In Contention

Tag: Casino Royale

  • The Times names Haneke’s ‘Caché’ the decade’s best

    Cache (Hidden)I’m not sure why the British broadsheets are all falling over themselves to publish their ‘best of the 2000s’ lists in early November, but mere days after The Telegraph critics declared Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” the film of the decade, The Times has weighed in with their own Top 100.

    In their list, a different Michael comes out on top: Haneke’s cryptic and rather brilliant 2005 thriller “Caché” (or “Hidden,” if you prefer), which only came in at #44 on the Telegraph list, is their pick of the last 10 years. (Has that threat of a Ron Howard remake gone away yet?) I must say, I’m happier with that choice than the Moore film, which doesn’t even feature on The Times list.

    That said, the lists’ objectives are different: The Telegraph aimed to gather the most significant films of the decade, disregarding aesthetic worth in some cases, while The Times has gone for a blunter ‘best films’ claim. Both lists are equally contentious and sometimes silly, as such group-think collectives tend to be. (“Team America” in the top 10 is an obvious attention-seeking ploy, but what of the British bias that places “Casino Royale” and “The Queen” similarly high?)

    (More, and the Times Top 20, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • Bond bows, UK critics shrug

    It was probably inevitable. After “Casino Royale,” the first entry in the retooled, Daniel Craig-led James Bond franchise, garnered unprecedented critical acclaim (and even awards attention, on this side of the Atlantic at least) for a 007 pic, the follow-up, “Quantum of Solace,” is having a more muted reaction. The reviews are in, and they’re respectable at best.

    Peter Bradshaw at The Guardian has the best line (“Bond has gone rogue — like Sarah Palin, only with less expensive clothes”), but his three-star review is pretty typical of the mood:

    I have to confess that this second Bond adventure disappointed me a little: it’s not nearly as smart as Craig’s debut. There is not much storyline or romance … (but) what Quantum of Solace does have is Daniel Craig. No one could deny Craig’s charisma, and the effortless way he has inhabited the role … Quantum of Solace isn’t bad, but from now on, Craig’s Bond has to be a real character with something real at stake, however absurd. Otherwise we’re going to return to the franchise production line. That would be an awful shame.

    Tim Robey at the Telegraph is more enthusiastic, even if he also has some reservations about the narrative:

    Quantum of Solace may hurtle through its own (sketchy) plot as if it’s not quite the point – there have been more satisfying narrative pay-offs than we get here – but its best sequences bring you up short in the best way, adding up to the giddiest straight ride since The Living Daylights … It has the compensation of a rock-solid dramatic idea, and the intelligence to run and run with it.

    (more…)

  • Forster on Bond: It’s about character

    Odd to be linking to Time Out twice in one day, but I couldn’t let this interview with Marc Forster, director of the keenly awaited “Quantum of Solace,” go by. The interview finds Forster in London, scrabbling to complete the first edit of the latest 007 outing in a fortnight’s time.

    Many eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that the low-key director of “Monster’s Ball,” “Finding Neverland,” and “The Kite Runner” was taking on this most commercial of franchises – I always thought it rather a nice fit. For me, Forster never injected much individual flair or perspective into his otherwise workmanlike ‘serious’ pictures; I have a feeling more of his creative personality might emerge when working against the grain of his interests. Certainly, Forster doesn’t seem to be radically modifying his storytelling approach – he believes he was hired because the producers wanted a more “emotional component” to the film:

    Several times (Forster) mentions what he believes will be at the heart of the new film: character. ‘The great thing is that Daniel and I had an intense relationship, so between us we could always go back to the character … There’s this conflict going on: he’s an assassin, but he’s also lost someone he loves. We’re asking: where’s the psychological conflict in that?

    Sounds good to me. Other promising tidbits include Forster citing genius production designer Ken Adam, who worked on the first Bond films, as an influence on his creative vision, and a sneak peek at what promises to be the most exciting foe in some time for 007:

    We see a flash, too, of the new Bond villain, French actor Mathieu Amalric, who plays a character with the decidedly unvillainous name of Dominic Greene. ‘In the old Bond films, it was clear who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Today, it’s not so clear. I feel like Mathieu looks so sympathetic and normal, the type you can’t see right away is the villain.’

    (more…)