Zombie Holocaust! - Review: World War Z

World War Z gained a lot of notoriety from all the rumors of production problems, reedits and expensive re-shoots. From all those negative stories, you would be forgiven for expecting an incoherent vomit of a movie; that it's not only easy to follow, but also well made and gripping is a massive plus. WWZ tells the story of a mysterious global pandemic, the source of which is unknown, but which turns the majority of the earth's population into rampaging zombies. We see the outbreak from the perspective of Gerry (Brad Pitt) and his family, as they witness it first hand while stuck in rush hour. From there, Gerry – a former government agent - is coerced back into action to find a cure and it is action all the way until the end.

You have to admire this movie on many levels. It's supposedly a summer 'tent pole' release – traditionally a time for family movies - yet, it features lots of zombies running around biting people while getting shot in the process. There are panoramic shots of zombies running amok and the ensuing widespread destruction. And even if the bloodletting and gore levels are appropriately sanitized and restrained for the summer audience, still you have to revel in the joy of an actual summer zombie movie. When has that happened before? And unless there is a sequel to this, when is it likely to happen again?




Brad Pitt (looking about 35 here) makes for a solid action hero as he goes through one hellish experience after another. Strangely, he doesn't really have a regular counterpart/sidekick to bounce ideas/dialog off, resulting in a lot of him asking questions on behalf of the viewer. The one time it seems as if he's going to get a sidekick, said sidekick is dispatched rather quickly in an unintentionally amusing fashion – presumably to give Brad/Gerry more to do. Furthermore, there isn't really the usual secondary subplot to cut to and as such as we see the chaos unfold mostly from his viewpoint. This has the unforeseen consequence of giving the movie a very 'chaptered' form; one-off events – almost like little mini-stories in their own right - take place in one country after another with their own beginning middle and ending and usually as Pitt the lone protagonist as the witness.

The zombie action is excellent and we see suitably large-scale set- pieces of wanton zombie destruction. There is a level of scope and ambition here that you just won't see in something like 'The Walking Dead'. Though it has to be pointed out that those wide vista shots of the zombie hoards building 'ant hills' to scale walls happens only a handful of times in the movie. Even at that, you've probably already seen them in the prevalent trailers, which admittedly takes away some of the 'Wow Factor'.

Now onto the aforementioned 'productions problems' and 're-shoots' that littered this movie's gestation. It's hard to evaluate it without taking those 'issues' into account. Why? Because the telltale signs are so evident. The story takes strange turns, focusing on some elements while completely ignoring others. For example, early on in the story, we see Gerry and his family rescuing a young boy – who we assume Gerry will semi-adopt and become a surrogate father figure to since his offspring are girls; this is how it seems it's being set up - yet the child is never seen or referred to again.

Similarly, Gerry later takes a wounded Israeli soldier under his wing but she is so underwritten and cipher-like, you wonder: what's the point? If that's not enough, then take a high profile actor like Matthew Fox (of Lost); he features early on in the story and you assume he will figure prominently later; instead, he just shows up a handful of times in what could be the role of a background extra and one not worthy of Fox's talents. Just like John Cusack's shorn role in Terence Malicks's 'The Thin Red Line' (1998), what you begin to suspect is that Fox too was a victim of all the re-shoots/re-edits and his arc probably featured more prominently in the earlier version. And if you really want to nitpick, a scene at a facility, while admittedly a stand out that's very well executed, still feels very glued on… almost as if it came from a different movie. Yet another legacy of the re-shoots? Probably… it certainly feels that way.

As for the pandemic, a reference is made to rabies early on in the story, then it's never really mentioned again. It's vagueness like this that rears its head again and again. Still, it's not the disaster that had been foreshadowed by some members of the media. Yes, it may feel chaptered but it's an intelligent film – for a zombie movie, anyway – that has stuff to say while showing you big spectacle. You really get the impression that this is truly a global pandemic.

And that's the one thing this movie has going for it over a lot of movies of the genera: take any of the Romero zombie movies or any zombie movie from the last few decades, and what you find is the action/outbreak is always restricted to small areas/backwater towns. Not so here – this is the real zombie deal on a massive scale. For the first time ever, you see a zombie apocalypse taking place in cities in populated streets and not just on some back road in the middle of nowhere. But there has to be a trade-off: you can do spectacle or gore but you can't do both. That type of thing costs money, and if you're spending a lot of money, you want your product to be seen by the widest audience possible – meaning what essentially boils down to a bloodless zombie movie. Still there is enough good material in here to keep you interested and make the idea of a sequel/sequels a not altogether unwelcome proposition.

'Steel Man' - Review: Man Of Steel

Just like the reboot/remake/sequel/whatever that was 'The Amazing Spider-Man', 'Man of Steel' chooses to retell an origin story. Except unlike that movie, this one at least has a good excuse: the original 'Superman: The Movie' came out in 1978 and is ripe for reinterpretation. First off, let's be honest: the late great Christopher Reeve was a brilliant Superman. He was also a brilliant Clark Kent, having the talent to thread a fine line with a performance that was at once comedic and sober. For some, he will always remain the quintessential Man of Steel. Rather like Sean Connery in the Bond franchise before him, he is the original and all who come after-wards have to stand in his shoes and be compared to him… And admittedly, they are rather large shoes to fill… 

They had previously attempted to fill those shoes in the 90s on TV with Dean Cain in 'Lois and Clark' and failed. They had tried it again in the 21st century in 'Smallville' with Tom Welling, which while being a huge improvement over the Cain version, was still missing something. The fact is, just like Batman/Bruce Wayne, Superman/Clark Kent is an extremely hard role to get exactly right. You can usually get somebody to do one or the other, but it's rare that they can do both. Among the things they got right this latest retelling of the story of Kal-El is the casting of Henry Cavill as the Man Of Steel. He is without doubt the best actor to don the cape since Christopher Reeve.

Man of Steel is an amalgamation Superman 1 and 2 and covers a lot of the same territory. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) send his infant son to earth to escape the destruction of Krypton, where he's raised by his earth parents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). His early life in Smallville is told in flashback and juxtaposed with his search in the modern day to discover who he is... And why he is... Things take a turn for the worse when a newly liberated General Zod tracks Kal-El to earth and demands his surrender - by which time the previously confused Kent/Kal-El has discovered the suit and has made peace with his idenity. Cue: one of the noisiest, chaos-ridden second halves to a movie you will probably ever see. 

 

Whereas Brandon Routh's rendition in the 2006 movie 'Superman Returns' is an honorable failure, the biggest problem with his interpretation of Kent/Superman seemed to be he was doing an impression of Christopher Reeve. Spot on as it was, he was channeling Reeve (probably at the behest of director Bryan Singer) to such extremes that you wondered why they even bothered. Another issue with that movie was Routh looked too young in the role: it's not Superboy/Boy of Steel, its Superman/Man of Steel, and as such, Cavill – even though he would have been in his late 20s during the time of shooting - brings a maturity and gravitas to the role unseen since Reeve's heyday. Rather than doing an impersonation, Cavill brings a fresh approach to a role that could have been one-dimensional - yes, he's THAT good in the lead.

Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) produced this and it's easy to see his influence. The movie is meant to be rooted in reality with a gritty sense of realism. For one thing, check out the title: it's not called 'Superman' but the 'Man Of Steel'. So dedicated it is to this realistic approach that when the character is first called Superman by someone, they are interrupted before they can finish; when we do eventually hear Cavill's character being called 'Superman', it's with an apologetic – almost embarrassed – tone. Seriously, what is wrong with the name, and why couldn't they just have called this movie 'Superman'?  

No expense has been spared on this production and they have got a terrific cast. While the 1978 movie was great, it wasn't perfect. Terence Stamp's rendition of General Zod was slightly one-note; Michael Shannon in this gives a more three dimensional performance. And the growing romance between Lois and Clark here is done much better. But the unsung hero in all of this, it has to be said, is Kevin Costner playing Clark Kent's dad. His screen time may minimum, but his impact is huge. Just like the greats of the past – Marlon Brando/Glen Ford playing the Kent's dad in the original - he casts a large shadow and his scenes with the young Kent as he reaches maturity are brilliant, genuinely touching, and heartfelt. Even after his arc of the story is completed, his ghost seems to loom throughout the remaining picture, with Kent/Superman carrying his legacy. Russell Crowe might be equally as good in his role as the father of Kal-El, but Costner leaves a lasting impression. Do they give Oscars for super hero movies? Just saying… because, honestly, this movie needed more Kevin Costner in it. 

There are some issues in this that bare the hallmarks of a script that was rushed through the boiler faster than it should have been. Namely: the Krypton here is a vibrant, active world that seems very much alive; at least the Krypton in the 1978 version looked like it was already in the throes of death. This Krypton is also so hi-tech – you can see space ships - that you just have to wonder why Jor-El and wife don't just jump into a ship and escape with their baby? Similarly, what exactly is going on with Superman's breathing: he breathes in space; no, he can't; wait… yes, he can… Then there's the issue of the ship frozen in ice for millena: why is it set up for Kal-El's discovery? Why would Jor-El put the "codex" in his child - bonding it with his very DNA, essentially putting him in mortal danger should anyone come looking in the distant future? Is it to set up a Krypton on Earth? Isn't that Zod's plan? How do they get the codex back out? And why on earth reuse the Zod villain from Superman II in the first place? Surely there are enough enemies within Superman's universe to keep him busy without going back to well? It reeks of the same lack of imagination deployed in Star Trek Into Darkness with their regurgitating of a villain from yesteryear. 

But the obvious question is: is it as good as the original 1978 movie? Is it even fair to compare the two? It's inevitable comparisons will be made but the simple answer is no, it's not as good because the original had a magic that isn't really present in this newer, rawer take. While there is no question that Messrs Cavill/Costner/Crowe/Shannon are definitely on par with the originals in the 1978 movie, somehow the wonder that was in that movie is missing here. For one thing – obviously attempting a 'clean slate' - they eschewed the brilliant John Williams composed theme. No musical themes here leap out and grab you the way that did. Big mistake. Furthermore, the effects in the original – dated though they are – have a realness to them because they were all done practically. This movie, it has to be said, turns into a CGI fest to such an extent, it becomes like watching a computer game. While the CGI is more effective in the background - for example, when buildings are falling etc., - it's less effective during the superhuman-on-superhuman bouts. Still, overall it is a worthy and spectacular watch. It beats Bryan Singer's dreadful entry in spades and is more than deserving addition to the Superman cannon. Catch it if you can - just watch out for your hearing afterwards. 

Review: Cloud Atlas - Clever... Ambitious... Entertaining... Epic..

So here is a movie that has everything: gore, sci-fi, violence, drama, action and huge visual effects… Yet it's very telling that when it came out in the US it flopped. Big-time. There were lots of walkouts because it was 'too hard to follow' for some and 'too boring' for others. For a generation weaned on endless Michael Bay helmed Transformers toys advertisements – sorry: movies - or regurgitated Spider-Man remakes/reboots/prequels/sequels/who-the-hell-cares, Cloud Atlas committed the ultimate sin: it was a movie that strayed from accepted convention, playing out multiple story lines that seemed unconnected over a huge ass-numbing running time. Punters voted the only way they knew how: with their pockets. Simply put, they stayed away in droves. 

And who could blame them? After all, it wasn't a reboot; it had no fighting robots and featured no vampires. However, this is exactly what makes the reception to the film all the more telling because - get this - Cloud Atlas is an exceptionally brilliant movie. Even more tellingly, it's (A) Easy to follow – the stories are surprisingly simplistic - and (B) not boring at all – the movie, in fact, moves at a very fast pace. It's very telling that even after you take those aspects into account, it still managed to go over US audiences' heads. So what was the problem, if any? It seems Cloud Atlas's biggest sin was it attempted to be bold, ambitious and original - probably not the kind of thing that would go down too well with an audience waiting for the latest Marvel rehash.

Based on the novel by David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas tells the somewhat fanciful stories of people and events that while happening far apart from each other – mostly in other times - are intricately linked beyond time/space. It may sound unwieldy at first but it works: a lawyer (Jim Sturgess) on an ocean voyage is being slowly poisoned by his greedy doctor (a brilliant Tom Hanks); a sassy journalist (Halle Berry in top form) is investigating some nefarious matters concerning a nuclear plant; a revolt by robots (fabricants) in a futuristic Korea is being suppressed by authorities; some senior shenanigans goings-on at an old folks' home where a literary agent is sequestered; there's post- apocalyptic bloodletting in an age many centuries from now and finally, two composers war over a piece of music which they're claiming equal ownership of – the 'Cloud Atlas' sextet of the title. 

While this may sound like a storyline that is has too much going on for its own good with its 'everything but the kitchen sink thrown in' approach, it still works and there is a reason for it. If there is one thing that has been overlooked with Cloud Atlas it has to be the remarkable feat of editing. Surely, this has to be one of the best edited movies in years? Editor Alexander Berner has no fewer than six stories to juggle, which in lesser hands, could have been a huge 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' mess, but in Berner's hands, the stories are inter-weaved and played out to perfection. There's a lot of ground to cover here. When juggling that amount of stories, the editor has to have the precision of a surgeon. It's a balancing act for sure: when do you cut away? When do you return to a story? When do you introduce a new story? When do you cut away from that and go to the next strand? And so on. It was a massive - nay, typical - oversight on behalf of the Academy that it wasn't even nominated.

The cast are great too and play multiple roles across the vast layers of stories: Tom Hanks doing the best Irish?/British?/Scottish? accent this side of Dick Van Dyke and Halle Berry playing a white woman that resembles Madonna back in her 'Vogue' days; Jim Sturgess playing an Asian (with a distinct Neo-vibe from The Matrix) and Hugo Weaving playing a chilling demonic entity - there is no-one dragging their weight here; everyone is giving it one-hundred per cent. While some have sniffed at the notion of white people playing other races, it's important to point out that blacks and Asians also play whites in this movie. In fact, there's a strange fascination in trying to spot who's playing who in what era/role – kind of a generational 'Where's Wally?' if you will. 

 
This approach may have been budget-driven; after all, if you're going outside the so-called 'Hollywood system' to independently fund a movie, doesn't it make financial sense to have you're A-Listers playing more than one role? Why hire others to play them? Furthermore, it also indirectly benefits the whole mystical conceit that we are all linked through time – would the movie be as effective if different people were playing these roles? Who knows.

Like the 'Tree of Life' before it, it's been favorably compared to another not exactly mainstream movie: '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Both mix story and theme strands, but while Tree of Life maybe be the more Kubrickian, it has to be said that on the whole, Cloud Atlas is the more successful of the two, expertly weaving and interweaving to perfection the multiple scenarios that are cross-cutting across the huge running time. 

This movie could easily be put in the 'don't make 'em like they used to' category: just when you thought that large, epic filmmaking was a relic of the past, here comes Cloud Atlas to shift your views: it's huge and dazzling entertainment, for sure, but the really telling thing is although it's juggling six story lines for almost three hours, it remains riveting the whole way. Brilliantly directed by Tom Tyker and the Wachowskis with a great musical score, Cloud Atlas is nothing short of a criminally underrated classic. Watch it and you will be transported, spellbound, touched and more importantly, entertained.

Review: Life of Pi

A large scale yet very intimate epic

Based on an apparently 'unfilmable' book, Life of Pi tells the powerful story of an Indian man named Pi (after a French swimming pool but shortened to the name of the mathematical number) who recounts the tale of his epic – and fantastical – survival at sea in the company of a Tiger named 'Richard Parker' (seriously) and some assorted wild animals after their ship sinks and they are cast adrift in a lifeboat. 

First things first: this is an absolutely incredible movie. In fact, this movie is so good, it ranks as one of the best of 2012. And if there is any justice in the world, it will garner an Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Suraj Sharma – young Pi), Best Supporting Actor (Irrfan Khan – adult Pi) and Best Visual Effects, but more on all these later. Heck, let's throw Best Adapted Screenplay in there too, because this is a movie so well made, it actually hearkens back to a bygone era, almost eradicating the term 'They don't make 'em like they used to'. The scope may be massive, but the movie that is so old fashioned, you could easily imagine it being released eons ago in the 1940s. 



Ang Lee, director of the underrated 'Hulk', really deserves a lot of props here. While the easier route would have been to drastically change the story and cast an American in the lead role (stand up M. Night Shyamalan who did just this in 'The Last Airbender – subsequently angering an entire generation of Asians), Lee goes the opposite way and casts an Indian actor, or rather in this case, an Indian non-actor: Suraj Sharma - who plays Pi - had largely no acting experience prior to being cast, making the performance Ang Lee has coaxed out of him all the more extraordinary. You believe his every nuance and considering ninety-nine per cent of the time, he was probably acting with something that was not actually there, the conviction he injects into each scene is amazing. 

There has been animosity from some quarters regarding the whole framing device of the adult Pi recounting the story to a writer, dismissing it as an unnecessary obstacle to the crux of the movie: the survival at sea. But those criticisms are wrong; the introductory scenes of the adult Pi recounting his early life in India to the writer interviewing him are a hundred per cent necessary for what eventually transpires. In fact it could be argued that these early scenes are what make the movie: they give a much needed back-story to Pi's youth: being raised at the family zoo, how he got his strange name, and his relationship with his decent - but very tough - father (a brilliant Adil Hussain), who teaches him a very harsh lesson about life and death. These scenes are riveting in themselves and serve as the icing on the cake for what's to come.

Strange as it may sound, the movie actually has a few things in common with a huge sci-fi movie: Avatar. Avatar looked great and the fear was we would have to wait until Avatar 2 before we would see a movie as beautiful again. Not so. Life of Pi is the first movie since Avatar to look THIS amazingly good. As with Avatar, the imagery has a fantastical element mixed in with all its sheer beauty. Furthermore, Life of Pi is also one of the first movies since Avatar to feature a CGI creation that is so photo-realistic and lifelike, that you can't actually tell which is which. The Tiger - Richard Parker – is a complex blend of real animals and computer generated ones. When it moves around on the boat, it's actually difficult to believe it's not a real Tiger – they got the weight distribution and movement so accurate, it's actually difficult to believe it's CGI. The effects company who did it deserve a lot of credit because they must have done a lot of research into the movements of Tigers to get such an accurate representation here. Let's just say Richard Parker in the Life of Pi puts Aslan the Lion in the 'Chronicles of Narnia' movies to shame. The seemingly small scale of the story somewhat underlies the evident technical wizardry that has gone on behind the scenes.

The movie moves fast, is very clever and intelligently executed, and always remains engrossing – despite the hefty running time. There is a very obvious religious motif that runs through the entire thing, which may irritate those who don't like being sledge hammered with spiritual doctrine. You see, much to his father's chagrin, Pi follows three religions simultaneously: Hindu, Christianity and Islam. If you came here for some fast 'put your brain in neutral' action, then you came to the wrong place, pilgrim. 

As with Avatar, the 3D stands out as one of the better examples of the format (check out the lizard running up and flicking its tongue into camera at the opening). Refreshingly, it has been shot in 3D rather than being doctored in 3D in post-production and for the most part avoids the old hurling stuff at ya' template that has become the common, go-to practice with movies such as these. With 'Life of Pi', Ang Lee has created a modern classic. Yes, there are elements of darkness to this tale, but surely all fables have those? Simultaneously life affirming while teaching a life-lesson too, this movie will have legs. While a lot of movies come and go, some even largely forgotten, this one looks and feels like something whose life can only extend and whose fan base can only build over time – due, no doubt, in part to the fact that it will become one of those perennial favorites; those rarities that are replayed endlessly every Christmas for new generations to enjoy. Yes, it is THAT good.

Ten combined factors why Skyfall didn’t work… but still got a free pass anyway

Now that the dust has finally settled on Skyfall, it’s worth going back to examine what exactly was wrong with it and why these factors were overlooked. Overall, it was a perfectly acceptable – if not remarkable - movie that somehow managed to dupe the multitude of brainwashed critics. The common reaction was ‘Best Bond Ever’ or ‘Best Bond in years’. Really? Am I missing something here? The fact is Skyfall was basically given a free pass. There were a few reasons why this happened, which subsequently made everyone overlook the myriad problems with it. Not convinced? Then check out the pointers below.

1. VERY LITTLE ACTION

The movie opens with a breathtaking and spectacular (if a bit derivative) sequence of Bond chasing a bad guy first of all on motorcycle before concluding with a rooftop fight aboard a moving train. It sets the benchmark very high, indeed; you’re expecting one of the best action movies in recent memory…  and then… there’s very little action for the remaining (very long) running time. Like any Bond, there’s bits and pieces scattered sporadically, but nothing that stands out. Compared to Tom Cruise’s ‘Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol’ – arguably one of the best action movies of recent years - this Bond vehicle is a bit of lame duck of a action movie.

2. PLOT HOLES GALORE

Another area of this movie that was vastly overlooked was the plot holes and inconsistencies in the narrative: (deep breath) considering Bond is wearing an earpiece, why didn’t he duck to avoid being hit/or signal to Eve to hold off from taking the shot that almost kills him? And why is Eve - beautiful as she is - accompanying Britain’s best agent when she can’t shoot for shit? Why is Bond allowed to meet Silva carrying a homing device in his pocket? How does MI6 suddenly locate - and then send via a text to Bond!  - the suspect that ‘cannot be traced’ and ‘has no know place of residence’? Why does M and Bond’s caretaker flee from Silva and his men carrying a lit flashlight – which the bad guys quickly see - during the house assault, hence giving away their presence? Why is Silva’s sex slave/girlfriend Sévérine in the room with the guy who Bond witnesses being assassinated and who is he?

3. M IS VERY UNLIKABLE

How would you feel watching a romantic movie where one of the leads is a complete bastard/bitch? Would it work? No? Well, that’s what you have here: because Skyfall is – of sorts – a romantic movie because it tells the story of the strange love between Bond and M; yet M is so cutting, cruel, ruthless and unlikeable, you really have to wonder why he would even bother to stick his neck out for her. Remember, this is the woman who called Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” and told him she had no problem “sending him to his death”. Furthermore, when he does ‘resurrect’ after the debacle of being shot by Eve in Istanbul, what are her words to him: not ‘thank heavens you’re alive!’ but “WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?” Yet, we’re supposed to rally behind her when her life is in danger and completely accept the fact that Bond is putting his life on the line for this bitter, strangely narcissistic old woman. Would Connery’s or Dalton’s Bond do it? Can’t imagine so. The fact is if they want us as audience to stand behind this woman, then they need make her LIKEABLE first.

4. DULL CLIMAX

If the lack of action throughout Skyfall was a shock, then the biggest insult comes at the end: a kind of retread of Home Alone/Straw Dogs where Bond essentially booby-traps a country mansion and awaits Silva and his croonies. This sequence is so familiar and dull in execution, it marks the climax as something of a letdown. If you were riveted by the opening sequence, but still held hope for a strong ending – despite the lack of action throughout - then you were in for a severe disappointment. It’s just so… dull. Combine the mundane and dead surroundings with a standard house assault sequence that could have come from any movie, and you have a conclusion that’s only as good as you’re willing to lower your expectations for. One expected at least a strong ending after the great opening, but for them to settle for an average gun battle rather a spectacular climax is hugley disappointing.

5. IT’S VERY DERIVATIVE

The Bond movies have always stole from other movies throughout their long history. From Russia With Love was kind of a Hitchcockian take on Bond, which even went so far to emulate a sequence from his own North By Northwest. When Blaxploitation was in vogue in the early 1970s, the makers injected it into ‘Live And Let die’; when Jaws was a huge hit in 1975, they named their villain Jaws; when Star Wars was a huge hit in 1977, the makers delayed the previously announced ‘For Your Eyes Only’ and made Moonraker instead – eschewing most of the novel and sending Bond to space!? Heck, they even ripped off another big hit in the same movie – using the five musical notes heard in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' to open a laboratory door. Then in the 21^st century when Jason Bourne movies were huge, they aped their style in Quantum of Solace. So it’s not exactly a secret to that for Skyfall they’ve copied/drew inspiration from another big hit franchise: The Dark Knight. It's an open secret that Silva is basically the Joker from that series. Heck, Bond and Silva even have an interrogation scene together just like Batman and the Joker, and Silva’s plans to cause chaos in London are very much like the Joker’s.

Okay so if that's what was wrong with it, why the free pass? Read on...

6. SAM MENDES DIRECTED IT/ROGER DEAKINS PHOTOGRAPHED IT

Ah, yes – when it was announced that this darling of stage and serious/dramatic cinema was directing a Bond movie, and one of the best cinematographers working today was photographing it, the overall reaction was very favorable and positive. What was not there to like? With the combined respect of filmmakers like Mendes and Deakins coming on board, it can only serve to give any Bond movie huge credibility. While a step up from Quantum of Solace though still not as good as Casino Royale, once Sam and Rog was on board, you can bet critics will sit up and take notice.

7. THE DIAMOND JUBILEE FACTOR

It just so happens that the release of Bond #23 coincided rather neatly with Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebration. This is an important point. Skyfall was released in the UK before the USA, so there was pervasive feeling of national pride having taken over the country. The Britishness of Skyfall was inevitably trumpeted in this Diamond Jubilee year, hence giving a free pass to a movie that had issues that were conveniently overlooked.

8. THE OLYMPICS FACTOR

Okay, so in addition to the Diamond Jubilee in June 2012, what happened next? Exactly – London hosted the 2012 Olympics. So if there wasn’t a ‘Can Do Anything’ attitude there already, it was certainly there by then. In addition, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting/Slumdog Millionaire) directed the ambitious Olympic opening, which – coincidentally – featured not only James Bond himself, but also Her Majesty the Queen! Coincidence? Not really when considering all the above points.

9. THE 50-YEAR FACTOR

Not only had you all the above celebrations to consider, there was also another not exactly small occasion: 2012 marked the fiftieth birthday of none other than James Bond himself! That’s right, folks – it was exactly 50 years since Jimmy first lit up that cigarette while introducing himself to the attractive woman seated across from him at the casino table. Fifty years of bond – half a century. Considering the abysmal ‘Die Another Day’ – a separate factor in itself - was the movie that marked the fortieth in 2002, it is indeed a huge step up that Skyfall is celebrating the fiftieth. Maybe if Pierce Brosnan starrer had been a celebrated masterpiece, then Skyfall wouldn’t have fared quite so lightly.

10. THE NOSTALGIC FACTOR

It’s got the old Aston Martin in it. ‘Nuff said. So there you have it. There were problems with the movie but there is no question the year in which it was released played a huge part in garnering favorable reviews. For everything Skyfall got right, it got a lot wrong. 

Yes, it may have been ‘pared back to the basics’, but the story suffered for it. Whereas the previous Bonds had a good balance between story and setpiece, all you get here are a few small bits in between. Let’s hope that the next one gets the formula RIGHT.

Skyfall Review: A low-key and not very action packed Bond

Note: I've tried to keep to keep things vague, but this may contain minor spoilers

In 2006, Martin Campbell directed 'Casino Royale' starring the then controversial choice of Daniel Craig. The casting of fair-haired Craig marked him as the first Bond to be blonde and – unlike his predecessors – the first actor to play Bond who was under six-foot (for the original producer, the late Cubby Broccoli, this would have been something of a strict no-no). The decision was greeted by almost widespread disapproval (heck, someone even set up a website to vent his fury at the decision)and things were not looking good. However, the risk paid off and Casino Royale turned out to be one of the best Bond movies in recent years. It did good business and laid the groundwork for the follow-up (and sequel, of sorts – a Bond first) 'Quantum of Solace'. While still being a huge hit, the words "boring" and "hard to follow" were not exactly uncommon place at the time. Which leads us onto the latest movie 'Skyfall' – the twenty-third in the franchise (that is if you don't count Sean Connery's 1983 venture in 'Never Say Never Again' and 1967's 'Casino Royale' starring – ahem – Woody Allen as 'Jimmy Bond').

After an operation goes wrong, Bond goes missing in action for a while – not in the least helped by the actions of M (Judi Dench). Meanwhile, a shadowy and ruthless figure from M's past comes back to haunt her by first of all exposing the names of undercover agents before moving on to more explosive tactics. This forces the now embittered double-o-seven to put his anger aside and return from the 'dead' to help his boss out with this latest threat to Queen and country. 

First thing's first: there is a lot that this movie does right. The entire cast are excellent. From a fantastic opening scene and the refreshingly low-tech opening titles which could have came from the seventies (a far cry from the CGI drenched titles of the Brosnan years) to the title song, sung in an unshowy, understated fashion by Adele, this movie marks a return to the basics in a way unseen since From Russia With Love. You see, Skyfall is not really about set pieces and gadgets; it's more of a drama this time – but with some action thrown in. 

As with the previous Craig movies, this kicks off with a – surprise, surprise – chase. Whereas Casino's was on foot and Quantum's was in cars, this one starts on foot, moves to motorcycles before ending up atop a moving train. Make no mistake: it really is riveting and on edge of your seat stuff, but it's something that comes back to haunt the filmmakers later on… Yes, you've guessed it: this movie suffers from a severe aliment known as 'The Dark Knight Rises syndrome'. What this means is the opening is SO good and spectacular and sets the bar so high, whatever comes after it can only hope to live up to it. And unfortunately, as with The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall also shoots its load too soon and although it tries, never quite lives up to the breathtaking opening. This movie has been celebrated as being the "best Bond movie ever". One can only assume this somewhat hyped-up opinion has been spurred on by the patriotism brought about by this being the year that the Queen celebrated her Diamond Jubilee and London hosted the 2012 Olympics because the movie does not in any way live up to the 'Best Bond Ever' tag. 

There are some aspects of this movie that don't make any sense. They may be a legacy of last minute script editing and if this is the case, it really shows. For example, in one part of the movie, Bond and co discuss a certain evil character who has no country/nationality/next of kin and is basically a 'ghost' with no permanent base/home; yet Bond quickly gets the location of his next destination via a simple text. In another part, Bond is taken to meet Silva - the bad guy of this movie (a fantastic Javier Bardem) by boat. While on deck, he takes out a homing device and puts it in his pocket. This understandably has bad repercussions for Silva and leads inevitably to the obvious question: why on earth wasn't Bond frisked beforehand? Meanwhile, in another scene, two people are trying to flee stealthily from a violent shoot- out/assault in a rural area so as not to alert the ruthless hit men; yet they don't have the gumption to avoid switching on their flashlight which alerts the bad guys. It is silly moments like these that really drag the quality of this movie down a notch. There's no excuse – the makers have had four years to sort this stuff out. And let's not get started about all the product placement… 

The rather odd thing about this movie is it cost a reported two hundred million dollars to put up on the screen, but it does not look it. James Cameron was able to make Avatar for just forty million more and in 3D. For the amount of money that was spent on Skyfall, you kind of expect spectacle, i.e., envelop pushing action scenes. In general, most people come to see Bond movies for the excitement and the action. Who can forget the helicopter/roof chase of 'Tomorrow Never Dies'? Or the huge, multiple tanker truck set piece at the end of 'Licence to Kill'? With the exception of the exciting – and spectacular opening scene -sadly, the set pieces here are few and far between. There's a few sporadic action scenes scattered throughout the long running time but they're so brief as to not stand out like previous Bonds. Tellingly, when Sam Mendes was interviewed by British film critic Mark Kermode on the Culture Show, he said "fifty-per cent" of his time was spent on the opening sequence. That's right - fifty per cent of his time was just for the opening sequence. This may explain why the rest of the movie is so lacking in action. Yes, Sam Mendes may have took the admirable step of taking things back to its 'roots', but it comes at a cost of the very thing that Bond is known for.

In conclusion, while Casino Royale still remains the benchmark of the Daniel Craig outings – if not also the best Bond movie of the last fifteen years – this is still a huge improvement over Quantum of Solace, and makes for an engaging two-hour plus of good story telling. It's just a shame that the number of large-scale action set pieces can be counted on one hand.

And the screaming starts… It's the Attack of the Beast Creatures!

There are movies that defy logic. Attack of the Beast Creatures is one of those movies and is as cheesy as its ill conceived, though still somewhat pleasingly shoddy B movie title might suggest. Set in the 1920s, a group of beleaguered survivors flee their sinking vessel in a brief but still pretty effective opening matte/forced perspective shot. Tensions are frayed and to make matters worse, they get washed up on an uncharted 'tropical' island. From there they decide to explore their new surroundings only to find that it's inhabited by tiny long-haired cannibals - the Beast Creatures of the title - that are hell bent on making the unfortunate survivors the main course of their banquet. Cue: lots of running around and screaming – there's lots of screaming in this movie.

Most of the attack scenes are mundanely staged, consisting of the actors screaming and gyrating into camera with plastic dolls stuck to their torsos. The movie's a poverty row effort on every level and it does show, but the filmmakers do get good production value from a skeleton prop - the kind used in medical schools - that shows up no fewer than three times. The cast spend most of their time wandering aimlessly and endlessly through their menacing 'island' locale. We continuously see shots of them trekking through a forest that's clearly not the tropics where the movie's meant to be set. In one particular shot they even look like they're skipping through the jungle rather than walking as there are arms flailing everywhere.

The beast creatures themselves are not at all convincing and resemble children's toys more than the malevolent miniature thugs they're supposed to be. There are lots of shots of them being flung into the air and thrown at trees, somewhat betraying their doll/puppet origins. In some instances they're even being held into shot on the ends of wooden poles operated by the clearly 'up for it' crew. The big 'set piece' that occurs 51 minutes in consists of nothing but a long sequence where the cast simply stands around holding static puppets to their bodies while screaming their lungs out. Having said that, various shots of the creatures zipping through the forest at high-speed display a certain amount of ingenuity on the part of the filmmakers. They're really quite well done and not completely devoid of merit and charm. Also the idea of acid lakes on the island is very imaginative and the scene where one unfortunate cast member stops to take a drink from the aforementioned lake is done quite well, albeit the horror is let down somewhat by the usual gratuitous and feeble screaming.

There are some bad edits and dodgy choices of takes in this movie. For example due to incorrect color timing during one particular zoom-in shot, a lone beast creature is barely visible hidden among the undergrowth. You actually have to pause and rewind the footage to see it and even at that, it's very difficult. Furthermore, after a female cast member's hand is bitten by one of the little carnivores, the actor playing the character of 'Morgan' clearly fluffs his line, but still continues to utter the dialog without batting an eyelid.

In another example of questionable editing, during the survivors' final bid for escape at the end, we're treated to a 'greatest hits' compilation of all the movies 'special effects' moments for no reason whatsoever other than to highlight the fact that the filmmakers were evidently very proud of what they achieved. But it's still hard not to like a movie where the hero makes a desperate last dash for the ocean and freedom – all the while struggling manfully against static rubber dolls that are clearly just tacked onto his clothes.

Director Michael Stanley never made another movie again until 2008 and based on this, it is not surprising Hollywood never came knocking on his door. Neither did any of his cast go on to do better things, though it has to be said the female performances in the film are somewhat better than the males. But all things considered this is still an enjoyably insane film. Though at times slow and ponderously paced, Attack of the Beast Creatures is a lot of fun. If you watch it with the correct mindset, i.e., in the company of some like-minded friends and lots of beer,there is no reason why you won't enjoy this particular slice of 80s B movie madness.

While the movie was released on video in the 90s, it remains unreleased on DVD, though it was/is available from the director himself via online ordering. Yes, it could be argued that the entire effort is amateurish, but the film still isn't without its cult value and appeal. If a director and cast commentary was thrown into the mix along with some trailers and a comprehensive 'making of' documentary (where is the cast? What are they doing now?), there'd be absolutely no excuse for this movie to languish in limbo any more and maybe then it could finally get the much deserved and long overdue official DVD release.

If you want to watch the best part - the attack on the survivors - click the the link below.

Alternatively, if you think you can tolerate the entire movie, click here to watch it right now.