Patton

Today marks the 72^nd year that the Second World War ended. In celebration, I would like to finally review one of my all-time favorite war films, “Patton,” released in 1970.

The opening scene, where General George S. Patton Jr., played by the great George C. Scott, is on stage against the bright background of the American flag, has got to be the most memorable part of this great biography of one of the most influential and interesting men ever to have been in the military. He gives a powerful monologue in front of his unseen army, hilariously showered with swearing but never sugar-coated, preparing the dangerous sights of World War II and the confident, positive attitude of a powerful U.S. leader. Next comes the credits with Jerry Goldsmith’s appropriate theme music, with a dash of a powerful march and booming trumpets, preparing a great man’s amazing heroic rise, public fall, and inevitable formidability in front of his enemy.

At the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in 1943, American prisoners are stripped of their clothing and weapons before they can get hurt. It’s an embarrassing defeat. One that needs a strong person to correct the low tolerance of scared troops. To respond, the supreme Patton is taken from Morocco to North Africa to straighten them out. With discipline, fanaticism, and the right amount of fear, Patton brings his men back into good arms. Battle fatigue and damages done by self are just being weak, which really irritates him. Mike Massie stated in their review, “However, it’s evident that the air supremacy as supplied and guaranteed by the British isn’t reliable, and inferior ordnance also played a part in the Kasserine annihilation.”

Mike Massie go on to say, “Amidst writing poetry and spouting sincere beliefs in reincarnation, Patton researches and plans an initiative against the much-admired German Field Marshal Rommel,” played by Karl Michael Vogler. The Nazis similarly search their new enemy, saying that Patton is a romantic leader lost in modern times and that his tactics can be foretold based on previous wars. His next target is definitely Sicily, because the Athenians believed it was the heart of Italy. Many of the scenes showcased German military show Allied forces and their commanders are actually funny, showing that both sides really plan out carefully. Massie mentioned, “The typical, chilling WWII movie monsters are merely players in a stimulating game (similarly, the usual, graphically intense storming of Normandy Beach is relegated to a few seconds of archival news footage). Human lives are but pawns on a chessboard landscape, with headliners Patton and British hero Montgomery (Michael Bates) competing for fame and wins, even when fellow generals believe the matchup and movements are purely gambles with infantry death at stake. It’s evident that, like the common jurisdictional problems of various law enforcement divisions in film, the military jousting of affiliated servicemen contradicts ultimate supremacy.”

Patton is an anti-hero with debatable reasons and questionable thoughts, hated by many of the ordinary soldier looks and publically embarrassed over a forced apology for being too hard on a soldier who was completely shaken (to which Massie credited, “in a key scene in which Scott’s manifestation of the persona is absolutely electrifying.”) Massie said, “The misinterpretation of Patton’s criticisms from American newspapers pokes fun at the perceived silliness of condemning the best opponent for slapping a poltroon; this concept is astonishingly used against the Germans, who rightly can’t conceive of the unintentional deception.” However, Patton is also quite likable, standing up for his country, bravery, loyalty, and winning by any means, stuck on participating in the war in a powerful way, despite his loud tone getting him in trouble during the main problems.

Rarely does an actor embody a role so well that they singlehandedly take over the film to a point that Scott does in “Patton.” His portrayal has become identical with the real general, unfrighten by the idea that a lot of the performance disagrees with the man’s actual plan. Although Omar Bradley, a general who served with Patton, worked as a consultant, it’s still widely believed that many details are not true. However, Scott’s eventual Best Actor Oscar win was much deserved and will always be remembered for his refusal to accept it – simply that he was not in an acting contest.

Massie mentioned, “Not to go unmentioned, the scenes of tank warfare are particularly thrilling and effective, utilizing an abundance of vehicles, artillery, explosions, and widespread locations for grandly choreographed assaults.” The film brings together a memorable character with smart demonstrations of military strategizing, excelling scripting by Francis Ford Coppola (from the Patton biography by Ladislas Farago), and great direction by Franklin J. Schaffner, giving one of the greatest war movies ever made. Massie ended the review by saying, “Ending in a sublime bit of Don Quixote imagery, this 1970 Best Picture Academy Award winner helped the polemic warrior become an immortalized American folk hero.”

This would be the end of the review, but it’s not. Like I said, when George C. Scott refused to accept his Oscar for “Patton,” he decided to play Patton, this time where he thought was a more accurate way, in “The Last Days of Patton.” Like the first film, this one is based on a book by Ladislas Farago, which Scott optioned in 1981. Adapted by William Luce, it was broadcasted by CBS in 1986.

Scott’s continuing concern with Patton has a questioning part. Like the general, Scott had a reputation for being “difficult.” However, Scott looked serious in depicting that “Old Blood and Guts,” as Patton was called by people who liked and hated him, was a likably complex man. Underneath his tough façade, it looked like there was a noble man of learning, warmth and good humor. John J O’Connor stated in his review, “Perhaps, but for all of Mr. Scott's enthusiasm, most objective viewers are likely to agree with an observation made by Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general's commanding officer.” After praising Patton for his daring ability, Ike, played by Richard Dysart, said: “But those very qualities that made you great in wartime make you a pain in the neck in peacetime.”

The movie takes place in 1945. Patton wants to join the war still being fought in the Pacific but is instead given Military Governor of Bavaria. His behavior and policies quickly make international headlines. O’Connor said, “Instead of following Eisenhower's orders for the ''de-Nazification'' of the region, Patton begins focusing on rebuilding the country, going so far as to prepare German prisoners of war for a battle with Russia that he envisions five years down the road. Patton believes that there is ''no need to de-Nazify since 98 percent of the Nazis were pushed'' into the party. Besides, he refuses to refill the Bavarian cabinet with ''displaced Jews and Communists.''”

Scott’s portrayal of this strange man quickly gives a kind of gruff manner that will get no nonsense from inferiors, a group that pretty much means everyone. O’Conner said, “He gives us a kind of Rambo pere, insisting that the man be admired no matter what his excesses.” If Patton spends a good amount of time horseback riding with a former S.S. colonel, it is only because he can like any well-trained soldier. If Patton is unaffected, to say the least, about the experience of the Jews in Germans captivities, Scott can be generously understanding. O’Connor noted, “In a recent magazine article, the actor explained: ''He was not anti-Semitic, but he made anti-Semitic remarks about the poor Jews liberated from the concentration camps. They weren't neat enough for him.''”

In any case, in October 1945, with the war over, Patton was relocated by an understandably livid Eisenhower to the 15^th Army command, which was mainly tasked with paperwork. In December, a couple of weeks before Christmas, his spinal column was damaged in a severe car accident. The entire last half of this three-hour film showcased to the 12 days he spend in an Army hospital before he passed on December 21. Present are, among others, his devoted wife, Beatrice (Eva Marie Saint), and loyal friend General Hobart Gay (Murray Hamilton), Patton is lying in bed, his head being held in place by a number of devices (at one point, devices like fish hooks are on his cheeks). There are flashbacks to the past that do little more than show how close Patton was to his father, also a military man. O’Connor said, “Throughout, of course, members of the press, Patton's ''pinko journalists,'' are treated like blithering idiots.”

The film, directed powerfully by Delbert Mann and produced by William F. Storke and Alfriend R. Kelman, has interesting details. The general’s relationship with is wife’s niece, Jean Gordon, played by Kathryn Leigh Scott, is shown as considerably more than friendly. We are reminded that Patton, arguably offended, never received the Medal of Honor. However, for the most part, we are given with Scott treating himself in what must be one of the longest death scenes in movie history. It is a right chance, of course, for getting sympathy. “He’s a doll,” jokes one of the nurses, “rough and kinda cute.” For everything, the general and this curious movie is still resistible.

I highly recommend everyone watch these two films. I know that “Patton” has been heard by everyone, but “The Last Days of Patton” may not have been heard of because it was a made-for-television sequel. Now that I have brought that attention to everyone, I hope that everyone will watch these films because they are a must. If you like war films, you will definitely like these two.

Check in next Friday for the continuation of “Religious Epic Month.”

The Robe

For this entire month, I will be looking at other religious epics that I have recently finished watching. Let’s kick things off with the 1953 classic, “The Robe.”

This is not hard to grasp. The adaptation that Gina Kaus made from the late Lloyd C. Douglas’ best-selling novel and the screenplay that Philip Dunne has made have emphasized physical action more than the drama of feelings and words. The power of Christ’s presence and spirit on a Roman tribune’s slave and, eventually, on the tribune is not done in clear view. It is just made as a guess on the events that follow. The consequence is that the inspiration of Christ’s spirit, which is the essential part of this story, is just through a process of elimination from the powerful music and the expressions in eyes.

Bosley Crowther stated in his review, “And when these eyes appear in faces that often loom upon the screen in close-ups of mammoth proportions, and when the music surges and swells from magnified multiple speakers that make up the system's stereophonic sound, the violent assault upon the senses dissipates spiritual intimacy.”

Likewise, the slow pace in many of the major scenes and the details of the story, which has the movie last more than two hours, makes to affect the heavy senses with a feeling of honest boredom.

Crowther mentioned, “However, the vastness of the images upon the sixty-eight by twenty-four-foot screen, the eye-filling vigor of the action and the beauty of some of the shots compensate with fascinations and excitements that keep the customer upright in his chair.” The performances by the actors are – from everything – remarkably done well.

Crowther noted, “Richard Burton, the young English actor who distinguished himself previously in Twentieth Century Fox "My Cousin Rachel," is stalwart, spirited and stern as the arrogant Roman tribune who has command of the crucifixion of Christ and who eventually becomes a passionate convert through an obsession about the Savior's robe.” Jean Simmons is likable and passionate as the Roman maid who loves this daring man, Victor Mature is well-build and mercurial as the early converted Greek slave.

Michael Rennie is serious and excellent as Simon Called Peter, who they call “the big fisherman.” Dean Jagger is full of faithfulness as a nice convert and Jay Robinson is twisted and harsh as Caligula. Sever other actors are in here in minor roles depending on the situations that Director Henry Koster had viewed.

It is necessary that Christ is look on as a wide-robed person on a faraway mountain and a tortured, blurry victim hung on the heavy Cross. In this regard the movie has pride and limitation.

All of this said, I know that the movie wasn’t well-received by critics, but I thought this was a powerful religious epic that everybody should see. Don’t listen to the bad reviews, just see it for yourselves to find out. Let me tell you, I think this is worth it.

Check in next week when I look at the sequel to this movie in “Religious Epic Month.”

Hallowen Month 2017 Announcement

Hi, how’s everyone doing? I just wanted to come out and give a special announcement regarding this year’s “Halloween Month.”

When I first started out blogging and October came, I was heavily inspired by James Rolfe with his “Monster Madness” marathon that he had been doing on his website, Cinemassacre. Watching his videos every year since he started out, I really liked his reviews on all the horror movies and I thought that I would do my own version of it, crediting James and saying he was my inspiration.

Last year, around this time, when he had announced that it was going to be his tenth and final year doing “Monster Madness,” that’s when I came to a realization: I was running into the same problem he was.

Now, I feel like I don’t have enough horror movies to fill the entire month of October out with anymore. With the number of horror movies that I have watched, I’m running out of movies to fill up the entire month of October with. You might be saying, “Well, watch 31 Halloween related movies and write a review on them.” That could work, but you got to understand the procedure that goes into making these reviews.

First, I have to select the movie that I want to review. If I haven’t seen it, I have to watch it. Once that is done, I have to find a reviewer who I agree with what they are saying and write a review while crediting that reviewer that I am citing. Plus, there may be times when I am typing up a review, and I pause in the middle because I get distracted.

I wouldn’t mind watching 31 Halloween related movies, but if I were to do that every year, then that would interrupt what I want to review every month of the year. I would be putting all my efforts into October and not for the remainder of the year, and that wouldn’t be fair to all of you. Plus, cramming 31 movie reviews in October is really tiring and I do feel burnt out by the end of the month that I feel I need to take some time off before posting reviews again, which I have stated every year. If I were to watch and review 31 horror movies, that would be really exhausting.

Now I know there are those saying, “Why don’t you let someone write the review for you?” Then it wouldn’t be me saying what I think, but someone else. My fellow partner, reviewreviewer1, hasn’t contacted me for some time now, and we haven’t really collaborated on a review since the Star Wars joint reviews. We were going to redo the Spider-Man movie reviews, but I lost the reviews of the films that we had done. Also, he might have a different opinion on a movie then I would, so if he likes the film and I don’t, then it wouldn’t make sense for him to write the review. If we agree, then we can put our inputs together in our reviews. However, that too takes some time and effort, as you might have noticed with the Star Wars reviews.

Just to let you know, I am going to be reviewing 31 movies this “Halloween Month,” but this will be the last year that it will be done. That seems fitting to end that off with five years. With that said, “Halloween Month” is not going anywhere. I will still be reviewing Halloween movies in October, but they will be shorter. It will either be on a franchise that has a number of sequels that will be spread out throughout the month, or it will be the traditional Friday reviews.

With this format, it will open my reviews up for more time and effort, which I feel will be needed, since I don’t plan on what month will be what reviews until time gets closer. I already have October ready, which will be on the top three franchises that fit Halloween horror, and I think you all know which ones I am referring to. I feel that they are right to end off the 31 movie review tradition for “Halloween Month,” and I'm really excited to review those three franchises.

I personally want to thank James for the inspiration he gave me on creating “Halloween Month,” and I feel like I can relate to him when he officially retired “Monster Madness.” Only difference is that he did the marathon twice as long as I did mine, but he’s more of the horror buff than I am.

Just to recap: this coming October will be the last “Halloween Month” with the 31 horror movie tradition. Now I can open up my schedule for more movie reviews down the road, and “Halloween Month” will continue, but in a shorter and concise method. I don't think I will ever run out of horror movies to review for October, since the genre never ends.

Check in next month to see what I review for September and prepare for “Halloween Month 2017” this coming October. I feel like I owe it to my online audience who have been reading my reviews since the beginning to give them a heads up now until later. Take care.

Spectre

Daniel Craig said that he'd rather "kill himself" than star in another Bond film – and in "Spectre," released in 2015, his torture's evident. He's always been a different type of Bond – more human, more tough, cooler – but here he looks facially bored. I agree with Max Weiss when he said in his review, "Someone needs to remind Craig that there’s a difference between “unflappable” and “not able to muster any facial expressions.”" 

Weiss goes on to say, "This is particularly ironic because, with Spectre, Craig has been gifted (trolled?) with the cheesiest opening credits sequence of any Bond film in recent memory. I’m talking Octopussy levels of cheesy. Suffice it to say, it involves Craig shirtless, bronzed, and draped in octopus tentacles and hot babes. Sam Smith’s disco-flavored theme song adds to the wonderful awfulness." 

Weiss continues, "There’s some real cognitive dissonance between those retro-cheesy opening credits and the film itself—which is slick, expensive-looking, and largely bloodless." The tone is made right from the start. The starting Bond scenes are supposed to be eye-popping, so dangerously over-the-top that you laugh with enjoyment. Instead, we're given a standard rooftop chase scene, an explosion, and a fight on a falling helicopter, everything that looks pretty basic by Hollywood action standards. Weiss said, "At least the backdrop to all of this—Mexico City’s Day of the Dead parade—creates some arresting images. Director Sam Mendes sure knows how to frame a pretty scene." 

From there, it's the same thing we're used to seeing, but done in a surprisingly boring way. There's a new M (Ralph Fiennes (wasted)) and a new villain (Christoph Waltz (predictable)), and some story involving the same subject of global surveillance. Weiss mentioned, "There’s much globetrotting—Austria, Rome, Tangier, and London are among the locales—all ticked off in a workmanlike way, with skyline shots to prove they were really filmed on location (the film showed us the London Eye so many times, I assumed it would eventually become part of the action—no such luck)." As always, Bond goes solo and his friends at MI6 (including Ben Whishaw's Q and Naome Harris's Mrs. Moneypenny) cover up for him. As always, he crashes fancy cars, hunts down the villain and his henchmen (Dave Bautista is believably scary as the head henchman), and sleeps with two women – Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux (both really hot) - the latter which he falls in love with. Sadly, the romance with Seydoux is as unbelievable and boring as the rest of the film. (When she tells Bond she loves him, even he looks a little surprised.) 

For a Bond film, there are surprisingly a few gadgets – despite there is a funny part involving a car that Bond steals from Q's lab that hasn't been checked for any sort of mistakes – and when the loving, dashing Bond theme interrupts the action, it actually feels misused. 

Weiss commented, "Here’s the deal. These days, Bond films are competing with the likes of Mission Impossible, the Bourne series, and even the Fast and Furious franchise for action supremacy. If they can’t top them, action wise, they better take advantage of their inherent Bondness." The cars, the women, the tuxes, the martinis, the jokes – these are the traits we're watching for. It's all meant to be enjoyable entertainment, on top of a wink, not dry and serious stuff. A Bond that takes itself too seriously is not a Bond to watch. 

Despite all of this that is mentioned above, this one isn't as bad as "Quantum of Solace." It's actually enjoyable compared to that, but when comparing it to "Skyfall" or "Casino Royale," this isn't on the same level of enjoyment that we get from a Bond movie like that. If you want to check it out, you can, but it won't be really that memorable, I'm sorry to say. 

Now that concludes "James Bond Month." I wonder what's next for the Bond series. When will the next one be released? Will Daniel Craig reprise it again, or will they switch actors? If they do, who will they select? What will the next story tell? The possibilities are endless, and we will see when that time comes. I hope everyone enjoyed these reviews, and hopefully those who have never seen any Bond film will be motivated to watch them after reading my reviews. 

Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store for everyone next. In the meantime, I'm going to take a well needed vacation after posting reviews everyday this month.

Skyfall

In this 50th year of the James Bond franchise, with the sour taste of "Quantum of Solace" still in our mouths, "Skyfall," released in 2012, thankfully redoes Bond in one of the best films ever. This is a non-stop, enjoyable, smart entry of one of the favorite characters, with Daniel Craig at the helm of a role he debuted in "Casino Royale," but didn't do so well in "Quantum of Solace" - but it may not have been completely his fault. Roger Ebert said in his review, "Or is it just that he's growing on me? I don't know what I expected. I don't know what I expected in Bond No. 23, but certainly not an experience this invigorating." 

The movie's inventions start in the beginning scenes, which expunge the usual pursuing portrait in the camera lens, and start off swiftly. Bond and another agent are in Istanbul, chasing a man, played by Ola Rapace, who has stolen a critical hard drive, and after a chase through city streets (which contain about three Fruit Cart Scenes), Bond is running on top of a train. We know from the prior films that Bond can do almost anything, but "Skyfall" amazingly has him control a giant Caterpillar and continue the chase by smashing a flatcar filled with VW Beetles. 

It's the type of hilarity we see in a Bond film, but this one does something new: a dead-serious M, following what happened from MI6 in London and choosing a serious choice. After the villain agent uses Bond as a human shield, M's other agent, Eve, played by Naomie Harris, has both men in clear shooting range. The pressure is intense. "Take the shot!" M orders. Bond looks like he dies, but since this is around the 20-minute area, we're not at all shocked that he doesn't. 

M begins to put together the eulogy of Commander James Bond, and she could just be writing her own. Time goes by, she's aged, and her new boss, Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes, gathers a public hearing meant for her to explain her actions. It's time for the people to have the question answered. Even Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and, as we see, Miss Moneypenny are basically younger. 

M is not ready to retire, and "Skyfall" finally gives a role worthy of Judi Dench, one of the best actors of her time. She is just a co-star of the film, with a lot of screen time, emotional dialogue, and a character who is way more complex and sympathetic than we think in this franchise. The film is made by a considerable director (Sam Mendes), written by the masterful Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan, and give not only an awesome Bond but an awesome movie, that's all. If you haven't seen a Bond movie for years, this is the time to start back again. 

There's a thinking that you can rank the franchise based on how good their villains are. In "Skyfall," this is an intelligent narcissus named Silva, played by Javier Barden, whose unpronounceable Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" was as high of a villain as Hannibal Lecter. Here he is a bleached blonde computer genius who stole the drive that has classified identities of every MI6 agent. Ebert asked, "Are we supposed to think of Julian Assange?" 

This is an innovative Bond with love and respect for the old Bond. This is clearly seen during Bond's visit to the old Scottish mansion that has Kincade, played by Albert Finney, living in it, who has secrets to tell and continues the movie's rewriting the character's back story. During the previous Bonds, did we ever think about Bond's origins in life? "Skyfall" even gives a moment made to inspire affection for Bond fans: a reappearance of the Aston Martin DB5 from "Goldfinger," which is still in good working condition. 

Just as Christopher Nolan gave new life to the Batman movies in "The Dark Knight," here is James Bond brought back, refreshed, back on the road and ready for another 50 years. Ebert ended his review by asking, "And am I completely misguided when I expect to see Miss Moneypenny become a Bond girl in the next film?" 

"Skyfall" is up there with "Casino Royale." After an underwhelming Bond film in "Quantum of Solace," "Skyfall" made Bond fans interested in the series again. Definitely don't skip this one because it will give back what made Bond so great again. This one is a must and is one of the best in the series. 

Alright everyone, tomorrow is it. The finale of "James Bond Month" will be tomorrow, so stay tuned for the conclusion. Will the latest one be good or bad? Only one way to find out, so hang on tight. 

Quantum of Solace

Let’s jump right in and say to James Bond that he better not let this happen again. “Quantum of Solace,” released in 2008, is his 22^nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23^rd, they better go back to the storyboards and remake everything from step one. One important fact: “James Bond is not an action hero!” He is too good for that. He is a behavior. Violence is irritating for him. He’s there for the foreplay and the smoking. He once in a while meets a truly evil villain. Roger Ebert mentioned, “More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.”

Ebert said, “"Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again," words that could have been used by Kent after King Lear utters the saddest line in all of Shakespeare: "Never! Never! Never! Never! Never!" The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive.”

You won’t see that here. The chase, with Bond constantly being shot at with machineguns, is so swiftly and so obviously made up of unintelligible CGI that we’re mainly looking at bright colors flying around each other, cut together with Bond at the steering wheel and POV shots of fast driving monster trucks. Let’s think this together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by a machinegun bullet, despite how many rounds have been fired? The hit men should just drop that and say, “No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie.”

The chase has nothing to do with the rest of the story, which is usual for Bond, but it’s about the movie’s last look at tradition. In “Quantum of Solace” he will have not relaxing quality time with the Bond girl, played by Olga Kurylenko. Ebert said, “We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen.” In this film, what’s the name? You want to know? Camille. That’s it. Camille. Ebert said, “Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O'Toole's friend Cam Shaft.”

Daniel Craig is still an amazing Bond, one of the best. He is handsome, swift, muscular, and dangerous. Everything but loquacious. Ebert said, “I didn't count, but I think M (Judi Dench) has more dialogue than 007.” Bond doesn’t look like he wants to sleep with Camille that crossed his mind. He smashes a hotel in the middle of a huge, empty, endless Bolivian desert. Ebert noted, “It's a luxury hotel, with angular W Hotel-style minimalist room furniture you might cut your legs on, and a bartender who will stir or shake you any drink, but James has become a regular bloke who orders lager. Who are the clients at this highest of high-end hotels? Lawrence of Arabia, obviously, and millionaires who hate green growing things. Conveniently, when the hotel blows up, the filmmakers don't have to contend with adjacent buildings, traffic, pedestrians, skylines or anything else. Talk about your blue screen. Nothing better than the azure desert sky.”

Why is he in Bolivia? Chasing after a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but … Dominic Greene, played by Mathiew Amalric. What is Dominic’s evil plan to rule the planet? For starters, the villain wants to corner the water supply of … Bolivia. Sounds bad. Ebert said, “This twisted design, revealed to Bond after at least an hour of death-defying action, reminds me of the famous laboratory mouse who was introduced into a labyrinth.” After fighting his way for days through ridiculous corridors and all these dead ends, finally, finally reaching thirst and starvation, the demented man edges finally to the training button and throws his little body at it. What comes down the chute as his prize? A licorice gum ball.

Dominic Greene doesn’t have a base on the moon, or at the bottom of the sea. He controls everything from a simply shipping warehouse with loading docks. His villainous car is given by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn’t have to sneak out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peaks through. Ebert said, “Greene could get useful security tips from Wal-Mart.”

There is no Q in “Quantum of Solace,” except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. Judi Dench, what a sly person. Bond doesn’t even come near her. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn’t bring much to the film. Ebert credited, “Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it.”

This movie is a disappointment. After such an amazing hit with “Casino Royale,” you would think that they would do it again, but they didn’t. Instead, we get a very underwhelming Bond film, which has been a while now, but it shouldn’t be this way. If you want to, go ahead and skip this one.

However, look out tomorrow for a redeeming film in “James Bond Month.”

Casino Royale (2006)

Now we have come to the fantastic 2006 Bond film, “Casino Royale.” Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “"Casino Royale" has the answers to all my complaints about the 45-year-old James Bond series, and some I hadn't even thought of. It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one.”

This movie is new from the start. This might be your first Bond film you have seen. Actually, it was the first Bond. It was Ian Fleming’s first James Bond book, and he was still trying to find out who the character was. Ebert noted, “The longtime Saltzman-Broccoli producing team could never get their hands on the rights until now, despite earlier misadventures by others using the same title, and maybe it's just as well, because it provides a fresh starting place. And it returns to the family fold; with her father's passing, Barbara Broccoli is producer.”

Yes, Daniel Craig makes an awesome Bond: Slimmer, more silent, less women-obsessed, and able to be hurt inside and out, not caring if his martini is shaken or stirred. Ebert admitted, “That doesn't make him the "best" Bond, because I've long since given up playing that pointless ranking game; Sean Connery was first to plant the flag, and that's that.” However, Daniel Craig kills it as Bond, in a movie that makes a new world for the character.

Every time a new Bond film was released, it was like seeing a ritual. There was the opening stunt scene that didn’t do anything for the story, except to dissolve into the titles, the title song, Miss Moneypenny, M with a mission of life-threatening to the country, Q with some new gadgets, an antagonist, a series of hot women, some damsels, some evil, all frequently in areas of scantily clad, the villain’s devious plan, Bond’s near death, and a lot of chases. It could be great, it could be usual, but you always knew about where you were in the stages.

Ebert said, “With "Casino Royale," we get to the obligatory concluding lovey-dovey on the tropical sands, and then the movie pulls a screeching U-turn and starts up again with the most sensational scene I have ever seen set in Venice, or most other places.” It’s a movie that keeps on giving.

This time, no Moneypenny, no Q, and Judi Dench is back as M, given a larger role, and allowed to look really hard and disapprove to the dangerous Bond. Ebert noted, “This time, no dream of world domination, but just a bleeding-eyed rat who channels money to terrorists. This time a poker game that is interrupted by the weirdest trip to the parking lot I've ever seen. This time, no laser beam inching up on Bond's netherlands, but a nasty knotted rope actually whacking his hopes of heirs.”

Ebert went on to say, “And this time, no Monte Carlo, but Montenegro, a fictional casino resort, where Bond checks into the "Hotel Splendid," which is in fact, yes, the very same Grand Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary where Queen Latifah had her culinary vacation in "Last Holiday." That gives me another opportunity to display my expertise on the Czech Republic by informing you that "Pupp" is pronounced "poop," so no wonder it's the Splendid.”

Ebert continues, “I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. Vesper Lynd, however, is definitely stirring, as she was in Bertolucci's wonderful "The Dreamers." Sometimes shaken, too.” Vesper and Bond have a shower scene that finally answers why nobody in a Bond movie ever looks like they have any real emotions.

Ebert said, “A review should not be a list. So I should not enumerate all the scenes I liked. But I learn from IMDb that the special credit for the "free running" scenes of Sabastian Foucan refers to the sensational opening Madagascar foot chase in which Foucan practices parkour, or the ability to run at walls and angles and bounce off them to climb or change direction; Jackie Chan could do similar feats.”

Which brings us to another point. Most of the chases and stunts in “Casino Royale” take place in something unclearly guessing real space and time. Ebert said, “Of course I know they use doubles and deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real.” Recently, with the start of portable cameras and CGI editing, action movies have replaced visual disaster for visual beauty.

Ebert mentioned, “I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about "The Bourne Ultimatum." One guy said, "Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?" Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are.”

The plot focuses on a series of high-stakes poker game, where Bond will try to remove le Chiffre, played by Mad Mikkelsen, of 10 million or more pounds that would go to finance terrorism. Le Chiffre (“The Cypher”) has problems on his own, because he owes so much money to the people who give him what he needs. Director Martin Campbell builds suspense in the extended poker game by really focusing a lot for long periods of times on the eyes of the two people, which is very much effective because Le Chiffre’s left eye has tears of blood, queuing a classic Bond line. Bond not being at the poker table is more than ordinary interest.

This is the second Bond film that Campbell directed, after “Goldeneye,” but he makes it into his own and everyone else’s usual. He’s helped by Craig, who gives the idea of a tough guy, damaged by life and his job, who actually does care about people and right and wrong. To some extent, the earlier Bonds were shameless experts. With this one, since he has a huge scene involving a merchant’s house in Venice, we can give ourselves a pass for knowing that if you hit him, he bleeds.

As the first Bond film that the great Daniel Craig played 007, he really killed it in here. In my opinion, he is on par with Connery as the best Bond. I can’t decide which one is better because they are both good in their own ways. On top of that, everything in this movie is just edge-of-your-seat excitement that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. If you want to start off with Craig’s 007 films, it’s a great place to start. This is another 007 movie that is a must see because this could be the best Bond movie ever, but that’s debatable. LazerDude99 and Jeremy Jahns both said this is their favorite Bond, which I can understand.

Seeing how Craig made a great debut as Bond, check in tomorrow to see if the next one will be good or bad in “James Bond Month.”