is the story of a CIA operative who uncovers a lead on a major terrorist leader suspected to be operating out of Jordan.

First of all --- I can't believe Beverly Hills Chihuahua took the number one spot again this week.  I totally underestimated the appeal of that movie.  I still don't get it.  Has anyone seen it?  Why?  And was it actually any good?

Anyway, back to Body of Lies.  Here's my thought on Ridley Scott.  He's only made two good movies --- Alien and Blade Runner.  Though he's an extremely proficient director, I can just never bring myself to love any of his movies (besides the beforemention two).  Gladiator is a great example.  It looks amazing and has some great scenes, but it's such a generic movie that it just never comes together for me.  I know that Gladiator won the Oscar, and I'm guessing a lot of people will disagree with me on that one, but I just can't get beside that movie.  Especially after watching HBO's "Rome", an infinitely better take on that whole period.

Body of Lies falls into that too generic to dig category for me as well.  As with Gladiator, the movie looks amazing, and it's technically sound.  The acting is stellar --- Crowe and DiCaprio are both great (though I can't say the same for Leo's facial hair --- I believe that he believes it's real, so that's good acting!).  Mark Strong, who was also in the new Guy Ritchie movie "Rocknrolla" has a tour de force performance.  This is an actor to watch.

All that nice stuff being said --- the script just isn't strong enough, and maybe that's always the problem with Ridley Scott movies.  He's content to direct, but doesn't pay enough attention to the actual material he's shooting.  The movie is a mishmash of convoluted events and situations --- it doesn't take long before you realize that you have no idea what's going on.  There is a romantic subplot that is totally tacked on.  You're to believe that Leo and his leading lady must risk their lives to be together, but the movie never gives you a reason why they are together.  They don't have any meaningful conversations at all.

Overly slick without proper handling of substance, the movie feels both silly and pretentious most of the time.  It reminded me of a bad Jason Bourne knock off.

2 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter!

Dir:  Peter Sollet  Stars: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings

Synopsis:  Nick is dumped by his heartless girlfriend, Tris.  Norah doesn't want to appear dateless, so she borroes Nick to be her boyfriend for 5 minutes.  A night of music and adventure ensue as Tris and Norah compete for Nick's attention.

Michael Cera is one of my favourite young comic actors (if you haven't seen Arrested Development yet, you should really get on that) --- he has timing beyond his years and a nerdy likeability.  Kat Dennings (40-Year Old Virgin, Charlie Bartlett) is also super cute as Norah, and the strength of this movie really lies in these two actors and the characters they are playing.  Though the movie itself suffers from being a bit too formulaic here and there, the main characters have dimension and they grow as the movie plays out.

There's some great music in the movie, though it tries a bit too hard to be cool in places.  There were some strained gross out jokes that probably didn't need to be there.

The movie makes some leaps and strains in credibility --- Roger Ebert pointed out in his review that each character must have built in GPS equipment that allows them to stumble across other characters (in NYC, no less) whenever the plot requires it.  That's even more strange when you consider that Nick's ex Tris happens to be Norah's best friend, yet she has never laid eyes on Nick before.  I really hate it when they do things that make no sense just to serve the plot.  You could have written around that, they're just being lazy.

The movie comes close, but doesn't quite knock it out of the park.  It's more like getting to 3rd base (oooh, naughty).  Sometimes it's much too familiar or sloppily written --- but it IS a high spirited comedic romance with two great stars.  The likeability of the movie and of Cera and Dennings help it to outshine any flaws it might have.

I sound like I'm down on the movie, but it's worth checking out.  It's just not as strong as Juno or The Breakfast Club, though it almost hit that note.    3 and A HALF Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter. 

Dir:  DJ Caruso   Stars:  Shia Lebouf, Michelle Monahan, Billy Bob Thornton

Synopsis:  Shia Lebouf and Michelle Monahan play two strangers thrown together by a mysterious phone call.  They're forced into a series of increasingly dangerous situations, using the technology of everyday life to track and control their every move.  They become the country's most wanted fugitives, as they work together to figure out what's going on.

I was actually sort of surprised about just how bad Eagle Eye was.  It was produced by Spielberg and has a pretty reliable cast.  It started off well enough, but quickly sunk into the depths of a horrid mess.  The script is incredibly stupid.  To the movie's credit, there are some great action sequences, and the crazy pace of the movie hides the flaws in the story, for awhile, at least.

Some might like the action in the movie, but it was all smoke and mirrors, and action needs to be a part of the story.  I love a movie with a great chase scene, but everything that happens on screen should be moving the plot forward.  Eagle Eye was just people running for the sake of making running look exciting --- there was no suspense whatsover.  The filmmakers need to learn that just because everyone is running at top speed, and the actors look panicked, and the music is deafening, doesn't mean you have created suspense.  In fact, you can see every twist in this movie coming from a mile away.

Eagle Eye has a message about letting the computers take control, though it feels tacked on to try and give the movie some deeper credibility.  Perhaps we shouldn't let bad filmmakers take control?  The main bad guy --- a voice/computer that has the power to tap into every computer and electronic device in the world --- has limitless power.  So here's the BIG FLAW in the movie --- why would this computer need to rely on a couple of puny humans to carry out it's shenanigans?  It makes no sense.  And once you figure that out, you look back and say to yourself, "what was the point of all that running around?"  Once the smoke and mirrors are cleared away, we realize there was no need for such a wild goose chase.

They had a fun idea for a paranoid little thriller, something that could have been a great dumb popcorn movie, but they took themselves way to seriously.  This was a bad idea for a movie that was already teetering on the edge of being a bad parody of better movies.

1 Dork out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.

Also --- just a quick props to Paul Newman, who died of cancer at 83 the other day.  One of the best actors of his time, and an even better humanitarian.  When he made Richard Nixon's enemies list, he was quoted as saying that it was his proudest moment.  Rest in Peace, Mr. Newman.  You will be missed.