REVIEW: Skyfall

It's been 50 years. 50 years since James Bond first appeared in cinema screens. With six different actors playing the titular role, 23 different big-screen adaptions and countless different directors who have taken the helm of the Director's chair, many would have thought that the franchise has ran it's course.

How is it then that Skyfall, the 23rd big-screen adaption of James Bond, still manages to be a near perfect film?

Skyfall opens with James Bond (Daniel Craig) on a mission to retrieve a hard-drive from professional hitman, Patrice (Ola Rapace) that contains a list of undercover MI6 agents across the globe. However, the mission goes wrong when M (Judi Dench) gives MI6 operative Eve (Naomie Harris) the order to shoot the target without a clean shot, which results in Bond being shot and falling to his death. With pressure from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) and the British Government (who see MI6 and the 00 agents as redundant), M is forced to seek early retirement. But, the return of Bond (who has been hiding out in a tropical paradise and drinking everything he can find), the revealing of the undercover MI6 agents on the hard drive to the public and an attack on MI6 means that M isn't going to retire without sorting out MI6 first. The attack soon turns personal as M and Bond realise that villain, Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) knows M and will stop at nothing to get his revenge. Both Bond and M must delve into their own pasts and test their loyalties to one another in order to defeat Silva.

Skyfall is a massive change of pace for James Bond. After the breakneck speed of Quantum of Solace, which was a direct sequel to Casino Royale and shown us Bond's unstable state of mind when an attack is made personal, Skyfall opts for a much more character-driven piece. While this isn't a bad thing, it means that Skyfall is a film that is much more of a thriller revolving around the characters themselves, rather than a film full of espionage. In fact, the only mission that Bond goes on is at the beginning of the film to retrieve the hard drive. Once Silva is introduced about half way through the film, all the attention turns to Silva's determination to take revenge on M, and the high thrills of the 007 espionage that we are used to from previous Bond films are all but forgotten. Again, I have to say that this isn't really a bad thing at all, but it certainly is a bold move from Director, Sam Mendes and Writers, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan.

In fact, Skyfall seems to have Director, Sam Mendes' stamp all over it. With previous dramas, American Beauty, Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road filling up his repertoire, it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Bond film was going to focus much more on the character dramas, arcs and relationships rather than being filled with fast-paced blistering action. Since Judi Dench had been introduced as the new M all the way back in 1995 with the release of Goldeneye, some 17 years later it's up to Mendes who finally allows the Oscar winning actress to finally shine and truly share the limelight with James Bond. While Dench had somewhat of trouble in The World is Not Enough, it is Skyfall that really shows the inner struggles that she faces when leading agents into missions that could lead to their death. It is these decisions that she has made which finally catch up with her in Skyfall.

As well as a deep storyline, Skyfall is also a film that is beautifully shot. Cinematography by Roger Deakins really helps contrast between the neon glare of Shanghai, where Bond first encounters Bond girl, Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe), the warm glows of the casino in Macau, the rain drenched streets of London to the barren landscapes of Scotland. Like I said, Skyfall is definitely more of a thriller, and Deakin's cinematography definitely helps each location take on it's own character to further put us on edge as an audience. In fact, Deakin's work really takes a shine when the film's third act takes place in the desolate Scotland. The dark and dreary broken down mansion where M and Bond try to hide out is perfectly balanced against the stark whites and grey of the mist covered moor land. The brilliant sound design of squeaking floorboards and the far distant cries of wildlife cranks up the tension even further. It's almost like a masterclass in creating a thriller without having to rely on a booming soundtrack like most other horror/thriller films use.

As well as the amazing locations, Skyfall features some brilliant characters backed up by some solid acting. Craig is fast becoming one of my favourite Bonds as he continues to deliver a Bond who is always facing his demons, rather than a Bond who simply shoots and spits out cheesy one-liners. Dench is sometimes bogged down with on-the-nose dialogue, but she is finally given a role that she can sink her teeth into (an example being when she says, "I'm going to catch whoever did this" after looking at the coffins of MI6 agents who were killed in the bomb attack on MI6 - a simple stern look could have got that message across.) While the roles of Q (Ben Whishaw), Eve and Sévérine are somewhat relegated to supporting roles, they all did brilliantly well in establishing their characters with the small amount of screen time they were given. In particular, I would have liked to have seen a bit more from Marlohe (Sévérine) - her struggles with Silva are briefly mentioned, but a scene between the two of them would have been great to see. However, it's Bardem as Silva who definitely steals the spotlight in every single scene that he is in. His careful balance between teasing menace and bumbling crazy man is pretty much spot-on. I've said it before, but a captivating villain is what makes a film even more intriguing to an audience - we don't want to root for the villain to win, but if we understand their troubles as much as the hero does, then the villain becomes more than someone who is purely evil.

One of the only criticisms that I can think of for Skyfall falls to Director, Sam Mendes. While the film is definitely a character piece that delves into the troubles between M, Bond and Silva, the few action chase scenes that Mendes does throw in seem to be quite badly done. The only stand-out really being the crane scene on the moving train, but the rest of the chase scenes feel rather pedestrian and don't really properly contrast against the slower scenes in the film. I don't know if it was the editing or the shot choices, but I didn't really feel myself going towards the edge of my seat during the action scenes, which would have made them welcome releases between heavy character scenes. In particular, the scene where Silva causes a Tube train to crash through the ceiling reminded me of the awkward tram crash in Coronation Street! If the Tube had been full of passengers and shot in a way that didn't make it look like a carefully choreographed crash scene, it could have been a really gritty scene. I guess the lack of action only becomes a problem because Skyfall comes directly after Quantum of Solace, the Bond film that was largely criticised for being heavy on the action but light on the story.

So, overall Skyfall is an incredibly shot Bond thriller that allows us to care for the characters that we have come to know and love over the past 50 years. While I have mentioned that the film does fall flat with some of the action scenes, it is the character struggles that really take centre stage. After Craig's Bond that was simply out for revenge in Quantum of Solace, you should know by now that this Bond (and M!) is someone who has a lot of demons to face.

****½ / *****

REVIEW: Frankenweenie

All horror films involve a monster of some kind. Some of them are figurative monsters, including psychopaths, ghosts and ghouls. Whereas, some of them are literal monsters - brought back from the dead covered in stitches and cuts where their body is loosely held together.

However, Frankenweenie takes the well established route that these literal monsters are not monstrous at all. They are simply misunderstood.

Frankenweenie is a feature-length version of a previous Tim Burton short film released in 1984. This version follows a similar path, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) loves his dog Sparky to bits. His parents (Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) are worried that he is falling behind the rest of the boys his age and need to brush up on his sports, namely baseball. Unfortunately, when a rogue balls flies across the street, Sparky runs to get it but is run over and killed. When being told about the power of Science by his teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau), Victor has a sudden idea of how to bring back his beloved dog, Sparky. When the local creepy boy from school, Edgar E. Gore (Atticus Shaffer) catches wind of what Victor has been up to, he forces him to bring back a dead fish to life, so Edgar can present it in the school science fair and win first prize. However, the dead fish comes back to life invisible, something that didn't happen to Sparky. Soon all the children become aware of what has happened and bring back old pets of their own for the science fair. However, when Victor realises that pets that if pets are being brought back for greed rather than love, they don't actually come back completely as you remember them. Needless to say, chaos ensues and it's up to Victor and friends to save the town from being overrun.

First things first, Frankenweenie is arguably Tim Burton's best film in a looooong time. With recent duds Alice in Wonderland and Dark Shadows leaving a bitter taste in audience's mouths, Frankenweenie shows exactly what Burton is capable of when his heart is fully behind a project. The care and attention paid to the characters, their story arcs, mannerisms, Tim Burton-esque style, and even the stop-motion filming all harks back to previous films that Burton has been involved with like Corpse Bride and The Nightmare Before Christmas. It almost felt like Disney let go of their strangle-hold grip on Burton and granted him full artistic direction over this film. The result is the most un-Disney like film I have ever seen in my life, but it was extremely refreshing to see something so different. While the film is not for younger viewers, it's an absolute delight for older children and aficionados for the traditional horror monster films from the 1930s.

As mentioned, it's largely the filming style and direction that largely makes Frankenweenie stand out from the crowd. While the theme of the story is very similar to the recent kids horror stop-motion film, ParaNorman, the two films almost couldn't feel any more different. While ParaNorman liked the throw horror film nods to it's audience without going into too much depth, Frankenweenie decides to emulate the horror genre, while still making it suitable for older children. A prime example is when the proverbial hits the fan at the end of the film and monsters such as a cat/bat hybrid, sea monkey gremlins, a giant monstrous rat and a humongous turtle Godzilla hit the town of New Holland, they are genuinely quite freaky monsters. While the sea monkeys were quite humorous and reminded me of the Gremlins, the rat monster and the cat/bat hybrid genuinely provided some chills with their disgusting design and chilling roars/moans. At some points, I had to remind myself that I was watching a children's film!

However, the heart of Frankenweenie truly lies with the relationship between boy and his dog. The childhood innocence mixed with the raw emotions of loosing a pet meant that when Sparky 'sparked' back to life, it honestly felt like it was the right thing for the character to do. Usually with horror films, there is a constantly feel of paranoia from the audience and a feeling of knowing that a character should not do what they are doing - thus leading to stupid and annoying characters. However, Victor was a character that was not annoying, he was someone who simply wanted his dog back and when he did get Sparky back, he seemed very sensible and level-headed in how he looked after his dog who had a new lease of life! It was only when the other children stole his idea to bring back their own pets to life that the cliche stupid horror characters came back. However, this was OK, because the other children became the antagonists (the villains) to the story and so it was OK for us to hate them!

The only slight criticism that I can think of for Frankenweenie was that the start was a little bit slow to get going. When we are introduced to Victor, Sparky and Victor's Parents worry about his isolation from other children his age, it could have been a prime opportunity for Burton to introduce other characters fully and develop Victor's relationship with his peers visually, rather than us being told by his parents.

However, this is only a slight concern in a film that is otherwise a brilliant, loveable and sometimes scary throwback to the original horror creature features! While it's not a film for the very young, it's certainly a film that's full of heart and even some scares to test older children and horror fans alike.

****½ / *****

REVIEW: Paranormal Activity 4

How much can you do with the haunted house sub-genre of horror films?

Doors slamming. Windows opening. People/objects floating. It's all been done before really, but it's what we go for. It's what we've come to expect, but we don't want it to be all tired and "done before".

Unfortunately for Paranormal Activity 4, it does use all the tried and tested haunted house techniques, and it does them well, but it doesn't really make for an interesting film.

Paranormal Activity 4 picks up five years after the events in the first and second film. Katie has long since disappeared with her sister's baby, Hunter and their whereabouts remain unknown. However, a new family start experiencing supernatural phenomenon, including the daughter, Alex (Kathryn Newton) the Mother, Holly (Alexondra Lee) the Father, Doug (Lee Dunham) the young son, Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp) and Alex's boyfriend, Ben (Matt Shively). Alex soon starts falling suspicious of the creepy young boy across the road, Robbie (Brady Allen) when he befriends her brother, appears in their playhouse in the middle of the night and also the fact that his Mother has been taken ill for a long period of time and will happily leave her son alone with the neighbours who are practically strangers. Alex and Ben decide to set up recording devices through the numerous laptops that they have throughout the house in the hope that they will catch something, as well as video clips from their video camera, camera phones and Skype conversations. What follows is some predictably creepy scenes, that we have come to expect from Paranormal Activity, except this film tries to mix things up by having creepy things happen equally as much throughout the daytime as well as during the nighttime.

One of the main disappointments that I had with Paranormal Activity 4 was that it added very little to the mystery surrounding Katie (Katie Featherston) and Hunter and what it does add is so muddled and confusing that it seems to trip up over itself a lot. While I'm all for films that play to an audience's curiosity and not spelling everything out as clear as day to them, Paranormal Activity 4 fails to even provide enough developed clues for us as the audience to guess and investigate along with the characters. It's suddenly revealed that Wyatt may have a shady past (I don't want to give too much away!) but it's not developed enough, like having Alex and Ben investigate into it further, for us as the audience to properly register it so we can put the clues together ourselves.

Instead, the characters of Alex and Ben simply record footage for us as the audience to watch and be scared by, as the characters themselves don't seem bothered in watching the footage back themselves to investigate the hauntings further. Say what you will about Paranormal Activity 3 and it's dodgy ending, but at least the characters seemed genuinely freaked out and wanted to know more. Whereas the characters in Paranormal Activity 4 simply don't seem to care (especially the parents who don't believe their daughter at all!) It's especially evident when Alex discovers the use of the symbol seen in the promotional material (a circle within a triangle), but instead of a big investigation to uncover more about the cult or the demon, we are treated to a fleeting piece of exposition about it being a symbol to sacrifice a virginal offering to a demon. That's it. That's all you get.

However, I cannot deny that Paranormal Activity 4 probably has one of the most creepiest endings of all the films (despite the reappearance of the dreaded witches from PA3.) Although the film makes use of the demon face jump scare from the first film's ending, it doesn't feel as cheaply used as it was in the first film. But, even though the film does have a decent build up to it's end, the appearance of the end credits are so jarring and sudden that I couldn't help but feel a little cheated that we didn't get a proper ending. While the whole film was plummeting towards it's predictable finale, it would have been nice to see just a little bit more of a tense chase scene between Alex and the possessed woman across the street (who shall remain unnamed!), or maybe a final showdown of some kind (not necessarily a fight, but maybe an exorcism of some kind) but we don't get any of this.

However, the characters for PA4 were a decent fresh crop of faces that did an acceptable job with the little material that they were given. Matt Shively did a decent job of not overstepping the mark into annoying boyfriend stereotype in horror films. Although it was obvious that Kathryn Newton was picked for the lead role for her girl next door looks (and it's kind of disturbing that the poster seems to be sexualising a teenager) she also does a decent job as the concerned, older sister. However, the biggest acting props have to be given to the two young boys, Aiden Lovekamp and Brady Allen who always amp up the creepiness to 10 with their blank, pale, demonic faces...

So, overall Paranormal Activity 4 is a pretty paint-by-numbers found footage haunted house flick. There's nothing new here and there's nothing extraordinary - it's just pretty average. While some of the scares are effective, particularly the ending, I felt cheated by the tagline "All the Activity has lead to this..."

If this is all the backstory and scares that we were waiting for after sitting through four films, then I wish I had never started in the first place.

** / *****

REVIEW: Sinister

Horror films have always had an element of detective work in them. As the audience, we are usually presented with a monster and along with the characters, we are to try and work out the motive for being so evil.

However, most horror films reduce this to stupid teenagers (played by 20 year olds) who make the most ridiculous decisions when trying to work out the mystery. But Sinister sets out to try and make a serious horror investigation film aimed at horror fans.

Sinister follows family man, Ellison (Ethan Hawke) who had found fame 10 years ago as a true crime writer. Unfortunately for Ellison, his 15 minutes of fame has long past and he has since been reduced to writing trashier true crime stories. He has a history of moving his family, including his wife Tracey (Juliet Rylance), his son Trevor (Michael Hall D'Addario) and daughter Ashley (Clare Foley), into homes near to the scene of the crime that he is writing about. This time however, he takes it too far; he moves them into the actual house where the murder took place. As you can guess, seeing as this is a horror film, spooky noises start going bump in the night and Ellison is being warned away by not just the Sheriff (Fred Dalton Thompson) but also his Deputy (James Ransone). As Ellison starts making connections between seemingly random murders that sprawl across the USA, he starts to uncover something more sinister is at work behind them than what he first thought.

Before I start my review properly, I do have to praise Sinister for setting out to make a serious horror film that attempts to include a serious investigation into the crime and the forces behind the crime. It's a refreshing sight to see where the writers Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill had set out to try and seamlessly combine the horror genre with the crime genre, and it's a match that goes very well together. When Ellison finds the old Super 8 films in the attic of the house, I found myself being genuinely intrigued to see what the next murder scene would be and to try and gather the clues myself when I was watching it. The mood is set right at the beginning and the film is written and directed (again, by Scott Derrickson) in a way that captivates it's audience into trying to work out the mystery alongside the main character. I say this, because all too often horror films loose their element of investigation and intrigue in favour of shock and gore.

However, it's unfortunate that Sinister is let down by the fact that it doesn't seem to go anywhere. It's pretty obvious from the film's set-up that there is something... else behind the crimes and the killings of innocent families, so the fact that the film relies on this big reveal as it's plot twist is a little bit underwhelming. I could look over this obvious plot twist, but unfortunately the film doesn't really try to explain (in an interesting way) the forces behind the murders or at least a substantial reason why they are doing it. Instead, we are left to feel that the reason why the murders have been committed is simply because they are evil. Like I said, a little bit underwhelming. And finally, I obviously won't go into details about the film's ending, but it seemed to be a bit jarring and felt like we were cheated out of a final confrontation scene between Ellison and the force behind the crimes. The film just kind of... stops.

Despite having an underwhelming finale and an underdeveloped villain (things which I will admit, are fairly hefty flaws), Sinister still manages to create a very effective atmosphere in creeping out it's audience. Director, Scott Derrickson definitely knows how to craft together a suspenseful scene, because many a times I found myself waiting for the jump scare and expecting the tension to stop after the scare, only to find that the tension was still being built up afterwards. I felt like I could never let my guard down as soon as the sun went down and the last time I remember feeling like that was when I saw the first Paranormal Activity. It's what I want from a horror film; I don't want to be second guessing when the tension will be built up and I don't want to be sitting around impatiently for the jump scare to happen because I know I will be 'safe' afterwards. While some of the scares were a bit repetitive involving the thumping footsteps from the attic, they were still very well crafted.

A good scare is nothing without the music and another major positive for Sinister is that the original music by Christopher Young is brilliant. The slow build-up of sounds were captivating and I just found myself being absorbed into the story and the scares being sold on screen. I don't find myself often being so interested in the music of a film, because it's often said that good music, along with good editing, become background to the film that is being projected on the screen - it's only usually when it's done wrongly that it becomes obvious to the audience.

So, if you like your horror films scary and to be taken deadly serious without relying on boobs, blood and gore, then Sinister is definitely a film for you. It effectively builds scares and has a very strong build-up for three-quarters of the film, it's just a shame that the entire film is let-down by a lacklustre finale and severely underdeveloped main villain.

*** / *****

REVIEW: Taken 2

The pressure of the film sequel is pretty much the equivalent to the pressure a music artist faces when they release their second album.

The first time it comes around, it's almost like it's an true expression of the filmmakers behind it, where they have more freedom to create. However, when the sequel comes along, there are pressures from studios and audiences to give them what they want, rather than what the filmmakers want.

Taken 2 is a film that has definitely felt the pressures from audiences and studios as it suffers from a painfully thin plot.

Brian Mills (Liam Neeson) is back and still working as a part-time bodyguard, but this time he is shown to be working for the cash rather than it being because he has a "set of particular skills". While on a job in Istanbul he has a surprise visit from his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace) and estranged wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen). However, unbeknownst to the family who are having a happy family time in Europe (even though Paris didn't treat his daughter too well in the first film!), Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija) the Father of the criminals who Brian killed in the first film, is plotting his revenge. What follows is a similar hostage problem as the first film, except this time it's Brian and Lenore who get 'taken' and not Kim. It's left to Kim to free her Father and then team together in order to save Lenore before Krasniqi takes his revenge.

I'm just going to come out and say it, Taken 2 is not a very good action film and it's main problem lies in the fact that it's very anti-climatic. From every chase scene that the film introduces right up until the final battle between Krasniqi and Brian, the film just fails to build any tension. While the first Taken was filled with the threat from the sex trafficking trade and the ruthless criminals who had stolen and were drugging up Kim and the other girls, Taken 2 just resorts to kidnapping Lenore and holding her hostage in a room until Brian finds her. There's nothing threatening about the main problem in Taken 2 and the film suffers largely because of it.

However, the Director Olivier Megaton does craft together one good fast-paced chase scene, even though it does require you to suspend disbelief... a lot of it. We are led to believe that Kim, who is struggling to pass her driving test back in the USA, can suddenly pull 180 handbrake turns and drift around corners on the mean streets of Istanbul in a beat up taxi. But, I can look past this unbelievable plot point, because it's the only real tense action scene in the entire film. The rest of the film resorts to running around Istanbul, shooting bullets into walls (not bodies) and fatal punches/cuts being left off-screen. The rest of the film just felt a little bit... boring.

I can't help but feel that a lot of Taken 2's problems were out of the Director's hands. Firstly, the film felt like it was cut apart beyond all recognition. In a weird move, the film has been edited down to fit into a 12A rating in the UK (meaning that anyone can see it, as long as under 12s have an accompanying adult with them). The first Taken was rated 15 in cinemas and then 18 in an Unrated DVD version. It involved hard drug abuse and the sex trafficking trade as it's main threat and it felt like the return of the serious hard action film. Taken 2 is just a watered down family-friendly version of the first film to a point where some scenes don't even make sense. A prime example being the two final fight scenes, where one bad guy seems to be defeated by Brian pushing him over and Krasniqi is defeated by a hand push in his face. It was just ridiculous.

The other main problem was in the casting and the acting. While Neeson, Grace and Janssen were all in returning roles, they all seemed to be on auto-pilot. There was no gravelly, threatening voice from Neeson providing a lengthy threatening speech to the villain (ala. "I have a particular set of skills" from the first film), Grace's character was too busy getting in the way for the first half of the film and then disappearing for the second half and Janssen's character was left to being an unconscious victim for the majority of the film. However, the biggest problem with the characters lay with Krasniqi as he was a villain who had very little backstory and then did very little with his screen time - his motive was simply revenge for his son's death, with nothing else even hinted at. It felt like he should have had a more ruthless personality where he was an ex-serviceman or the owner of the sex trafficking circle from the first film that Brian had destroyed. But instead, we get nothing.

So, Taken 2 is a big disappointment for fans of Taken. It's completely devoid of tension, plot or character which to be honest, are the bare essentials for any decent action film. It seems like Brian, Lenore and Kim will be staying at home and avoiding Europe at all costs from now on, just like you should be avoiding the cinema to see this and waiting for the DVD - let's face it, Taken 2 will obviously get the Unrated DVD treatment.

** / *****