Squeele

In a nutshell: director James Cameron and his crew (among them his engineer brother Mike, German WWII veterans, DP Vince Pace and a bunch of equally brilliant scientists and historians) join a Russian research ship in order to film the wreckage of battleship Bismarck, a ginormous Nazi cruiser sunk by the British (or was she?) in May 1941 off the coast of France, or as the commentary by Lance Henriksen dubs her: "the Death Star of her time".

This is a docu-fiction type of documentary. Phenomenal archive footage and stunning present-day images are blended (sometimes not flawlessly) with CGI schematics as well as stiff period dramatization. As much as I love Jim Cameron's movies (I truly think he's one of the most important filmmakers working today, even his lesser efforts in the fiction domain being better than 95% of their rivals IMHO) I wasn't introduced yet to his documentary work. Now that I've seen "Expedition: Bismarck" I honestly can recommend it to anyone interested in history, underwater filming, or just documentaries altogether. That being said, some of Cameron's flaws or shortcomings as an artist were more visible here than in his previous work, and it prevented me to completely dive into it.

Cameron's brand of tech-heavy obsession transpires logically more here than in any other film. There is a strong emphasis on engineering aspects and basic underwater physics. As much as it's portrayed efficiently with much pedagogic concern, it might be a bit hard to follow for the younger - or less tutored - audience. The first 30 minutes skip quite bizarrely through the historical facts, the Bismarck being portrayed in such a hammy manner than its sinking in comparison seems like a mere footnote. As much as this choice pays off later on, I still found the intro quite unbalanced and suffering from a poor dramatization that looks like a cheap A&E biography.

Another annoying aspect was the historical theories submitted by the film. Much like another Cameron-produced documentary (you know, that obnoxious movie about the tomb of Jesus?) some established historical theories are being challenged here by the filmmakers. And even if I don't believe in any bias on their end, the way they present their "discoveries" is way too rushed or opaque to be credible. Sometimes James Cameron and his mates sound like smug, arrogant tomb raiders jumping to conclusions while said conclusions are neither really explained nor sustaining their arguments. Nothing in this movie shows a lack of good faith from the filmmakers, but the way they mistake themselves for History detectives is totally out of place.

That being said, these flaws are quite forgettable compared to the astounding undersea filming. This is truly the most breathtaking marine film since Louis Malle and Jacques Yves Cousteau's groundbreaking 50's film "Le monde du silence". And more importantly, the usual criticism toward Cameron's work (a so-called coldness and lack of emotion) is here negated by the very moving story of two 80 year-old men who survived the sinking. The genuine emotion from those two German WWII vets not only humanizes the story, but shows how young spirits could've been brainwashed by the Nazi propaganda. Yesterday's enemies being today's friends gives this movie a well-earned upbeat ending that never feels staged or stolen.

In a nutshell: I, for one, found Bond's latest "Quantum of Solace" quite enjoyable but with some annoying flaws. Almost non-stop action with some sarcastic bits of humor (but never to the point of making the hero look silly or ridicule himself, like a Roger Moore 007, or Downey's Iron Man more recently) and all-around good acting. On the other hand the script is weak and quite messy, uselessly convoluted for the paper-thin story it tells.

Direction-wise this is *not* a cheap Bourne rip-off as some people have claimed here and there. It truly feels like a Bond movie. The action is frenetic, filmed pretty much in the same vein as "Casino Royale", which is a good thing. Sure, there are some bold tracking shots and not-so-steady cam, but never to the point of being too shaky. It's used efficiently, not in a show-off way. A Bond movie has to be spectacular and if clearly not groundbreaking that one hits the mark.

But as far as I'm concerned, the rest wasn't as tight. The direction is somewhat repetitive (especially when establishing one of the countless new locations, when the director abuses of music and multiple cuts to amp up the exposition scenes, as if the action scenes weren't titillating enough). The story is poorly introduced and it gets worse with every new character hitting the screen. As for the usually excellent Mathieu Amalric playing the main baddie, he's given too few too late to really shine. His very last scene with Daniel Craig is really good, the fights are brutal and the guy clearly has the charisma to stand against Bond, but plot-wise he's really wasted.

Now, for the lame mistakes they cleverly avoided: no Michael Bay editing style. No - or at least very few - obnoxious product placement. No annoying or miscast Bond Girl. The movie is not shying away from the violence, with possibly one of the highest body-counts in the whole franchise. This is still the assassin Bond we're given (with another great performance from Daniel Craig), not the caricatured spy. The opening title sequence is being designed by newcomers in the Bond universe and they made a very good job, blending all the ingredients without being too flashy and that actually benefits the song from Jack White and Alicia Keys. I found said song much more enjoyable during the credits than without them - where "Casino Royale" gave me the exact opposite feeling.

Unfortunately, almost everything else was handled more firmly by Martin Campbell and the producers in 2006. Marc Forster does a decent job and took some interesting decisions regarding the tone as well as some specific scenes (without spoiling much, I'd say that his use of Puccini's "Tosca" was quite original) but sometimes too much action is detrimental, even to an action movie.

All in all, a good but flawed Bond movie whose downsides could have been easily avoided. Following "Casino Royale" was doubly harmful; not only because of its inherent quality, but also for the writers' mishandling of its legacy. If the next Bond tries again to tie some loose ends from "Quantum of Solace", I just hope they'll learn from their mistakes and give it a more coherent feel. No one wants to suffer the decreasing quality of the post-GoldenEye Bonds again, right?

Interesting concept from french director Mabrouk el Mechri: real action star Jean Claude Van Damme is engaged into a bitter legal battle for his daughter's custody. Said daughter is mocked by her classmates for her father's antics, and prefers staying with her mother. Ridiculed by the media and smarty-pants naysayers, condemned to shoot sub-par B-movies in eastern Europe, almost broke and devastated by his little girl's condition, Jean Claude flies back to his native Belgium in order to find solace. After an odd encounter with small time crooks, his life and perception by the public will be changed forever.

From a direction/scriptwriting point of view, the movie is somewhat lacking focus. It's relying a bit too much on inside jokes and heist movie clichés, for better or worse. There are some truly great moments (the opening scene is hilarious - any scene using Baby Huey's "Hard Times" tune cannot be bad anyway; the court scenes are cleverly written and the very last shot finds a perfect balance of emotion without being overblown or tear-jerking) and the whole film deserves praise for being original and clever. However it stretches some scenes way too much, uses an awful bleached color scheme that could turn off some people (it's just a detail, but it annoyed me throughout the whole screening) and uses unnecessary flashbacks instead of sticking to a more tight storytelling, which could've benefited the movie in my humble opinion.

However, these little flaws are nothing compared to the enormous heart this movie displays. Jean Claude Van Damme may not be Daniel Day Lewis or Sean Penn, but he gives an astounding performance in this film. He's very comfortable in the comical scenes, but his acting chops really shine when the movie gets emotional. His long monologue, looking at the camera, and the audience (and perhaps even God) is nothing short of amazing. In his own words, he really begs for a second chance not only in his career, but in life. He's incredibly moving (acting in his native language helps a lot) and above all doesn't try to pretend he's something more than a washed up movie star, with a somewhat limited vocabulary. He just asks for one more chance, and judging by this flick he truly deserves it.

Overall, a nice surprise for those unfamiliar with "the Muscles from Brussels" and a refreshing comedy. Except a few complaints about the pace and the direction it's a highly recommended movie. And hopefully the beginning of a new career for JCVD.