Captain America: Civil War trailer

I know I said in my review of Rocky Balboa that I'd be doing Creed next... but I realized that I'm a little bit late on my reaction to the Civil War trailer. So before I do my review of Creed. I do feel I should get this little rant post out as soon as I can because the wonder of this trailer is probably dying down by now and I meant to get this out a couple days ago.

I didn't expect this trailer to drop so soon. I had heard rumors that it was going to show up in front of Star Wars. And I was fine with that. I think we were all waiting for this trailer to drop any day now but this really came out of nowhere, at least for me. But my god, was it a fun surprise. I remember looking at Facebook at about midnight last and seeing the Civil War teaser trailer. Now I thought it was just gonna be a short teaser before a larger drop later this week, but after watching it, it turned out to be a full 2 1/2 minute trailer. Again, a welcome surprise.

So the first thing to note about Civil War, from this trailer, on the surface this seems like a smaller, more personal story about Captain America standing up for his friend Bucky Barnes who he wants to save from the government. However, I can tell there's still more this trailer isn't filling us in on about this movie because while this trailer seems small, there are big things to note about this trailer.

The first thing to note about this movie is that there is obviously some kind of attack that Bucky is blamed for. This will undoubtedly be perpetrated by Baron Zemo (who is being played by Daniel Bruhl) and/or Crossbones (played by Frank Grillo in Captain America: The Winter Soldier).

I'm kind of wondering if Zemo is going to have just as big of a villain role as Baron Von Strucker did in Age of Ultron (Am I the only one who feels like that was a little bit of a waste? I'm not totally aware of the character or what he does, but I would have liked to see Thomas Kretschmann do a little bit of evil stuff as Strucker, I digress though). The more important part is that this sets the government after Bucky, as well as on the path to implementing an accountability system of superheroes, especially the Avengers.

This is going to be one of the things I imagine will make this story a lot bigger than this trailer is letting us believe. Its really only mentioned once and the trailer makes us believe that this issue is more about Captain America and Bucky Barnes, which it will be. But I think that Bucky connects to a larger plot with this piece of legislation.

I mean the Avengers do look like they are divided on something, they're fighting against one another. I can't imagine that it just revolves around Bucky.

Now in the comics of Civil War, the superhero registration act is a piece of legislation that requires superheroes to reveal their secret identities to the world. This leads to the big connection Spider-man has to the story (oh we'll get to Spider-man) in that his secret identity helps keep him safe but he is torn between the ideology of Iron Man and Captain America. The problem with that of course is that secret identities don't exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, at least within the Avengers.

Thanks Iron Man

But this trailer does a pretty good job at giving us an initial idea of what the legislation is going to do and the beginning of why there might be a divide between the Avengers on it. 

Oh by the way, Hi Thunderbolt Ross (played by William Hurt) Yeah remember General Ross from The Incredible Hulk. Yeah, apparently he's the Secretary of State now. That's something I didn't pick up on until my third of fourth viewing, he's not wearing a uniform in this movie, he's in a suit and tie. I had to look it up to know that he's the Secretary of State but from the trailer you can tell he's in the politics world now and I love it. 

I really hope Thunderbolt Ross has a bigger part to play in the rest of Phase 3 because you're missing an opportunity if this is going to be his only reappearance and the Hulk is not in this movie. 

I know Marvel is smarter than that. Its good to see William Hurt reprise his role as Thunderbolt Ross and I have no doubt that he is going to be just an awesome addition to this movie. 

So obviously there's an attack, it gets blamed on Bucky, the Avengers can't stop it, their abilities are put into question, Thunderbolt Ross (and maybe also Martin Freeman?!?!) bring in the legislation and Captain America finds himself once again fighting the establishment for what he believes in.

And as Captain America starts going a little bit rogue, its obvious who they bring in to reel him him.

I loved how they treated the relationship between Tony Stark and Captain America in this movie. I think when they first brought out Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr to promote this movie at its announcement. I thought Tony was going to be somewhat of a villain, heading up the campaign for the legislation. And I'm sure that's how he's going to be, but the fact that he's going up against Cap seems to bother him more than I thought it would.

And that's obvious from a lot of points in this trailer.

Its obvious that this is not a personal battle. Tony isn't going after Cap because he dislikes him or he feels threatened by him, its clearly an issue of ideology between these two. And while that can bring people to blows, it seems to hurt both of them that its coming to that.

And of course that ideology splits the different members of the Avengers into two teams.

I kind of mentioned the two sides of Civil War in my Phase 4 rant, but I don't know if I really broke them down as much as I could have.

On Captain America's side, you have Falcon (obviously) Bucky (obviously) Hawkeye, and Agent Sharon Carter from The Winter Soldier (Played by Emily VanCamp). On top of that, the trailer suggests that Scarlet Witch is on the side of Captain America as well.

All these people make a lot of sense to be on Cap's side. Bucky and Falcon are obvious because they're going to be on Cap's side no matter what. Hawkeye makes sense because he has a family that he wants hidden and any kind of legislation that focuses on more control over him makes the possibility of them being exposed a higher risk. He obviously doesn't want the government involved with his family so that's probably a big part. Scarlett Witch is sort of the same, she probably has some kind of fear of the government and therefore sees Cap's side as the obvious one. I mean she's fighting with Cap in the trailer so I don't see any reason why she wouldn't be on his side throughout the film. Sharon Carter is the interesting one for me because she wasn't much of a character in Winter Soldier. I hope they'll develop her a little bit more. She's kind of in the same realm of Bucky and Falcon in that she's probably going to follow Cap anywhere, but I want her to have her own character and see her become a bigger part of Cap's life in this movie.

And then you have the Iron Man team.

 On his team you have War Machine, Black Widow, Black Panther, and Vision. We don't see any Vision in this movie but we do see a lot of War Machine. Rhodey is an entity of the government so its obvious that he's going to be fighting to uphold the law. Black Widow is always the wildcard and I've heard theories that she's a double agent. But this trailer really makes it sound like she's absolutely on the side of the government, even though it doesn't make her very happy. I'm really looking forward to see how Black Widow plays into this movie. She's become such a good character within the last few movies and she's bound to make this fight even more interesting. She also looks fantastic as ever in the trailer so I am definitely looking forward to where she stands in this film. But the main component of Stark's team in the trailer was War Machine.

Now I said in my Phase 4 tangent that I think Rhodey is going to bite it in either this movie or Infinity Wars. And this trailer doesn't exactly disprove that theory.

I mean... shit.

Its probably too on the nose and I'm sure with Marvel's track record with "having people die", Rhodey is probably just injured in this shot, I don't think he's dead. However, if anybody was going to die in this movie, Rhodey is probably the person that is going to.

And then there's Black Panther.

And my god... Black Panther looks amazing.

I still have no idea how he plays into this movie, how the King of Wakanda can be a superhero and I do not care because he looks flipping amazing in this trailer. I have no idea why he's on Tony's Team but again, I don't care. Black Panther looks amazing in this trailer.

Now here's what I hope.

I of course am looking forward to the next trailer. And I think what I liked about this trailer was despite how much this movie looks like a huge epic movie like an Avengers 2.5, it still feels like a personal story of Captain America. While I like that, I kind of hope that the next trailer for this movie is from the perspective of Tony Stark.

Because my god, this is actually a Civil War. This is brother against brother, hero against hero and I'm pretty sure, as much as I want Marvel to have a good villain, Baron Zemo is going to be insignificant to the relationship between Captain America and Tony Stark.

The ending scene of the trailer when Captain America is like, I'm sorry Tony, you know I wouldn't do this if I didn't have any other choice... but he's my friend. And Tony just responds, So was I. It gave me shivers.

I love how this storyline is going to tear this friendship apart. So much that Captain America feels the need to double team Tony with Bucky and just beat the living shit out of him.

I wish I could have had a gif of that fight (SOMEONE MAKE THAT)

But I hope that they make the next trailer from the point of view of Tony Stark. Because this trailer made Captain America obviously seem like he was the person in the right, how awesome would it be if they continued to confuse the audience and see things from the side of Tony in the next trailer so you have no idea who you're rooting for before you enter the movie. 

They probably won't as this movie is called Captain America, but I want to see that. 

One other things worth mentioning about this trailer is the distinct lack of Spider-man. 

Now honestly, I didn't notice that Spider-man wasn't in this trailer until I saw a video and somebody mentioned that. 

Honestly, I don't know how much this movie really needs Spider-man. Don't get me wrong, I'm still really excited to see this rebooted Spider-man and how they explain his sudden appearance, but after this trailer, if this movie came out without Spider-man in it, I wouldn't mind too much. This movie seems epic enough without an obligatory Spider-man cameo in there.

Which makes me a little bit nervous about this film because I'm kind of worried that Spider-man is going to be thrown in this film the same way Falcon was thrown into Ant-man. 

If you read my review of Ant-man, I thought the film was fantastic outside of a really forced Falcon cameo that I think was only in there to tie into the larger universe and provide some kind of connection to Ant-man to this movie Civil War. And while I understand they want to bring in as many characters as they can into Civil War including Ant-man to really get the feeling of a war between the Marvel characters, the scene in Ant-man with Falcon took me out of it. I didn't like it. 

I want to see Spider-man in Civil War and I want to see him in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (even though he still could potentially fail at Marvel). But I want his appearance in Civil War to actually mean something instead of just being there because there's a contract between Sony and Marvel and Spider-man needed to show up in this film. 

Now I have faith in Marvel that they will find some way to make Tom Holland's Spider-man mean something in Civil War, but I don't think he's going to be a quintessential part to the story and if he's not, why bring him in at all? 

Now this is all based off of my dislike for the Falcon cameo in Ant-man so don't mistake it for me not wanting Spider-man in Civil War, I do. I just want it to mean something. 

But back on point, I don't feel like I needed Spider-man in this or any of the future trailers. I would like him in it if he has an important role in the movie, but I'm getting the feeling that he doesn't. I don't know, I'm having a difficult time with Spider-man right now. 

Overall, I'm really looking forward to Captain America: Civil War. This trailer was awesome and it just makes 2016 the year that I was hoping 2015 was going to be. You've got Batman V Superman in March and this movie coming out in May. I am incredibly pumped for this movie. It really shows how Captain America has gone from probably the most white bread superhero in the MCU with The First Avenger to probably the most interesting. 

But what do you think? Did you pick up anything from this trailer that I didn't. Comment and discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for future movies and topics I should review. If you want updates on future movie news and reviews, you can also follow me on twitter and you might get live tweets from movies I'm watching. 

I'll leave you with this. I found this video, hopefully you find it kind of funny, I know I did. Enjoy!

Rocky Balboa

So if you're a fan of my blog, even though I've never out right said it, you may notice that I just don't review that many sports movies. I think I have thrown in a couple here and there, but usually, I don't really get out and see sports movies. I mean a lot of them have the same premise and a lot of them have the same ending. And honestly, Rocky Balboa is not different.

It also might surprise you to know that I haven't seen any of the Rocky movies prior to this one. I was heading out to Creed and my friend and I had some time to kill, so we thought we'd watch the most recent Rocky movie to get a little bit of context for Creed. I'll get to my review of Creed in my next post.

Rocky Balboa takes place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone) is the local hero from his accomplishments in the world of boxing and the events of the previous films.

 The first act of this movie honestly is just Rocky going about his usual daily stuff. He courts a woman from the area (played by Geraldine Hughes), as well as trying to connect with his son (played by Milo Ventimigla).

Honestly, the first part of this movie kind of drags.

Its not that its necessarily bad, it just takes a while for Rocky to finally come to the conclusion that he's not totally ready for retirement and maybe he should have one more go in the ring of boxing before he settles into retirement forever.

I think I might have enjoyed the first part of this movie a little bit more if I had watched the first few movies as a lot of it centers around Rocky focusing on his past, whether its his boxing career, or the fact that he misses his wife who died of cancer since the last film.

Again, its not bad, without any context though it does drag a little bit.

The most interesting part comes when a simulated boxing match is shown on TV. This simulation pits Rocky up against the current heavy weight boxing champion, Mason "the Line" Dixon (played by Antonio Tarver). The weird thing is, I remember hearing about the story of this movie when it came out and thought it was ridiculous. I mean a simulation, ESPN can be bad at times but they're not THAT bad.

But regardless of how silly of a way it comes up, the boxing world begins questioning Rocky's reputation. They question whether or not he was actually as good as people remember him. On top of that, Dixon is having a little bit of a difficulty with his reputation and his legacy that he's thinking he will leave behind as he's growing old.

The main point of this movie is about legacy. Both of these guys have an inner need to restore their legacy and feel a sense of accomplishment.

Now you may ask, how in god's name does Rocky have a sense of being incomplete when he's had 5 movies already of kicking ass, ending the Cold War and whatever else happened in those movies (I get the feeling I will get to a couple of them in the next few days).

But regardless of whether or not it makes sense, after being challenged by Dixon to an exhibition match, Rocky decides he's going to train for one last fight before he retires for good.

The movie of course is pretty formulaic.

Rocky gets challenged to a fight, he trains for the fight, he goes into the fight. The rest is just character development and arcs of the different characters and Rocky.

Of course where this one is different is that Rocky has been out of the game for about 20 years. He has a son who has some difficulty dealing with being the son of the famous Rocky Balboa. And of course Sylvester Stallone looks like a wrinkled grape. I'll give it, a very muscular and incredibly in shape wrinkled grape, but a wrinkled grape nonetheless.

And when it comes to the fight, I mean its a Rocky movie. The stakes are always high, and if you're a sucker for boxing movies like I am, you'll be on the edge of your seat with every hit and movement.

The cool thing about this movie, is that when it came to the fight between Rocky and Dixon, it was very much filmed like a real boxing match would be filmed on TV.

Its felt very much like I was watching a pay per view of the fight between Mason Dixon and Rocky Balboa. Its a little bit different of a style than Creed does almost 10 years later and I have no idea what these fights are like in the older movies but I thought it was a different way of shooting the film. And for the most part, I liked it. From the two Rocky franchise movies I've seen, the fights are just as formulaic as the movie. They show the first two or three rounds, then they go into a montage of the two going back and forth at one another, and the final rounds get a little bit more attention.

Overall, its a good fight. I don't know if the ESPN filming of it is going to be to everyone's liking, but talking as someone with no experience of the earlier Rocky movies, I thought it was good. I thought Creed was better, but I thought this one was okay.

I have to say as far as a rival goes, Mason "The Line" Dixon is an okay rival for Rocky. I haven't even seen the other movies and I know that he's probably not the best. In fact in many ways he's probably really boring. But I did think they did an okay job getting a feel for who this character was why it was just as important for him to win this fight than it was for Rocky. However, its okay that Dixon's story isn't exactly the greatest because he's the foil, he's the antagonist or the rival for Rocky and in the end, as sympathetic as we might be for Dixon, we want Rocky to win.

As far as other relationships go, I thought they were okay in this movie. I like Milo Ventimigla and I thought he did a good job as Rocky's son. Again, a lot of this movie is about legacy and that's not just how Rocky sees himself, but how his son sees him, and how the community sees him.

I did think the relationship he had with Geraldine Hughes was alright. It was a little random at times and it kind of seemed like they just needed a romantic interest like I assume his wife was in the previous movies.

The relationship though that I'm mostly interested in is his relationship with his brother in law, Pauley.

I mean the relationship itself is pretty good as Rocky is preoccupied with the past and Pauley instead wants to forget about the past as it is too painful. That's not so much what I'm interested in.

I have a theory about Pauley. And a lot of this is based off of nothing because like I've said multiple times. I have not seen the earlier Rocky movies. I don't know the exact nature of Pauley and Rocky's relationship. All I know is that he's been in all the previous Rocky movies and he's probably the most recognizable part of Rocky's past in this movie.

My theory is that Pauley is dead in this movie.

I noticed it in the first hour of the movie as the only times we see Pauley is when he's alone with Rocky. There's nobody else around and its just Pauley and Rocky talking about the past. There's a scene where he's standing in the headlights of the car looking very angelic. Nobody else seems to interact with Pauley throughout the entire movie (with the exception of one scene, and that could be explained easily). Rocky is the only one who talks to Pauley.

In one of the first scenes, Rocky is at the cemetery, presumingly visiting the grave of his wife. But Pauley's in the background just chillin with Rocky. Then at the end, after the fight, after Rocky has gotten all the doubts and regrets of his past out, he revisits that cemetery and Paulie is nowhere to be seen. In fact he's not in the movie after that fight. Furthermore, in Creed, (spoiler alert?) Pauley is dead and his tombstone is right next to Adrienes. I don't think its beyond belief that Pauley is a ghost or a figment of Rocky's sub conscious symbolizing his desire to have one last chance to prove himself. When Pauley tells him right before the fight to leave everything on that boxing ring, he's basically telling him to let the lay the last bit of his past to rest and be at peace with his life, even after everything that made him famous and made his life meaningful has gone or has passed away.

Again, this is just a theory based off the initial thought that Pauley was in fact dead throughout this entire movie, and then when the people I watched it with told me he wasn't, the theory just kind of snowballed and again, with the exception of one scene that can easily be explained or even ignored, I think the theory holds up pretty well.

Maybe I'll do another post on this theory later but for now, I'll let you all sit with that. Let me know what you think.

The last thing I'll talk about is Rocky himself. I've never been a huge fan of Stallone. I've seen the Expendables and while I enjoy those movies for the fact that they're just turn your brain off action films with a lot of 80s action heroes in them, they're not a great representation of Stallone's acting abilities. Stallone has never, to me, seemed like a great actor.

But watching this movie and Creed back to back, I really have to say that Stallone does have some talent. Its something I never thought I'd say but I feel for the character because of Stallone's acting.

Now maybe its because this franchise was Stallone's ticket to stardom and everything he owes in his career is because of this franchise, but he just brings it in this film. And I'll get to his performance in Creed.

Now that being said, he's still a mumbling Italian giant and even his dialogue isn't the most eloquent dialogue you can muster up.

But that's probably the charm of the character. Rocky is not the most intelligent man in the universe and he's not the most well read. But he's the every day man who doesn't have those eloquent speeches, but still manages to say something meaningful.

On top of that, you have to give props to Stallone for staying in such good shape over the years. Again, he looks like a wrinkled grape, but I definitely would not want to get in the ring with this guy.

Overall, out of the two Rocky franchise movies I've seen, its not my favorite, but that's because the other one is Creed. Rocky Balboa is much different story. Apparently Stallone used it as a way of telling his own tale of his struggles in his career and I'm sure there are great parallels that I appreciate because I do love it when people are passionate about what they do, especially when its apparent in their work. This was a passion project.

I don't know if it holds up to the other films but for now I'll say this movie was entertaining, if not for just going through the movie asking the question, is Pauley dead or alive?

But what do you think of Rocky Balboa? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can send me your requests for future reviews I should do on this blog. If you follow me on twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews as well as live film tweets when I get the chance.

I'll leave you with this. Because I'm doing Creed next, here's the trailer for that movie so you can get a taste of what the movie is like. Enjoy!

Quantum of Solace

So a long, long time ago, I told you guys that the next movie on my list was Quantum of Solace. I had just finished reviewing Casino Royale and I told myself that I was going to review all the Daniel Craig James Bond movies.

As you can see, that never happened.

But I don't know how long this James Bond/ Spy kick is going to last and I would feel more dishonest than I already do if I failed to sit through this movie and give you my honest opinion on it.

Quantum of Solace was the second installment of the James Bond franchise with Daniel Craig headlining as the main character. It came after the incredibly renown reboot Casino Royale and while it was good to get another Daniel Craig Bond, the world unanimously agreed that Quantum of Solace was just not as good as Casino Royale.

But is the unanimous cry of the world right? Is Quantum of Solace a bad film? Is it the worst of Daniel Craig's Bond films?

Well I'm going to answer that question right here and now, while I haven't seen Spectre, of the three I have seen, I can say with full confidence, yes it is the worst of Daniel Craig's Bond films. But I don't necessarily think its a bad film. Quantum of Solace is actually an interesting concept and direction for a Bond film. I will say however that the movie is overall... confusing and in a sense, incomplete.

The movie takes an interesting step and sets itself directly after the events of Casino Royale. Now sequels that choose this place in the movie's timeline do face a little bit of a complex of having a hand tied behind their back. It happened with Back to the Future 2, and while I consider that a good movie, it does suffer a little bit by not having the freedom to start their story however they want. They must begin at this point and make the beginning the other movie set up work for them in their own movie.

Is this Quantum of Solace's biggest problem? No. But it does create problems for later in the film.

M (played by Judi Dench) and Bond find themselves in the middle of an MI6 that seems to have been compromised by a secret organization. They never really reveal what this organization's name is (though I think it eventually ties into Spectre, but that's just speculation as I haven't seen it yet). But this organization was behind the events of Casino Royale.

This is an example of how the movie stumbles being chained to the ending of Casino Royale.

First off, the movie stumbles to make its own story because Bond needs to help explain to the audience how the events of Casino Royale connect to Dominic Green and the plot with Greene's organization (we'll get to that in a second)

Also, the movie stumbles on itself connecting this secret organization to Vesper (played by Eva Green in the previous movie) and Bond's apparent search for revenge. The connection is there, but the movie wastes time reminding us on how exactly their connected. And unless you watched the movies back to back, you may forget some of the key details connecting the two storylines.

So Bond eventually connects this organization to a businessman/philanthropist named Dominic Green (played by Mathieu Amalric). Now this is where the movie gets a little bit confusing. Greene's company is in the business of helping dictators take over countries like Bolivia. In return for his services, Greene is purchasing land that seems useless but is revealed to be quintessential locations of water, something that he will use to control these countries he holds land in.

Sorry if that's a spoiler, but its essential to tell you the plot in order for you to really understand why this movie is so confusing, and why it just didn't fly as well as Casino Royale and Skyfall.

See Dominic Greene is by no means any kind of evil mastermind. He's more a good example of a corrupt corporate mind. Which makes it very strange when he starts swinging an axe at Bond and screaming like Gollum.

There's this weird environmental warning throughout the film that even when I watched this movie in 2008 I thought was weird. I mean I get that he's kind of the environmentalist gone mad with power, but I guess you'd never think that James Bond would be going up against an eco-terrorist.

The other bad guy is a Bolivian dictator who really only has two scenes. He's important to the plot, but he's kind of more in the movie because they needed the big scary guy who kind of resembles the henchmen Bond used to go up against.

And so, Greene's plot is confusing in itself. But you put on top of that, the secret organization that is a big part of the first act and then disappear into the wind during the rest of the movie, and the movie desperately trying to tie in Bond's journey of revenge because of how he was scared by Vesper in Casino Royale.

And speaking of which, let's talk about that.

Listen, I loved the relationship between Bond and Vesper. I think its one of the biggest shames that Bond is such a ladies man and Vesper had to go because I would have loved to see her return.

However, this movie doesn't quite want to decide whether or not this is going to be a small personal story about Bond choosing between his duty to MI6 or his desire for revenge, of if its going to be a political action thriller about conflict water and environmentalism.

I would have loved to have this movie be a very personal story. Perhaps have Bond tracking down Vesper's boyfriend, that would have made the ending scene where you wonder whether or not he's going to kill him or not mean a lot more. Throughout that you can delve into a bigger plot that Bond needs to foil, but this could have been a more personal tale. Or it could have been Bond unraveling the mystery of this secret organization, the organization that was responsible for murdering the only woman Bond seemed to love, even that would have been more personal.

But instead they focus in on Dominic Greene, a guy who has literally nothing to do with the events of Casino Royale, and they deal with political coup d'etats and environmental messages. Everything that was hinted at being in the sequel at the end of Casino Royale was either totally forgotten, or shoehorned in whenever there was dead space and forgotten about when the writers wanted to talk about this weird Wormtongue looking guy.

But let's talk about the Bond woman in this movie.

Olga Kurylenko plays a Bolivian agent with a personal vendetta against that dictator that I mentioned before. And I'm gonna be honest, I kind of wanted to see her more than I wanted to see her and her story unfold more than I wanted to see whatever this movie was trying to pull with Dominic Greene.

I like Olga. I think around this time she was really the hip new thing and she was in everything right before she was in nothing, but unfortunately, this movie and its writing just doesn't help her very much.

Everytime I watch this though I do enjoy the relationship that her and Bond share. There's only a little bit of a sexual draw to the two of them and their more kindred spirits when it comes to their desire for revenge.

On a second watch, I liked Olga's performance a lot more and think its unfortunate her initial rise to fame was cut short by poorly written movies like this one. She just made some bad decisions.

And then there was Gemma Arterton. This was a character that always confused me because she really had an incredibly small part. On a second watch, I realize that she's not an Agent, she was never going to have any kind of action segment, and she's just kind of a spunky redhead... who gets brutally murdered with oil.

While I think Gemma was really just an opportunity the movie took to give a nod to some of the tropes of the original franchise, Gemma Arteron's character really had a very short run and I don't even think people really remember her that much. Which is a shame because I like her. She, like Olga, was kind of popular at the time and probably got roped into it because she thought it would be a good career move to get involved with a big blockbuster film franchise like Bond. Unfortunately, it had to be the one that was focused on the environment.

The one other performance I'll mention isn't even a woman. Its Giancarlo Giannini who reprised his role as Rene Mathis. I didn't mention it in my Casino Royale review, but I really liked Giancarlo's performance in that movie. I liked it again in this one and I thought it was an interesting to bring back a character like that.

The problem with it is that they reset everything that was set up in Casino Royale. I thought it was a great development that he was the one who betrayed Bond and I think they could have kept that going. It would have showed how far Bond was willing to go to get revenge, even if it meant working with someone who betrayed him.

And even if they didn't want to go down that road, they could have utilized Mathis a lot more instead of literally and figuratively throwing him in a dumpster when the plot no longer needed him.

He really only served the purpose to remind the audience that Vesper was a thing and that we'll get to that before the end of the film. A lot of this character is never explained and he goes away very quickly, just like a lot of the characters in this movie.

And that's the unfortunate part about this movie. It had a good cast, it had a lot of good direction, but it didn't take that direction. It was basically a lay up set up by the writers of Casino Royale but all that was thrown away for a totally different plot, which is weird because it was the same writers for both films!

But I think the part that gets a lot of the viewers the most is, this doesn't feel like a James Bond film.

Look back at my explanation of Dominic Greene's evil plan. He's helping a dictator take control of Bolivia so that he can have control of the countries water supply and control conflict and power in the area. This isn't the plot of a meglomanic or a criminal mastermind, this is an overly political plot. It involves the secret interests of the United States, the CIA, and England. It deals with international control and popularity. While this might make for a good Bourne flick, throwing a spy in the middle of a political thriller, it doesn't fit as a plot for a James Bond film. Even in the era of Casino Royale which was less campy and more gritty, this movie goes one step further and makes this about politics. Which I guess would have been okay, if it had made a lick of sense. But on top of the fact that it didn't, this isn't what we pay for when we order James Bond tickets, this isn't what we want when we put in a 007 feature. Definitely an interesting way to take the franchise and I think with different execution it could have possibly worked, but as it is, Quantum of Solace is a movie that tried to do something different and failed. And while I can't totally blame them for trying, the movie is the worst of the Daniel Craig Bond movies for a reason.

But those are my thoughts on Quantum of Solace. What do you think? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24, as well as requests for future movies I should review. If you want updates on future movie news and reviews, follow me. You'll also probably get live tweets and early thoughts that usually end up on these blogs from my live tweeting of movies I do every once in a while.

I'll leave you with this. In case you're like me and haven't seen Spectre, and need a recap of all the movies leading up to Spectre... for some reason, here's a video of Daniel Craig's career in 7 minutes. Enjoy!

Die Another Day

So... I thought that I was going to spend this movie going on a binge of James Bond movies from the 60s, probably going through the first era of Connery and maybe checking out this George Lazenby and what he did... instead I went from Goldfinger to the James Bond film that arguably killed Pierce Brosnan's career as James Bond.

I don't know what my deal is with Pierce Brosnan these days, I just feel like I've watched a lot of his crap recently. Whether its his attempt at an action revival in The November Man, or... whatever Survivor was. I'm actually really wondering whether or not I'm going to end up watching Mamma Mia at some point just to prove to myself that Pierce isn't that good. Because dammit, for some reason I want him to be.

Die Another Day picks up with MI6's leading misognist drunk James Bond, played by Pierce Brosnan for his fourth and last appearance.

After a mission in North Korea goes wrong, James is taken captive and tortured. When he is finally released, he is exchanged for a North Korean terrorist played by Rick Yune (who was having a few short good years in big franchise films like this and Fast and Furious). 007 is no longer trusted by MI6 because they believe he gave away secrets to the North Koreans.

Bond goes rogue to track down Zhao and figure out who betrayed him.

In essence, this should have been a pretty personal tale. I've figured out that that's what have made the Daniel Craig Bond very good. It started with Casino Royale and his relationship with Eva Green's character and it only continues throughout.

And while this movie should have been a personal tale of Bond's path to redemption or his adventure of revenge against those who betrayed him...

Now, the first half of the movie, is actually kind of entertaining. A lot if it is Bond doing his thing without the help of MI6. While the movie didn't focus on anything personal with James, it did do a good job at doing the sort of rogue agent working to redeem himself trope pretty well. And I think if the movie had stayed that way, having Bond work outside the law, it would have been a decent movie.

But instead, they decided to introduce Bond to Jynx...

Now sometimes, like in the case of Sean Penn, like I said in my review of The Gunman, you just believe someone is a good actor because of what has been said about them in the past. Sometimes you've never seen someone in a good movie but you know that they do have a good movie somewhere in their repertoire. But while I've seen at least one of Sean Penn's movies... I have never seen Halle Berry act well in a movie. I've seen her in good movies like the X-men movies, but I've never seen a movie that I was wowed by the performance of Halle Berry. I've seen Catwoman for Pete's sake!

Halle Berry plays a CIA agent named Jynx. And my god, I know the Bond franchise is known for its catchphrases and one-liners, but hers are really, really bad. Its like they wanted really bad to write in a black character for James Bond, but they just took it to a level that was not only bad, it was almost offensive. And the worst part is, Halle Berry just went along with it. And it just kind of proves that whole theory about when people win Oscars they go off and do a couple bad films after, like Eddie Redmayne with Jupiter Ascending after Theory of Everything.

I mean don't get me wrong, Halle Berry isn't a bad choice for an attractive Bond girl. Acting-wise though, she's just really awful.

Which makes me really regret the fact that they had her as the main Bond girl and not the alternative.

Rosamund freaking Pike.

Yes, before Gone Girl, before Jack Reacher, in her first motion picture role, Rosamund Pike played Miranda Frost. And she is really arguably the best part of the movie. Its funny because people usually forget this role because the movie panned, but I always remembered Rosamund Pike as that incredibly hot girl from Die Another Day. And I think she could have been an awesome main Bond girl... but it was just a different time. She was way too unknown and at the time, in comparison with Halle Berry, unfortunately future crazy girl from Gone Girl loses.

And again, this movie could have been a lot better if a couple things had gone differently, but apart from the fact that they chose the wrong woman to be the main Bond girl, they moved the movie from the realism of Cuba and London... to Iceland in an Ice Palace.

I am no joking, the movie suddenly moves to a giant Ice Castle as the main set piece. And don't get me wrong, it was kind of cool, when I first saw it. But the more and more I watched the action unfold, the hokeyness only become more hokey, and Halle Berry just keep on showing up, this movie started reminding me more and more of a movie I remember having a huge emphasis on Ice than it probably should have.

Yes, in many ways, Die Another Day was the Batman and Robin of the James Bond franchise. A movie that had a villain with a name relating to ice, the last of a franchise that caused a more gritty and darker reboot. Yeah... Die Another Day is the Batman and Robin of the Bond movies.

Now I don't think its nearly as bad as Batman and Robin, and I would even say its not nearly as bad as people say it is. However, what makes this movie so bad?

Well like I said before, I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that the movie, as much as it was called James Bond, it didn't focus on James Bond. He was just the vehicle as this wacky plot decided to go even more hokey and ridiculous. So I don't exactly blame Pierce Brosnan. I think he did exactly what he was picked to be Bond for. But it was manly what surrounded him that hurt this movie. It was the plot, mainly surrounding on a random satellite weapon, something that was already done in an earlier Brosnan Bond movie, and an evil plot to bring North Korea and South Korea to war.

Another thing that became a huge issue in this movie was the use of too many gadgets and putting more emphasis on those crazy gadgets as opposed to an actual story.

While I will admit, some of the gadgets were pretty cool, eventually it just got too ridiculous and almost made the movie a parody of itself as opposed to something taken seriously.

But on top of all of that, there was a point in this movie where I realized why this movie failed.

James Bond has always, first and foremost, been a movie about spies. Its a spy thriller. Yes, its beginning were always hokey and a little bit ridiculous, (I mean you all read my issues with Goldfinger), but they never felt so ridiculous that the movie felt Science fiction instead of a spy thriller.

Well when you're villains are walking around in long trench coats like the ones you would see in the Matrix, and also dressed like this to the right, you have to take a step back and ask, is this movie a James Bond movie, or a weird Science fiction thing.

And yes, James Bond has delved into a sort of Science fiction, having evil masterminds who want to take over the world have those qualities about them, but for some reason Die Another Day went to a whole new level, dare I say, the Schumacher level.

But this feeling of Science fiction didn't really dawn on me until the very end. Jynx and Bond are trying to escape a crashing plane. They're in a helicopter, fake looking sparks are flying everywhere, people are flying out of the plane like horrible special effects, and Halle Berry is throwing horrible puns left and right. And I just thought to myself, My god, this reminds me of a bad Sci Fi Channel movie... until I realized, I was watching this movie on the Sci Fi Channel.

And there it is, if you're looking for 60s weirdness, go for Goldfinger. If you're looking for Gritty and dark, go for Casino Royale. If you're looking for a Sci Fi original movie, go for Die Another Day.

But those are my thoughts on Die Another Day. I don't hate it as much as I think some people do, but it definitely is one of the silliest James Bond films. But what do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24. You can also send me your requests for future movies I should review. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews, as well as possibly see live tweets of certain movies that I watch.

I'll leave you with this. I wanted to put on a trailer of Pierce Brosnan cut into the Spectre trailer, and I'll leave that here, but it wouldn't let me put it up as a video, which is sad. I had a little bit of trouble actually finding a video I could post so here's the Sam Smith music video for Spectre. Enjoy!

The Gunman

First Liam Neeson, then Pierce Brosnan, now... Sean Penn?

I've never really been a huge follower of Sean Penn. He's done a lot of award winning movies that honestly I have just missed. However, I do know the man by his reputation. While I haven't actually seen a lot of his movies, I do know that he is known as an Academy Award winning actor and sometimes that's enough to get you interested in a movie starring him called the Gunman.

The Gunman stars Sean Penn as Jim Terrier, a former special forces soldier who is now a mercenary with a shady past.

He's trying to move past what he's done in the past but some men come and try and kill him and he thinks it probably has something to do with his past.

The majority of the movie is Terrier going off and figuring out who is trying to kill him and... to be honest that's pretty much it. And this really brings up probably the biggest plot hole in the movie.

I mean I understand the whole not wanting to be sought after and not running his entire life, but in a way, that's kind of what he was doing. Besides the fact that he doesn't want people going after him, there's no reason Terrier couldn't just use those special forces skills to just disappear. He really doesn't have any interest in uncovering this mystery besides the fact that if he doesn't he's just being hunted. Which don't get me wrong is a motivation, its just not a very strong one.

Like Terrier has an old girlfriend from the past (played by Jasmine Trinca) who eventually finds herself in the crossfire of this conspiracy. Now obviously Terrier has a vested interest in that but he doesn't know that she's in danger until half way through the movie. He could have easily just run away and not dealt with this thing, and usually that wouldn't be a plot hole that would matter that much, but when these characters aren't written that well and the story isn't that well put together, it really makes you wonder why he's putting this much effort into this mystery.

Furthermore, Terrier is diagnosed with some kind of brain injury... or something like that. It really doesn't become an issue until the writing says that it does. And again, it makes you wonder why he's doing this.

I mean he has a moment where he tells Ray Winstone that he has to do this, and I'm just asking, WHY?!?

But all that aside, it suppose I should talk about Sean Penn. The guy is a good actor. Even in a movie with holes like swiss cheese, he still is able to give a good performance. And the man is in shape. Like my god, he puts me to shame how in shape he is. While a part of me looks at him and doesn't exactly see the same draw in his appearance as Liam Neeson has in his action franchise revival, I can't deny that Sean Penn looks like a badass in this movie, even it is more of a crusty strung out one.

Javier Bardem is in this movie... barely. Idris Elba is in this movie... barely. And that was another weird thing about this movie. Put aside the odd plot, this movie has a lot of good talent in it. But they're just underutilized. Ray Winstone is a good actor, as well as Mark Rylance who I just watched in Bridge of Spies. The issue becomes that this movie decided to focus more on Sean Penn and his romance with this former girlfriend.

Javier Bardem is probably the best example of that. He's suppose to be this badass former Mercenary, like Terrier, but instead he's got this weird connection to Terrier's ex-girlfriend and while that could have been used to make him either a great bad guy or at least an obstacle, he's just kind of this pansy who is a drunk asshole.

Just incredibly underutilized and it really makes the plot holes very apparent and the story just boring.

And that's another thing about this movie. There are a lot of people who would say that this movie is boring. I would disagree with that because of the action that is delivered with the promise I got from hearing that this movie was directed by the guy who directed the first Taken movie.

There is a lot of good action in this movie but unfortunately its bookended by the crappy romance (I wasn't really impressed with Jasmine Trinca btw) and the crappy writing.

And the funny part, I was ready to say that this was a mediocre action flick starring an aging actor who wants to get a few more action flicks out before he gets too old. It would have been a similar verdict as I gave to November Man. Its pretty mediocre but not great. But unfortunately at a certain point, I think the movie just realized that it wasn't that great and just gave a "bull" ending. (If you've watched the ending, you know what that means.

So while I would have loved to write this off as just a simple action flick worth checking out if you want an easy action flick, I honestly can't say I would recommend this film. Its got some good action, Sean Penn is definitely into it, but there are just a few too many parts that take away from what was good about this movie.

Those are my thoughts on The Gunman, what do you think? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter at cmhaugen24. You can also send me your requests for future reviews I should review. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews, and sometimes even live tweets from films I'm watching.

I'll leave you with this. I'm not gonna lie, this is a difficult movie to have a video attached to because its really not a great movie, and none of the actors have really done anything incredible or hilarious worth putting a video that connects... so here's a video of a skateboarding dog. Enjoy!

Bridge of Spies

I'm not sure if I'm so much on a James Bond kick right now as I am a spy kick. We'll see how many James Bond movies I actually end up watching, otherwise, its just a spy kick.

However, Bridge of Spies was a movie I was incredibly interested in seeing for two reasons, Tom Hanks, and Steve Spielberg. I suppose a sub-reason is that its those two in a movie about the Cold War and that's just an equation for a great sounding movie. But I wanted to see this movie mainly because of those two great names. Steven Spielberg is probably the best movie maker in the business today and Tom Hanks is one of the best if not the best actor in the business today. Add in the fact that they're making a movie with an incredibly interesting premise, there was no way that this movie was not going to be a slam dunk.

Bridge of Spies is based off True events of an Insurance lawyer named Jim Donovan (played by Hanks) as he is recruited to represent a man charged with being a Russian spy in the midst of the Cold War.

The fun part about the first part of this movie is the mentality that people have about this trial. Everyone acts like they're so noble in giving this spy a trial but in reality they all want to see this guy hang for being a spy. Jim Donovan seems to be the only person who actually wants to give this man a fair trial, and he has grounds to do so. The interesting part is, this could have been the whole movie itself. The whole movie could have been Tom Hanks finding all the holes and evidence to defend this man who everyone knows is a Russian spy but in Hanks eyes, its not what everyone knows, its what they can prove. There was a great message in this movie about due process and the true execution of law and order in this country, and furthermore, the consequences of that due process, especially on Donovan and his family.

But in reality, that's really only half of this movie. The first half of this movie is a lot of fun.

The part that really stood out to me was the relationship between Donovan and his client. Mark Rylance plays Rudolf Abel, the Russian spy and there's actually a really great relationship between Donovan and Rudolf.

Furthermore, the movie does a great job at painting this Insurance lawyer, someone who is already considered scum of the earth, as this incredibly honorable person in the midst of public scrutiny.

Because that's a whole other aspect of it. The public perception of not only Donovan but his family really take a toll on his life. And it really tests how much a man will go to defend the ideals of the Constitution.

I mean this was something that I already expected going into this movie. If you watch the trailer, you already get the sense of the message this movie is trying to push.

Now if this was anybody else besides Spielberg, I'd be worried that this movie was too preachy or too jerking of the red white and blue. But Spielberg actually takes what I thought was going to be a message that was going to be beaten over my head with a baseball bat and instead makes it something incredibly tangible and inspiring. I was already inspired by the trailer, imagine what this movie did to me when I was watching it.

Now, I'm a sucker for the whimsy and dream-like work of Spielberg so I wouldn't be surprised if somebody watched this and felt like they were being beaten over the head with some kind of message on the constitution and the importance of due process, even in a troubling time.

That was the other thing that I really liked about this movie. It really focused on the atmosphere of 1957 and how it really focused on the paranoia and scare of the Cold War. And it was done very, very well.

Whether it was the ominous and cavalier attitude towards the CIA throughout the movie, or the lessons being taught to school children about the dangers of the nuclear bomb, it really gave the viewing audience a great look into America during the 50s. Too often I think we get wrapped up in the doowop and greaser haircuts to really remember what the 50s were like and they were scary times.

Anyways, again, that's only the first half. The second half is actually focused on Donovan brokering a deal between the United States and the Soviet Union for a prisoner exchange, a deal that was never acknowledged by either government and required somebody of Donovan's skill and knowledge of the case.

The last act of this movie takes place in Berlin, still in the midst of the Cold War and in a time of a lot of mystery and uneasy alliances.

And the truth is, its really freaking good.

That's just the plain cold truth of this movie. I wish I could say I wasn't taken in by the charms of Steven Spielberg and the great acting of Tom Hanks but... sometimes when something looks this great, it really is.

Now, again, some people might watch this movie and think that its a little bit too much on the nose. Some people might say that this movie was carried by Tom Hanks, which I can sort of agree with, but then you look at the rest of the talent in this movie. Mark Rylance, I'm not even totally familiar this this guy's work and I loved him in this movie. Alan Alda is in this movie. Amy Smart plays Hank's wife and she does a great job. All the supporting actors are good, but in reality this is Hank's movie. And he kills it.

And I think the reason this movie isn't too on the nose for me, is because how relevant this movie is despite being set in the 1950s in the midst of the Cold War.

This movie has a big message on the resolve of prisoners of war, of our methods of getting information from those prisoners, how we treat those prisoners, and especially how we treat others in a time of war.

While this movie does take place in the middle of the Cold War, it is something that the intelligent viewer would relate to our own circumstances, with prisoner exchanges happening to this day, like that of Bowe Bergdahl and other relevant issues. Its an incredibly relevant movie. And some directors can hit that point with almost too much sublty while others can hit it too much over the head that it almost insults the audience. Along with that, some actors can over act that that its not taken seriously, while others can be too subtle and miss the whole message trying to be put across. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are great examples of artists who can find the perfect tone for a movie like this and really make it relevant without being too preachy.

I have no doubt that this movie is probably going to be involved in the Oscar conversation. I don't know if it will win anything, but its definitely a good movie worth checking out. If you like anything that has Tom Hanks, you'll like this movie. If you like Steven Spielberg, you'll like this movie. If you like a movie about the Cold War, you'll like this movie. I wish I could give you a little bit more of a comprehensive review but this is just a really good movie.

I suppose if there was one more thing I was going to say about the movie, it would be that the middle does drag just a tad. Nothing to really complain about, its just a little bit slow at parts. But at the same time, there's just as many parts that are really freaking interesting and you're bound to learn something.

But what did you think of Bridge of Spies? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on the film on Twitter @MovieSymposium. You can also send me your requests for future movies I should review. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news, reviews, and sometimes even live tweets of films I'm watching.

I'll leave you with this. Here's a song by Carly Rae Jepsen with Tom Hanks... for some reason. In my mind Tom Hanks can do now wrong, so I feel obliged to like this. Enjoy!