Entertaining rubbish; but quite thoroughly amiable.
Strong performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman, but a fairly cold and detached film. Given the story and the characters, this seems appropriate. Good to have watched, but not something I’ll be returning to in a hurry.
I’d been falling out of love with Bond for some time, and this “reboot” of the series is long overdue. Daniel Craig plays Bond with a hard edge, but also a certain vulnerability that comes from Bond’s (fictional) inexperience: this is 007 at the start of his career.
What I liked most about Casino Royale was the total absence of all the kitsch and camp the franchise has accumulated over the years. The title sequence didn’t feature naked female silhouettes! The title song was actually quite good! The very few snappy one-liners he comes out with are actually witty rather than corny! The villain isn’t a gratuitously megalomaniac caricature!
Damn, it’s actually really good! The plot and the action are all so much more mundane–but in a good way. It’s down-to-earth rather than superheroic, and all the more tense and exciting for it. It’s enough to make me start looking forward to the next episode in the series.
The almost messianic overtones sometimes threaten to overpower the story of two friends sharing an eye-opening journey. Beautifully filmed, but for my money it’s Rodrigo De la Serna who steals the show, not Gael García Bernal.
I had been apprehensive about this before going in. I wasn’t concerned that Aardman’s quirky stop-motion style would be lost in the transition to CGI animation; I was concerned that it wouldn’t. Aardman have pushed the boundaries of the stop-motion form, but there’s no hiding from the fact that the form imposes restrictions on the filmmaker. I like Wallace and Gromit, but W&G is enough claymation for me.
As it turns out, with Flushed Away they took all that was good about Aardman’s character design, and went wild with everything else. The action is dynamic, the backdrops are large and elaborate, and the supporting cast are varied and obsessively detailed. But if you pay close attention to the animation, you’ll see that the characters’ mouths don’t move smoothly from frame to frame: their expressions retain the same slight jerkiness that comes from the claymation technique of using a limited number of mouth shapes. Likewise, some of the skin textures bear a striking resemblance to molded clay: in close-up, the animators have actually gone out of their way to make the CGI look like stop-motion.
Aside from the visuals, the story is highly entertaining (posh domestic rat Roddy finds himself in the sewers of London, and caught up in a chase to retrieve a stolen ruby), with plenty of excitement, lots of laughs, and some great running gags involving sewer slugs. It is also very tightly scripted and edited. There were several obvious opportunities for the characters to drift off into long speeches explaining the plot for the hard of thinking, but they didn’t exploit any of them. The dialogue was always enough–and no more.
I can’t see this winning the Best Animated Feature award at this year’s Oscars, but if you want to know which I would prefer to watch again: Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, or Flushed Away, I’d pick this one.