Details on the new James Bond movie came out today.  (Wheeee! #23!)   A press release gave a brief plot outline, saying Bond’s loyalty to M is tested “as her past comes back to haunt her.  “As MI6 (British intelligence) comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.”

Here’s five cool things about the movie:

#5: Judi Dench returns at M.  She has proved in reversing the gender role of this character actually made them more intriguing.

#4: Sam Mendes is directing.  He’s got a unique style that he brought to two movies I really loved.  American Beauty and Away We Go.

#3: Skyfall – Way cool title. I’m guessing there’s a superweapon called sky fall that may threaten everyone.

#2: The release of Skyfall in 2012 will mark the 50th anniversary of the Bond brand.

#1: Javier Bardem is the bad guy.  He was sooooooo much a scary bad guy in the Coen Brothers ‘No Country For Old Men.”  If he says “friend-o” in this Bond movie, I may scream in happiness like a school girl.

Yes, I am a James Bond fanatic, so here’s another important Bond list:

Best movie James Bond actors:

#6 – George Lazenby – Mr. One and Done.  While On Her Majesty’s Secret Service had some cool skiing action sequences, you never really got the feel for Bond.

#5 – Daniel Craig - I really didn’t like the choice of Craig over Clive Owen, but Craig is growing on me.

#4 – Sean Connery – I know.  Purists will rake me over the coals for this low ranking.  The fact is Connery as James Bond was not so much a ladies man as he was a sexist.  I’m still a bit shocked watching Goldfinger and Dr. No these days.

#3 – Timothy Dalton – He’s an underrated James Bond, but I thought The Living Daylights and License To Kill were thrilling.

#2 – Roger Moore – Oh yeah.  The first James Bond I was introduced to.  He was smooth and satirical.  He also fought Jaws (Richard Kiel,) who I got to interview once.

#1 – Pierce Brosnan – He fit a tux better than the rest.   Brosnan was charming, calm, cool and collective on top of being silky and smooth.  Do I have a man crush on him?  Maybe.



Popularity: 2% [?]

Adam reviews the new Johnny Depp film/Hunter S. Thompson novel adaptation:

Popularity: 3% [?]

Rated R – 1h59

Looking through glassy eyes, it’s hard to find focus, even if your intentions were to have a good time. It’s the same story for Johnny Depp’s toast to Hunter S. Thompson in The Rum Diary. The heart is in the right place, but this one stumbles around a little too much.

The film is based on the long lost novel of the same name that Thompson wrote in the 1960’s, but didn’t publish until 1998. Depp supposedly found the material amongst Thompson’s things and has since been key in getting the film produced.

The story involves journalist Paul Kemp (Depp) who takes a job at the San Juan Star in Puerto Rico. His sleazy editor Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) immediately sets the tone of the film by asking Kemp if he’s drunk and how much he drinks. Kemp replies in a Thompson-esque voice “The high end of social.”

From there, Kemp is wooed by Sanderson, (Aaron Eckhart) a developer who has plans to get rich by developing the lush island. It’s Sanderson’s attempt to control the media in his favor.

The film is somewhat autobiographical because Thompson did apply at the San Juan Star, but didn’t get the job. It’s completely autobiographical in regards to how Depp, for a second time, entertains by channeling Thompson. It’s a treat to hear the witty dialogue come rolling off his mumbling tongue.

Another standout is Sanderson’s fiancee’, played by the luscious Amber Heard. Her character Chenault is like a beautiful tidal wave. She’s literally the girl that talks you into speed racing the brand new car you’ve just been given by daddy.

If there was a main point, it’s how Kemp tries to use his righteous journalistic integrity to save the people of Puerto Rico from a greedy American developer. Still this is more of a rum fueled exercise in functional alcoholism. I feel like they touched on everything that Thompson was, but didn’t deliver that gonzo element.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Adam reviews the new spooky movie Paranormal Activity 3.  How scary is it?

Popularity: 2% [?]

Rated R – 1h23

Packed with plenty of gotcha moments, Paranormal Activity 3 will make you jump several times. The problem is, we already know the formula and that takes a lot of the frightful edge away.

Set in 1988, we again get a home video obsessed guy who must catch on VHS, the things in his home that are going bump in the night. The added twist of the backstory of the original Katie from Paranormal Activity 1 is a wasted point.

To set up the scary faux-documentary, we’re to believe that were looking back on real archival footage. Dennis, a wedding videographer, has moved in with hot 80’s mom Julie. They live a happy life with Julie’s two daughters Katie and Kristi. One night, Dennis accidentally catches Kristi’s imaginary friend Toby on camera and becomes infatuated. Things escalate poorly for the family.

With just a few exceptions, I almost never recommend the 3rd chapter in a film franchise. That rule is still in effect here. I will admit to jumping several times. That’s the point of watching a movie like this.

In fact, based on this movie, PA1 makes much less sense. SPOILER AHEAD: In this film, young Katie from 1988 befriends the mysterious demon. Are we to assume that her demon friend is the same one that possesses Katie from 2009? The older Katie is more a victim of her boyfriend’s misguided actions. Did the demon and Katie’s relationship mean nothing all those years?

There was something fun I took away from this film. It was in the technical use of a surveillance style point of view, where the camera pans back and forth. I am a lover of puzzles where you have to figure out the difference between two pictures. In this case, the viewer’s perspective pans to the left, so look for the thing that sticks out in the frame. Pan to the right, then back to the left and see what’s spookily changed. I am a film technique lover, so I actually enjoyed this.

Still, would you go see a movie based on someone’s thrill that the camera panned back & forth? I don’t think so. That’s something for movie nerds like me.

The bottom line is, you will be scared with PA3, even if it’s for the lack of creativity.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Thing? Another remake! Yeah, Adam lets you know if it’s worth your time.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Rated R – 1h43

It’s not like the world was begging for a remake of the 1982 John Carpenter film, but in the world of sci-fi horror, it’s not a grave mistake to bring this pronoun of a story back.

The Thing (2011) is set in 1982. Confused yet? Graduate student Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by a Norwegian scientist for her necropsy skills to a base in the Antarctic. There she and a team of about a dozen recover an alien creature that’s been frozen in the ice. It comes back to life and possesses the power to morph into it’s victim to conceal it’s own identity. It’s a similar plotline to the 1982 version with some detail changes.

Note: The 1982 John Carpenter was a remake of a 1951 movie The Thing From Another World, which was also based on a short story.

There are a few fright factors that work in this movie. The toothy creature is quite gruesome and disgusting, but in a fun scary movie way. Since it also has the ability to hide itself within the group of survivors, paranoia drives the suspense.

One semi-intense moment involves a tooth check of the humans to determine if anyone has been body snatched. The imperfectness of the life and death test ratchets up the intensity mid way through and was enough to keep my interest going.  There’s also a nice dark ending to look forward to.

Where The Thing doesn’t work, is how it all plays out. This is a run of the mill, scary things jump from the shadows movie. The little soldiers fall one by one, building up to a final showdown. The redeeming factor is that creepy aliens are sci-fi gold and it’s fun to watch these kind of scary movies.

Logically speaking, you could easily shred the movie. Why would the alien reveal itself one person at a time? Why would the alien have teeth like the Sarlacc Pit? Why does an Antarctic base have military grade flame throwers? That’s all beside the point.

This is more about a good run-for-your-life gore festival. So, was the remake necessary? No. Is it mindless escapism? Yes. More please.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Adam reviews the new George Clooney political thriller:

Popularity: 3% [?]

Rated R – 1h41

George Clooney delivers what is a really weighty political thriller in his new work The Ides Of March, or as I like to call it “How to become cynical with the political process in one hour and forty-one minutes.”

The film is a fictional account of a Democratic presidential primary, set in current times, but makes use of the real news media. Is it a metaphor that the real media Is following a fake election? Probably not.

Ryan Gosling, or as I like to call him “the new George Clooney” plays Stephen Myers , a likable, suave and idealistic top political staffer for Democratic presidential candidate Governor Mike Morris ( Clooney). Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the campaign manager. Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) i s the rival democratic candidate campaign manager as both side battle  in the Ohio primary.

After Tom tries to recruit Stephen to the other side, a series of events that includes more cruel intentioned double crossings and back stabbings than one could imagine happens. At times, The Ides of March becomes the type of political thriller that only happens in movies, because the details of the misdoings are just too juicy.

Clooney directs and writes the screenplay for the film that also credits Leo DiCaprio with Executive producer credits. With DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover in “J. Edgar,” due out in November, this creates a little buzz. In all though, the story in The Ides of March is strong and the cast all equally deliver command performances.

The good thing about this production is that it is not really a partisan movie. I’m not sure anybody comes out looking good. This is more about strategy and the thrill of the game. I don’t think anyone is going to be surprised by the dark secrets that lurk in our political process, I just hope that someday I don’t become as cynical as some of these characters.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Rated R – 1h39

I have a list of certain actors and actresses that I will see any movie they are part of, simply because they are in it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is now on that list.

Is latest work 50/50 is based on the true story of a man who is diagnosed with cancer, but still manages to keep his sense of humor. Adam (Gordon-Levitt) is a 20 something employee at a Seattle NPR radio station when he is told that the ache in his back is actually a cancerous tumor. The story revolves around Adam and his friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and how they find the lighter side of cancer.

From the moment Adam is delivered the news from his cold-hearted masochistic doctor, he tries to keep composure while his world spirals. This all sounds like a major downer, and it is. The magic of this movie is it’s ability to balance the gut wrenching reality with the comic musings between Kyle & Adam. Kyle for one, continually tries to use his friend’s diagnosis as a successful pick up line.

Anjelica Houston plays Adam’s overbearing mother who sports a very distracting wig throughout the film. She’s not only dealing with a son who doesn’t want to talk to her, but also a husband who’s dementia makes him unable to talk to her. Anna Kendrick is Adam’s green psychiatrist that walks the doctor-patient relationship line.

It takes a serious moment in ones life to fully recognize who you are. This is a heartening story of friendship, trust and fighting for your life. For sure on my top 10 list of the year.

I find Levitt to be one of the more impressive and busy actors out there today. He stole many a scene from Leo DiCaprio in Inception and was brilliant in 500 Days Of Summer. I even liked his days as the snarky teen Tommy in the sitcom 3rd Rock From The Sun. He brings out the human nature of his characters and does the basics well, such as getting you to like him.

The story is based on events from the life of screenwriter Will Reiser, who manages to reach into his emotional core and beautifully put words to his experience. Reiser is alive and in remission today.

Popularity: 4% [?]