setanta-

It feels bad in a way to criticise this film because it is trying so hard to be good. However the fact is that it just doesn't come together in a way which genuinely taps into our fears and releases them. Yes, there are crashes and jumps that startle, but one is never drawn in deeper.

It's a pity because there are a couple of good performances (Lili Taylor stands out) and it's certainly photographed well. I think it is the direction that is a bit off. It feels more like a paint-by-numbers approach to the genre than someone who is genuinely conveying what makes him personally afraid. (I don't think I've ever seen a film with more people walking backwards into the open frame behind them.)

So does it work for a Saturday night popcorn-jumper with the right audience? Sure. It will put the receptive viewer through the standard paces, and he or she will likely leave satisfied. But it's nothing that will have you starting at shadows when you go to bed that night.

It plays like a paired down version of Casino Royale, which at 106 minutes just might have been the producer's intention. This is not a handicap for the most part as this is essentially a sequel to the prior film and carries over some of the plot and most of the motivation. Although there were a couple of moments when I wondered for an instant if we had skipped a reel. To call the editing "tight" would be an understatement.

The performances are skilled, the stunts are exciting (thought some of the CGI could have used fine-tuning- particularly a fall through a glass ceiling), and Craig is starting to warm up a bit more to the suave side of Bond. I think the only thing noticeably lacking is a bit of fun. With this film we get back into the familiar Bond realm of preposterous schemes and omnipotent criminal organisations. It makes for great spectacle but the gravitas with which it is dealt could become a bit self-indulgent if left unchecked.

Of course I understand the need to close the loop on this little character development cycle, but I think it would be best to move away from the perpetual scowl as the franchise moves forward. James Bond is not Jason Bourne; I realise that is the box-office that the studio is trying to cash in on these days but you can only push it so far. You need that wink and a nod to the audience that we're all in on the game. Otherwise you start to drift towards the overly-serious, self-caricature land of Steven Segal.

All things considered "Quantum of Solace" is a good investment for your entertainment dollar. Yes, you've been on the ride before but there are still thrills to go around for all.

"Beowulf" is a mildly interesting retelling of the classic story that is rendered virtually unwatchable by the CGI motion capture technique used to "film" the actors. The result looks like second-rate animation or third-rate photography. It's actually quite shocking to me that the movie was released in the state that it was. I don't know how any artist with even a semester of an art-school drawing class under his or her belt would be satisfied with that work. It looks like a second draft pre-visualisation for what the film might look like when completed. Whatever their budget and time-line was they obviously needed to double it.

I suppose what it most resembles is a poorly drawn version of "Shrek". But quite frankly that is insulting to "Shrek", because the makers of that film would never put their stamp on characters with such vacant expressions, lack of detail, childish shading, and wooden movement. However there is still a visual similarity between the human "extras" in Shrek that are painted with less precision and the characters in Beowulf. This makes for a creepy experience when you see them in sexually suggestive scenes or using coarse language. It's like a pervert's transformation of a child's film.

Two questions popped into my head when watching the movie. The first question which occurred about five minutes in was, "Can I actually sit through two hours of this crap?" Well, I was able to answer that question with a begrudging, "Yes". The second question was, "Why on Earth did they choose this technique?" That I cannot answer.

The fact is that if they had chosen either pure animation or live action filming, the result would have been incalculably better. John Malkovich is a great actor, but I found myself staring at the face of his character at one point trying to get some clue about his motives, but it was a completely blank slate. It was like watching a mannequin. What a waste of a fine cast. Watching the DVDs extras you get to see Anthony Hopkins in costume or the beautiful Robin Wright Penn on the set and it hammers home the point, "Why?" Why, did they throw away those potentially magical performances for this dreck?

I could go on for pages but due to the space constraints I suppose I need to capture the essence of my objections and it is this: I felt absolutely no emotional connection to any character or event in this film. This is quite rare for me, as I'm an easy sell. So as a piece of art it was a complete failure. It is a quirky oddity that may one day be remembered as the most ambitious example of an abandoned technique. Let us hope so.