Yearly Archives: 2012

Movie Review: Django Unchained

2 Replies

For any of you who think I have a severe Quentin Tarantino bias, let me just say that I disliked “Death Proof.”

Now that that’s out of the way, “Django Unchained” may have just stolen the top ten list of the year in one fell swoop. It may lack the audacious perfection of “Inglourious Basterds,” however this messy masterpiece is bold and brilliant in its own right.

“Django Unchained” rightfully opens with the theme music from 1966′s “Django,” a film that is similar with this Django only in name. This is the first time that Quentin has made a Western that actually takes place in the appropriate era and locale. This is not modern-day Los Angeles, Tokyo, or Nazi-Occupied France. This is Texas in the years just before the Civil War.

Django (Jamie Foxx), a quiet slave with a sharp tongue and a deadly grin, is freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Foxx is fantastically deadpan and unpredictable as Django. Unsurprisingly, Waltz displays his incredible way with words as the verbose dentist-turned-bounty hunter. There is a giant tooth on top of his carriage. I don’t why any of that is important, but it sure is funny.


Like Quentin’s other films, “Django Unchained” is less a story and more a series of cause and effect vignettes. Schultz at first frees Django because he is the one man who can help him identify and track down the ruthless Brittle Brothers, whom he is hired to kill. The mission allows Django to prove himself to be a great shot, as Quentin opens the doors of a slave revenge fantasy of the highest sort.

As his career progresses, Quentin’s films have gotten bigger and more ambitious. During a stretch of the film that is surprisingly quiet on a Tarantino standard, “Django Unchained” takes a beautiful detour into the American frontier as Django and Schultz cross the country.

“Django Unchained” is also Quentin’s funniest film. A scene involving an attempted lynching by a proto-KKK group (which includes Don Johnson and Jonah Hill) quickly dissolves into pure farce. Even with all of the gruesome violence, what shocked me most about “Django Unchained” was all of the moments I found myself laughing and feeling giddy when I probably shouldn’t have. The film is full of comic moments framed around serious moments. Laughing at these demons helps remove their power.

More than any other of his past films, Quentin has challenged himself here, by making a film that takes place before movies. Without the cushion of his typical pop culture references, he goes to some new and interesting places. Surfer movies and Elvis are traded for The Three Musketeers and German fairytales as “Django Unchained” is a mashup of western, southern, and European legends. When Django asks Schultz to help him rescue his wife, Schultz remarks that the name of his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), is the name of a character from Germany’s most famous folktale.

Just when the film couldn’t get any more exciting, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), the Mississippi slave master who currently owns Broomhilda is introduced. Candie reminds me of the villain that Waltz played in “Basterds” but on a whole different level of delusion. DiCaprio, so good at conveying southern hospitality, making Candie seem like a kind and reasonable man even when he clearly isn’t. It is this charm that makes him even more terrifying. He hosts slave fights and doesn’t blink an eye when he orders the violent execution of a rebellious slave. There were many times I forgot that it was even DiCaprio in the role. In a perfect world, the Academy would just hand an Oscar over to him already.

Without the cushion of film, Quentin delves deeper into overanalyzing historical issues with excessive dialogue. Several scenes are so good, yet so dense, that I have to watch them again. His dialogue can explain simple things in such eloquent ways.  Without pop culture, you can see Tarantino’s dialogue for what it really is: a cross between indulgence and intellectualization.

Very few films have been made about American slavery. “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots” are the only ones that have truly stuck, and even those feel a little outdated. Even if it carries some extreme historical inaccuracies, “Django Unchained” is the most interesting and complex portrayal of slavery ever put out by Hollywood. Even when Tarantino intentionally overlooks historical truths, he does wonders with the details. Every costume and set is given so much loving and painstaking detail that I I felt myself becoming deeply immersed in the era. Tarantino shows the slave owners as white trash in fancy outfits, and their accompanying women are exaggerated southern belles.

And then there is Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, an old slave who is also racist. This character totally topples the terrible archetypes in American fiction of the “Magic Negro” and the “wise, old black man.” Stephen has been Candie’s slave for so long and is so close to the man that one might argue that he believes that he is white. However, I think it is deeper than that, and it greatly shows why Tarantino’s history benders are so marvelous and so filled with depth. It is as if slavery rewarded those with loyalty by creating an immense fear of the outside world, and immense comfort on the plantation. Stephen is more than just an excuse for Samuel L. Jackson to curse and say the n-word a lot. Though, watching him do both of those thing is predictably entertaining.

“Django Unchained” does to slavery what “Inglourious Basterds” did to Nazis and The Holocaust.  It is also the most perplexing and entertaining film of 2012. Nobody combines high and low brow as well as Quentin Tarantino. Only in one of his films could a Mexican standoff segue into a conversation about racism and French culture. After 20 years as a filmmaker, Quentin still knows how to pull the rug out from under the audience. “Django Unchained” constantly change our opinions of who the bad guys are. It may not totally rewrite history or change the way movies are made, but it does go way past the point in which it should have ended, and then gives great reason as to why it does just that.

How I Rank Quentin Tarantino’s Films:
1. Pulp Fiction- Still Tarantino’s best film, “Pulp Fiction” is still as brazen and funny as it was when it first came out. This pop culture tribute has become an indelible part of pop culture.
2. Inglourious Basterds- Jews kill Nazis. Christoph Waltz is introduced to the world. History is rewritten. What’s not to love.
3. Kill Bill 1 & 2- Part one is a breathtaking action spectacle. Part two is the most emotional film Tarantino has ever made. Altogether it’s the film that kicked off my movie obsession.
4. Reservoir Dogs- The place where it all began. Still one of the best directorial debuts ever.
5. Django Unchained
6. Jackie Brown- This was not loved when it first came out, but it’s hard to follow “Pulp Fiction.” “Jackie Brown” holds up well on repeat viewings.
7. Death Proof- This is where Tarantino went a little off the rails. It’s the weaker half of “Grindhouse.” This ode to trashy cinema forgot to be fun.

Movie Review: This Is 40

Leave a reply

Comedies aren’t supposed to be over two hours long. Then again, Judd Apatow is a very ambitious guy. He likes to let his camera run long, and he doesn’t shut it off until he feels like he’s ready to shut it off. “This Is 40,” which clearly comes from a very personal place, at first made me want to check my watch. However, once the credits began to roll, I realized that I wouldn’t have minded if it ran a little longer.

“This is 40″ is a “sort-of sequel” to “Knocked Up.” It would be better labeled as a spinoff, a title which is usually reserved for television. It takes the struggling married couple Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) and their two daughters Sadie (Maude Apatow) and Charlotte (Iris Apatow) and puts them into their own little world. Pete desperately finds ways to escape. He’s given up on his fantasy baseball league and seems more content sitting on the toilet with his iPad. Debbie, meanwhile, is fed up with feeling under appreciated and keeping everything together on her own. Naturally, this causes some problems.


Yet, despite all their problems, what makes “This Is 40″ unique is that I never doubted for one second that Pete and Debbie weren’t right for each other. “This is 40″ is more about unfortunate speed bumps than the absolute deterioration of a marriage. It takes place on the week that Debbie turns 38 (although everyone treats her like she’s 40) and Pete turns 40. This begins what many in Hollywood would call a midlife crisis.

I never found “This Is 40″ to be a film about people drifting apart. Rather, its about two people who want to be closer together finding ways to get closer together. “This is 40″ is about the modern family struggling to grow and remain close in a very wired world of cell phones and tablets. It’s the same thing that “Modern Family” tries to do, except “This is 40″ doesn’t have Ed O’Neill repeatedly telling us how much he loves his family. I have not reached the age of 40 yet, but I can tell that “This is 40″ comes from a very real place. It has absolutely no problem showing us the bad as well as the good.

While “This Is 40″ is not my favorite Judd Apatow film, it is definitely his most mature, and his most lovely made to date. Yet, maturity does not mean that he eschews vulgarity. It has a hefty load of what I like to call “butt stuff.” One scene that has been frequently discussed is one in which Debbie is forced to look at Pete’s butt because he thinks there’s a problem. It’s a scene that shows both the sparks of a marriage that has faded away and the unconditional love that remains. There is also a less talked about scene where Pete lets one rip. The moment was unscripted. It’s hilarious and it’s a fine example of the loose and spontaneous feeling of the film.

Often, “This Is 40″ feels less like a story and more like life unfolding before our eyes. It is one of the more unconventional mainstream comedies you’ll see nowadays. It refuses to settle for the usual plot beats, and it doesn’t try and immediately ruin happy moments with sad ones. Judd has a great talent for knowing when to be funny and when to be sad at just the right times. It was something he tried to do in “Funny People,” but had much less success with. You can tell that someone has become confident in their comedic abilities when they know that it is okay to go for an extended period of time without a laugh.

Even if SAG didn’t recognize it, “This Is 40″ has one of the best ensembles of the year. Every cast member participates in what I would like to call “confessional acting.” As Pete and Debbie, Mann and Rudd are so convincing as this married couple. Even though I felt that the film was running a little long during the third act, I was surprised to find myself teary eyed (not from boredom) by the end. The extra running time made them into real people, and their performances hit that point out of the park. Also impressive is the oldest Apatow daughter, who has a way with words and emotions at such a young age. And to no one’s surprise, Albert Brooks is perfect as a bitter old Jewish man.

Like every good project Judd has worked on, “This Is 40″ is special because of its great display of empathy. It makes us dislike our characters when they are acting based on their most flawed instincts, and it makes us like them when they overcome and change. By the end of the film, Pete and Debbie don’t necessarily change who they are, but rather they learn to embrace what they have, and what they can become. The greatest thing that can happen to an Apatow character is when they gain a sense of self-awareness.

As the film began, I almost thought I wasn’t watching an Apatow film. He has embraced a quieter, more artistic sense of filmmaking, which I am rather enjoying. The opening felt like a Wes Anderson film, but with less thick-rimmed glasses and Kinks songs. But even as Apatow changes, the best parts of his works doesn’t disappear. Even as Pete and Debbie battle financial troubles and deteriorating health, characters still manage to get into fights about “Lost” and “Mad Men” and talk about how they pee “like a shower head.”

The characters that Judd portrays are getting older and older as his career progresses, yet he luckily hasn’t abandoned his distinct style of humor. While it is called “This Is 40,” you don’t have to be that enjoy to enjoy this film. When you laugh at something as hard as I laughed at parts of “This Is 40,” there is no use in questioning it.  

If this scene doesn’t help “This Is 40″ earn over $100 million, then there is no hope for America anymore.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Leave a reply

It took just one musical cue from “The Hobbit” to remind me why I fell in love with the “Lord of the Rings” series in the first place. Perhaps it has been widespread anger on the Internet that’s given me nothing but low expectations for “The Hobbit.” The result is better than I thought it would be: it’s a movie that’s all over the place, but one that is very good at being all over the place.

Seeing as the film version of “The Hobbit” was released after the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Peter Jackson gets to give us some nice little winks to a series that ended nine years ago, especially with some surprise cameos. “An Unexpected Journey,” the first part of this “Hobbit” trilogy, opens with a long prologue providing more details on the history of Middle Earth. To be honest, I wouldn’t have minded if this prologue went on longer. It gave even more life and depth to this imaginary world. From the perspective of someone who didn’t read the books, “The Hobbit” succeeds best when it is providing small details and expanding the mythology of Middle Earth. With that, this movie has a true purpose.


“The Hobbit” gives us a closer look at those tiny, hairy-footed folk who inhabit The Shire. The Hobbits are comfortable with their land, and they don’t see any reason to ever leave it. This is especially true for Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who would prefer sitting outside with a pipe and a book more than anything else in the world. That proves impossible when Gandalf (Ian McKellen) shows up at Bilbo’s door with a small (pun maybe not intended) army of Dwarves. The Dwarves pile into Bilbo’s home for a long comic set piece that is basically the Middle Earth equivalent of the State Room scene from “A Night at the Opera.” The Dwarves eat, drink, and sing a lot.

“The Hobbit” also does good in turning the Dwarves into the most interesting race of creatures on Middle Earth. In fact, every race is much more fleshed out in “The Hobbit.” This time, it is more than just one representative from every race. There is a sense of history to this imaginary world.

Quite frankly, Bilbo is a much more interesting hero than Frodo was. The film version also manages to flesh out a very good arc for him. Despite the fact that this is just a portion of one larger book, there still manages to be a sense of a complete character arc. While Bilbo becomes something of a warrior, it is most entertaining to watch him rely on his cunning to defeat his enemies.

“The Hobbit” is a “Lord of the Rings” movie made for fan boys. It may be a prequel, but it is filled with references to “Lord of the Rings” installments of the past. It feels weird to have nostalgia for something that came out only a decade ago, but that’s just the state of our culture. The return of Gollum (Andy Serkis) was most welcome for me. Gollum may be weird and hard to look at, but he is one of my favorite Tolkien creations. Watching him tear himself apart for his “precious” is sometimes funny, but mostly sad.

Even though this is only part one, Peter Jackson has a lot to balance here. The biggest problem with “The Hobbit” is that it may be a bit overstuffed. Most of it feels necessary, but at times it seems to have a problem knowing what moment is most important. An epic battle with Goblins (which was, no doubt, awesome) gets in the way of an epic battle with Orcs. The original “Lord of the Rings” had spread out battles that built up to one big one. At times, “The Hobbit” felt less like it was building up, and more like it was going all over the map.

As a result of this, “The Hobbit” also suffers from Multiple Ending Syndrome. It runs under three hours, yet I definitely saw many instances where it could have concluded and I would have been satisfying. However, I can understand why they built up to the ending they did, as they needed a good cliffhanger. As far as cliffhangers go, it happens to be an excellent one. It immediately made me ready to see part two.

“The Hobbit” is certainly not the most meaningful installment of the “Lord of the Rings” series. However, in a way, it is the most fun and most expansive. One of the most important parts of storytelling is world building. To me, the more realistic and creative the world that the characters inhabit is, the better the overall story is. Television has gotten really good at that, but film often forgets how to do it. “The Hobbit” does it right. While prequels are often made as an excuse to get more money out of a series, this prequel deserved to be made. There is one very meaningful part of it I would like to share, though. With all of the violence that has been shown lately in the media, “The Hobbit” includes this one amazing trinquet of wisdom from Gandalf: “True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.”

Top 10: TV Shows of 2012

1 Reply

10. 30 Rock

“30 Rock” hit a bit of a rough patch at the beginning of 2012. However, it bounced back for its seventh and final season and has turned out some of its best episodes in years. Most notably, this season saw Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) finally tying the knot in a wedding that was both moving and wacky in a way that only “30 Rock” could deliver. “30 Rock” is one of the best heirs to the sitcoms of the 70s with its fearlessness in tackling race, political, and gender issues for huge laughs. In fact, it ended the ridiculous “are women funny?” debate with a monkey wearing a suit. No other show on TV can deliver so many jokes in such a short span of time. “30 Rock” might be winding down, but the many doors it opened for the flood of single-camera comedies that have emerged over the years will always be present.

9. Archer

“Archer” is far and away the best animated show on TV. A spy spoof that puts “Austin Powers” to shame, “Archer” proved that its spectacular first two seasons were just a warmup for how perfect season three would be. Few comedies currently on TV have plots as smart and intricate as “Archer” does, whether the bumbling heroes are trying to get rid of a dead body or fight villains in outer space. What makes “Archer” so unique is the neat little backstories it gives to all of its characters, which expanded in ever satisfying ways this season. For example, Archer’s constant literary references suggest someone much smarter than he acts. “Archer,” however, never has to hide its sophistication. It continues to be one of the sharpest satires currently on TV.

8. Homeland

I was a late convert to “Homeland,” and I am not ashamed to say that I caught up in less than one week. “Homeland” hit a bit of a rough patch this season. However, those who immediately jumped ship need to learn a thing or two about TV history, and that “Homeland” is in the same company as some pretty great shows that have had faulty seasons and then bounced back. Even in the implausibility, there has still been plenty to love about season two. The show made a pretty risky story move early on and then built it up to an interrogation scene that was one of the most finely acted and scripted in TV history. However, this season went through a few big bumps in the road. One was literal (a car accident that was worth it only for allowing actress Morgan Saylor to shine) while others were illogical (see: Skyping with a terrorist on a Blackberry). Yet, I was still compelled to watch “Homeland” from week to week, and discuss with every other fan I knew. Many other shows have gone through rough patches early on, and I have faith in where next season will take us.

7. Happy Endings

The funniest show currently airing on network TV (while another one is still in an overlong hiatus) is also the most underrated. “Happy Endings” took the concept of “twenty/thirty-something friends” in a big city to insane new heights throughout seasons two and three. It does self-referential better than most shows on TV, and it knows when to be over-the-top and when to be human. “Happy Endings” doesn’t just succeed in its endless mocking of sitcom tropes, but also how natural the ensemble feels together. Often, it just feels like a tight-knit improv group going crazy in whatever direction they desire. Plus, it has my favorite married couple on TV (Brad and Jane) and the most hilariously non-stereotypical gay character since “The Sarah Silverman Program.” In the vein of “30 Rock,” “Happy Endings” could probably cram more funny into five minutes than most shows ever could in an entire season.

I think it’s the pronunciation that sold me.

6. Game of Thrones

2012 was the year I got back into fantasy. “Game of Thrones” was one of the many shows this year that helped push the medium forward, as it pushed its own storytelling ambitions in new directions and away from its source material. It truly blurred the difference between film and television with the episode “Blackwater,” which contained a battle as epic as anything in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. What I always liked best about “Game of Thrones” is that even when it travels into the territory of dragons and the undead, it still remains incredibly grounded, as this story is much more of a political allegory than a battle of good versus evil. If “Game of Thrones” has proved anything to me, it’s that moral ambiguity is way more interesting than battles of absolute good against absolute evil. Without it, where the hell else would we get amazing characters like Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) and Cersei (Lena Headey) Lannister, Theon Greyjoy (Alfie Allen), and Joffrey Baratheon (Jack Gleeson)? Well, I think I know how everyone feels about Joffrey.

joffrey slap

View the top 5 after the jump


5. Girls

Amidst all of the controversy and unrighteous indignation, “Girls” had the most solid first season of any new show that debuted this year. Virtually overnight, Lena Dunham deservingly became a household name. “Girls” is a mixture of both the trademark edginess of HBO, and the trademark awkwardness of the Apatow brand. This show about Brooklynites in their early twenties treads a lot of new ground and says a lot more about this generation than most other works in any form of entertainment have. Yet, Dunham is too modest to try and become the voice of a generation (a fact that is mocked in the very first episode). “Girls” caught my attention in every episode for its cinematic audacity (scenes of pure dialogue that nearly hit the ten minute mark) and chaotic humor that might take multiple viewings to fully appreciate (“I’ll be your crack spirit guide”). Each episode opens with completely different theme music. In one year, Dunham created an indelible new world and filled it with lively and memorable characters. Many people criticized the show for its lack of diversity. I found this claim to be ridiculous, as it does not acknowledge the world these characters inhabit and it does not at all do justice to the substance of the show. With all of that out of the way, I think it’s easier to appreciate the nearly flawless first season of “Girls.”

4. Breaking Bad

What more can I (or everyone else) say about “Breaking Bad” that I haven’t said already? Probably not much, but I don’t mind reiterating. As it prepares its swan song, “Breaking Bad” has proved itself more brilliant than ever. I’m still waiting for Vince Gilligan to top the season four finale, but for now I can live with a train robbery and a meth-induced montage. “Breaking Bad” has always been excellent at keeping us at the edge of tragedy, and never letting us know when we are going to go off the cliff, and this past season was no exception. The first half of season five found Walter White on top of the world, with no worlds left to conquer. He had gone so far off the edge that at times, it was hard to tell whether or not he wanted to back away. All I know is that any barriers of safety for the audience that once existed have all evaporated. I have no idea where “Breaking Bad” is headed for its last few episodes. All I know is that it still has a lot of ground to cover, and it shows no signs of letting any of us down.

3. Mad Men

“Mad Men” now carries the honor of being one of few shows to peak during its fifth season. When most are winding down, “Mad Men” rediscovered its mojo in new, exciting, and profound ways. It all added up to the best drama of the year. The writers of “Mad Men” are like few others, and they went into the surreal this season, catching Don in the middle of an elaborate dream while Roger experienced an LSD-fueled reality. Supporting actors such as Christina Hendricks and Vincent Kartheiser gave beautifully nuanced performances. Meanwhile, Michael Ginsberg (Ben Feldman) was a welcome new addition to Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. The ad executives faced unimaginable tragedy even in a season filled with dark humor (one of the best, yet saddest, gags involves a Jaguar that won’t start). Like the world around them, the characters of “Mad Men” have been allowed to change and evolve. Into its fifth season, “Mad Men” still continues down the dark abyss of American Dream, still exploring whether or not America really offers second chances.

2. Community

2012 has been a rough year for “Community.” It got put on hiatus multiple times, it was nearly cancelled, it lost one of its stars (Chevy Chase), and the mastermind behind it all (Dan Harmon) was fired in what can only be seen as a network and a studio out of touch with the times. Even with all of the trouble in the real world, “Community” is like the Dreamtorium: a place to escape from reality and into the mind of one very strange individual. In its season three, “Community” was darker and more inventive than ever. It put the Greendale Seven into a videogame, a heist movie, and an Ed Burns documentary. In each of those, it was a stunningly faithful homage that brought depth to its richly created characters. “Community” is special in that the weirder it gets, the less it forgets about its characters. “Community” might not be made for everyone, but if you are not ever won over by Dean Pelton’s man-crush on Jeff, Troy’s innocence, or Britta’s ability to ruin everything, then you have no heart. “Community” wants fans, but season three seemed to display a show that cared less about getting high Nielsen Ratings (which, with the Internet, will soon be irrelevant) and more about telling good stories. “Community” includes some of the most innovative storytelling that we’ll never see again on network television.

1. Louie


After much thought, I could put no other show in first place. “Louie” is not necessarily an “event” type show, but I found myself eager every Thursday night this summer to watch it live. I knew that every week would provide me with a totally unexpected episode. “Louie” is the most unpredictable show on TV, and with every episode, Louis C.K. manages to break down all sitcom conventions without being snarky or obnoxiously ironic. This season, he proved himself as a master of dramedic storytelling. He nailed the sentimentality of so many moments and steered them away from sappiness. Whether surreal or realistic, each episode felt like a short movie that could only be made with the raw inspiration of New York City. Yet, C.K. took his fictional character to new places this year. In a three part arc that included the best celebrity cameo I’ve ever seen on TV, Louie tried to host the Late Show. Another episode had him at a strip club with Robin Williams. And then another had him involved in a boat chase. The season finale, which brought him on a journey of self-discovery in China, reduced me to tears. Some might call “Louie” gloomy, but its message is so positive: life will never be easy or predictable, so we might as well roll with whatever is thrown at us. The feeling that people in the 70s first got when watching “All in the Family” and “Taxi” and the feeling that people got when first watching “Seinfeld” in the 90s, I got while watching “Louie.”

Not from the show, but this is one of my favorite bits from Louis C.K.

Honorary Mentions: Parks and Recreation, New Girl, Portlandia, Veep

Top 5: Stand-Up Specials of 2012

Leave a reply

My interests have taken me in a weird, unexpected place in the past few months. Since last summer, I have found myself greatly exploring and obsessing over comedy. It is something that I’ve always liked my whole life, but never thought I could actually see myself becoming a disciple of. But after an improv class and a few shots at standup at various open mics (they are hard to come by in Upstate New York), that is starting to change. I find quotes from Louis C.K. floating around in my head as often as lines of dialogue from “Pulp Fiction.”

Many believe you can’t overanalyze comedy too much. This is true. Sometimes, you can’t explain laughter. However, I believe you can mine out deeper meaning in comedy. Stand-Up began to change in my eyes as I began to watch and listen to entire albums. The more you do that, the more you pay attention to themes and transitions as well as jokes. Here I have a list of five stand-up specials from this year that shocked me, moved me, made me think, and most importantly made me laugh uncontrollably:

5. Animal Furnace (Hannibal Buress)


Like the great show he once wrote for (“30 Rock”), Hannibal Buress is a joke-spewing machine. “Animal Furnace” is Buress’ second hour-long special, and his next leap into becoming one of the funniest people in America. Buress has honed his act beyond just a lot of jokes and he proves that he is a fantastic storyteller. He mocks himself a lot for being overly angry about a lot of issues that don’t matter, but the first few tracks have some pretty thorough takedowns of TSA agents and a bunch of cops in Montreal who gave him a ticket for jaywalking. Then his beat-by-beat commentary on an article written about him at a college that he performed at shows that he would make a great roastmaster. Many have compared Buress’ voice and delivery to that of Mitch Hedberg. It’s an apt comparison: Buress can pick apart the mundane and make it funny in ways you never imagined.

4. The Special Special Special (Maria Bamford)
If I ever meet Maria Bamford, I’d like to give her a hug, because she seems likes the nicest person imaginable. She’s also one of the funniest and most original comedians of our time. Bamford’s latest special, appropriately and hilariously titled In “The Special Special Special,” Bamford doesn’t perform in a theater, or even a comedy club, but rather in her own home, with an audience made up of only her parents. I have never seen stand-up so dependent on the audience’s reaction. Bamford goes through her usual manic routine of impersonations, which is made even more awkward by the fact that the targets of much of her ridicule are sitting right in front of her. Then, Bamford goes into darker territory than ever before, as she chronicles her ongoing battle with Depression in a way that is both funny and inspiring. In a few meta moments, she completely stops the show so she can go to the bathroom, take cookies out of the oven, and give her beloved pug his medicine. With her stand-up, Bamford invites us into her brain. With “The Special Special Special,” she invites us to be a part of her life. Buy it here



See the top 3 after the jump:

3. Live (Tig Notaro)


“Hello! I have cancer!” That’s how Tig Notaro opens up her set that accidentally became legendary. Notaro was scheduled to open for Louis C.K. at Largo. She was supposed to open with a half hour of her usual material. Instead, she takes her audience into a dark and brilliant trip into the tragic past few months of her life. C.K. was so moved by it that he posted it on his website. “Live” is exactly what comedy should be, but rarely is: raw, honest, and uncomfortable. Sometimes, it’s hard to know whether to laugh or shutter at Tig’s jokes, but it’s so inviting because she feels just as uncomfortable as the audience. The half hour is as dark as dark humor can get. Tig chronicles a rough few months in her life which include a brush with death, cancer diagnosis, and the death of her mother. Most of her jokes seem improvised, and she feeds off of the audiences reactions like a master. At one point, she asks if she should cut out the tragedy and tell the jokes she originally wanted to. The audience objects, with one member shouting, “this is fucking amazing!” Indeed.

2. Mr. Universe (Jim Gaffigan)
Jim Gaffigan begins “Mr. Universe” by saying, “oh, he’s doing that voice already?” in his trademark audience member voice. This is exactly what “Mr. Universe” is: Gaffigan takes the routine he has worked so hard to established and brings it to the next level. Here, he is funnier and more insightful than ever. He has a nearly genius monologue that both lampoons and defends McDonalds which turns his love of food into a social statement. Gaffigan also ventures into some new territories besides food. He also wonders why people ignore how gross hotels can be and then he breaks down why it sucks to go on vacation if you’re a father. These turn into more than just silly observations because there is meaning to them. But of course, some musings are there just to make us laugh (see: his joke about whale’s blowholes). Gaffigan is the rare comedian who can be accesible to a large crowd without pandering.

1. New in Town (John Mulaney)

John Mulaney is a comedy prodigy. He’s been participating in sketch groups and stand-up since he was a child. That is why, even before the age of 30, he has been able to establish himself as one of the funniest people working in comedy today. “New in Town” may only be Mulaney’s second special (after 2009′s overlooked “The Top Part”), but he shows off the comedic skills of an old pro. Mulaney is a master at blending sharp observations about Jewish women and 13-year-olds with long stories that never get dull. Wit and buildup have never gone together so well. Mulaney brings us into his world of pop culture obsessions which may not be timely, but as his act projects, he is the guy on stage so he gets to talk about whatever he wants. Indignation over “Home Alone 2″ and jokes about “Law & Order” never get old, but Mulaney is at his best when he’s being self-deprecating. Anyone who was ever bullied in their life will sympathize with Mulaney’s tales of being bullied as a child for looking Chinese (“Daddy, today I met a boy with no eyes”) and sounding like a woman (“I had a voice like a little flute”). Unlike a lot of comedians, Mulaney veers away from being cynical, even when he’s tackling his demons such as his past drinking problem, which he discusses with the story of a high school party gone spectacularly wrong (one word: “Scatter!”), and his anxiety, which culminates into a hilarious doctor’s visit gone wrong that I dare not spoil for you. Even with all its sillines, “New in Town” is a meaningful and infinitely rewatchable hour of comedy about the weirdness of adult life as seen through the eyes of someone who views himself as a “tall child.” As Mulaney gets older, his stand-up will get better and better. I just hope he never feels the urge to actually grow up.

Choosing one bit to represent all of “New in Town” was nearly impossible, but I went with this one because it uses the phrase “playfully anti-Semitic.”

Top 5: Most Anticipated Holiday Movies

Leave a reply

December is an exciting time. Not only because everyone is decorating their trees, lighting their Menorahs, or doing whatever people who celebrate Kwanza do. This is the time when studios release the very best films they have to offer. Often, the closer we get to the Oscars, the better the quality of movies get, until the dumping ground season of January begins. Here now is my list of films that will make December 2012 memorable, even if the world doesn’t end:

5. Les Miserables

I’ve never been a big fan of musicals, but the history buff in me really wants to see a big, epic musical about the French Revolution. I never saw “Les Miserables” on Broadway, but seeing that the French Revolution was not a very happy time in world history, this definitely won’t be a musical where people sing and dance and suddenly all of their problems disappear. A song certainly can’t stop a guillotine. “Les Miserables” is directed by Tom Hooper. I still think it’s unfair that his “The King’s Speech” beat out both “Black Swan” and “The Social Network” for Best Picture, but that guy truly has a gift for bringing the past to life.

Coming to Theaters: December 28

4. Not Fade Away

“Not Fade Away” is David Chase’s directorial debut in film. If you don’t know who David Chase is, you really should: he created “The Sopranos.” “Not Fade Away” brings him back to New Jersey, and even reunites Chase with the state of New Jersey Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) himself. But those expecting a profanity-laden tale of gangsters might be disappointed, as this is instead a coming-of-age story about a rock and roll band. I saw another coming-of-age story about a band earlier this year  called “Fat Kid Rules the World.” I was thoroughly disappointed by it, but I have a feeling that “Not Fade Away” will be infinitely better. It has “Almost Famous” potential. Plus, with a title inspired by a Rolling Stones song, it seems that “Not Fade Away” has its head in the right place.

Coming to Theaters: December 21

View the top 3 after the jump:

3. This Is 40

Judd Apatow is still the reigning king of comedy. I admire the ambition of his last feature, “Funny People,” even if it could have used another visit to the editing room. Luckily, “This Is 40″ is a spinoff of Apatow’s superior “Knocked Up.” It follows married couple Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie) a few years down the road. This seems to be Apatow’s most personal film yet, and it even stars his two daughters. This may be more mature than Apatow’s other works, but the fact that the poster has Paul Rudd on a toilet gives me faith that he hasn’t totally abandoned his sense of dirty hilarity. Over the past two decades, Apatow has altered comedy in both film and television. Could the Oscars be the next step for him?

Coming to Theaters: December 21

2. Zero Dark Thirty

“Zero Dark Thirty” is Kathryn Bigelow’s first feature since she made history and won an Oscar for “The Hurt Locker.” Back during the 2010 Oscar season, I dissed “The Hurt Locker” so much that people might have the impression that I didn’t like it. I did very much, I just thought that every award it won belonged to “Inglourious Basterds.” But I digress. Bigelow has a talent for realism, which makes her the perfect candidate to capture the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden on film. I was worried that this film seemed a little rushed to be released, but the trailer gives me chills every time I watch the soldiers stand outside Bin Laden’s compound. I am not expecting to have fun watching “Zero Dark Thirty,” but I am expecting a seriously dark thriller that pulls absolutely no punches.*

Coming to Theaters: December 21

1. Django Unchained

I’ve expressed my love of Quentin Tarantino films way too much on this blog, so I won’t bore you with that. But I will say that “Django Unchained” looks about as spectacular as I expected it to be. I nearly stood up and cheered when the trailer started blasting the theme from the original “Django.”** I think it’s about time that Quentin teamed up with Leonardo DiCaprio. Maybe he can finally get DiCaprio his first Oscar. Only Quentin can turn a dark time in our nation’s history into something exploitative, entertaining, and hilarious. This is also the first time that Quentin is working in a time period before movies existed. What will his characters banter about? If Quentin can pull off a full film without his signature pop culture talk, then he can officially be cemented as a master. Not that he wasn’t one already.

Coming to Theaters: December 28


*Can’t wait to see who shouts “AMERICA!” in the theater after Bin Laden is brought down.
**”Django Unchained” is not a remake. Qunetin Tarantino just loves to steal. He is an artistic kleptomaniac.

Movie Review: Skyfall

Leave a reply

Now, this was the James Bond I’ve been waiting for. Or, more accurately, I didn’t know there would be a James Bond quite like this.

After 2006′s masterful “Casino Royale” redefined the series, 2008′s mediocre “Quantum of Solace” set it back another few years. 007 makes a major comeback yet again with “Skyfall.” When James Bond was rebooted, the intention was to radically start England’s greatest secret agent over from scratch. Now, everyone seems comfortable enough with Craig in the role to bring back some classic Bond tropes. I didn’t realize how much I even missed them until “Skyfall.”


“Skyfall” might be the first time since “You Only Live Twice” that Bond has “died” before the opening credits. A failed mission to get a hard drive containing a very secret list of names sends Bond hurdling off a train and into a river, leaving M (Judi Dench) to write Bond’s obituary. Before the train chase there is a motorcycle rooftop chase that is both implausible and impossible not to be thrilled by. The very best Bond moments make the implausible so much fun.

Shaken, not stirred.

After a fantastic opening credit sequence, Bond is found hiding on a tropical island. Craig’s Bond might be the most reckless Bond yet, so much so that he’ll even play drinking games with a scorpion. Unlike most exiled heroes, Bond doesn’t seem to miss his job. That is, until he sees a news report about a terrorist attack at M16 headquarters that effects him personally, despite being out of the job. The revisionist James Bond of the 21st century is not motivated merely by a duty to defeat the bad guys; this Bond also has a strong emotional compass.

Once we know that the actor is good, there is always the expectation that the character of James Bond will be awesome. However, it is rare that a Bond film produces a truly memorable villain. That is until they cast Javier Bardem as hacker terrorist Silva. Bardem has pretty much cornered the market on creepy villains in modern film. While Le Chiffre of “Casino Royale” was dark and frightening in a realistic way, Silva is cheesy in the best sense of the word. He is entertaining to watch because he is so unpredictable. We might know where he will go, but how he will get there is impossible to know. Bardem plays him with the exaggerated movements of a Broadway dancer. Here is a villain who is as interested in causing anarchy as he is in putting on a show. In that aspect, he is a perfect movie villain.

“Skyfall” might be the first time that a “Bond Girl” didn’t have significant screen time. I would argue that M is the Bond Girl of “Skyfall.” It makes sense, as the plot becomes largely about protecting her. It is also interesting to see a Bond film that is more about the development of a friendship than about the development of a romance. Bond and M have a very complicated relationship, as M is not above sacrificing an agent in order to complete a mission. It is this kind of character work that has made the past few Bond entries some of the strongest in the 50 year history of the series.

That dog.

“Skyfall” is brought to life by director Sam Mendes. Mendes has directed some smaller scale action flicks (“Road to Perdition,” “Jarhead”), but never anything on this scale. Mendes has done with James Bond what Christopher Nolan has done with Batman. Mendes brings a lot of his artistic sensibility to the table and makes the cities more than just giant action set pieces: they are living, breathing, and stunning places. The opening throws us relentlessly into the center of a bazaar. Bond has never stared so pensively at the London skyline. Shanghai is brought to life with beautiful colors and then becomes the stage for an amazing fight consisting only of silhouettes. I have yet to go to Shanghai*, but it looks something like the way “Blade Runner” imagined Los Angeles to look like in 2019.

While “Skyfall” may be the funniest Bond yet, there is a constant, dark shadow of death that hangs over it from the very beginning. It is as if Bond’s whole way of life is in more danger than ever before. “Skyfall” may be the most thematically rich Bond film ever made. It truly questions the place of a spy made for the Cold War in the modern age when anyone can get a computer and become a hero or a terrorist. This is probably the most self-aware Bond as well. It is an eloquent and deep territory to explore, but it is almost ruined at several times by overstatement.

As a director, Mendes’ Achilles’ Heel  has always been subtlety. He seems afraid to let a theme come across organically, so he feels a need to hammer the audience over the head with it. They ask, “are we still relevant with technology?” so many times that by the end, it almost loses all value. However, the surprising amount of innovation in this theme saves “Skyfall” in the end.

Anyone upset about the lack of technology in “Skyfall” clearly hasn’t seen Daniel Craig with a shotgun.

“Skyfall” is both a throwback to James Bond of the past and a radically new Bond as well. It includes a few surprises that will be most meaningful to die hard fans. It also peppers in some backstory that makes the Bond legend so much stronger. But overall, this is just the best action movie I have seen in ages. For every plant there is a payoff and for every explosion there is a reason. “Skyfall” shows how smart Bond and the other agents are. Getting Bond as far away from technology at the end was a pretty ingenious move on the writers’ part. Modern blockbusters never forget the eye candy, but they often neglect to make their heroes actually seem intelligent. I believe a Bond without jetpacks or invisible cars is the best Bond there is.

The question of whether Bond is still relevant is actually pretty meta, and questions whether after 50 years, Bond films are still necessary. I think the answer is yes. James Bond has become something of a constant to me, and no Thanksgiving ever feels as awesome when there is no new Bond film to look forward to. It’s also great to think that whatever existential fear is currently haunting the collective subconscious (nuclear war, terrorism, cyber attacks), James Bond will always be there with his Walther PPK to stop it.

*Between “Looper” and “Skyfall,” Shanghai has gotten a glorious portrayal this year in film.

Movie Review: Argo

Leave a reply

Ben Affleck pulled off the impossible and made a movie about the making of a movie that isn’t cheeky or ironic. Then again, it’s hard to be overly ironic when the movie you’re making is fake and you’re dealing with a hostage crisis.

“Argo” plays perfectly like a classic thriller: it’s smart, suspenseful, and fun. “Argo” is both an entertaining thriller and a disturbing document of a very bad time in history.

“Argo” is equal parts reenactment, documentary footage, and artistic license. It starts off with a nice refresher  on the past 60 years of Iranian history. In just about a minute, it makes much more sense out of what happened to that country than CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News ever could combined. It goes up to 1979, the year in which the Shah was overthrown and the Iranian Revolution began. Director Ben Affleck gives us a full fledged reenactment of the Iranians breaking into the US Embassy in Tehran. This scene would have felt overlong, if it wasn’t so important to the rest of the story, and directed with nail-biting intensity.


Actually, “Argo” is not about the hostages in the Embassy but rather a select few that nobody knew even escaped. A group of Americans hid out in the Canadian Embassy. The Canadians didn’t quite bother the Iranians as much as the Americans did, as the Canadians never seem to bother anyone, as they are the greatest country ever to exist.*

But I digress. The CIA needs a way to safely get the Americans out of the Canadian Embassy and back to America. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is on it. Tony is good at his job, and, like almost any government agent on film, he just wants to get home and see his son. You’ll hear more about this later in the review.

Tony and his boss Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) go through every option and can’t find a logical way to sneak the Americans out of Iran. As O’Donnell, Cranston is much more subdued than I’m used to seeing him. But then again, anyone in government who’s most concerned with following orders isn’t going to chew up the scenery. As the clock ticks, no idea seems to work. That is, until Tony comes up with the craziest idea ever: shoot a fake movie in Iran, and sneak an entire fake crew out of the most dangerous country in the world.

“Argo” is a heist film in which the big heist involves the making of a movie. This is the kind of story that can make any film buff go crazy. When rescuing the Canadian hostages, Tony tells them that they all must assume the roles of certain members of a film crew. They must learn and memorize their backstories for when they are questioned at the airport. They are essentially memorizing characters and becoming a part of a lie. While making a fake movie, they are essentially acting one out in real life. And we, of course, are seeing that movie be acted out in real time.

To make this fake movie come true, Tony goes to Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) who then brings him to legendary producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin, who utters a line of dialogue that has already become classic). They bring Tony a script for “Argo,” a B-grade sci-fi film that could be filmed perfectly in the Middle East. They have their cover. It is too bad that the “Argo” within “Argo” never got mad. I’d really like to see this tale of overthrowing a king on a distant planet. The story of the sci-fi “Argo” actually sounds alarmingly similar to what was happening in Tehran during that time. Get on it, Affleck.

“Argo” marks Affleck’s third time behind the camera. With every feature, he gets better and better as a director. He directs “Argo” like a confident, old pro, and not just a young director still searching for his voice. Behind the camera, Affleck is someone who is incredibly well versed in both movies and the art of filmmaking. As he also showed with “The Town,” Affleck has a talent for strictly following genre conventions yet also making them fresh and exciting. He has conquered the chase scene. Towards the end of “Argo,” there is one chase that totally puts any chase in “The Town” to shame. Some of the final chase in “Argo” might be fictionalized, but Affleck knows that part of showing history on film is bending the truth a little bit. After all, even in a story as exciting as this one, facts can be boring.

Sometimes, the cinematic conventions that “Argo” follows work to its advantage, and other times not. While I understand that Affleck just wanted a strong back story for Tony, I would not have minded if they just completely removed everything about his estranged family. It didn’t make Tony any deeper or more complicated as character. All I wanted to see was Tony at work, and how his job effected him. “All the President’s Men” didn’t need to show personal relationships in order to flesh out Woodward and Bernstein. In a movie about the workplace, showing someone being good at their job can often be enough to bring out character.

I am not against character development. However, I am against character development that turns the character into a prototype rather than a human. I can site a more recent example, actually also about the CIA, in the show “Homeland.” The most important details about the CIA Operative main character are how her mind functions and how that effects her job. Tony’s relationship with his son didn’t effect his job. His job effected his relationship with his son. This was mentioned several times, but never explored deep enough. There was one possible ending nestled in “Argo” that would have been a little darker, yet absolutely perfect. Instead, the ending they went with pushes a little too hard to tie things together nicely. Hard-boiled thrillers should never end with a perfectly tied little bow on them.

But maybe I am being a little tough here. After all, Tony’s relationship with his son is partly forged on a love for movies. If it wasn’t for his son watching “Battle of the Planet of the Apes,” Tony might never have thought of his crazy rescue idea. There is something wonderful about the nature of cinema that I think “Argo” showed flawlessly: movies can connect two estranged people, or two people from completely different cultures, in a way that most other art forms can’t. The idea of a story can cross a threshold even if two people don’t even speak the same language. “Argo,” in simplest form, is a love letter to filmmaking. Pay very close attention to the graininess of every shot. That’s on purpose. This could be one of the last times you see a movie that’s actually shot on film.

*Note: I am not Canadian, and they are not the greatest country ever. However, I am a big fan of their country.

Movie Review: Lincoln

1 Reply

How do you bring one of history’s most famous and important people to life, when the only knowledge we have of them is from still photos and documents? Simple: bring in Daniel Day-Lewis. Not only can that guy act his way out of a paper bag, he would also spend an entire year studying the life of a paper bag in order to prepare for the performance.

“Lincoln,” however, is the first time I’ve seen Daniel Day-Lewis in a performance that doesn’t totally dominate every frame of the film. No, he is also guided by an impressive ensemble, who will surely take home the big ensemble prize at the SAG Awards.


Despite the title, “Lincoln” is about much more than the man himself. It is about the feelings of an entire nation during a very specific time, and how the actions of one Abraham Lincoln transcended the time he was living in. As Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis brings out a warmth and sense of humor that make him unlike any politician I could ever imagine. He always has the look of a man who will always stay firm on his beliefs. The film opens with Lincoln having personal conversations with a series of soldiers. This is the Lincoln we will see throughout: a man who just wants to hear out everyone’s opinion, and possibly make some people happy as well.

Give Steven Spielberg some credit for boldly making “Lincoln” a two and a half hour look at the 13th Amendement. This is no biopic about chopping down a cherry tree and then running for president. The limited time frame is tricky, yet it still manages to capture the best of this man by showing him as he goes through the most difficult time in his life.

Spielberg hasn’t made a truly great fantasy since 2002′s “Minority Report.” His other great strength lies in recreating history. Every little detail in “Lincoln” is so beautifully realized that you can see how much thought and research went into the making of it. It immerses you into 1860s America. Colonial Williamsburg this is not, as it vividly shows everything from the muddy streets of Washington to the dead bodies piling up in mounds in Virginia.

“Lincoln” is a rare film about politics that actually feels realistic. It takes us through the grueling process of getting a constitutional amendment passed. This time, it is the amendment that would eventually end slavery. Lincoln is not the usual president we see on screen who is exaggerated for entertainment purposes. He does not always have the right thing to say. Instead, he chooses his words wisely. I think that is partly what made him such an amazing public speaker.

One other interesting thing you will learn about Lincoln here is his voice. I always pictured it being loud and booming. If Daniel Day-Lewis is to be believed, he was much more soft spoken and down-to-earth. Everyone always says they want a president who they could sit down and have a beer with. I disagree. A president should be more like Lincoln: understanding of your needs, and able to have a conversation with you without being condescending.

I am used to seeing Day-Lewis totally dominate the screen in every role he takes. However, “Lincoln” is the first time I have seen him take a role that is more subdued. At times, he even manages to take a back seat to some of the other excellent actors. Most prominently, Tommy Lee Jones walked away with many of the scenes he was in as Thaddeus Stevens. His final scene is one of the most important and surprising in the entire film. Unfortunately, Joseph Gordon-Levitt does not get nearly enough screen time as Abe’s son Robert.

“Lincoln” is a Spielberg film, and like any Spielberg film, it cannot stray from sentimentality. In “Lincoln,” it’s not as bad as in, say, “A.I.” or “War of the Worlds.” However, it does feel a little bit thrown in here. It’s as if Spielberg thought that he had to prove to us that Lincoln was a good man by showing that he was a good father. Clearly, that wasn’t needed. However, I really did like the portrayal of Lincoln’s precocious son Tad. I have a feeling that Tad’s hatred of slavery might have helped propel Abe to push the amendment through.

“Lincoln” is complex, but not as dark as some of Spielberg’s past historical epics. This is his first one that is focused more on words than action. It is a bold choice and a risky gamble that I sincerely salute. However, because of this, the film is unnecessarily slow at times. Just because there are no scenes of action, it doesn’t mean that what is going on onscreen has to be boring. Take the scene towards the end which shows everyone in Congress voting for the amendment. What happens in our nation’s Capitol isn’t always very exciting, but this scene was brilliantly done. We all knew the outcome, but somehow there was still suspense created. That is one of Spielberg’s great gifts: to create the feeling of dread even when the outcome seems clear. I wish that the rest of the film could have been as compelling and exciting as this.

“Lincoln” is not necessarily made for everyone. It is the thinking man’s look at history, and the kind of film that will make history buffs go wild. There are many things I would have changed about it. I still feel it would have much more interesting had they opened with the time before the 13th Amendment was proposed, in which Lincoln wasn’t exactly pro-slavery. Everyone already knew what a great man Lincoln was, but I’d have like to see more of how he became the legend. I cannot change history, nor this film, so for “Lincoln” is, I believe it should be seen. It just requires something that many films don’t normally ask of us: patience.

Top 5: James Bond Movies

Leave a reply
The jetpack from “Thunderball”: the peak of bad special effects humor.

This weekend, “Skyfall” opens in theaters. “Skyfall” marks a remarkable 50 years of the existence of James Bond onscreen. Directed by Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” “Road to Perdition”), “Skyfall” has already been receiving early raves.

No matter how repetitive or ridiculous it gets, I will have a strong fondness for the Bond series. Thanksgivings of my childhood were usually marked by watching the Bond marathons on AMC or TNT (or whatever other network showed them) with my dad and brother. From my years of watching, I compiled a list of my favorite Bond films, building up to number one. Here are my five favorite Bond films:

5. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

It’s hard to fill the shoes of Sean Connery, but I believe Roger Moore did as good a job at it as anyone could. This is my favorite Moore installment, and it certainly doesn’t shy away from the Cold War inspired madness of the time. While the villain’s objective of creating a new civilization under the ocean should be completely ludicrous, it doesn’t feel as unrealistic in light of climate change. Plus it’s got a hot Bond girl, and Jaws, one of the few villains in the Bond series who got to come back for another film. If only Oddjob didn’t meet his end in “Goldfinger,” him and Jaws would have made a great team of villains.

4. Dr. No (1962)

This is where it all began. Bond had much less weapons to use, so he mainly relied on his own cunning. And while ejecting car seats are cool, it’s even cooler to see Bond having to use his own wits, like watching “Spider-Man” try and scale the city when his web blasters run out. And speaking of spiders, there’s a great scene where Bond battles a tarantula, which has the kind of slow-burning suspense rarely seen in movies anymore. I had the distinct pleasure to go to a beach screening of “Dr. No” while at Cannes this summer. To say that “Dr. No” has aged is an understatement. To say that because of that “Dr. No” is no longer funny or exciting to watch would be a lie.

See my Top 3 after the jump:


3. You Only Live Twice (1967)


“You Only Live Twice” might be one of the most insane Bond films, yet it still manages to keep its cool. It’s hard to disagree with an intoxicating theme song by Nancy Sinatra. This one has a space ship that steals other spaceships, a secret volcano lair, and Bond pretending to be Japanese. It is also the first glimpse we got of bald, kitty-loving bad guy Blofeld. “You Only Live Twice” was one of the Bond films I would always watch the whole way through every time there was a Thanksgiving marathon. But it is hard to deny, without “You Only Live Twice,” there might not have been “Austin Powers.”

2. Casino Royale (2006)

In 2006, “Casino Royale” both brought Bond back to his roots and reinvented the Cold War spy for the modern age. Many balked at the idea of a blonde Bond, but Daniel Craig effortlessly fit into the role. This was a much grittier Bond film, and the first time our hero actually seemed like a vulnerable human being. Plus, the gravity-defying opening chase is absolutely magnificent. Not to mention, the action replaces implausible death rays and such with the simplicity of guns and knives. Its greatest achievement, however, is turning a poker tournament into a breathless life or death situation. “Quantum of Solace” couldn’t quite follow in its footsteps, but I have a good feeling that “Skyfall” will bring back the Bond promised to us by “Casino Royale.”

1. Goldfinger (1964)

This seems too obvious but the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to put any other Bond film first. This was the first time Bond went high tech, but there is more to it than just that. It has one of the most simply sadistic villains in the entire series (he kills people by painting them gold!). It also had the audacity to (SPOILER) kill off the girl early on and replace her with another one. If anyone needs a perfect example of the witty intelligence of James Bond and the awesomeness of Sean Connery, look no further than “Goldfinger.”

Most Underrated: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)

George Lazenby was the first Bond after Connery and he only got one shot at 007. He’s definitely not on top in the Bond caliber, because “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” is actually a classic. It has a famous ski chase in which no one can remember which Bond film its actually from. Most notable about “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” is that it is the most self-aware Bond has ever been. At the beginning  after the girl gets away, he turns to the camera and says, “this never happened to the other fellow.”

Worst: Die Another Day (2002)

I was close to choosing “Moonraker,” both for its “it’s like “The Spy Who Loved Me” in space” premise and the fact that it gave Jaws a love story. Yet, “Moonraker” is campy fun. “Die Another Day” represented the breaking point of Bond. The series had gone too ove-the-top for its own good. The need to see shiny lasers totally overshadows the plot. The only things I could pick up were a beam that harnessed the power of the sun, a hotel made of ice, and a Korean dude who was reincarnated as a white dude. Sure, it tried to be relevant by making the bad guys North Korean. Yet, it didn’t tap into any plausible fears like the Bond of the Soviet Era. Pierce Brosnan, who actually fit the Bond label very well, deserved better than this. And we ended up getting better. Four years after the mess of “Die Another Day,” Bond arose from the ashes in the form of “Casino Royale.”