Here are a few of my YOUTUBE lip synchs. Enjoy.

"Argo fu@k yourself!"

ARGO (2013)

w- Chris Terrio
d- Ben Affleck
dp- Rodrigo Pietro

Ben Affleck has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he can direct with the best of them. His latest film "Argo" should be the new gold standard on how to script, direct, and edit a thriller, and whip it within and inch of it's life into the tautest, most gripping edge of your seat-er in ages.
In 1979, The U.S. Embassy in Tehran Iran was stormed by militant student revolutionaries, led by the Ayatollah Khomeni, in retaliation for U.S. aid and comfort given to their hated, deposed dictator, Shah Reza Phalavi. 52 U.S. Embassy employees were taken hostage and kept in violent captivity for 444 days, from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981
At the time of the embassy takeover, a small group of six Embassy employees managed to escape the building and find refuge in secret at the Canadian Embassy. There they posed as "guests" of the Canadians and hunkered down to wait for a political resolution to the hostage crisis.
It soon became clear that since they were apart from the Iranian captured hostages and were unknown, they would never be included in an official rescue as the acknowledgement of their existence would endanger the Canadians and the official hostages. So the C.I.A., under the direction of specialist Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) devise a plan to spirit them from Iran. He will go in, posing as a Canadian Movie producer and give them all identities and credentials as part of a movie location scouting party making a crap schlock sci fi film called "Argo". They will receive faked papers and passports, memorize their new identities, and just sashay out of the country with Affleck as their leader. Sound insanely improbable to you? Well be assured, it sounded crazier to them, but it was a real incident, it really happened, and Mendez got special commendation from President Carter himself. The reason why you've never heard of this incident is because the story was classified top secret until just a few years ago.
What Affleck has done is taken the bare bones of the story and embellished it into a compelling movie. The facts are adhered to, but enhancements were made. For example, (spoilers) the airport escape sequence was not nearly as suspenseful in reality. In reality, they got out much more easily. The most tense moment was when the plane was delayed due to technical problems and they had to wait around in suspense. 

Well if you're going to fault Mr. Affleck and Co. for making the scene more interesting, compelling and exciting, then you might just as well fault them for trying to make a movie, as opposed to a documentary. One form requires non embellished truth, and the other begs for exaggeration. God, who wants to listen to someones' true, un-exaggerated account of anything? Spice it up, please!
Acting was uniformly great, and I must cite Alan Arkin's performance as the Hollywood producer enlisted to create the real background for the phony hollywood film. He and John Goodman, who plays famed Hollywood makeup man John Chambers, achieve a comic chemistry that warms and balances out the tension in the film.

Famed 20th Century-Fox makeup Man John Chambers (right) was in fact a long time secret C.I.A. undercover agent who provided the agency's deep cover operatives with alternate identities for ops in East Asia and the Middle East.

If I could change one thing about this film, it's Affleck's casting of himself as Mendez. Although his performance is excellent, I still would've preferred to see an actual Latino/spanish actor who looked a little more like the real Mendez in the role. But that is a minor nit to pick in a film that was so overwhelmingly excellent. I know that when it's released on DVD/BLU-RAY, that I'll be first in line to buy it.

The original poster art for the faked film "Argo" from 1980

The "D" ...is silent

Django Unchained (2012)

w- Quentin Tarantino

d- Quentin Tarantino

dp- Robert Richardson

The superb Jamie Foxx as Django

Even an O.K. Tarantino film is far, far better than the average movie fare available. That's not to say that "Django Unchained" is just O.K. - It's much better than that, but  it's not among the best of Tarantino.
Set in 1858, the film concerns the exploits of a freed slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), and his emancipator- a former dentist turned bounty hunter, named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). The pair roam the countryside taking out "bad guys" that the government has put wanted (dead or alive) notices out on. Shultz develops a quazi paternal feeling of responsibility for Django and proposes that he 'll help Django find his wife, who was sold away at the same time as himself. They track her down to "Candie Land" - a plantation run by scuzzball Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man who passes his time forcing black gladiators to fight to the death. Django and Schultz devise an elaborate plan to liberate his wife from Candie's clutches.

There is much bloodshed and mayhem.

But it wouldn't be a Tarantino flick without it, right? Well a lot of people are grousing about the violent content in the film, but that's what Tarantino has used as his stock-in-trade since he started out with "Reservoir Dogs" back in 1992. In "Django" it's as prevalent as ever, but the manner of depicting the violence is cartoonish, almost parody of style, as if Tarantino anticipated the huge upwhine and is winking at us from across the screen. Bodies explode right and left from bazooka-like 6 shooters, gushing huge gouts of blood everywhere. At one point, a recalcitrant slave is literally ripped apart by dogs.And through it all Django remains unscathed, walking through dozens of men shooting at him, all of them missing, but of course he hits each one a single bullet apiece. This is, as I said, totally cartoonish, and that's what Tarantino DOES. And he does it damn well. Remember the Bride in "Kill Bill'? Case rested.

The performances are top notch here. Absolutely superb. Christoph Waltz proves that his astonishingly brilliant turn in "Inglorious Basterds" was indeed no fluke. He's given less to do here in a sympathetic role, but he's fine indeed, mixing the flim flam, fast talking silver tongued devil with that of a man motivated by ideals and compassion.
Now Jamie Foxx as Django. Oscar please take note. Again, Foxx demonstrates his ability to communicate more with his eyes in one look than any other actor can do with a whole page of dialog. He and Waltz have quite a bit of chemistry between them, and Tarantino always knows how to use chemistry among actors. Another of his stock in trade talents. Leo DiCaprio obviously had a lot of fun with his mega douchbag performance, and it shows onscreen and makes his scenes, particularly his dinner table monolog such great cinema. Samuel L. Jackson plays the real heavy of the film, Candie's valet/right hand slave, Stephen. He's nastiness, cunning deviousness personified. And of course Jackson plays it like only he can. Oscar....please note. There is a lot of controversy brewing about Jackson's portrayal of a nasty slave, and Tarantino's handling of the whole slave issue, as if he somehow is not treating it with the respect that is it's due as one of history's most shameful human rights violations. I don't see it that way myself, but the again, I'm not black, and so maybe I'm missing something.

DiCaprio as Calvin Candie - and his awesome churchwarden pipe

Samuel L Jackson as Stephen

My main problem with this film is in it's pacing and structure. The film lags in the middle-too much time is spent getting to Candieland and the meat of the story and then towards the end with the sequence with the Tarantino cameo. It needed to be much tighter. Perhaps we are seeing the effects of the loss of Sally Meineke, Tarantino's longtime editor and collaborator who died tragically last summer. The loss is most palpable, it seems to me.
It also seems to me that although I obviously know little, I do know that this film gets......  .....

Three and a half dopes

"It'll all just be cornflakes in a can"

Hitchcock (2012)

w- John J McLaughlin

dp- Jeff Cronenweth

d-Sacha Gervasi

"In a hundred year's time, my dear, it'll all just be cornflakes in a can" - or so said Alfred Hitchcock when asked about the penchant for film buffs to take his pictures so seriously. I doubt if the master himself would have understood the longevity or popularity of some of his pictures. When asked once about "Rebecca"(1940) Hitch himself commented "It's held up quite well you know.  ...I don't know why."
50-odd years after the release of "Psycho", Director Sacha Gervasi has fashioned a film biography of sorts about Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), and has used that film as the centerpiece around which the story unfolds. I don't know if there was ever really enough storytelling material there to make a compelling hour and a half plus change viewing for an average audience. Hitch couldn't get backing for "Psycho" because nobody in town thought a horror film would be accepted by an adult audience. Only Paramount President Barney Balaban, to whom Hitchcock still was contractually bound for one more picture, would agree  only to DISTRIBUTE  the film, and only if Hitchcock financed it all himself. I highlight distribute because I'm going to make a point about that later. So Hitchcock mortgaged the house and used his television unit resources (cameras, equipment and crew) at Revue studios on the Universal lot and made the picture.
He was right and the powers that be were wrong and the rest is cinema history. What this film oddly centers on is a supposed tension in Hitch's marriage to Alma(Helen Mirren). Alma Reville, along with Joan Harrison, was the main guiding force behind Hitchcock's success. Reville and Harrison both scripted, and later script doctored, virtually every picture Hitch made. Hitch and Alma had a strong working marriage. Whatever else was going on they kept private. The British are not known for blathering about their private problems, and the Hitchcocks were certainly no exception. That presents a  major problem with this film. The filmmakers here decided to spice up their story by ginning up this supposed flirtatious relationship with a  scriptwriter named Whitfield Cook. Cook had scripted "Strangers on a Train" and adapted "Stage Fright" for Hitch, and he and Alma were friends and worked together on those films. It is unknown and unheard of by me if they ever worked again. I'll give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt and go along with that. I will not go along with the silly notion that it blew up into some dumb soap opera, with Hitchcock running around like a fool, witnessed by God, Peggy Robertson(Toni Collet), and everyone.
Hitchcock, in this film, is also portrayed as being a slobby glutton. Well of course he was, because ...well you know... he was fat. So NATURALLY he MUST have spent nights at home furtively scarfing down tins of pate, and slurping down glasses of brandy and whiskey at all times. Sure. Yeah. Righty-ho.
Another major theme in this film is the influence that the source material had with Hitchcock, and how it subsequently haunted and taunted him. "Psycho" was written By Robert Bloch and was based on the story of Ed Gein, the Wisconsin serial killer who chopped up his female victims. In this film, Gein is given far too much screen time as a ghostly taunter of Hitchcock, representing the director's id. In reality, as anyone who has any knowlege  about Hitchcock's M.O. knows, he never gave two shits about source material. He'd buy a story, chuck out everything but the title, and do it his way, never giving the original author or story a second thought*.  That he'd go all potty over the Gein story was just grating and dumb.

L to R - Jessica Beil as Peggy Robertson, Anthony Hopkins as you-know-who, and Helen Mirren as Alma

Now I want to talk a little about the performances, because here is where the picture really delivers and makes up a lot of lost ground. Both Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren are superb as Hitch and Alma, respectively. Anthony Hopkins has always had such a striking, unique screen presence, and his speech patterns and voice are as strikingly his own as Hitchcock's was. So for the first five minutes, it's a little hard to get him as Hitch, with both voices fighting for recognizance. But after those first five minutes, Hopkins draws you into his performance, making it and Hitch his own. The scenes between him and Mirren are superb, until, of course, it goes all "General Hospital" on us with the soap opera histrionics. Also good was Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh. the scenes between her and Jessica Beil were interesting, delving into the weird hate-obsession Hitch had for Vera Miles. He never forgave her for getting pregnant on "Vertigo" and forcing him to take Kim Novak. He was very, very vindictive if you got on his bad side. This aspect is touched upon here. One guesses that the other Hitchcock bio, "The Girl" , also this year on HBO, takes this a lot further.

Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock. Note the Paramount scenery in the background.

It's an interesting thing about Danny Huston, who Plays Whit Cook. As he ages, he's becoming his father, John Huston, more and more and creepily more. Creepy.
Surprisingly stupid was the depiction of Tony Perkins, in his audition for "Psycho" as being in "real life" just as nervous, awkward and creepy as Norman Bates. Did these people research nothing? Perkins was about as much like Norman Bates in mannerisms and temperment as the Pope is to Lady GaGa.

There are so many historical detail inaccuracies here that I'll only mention a few that really bothered me. Mainly, the biggest totally unnecessary and easily avoidable gaffe was in portraying "Psycho" very specifically as being shot on the Paramount lot. As noted above, Paramount distributed the film ONLY, and all photography and office work was done out of Hitchs TV facilities at Universal studios(Shamley productions).  The films most famous set- the California gothic-inspired house on the hill and the motel exterior are still standing at Universal studios, as any brainless tourist who rides that god-awful tramride can tell you.
Also such careless inattention to historical detail, such as getting the police cruiser wrong, and the rear-projection plates wrong and the dialog wrong and even the goddamned shower head wrong. I mean...how do you get that wrong, for chrissakes?
So there's a lot else, but I want to at least try not to look like a total anal freak, and instead I'll just ask the kind reader - what the hell do I know about anything anyway? Well I know this film is getting from me........

2 and a half dopes.
I almost gave it three for the lead performances, but I ain't gonna.



* "Rebecca" was an exception. It was produced by Miss David O. Selznick, who made Mommie dearest Joan Crawford look like Carol Brady in comparison. He was a total crazy control freak who was COMMITTED to faithfully following the Daphne DuMaurier short story, as he did on his previous success, "Gone with the Wind". He was so right in doing so. Had Hitchcock had his way, he would have set the whole film on a train. True story.

Funny, sexy, thrilling and...did I mention damn Funny?

Where the Bears  Are (2012)

d- Joe Dietl
w- Rick Copp
dp- Jeffrey Wylie

The Gay comedy genre is often rife with poorly written and directed misfires that usually, in this writer's opinion, try too hard to appeal to the uber hip, uber phoney gay stereotypes. They end up missing the point, the comedy, and the attention spans of their audience. Exceptions to this rule which come to mind are "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" "Jeffrey", "The Sum of Us" to name a few old favorites. One to be counted among this minority is certainly to be found in "Where the Bears Are", a feature length presentation of the first season web series

Now I have to make a couple of points clear before I go on. Firstly, I must disclose that I am longtime friends with several of the cast and crew. I can only say that from the first, I have attempted to lay aside bias and look at the piece objectively. This is indeed not the first time which I've had to do this. I'll leave it to your good judgement to decide if I've succeeded. Secondly, this is a discussion and analysis of the film, and as such I will be revealing"spoilers". So, if you haven't seen the film, please by all means buy the DVD and do so first. You are so warned.

The morning after the fifth anniversary party of his 40th birthday, Nelson (Ben Zook) awakens to find himself in bed with "Hot Toddy" (Ian Parks) - the newest hunky bartender at the Eagle. Todd Stevens is also roommate to J-Cub (Julio Tello, pictured above and to the far right), a hot young member of the party who winds up dead in Nelson's bathtub, under very suspicious circumstances. Todd immediately begins acting suspicious, and for the next hour and 50 minutes we follow Nelson and his two roommates Wood (Joe Dietl) and Reggie (Rick Copp) as they try to stay ahead of the killer, the police, and a bevvy of crazy, but HOT bears, cubs, twinks and gangsters and attempt to solve the murder and exculpate themselves in the process.
The script, By Rick Copp with, I understand, contributions by Ben Zook, borrows many conventions from the sitcom, detective thriller, and screwball comedy genres and effectively freshens them and makes them work here by filtering them through the lens of the Los Angeles "Bear" scene. If you don't know what a bear is in gay parlance, go look it up.
Copp has extensive Television writing credits, having written for, among others, "The Golden Girls", and much influence of that landmark series can be seen here. For Example, the three main characters, the roommates Nelson, Wood and Reggie resemble very closely (and intentionally) the three characters of Rose, Blanche, and Dorothy. The scenes between these three click beautifully because Copp knew who he was writing for and the chemistry between those three is spot on. I don't think this series would ever have gained traction without this main strength.  

obvious chemistry -Copp, Zook and Dietl

There are only a couple of instances where the pacing slows a bit, as this was originally produced as 26 or so 5 minute stand-alone episodes. However, every time it would start to lag, it took off again in a new direction. The constant introduction of guest or cameo players kept it fresh. And lord above, what a collection of characters and performances, each one a centerpiece of the scene and all total scene stealers.

 I must here pause to talk about Ian Parks. A LOT of ink has been spilled about his obvious superior looks and body, which has generated incredible buzz on the internet for this show. That's all great, but I want to talk a little bit about his acting, which to me was much more amazing to watch. Ian is what directors call a "thinking actor" - there is a performance happening in the eyes and facial reactions of such actors which is a dimension or so beyond the normal. You can see the wheels turning behind their eyes. That's what Parks does. His seemingly effortless comic delivery, combined with a truly creepy undertone of  sketchiness make him fun to watch every time he shows up.

Ian Parks as "Hot Toddy"

   There are two sequences which stand out for me that combine some amazing writing, direction and acting. One is the scene in the LA County Coroner's house. Wood has gone there because he went to high school and to the prom with Susie Collins (Loretta Fox), who is now the Coroner. He hopes to cajole information out of her about the murder. What follows is pure comedy gold. Such well executed farce is always a joy to come across. Loretta Fox takes this role and absolutely makes it a major series highlight - she gets every comedic facet and polishes it till it sparkles. The absurdity and the awkwardness of the situation make it glide. The addition of Pete Cincinnato as her assistant coroner who strips on a dime is brilliant. Notice how well Fox and Dietl play off of each other. Dietl plays by turns dumb, coy, and awkward without a blink.

 

Loretta Fox with Joe Dietl - comedy gold

super sexy and funny Pete Cincinnato as "Hairy Potter"

 Brooke Dillman plays Honey Garrett, a would-be Rachael Ray usurper shooting a demo reel for the cooking channel. 

Brooke Dillman as Honey Garrett and her god-awful blender decorating tips.

Nelson had hired her for his ill-fated birthday party as a caterer, so he attempts to get details from her about the deadly night as she's attempting to fight her own ineptness in shooting her demo film. Dillman, who has one of the best rubber faces since Carol Burnett first guest starred on the "Gary Moore Show" 50 years ago, is funny as all HELL. Her parting line which she spits out at Nelson is one of the best ever. PERFECT delivery!

Mario Diaz as Rrramone Santiago

Rick Copp as Reggie, surrounded by the hottest kidnappers on the planet

the superb Greg Whipple as the caped, argyle clad improv teacher

Mario Diaz plays the EVOL gangster/Eagle bar owner with obvious glee, as does Greg Whipple as the director of the comedy improv class. Other great performances are brought in from Tuc Watkins, Chad Sanders, and the marvelous George Sebastian as the deliciously pervy George Ridgemont, a wankerfan of Woods who stalked him the night of the party and provides clues.

George Sebastian, with Joe Dietl, Rick Copp, and Ben Zook

  The principal's performances are, as mentioned before, great to watch for the chemistry between them, but also I want to stress their individual strengths. All three actors shine in their own scenes but I must give additional props to Ben Zook as Nelson. Ben has been acting for many, many years, as well as having a successful career as a writer, so his performance is, not surprisingly, excellent. He's damn funny. Delivery...timing... and ability to add pathos. His character seems so pathetically needy for attention, recognition. Ben finds these threads and, at the right time and without hitting us over the head, brings these feelings to light. Particularly great is the final scenes in Palm Springs when it dawns on him that the killer really is - seemingly - Todd. His mixture of comedy befuddlement with dawning terror are starkly genuine. Again, the writing and direction of these scenes is so skillfull - we go from screwball comedy to genuine thriller in an instant. The scenes are played for maximum tautness, and when the REAL killer is revealed, it's done in such a way that still, seeing it several times over, still gives me chills. Scott Beauchemin, as the killer Cyril really, REALLY transforms into creepy in the climactic garage scene- he still gives me chills.

Scott Beauchemin as Cyril, the psychopath with the killer's eyes

 

There is one nit to pick with the film's structure and it's this: They break an unwritten rule of cinema in that they are not honest with a flashback scene, which presents a false narrative to put the audience off. Alfred Hitchcock did this with "Stage Fright" in 1950 whereby the opening narration, by what is later revealed as the killer, tells a story in flashback which portrays a false truth, a narrative lie. The film makers do the same here when an early flashback clearly shows Todd as the presumptive killer, albiet he's wearing a ski mask, but we are obviously seeing him. Later, the same scene is revisited in flashback, but it is now Cyril we see behind the mask. This is dishonest filmmaking, and in 1950, it cost Hitchcock a lot of money in pissed off audiences. He cites it as one of his few mistakes that he regretted later.

It's not nearly so important here, as the deceptive device is smaller, but it bothered me because it unfairly, I believe, swayed my assumptions. I had my doubts that Todd was the killer early on, because of the obviousness of it, but when I saw that the "villain" was clearly him (I use freezeframe), my empirical sense took over. Of course, I do admit to being lousy at whodunits. I thought it was Reggie till the end. So what do I know? Well, I know that I'm giving this film....wait for it.....FOUR AND A HALF MORRISES!

The Life of Pi

The LIFE of Pi (2012)

d- Ang Lee
w- Davis Magee
dp- Claudio Miranda

"The Life of Pi" is a story about one boy's search for God, and the tragedies in his life which bring about his spiritual growth. It's part allegory, part fable, part good old fashioned yarn, but as such, doesn't quite knit together into a consistent whole.
Pi is a young boy living a middle class life in India in the 1960's. His father owns a zoo in a town on the Coast, what's described as the "Indian Riviera". He leads a normal life, but it's clear early on that he's not an average, normal boy. He's extremely bright, soulful - what you'd call mature for his years. One of the inmates at the zoo who fascinates young Pi is a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker (the hunter who caught him was mixed up with the animal on the ownership papers). When Pi's family decides to move to Canada, they book passage on a Japanese freighter, so that they can take the whole menagerie with them and sell the animals in Canada, and make a profit to live on till financial solvency is found. During the journey, a huge storm is encountered in the region of the Marianas trench, the ship founders, and Pi is the only survivor, cast at sea in a single lifeboat. But he is not the only survivor in the boat. A Zebra, a Hyena, and an orange Orangutan names Orange Juice make it also. Oh...and and Richard Parker, the full grown adult, angry Tiger. (SPOILERS) The hyena kills the zebra, the Orangutan clubs the hyena, the hyena then kills the orangutan, and the tiger kills the hyena. Only Pi, who has managed to improvise a raft of oars and flotsam, is able to fend off the hungry, angry tiger. What follows is their months long effort to survive and forge a co-dependency and truce.

The photography is breath taking, though I continue to find little value in the 3D thing. It's a distraction and an annoyance to me. The images would be just as stunning in NormalVision. Lee's use of surrealistic scenes of the ocean's iridescence via jellyfish, etc. subtly imply an alternate reality without being overt.
The film is structured as a memory play, and the performances by both the young Pi (Suraj Sharma) and the older Pi (Irrfan Khan) , as he tells, in monologue, the story, are extremely effective. I can't honestly say on one viewing who's is the better. Certainly the young Pi is given an opportunity to show an astounding emotional range, which he uses brilliantly. (MORE SPOILERS) The scene where he is almost mad with hunger and he places the dying Richard Parker's head in his lap and says "Richard Parker, we are dying." was a big tear jerker for me.
Structurally, the pacing was inconsistent, and some bits dragged a little. There could have been a bit of judicious pruning, but what I took away was a moving film experience, well worth it. There is an interesting ending, which I won't reveal, except to say it leaves the viewer with food for thought. The themes explored of faith and belief, as opposed to objective evidence and critical analysis, and how it is, in the storyteller's mind, capable of balancing both, were for me very resonant. It's what I'm pondering a lot today. It almost makes me see room for a belief in faith and God.
I'm gonna give this....... wait for it...

 

three and a half morrises

"Skyfall" (2012)
d-Sam Mendes
w-Neal Purvis, John Logan and Robert Wade, based on characters created by Ian Fleming
dp- Roger Deakins

First may I please begin by inaugurating my first change to this rather pathetic, pustulating little piss spot of a blog. Henceforth, all film reviews and analysis, whether of first run films or examinations of classic films shall be given a rating. For this blog, the chosen patron saint is Dick Morris. So films will be rated thusly: One morris - dud - worse than Karl Rove's arithmetic.
Two morrises - Meh. not worth seeing again and you'll forget all about it before your next piss.
Three morrises - Good film. Not great, but entertaining.
Four morrises - Excellent film. Your inner Roger Ebert is pleased and extremely happy.
Five morrises - Masterpiece. Spencer Tracey is smiling in heaven.

Why, might you ask, Dick Morris? Fair question. The simple answer is that this blog is called CinemaDope - 'cause any dope with a WiFi connection can be a film critic. Well, please find me a bigger dope than Dick Morris, and I'll name it after him (or her).

Now - to the film...

I'll start by saying that I can't give much of a synopsis because I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't seen it yet. Please take this advice, and DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES allow yourself to know the detailed plot beforehand. The pleasures and pain of the film lay largely in the surprises throughout.
So the synopsis is this:

Shit happens to Bond
LOTS of shit happens.

Shit happens to M
Lots.

end of synopsis.

                                                   Daniel Craig as James Bond, 007

This film, the 23rd in the Eon Films series, is quite possibly the best of the lot so far. I would argue that it's up there in "Goldfinger" territory easily. It's that good because this film has more depth of character, more meat in it's dialog and more deftness in it's direction and execution than almost anything out there in the last few years, in any genre. It really is that good.
Daniel Craig takes Bond to emotional places never even hinted at in any earlier film. His intensity is delicately balanced with a subtle humor. His Bond is a man wounded physically and psychologically by his chosen career. Craig's portrayal hews much closer to Ian Fleming's original darker, moodier Bond than the featherweight, glib character that dances through the series from Roger Moore onward. His performance and interpretation have kicked it up several notches into a new sphere of storytelling. This is the real deal, character and performance-wise.

Dame Judi Dench plays Bond's boss M with real gusto and a keen enthusiasm. She has a hell of a lot of fun getting into and exploring this character and it damn well shows on screen in spades. M has more to do in this film than in any previous Bond film, as she is central to the plot. She's the macguffin here, and all action takes place because of her. And Dench plays it to the hilt, lifting this to one of her best screen performances in a career filled with an embarrasment of riches in performance. To watch the emotions play across her face and in her eyes is a marvel. Robert Wise once said that a fine performance by an actor who really knows his craft is in his eyes. You can see the wheels turning inside. Well, that is spot on what Dench delivers here.  Watch her eyes. Watch her face. Stunning. If they gave oscars to "action films" Dench should be a shoo-in for Best supporting actress. If there is any justice, she will be nominated.

Which brings us to Javier Bardem, who plays the villain of the piece, Silva. Silva is an ex MI6 operative who was stationed in Hong Kong in the 1990's and was allowed to be exposed and captured by the Chinese by M herself because she wanted an exchange of 6 captured spies in exchange for the much more dangerous Silva at the time of the 1999 changeover of Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
Bardem plays the betrayed, gone-to-bugshit mad ex agent with the same intensity he gave to his celebrated Oscar winning performance as Anton Chuggar in 1998's "No Country for Old Men." It's hard to take your eyes off of him whenever he's onscreen. Is he the best Bond villian of all time? Not in my opinion, but his performance is mesmerizing nonetheless. That's just too good a rogue's gallery to claim best of.
Albert Finney shows up as an old family friend of Bonds when the action moves to Scotland, and the ancestral Bond family home, the titular Skyfall.  Ralph Fiennes plays M's new boss, who feels it's time for her to retire. Fine performances both. I must give mention here also to two Bond girls, Naomie Harris's MI6 operative Eve, and Bereniece Marlohe as the tragic Severine, the siren who tries to go straight. Harris plays the Felix Leighter who turns into Miss Moneypenny. Just see it.

This picture explores themes of change, growing old, growing away from basic truths. It's a study of the effects, large and small, of betrayal. And it's about paring down to the basics, the tried and true.  This story doesn't involve fancy, campy gadgets. It's about the systematic shedding of all but the very minimum and working with that.

Sam Mendes' direction is fluid and well paced, without at all becoming choppy and epileptic, like every other Michael Bay sucking action picture out there (I'm looking at YOU, Jason Bourne). Deakins' camerawork is fast but smooth, taking time to pay attention to composition. The opening sequence is a tour-de-force of near perfect photography, editing and pacing, making it the best action sequence filmed for any movie in years. I was giggling in my seat like a little catholic schoolgirl. Thank God it was dark and I was alone. It was embarrasing. And the plaid skirt I wore merely accentuated. But I digress.
The sequence where Bond follows the assasin in Hong Kong to his snipers nest in an abandoned office high up in a glass tower is amazing for it's use of fluid neon and reflection and shadow. Bravo on what must've been a very carefully planned and story boarded sequence. I must say also here that Daniel Craig's Bond, like early Sean Connery, does feel pain, he does get tired, he does get hurt. No longer is he a carIcature. He's real and genuine.
This picture is real and genuine, too
Genuinely FANTASTIC. Definitely one to see again, and own on bluRay.

My best morris for this?

four and a half morrises