L4YER CAKE

by Gordon

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Released: 2004

Rating: R [strong brutal violence, sexuality, nudity, pervasive language and drug use]

Runtime: 105 min.

Main Cast: Daniel Craig, Sienna Miller, Michael Gambon, Tom Hardy

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%                    IMDB: 7.4/10

 

   I had never heard about Layer Cake until recently, and though the film doesn’t seem to have made much more than a blip on the mainstream market, critics seem to think it’s up there along with the best of the “bloke Brit-flicks” (stole the descriptor from the poster), and I’m always up for additions to the genre. Daniel Craig, in a way playing 007 before ever doing so officially, right off the bat exudes his now-to-be-expected movie star badass persona, but not without just enough character believability, not unlike that seen in the equally great Clive Owen. And as a cursing and personable narrator introducing us to the quasi-futuristic drug and crime world of the film’s story, I was drawn in right away.

   Craig plays Agent XXXX, and though we follow his mostly good-natured character’s trials and adventures for the duration of the movie, he’s not really a “hero” (not many cocaine distributors are). But as a sucker for British-spoken, villainous organizations, where dialogue adjectives like “bloimey” and “bloody” are commonplace, and the line between good and evil intentions is dishearteningly obscure, that wasn’t a real problem for me. My only “trifle” with the British-colored, 90-minute spectacle is that all of its excess at times came off as a bit contrived, as if everything was simply trying to be in the vain of trademark Guy Ritchie films like Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

   Now, just as I’m not often actively concerned with the lyrical quality behind some of my favorite music, I’m not always too put down by movies that I can’t coherently follow (if it can make up for the loss in other, perhaps more creative ways). But with Layer Cake, the plot was so hard to follow (it could well be that I’m just too slow, or maybe that confusion was director Matthew Vaughn’s goal anyway), that everything seemed to meld together like a series of semi-coordinated scenes that somehow (if you’re privy to gang-inspired relations), form a cohesive plotline. In my case, the confusion worked against my experience. The ending, though in many ways a letdown, was at least unpredictable, and that may serve the movie better anyway.

   Craig really was the movie’s saving grace. He’s so cool and confident that you have to wonder whether the movie specifically served as the motivation behind his being the new Bond choice at all. It’s a charisma he pulls off well, but one which we still hope he chooses to abandon time to time in the continued pursuit of tackling more varied character studies, as we’ve seen him do in films like Road to Perdition and Defiance.

   Another plus from the director are the interesting music choices used throughout the film, especially during high-intensity scenes usually involving imminent death. In fact, if you try to forget the rest of the film for certain moments, the scenes sometimes even seem like they could well fit in as morbid music videos played on late night MTV.

   Bottom line: If you like “bloke Brit-flicks”, Daniel Craig, or confusion, see it.

CASINO ROYALE

by Gordon

Directed by: Martin Campbell

Released: 2006

Rating: PG-13 [intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity]

Runtime: 144 min.

Main Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench

Rotten Tomatoes: 94%                    IMDB: 8.0/10

 

   Yes it’s not the most recent Bond flick (Quantum of Solace), but it’s better than its sequel, and as the reboot of the wearying Bond franchise, deserves a first look at how well the filmmakers achieved this. My opinion? Pretty damn good. Even the controversy surrounding the initial announcement that Daniel Craig would star as the new Bond was entertaining, and I admittedly was a little shocked myself. Blonde and blue eyes?? A face that, though handsome, doesn’t share the well-groomed, sophisticated look of his prior peers?? But how fun it was for everyone to find out that Craig, though different, still made a very convincing Bond, and was perhaps just what the franchise needed.

   At almost 2 1/2 hours long (considerably longer than its sequel), it encompasses enough plot to allow for a necessarily lengthy introduction to the new Bond, take you through the clever and complex storyline as written by Ian Fleming (why no other major Bond film has yet, I’m not sure), and even weave you through a number of subplots, the bulk of which explore the psyche of a less experienced and more vulnerable Bond.

   Centering around a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro, Vesper Lynd (Green) is introduced as a treasury official assigned to look after the $10 million given to Bond for his buy-in into the game. She’s as atypical of a Bond girl as Craig is of Bond, but they work as a couple, and tension mounts between the two as they conceal their cover as a married couple amidst disagreements as to the execution of Bond’s plans. The villain, one of the most important and often memorable characters for any Bond movie, is Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelsen, who perhaps has the most to lose at the poker table (as he must now recoup his clients’ money, lost due to one of Bond’s earlier sabotages). And with his ability to weep blood, caused by Haemolacria, and frequent use of a benzedrine inhaler (no idea what that is), Mikkelsen pulls off a great villain.

   The upper hand on the card table switches back and forth between Bond and the villain, LeChiffre ultimately kidnapping Vesper to attract Bond. It works, and after capturing Bond, in a scene unlike any before in a Bond film, LeChiffre strips him naked, ties his hands and feet to a chair, and lashes his testicles to retrieve a password granting him access to Bond’s poker winnings. It might be my favorite scene, as it both reflects Bond’s vulnerability, but also, as he laughs over the pain while quipping, “Now the whole world will know that you died while scratching my balls”, the kind of bad-ass-ness you want in your Bond too.

   LeChiffre is eventually taken care of, but more problems arise as Bond, after just falling for Vesper, comes to learn that her motives may be questionable. He follows her through Venice streets, culminating in a shootoff between a number of bad dudes, and in the end, though unsure of her intentions, turns emotional when he loses her to an underwater mishap.

   Director Campbell, for the most part an unknown to me, pulled this one off to a tee. The action was gripping and intense, but not in a dull Die Hard blow-up way, as keenly demonstrated in one of the first sequences involving a parkour chase through a foreign city, and in one of the last involving the collapse of a Venetian building into the Grand Canal. Much of the film’s success (which I think most would call it), can be attributed to Craig, who embodied not just the things we expected in James Bond, but new things that we didn’t know we were supposed to. Though I found sequel Quantum of Solace a step back, Casino Royale instilled in me enough confidence in our new Bond and his adventures that I’ll be up there fully cheering for the third.

ROAD TO PERDITION

by Gordon

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Released: 2002

Rating: R [violence and language]

Runtime: 117 min.

Main Cast: Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, Daniel Craig

Rotten Tomatoes: 82%                    IMDB: 7.8/10

 

   Road to Perdition is an epic movie. Mendes’ follow-up to American Beauty (perhaps an equal masterpiece), it captures mob culture and that of the 1930s Great Depression with both impeccable clarity and a fresh pair of eyes. It’s not a feel-good movie, nor a feel-bad one…just a mesmerizing story of family, betrayal, vengeance and hope, set to a backdrop that embraces imagery over dialogue to convey emotion. The story is made all the more memorable through timeless performances from its all-star cast. And for a story of its complexity, some plot will be useful for a review, so…spoiler alert.

   Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a mob enforcer and the adopted son of Irish mob boss John Rooney (Newman). To Sullivan’s two boys, “Mr. Rooney” is an authoritative but good-hearted grandfather figure, if a little mysterious. For Sullivan’s older son, Michael, Jr., any uncertainty surrounding the nature of his father’s work is dispelled when he witnesses the impulsive murder of a mob employee by Connor Rooney (Craig), John Rooney’s real son. Upon discovering the young witness, Connor murders Michael’s wife and younger son (mistaking him for the older Michael, Jr.). That’s when Sullivan and his son flee to Chicago.

   It’s not until halfway through the movie that we’re welcomed to Jude Law’s character, the creepy and unkempt psycopathic assassin Harlen Maguire, who is dispatched by crime kingpin Frank Nitti to take out Sullivan and his son when Sullivan’s request to kill Connor is rejected. Realizing Nitti has sided against him, Sullivan and his son rob banks of Rooney’s and their partners’ laundered money. It is here that Sullivan and his son, formerly mere strangers living under the same roof, begin to bond and appreciate each other as support in the wake of their family’s loss. A second failed attempt to take the Sullivans’ lives results in Maguire falling, glass fragments shattering his face, and Sullivan taking a bullet to the arm. The two seek refuge at a country farm owned by an elderly childless couple. It’s here that Sullivan discovers Connor’s faulty business dealings with his father John Rooney back home. After Sullivan’s recuperation, the two set out, leaving the elderly couple a bag of money as they go.

   This is when Sullivan, now a considerably more threatening presence, comes back to finish things with the mob he left behind. He meets with his “father” John Rooney once again, who is both aware that Sullivan won’t stop until Connor is dead, and understandably unwilling to give up his own son. As Sullivan has grown to be the son Rooney wished he had, it is with a heavy heart that he takes this stance. Reflection on the warm relationship between Sullivan and his adoptive father (tenderly conveyed in an early scene as the two share a piano duet in the hushed company of onlookers) makes the ensuing standoff between the two a mournful occurrence.

   From there, business appears finished for Sullivan and his son, Michael, Jr., though a surprise twist belies that fact. But while I betrayed the plot of the better part of the film, its ending is deserving of a treatment only achieved through firsthand experience. I will say, though, that it’s an ending as suspenseful, meaningful, and ultimately bittersweet as the rest of the movie.

   All in all it’s a triumph of a movie, deserving, I feel, higher praise than even the high praise already bestowed upon it. With great performances all around, it’s especially nice to appreciate the fine acting of Paul Newman in a great role (not as easy for my generation), as well as seeing Jude Law step out of his prettyboy persona to play an ugly, menacing killer. A huge nod to my favorite composer as well, Thomas Newman, for adding tremendously to the feel of the movie with his emotionally-driven score. Mendes has created a film as timelessly praiseworthy as the story it enfolds.