I like 1917's title.
It's blunt and non-specific, refrains from attaching nuance or particular, as if it chronicles events that took place during an extended incredibly bleak period, wherein which there was no end in sight to World War I, it must have seemed neverending, interminable, no matter how many battles were won or lost, with no choice if you were fighting but to endure, and make the most of the intrinsic chaos.
Both sides dug in, in command of vast stretches of ground, neither able to advance much further, yet still attacking with fierce resolve.
One battle transformed into hundreds, a colossal mass of composite correspondence, broken down into tens of thousands of crucial messages, their import daunting and ephemeral, so much unravelling with unpredictable fortitude.
Cool heads necessitated nevertheless, hold the line, maintain chains of command, proceed stalwart and unerring, as the unprecedented slaughter horrendously escalates, it's estimated that 40 million people died in the war, from 1914 to 1918, like unleashed menace meticulously terrorizing, survival, a precious miracle.
1917 unreels in the thick of it, and doesn't romanticize the horror, camaraderie thrilling against a background of shock, a lifetime of trauma in little over a day.
An hour.
Two soldiers head out with a message intended to save over a thousand people, but their destination lies across enemy lines, even if they're theoretically deserted, different message, different day, as the film states, best foot forward notwithstanding, into the forbidding treacherous rage.
It's a bold endeavour courageously undertaken, but what they encounter's by no means light, the film doesn't present something easy or relatable, its distraught bedlam grotesquely abhorrent.
With a touch of reason shining through, a noble purpose, heroic deeds, the knowledge that if the mission fails things will be even worse, even if the colonel's far from hopeful in the end.
I won't say there must have been thousands of missions like this one, because the brave soldiers who undertook them were unique, and the grave risks they took at extreme peril shouldn't be compromised through comparison, courageous acts truly like none other.
1917 assigns dignity to millions of lost lives, bold soldiers following orders handed down the line, speculative commanders rationally assailing the unknown, in fierce combat, nothing certain or stable.
War isn't something to be romanticized and you can learn this without having fought in one.
I was glad to see 1917's generally grim.
I'm more into scripts but the camera work in 1917's incredible, it pulls you in and epitomizes the helplessness.
The pressure.
I can't recall many films with better cinematography (Roger Deakins).
Reminded me of The Player, Touch of Evil, La nuit américaine, and Birdman.
Showing posts with label Sam Mendes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Mendes. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Friday, November 13, 2015
Spectre
Audaciously challenging his most cunning reanimated nemesis, Bond, James Bond (Daniel Craig), must reflexively disconnect an intrusive network of terrorist and governmental spies, threatening to legally monitor all of Great Britain's online activity, disguised as freedom fighters, to facilitate limitless access to all.
Blofeld's (Christoph Waltz) back, and it soon becomes clear that he's cacopheinated every catastrophe Daniel Craig has averted thus far, Spectre having returned to the franchise's fore in transition, with the intent of legitimizing vigilant maniacal longevity.
Bond must stop them, and M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) assist him along the way.
It's nice to see Q out in the field and Moneypenny continuing to play a more vital role.
There's a clever subplot where M must counter governmental representative Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott) who's in league with Spectre and hoping to shut down the 00 program permanently.
M knows that fighting terrorism still requires a human touch and although disappointed in Bond for (sort of) disobeying direct orders and stealing, still adamantly cheers as he recklessly takes Spectre on.
The film's alright, but I'm ranking it third in the Daniel Craig Bond films, much better than Quantum of Solace, but not as strong as either Casino Royale or Skyfall.
It's like it spent too much time trying to recapture the essence of the Connery films, and although this did appeal to my love of that epoch, it still seemed like it didn't focus enough time on continuing to quintessentially complicate Daniel Craig's.
He's been in 4 now and I think it's safe to say he's the best Bond since Connery.
I'm hoping he's back for a fifth.
He deserves the money.
Look at what they pay Schwarzenegger for the Terminator films.
Also, I've seen more exciting opening sequences, the opening sequence should really function as an outstanding separate short film with the potential for integration in the main narrative still standing on its own merit, The Living Daylights perhaps providing the best example.
Spectre's desert base suffers from Jupiter Ascending syndrome as well and destructs far too quickly near the end.
Nevertheless, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) is a classic giant of a foe, Waltz and Craig forge a chilling familial dynamic, its contemporary analysis of invasive information gathering behemoths fits well with the times, Blofeld lives to die another day, and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is an exceptional Bond Girl.
With the best Bond Girl name ever.
According to Citizenfour, terrorist organizations didn't help governments establish omnipresent online access you know, they completed that task on their own, although, since they justified said completion on the grounds that they established such networks to fight terrorism, it's as if the terrorists were responsible for causing democratically elected governments to treat their own citizens like terrorists.
That's solid Bond.
Even if people are held accountable, it does seem like such networks are here to stay.
I'm already imagining old man conversations where I discuss the ways of the 1980s with a youthful generation of the future, discussing how there used to be a concept known as privacy which faded as the years passed to uproarious thunderous applause.
It's like hip Orwell.
That's how the West reimagined 1984.
Constant surveillance coupled with limitless access to anything you could possibly be interested in worldwide, exceptions pending.
I can't imagine Trudeau's Liberals using such tools to land their opponents in prison on trumped up charges sensationalized in the media, which is what it seemed like Team Harper was eventually going to do.
Perhaps they can neuter them to the point where scenarios like the one just suggested can never be enacted?
Or just scrap Bill C-51, and the TPP.
I bet that's what James Bond would do.
Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau II is like James Bond?
Slash Jedi.
Blofeld's (Christoph Waltz) back, and it soon becomes clear that he's cacopheinated every catastrophe Daniel Craig has averted thus far, Spectre having returned to the franchise's fore in transition, with the intent of legitimizing vigilant maniacal longevity.
Bond must stop them, and M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) assist him along the way.
It's nice to see Q out in the field and Moneypenny continuing to play a more vital role.
There's a clever subplot where M must counter governmental representative Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott) who's in league with Spectre and hoping to shut down the 00 program permanently.
M knows that fighting terrorism still requires a human touch and although disappointed in Bond for (sort of) disobeying direct orders and stealing, still adamantly cheers as he recklessly takes Spectre on.
The film's alright, but I'm ranking it third in the Daniel Craig Bond films, much better than Quantum of Solace, but not as strong as either Casino Royale or Skyfall.
It's like it spent too much time trying to recapture the essence of the Connery films, and although this did appeal to my love of that epoch, it still seemed like it didn't focus enough time on continuing to quintessentially complicate Daniel Craig's.
He's been in 4 now and I think it's safe to say he's the best Bond since Connery.
I'm hoping he's back for a fifth.
He deserves the money.
Look at what they pay Schwarzenegger for the Terminator films.
Also, I've seen more exciting opening sequences, the opening sequence should really function as an outstanding separate short film with the potential for integration in the main narrative still standing on its own merit, The Living Daylights perhaps providing the best example.
Spectre's desert base suffers from Jupiter Ascending syndrome as well and destructs far too quickly near the end.
Nevertheless, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) is a classic giant of a foe, Waltz and Craig forge a chilling familial dynamic, its contemporary analysis of invasive information gathering behemoths fits well with the times, Blofeld lives to die another day, and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is an exceptional Bond Girl.
With the best Bond Girl name ever.
According to Citizenfour, terrorist organizations didn't help governments establish omnipresent online access you know, they completed that task on their own, although, since they justified said completion on the grounds that they established such networks to fight terrorism, it's as if the terrorists were responsible for causing democratically elected governments to treat their own citizens like terrorists.
That's solid Bond.
Even if people are held accountable, it does seem like such networks are here to stay.
I'm already imagining old man conversations where I discuss the ways of the 1980s with a youthful generation of the future, discussing how there used to be a concept known as privacy which faded as the years passed to uproarious thunderous applause.
It's like hip Orwell.
That's how the West reimagined 1984.
Constant surveillance coupled with limitless access to anything you could possibly be interested in worldwide, exceptions pending.
I can't imagine Trudeau's Liberals using such tools to land their opponents in prison on trumped up charges sensationalized in the media, which is what it seemed like Team Harper was eventually going to do.
Perhaps they can neuter them to the point where scenarios like the one just suggested can never be enacted?
Or just scrap Bill C-51, and the TPP.
I bet that's what James Bond would do.
Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau II is like James Bond?
Slash Jedi.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Skyfall
Really enjoyed Skyfall.
It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.
Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.
Nice.
Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations. Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.
The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.
Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.
Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.
So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen. This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Poetry in Bond?
Nice touch!
It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).
Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.
Bond holds no grudge.
Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.
Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.
Don't know if that's helpful.
I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.
It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.
It's annoying.
But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?
And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?
Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.
Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.
Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.
I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.
(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.
I'd love to play him.
Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).
Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.
So amazing.
It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.
Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.
Nice.
Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations. Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.
The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.
Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.
Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.
So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen. This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Poetry in Bond?
Nice touch!
It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).
Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.
Bond holds no grudge.
Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.
Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.
Don't know if that's helpful.
I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.
It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.
It's annoying.
But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?
And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?
Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.
Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.
Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.
I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.
(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.
I'd love to play him.
Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).
Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.
So amazing.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Revolutionary Road
Sam Mendes's Revolutionary Road spikes a solid conjugal punch with a healthy dose of conflicting viewpoints regarding the process of prioritization. What comes first, your heart or your responsibilities?, your dreams or your obligations? Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April (Kate Winslet) Wheeler's marriage convolutes the aforementioned polarities leaving them stark yet twisted, barren yet novel. The Wheelers meet fall in love at a party then find themselves married. Frank has a hard time clueing in and April doesn't take to being a housewife. They come up with an ingenious plan to break from the suburbs and escape to Paris much to the confusion of the neighbouring Campbells (Kathyrn Hahn and David Harbour) and the delight of local lunatic John Givings (Michael Shannon). But promotion, pregnancy, and adultery complicate their departure, leaving room for many a heart breaking fight and several despotic discussions.
It's a good look at the darker side of marriage, commitment, fidelity, routine. I mean, neither of them even speak French (although no one mentions this [a sly take on how to socially deal with spur of the moment surprise situations]). Frank's a dick and to caught up in the ways of the world to seriously listen to his beautiful wife, thereby breaking her romantic heart and rupturing his own. And only Mr. Givings shares in their dreams, eventually unleashing a monstrous onslaught of vituperative contempt after discovering there may be a change of plan.
Strong emotional impact, neither kitschy nor melodramatic, heartfelt, conditioned, real; a solid American movie. There should be some serious debate regarding whether or not this is a feminist or a masculinist film, meaning that's its packed with critical controversy. Love, loyalty, leisure, loss, I don't know anything about being married but understand that it lasts for a long time and some people have trouble adjusting to the status quo, no matter what the price tag. Could save your marriage or break it apart if you happened to love movies as much as I do and were married to me. Reason number 723 . . .
It's a good look at the darker side of marriage, commitment, fidelity, routine. I mean, neither of them even speak French (although no one mentions this [a sly take on how to socially deal with spur of the moment surprise situations]). Frank's a dick and to caught up in the ways of the world to seriously listen to his beautiful wife, thereby breaking her romantic heart and rupturing his own. And only Mr. Givings shares in their dreams, eventually unleashing a monstrous onslaught of vituperative contempt after discovering there may be a change of plan.
Strong emotional impact, neither kitschy nor melodramatic, heartfelt, conditioned, real; a solid American movie. There should be some serious debate regarding whether or not this is a feminist or a masculinist film, meaning that's its packed with critical controversy. Love, loyalty, leisure, loss, I don't know anything about being married but understand that it lasts for a long time and some people have trouble adjusting to the status quo, no matter what the price tag. Could save your marriage or break it apart if you happened to love movies as much as I do and were married to me. Reason number 723 . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)