Sleight of Film

“What took you so long?” —Franz Oberhauser

Today’s quick review: Spectre. Following a lead left for him by M (Judi Dench), James Bond (Daniel Craig) uncovers the existence of Spectre, a criminal organization that has been manipulating global affairs from the shadows. To hunt down Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), the leader of the organization, Bond will need the help of Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), the daughter of an old enemy.

Spectre is a spy action thriller and the fourth entry in the rebooted Bond series starring Daniel Craig. Spectre picks up in the wake of Skyfall, as Bond investigates Spectre on his own while Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), Eve Moneypenney (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) fight off a hostile takeover of the disgraced MI-6. Solid direction, a satisfying build-up, and a strong cast are offset by some questionable plotting decisions.

Spectre’s strengths lie with the cast and direction style that made Skyfall as success. Daniel Craig slips deftly back into the role of bond, while his supporting cast of Fiennes, Harris, and Whishaw work like a well-oiled machine. The early film has a nice sense of atmosphere as Bond picks up the trail left by M. And while the action does not have quite the same success rate as Skyfall, it is enough to make the film a fun watch.

Unfortunately, Spectre does not share its predecessor’s sound judgment. Although the film opens well enough, it misplays its hand later on. Much of the story’s power comes from playing up Franz Oberhauser as a brilliant mastermind, yet the events of the film do not bear this out. Christoph Waltz does a fine job with the role, but his encounters with Bond are poorly motivated and hardly as methodical as he is made out to be.

The result is a film that goes through the motions well but ultimately fails to impress. Give Spectre a shot if you are a fan of Daniel Craig’s take on Bond. Though not as impactful as Skyfall, it still has its moments, and it marks an interesting continuation of the series’ status quo and its themes. But be aware that Spectre misses the opportunity to be much more than it is.

For a classic clash with SPECTRE, try Thunderball. For a spy-themed superhero movie that throws even more action at a similar premise, try Captain America: The Winter Soldier. For a more grounded spy thriller that deals with a similar threat, try Jason Bourne. For a better use of Christoph Waltz, try Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained.

[6.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for good fundamentals hurt by some plot issues.

“So much for my promising career in espionage.” —Q

Today’s quick review: Skyfall. Injured on a mission and presumed dead, James Bond (Daniel Craig) resurfaces to help M (Judi Dench) track down Silva (Javier Bardem), a resourceful man whose explosive declaration of war has left MI-6 reeling. As Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) leads a government investigation into M’s handling of the situation, Bond teams up with Eve (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) to track down the mastermind.

Skyfall is a spy action thriller and the third entry in the rebooted James Bond series starring Daniel Craig. A failed mission in Istanbul leaves James Bond injured, MI-6 in shambles, and M facing a political crisis that could end her career. Skillful acting, a thrilling plot, subtle thematic work, and a hefty dose of action make Skyfall one of the most robust films in the franchise.

Skyfall has a much more personal tone than previous Bond films. Left physically and emotionally scarred by his injuries, Bond must pull himself back from the brink to have any hope of defeating Silva. Meanwhile, M faces her greatest crisis as years of cold, pragmatic decision-making come back to haunt her. The drama is handled expertly, resulting in an unusually thoughtful story laced with rich thematic connections.

Nor does Skyfall forget the action. In spite of his handicap, Bond is at his peak, tackling each new challenge with the right mixture of skill and struggle. Skyfall does not opt for the flashy, iconic action scenes of other spy movies. Instead, it takes a subtler approach. Each action scene is polished and exciting, but none of them distract from the whole. The result is an action film that is thrilling yet cohesive.

The one drawback of Skyfall is a matter of taste. The film continues in the dramatic tradition of Casino Royale, playing up the cold and troubled side of Bond. Much like Casino Royale, Skyfall puts its drama to good use, but the serious tone of the film will not sit well with fans of the more adventurous side of Bond.

Skyfall is an impressive film that stands with the best Bond has to offer. While its tone and storytelling style are very different from the classic version of Bond, the quality of the film more than justifies its departures from the old formula. Any action fan will want to give Skyfall a shot. For the full story, start with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. For an action thriller of similar caliber, try Mission: Impossible – Fallout.

[7.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/). I give it an 8.0 for excellent craftsmanship.

“And who might you be?” —Francis Bacon

Today’s quick review: Love is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon (Derek Jacobi), a renowned British painter, lucks out when George Dyer (Daniel Craig), the burglar who broke into his apartment, agrees to his propositions. At first their relationship is passionate and spurs Francis to new artistic heights. But over time, Francis’s disdain and George’s depressive tendencies threaten to tear them apart.

Love is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon is a biographical romantic drama set in the 1960s. What starts as a chance fling between an older artist and a younger thief turns into a powerful yet troubled relationship. Love is the Devil takes an artistic and introspective approach to its subject. However, its slow-moving story and themes of depression, angst, and infidelity will make it something of a niche pick.

Love is the Devil takes great pains to show the world through Francis Bacon’s eyes. From his macabre narration about life to his bitingly sarcastic social circle to his fascination with George, the talents and shortcomings of Francis come through clearly. Love is the Devil takes these themes a step further with a moody atmosphere, distorted camerawork, and an experimental presentation style that captures the thoughts of its characters.

Unfortunately, Love is the Devil can only dramatize its subject matter, not increase its appeal. The story has only a loose structure to it, a series of social vignettes cataloguing the ebb and flow of Francis’s relationship with George. While the relationship eventually reaches a climax, the film’s indirect and passive style can be hard to get into. Likewise, Francis and George are hit-or-miss characters with sharp personality flaws.

How much you get out of Love is the Devil will come down to taste. Those who enjoy biographical, artistically-minded movies will enjoy the way Love is the Devil goes about painting the tempestuous relationship between Francis and George. But anyone who dislikes the characters or their problems will find that there isn’t much else to salvage the experience. Approach with caution.

For a somewhat more active tale of love and self-destruction, try Leaving Las Vegas. For another Daniel Craig movie about a relationship gone bad, try Love & Rage. For an introspective crime drama with a literary bent, try Croupier.

[6.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119577/). I give it a 6.0 for good artistry wrapped around a static plot.

Today’s quick review: The Trench. In June 1916, the British army prepares for a massive offensive against the Germans in northern France. Sergeant Telford Winter (Daniel Craig) leads a platoon of young soldiers as they guard a critical section of trench against heavy bombardment. As the battle draws near, Billy Macfarlane (Paul Nicholls), his brother Eddie (Tam Williams), and the rest of their platoon wrestle with the prospect of death.

The Trench is a war drama about the lead-up to the Battle of the Somme. Paul Nicholls and Daniel Craig head an ensemble cast in a tense and personal look at life on the front lines during World War I. The Trench captures its setting well, depicting the flashes of violence and endless waiting of trench warfare. However, its static story and relative lack of action put it at a disadvantage compared to other war films.

The Trench has a nice sense of tension throughout. The uncertainty of guard duty, the day-to-day risks of the trenches, and the looming threat of the battle all keep the characters and the audience from getting too comfortable. The characters are frustratingly human, with all the faults that make a bad situation worse and all the virtues that make death even more tragic. The result is a convincing slice of a pivotal moment in history.

Unfortunately, the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Individual scenes are compelling, but The Trench never hits the right emotional notes to build a bond between the audience and its characters. Instead of rich, full character arcs, The Trench offers fragments of fear and resilience. The nature of the story also limits what the movie can do. The soldiers are ordered to wait, and so the audience must wait with them.

Give The Trench a shot when you are in the mood for something tense and sober. The movie does a good job with its material, capturing the struggle of its soldiers in the face of terrifying odds. But The Trench is missing the tight writing that makes other war movies so compelling, making it a mediocre pick overall. Try it out if you’re interested, but look elsewhere if you want the best the genre has to offer.

For an even more gripping take on World War I, try 1917. For a World War I movie with a broader plot, try Warhorse. For a World War II that shows young soldiers hurled into a deadly situation, try Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, or Rage. For a World War II movie about a military decision with devastating consequences for the men on the ground, try A Bridge Too Far or Battle of Britain.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0161010/). I give it a 6.5 for effective but piecemeal drama.

Today’s quick review: Love & Rage. Agnes MacDonnell (Greta Scacchi), a wealthy English woman, owns a manor house in Ireland, where she lives with her housekeeper Biddy (Valerie Edmond) and entertains Dr. William Croly (Stephen Dillane), her closest friend. But her life takes a dark turn when she falls for James Lynchehaun (Daniel Craig), an Irish businessman whose roguish charms belie his sinister motives.

Love & Rage is a romantic drama and thriller about an ill-fated fling between a woman and her two-faced tenant. Greta Scacchi stars as Agnes, whose adventurous personality makes her easy prey for James. Love & Rage captures the sense of subtle menace as James worms his way into Agnes’ life, isolating her from her friends and toying with her heart. However, the movie’s shaky execution means that the story ultimately falls flat.

Love & Rage’s strength lies in the dynamic between Agnes and James. At the core of it, there is something believable there: a divorced woman starved for excitement and an opportunist who takes advantage of her. Daniel Craig plays his part with the right kind of erratic behavior, and Greta Scachi conveys Agnes’ hopes and follies with skill. When it works, their relationship is dark and compelling, with a growing sense that something is wrong.

Unfortunately, Love & Rage does not have much to it. The story unfolds slowly and only really concerns the toxic effect James has on Agnes’s life. Every now and then one of his betrayals will shock the viewer, but these incidents are surrounded by the duller details of Agnes’s social life. To make matters worse, the movie never lays out James’ motives in enough detail to be sastisfying, so the finale feels disconnected from the build-up.

Love & Rage will have niche appeal for those interested in historical dramas with a dark tone and a heavy emphasis on social relationships. There are flashes of something interesting in the way James toys with Agnes, and the cast does a decent job with their parts, but ultimately there is not enough to carry the film. Those looking for something dark and psychological can do better elsewhere.

For a steamier romance with similar elements of seduction and betrayal, try Chloe. For a thriller that toys with similar ideas, try The Talented Mr. Ripley. For a less sinister drama about romance and loss of fortune, try Dark Eyes.

[5.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185442/). I give it a 5.5 for a premise with potential and execution that somewhat misses the mark.

Today’s quick review: Some Voices. After years in a mental hospital, Ray (Daniel Craig) comes home to live with his brother Pete (David Morrissey), a hard-working restaurant owner. Pete helps his brother get back on his feet, and soon enough, Ray finds happiness dating Laura (Kelly MacDonald), a sunny young woman fresh off a bad relationship. But when Ray stops taking his medicine, his erratic behavior threaten to undo everything he’s built.

Some Voices is a romantic drama about a man with mental health issues trying to make a new life for himself. Daniel Craig stars as Ray, a playful and caring man whose lack of responsibility gets him into trouble, especially when it comes to taking care of himself. Some Voices shows the ups and downs of Ray’s life in the months after he leaves the hospital, telling a nicely scoped story that’s backed by human moments and solid acting.

Some Voices has the messy quality of Ray himself. Nearly all of the drama comes from Ray’s decisions, which are just sensible enough to give him a shot at happiness and just risky enough to put him on a bad path. The interplay between Ray, Pete, and Laura makes for some good tension. Both want the best for Ray, but getting through to him is challenging. The result isn’t a masterpiece, but it is a fascinating study of a complicated man.

Some Voices won’t be for everyone. There is no grand story arc to follow, and no looming external conflict, only the gradual dissolution of the supports holding Ray together. Those with a taste for the personal and the realistic will find that Some Voices is an interesting peek into the struggles of a tight-knit group of people. Those looking for a broader or more plot-oriented story may want to look elsewhere.

For a more firmly rooted drama about a man wrestling with mental health issues, check out A Beautiful Mind. For one with a more sinister bent, try The Machinist. For an introspective drama in a similar vein, try Croupier. For an offbeat romance with a lighter tone and a stranger premise, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

[6.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218616/). I give it the same for good acting and an interesting story.

Today’s quick review: Hotel Splendide. For years, Mrs. Blanche held the Hotel Splendide in her grasp, forcing the guests to undergo a strict regimen of bland food cooked by her son Ronald (Daniel Craig). But when the matriarch dies, Kath (Toni Collette), a chef who was once involved with Ronald, returns to the hotel to liven up its cooking, much to the chagrin of the manager Dezmond (Stephen Tompkinson), the more loyal of Mrs. Blanche’s sons.

Hotel Splendide is a black comedy with mystery elements. Hotel Splendide is set in the remote, decrepit hotel of the same name, an aging institution kept stagnant first by Mrs. Blanche and then by her obsessively devoted son Dezmond. The return of Kath, a friendly chef who believes in the value of a good meal, disrupts the carefully arranged status quo, sparking a clash between Kath and Dezmond for the fate of the hotel.

Hotel Splendide takes place in a world of its own. The hotel is a mess of old paint and leaky pipes that’s barely held together by the work of its staff. Against this ominous backdrop, the peculiar guests go about various treatments for their health. The setting and characters are distinct, and they give Hotel Splendide plenty to keep the audience occupied while Kath tries to win Ronald back to her side.

The drawback is that Hotel Splendide has a very particular flavor to it. The darker elements of the story are just strong enough to keep the movie from being a pure comedy, putting a damper on what is fundamentally an optimistic story. The jokes are understated, and they rely more on presenting the viewer with something strange than setting up a punchline. Finally, the plot is indirect, taking a while to settle on its ultimate direction.

Hotel Splendide is an interesting watch, but it won’t be for everyone. Those with a taste for movies that are offbeat and slightly macabre will find it to be a charming film that does a good job of carving its own path. Those looking for a sharper comedy or one with a lighter tone may find that it’s a miss.

For a sharper and more stylized comedy set in an all-inclusive hotel, check out The Grand Budapest Hotel. For a lighter and more romantic movie about a woman whose food brings joy to a town, try Chocolat. For a black comedy with a similar tone, try Clue, Knives Out, or The Ladykillers. For a wry comedy about a similarly dysfunctional comedy, try The Royal Tenenbaums.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177845/). I give it a 6.5 for a curious plot.

Today’s quick review: Flashbacks of a Fool. Joe Scot (Daniel Craig) was once a successful actor, but years of drugs and hedonism have taken their toll on his psyche and his career. Just when Joe thinks he’s reached rock bottom, he learns that his best friend from childhood has died. As Joe tries to process it all, his mind drifts back to when he was a teenager (Harry Eden) and the ill-fated romance that brought him to where he is today.

Flashbacks of a Fool is an introspective drama about a dead-end actor who revisits his past. The movie tells two linked stories: one about Joe in the present, where he’s barely hanging on, and one about Joe in the past, where he’s an eager teenager with the world ahead of him. Flashbacks of a Fool tries to weave together a tapestry of love, lust, tragedy, and guilt. However, structural issues and a hit-or-miss setup hold it back.

Flashbacks of a Fool misplays its hand. It does a fine job of introducing Joe and his problems in the present, then scraps all of that for a lengthy flashback to Joe’s past. The new story has almost nothing to do with the old. There are no thematic connections to link the two, there are no hints about Joe’s past before the flashback begins, and even the childhood friend Joe is supposedly mourning only plays a bit part.

Effectively, Flashbacks of a Fool starts over from scratch half an hour in, except with slower pacing, more passive characters, and a plot that winds all over before abruptly finding a direction. The flashback also waits as long as possible to introduce the characters that matter the most to Joe, leaving the audience in a dull limbo until the movie finally lays out the stakes. The result is a disjointed movie with little emotional payoff.

Flashbacks of a Fool has a literary quality to it that some viewers will enjoy. There are one or two interesting ideas scattered around, and the premise of a man retracing the course of his life is a valid one. But Flashbacks of a Fool throws up all kinds of obstacles in the audience’s way, making it a challenge to connect to the characters or care about their struggles. Anyone looking for direct, honest emotion will want to steer clear.

For a much more moving drama about a Hollywood figure returning to his hometown after the death of a friend, check out Cinema Paradiso. For a more engaging teenage odyssey, try Igby Goes Down. For a more heartwarming story about a performer turning his life around, try Danny Collins. For a sprawling, atmospheric story about an ailing actor, try Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. For a drama that tries something similar, try Down the Shore.

[6.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037218/). I give it a 5.5 for a mediocre story with poor structure and pacing.

“You both must be as simple-minded as they say.” —Joe Bang

Today’s quick review: Logan Lucky. Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum), a divorced father who was just laid off from his job, talks his brother Clyde (Adam Driver), a one-armed bartender, into helping him rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway. But to get into the vault at the Speedway, the brothers will need the help of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig), a demolitions expert who just happens to be in prison.

Logan Lucky is a crime comedy about a pair of brothers who set out to complete an ambitious heist. Logan Lucky follows Jimmy and Clyde Logan as they assemble their ramshackle crew, break Joe out of prison, and figure out a way to sneak a fortune in cash out of the Speedway vault. The movie boasts a likable cast, a sharp plot, and a dry sense of humor. While its style won’t be for everyone, Logan Lucky’s craftsmanship is hard to fault.

Fittingly enough, the main appeal of Logan Lucky comes from its heist. The plan Jimmy comes up with is clever at a number of levels, relying on a mixture of fortunate circumstances, cunning workarounds, and careful anticipation of how guards and staff will react to the obstacles the Logans put in their way.

At the same time, Logan Lucky doesn’t skimp on its characters. Jimmy, Clyde, Joe, and the others all have their quirks, but none of them are bad or off-putting. Their personalities are distinct, and their world feels real, with none of the artificial grit or glamor seen in other crime movies. Finally, Jimmy’s relationship with his daughter Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie) is charming and gives the movie just the right amount of heart.

Still, Logan Lucky has some minor flaws around the edges. Critical viewers will find holes in the plan, ranging from unacknowledged lucky breaks to information the Logans shouldn’t have access to. The holes aren’t major enough to cause problems, but they put a slight drag on the plot. The movie also has an understated style that won’t suit everyone. In particular, it emotionally undersells an otherwise satisfying finale.

Logan Lucky is well worth a watch for those interested. It finds a unique angle for its heist, populates its world with interesting characters, and executes the whole thing without a hitch. While not as superlative as the very best the genre has to offer, its robust quality and measured originality make it a fine pick.

For an even more elaborate heist comedy from the same director, check out Ocean’s Eleven. For a similarly unconventional heist with more overt humor, try Mad Money, Going in Style, or The Maiden Heist. For another movie about robbing a racetrack, try The Heist, starring Pierce Brosnan. For a crime movie with more romance, also from the same director, try Out of Sight. For a jauntier crime movie, try Baby Driver.

[7.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5439796/). I give it the same for solid craftsmanship and an enjoyable story.

Today’s quick review: Kings. In Los Angeles in 1991, Millie (Halle Berry) struggles to support her large family of foster children, and her teenage son Jesse (Lamar Johnson) tries to keep Nicole (Rachel Hilson), a troubled girl, from falling in with William (Kaalan Walker), a troublemaker. But when tensions from the Rodney King trial boil over into riots, Millie turns to her cantankerous neighbor Obie (Daniel Craig) to keep her family safe.

Kings is a crime drama set in the weeks leading up to the Rodney King riots. The movie follows an overworked single mother as she tries to keep her family together and safe in the face of racial tensions, hostile police, and opportunistic criminals. Kings aims to be a sober drama about innocent people pushed into a terrible situation. However, issues with its setup, tone, and pacing keep it from having the intended impact.

Kings is a taxing watch. The setting is tense, every character is tightly wound, and a significant fraction of them are actively trying to make the situation worse. The movie is full of close calls and bad decisions, culminating in absolute chaos that puts everyone at risk. The upshot is that Kings effectively portrays a lose-lose situation. However, Kings gives the audience precious little to latch onto and not much hope of redemption.

The rest of the movie is a mixed bag. Lamar Johnson is perhaps the most sympathetic character as Jesse, a responsible boy dragged into bad company. Daniel Craig scores points with his performance as the half-antagonistic, half-reliable Obie. But the rest of the characters are frustrating, and the stop-and-go pacing of the movie makes it hard to invest in them. Instead of building to a crescendo, Kings sputters along.

The result is a movie that has most of the right pieces but doesn’t put them together well. With different scaffolding, Kings could be a moving tale about a family pushed beyond its breaking point. But Kings has a hard time achieving the emotional range it needs, and the structure of the story hurts both its build-up and its finale. Give Kings a shot if you’re interested in the subject matter, but look elsewhere for truly polished drama.

For a crime drama that examines similar tensions from a range of different perspectives, try Crash. For a crime drama about a crooked cop set during the Rodney King trial, try Dark Blue. For a more systematic look at hatred and violence, try American History X. For a sports drama about inner city violence, try Hardball. For a crime movie where short-sighted decisions take a situation from bad to worse, try Good Time.

[5.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5843850/). I give it a 6.0 for a mix of workable drama and storytelling flaws.