'QUANTUM OF SOLACE' REVIEWS - EARLY BUZZ NOT ALL THAT POSITIVE

Hmmm, we're sorta bummed about this. It seems that many of the London papers and tabs are exactly thrilled by the new James Bond flick. And while most of them agree that Daniel Craig is pretty damn awesome as 007, the film doesn't hit the mark in the manner that "Casino Royale" did.

Times Online: “It’s James Bond, licence to bore. Quantum of Solace may be a sequel to Casino Royale but it lacks that movie’s panache and brio.” … “Bond is a boorish oaf who simply rushes from country to country with the manic speed of Jason Bourne, including sequences shot in Panama, Chile, Italy, Mexico and Austria, in a plot about holding a country to ransom over its water supply. Quantum of Solace lacks any wit, ironic or otherwise, which has been a strength of so many 007 films.” … “At around one hour 40 minutes, this Bond is shorter than most. Somehow it felt longer.”

The Guardian: “This didn’t excite me as much as Casino Royale and the villain is especially underpowered.” … “This is a crash-bang Bond, high on action, low on quips, long on location glamour, short on product placement.” … “I was disappointed there was so little dialogue, flirtation and characterization in this Bond: Forster and his writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade clearly thought this sort of sissy nonsense has to be cut out in favor of explosions. Well, perhaps that is what Bond fans want (not this Bond fan, though). But I was also baffled that relatively little was made of the deliciously villainous Amalric”.

The Telegraph: “…owes much to the quick-fire editing of the Bourne thrillers.” … “In this much darker film” … ” For half an hour or so after the pre-credits ‘teaser’, the film barely lets up.” … “And then, the pacing becomes more fractured. One wonders if director Marc Forster and screenwriters Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis haven’t tried a little too hard to distance the film from traditional Bond plots. The expository dialogue scenes can be dull, and cram in so many machinations and double-crossings that it’s easy to lose track of who’s duping whom. And yet, several times - just when you’re tempted to consult your watch - the movie suddenly surprises.”

The Daily Mirror: “Quantum of Solace is a leaner, meaner animal, rammed with shoot-outs, a boat chase and even an aerial dogfight. And our hero is an angry, embittered man out for blood. Mostly it doesn’t feel like a Bond film at all. Not once does Craig say: “The name’s Bond. James Bond.” There’s no Q or his gadgets. Heck, we even see Bond in a cardigan. There are no risque quips or arched eyebrows.” … “It doesn’t disappoint - just don’t expect the brilliance of Casino Royale.”

Read More

SLASHFILM PUBLISHES ITS 'DARK KNIGHT' REVIEW

Peter Sciretta at Slashfilm is one of the best film journalists online. Bar none. He's been given the go-ahead to publish his review for "The Dark Knight" and it's an out-and-out rave. Not a fanboy fave. A fave for serious film critics. He calls it the "Empire Strikes Back" of comic films...

Here's an excerpt:

I have been given the go ahead to review The Dark Knight, but this is the type of film that I need to see at least two or three times before attempting such a task. The film is so very expansive, so incredibly epic. I decided that instead of a full review, I will just share my first impressions. But lets first talk expectations. Going into 2008, I was looking forward to only a few films, The Dark Knight being one of them. As you probably already know, WALL-E was at the top of my list, and Pixar’s latest didn’t disappoint. I was very sure that WALL-E would end up being my favorite film of the year, and it is… errr WAS. That is until I saw The Dark Knight. I screened the film on Saturday night in Los Angeles, and now that I’ve had a few days to think about the film, I thought I would share my ten spoiler-free reasons why I believe that The Dark Knight is a masterpiece - an almost flawless comic book movie adaptation.

1. The Movie is Epic - The Dark Knight is not just a superhero movie. It is the first comic book adaptation to transcend the genre. Imagine one of the greatest crime thrillers of all time which just happens to have a guy who dresses in a bat costume and fights crime. Think Godfather 2 or Heat, with a insane terrorist who paints his face like a clown and goes around killing random people. It’s expansive in feel and tone. It’s the type of film which you make a point to refer to as a “film” instead of a “movie”.

To read the rest of the review, click HERE.

Read More

PETER TRAVERS' ROLLING STONE REVIEW FOR 'THE DARK KNIGHT'

***1/2 out of ****

Heads up: a thunderbolt is about to rip into the blanket of bland we call summer movies. The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan's absolute stunner of a follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins, is a potent provocation decked out as a comic-book movie. Feverish action? Check. Dazzling spectacle? Check. Devilish fun? Check. But Nolan is just warming up. There's something raw and elemental at work in this artfully imagined universe. Striking out from his Batman origin story, Nolan cuts through to a deeper dimension. Huh? Wha? How can a conflicted guy in a bat suit and a villain with a cracked, painted-on clown smile speak to the essentials of the human condition? Just hang on for a shock to the system. The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil — expected to do battle — decide instead to get it on and dance. "I don't want to kill you," Heath Ledger's psycho Joker tells Christian Bale's stalwart Batman. "You complete me." Don't buy the tease. He means it.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Read More

IT'S OFFICIAL: SHYAMALAN'S A HACK

Back in the '90s, M. Night Shyamalan sucker-punched the movie-going public with "The Sixth Sense." It was a creepy throwback ghost story that reminded us that scary doesn't need to be gore and slash. It was reminiscent of "The Twilight Zone" and with that surprise ending, an A-lister was born.

His follow-up, "Unbreakable," was actually a damn good movie but sadly, came out way before its time. With current fanboy mania and the blogs it produces, there's no doubt in my mind that if it was marketed today as a bonafide comic book movie, it would do boffo biz. Instead, the Mouse House decided to make it look like another creepy "Sixth Sense" knock off. Not the case. But let it be known: that was his last good film.


What he's managed to do is successfully pull the wool over audiences, tricking them into thinking he's a better director than he actually is. It doesn't help matters that he's a raging egomaniac and has an extremely high opinion of himself and his work. He thinks he's Hitchcock. At this point, he's more like Corman.

"Signs" was a joke that had one good money shot in it as well as A-lister Mel Gibson. I wanted to throw my popcorn at the screen after the dopey reveal in "The Village." As for his ill-conceived fairy tale "The Lady in the Water"? I can't even get through it. It's THAT dreadful.

So, for "The Happening," the director has gone back to basics of scaring people. But I think it's pretty sad that his studio is marketing this film as "M. Night's first R-rated film" What the hell does THAT have to do with the price of tea in China?

In any case, the reviews are starting to trickle in for "The Happening" and they ain't good. Garth at Dark Horizons says:

"The Happening" in many ways is a make or break film for the man. It's a return to the paranoia thriller genre that gave us "Signs", his familiar set up of a broken nuclear family being brought back together by a Twilight Zone-esque experience, and yet another homage to one of his mentor Hitchcock's most famous works - in this case "The Birds". It doesn't work. In fact, excluding a few moments of chilling effectiveness, this could fairly be called his worst film yet.

To read the entire review, click HERE.

Read More