Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

***WARNING THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

Okay I saw this movie three weeks ago and I have never had to sit back and think about a movie more before I reviewed it. Not because the movie is a thinker, but because I had to sort out my emotions and thoughts before really committing to sitting at my keyboard to type this review. This movie was decisive to say the least. This movie was getting ripped apart by critics, on social media, and by everyone I knew personally who saw the film. There's been a lot of things said in the press by those involved with the film, and there's even been talk of releasing the extended R rated cut into theaters early. This has been a strange film to talk about but I'll give it a shot nonetheless. I should probably start from the beginning and share my opinion of the DC Cinematic Universe. This movie was opening behind an already questionable legacy. Marvel had created their cinematic universe that was raking in billions of dollars and warming the hearts of comic fans across the world. Finally the characters we grew up loving on the pages were coming to life in front of us. DC naturally wanted a piece of that. Well the rights for Superman were almost up and it was time to rush out a new Superman film. Enter Man of Steel. Directed by the visionary director Zack Snyder and written by David Goyer, we were introduced to a modern, more dark and surreal take on Superman. There wasn't a lot shown before the movie came out, not a lot of trailers and the teaser didn't even give us a good look at Superman. So the movie finally comes out aaaaaaand people HATED it. Okay not everyone, but when this movie comes up in conversation, it's usually to tear it apart. Now the film has it's defenders. I personally think these people are in denial and are just die hard Superman fans that are trying to grasp onto the fact that "Well this is the only Superman movie we have right now." Guaranteed if a better Superman reboot happens in the future then Man of Steel will become more forgotten than Superman Returns.

Now my personal experience with Man of Steel is that I just hated the film overall. Not to say I hate every part of it, there are some good moments, but overall I thought the movie was just very poorly written. That's something to remember because Zack Snyder takes a lot of blame for these movies, and some of that definitely comes from what he says to the press about the decisions made, but my blame lays directly on Goyer. Honestly Man of Steel is a film that from a technical stand point is made very well. Yeah the film is very gray looking and there's some stale acting but the direction is fine. It's the writing that makes me cringe at the very mention of Man of Steel. I understand that this was a rushed film because of the rights situation but the story is just bad. The opening segment on Krypton is easily my favorite part of the movie, and then the rest of the movie is downhill. The killing of Zod, which seems to be the biggest point of contention with this film next to the mass destruction, is honestly the part of the movie I have the least amount of problems with. The conflicting messages from his two dads, the hamfisted way he gets his suit (it just happens to be on Earth already and why does a space suit have a freaking cape?!), and just the utter seriousness of the film drag me out of the experience screaming for my money back. This isn't a review for Man of Steel however (I might do a retro review on that at a different time) this is a review for it's sequel. So was Batman V Superman a better film?

Holy fucking shit (pardon my language) this may have been the worst movie I've ever seen. Sorry I can't even bury the lead on this. Now just bear with me because I know this movie has betting getting a lot of hate (and whether deserved or not) and I just ask for you to let me defend my point. Going in I was so hopeful. Ben Affleck seemed like a great Batman, the movie looked exciting, and while I questioned the casting of Luthor I was trying to remain hopeful. Now let's be clear. To me this is a Batman movie that happens to feature Superman (and Wonder Woman but we will get to that). The main character of the movie is Bruce Wayne and he's the one that does everything to move the plot forward. I would say even more so than the villain of the film. To me this is a positive because honestly Batman is the best part of the movie. Ben Affleck does a great job, this Batman looks great, and the action scenes where he is beating up goons are the best action moments of the whole film. The biggest problem here is the way the character is written. Let's just get it out of the way. Batman straight up murders multiple people in this movie. Now I heard this going in so I was ready for it, and I counted. Excluding the dream sequence (because that doesn't count and lets face it, it's a different world and during war time things change.) Batman kills at least five people. That's being very generous. He blows up two cars that each have at least a driver and shooter, and then he shoots the gas tank of a flamethrower strapped to someones back who for sure burned to death. This doesn't even include the criminals that he brands before they get sent to jail which the news says is basically a death sentence from the other inmates. This Batman is basically the Punisher and a sociopath. To be honest I was on board with the whole branding idea. It's different and not that bad of an idea but the fact that they say prisoners with these are murdered by the other inmates, why would Batman continue to do it? Wouldn't it just martyr the criminals?

Now I've seen arguments out there saying "Hey man, this is just a harder Batman and at the end of the movie when he decides not to brand Luthor that means he's changed." That would be all well and good if the very idea didn't go against every single ideal that Batman has ever stood for. Remember that little boy who saw his parents murdered in front of him and swore not to ever let it happen to anyone again? Yeah that character is nowhere to be seen in this movie. I mean they already ruined Superman in Man of Steel so they might as well ruin Batman too. And this is an older Batman we are seeing which means he's been killing for a lot longer than he wasn't. They even establish that a Robin has died on his watch so what kind of Batman goes on killing after losing his partner. A maniac that's who. I honestly don't understand any real comic book fan who can defend the killing. As a fan I am completely offended by that. It's a shame Affleck was so good and then saddled with being the murderous Batman (just like Michael Keaton). I hope they can move past this and we get a real Batman in the announced stand alone movie because I think he's great and want to see what he can do if they do the character right.

Now let's look at the rest of the characters and start with Superman himself. Now I've always thought Henry Cavil has the perfect look for Superman and that carries over here. His acting however is kind of flat. There's no distinction between his Superman and Clark Kent (which has very little screen time anyway) and it's amazing how in the first movie when he was in hiding from the world Lois Lane is able to find him and deduce his identity yet people seeing him on a regular basis can't put two and two together. It's honestly more ridiculous than it ever was in the books. Cavil is fine here but just isn't going to stand out. Amy Adams is however completely useless. She serves to be Superman's second weakness and nothing else. She has way too much screen time in this film  and her sub-plot is maybe the most pointless thing in the movie next to Wonder Woman. Again we will get there bear with me. I didn't particularly love Amy Adams as Lois Lane in MoS and my feelings carry over here. If she was given something more interesting to do I might have cared more but tracing a bullet back to Lex Luthor doesn't really matter in the end and serves no purpose to move the plot since it really just ends up focusing on Batman and Superman. Looking to some of the more minor characters now, I have to talk about Alfred. For one the casting of this whole DC film franchise has left me scratching my head. We have a 30's Superman and then we cast a late 40's Batman, a seemingly 20 something year old Luthor, and then in Suicide Squad all of the villains seem about in their thirties (except for an older looking Deadshot) and then we jump back to Batman v Superman and The Flash seems like another 20 something kid. Now we go to Alfred. Alfred honestly looks the same age as Bruce Wayne but if he grew up a heavy drinker and smoker. Not only that but the writing for this character is just awful. We are coming off a great and emotional Alfred with Michael Cane and while I in no way claim that Jeremy Irons is a poor actor because he's doing the best with what he's given. However all he's given are unfunny quips about how Batman has been on a suicidal mission for years and is too old. They look the same age! It just boggles my brain.

Okay, I've covered the minor characters and the two leads. Let's talk about the villain. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. This may be the worst interpretation of Luthor that has ever been put to film. I would have taken the Smallville Luthor over this. Now there seems to be a lot of hints that this is Luthor Jr. but does that mean we will see a Luthor Sr. in a future film? I honestly doubt it. This performance is unlike any Luthor that's ever existed before and while some might praise it for being different . . . look, I'm a comic book fan and when I see a comic book movie I want to see my favorite comic characters brought to life on the screen. Not some character that's completely original and only shares the name. I'm fine with the change of a character as long as it's done in an interesting way but this feels like Eisenberg was cast specifically because of his Zuckerberg interpretation in the Social Network and they just asked him to do the same thing but with more smiles. Eisenberg was just terribly miscast and the character was poorly constructed on the paper and these two things collided into the worst kind of train wreck. Now I think that's all of the characters right? Did I cover them all? Oh wait! We have the Justice League! How could I forget the memorable introduction to the Justice League through videos sent in an email?! Let's work our way from least to most significant. First I'll look at Aquaman. I don't really know what to think about him yet. I've never cared much for Aquaman, even when the character is done well, he's just not that interesting to me so his brief appearance here doesn't do a whole lot for me. Next I'll talk Cyborg. At least we got a little more context with this one. We see him strapped onto a table, and we see his father dictating what's going on. It's an alright scene, given how terrible the Leagues introduction is overall. Okay now with the Flash, he for some reason get's two scenes. We see him stop a robbery on a security camera, and then he time travels in the movie and appears in the Batcave to Bruce Wayne to give him a warning. We really only needed one of these scenes and personally I hate the time travel scene. There's no context at all for what's going on, the casual fan probably doesn't even get it unless they watch the CW TV show which these movies ignore, and it's just excessive. Not to mention it's all just set up for the further film universe which there is already too much of in this movie. So the League member that gets the most attention in this movie is Wonder Woman. I will say, Gal Gadot is a great Wonder Woman. She is beautiful, she is dangerous, and I even like her bit of action in the movie. However, she has no reason to be in this movie. She doesn't move the plot forward at all, she never once interacts with Superman until the end battle, and she exists only to hint at the formation of the League and to set up her own movie. My biggest problem with her role in the movie however is we see her first meet Bruce Wayne as he's stealing data from Lexcorp, which Diana (WW) then steals from Bruce, only to give it back to him later because she can't get past the security, which leads Bruce to discovering her picture which implies that she is seemingly ageless, which THEN leads to her showing up in the final battle in her full warrior garb to which we see the scene in the trailer. "I thought she was with you?" Huh? Superman is meeting her for the first time but Batman has already met her on multiple occasions and has seen that there is something strange with this woman. Why on Earth would he assume she's with Superman?! I don't think they are ever in the same screen until this moment.

Now multiple times in this review you've seen me mention how things in this movie just seem to happen with no context or reason at all. That is pretty much the flow of this script. There's no real reason for anything to happen. Batman hates Superman because of the destruction he caused during the Zod fight and being all powerful so he wants to kill him even though he's done nothing but try to help the human race? Seems like a pretty thin reasoning but sure why not. Superman hates Batman . . . why exactly? Because he's a vigilante? Maybe hes a little too rough around the edges? But isn't Superman a vigilante too? Okay okay what about Lex Luthor? He also hates Superman because . . . I mean in the comics he always claims it's because he's too dangerous because he's all powerful but it's never really stated in the film. It's okay though, because Lex has a plan. He's going to get Kryptonite to . . . kill Superman because . . . I'm totally lost. I have no idea why Lex does anything in this movie or what his ultimate goal is besides killing Superman for . . . reasons.  This story is just nothing. There's the thinnest motivations and the story beats feel so forced. For instance a major plot device is done through an e-mail with Wonder Woman just sitting at a computer and reading an e-mail from Bruce. This is also where we get our Justice League cameos crammed in where Lex has so nicely gone through the trouble to create their logos. How did anyone think that having a character read important information silently off of a computer possibly be interesting? I also have to make a point to talk about the dream sequences which there are many. The future desert scene is the most significant. Everyone knows it from the trailer and yes, it's a dream sequence where Batman envisions of a future where an evil Superman has taken over the world. It's an interesting moment of the movie and the sequence itself is good, but the way we get to this scene is utterly insane. Now I kind of hope the extended cut has an extra bridge scene here but as it is in the movie we see Bruce sitting at a computer watching a progress bar (riveting movie making) and then we just get a hard cut to black . . . and that's it. No context to show that this is a dream, for all we know this scene is a time jump, because why not go that crazy at this point. The only way we get to know that it's a dream sequence is that Bruce wakes up in the Batcave at the end, which leads us to my next complaint. We get the Flash cameo where Bruce is woken by the Flash traveling through time and appearing as a bright electrical blur in the Batcave, trying to give Bruce a future warning. This scene is useless. None of the information given adds to this film and does nothing but show the Flash to hint at the future Justice League movie. This movie is falling into the same problem that Amazing Spider-Man 2 had in which it was trying too hard to expand it's universe in one movie rather than tell it's story. We could have lost Wonder Woman and the other Justice League cameos and used that time for more story telling and it would have done wonders for this movie.

So the name of the film is Batman V Superman so I guess it's time to talk about that aspect of the movie. The fight between the two is utterly forgettable. Batman spends a good amount of the run time trying to acquire Kryptonite which was created by the world machine in Man of Steel. He finally get's it by stealing it from Lex which leads to Lex using Superman's mother as a hostage and incentive for Superman to go fight Batman. Now if Batman wasn't such an asshole in this movie the whole fight could have been avoided. Literally they come face to face and Superman is trying to talk to Batman, to explain the situation, and Batman isn't hearing any of it and just attacks Superman aaaaand the fight begins, and boy is it lackluster. No part of the fight really stands in my memory except for how Batman's Kryptonite grenades look like fart bombs. I just don't understand the very idea of making this movie be about Batman fighting Superman. Actually I do understand. Zack Snyder probably read The Dark Knight Returns once and thought "Man I really like that one part where they fight." It just doesn't make sense in this movie at all. If you're going to name your movie after the fight of your two titular characters than that fight should be the best part of the movie. It is not even close. Not to mention the fight ends when Superman and Batman realize they both have a mother with the same name. Are you fucking kidding me?! Superman tells Batman to please save Martha and literally they are best friends two seconds later and it's team up time. It is the most ridiculous and hamfisted (second time I said this) way to make them allies. I knew it was coming because a friend spoiled it for me and I still wasn't prepared for how angry it would make me. How did this script ever get approved?! The one thing that amazing me is how me and a lot of my friends never thought about how their mothers had the same name before.

Well I feel like the only logical thing left to talk about is the end of the film. First we have Doomsday. This is a terrible interpretation of the character. They completely change his origin which is fine but he looks like a giant CG baby and no part of him seems like an all powerful threatening being that he was in the books. He never ends up looking how he's supposed to despite Zack Snyder assuring us that his appearance does evolve. Just barely Zack, nice try. The last fight just honestly feels like it's there and doesn't have one specific moment that stands out to me. The one thing that is something of a joke but is totally true is that Batman contributes almost not at all during the Doomsday fight until he hits him with a Kryptonite grenade. I walked out of the movie not remembering any one memorable moment from the Doomsday fight other than the camera work. You see it in the trailer when Wonder Woman jumps with the following zoom. Love that camera work in this scene but it's the only part of the film that has some interesting cinematography. The most daring thing I can say about this films ending (and really the whole film in general) is they actually kill Superman. They do the death of Superman as the ending which is was makes Bruce want to find these other heroes and build a team. That makes just as much sense as the rest of this movie. I give them credit for actually killing one of the titular characters (and leaving the hook telling us he's not actually dead) but by the time it happens it's just too little way too late.

I just can't believe this film exists in the form it does. It was no secret what the reaction was to Man of Steel so with so much riding on setting up the franchise it's just amazing that this was the movie we got. The fan reaction to this film honestly seems worse by comparison and I was really hoping that the way the handle the aftermath of Man of Steel would make me like that movie more. Well I do think Man of Steel was a better movie but not the way it was probably intended. This movie breaks concepts and logic so much I don't understand how any comic book fan doesn't walk away absolutely offended. Batman literally takes a knife and a point blank gun shot to the back of his mask, which react as if it's metal, but multiple times we see the mask pulled off and being 100% rubber and no amount of "Well it's just special Wayne tech" will convince me otherwise. I understood people defending Man of Steel from the sense of "Hey this is all we have right now" but there are too many good superhero movies at this point for me to accept this just for the spectacle of seeing Batman and Superman together in the same movie. They blew it. I have lost pretty much all faith in the DC film universe at this point and I have my fingers crossed so hard that they might break in hopes that Suicide Squad can bring me back. I can only give this movie a two out of five and point out that Batman fighting some goons is awesome, and the movie has a competent production. Everything else gets a massive thumbs down from me. I've never felt so disappointed in my life over a film.

007 Journals: Spectre

Well here it is. For years we've seen James Bond tangle with the sinister organization known as Spectre, but now we see it retold in the new rebooted Daniel Craig Bond universe. And that's exactly what this is, a connected universe. I alluded to it in my Skyfall review but Marvel has become so successful with it's cinematic universe that now every franchise has to do the same thing. Quantum of Solace was the first time we ever saw a direct sequel to a James Bond film and since Casino Royale was a reboot we've managed to see Daniel Craig take us through Bond's entire career up until this point. Now for years the Spectre rights were held up in a lawsuit that was finally settled so we never saw Daniel Craig battle the famed secret organization from the books but instead got a stand in with Quantum. Now that the rights are free it's all come full circle and finally it's time to introduce Bond to his greatest 

rival of all time for the first time in the modern era. Now for the whole year before Spectre released I went back and watch and reviewed all of the Bond movies in a row so this was the first time that I was following the hype for the new movie and having only recently taken in all of Bond lore in one huge chunk, this movie had a lot to live up to in my eyes. What was delivered was an enjoyable Bond that was missing only a few elements to make it amazing.

So the first three Craig films an all be lumped together as one big origin for Bond. It took three films to get the character to a place that he needed to be, and introduce his team players. In a way it was the perfect way to approach the franchise, with a fresh perspective, and bring us to the point that Bond fans had been waiting for. But not quite. This is the first time a Craig film has followed the more traditional Bond formula but it's not quite going off the exact blueprint of the old films. The old formula was simple, a cold open, leading to Bond getting a mission and dossier, Bond then gets his gadgets from Q, leading to Bond on his mission where he beds women and takes down a super villain. Well we get all of this for the most part with some twists. We get our action packed cold open but right away Bond is taken off of active duty by M. This naturally leads Bond to going rogue (again) meaning that in every Daniel Craig Bond film he has gone solo to some degree. However with this one it's not as dramatic as the past. So what I was looking for out of this plot was some great secret organization action and there is a good amount of that. The highlight being the secret meeting room that Bond sneaks into. I love the table with everyone watching and Waltz being draped in shadow. There's actually a lot of people being obscured by shadow in this movie and it totally works for me because that's what I expect from something like Spectre.

The only other thing I expect from a secret organization is a lot of string pulling and there's a little bit of that but mostly it's just hinted at. We are told that the villains from the three previous Bond films (Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva) were all arranged by Waltz's character which is all well and good. It honestly helped make him seem like he carries some power and really is kind of spooky, but there's little of that kind of action actually happening in this movie and that's really my biggest problem with it. We finally get the big baddie in Spectre and they don't do a whole lot with it which is mind blowing considering this is the longest Bond film so where does that run time go? Quantum of Solace (which in this film we learn Quantum is a subdivision of Spectre) actually does a better job of making a secret organization feel like they are everywhere controlling everything. While the Spectre stuff they have in this movie is good, I just wanted more. There's also this side plot with Mi6 and Mi5 being merged with a new security force called the Nine Eyes which is obvious from the beginning that it will be a Spectre scheme and really they don't do anything with this side plot. It's amazing how long the movie is and how little the story gets fleshed out. It really just feels like all Bond all the time and the B story is there for necessity of run time. 

I've heard some people complain about the action in this film being kind of mediocre but I have to disagree. For one there was more action than I thought there would be. The cold open for instance has some great stunts and whether it was done on green screen or they really had people hanging off of the helicopter and looked great and was a fun action set piece. I even really enjoyed the chase in the snow with the twist being Bond was in a plane chasing some trucks. It was a fun scene and pretty creative. I think the one action scene that will stand in people's minds though is the giant explosion at the end which set a Guinness World Record. A second time for a Daniel Craig Bond movie. While that's all great I have to point out the fight on the train as being my favorite action moment. For one Mr. Hinx is a pretty good henchmen. Dave Bautista plays a silent but imposing henchman that gives Bond a hell of a fight and it feels like a call back to the great train fight in From Russia With Love. However the same characters have  a car chase that is fine but feels a little lacking. There's just some fast driving and no real stunts to the scene. Entertaining but bland. The best part about the chase is how he calls Moneypenny and we get the casual phone call talk while he's having a high speed chase. Her checking the fridge is a funny moment.

One thing Skyfall did was set up Bond's supporting players and they all return here and they are all still great in their roles. Ben Whishaw had a great debut as Q in Skyfall but I feel like he is even better this time around. Moneypenny is left with less to do but Naomi Harris still fills the role splendidly. All of the cast is really at the top of their game but I have to say this about Craig. Before the movie was coming out he was very vocal about wanting to be done with Bond and there is definitely some fatigue in his performance but he still puts in a better job than most. I wouldn't see he was at Connery levels of bland but you could sense that he was ready to move on and I know he was originally contracted for one more film but honestly I could see this being his last film and if they decide to just have the four Craig films as one arc Spectre has a fitting ending, even if it's not 100% satisfying. The one actor that gets the short end of the stick is Christoph Waltz. He puts in an amazing performance but he has less screen time than Javier Bardem did as Silva. Monica Bellucci is another big name actress they bring in for what seems like less than five minutes of screen time. The new Bond girl played by Lea Seydoux is a pretty good character but we don't get a lot of time with her which just seems to be the theme of this movie. No wonder Craig was fatigued, he's on screen like 99% of the time. I like the character of Madeleine Swann and they certainly do the best they can with trying to make us see how she and Bond could fall in love but I feel like the romance is just rushed. After Vesper Lynd it's hard to imagine Bond falling for a girl that way again in such a short time. I think it's believable enough that it doesn't seem completely unreal but I was left just wishing to see more of them together. 

So I need to get something out of the way. While Christoph Waltz is billed as Franz Oberhauser it's very obvious that he's Blofeld. You can't have a movie called Spectre and not expect everyone to know immediately that the villain is Blofeld. Star Trek Into Darkness tried to pull the same trick with Kahn but I feel like Bond suffered for it less. Even though I had that gut feeling he was Blofeld I still hoped he wouldn't be but I have to say I did like the reveal when the cat jumps on Bond's lap. It was played serious enough that it was still an "oh shit" moment because it does come out of nowhere and ends up being a very satisfying reveal. Especially since it comes during an intense torture scene and I wasn't expecting it at that moment. And since I'm here I might as well talk about the torture scene. A lot of people seem to be down on it but I liked it. It was creative and ridiculous the way you expect a James Bond torture scene to be and it actually made me cringe. To me that was an effective scene but I can see where people would have problems with it.

Sam Mendez has said that Spectre would be his last Bond film and I do think it's time to move on. Skyfall and Spectre are both spectacularly directed but I can't imagine what Mendez would do with three in a row. While the single camera tracking shot may be something that's getting outplayed I have to say that I immediately fell in love with the first five minutes of this film. Everything about the opening scene of the film is just masterfully cut together. Everything from the long camera pan through the crowd up to the rooftops, down to the music, all the way to the Day of the Dead costumes and festival it was all just magically executed. While Skyfall was a beautiful looking film, Spectre may give it a run for it's money. There's a lot of great camera work and production design, not to mention some beautiful locations, that Spectre is just as much a feast for the eyes as Skyfall was. One thing to note is the return of the Bond humor. There are multiple scenes where with some pretty straight up obvious jokes where in the previous Bond films there were only the driest hints at humor. The score however, while I feel is good and has some great moments, is slightly less memorable than the previous films. While I can listen to the score for Casino Royale and Skyfall I would find myself only hitting certain tracks on the Spectre soundtrack. One of them would probably not be the Sam Smith song, The Writings on the Wall. Now I think Sam Smith is an incredible singer and the song isn't terrible it just doesn't do much for me. I didn't like it until about four listens and I doubt I will ever love it. It just falls somewhere in the middle for me. The opening title sequence wasn't one of the best either but there was a lot of great and creepy octopus motifs. 

So where does Spectre fall in my ranking? Honestly I think it's really good and only slightly disappointing. A top ten Bond film for sure. Now the thing about the movie having the longest run time doesn't bother me because the movie is paced pretty well and never felt long. What bugs me is that they don't utilize the run time. I feel like Spectre needed to be two movies just to fit everything in. Waltz needed more to do and we needed more interaction between Bond and Swann to make the love story more believable. Now the film ends a little open ended, Bond is leaving with Swann, Blofeld is left alive and arrested (maybe the first Bond villain to survive?) so he could come back. I just hope Craig comes back for his last film and we get another run in with Blofeld before he wraps up his tenure as Bond. I just feel like the way the ending kind of drags out that they may have wanted to have a cliffhanger ending and drag out the plot in a second movie (which for me would have been great) but I feel Craig possibly not returning could have been a worry. You also have to wonder if modern movie goers would have had the patience for a two movie plot. While Spectre is great it's just not amazing but I feel is worth a four out of five.

The First Look at DC's Movie Lineup

It's been no secret that the Marvel movies have been killing it at the box office for many years now. In 2008 we saw the release of three huge comic book films. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight. Now The Dark Knight is easily a movie that transcends being just a comic book movie and becomes something else entirely, but what did the Marvel movies have in common? They were building a shared universe. Something that had never been done before in the world of comic book movies. This is something that Marvel has continued to perfect, adding new movies to their universe every single year. We even got the first great comic book team up on film with the release of the first two Avengers films. Hard to imagine that at one point DC owned the comic book movie world and was even on track to release a Justice League film long before the Avengers movies had even been conceived. Now the general thought of the public is DC must be kicking themselves and trying to rush to a Justice League movie, so much so that there was talk of starting their universe with Justice League and then branching out into solo films afterwards. Well we now know that this isn't the case. The DC shared universe began with Man of Steel and will be next continue in Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad, both releasing next year. Now we have been seeing set photos and hearing rumors for months but we have finally gotten our first extended look at both of these films when they each got three minute trailers at San Diego Comic-con. I figured I would take some time and share my opinions of the trailers.

We had seen a teaser for Batman V Superman a little while back but it didn't really show much. This is the most we have seen of the movie to date. Now I am on record as saying that I thought Man of Steel was a terrible movie. There were things to appreciate in it but overall the film just had too many problems that I couldn't look past. Needless to say I didn't have a lot of faith in Zack Snyder or Batman V Superman, especially after hearing of all of the character additions and cameos. Well looking at the first real trailer I can say that I do find a lot more aspects of this film interesting. We finally have a story. Bruce Wayne was in Metropolis when Superman was fighting Zod and looks to have lost some people he cared about. He goes on a vendetta against Superman feeling that someone that powerful is too dangerous. At the same time Clark Kent seems to want to track down a story of this supposed Batman. The world also seems to hold a grudge against Superman for the destruction in Metropolis, something many people had trouble with in Man of Steel, myself included. I think the idea of holding him responsible helps me get over the Man of Steel battle but doesn't really fix anything about that movie for me. It does however make me more interested in this sequel. Judging from the trailer this is definitely a Superman sequel but looks to be just as much a Batman film, and my takeaway from seeing Ben Affleck as Batman is that he looks like a great fit for this version of the character. He looks great as Bruce Wayne and really fills out the Batsuit, which also looks fantastic. Honestly Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all look really well realized. This however brings up the point of Wonder Woman. She feels very forced into this trailer which makes me fear she may be forced into the movie. My early prediction is that she will be the one to make these two come to their senses and realize they have to team up. I expect her to be present throughout the film and maybe only as Wonder Woman for a small portion.

One thing to notice is there are a lot of great looking heroic scenes in the trailer but Zack Snyder has always proved that he knows strong visuals. One thing that confuses me is the casting. So Superman looks to be in his thirties, while Batman is supposed to be older. Lex Luthor, played by Jessie Eisenberg, looks to be in his twenties at most. He also has hair in the trailer but we all know he goes bald somehow because they put out the previous image showing him as such. The ages of characters are just all over the place and it seems like they don't fit together. Even if we break off and look at Suicide Squad, Joker and Harley Quinn look very young and we are too believe they have been tangling with Batman for years? Long enough for the Joker to have killed Robin at some point? This is hinted at with the Robin costume spray painted by the Joker. A possible reference to A Death in The Family. Honestly the idea of a shared DC Universe is much more interesting than the Marvel universe but they are just make questionable decisions and the age of the cast is definitely one that stands out. The only real offense of this in the Superman V Batman trailer is Jessie Eaeinberg but honestly he's a great actor and his moments in the trailer work very well. "The red capes are coming" line is very haunting of how Lex feels about Superman and why he feels so threatened. Just with the history of Lex and Clark from the comics makes this interpretation of Luthor feel out of place.

So another thing to point out is some of the odd out of context imagery. There seems to be some flash back moments which are fine. I guess since it's a new Batman we have to see his origin again. One thing I noticed however is that there are some shots of soldiers wearing Superman logos on their arm fighting Batman who looks like he's been an underground resistance member. It feels very reminiscent of the Red Son story line  and makes me think we will see a hypothetical future, either from Wayne or Luthor. It's an interesting idea and honestly Superman as a bad guy is always the most interesting part of a Superman story to me. I can easily see it being the thought process for someone wanting to take down Superman and I'm very curious to see it in the context of the film.

So the next trailer that was released was for Suicide Squad. Now for those that don't know anything about the Suicide Squad comics I feel the trailer tells you everything you need to know. You get a series of DC villains released from prison to work for the government as mercenaries. If they fail, well then the government just washes their hands on the situation because hey, they're just prisoners. When Suicide Squad was announced I can say that this was the film I was more excited for but having seen both trailers now I can easily say my interests have swapped. Some of this is my fault because when the DC lineup was announced there was emphasis on these films being much darker than the Marvel films, which mimics the differences between the comics as well. For some reason I was expecting a more silly tone to Suicide Squad, maybe something along the lines of a balls out action movie with quips. What the trailer showed was a super serious film that I just wasn't expecting. The things that keep me interested in this film are the characters. Harley Quinn is an iconic character that everyone has been waiting to see in film and I feel that she is perfectly cast by Margot Robbie and the trailer is definitely heavily focused on her. Unfortunately the trailer doesn't show us much of the film, which they are still shooting, and is just a lot of character shots and scenes of the team walking. We see a few action shots including one involving Batman, which we've seen from the set photos and videos, but over all we are just getting the gist of who the Suicide Squad are and what they look like. 

So how do they look? Overall everyone looks great. Harley is the stand out and the one I'm most excited to see in the movie. Deadshot played by Will Smith is sort of an issue with me. At this point Will Smith has reached Tom Cruise status where I don't see the character that he's playing anymore, I just see Will Smith. He doesn't feel like a villain, he feels like an actor who thinks he's too big to be a straight up bad guy forced into a situation, but in all fairness I've never really read a lot of Deadshot material so maybe there's a lot of depth to that character that I Just don't know about. Now the major character to appear in the trailer, and the one that everyone is talking about, is Jared Leto's Joker. I have to say his actual performance seems fine. He's creepy and psychotic which is what you want to see. We all remember when the first picture of Leto in character was released and we saw the tattoos covering his body. There was a lot of negative responses to the tattoos but not everyone was convinced they would be in the movie. Well now we have our confirmation that the Joker will look like a Hot Topic reject in the film. Okay maybe that's harsh It's clear that I'm not a fan of the Joker's look. To be clear I liked his lines that he had in the trailer, I think he will be a fine Joker (though far from the best) but he is hindered by his look. Even the fans who want to defend it have to admit that this is not the version of Joker that we ideally wanted. I will obviously be holding off judgement until we see the film but so far Suicide Squad is looking less interesting to me. To be fair it's a long but bare bones trailer so hopefully we will see another before the movie releases that gives us more to look forward to.

So I would love to hear what everyone else thinks about the Comic-Con trailers. Feel free to sound off in the comments. So far I'm still skeptical but hopefully both movies blow us all away. I know I'm ready for some darker comic book movies.

Marvel's Avengers Age of Ultron Review

It's still hard to believe we live in a world where an Avengers movie exists, let alone two. The first was a spectacle to behold, and just amazing to think they pulled off a movie with such a big cast. It went on to do over a billion at the box office and was a world wide phenomenon. Something I'm sure the second will repeat. It's hard to re-capture the awe of that first team up but Marvel knows how to do things bigger and better and with Age of Ultron we were sure to see a super hero team up on an even larger scale. The real question is can it be pulled off a second time, and how well does it fare against the first?

Well I'll start off by saying that I like the first Avengers more. Now that doesn't mean this is a bad movie, I just think the first was a lot tighter in the sense of plot and writing. It's also worth noting that we had a build up to Loki being the villain in Avengers. We saw hints of it through the films, especially in the post credits for Captain America. We didn't get a build up to Ultron. When we come into the plot of Avengers 2 we see that Bruce Banner and Tony Stark have clearly been kicking this idea around for a while, yet we never got even a slight reference in any of the phase 2 films. This to me was a planning oversight that could have helped make the hype and set up for this film even better. Now I think the solo films in Phase 2 were, for the most part, better than anything in Phase 1. Iron Man 3 and Captain America 2 being the highlights. One thing that's always come up with any movie post Avengers is "Why doesn't anyone come help each other in their movies" and I wish we got a little more references to previous films and where characters were. We do get a lot of talk about SHIELD and it no longer existing, but mostly that's it aside from character mentions and cameos.

Now I think Loki was a better villain for the first team up, but Ultron is no slouch. He is wonderfully played by James Spader and the voice acting is impeccable work. A robot with a human like intelligence who for all intents and purposes acts human is a creepy aspect. The most interesting part of Ultron though is that he's a flawed villain. He's smarter than the Avengers but he has psychological issues he can't avoid and it gives him depth. He was designed to save humanity so in his plan his thoughts constantly come back to bettering the human species. He just wants to destroy it first. He's also not as threatening as I originally thought he was going to be. Just looking at him, he's just a robot. We've seen plenty of Iron Man armors or robots get destroyed already so how is this one robot supposed to stand up to all of the Avengers. Well he doesn't. Ultron isn't s much a body as he is an intelligence in the internet, which is something I had a small issue with. So since he is just an A.I. he can bounce from body to body which is an awesome aspect. I love the times they have him destroyed only to literally have another one appear right behind him. The only problem I have is how do you destroy something that can exist in the internet? Even if you destroy every robot couldn't his consciousness still exist in cyberspace? It's the same issue that came up in Terminator 3 with Skynet. It's a small nitpick but something that bothered me nonetheless. Ultron is technically immortal as long as there is a wifi connection and this is pretty much ignored as far as I noticed.

UPDATE: I was reminded that there is the scene where Vision grabs Ultron and disconnects him. I missed it the first time but I still feel a little more light should have been shined on that aspect. Shouldn't be so easy to miss.

With the first Avengers we spend a lot of the movie trying to get the team together and get along and you don't get a a lot of action scenes, just some key great ones. Age of Ultron however, we already have the team in full swing and the movie opens up with a great action scene and we only get more and more as the movie goes on. This movie is action packed and all of it is fantastic. I have to mention the ending last stand as a highlight. We get to see them battle in multiple different types of locations and there's a lot of combining powers to great effect. We've seen the Avengers fight before but now we have some new additions. Scarlet Witch has her telekinesis which makes her a dominant force on the battlefield and it's so satisfying to watch her rip robots in half with her mind. Her mind control is also a fun power that helps play into the story and the character development. She's able to mess with the Avengers minds and bring out their worst fears. Quicksilver however is an odd character in the sense that we already saw a cinematic version of Quicksilver last year in X-Men, which honestly I think was the better version, but Aaron Taylor-Johnson still brings his own flair to the character and is great in the role. It's awesome to see him use his powers throughout the movie and it looks very different from what we saw in Days of Future Past. There's a lot of great character work in this movie but I do feel like there's just a few too many. It's nice to see Don Cheadle get included as well as Falcon from The Winter Soldier, but between Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and The Vision it's almost a little much. Especially since The Vision get's little screen time so we don't get to know the character very much. Luckily it's all handled very well so it kind of masks the insanity of so many characters in the mix. A much needed addition in this film was more back story for Hawkeye. Now I know he catches the most heat and people call him the most useless member but I've always been a Hawkeye defender and he was awesome this time around and his back story just helped flesh out his character even more. What I did find weird is that he has a family and I always assumed that him and Black Widow were an item, but suddenly she's interested in Bruce Banner and that just seems to come out of nowhere, especially when all signs pointed to Hawkeye in the previous films.

There's still a lot of great writing in this movie but I honestly feel that everything was just better in the first movie. There are a lot of great lines (Hawkeye has some of my favorites) but I didn't find myself laughing out loud as much as the first film. This movie does have a much darker tone however and that is most likely the case. There's a lot of fighting within the group and no matter how awesome you think the Hulk vs Iron Man fight looks in the trailer, it's way better in the final movie. I honestly just wish that was it's own movie, either Hulk 2 or Iron Man 4. The whole movie just could have been a little more tighter like the first was. There's a lot decisions made that just feel like "Okay we need to get to the next scene" where as in the first film everything felt fluid as we moved from beat to beat. While I still think it's a fantastic film it just feels slightly inferior to the first on a technical level, but maybe more fun and exciting on a spectacle level. I give Age of Ultron the same score I give the first Avengers which is a four out of five. This movie is worth your time and may be the most fun you will have, but if you're looking for a better story than the first you may be slightly disappointed.

007 Journals: Skyfall

Well this is it. While not my last Bond review it is the last in the line of official EON Bond film reviews. It's been quite a journey through the films and I've received a lot of praise, criticism, agreement, and debate and I've enjoyed every minute of it and I'm actually sad that this is my last (official) Bond review until Spectre later this year. After Skyfall I plan on doing the 1969 Casino Royale but that's more of a bonus. So for now let'a take a look at the most recent Bond film, Skyfall. So by the time this film finally released it had been four years since Quantum of Solace, which didn't live up to Casino Royale but was still a solid film. However Skyfall had a lot riding on it's shoulders. It was their chance to redeem the franchise after the lukewarm response to Quantum, and this was also the first Bond film after MGM's troubles had been sorted out. Luckily things worked out. Skyfall received generally universal praise and made over a billion dollars at the box office, becoming the most successful film in the franchise. Now when this film released all I heard from friends was that it was the best Bond, way better than Casino Royale, and I'm sorry but it's not. Don't get me wrong when I say that. Skyfall is amazing. Casino Royale is just a smidgen better.

So throughout my reviews of the Daniel Craig films I've praised the relationship building between M and Bond, and the theme of trust. Well Skyfall brings that to it's ultimate conclusion and makes it the main focus of this film. The entire plot is put into motion because M doesn't trust Bond to get the job done and ends up almost getting him killed as an assassin is getting away with a hard drive of information that isn't even supposed to exist. This causes Bond to doubt M's judgment and, when Bond finally returns from the dead, everyone questions whether Bond is still suited for the job. It's kind of amazing how much older Craig looks in just the four years between Quantum and Skyfall and I wonder if that is just natural aging or a directorial choice due to the nature of the script and where the Bond franchise was at this time, which is the 50th anniversary. Let me just say, this anniversary film is leaps and bounds better than the last. So Bond takes a little vacation after getting shot and returns when he finds out that Mi6 was attacked and M is the target. Something that has always been well crafted within the Craig films is Bond's sense of duty. Brosnan had that as well but Craig amplifies it and makes it completely believable that everything he does is for King and country. One thing about Bond is that we learn a lot more about his past in this film, which fans of the series are no strangers to. We learn more about him being an orphan, we see the grave stone of his parents, and we actually visit his childhood home Skyfall which is obviously in reference to the title of the movie. By turning the Craig films into character pieces we have built a three film character arc (that looks like it will be continued in Spectre) and honestly with Craig only assigned to the next two films you could see them doing another reboot and having a complete story told within this one actors time in the role. I would be completely fine with this and it would leave us with a solid and complete story line, depending on how well the next two films go.

The thing about Skyfall is that it completes the origin of Bond. We saw his first two missions in the last films and by the end of Skyfall we have Bond going into M's office and receiving a dossier and preparing for a mission. We also are introduced to two characters that are staples of the franchise. Q and Moneypenny. I love these new versions of the characters. Now everyone at this point knows I'm not a huge fan of the gadgetry in a Bond film so you can imagine how much I appreciate the Q scenes in this film. The gun and locator are very believable devices and I love the jokes they make about the exploding pen and how Bond jokes to Sivia about his fancy new gadget, a radio. Silva even returns the quip later in the train tunnel. None of this humor was lost on me. This is also the first film to give us more Moneypenny than ever before, showing us her in the field for the first time and how she finally decides to take a desk job. They establish her relationship very well and make the future flirting seem easy to believe. I always appreciate when they make Moneypenny a capable woman as well, able to stand her ground and defend herself. She's more than just a secretary.Can I also say that I love Ralph Fiennes as the new M. The death of Judi Dench came as a shock to me but they do a good job of seeding Fiennes throughout the film as the heir to the M role. He starts off as kind of a questionable character but becomes well suited to the job and we see the connection he immediately has with Bond. A welcome addition to the role and a fine actor and I can't wait to see how he does in the next film. So somehow the producers manage to slyly stretch out the origin story of Bond through three films and it's a brilliant move and a risk that I wish more of these superhero blockbusters would take. This is a good example of that kind of film making paying off.

Okay so let's talk about the villain. He's the Joker. Everything about his plan and his character just reminds me of Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. especially in the way his plan completely relies on luck and perfect timing, which is something that kind of bugged me the first time I watched it but was able to accept more this time around. It's less luck based than the Joker was and really could be attributed to years of perfect planning and timing. I think the biggest thing to pick at in his plan is the train crashing through the wall but honestly it's not hard to know a train schedule. It's worth noting that Sam Mendez himself has said he's inspired by Christopher Nolan and loves The Dark Knight so it's easy to see the comparisons. Both villains even have some sort of facial deformation. This one is just a lot creepier. I have to give Silva credit in being the first Bond film to completely succeed in his plan. Now it doesn't exactly go according to his schedule but his overall plan is to kill M and at the end of the movie M is dead. He's even one step ahead of Bond and Mi6 through the whole film until the end. He's the most competent villain and Javier Bardem plays the character so well. Again like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight he plays a wonderfully insane villain with only murder on the brain and is the stand out performance of the movie. This is also the second time that we have had Bond facing off against another former Mi6 agent. The last time was Goldeneye and honestly Silva does a much better job than Alec did. He comes off as evil as possible just in the one scene where he kills the beautiful Severine, who is actually one of my favorite Bond girls even with her small role. Her subtle performance is so memorable and she has very little screen time yet is one of the Bond girls I remember the most. It helps that Berenice Lim Marlohe is stunning but with what little screen time she has she gives it her all. The same could be said for Bardem who doesn't even appear in the movie until the hour and ten minute mark but he's one of the best Bond villains.

Let's talk about the production for a minute. The cinematography gets a lot of praise and it deserves it all. This movie is shot so beautifully, especially during the scenes in China. The camera work is incredible and they found some of the best shooting locations. The score is maybe the first that I have loved in a Bond film and is the only one I own. The action set pieces are all great, especially the opening scene on the train. My favorite stunt in the movie is easily when Bond grabs onto the elevator and I love it every time I see it. One thing I noticed about this film is how quiet it is. Especially after Quantum which was a series of action scenes strung together with more action, Skyfall is more subtle in it's approach to the action. There's definitely action in this movie, and it's all great, but this time it feels more like a spy film than an action blockbuster. The most explosive action comes from the villain causing terrorist attacks or when they are isolated at the end and it just feels more contained and realistic compared to the many vehicle chases in the Quantum that all ended with lots of destruction and explosions.

Is this movie perfect? Of course not. There is plenty to nitpick but none of that stuff hurts the film in any serious way. The plot relies a little on convenience, the killing of Silva off screen with a knife throw always bugs me (he could have at least just walked up and stabbed him), there's the question of how Bond survives after being under frozen water for so long (but it doesn't seem too cold since the ice is about to break anyway), and the Aston Martin is a little confusing to me. I know he won it in Casino Royale but why does it have machine guns and an ejector seat? Are we to believe that this is the same car from Goldfinger? Did this movie take place after Goldfinger or is this a new continuity as we've been led to believe? I choose to just ignore as "hey it's an anniversary film and maybe he had that stuff installed for fun". Personally my biggest issue with the movie is how it drops the Quantum story but I have hope that Spectre will address this in some way. So I think without question Skyfall is a five out of five. It's just a slightly lower five than Casino Royale.

So that's it, the end of my official 007 Journals. Next I'm going to do the 60's Casino Royale but for all intents and purposes I have now watched and reviewed every James Bond film. Now I wonder what else is next. I had a blast working my way through a franchise and It's something I'd like to do again. There are a few other major film series I've never seen (The Godfather, Rocky, Rambo and more) that I've thought about doing but I'm not sure where to go from here. I've thought about looking back to the Austin Powers films and Johnny English as fun little companion reviews to the 007 franchise and I know there's been requests for Kingsman which I will do as soon as I can see it. If any of these sound appealing to you just sound off and I will be happy to pursue them, in the meantime keep your eyes open for the Casino Royale review and know that it's been a blast reviewing these movies for you. Until next time.

007 Journals: Quantum of Solace

Okay so it's 2008, two years after one of the best Bond movie releases, Casino Royale. However this film is being written before the writer's strike. In fact the shooting draft was finished the night the strike started. The direct effect of this? It's the shortest Bond film and the story feels the most rushed. Now Quantum catches a lot of flak and honestly I think it's biggest problem is the fact that it comes after Casino Royale which is a far superior film but Quantum is in no way a bad movie. I have some advice to give about this movie. One, if you watch it directly after Casino Royale (either the same day or day after) it becomes much more enjoyable. This is something I hinted at in my last review and is the way I experienced both films and it caused me to love Quantum the first time I watched it. So did my love for the film carry over on a re-watch? Well I have some more thoughts this time around.

First off I love the idea of a shadow organization secretly ruling the world, having the power to influence nations, and just being all around creepy. Quantum delivers a lot of this, just not enough of it. First off the film is jumping locations quite a bit. It seems every ten minutes Bond needs to fly to another part of the world and it just feels like they were trying to extend their short script. It seems to be the biggest problem with having a writers strike and not being able to have the writer on set. I guess the director and Daniel Craig did most of the rewriting on set and unfortunately it shows. They are lucky that the move came out as well as it did. I just feel like this follow up should have had a much deeper story relating to the Quantum organization and quickly just becomes the pursuit for the one member Dominic Greene. Which honestly is fine. Every Bond film needs it's villain and Dominic Green is a creepy guy. He looks like a rat come to life and just has this evil tone in his speech. However he is a coward in a real confrontation and can't fight to save his life which is something that we haven't seen much of out of a main villain. He uses his connections to Quantum to his own benefit which is exactly what you expect out of  this kind of character. He helps a General stage a coupe and take over his country in exchange for some land which just happens to hold the countries water supply that Quantum will control and thus control the General and his country. It's a decent plot and actually fits perfectly into the way a shadow organization would conduct business. I just feel like they should have leaned more on Quantum as a whole and less on Greene.

So this movie has a look that's very different than any other Bond film. First off this is the first film in the series that feels like it has some artistic direction. There's a lot of silence to the action scenes and quick editing that I didn't remember from the first watch and gives this movie a unique look. The director seems to look at everything in an artistic way, even having the action set pieces  represent the elements of the earth. The car chase for earth, the boat chase for water, the plane chase for air, the hotel fight for fire. Also I think the cinematography is highly underrated. I know everyone looks to Skyfall as the stand out looking film of the series but I implore you to give Quantum a second look in that regard. This movie takes place in a lot of sandy countries so it is limited by its color palette but every shot is fantastic. I still love that shot from the beginning foot chase where they fall through the glass roof. So the Craig films get compared to the Bourne series a lot and honestly I think those comparisons stem from this film because I heard it a lot before Skyfall came out and this was the last point of reference for the Bond series. Well let me address my feelings on this. Yes the style of fighting is similar but it makes sense for close quarters fighting, it looks awesome, and isn't always the same in the Bond films. The Bourne fights are all fairly identical while Bond does just throw some wild punches from time to time. The Bourne films have the fast editing but I really only see that in Quantum as far as the Craig films go and it fits in with the rest of the direction of the film. To me it feels more like artistic choice than emulation. I've just never bought into the Bourne comparisons. These films feel completely different to me.

 Okay so since we are talking about the fight scenes, let's address the action. There's a lot of it. The movie opens up fifteen minutes after Casino Royale and starts with a great and brutal car chase. There are actually a lot of chases in this movie. It almost felt like every location change was transitioned by a chase. Luckily I love chases and all of the ones in this movie were fantastic. I feared for the stuntmen a lot in this movie. The action is just more brutal overall. Bond gets beat up a lot more, the hits feel a lot harder, there's even more blood than we normally see. Now the real complaint here is that there is too much action. Bond is a spy on the tail of a secret organization that doesn't want anyone to know they exist and he is blowing everything up along the way. I feel like the amount of action is to help with the fact that the writers strike really interfered with the script and honestly it works but does become a transparent distraction. Luckily all of the action is fantastic so it's not the worst situation to have. However if the trade off is more action and less character moments, I'd rather have the character moments. That was one thing that Casino Royale did perfectly which was to expand the character of Bond. He fell in love, quit his job, and then experienced a great loss. Not to say there are none of these moments in this film but some of them feel very forced. There is a big theme of trust in this film, especially between Bond and M. All of this is done really well. I love how M keeps trying to call him away from the mission and he won't leave his duty. M chastising him for using his charm on Strawberry Fields (yeah that's her real name), played by the beautiful Gemma Arterton, and getting her killed is also a great moment.. I wish there was more of this in the film but the script just didn't leave enough room for it. Instead they try to squeeze in a mention of Vesper whenever they can and it just feels off. However I do love the ending where he confronts and captures Vesper's boyfriend. Oh and the switching of hotels is a fun little character moment as well. Reminds me of the fake cover story he gave Vesper.

I have to say the opera scene is the best scene of the movie and really embodies what I wanted more of throughout. It's a great idea to have all of these secret members from around the world communicating through ear pieces during an opera and their reactions when they find out that they are compromised are just fantastic. Especially Greene when he comes face to face with Bond afterwards. If the whole movie was re-written around this little chunk of the movie, and Greene's party that follows, then this could have been an excellent next step in the Bond franchise. Unfortunately MGM ran into their troubles and we got a long break before Skyfall which basically ignores this plot. My hope is that Spectre picks up where this movie left off or at least addresses it in some way. That's my only hope. So aside from the Quantum story we also have Olga Kurylenko playing a a Bolivian agent that is trying to kill the general that murdered her family. Honestly this plot feels crammed into the story but it plays out well and Kurylenko was appearing in a lot of movies at this time and felt like the next IT girl and this is probably my favorite role she's had. She's a good actress who still has a lot of growing to do but in this film she brought her A game.

So do I still love Quantum of Solace? I do, it's a highly entertaining film and a solid entry into the Bond franchise. Now there are some things to note. It's more action heavy than a Bond film should be but you never feel bored because of it. It's short which can be both a good and bad thing. If it's not your favorite then you don't have much to watch but if the movie had been longer they could have made it spectacular. The way it stands now, and knowing that we have Skyfall next which softens the blow, Quantum of Solace is a nice sidetrack between Casino Royale and Skyfall and is solid action film that is at least worth your time to watch (or re-watch) and you shouldn't let the bad word of mouth drive you away if you've never seen it. I was highly entertained and gladly give Quantum a four out of five. This film is just so so highly re-watchable in my opinion and can get better with each watch.