Bond is back

Here is the first official picture from the third Bond movie starring Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's 007 secret agent.

What do we know so far?

Film starring: Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Albert Finney. This is probably the most prestigious cast to appear in a Bond movie.

David Arnold, who wrote score for five Bond movies since 1997, is replaced by Thomas Newman in the 23rd film of the series. Sam Mendes never worked with other than Newman since his first feature, the Award-winning American Beauty. Newman was nominated for 10 (yes!) Oscars, but he returned home empty-handed every time. "Maybe this time, for the first time, I'll win" sang Liza Minnelli in Cabaret. Cross our fingers for Newman, he deserves it. Mendes saying good-bye to Arnold is a sign of bravery: he and his favorite composer can live up to one of the best Bond composers ever. Mendes is not afraid of playing with the tradition... Just let's not forget about the incredible scores written by David Arnold... Excellent job!

Mendes said that, since it is the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, he will recall the the original Bond of the 60s. He will not have to worry about not being able to bring his ceremonial vision to the silver screens. The Broccoli family literally pays their respects to Bond since the 23rd movie's production budget is an estimated $ 200,000,000.

The 21th century Bond established by Martin Campbell in Casino Royale, and followed by Marc Foster in the Quantum of Solace will go to a slightly new direction. Campbell once saved the series by directing GoldenEye starring Pierce Brosnan, when everybody thought that Bond was over, that he was worn out over the decades. The new direction lasted for seven years, then Brosnan left the project. However he said he would return as the secret agent in Quentin Tarantino's black and white version of 007. The idea disappeared from the scene. Then came Craig, and the new Bond. His first two films were outstanding, not just as Bond, but as action movies. Some hated Craig and considered the movies as an assault on the series. You see, there are conservative people in the world, and there are others who want to move forward. I do not see much point in a debate. I was amazed by Craig, who is without a question the best actor to play Bond. I am not saying he is the best, because there is no such thing as best Bond. Everyone has a Bond. Some feel an urge to choose one. I do not. I love them all.

The point I am getting at is that Mendes has probably figured out something how to unite the old and the new Bonds. There are only two installments with the new Bond, and he is already taking it in a new direction. It is unprecedented that they change Bond under one actor. There is no need to worry about Craig. He is a fine actor. One of the best nowadays. And there is Mendes. And this is the 50th anniversary. The pressure is high and they seem to follow a new recipe. But hey, that is what Bond is about: when the chips are down, he says all in.

Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows

The second installment of Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes is way better than the first one. It would not be without having watched the previous one. I did not like the new Holmes two years ago, it had nothing in common with the character created by Sir Arthur Canon Doyle. The film was a fast-paced action movie, with no great mystery so my expectations were low.

I went to see the second one with two old friends of mine with whom I saw the first one; this event seemed a perfect fit for our reunion. I was glad to see them. And I was glad to see the movie, surprisingly. I prepared for the unusual action scenes for a Holmes story after seeing the first installment, so they did not bother me this time. I also gave up on the Doyle-type mystery that thrilled the readers. Despite all the negative signs, I enjoyed it.

This film is nothing but a classic adventure movie set in breathtaking locations (the way they reconstructed the 19th century London is still amazing), with witty and funny lines, great tempo, and clever finale. My suggestion is to accept the fact that this is a new Sherlock... then you can give it a try. Just do not expect the atmosphere of old crime stores. However, the final battle is one of the greatest closings of a film I have seen in years: the lack of final confrontation. At least not in the old sense. It is a chess game. Holmes and the villain fight in their minds: they reason out what the other thinks. While the original novels hold the reader's attention with the mystery, Guy Richie holds the viewer's attention by the intelligent ideas of how the world's two greatest brains confront each other.

A story must be told in connection with the production of the film. Hans Zimmer, who returned as the composer, went on a road trip to Bratislava, Slovakia to study gypsy music. (There is a gypsy community in the film, so the score contains elements of gypsy music.) Zimmer found a poverty-stricken gypsy community outskirts of Bratislava, and sat down to play music with them. These gypsies were touched when musicians from Hollywood, Los Angeles found that their music is a gem. Zimmer was amazed by their love of music, their playful melodies, so he organized a trip to Vienna to record the authentic songs. A similar thing happened a few years ago... Ry Cooder, one of the world's greatest guitar players, discovered the Buena Vista Social Club in Havana, and recorded their songs in a studio. The rest is history. I find it fascinating that Zimmer, who only wanted to record his soundtrack for the movie, took the time and effort, and saved the gypsies' music by recording it, that otherwise would have been lost.

The chemistry of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson still makes the game worth playing. But the Jolly Joker here is Stephen Fry, English comedian, who debuts in the film as Holmes' brother. He simply lightens up the scenes by being present. Sherlock Holmes 2 is the perfect Sunday evening film: humorous, filled with adventures, delivered by an outstanding cast - in good style.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

David Fincher is one of those directors whose works you have to pay attention to. There are not many film makers who earned this kind of reputation. Fincher, among Martin Scorsese, Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan, and Quentin Tarantino, directed more than one film that alone would be enough to establish themselves as good directors. Most if not all their films are considered classics.

Although Fincher could lean back saying his oeuvre is exceptional - he would never do so because he is a perfectionist - he keeps challenging himself. His latest movie is an adaptation of Stieg Larsson's first novel from the so called Millennium series. The author died in 2004 and the novels were only published after his death, soon becoming bestsellers. The American film adaptation was unavoidable. However, in 2009 a Swedish film production company produced film versions of all novels. The first was praised by the critics. So here comes the time for comparison between the Swedish and the American films, people thought. But let me get this straight. Fincher's movie is not a remake. It is an adaptation. An alternative adaptation of the source material. I would say it is more interesting to take the novel and the two films and see how the two directors approached the book.

I have no right to write this review though. My decision was to watch Fincher's film as an independent work of art, before having an relation to the preceding materials. I picked up the novel yesterday and will read it by the weekend, so let's stay with the American film starring Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara.

I am sitting here thinking how can I explain why this is a good film despite the fact that it is 158 minutes of depression, gloom, and misery. And it is not that we have not seen brutality on screen, or have not heard of stores like this. What makes it heavy is realism. Fincher does not want to make the viewer feel that this is only a story, an average thriller, but he wants you to feel bad. Most of the Hollywood films make you see the world through optimistic lens. Fincher sees the world the way it is.

I have the highest regards for Jeff Cronenweth, who is now nominated for Oscar (Best Achievement in Cinematography.) His retro-futuristic images create a feel that the viewer is watching an alternative world. Cronenweth's pictures and Fincher's realistic approach to the story creates an interesting dissonance. The soundtrack, written by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, is a gloomy symphony of noises. I was surprised by the fact that they have a name for this genre: post-industrial, dark-ambient, drone. 

Apart from the incredible photography and atmospheric score, what distinguishes this film from the others is the love story within the thriller: the relationship of Mikael Blomkvist (journalist played by Craig) and Lisbeth Salander (computer hacker played by Mara). An unusual love story. They only meet in the second half of the movie, they do not talk to each other much, and the viewer would think this is a simple and short affair. Until the very last minute of the movie, when all loose ends are tied up, when the order was restored, suddenly everything turns upside down. I do not like to tell the plot, so I will skip explaining how faith is lost at the end of the movie. But I tell you this is a twist in the idea that the most romantic love story is the type that is unfulfilled. 


When it is hard to find words to describe a film, you know you are talking about a good one. When you cannot capture its atmosphere, its style. And this is the art of moving images. All you can say is that: go and see it yourself.