Kris and I watched Atonement tonight. It’s a movie about love and betrayal set in England between 1935 and 1940.

The film opens with a shot of an English manor. But panning back, we see that it’s not actually a manor, but only a dollhouse. Lined up in front of the house in meticulous order are a collection of various toy animals. Thirty seconds into the film, I paused the DVD.

“You see,” I said. “This is the kind of thing that could only happen in film. Look at that. Everything is too neat, too orderly. I hate stuff like this. The entire film’s going to be like this.”

I pressed PLAY.

Atonement unfolds slowly. But, paradoxically, things happen quickly. It’s difficult to explain unless you’ve seen the film. The cinematography is stylized, but not overtly so. Each frame is gorgeous. The composition of each shot is beautiful. So much can be revealed in short twenty-second scenes, and yet the story takes its time. The acting is nuanced. The script is perfect.

There were only three things that bugged me about this movie, and two of them would have gone completely unnoticed in any other film. (Example: In one scene, a police officer at the edge of the frame shifts in a strange way, distracting from the perfect composition. Very minor.) The third thing is a major flaw, but not a fatal one.

For twenty minutes in the middle of the film, there’s an extended scene during which one of the characters has an almost hallucinatory experience. (And maybe not “almost”.) This scene goes on far too long. Perhaps it needs to for the sake of the story, but somehow the film loses its tempo at this point.

That’s too bad, because despite my worries from the first twenty seconds, I thought Atonement was excellent. In parts, it was brilliant. The first 40 minutes (excepting that opening sequence) are almost perfect.

“I guess you can’t judge a movie by its first scene,” Kris said when the movie had ended.

“No,” I said. “I guess not.”

Postscript: I ♥ this review of the movie from Amazon: “Couldn’t understand what the British actors were saying and it jumped from one year to the next with no explanation. I had high hopes, but thought it was very mediocre.” Damn those British accents, and non-linear stories!

We watched Little Children tonight. It’s a film about love and loss, about the rich, textured lives hidden in plain view throughout American suburbia. It’s a quiet film, where more occurs in a single exchange of glances than occur in five minutes of a Peter Jackson film.

Little Children tells the story of four people:

• Sarah – A young mother in her second marriage, living with a man she neither loves nor respects.
• Brad – A stay-at-home dad searching for meaning.
• Larry – A former cop.
• Ronnie – A convicted sex offender recently released from prison.

These people live in the same neighborhood. Their lives twine and mingle. And always in the background are the little children. I’m reluctant to say more because I don’t want to spoil anything.

Little Children is a sad and melancholy film, but it’s also filled with hope. It’s about finding joy and happiness and meaning. Ultimately it’s about how we, as adults, are still little children.

“That should have been Best Picture,” Kris said when the film was over. That is a stunning endorsement from a woman who refuses to pass judgement on a movie until days have passed. But I agree. The story is subtle, filled with finely drawn characters, layers of tension, and dialogue that rings true. There are no bad guys. There are no good guys. There’s just life.

Little Children was directed by Todd Field (a Portland native), and written by Field and Tom Perrotta, who wrote the novel on which the film was based. Other similar movies from recent years include:

• In the Bedroom (also directed by Field)
• Election (directed by Alexander Payne, based on a novel by Perrotta)
• Sideways (directed by Payne)
• Lost in Translation
• Junebug
• The Squid and the Whale
• American Beauty

Films like this are divisive. They observe life, they explore the nooks and crannies of Everyday. Some people (like Jenn G. and Tiffany) find them depressing. Others (like Nick) find them boring. Some (like Jeff) find them pointless. These are all valid complaints.

I think they’re spectacular. They peel back the skin of daily life to reveal what lies beneath, all of the unspoken desires and emotions. They’re like modern literature put to the screen.

Book One: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone

Quidditch! Young Harry, Ron, and Hermione! The good Dumbledore! “I shouldn’t have said that.” A charming, wonderful book, but a woeful film adaptation from Chris Columbus.

Book Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Gilderoy Lockhart! The Mirror of Erised! The Whomping Willow! The book is quite good, but the film, directed again by Chris Columbus, suffers from excess.

Book Three: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Puberty! Sirius Black! Dementors! The best scene from any Harry Potter book! And, most of all, a decent director! This is the best film — and book — of the series so far. (Caveat: I haven’t read book six yet.)

Book Four: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Cho Chang! “You’re the boy who lived…” This film had a lousy first half, but the last hour made up for it. It was the first book in the series where Rowling was set free from the fetters of her editors, and the story suffered because of it.

Book Five: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

From childhood to adulthood! Dolores Umbrage! Heavy-handed political allusion! An overlong book, but how will it transfer to film? (I actually think the trailer is quite good.)

Film released on 13 July 2007!

Book Six: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I have nothing to say about this book because I haven’t read it. (But thanks to obnoxious bumper stickers, I know what happens at the end.)

Film released on 21 November 2008!

Book Seven: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

The last(?) book in the series will be released on 21 July 2007 — you can pre-order it here

Film released summer 2010!

I have a couple of real entries in the works, but I couldn’t let my birthday pass without posting something. And what I’ve decided to share is awesome (assuming it’s not pulled from YouTube). Here’s the ‘sizzle’ reel for The Golden Compass:

Outstanding. I love the look. I first wrote about this movie in January, when I shared a set of film stills. I’m very excited about this film.

The best part? Peter Jackson is not involved with this production.

I’ve always had a taste for dystopias.

  

I find tales of bleak alternate realities and possible futures fascinating. Some people find them depressing, but I find them inherently filled with hope. I like to believe that I would be that lonesome sole, able to shake off the shackles of the oppressors.

Here are just a few of my favorite dystopic stories: We, Anthem, The Dispossessed, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Planet of the Apes (the book is superior to either film adaptation), The Handmaid’s Tale, The Children of Men, On the Beach, The Wild Shore, The Quiet Earth, Mad Max, The Island. (Note: I realize I’m using the term dystopia broadly here to include post-apocalyptic scenarios. These two sub-genres share features I find appealing.)

  

It’s time to add a new title to this list: George Lucas’ first film, THX 1138, from 1971. It’s brilliant.

I’ll admit at the outset that this film is not for everyone. In fact, it’s probably not for many people. It’s strange. Much of it is observational rather than plot-driven. But wow is it intriguing.

THX 1138 (Robert Duvall) lives in a vast underground city. The residents of this city — who may or may not be clones — are bald, sedated, and dull. THX works in a cyborg factory, installing radioactive brains. When he returns to his apartment, he watches holographic pornvids and, covertly, falls in love with his roommate, LUH 3417. (As with many dystopias, sex is a crime in this world.)

When LUH becomes pregnant, the pair is imprisoned in a vast white emptiness with other deviants. (This section reminds me of a Star Trek episode, the name of which escapes me.) This part of the film feels very experimental, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. With bald people. LUH is killed. THX escapes with the help of two other prisoners.

  

The final part of the film is an extended chase sequence though the underground city. While not particularly exciting (The French Connection, released a few months later, featured a better chase), it’s visually striking. THX eventually escapes when the budget for his recapture is excited. He climbs from a hatchway to the world above. (A scene which, I now recognize, has been used many times in subsequent films.)

I liked THX 1138. The story is difficult to follow at first, but gradually becomes more clear. Because it’s an observational film (kind of like Altman’s stuff), most people would not enjoy it. But the cinematography is beautiful, and the movie is filled with ideas. I also like that much of the Star Wars aesthetic can be found here, six years earlier.

  

And now George Lucas brings us crap like Attack of the Clones.

(For a full review, check out Alexandra DuPont’s take. She likes it too.)

In December, I watched all the Sean Connery-era Bond films. In January, I watched all of those from Roger Moore. Last month I watched all of the films from the Pierce Brosnan era, which also includes Bonds Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig. This final group of films shows signs of life, then plummets the series to a new low. Fortunately the most recent Bond film is the best yet.

The Living Daylights (1987) – Timothy Dalton [6.6] – B-
The first 25 minutes of this film are baffling. The second 25 are just boring. But despite the rocky start, about midway through I became accustomed to Dalton’s style and accepted him for what he is. He’s a softie. He melds into the picture more than Roger Moore did. (Moore always stood out like polished silver in a drawer of stainless steel flatware.) The story here is very strong (continuing a trend — the last few Bond films have had stronger stories). Maryam d’Abo doesn’t fit the mold of previous Bond women. She has a different look. She’s lovely.

License to Kill (1989) – Timothy Dalton [6.4] – B+
The strongest Bond story since the 1960s, and a solid Bond film indeed. No secret agent stuff here, just pure vendetta.

GoldenEye (1995) – Pierce Brosnan [6.9] – A-
Bond seems to have finally hit its stride. A magnificent opening shot. Hell, a magnificent opening sequence. Sure the final stunt defies physics and probability, but it’s AWESOME. The cinematography is gorgeous, like nothing before seen a Bond film. (Though it reminds me of Casino Royale in many ways. (Aha! Upon compiling this roundup I learned that the director and cinematographer were the same on both films.)) A fine cast, including two X-Men and Borimir. I love the Russian dancers singing “Stand By Your Man” — best comic scene EVER in a Bond film. The only thing that really keeps this from making it to the top of the list is a lack of “tightness”. The story is fantastic, the directing is fantastic, the acting is fantastic — but things just aren’t as smooth as they should be. Two-thirds through there’s an extended chase scene with a tank that’s just tedious. Also, there are far too many explosions. A top-notch bond flick. (And, seriously, it’s just gorgeous.)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) – Pierce Brosnan [6.4] – C+
This film features two great supporting players. Jonathan Pryce is Elliot Carver, a media mogul bent on causing World War III so that he can reap the rewards of increased viewers (and get an exclusive century-long deal in China). Michelle Yeoh is Wai Lin, a Chinese secret agent working alongside Bond. The script, at times, is great. But this Bond is undone by some of the worst features of the series: nonsensical action scenes (the teaser is just lame, the parking garage scene is not much better, and the motorcycle chase is the kind of thing that has made me walk out of movies in the past). There’s also a dreaded mass-combat ending, though it’s just Bond vs. the army of bad guys. This is the weakest film since the end of the Roger Moore era.

The World is Not Enough (1999) – Pierce Brosnan [6.3] – D-
Lame, idiotic opening boat chase. It’s sheer lunacy. Want to see a boat drive through the streets of London, knocking over market stalls, crashing through restaurants, making things explode that couldn’t possibly explode? This is your movie. Dumb dumb dumb. A huge step backward for the franchise. There’s yet another ski chase, but it’s dumb. There are far too many random explosions, and each of them features Chinese fireworks to “add” to the effect. We have to endure “hilarious” witticism after “hilarious” witticism. Puns are not funny when they’re stretched over the thinnest of frameworks. “He was buried with work…” Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. So damn funny. This film’s worst sin is that it’s boring. It should have been called “20,000 Explosions are Not Enough”. There are more explosions here than in all other Bond movies combined. That is not a good thing.

Die Another Day (2002) – Pierce Brosnan [6.2] – F
James Bond meets CGI. This film is awful on nearly every level. It has three redeeming features:

• An intriguing plot.
• An effective credits sequence that also serves as exposition.
• Rosamund Pike

Pure dreck.

Casino Royale (2006) – Daniel Craig [8.0] – A
Ah: the creme de le creme. Casino Royale is far, far more violent than the Bonds that have come before. It’s a product of its day: a loud, visually exciting piece. It’s also overly long, though I’m not sure what I’d cut. But damn, it’s exciting. The opening credits sequence is the best of any Bond film. The soundtrack is a thing of beauty. (To really appreciate it, you have to have seen several of the Bond films recently, I think. It begins with a unique theme, which is close to, but not the same as, the traditional Bond theme. This is fitting since this is ostensibly the first Bond adventure. As the film progresses, this new theme gradually changes, always drifting closer to the Bond theme we know and love. But it’s only at the final scene of the theme that we finally hear what we’ve expected to hear the entire time. Nicely done.) I’ve seen this film twice now, and like it more after a second viewing (and after having viewed the entire series). I’m buying the DVD when it’s released tomorrow — the first DVD I’ve purchased in a long time. After I took Kris to see it, I asked her how she liked it. “I’d only give it a B,” she said. She paused. “But compared to the other Bond films, it stands head and shoulders above the rest. It was actually good in spots.” Many spots, if you ask me.

Keeping score
On average, the Connery-era Bond films received a rating of 7.1 from users of the Internet Movie Database. They received a GPA of 2.47 from me. On average, the Moore-era Bond films received a rating of 6.6 from users of the Internet Movie Database. They received a GPA of 2.09 from me. The Brosnan-era Bond films received a rating of 6.7 from IMDB. I gave them a GPA of 2.39. (Note that without Casino Royale, these scores are 6.5 and 2.12.)

Which Bond is best?
This is a tough question to answer. Each actor has his strengths. (Well, except for Lazenby.) Timothy Dalton doesn’t get a lot of credit, but I like what he did in his two films. Moore did a fine job with the glitz and glamour side of Bond, but he was inept at the action sequences. For my part, Moore and Brosnan did the best job of capturing all sides of the character. Brosnan, though, was, except for his first outing, handicapped by terrible scripts and, at times, bad direction. Daniel Craig’s turn showed much promise, and an exciting new direction for the character, but I’m withholding judgment until I’ve seen a couple more performances.

In conclusion
I’m glad to have watched all the Bond films in rapid succession. I don’t feel the need to ever do it again. I think that the reboot of the series in the most recent film is exactly what needed to happen. The series has, it seems, returned to its secret agent roots, ditched the comic book character villains, and decided to take itself serious. Now if they can tone the action scenes down even further, the producers may have finally found that fables lost era of Bond gold. (Because despite all of its cultural capital, the series has never been able to sustain a run of good films.) I look forward to the 22nd installment!