There are few if any characters that have had as much of an impact in cinematic history as 007 himself, James Bond.  From the very moment that Sean Connery ordered his first vodka martini as the secret agent in Dr. No (1962), the entire world knew they had found a new cinematic icon.  A large part of it had to do with the charisma of Connery, of course, but as we’ve seen over the years, Ian Fleming’s Bond can live far beyond just one single actor.  George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnon have all donned Bond’s neatly tailored threads over the years, sometimes in spectacular fashion and at other times in some rather mediocre ways.  For a long running series like James Bond’s, it’s sometimes difficult to keep up the high quality from film to film, which has kept the Bond franchise consistently inconsistent.  Each new actor does bring in fresh blood, but rarely do all of their movies become all time classics.  Going over every Bond film, you can pick out at least one from each star that’s a classic, and for some of the more prolific like Connery and Moore, they may have two or more classics among them.  George Lazenby lucked out with having his one and only outing as the character being the great and underrated On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969).  Basically, what I’ve seen from  the Bond franchise is a very roller coaster like flow to it’s level of quality and that the longer an actor commits to the role, the more they leave themselves open to having a shakier record as the super spy.

Which leads me to where the series is at now, as we reach the latter part and possible end of the Daniel Craig era.  Daniel Craig’s turn as Bond has been one of the most praised across the board, and it’s easy to see why.  The Bond franchise had declined heavily towards the end of Pierce Brosnan’s reign.  Brosnan started off strong with the classic Goldeneye (1995), but his three follow-ups got progressively worse, ending with the laughable Die Another Day (2002), the movie where Bond surfs on a tsunami and drives an invisible car.  When it came time to choose a new actor for the role, parent company EON Productions wanted someone who could bring the series back to it’s roots, and the perfect man for the job ended up being Daniel Craig.  Though not a household name at the time, Craig has since left his mark on the character, making Bond tougher and grittier, while at the same time not betraying the suave roots of Fleming’s original.  Craig became the Bond of the 21st century and modernized him in a way that greatly appealed to audiences.  Since being cast, Craig has appeared in four films total (contracted for five) and he holds the distinction of having one of the best batting averages of all the Bond actors.  Of his movies, you can definitely consider two of them all time classics, his debut Casino Royale (2006) and the record breaking Skyfall (2012).  Quantum of Solace (2008), while not bad by any means, does fall short of the other two, showing that even Craig is not immune to a dip in quality during his time.  And after Skyfall, which could arguably be the best Bond movie ever made, it’s put a lot of pressure on what follows it after.  So, this week, we finally see how Daniel Craig’s James Bond fares in his fourth outing; the hotly anticipated Spectre (2015).

The interesting thing about Daniel Craig’s Bond movies is that unlike all the others, they share the same story arc, each one connected to the other.  Spectre picks up right where Skyfall left off, with James following a lead left to him by his recently deceased former boss M (Judi Dench), which leads him to take on rogue missions much to the chagrin of the new M in charge (Ralph Fiennes).  With the assistance of hi-tech quartermaster Q (Ben Whishaw) and reliable desk operative Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond is able to go undercover and infiltrate a shadow organization that he believes is responsible for terrorist attacks all over the world, called simply SPECTRE.  Once he makes it inside, he soon learns that one man is in charge of the whole operation going by the name Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), and that he is more aware of Bond’s presence than he realized.  After escaping in a chase through the streets of Rome, pursued by Oberhauser’s henchman Hinx (Dave Bautista), Bond seeks out an old enemy, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), who can give him more information about SPECTRE, which the old man does with the promise from James that he will protect White’s daughter Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux).  All the while this is happening, M, Q, and Moneypenny are having to deal with the shutdown of the 00 program in favor of a computer driven surveillance system developed by a tech wizard code-named C (Andrew Scott), leaving Bond all on his own.

Spectre does something unique in the Bond franchise in that it ties up all the loose threads of each previous film, even the more standalone Skyfall.  As a result, this movie has an interesting sense of closure for Daniel Craig’s version of the character, which would be fitting if this is indeed his final outing.  But, the question is, does this movie live up to what has come before and become a third classic for the actor; or does it disappoint and only prove that it’s time for a change.  Well, truth be told, when it comes to making all time great Bond movies, it seems you only live twice.  But, that’s not a sign that this movie is bad.  Spectre really is everything a Bond movie should be.  It’s got great action set pieces, including a spectacular opening in Mexico City that I would consider one of the best in the series, and a great fight sequence between Craig and Bautista on a train.  It’s also got the series’ trademark sense of humor that helps to keep the movie from ever becoming too heavy and self-important.  Really, any other time this would be considered an all time great in the series, and as a standalone film, it’s easy to recommend to everyone.  The unfortunate thing for it is that it’s coming right off the the heels of Skyfall, which is not only a franchise best, but arguably one of the best spy thrillers ever made.  Because Skyfall is so close in my memory, it only made me think of what this film was missing, which might be a little unfair of me, but I would be lying at the same time if I said that I didn’t have a nagging couple issues with this movie either.

I’d say that my biggest fault with the film is that it suffers from a very underwhelming third act.  Much of the film’s best scenes play out early on and the movie leads up to a very satisfying confrontation with Bond and the villain, including some revelations that will please die hard fans of the franchise as well as the Fleming novels.  Unfortunately, the film goes on for another twenty minutes or so after it should’ve ended, with a pointless game of cat and mouse through the streets of London, adding nothing more to the movie other than another action sequence.  Skyfall on the other hand built up to it’s climax in a perfect way, giving it the weight and tension that it needed.  That’s what’s missing here.  Spectre also suffers from periodic lulls in pacing.  While the movie does come alive whenever there is an action sequence, it would slow down thereafter and lose my interest in some of the more dialogue heavy sequences.  Not that the’re bad scenes, but I would at times start to loose attention to what was going on.  And at 2 1/2 hours, Spectre is the longest Bond movie to date, which makes these down moments all the more problematic.  But at the same time, the movie doesn’t fully suffer for it.  There is still a great deal to enjoy about this movie.  It may be flawed, but at the same time, you can say that about 80% of all the Bond films.  Only a select handful have ever achieved masterpiece status.  I would put Spectre on the high end of the “almost masterpieces”, which would include movies like Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), Octopussy (1983), Live and Let Die (1973), and From Russia With Love (1963).

What I did love, however, was James Bond himself in this film.  Daniel Craig once again proves why he is one of the greatest actors to ever play the role.  Only Connery could be considered better, given that he originated the character, and even that might be up for debate at some point.  Craig has never been letdown in this series, even with the story faults here in Spectre and more so in Quantum of Solace.  He’s believably tough whenever he gets into a fight, but also dashing enough to be charmingly suave.  He also nails the sense of humor of the character perfectly as well.  There’s a hilarious moment when Bond is staying in a seedy hotel in Morocco and he’s awoken to a mouse crawling across the floor in front of him.  In a great bit of subtle humor, Bond quietly pulls out his gun, points it at the mouse, and jokingly starts to interrogate it.  It’s one of the best character moments in the movie and it helped to make up for some of the movie’s other shortcomings.  In addition, Christoph Waltz is ideal casting as the villain, and it makes perfect sense that he was cast once we learn more about him towards the end.  I only wish that the movie had utilized more screen time for Waltz, because he doesn’t become a factor in the story until very late.  But, once he’s present, he doesn’t waste anytime leaving an impact, which is exactly why you get an actor of his quality on board for something like this.  I also liked the fact that Team Bond is more involved in this story.  Q and Moneypenny are not wasted on the sidelines and are given much more to do in this movie than in most of the previous Bond films, which is refreshing.  Even the new M helps out more, getting in a few well deserved fight scenes of his own.  Spectre is definitely bolstered by it’s capable cast, and I’m happy to see that no role was wasted overall.

The movie also benefits from well constructed set pieces and edge of your seat action scenes.  From what I’ve read, this is the most expensive Bond movie made to date, and you can see every penny put to use on screen.  The eye-opening Mexico City prologue is indeed one of the standouts and you can tell that director Sam Mendes wanted to set the movie’s bombastic tone in a big way.   The scale is perfectly conveyed immediately, especially given the nearly five minute tracking shot they used to open the movie.  I’d say that the only thing that’s missing is the beautiful, painterly styled cinematography from Roger Deakins that we saw in Skyfall.  Here the cinematography was done instead by Interstellar (2014) photographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who goes for a grittier, more realistic style.  But, that helps to give this movie it’s own unique visual imprint to set it apart, so it’s not a negative by any means.  I also like the fact that this movie doesn’t overdo it with the visual effects.  That’s what plagued many of the later Brosnon Bonds, which overused CGI to the point where Die Another Day felt like a cartoon at times.  Here, the CGI supports the action rather than overwhelms it, which is what all the Craig Bonds have done exceptionally well.  Though they have the capabilities now to have James Bond do anything possible on the big screen, it’s a good sign that the filmmakers are restraining themselves to keep their super spy earthbound.  And this movie does an overall great job of retaining the tried and true feel of a Bond movie.  The famous title sequences are brilliant works of pop art in their own right and this one adds yet another stunning entry, although the title song by Sam Smith does unfortunately sound like a karaoke version of a Bond theme, and doesn’t quite reach the heights of Adele’s Oscar-winning ballad from Skyfall.

Overall, it’s hard to be truly fair to a movie like Spectre.  On it’s own, it is a very acceptable and downright enjoyable action thriller.  Unfortunately, the movie must also carry the weight of the franchise that it represents, made even more complicated by the fact that it’s following in the footsteps of a masterpiece.  But, at the same time, I do have to point out the flaws that are inherent, which do affect the overall quality of the movie.  It was a smart move on EON Production’s part to retain the creative team from Skyfall, which included director Mendes and screenwriter John Logan.  Unfortunately, success is a hard thing to repeat, so I do have to give them credit for doing as well as they did.  If only they had stuck the landing in the third act.  From what I’ve heard, this was one of the more troublesome productions for the series, leading star Daniel Craig to want to call it quits afterwards.  He still has one more film on his contract, but it remains to be seen if they decide to part ways and move on despite this.  The ending of this movie opens the door for both possibilities; it brings closure to Bond’s arc throughout all the Daniel Craig films, but at the same time, it also leaves room for further adventures.  Only time will tell which avenue they choose.  Regardless, as the end credits state, Bond will return and the franchise will continue to go on.  If this is the end for Daniel Craig as 007, then it’s a fine farewell.  He’s had one of the best runs ever as the character and though Casino Royale and Skyfall rank as solid 9’s, Spectre comes in as a respectable 8, with Quantum of Solace falling down to a 7.  It’s an almost classic that will certainly be worth watching no matter what.  And that’s all you need in the end from Bond, James Bond.

Rating: 8/10

The Halloween season always has room reserved for a horror entry or two.  And usually the best kinds of horror films are given the spotlight at this time.  When you’re a bad horror movie, you usually get shipped off to the beginning of January, where all the worst films go to be forgotten.  But, when you’re a high-quality horror film, a late October release is all the more timely.  Horror fans prefer to be shocked out of their wits and have their tolerances for gore challenged, because it’s a part of the entertainment.  It’s much more of a communal audience experience watching a horror film in a theater than any other type of genre, because the entertainment comes from our shared reactions.  Now, typically, horror films are low rent productions that make due with their limitations and will oftentimes be tongue-in-cheek experiences, depending on the execution.  But, there are also movies that fall into the category of prestige horror films, where the budgets and production values are increased significantly and the end result can be seen as artful in the film community, without betraying the rules of the genre.  A prestige horror film can sometimes come from a magnificently executed and high value production of a story with horror elements, like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and The Exorcist (1973) or from a highly artistic rendering of the genre tropes through an acclaimed director’s vision, like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980).  This Halloween season offers us a new horror film of this second type from one of Hollywood’s most unique visionaries.

Mexican born filmmaker Guillermo del Toro has been something of renaissance man in Hollywood in terms of trying different genres, but always with his own unique vision.  He has taken on Science Fiction (2013’s Pacific Rim), Superheros (2004’s Hellboy and it’s 2008 sequel), as well as Fantasy and War Drama (2006’s Pan’s Labyrinth).  But, perhaps his favorite genre to tackle above all the others is horror, and in particular, ghost stories.  This was evident in his earlier films like Cronos (1993) and The Devil’s Backbone (2001), both of which centered around themes of death and the supernatural.  In fact, all of del Toro’s movies have a little bit of the macabre to them, including something as rollicking as Pacific Rim.  It’s very clear from watching any of his films that the man loves horror and his work often reflects that same love.  At the same time, he’s also a filmmaker who knows when to have a little fun while working within the confines of a genre and his movies are often purposefully over the top, which gives them an extra level of entertainment.  While he isn’t consistently sticking with a particular genre, his movies still almost always have a sense of character to them, which has made him a highly regarded director.  This year, he returns to his roots and has crafted another ghost based horror film called Crimson Peak.  It’s another stylish production from the visually driven filmmaker, but here for the first time, he is working within a Victorian Gothic setting.  It’s a style that’s well suited for a prestigious horror movie, but through the eyes of Guillermo del Toro, it becomes something even more incredible.

The story, which was co-written by Guillermo del Toro himself, follows the supernatural journey of Edith Cushing (played by Mia Wasikowska), an aspiring writer and only child of a New York based mining tycoon (Jim Beaver).  Since she was a little girl, she has been haunted by the ghost of her departed mother who periodically returns to tell her daughter to “beware of Crimson Peak.”  As an adult, she crosses paths with an English playboy named Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) who seeks financial assistance with a mining venture that he wants to exploit on his home estate.  Edith is charmed by the stranger, but her father disapproves of the man and Edith’s childhood friend Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) has his suspicions of him as well.  Edith nevertheless pursues a courtship with Thomas and agrees to marry him after she tragically loses her father in a sudden “accident.”  After the wedding, Thomas and Edith return to England where they begin married life in a decrepit old mansion called Allerdale Hall, which sits atop Thomas’ mine and is slowly sinking into the red clay beneath it.  The couple try to make due with the inconveniences of the house, but Edith feels unease under the watchful eye of Thomas’ overbearing sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain), who becomes more menacing the longer Edith is there.  Not only that, but Edith is visited by ghosts who haunt the house, each appearing more grotesque than the last.  Though frightened by them at first, Edith soon discovers that the ghosts are trying to deliver her a message, one which becomes more clear once she learns that the red clay that Thomas is digging up has given the hilltop she lives on another nickname by the local village folk who live near it; Crimson Peak.

Overall, it’s a very straight forward ghost story, which serves del Toro’s film well.  Like most of his other movies, it’s not about the intricacy of the plot, but the way it’s presented.  Guillermo del Toro works within the genre confines of horror, sometimes even embracing it’s cliches, all with the purpose of giving it his own spin.  Del Toro very much likes to make his movies work as examples of the genre, and not as parodies of it.  I can honestly see Crimson Peak standing confidently alongside the classic Hammer horror movies of the 60’s and 70’s, which themselves were purposely over-the-top.  Guillermo also milks the Victorian aesthetic and tone very well here, making the atmosphere of the film feel even more genuine.  While not particularly original, I did enjoy what this movie was trying to be and I felt that it overall worked as a genre flick.  Is it the scariest movie ever made?  No, but the atmosphere that del Toro builds up is enough to satisfy die hard horror fans.  There are some especially creepy moments in the movie, particularly it goes silent for some moments.  For the most part, I felt that the movie was at it’s strongest when it just let the atmosphere of the scene speak for itself, with the moody lighting and the eerily tuned sound design taking over.  The story is not particularly deep; you already know where the plot is going long before it gets there.  But at the same time, I believe that’s del Toro’s intention.  He purposely takes story shortcuts in order to spend more time exploiting the tension and horror of each particular scene; something he also did effectively well with sci-fi in Pacific Rim. Some may find the long drawn out scenes of dark, shadowy halls tedious, but I felt that Guillermo’s style really shone in those moments.  It’s especially refreshing to see a movie get it’s best moments not from a jump scare, but from the eerie build up to the frights.  The scenes where the ghost Edith’s mother slowly reveals herself across a shadowy corridor still give me chills and has me looking over my shoulder.

But, while the ghosts are frightening in design, and the atmosphere is superb, there were some unfortunate cinematic elements that sadly took me out of the film at times.  In particular, I had a problem with the obvious use of CGI in the movie.  Now, Guillermo del Toro isn’t a novice when it comes to using CGI.  In fact, he used it to great effect in Pacific Rim.  But, he’s also been a known to use some really cool looking practical effects as well.  In particular, the amazing make-up used in Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy, where he brought to life some amazing creatures that become all the more terrifying because of their seemingly organic presence on screen.  What helped those movies out was a balance between the different kinds of effects needed.  In Crimson Peak, the CGI seemed to be favored a bit too heavily and it robs the movie of some of it’s effectiveness as a result.  There are CGI elements that do work, like a ghostly, pale shadow appearing out of the dust in an attic over a wheelchair, but there are others that look too artificial to be taken seriously.  I felt that the appearances of the many ghosts at Crimson Peak weren’t quite as horrifying as Guillermo had intended them to be, and that’s because the CGI used to create them looks a bit too cartoonish.  While their designs are unique (some of which del Toro illustrated himself), their animation left something to be desired and I could never fully feel scared as I was watching these ghosts chasing poor Edith through the house.  Had Guillermo del Toro used a more subtle approach with the ghosts in the movie, like old fashioned green screen and make-up effects, I might have bought the effect much better, but instead the movie suffers from unrealistic ghosts in a movie that’s dependent on them being scary.

But, the inconsistency of the film’s effects are balanced out by some incredibly effective, and sometimes scary performances from the cast.  Mia Wasikowska may have the most difficult time carrying much of this film and trying to convince us that she is seeing spirits all around her, but she does an effective job of giving Edith the depth of character needed to pull it off.  Edith, if handled poorly by another actress, could’ve turned into another boring ghost story protagonist, relegated to just reacting to the horrors around her instead of taking action.  But Mia manages to avoid portraying Edith as one note and part of the character’s charm is her curious nature, which comes out perfectly in her intelligent performance.  Tom Hiddleston also manages to perfectly embody the character of a playboy scoundrel without sinking too far into stereotype, and his character actually gets one of the more interesting arcs in the story.  But, if this movie belongs to anyone in particular, it’s Jessica Chastain as the sinister Lucille.  Chastain is relishing her role here, chewing up all kinds of scenery and managing to become even more chilling than the ghosts that haunt the mansion.  I just love the way that she goes over-the-top, but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to the story.  She’s unhinged, but grounded.  There’s an especially creepy bit with a spoon midway through the movie that is so perfectly creepy.  It’s the kind of performance that really sticks with you and it’s a testament to Jessica Chastain’s talent as an actress that she could make the insanity of this character feel so believable.  She’s by far the best thing about this movie and is probably the thing most worth watching overall, even with all the eye candy on display.

Of course, given that this is a Guillermo del Toro movie, there has to be something said about the production design.  For one thing, del Toro proves to be surprisingly adept with the Victorian period details, making the setting feel for the most part authentic to it’s time.  Likewise, del Toro also puts lavish excess into the movie when needed, particularly when it comes to the mansion itself.  The decrepit haunted house that serves as the setting of this movie feels very much like a Guillermo del Toro creation, with it’s twisted and foreboding nature.  Even simple design choices, like a patch of snow in the foyer originating from a hole in the ceiling, as well as the spiked archways in the halls, carry the del Toro signature.  Guillermo is probably only rivaled by Tim Burton for being identified by a particular aesthetic with his movies, which favors medieval Gothic inspiration along with a little Grand Guignol grotesquery thrown in.  In this movie, the designs used on the mansion help it to stand out and it almost makes the house a character in it’s own right.  I particularly like the way that the battered state of the home belies a little bit of what the mansion was like in it’s glory days, which makes it feel even more eerie once you take in the details.  There’s also a neat visual idea of the house sinking into the red clay that lies below it’s foundation.  This almost gives the audience the visual impression that the house bleeds, given the bright red hue of the clay once it liquefies and seeps through the floors and walls.  It’s a grotesque reinforcement of the mansion’s sinister nature, though it can come off to some as a little heavy handed to some.  I found it to be an interesting visual idea that stays true to the style of it’s visionary director.

Crimson Peak works as both a throwback to traditional ghost stories and as an unconventional horror movie.  Sure, it’s predictable and simplistic in many ways, but that’s part of the charm of it.  I just wouldn’t go into this movie expecting to be scared out of your mind.  This movie is much more of a triumph of production design, with some of the most beautiful imagery that you’ll see on the big screen this year.  The gore and horrifying scares are only in here to give this film it’s character as a horror flick.  And while not every idea or design hits it’s mark, like the less then effective CGI, the movie will still have enough for everyone to enjoy.  It has some effectively creepy atmosphere, some really standout performances, and also a surprisingly macabre sense of humor, which is another trademark of Guillermo del Toro’s style.  Compared to the director’s other films, I would say that this is a very solid exercise in genre film-making and not a particularly game-changing triumph.  It certainly doesn’t resonate as emotionally as Pan’s Labyrinth, but at the same time I don’t think Guillermo was trying to reach that far anyway.  This is his love letter to the ghost stories and horror films that he grew up with and he wanted to bring his own visual style into this kind of tale to see if he could do it justice, and in that regard, I believe he hit his mark.  So, I highly recommend Crimson Peak as a viewing experience, especially if you’re looking for something effectively spooky this Halloween season.  If anything, it’s just refreshing to see a horror movie that doesn’t have to rely on sudden jumps to scare it’s audience and instead relies on the dread of what may lurk around the corner in the shadows.

Rating: 8.5/10

As we enter October, we are beginning to see the first wave of Hollywood prestige pictures arriving at our local cineplexes, all with the purpose of either getting a head start on awards season buzz or just hoping to be a big enough draw to become a box office hit.  This October, we’ve got some of Hollywood’s most notable filmmakers all releasing their newest features in a jam packed couple of weeks, and in some cases in direct competition with one another.  This proved to be a dilemma for me, because even though I knew that I wanted to write a review for all of you this week, I didn’t exactly know until yesterday what it would be.  Certainly the big draw this weekend will be Ridley Scott’s new space-based adventure The Martian, which is already earning some outstanding reviews, but the local L.A. theaters near where I live gave me another movie option to choose from.  In certain IMAX theaters across the country, they are presenting an advance showing of Robert Zemeckis’ new big screen extravaganza The Walk, and fortunately one of those theaters is near me.  So, given two very promising options to choose from, it ultimately came down to a coin flip, and The Walk won out.  In the end, I think that this probably ended up being a better option to review.  For one thing, I get to review a movie that is not yet available everywhere, thereby giving you my readers a good early impression of a coming attraction, and secondly, after spending the last two fall seasons reviewing space themed movies like Gravity (2013) and Interstellar (2014), it was probably time to review something else out of a different genre.  So, let’s talk about The Walk.

This is the second film in director Robert Zemeckis’ thankful return to live action film-making, after spending  much of the 2000’s dabbling in motion capture animation with The Polar Express (2004), Beowulf (2007) and A Christmas Carol (2009).  After earning raves for his live action film Flight (2012), Zemeckis needed a story that appealed to his epic and sometimes unconventional tastes as a follow-up.  He managed to find that story in the true life tale of legendary tightrope walker Philipe Petit.  Petit gained notoriety in the 1970’s for his larger than life personality and his death defying stunt work, much of which he did illegally.  Trained for years in the circus, Petit later performed on the streets of Paris before getting the idea to walk a tightrope in some of the most dangerous places possible.  A successful walk across the towers of the Notre Dame Cathedral on his tightrope turned him into an international celebrity, but he felt that he didn’t command enough respect in his native France, so he sought to take his act on the road and find an even greater place to hang his wire.  And that place turned out to be the newly opened Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.  And that journey to that fateful walk between the towers became the inspiration for this particular film.  Adapted from Petit’s own memoir, “To Reach the Clouds,” The Walk tells the story of how Petit’s monumental stunt came to be and what was involved with pulling it off, and it’s a story that is comfortably within Robert Zemeckis’ range as a storyteller.  It’s epic, it’s colorful, it doesn’t take itself too seriously, and most importantly it’s just fun to watch.

The story is told entirely from Petit’s point of view, with the man himself (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, with an over the top French accent) addressing the audience directly.  This first hand account helps to drive the tone of the movie, which like Petit is energetic and unpredictable.  We see his early life as a street performer, walking tightrope on the streets of Paris to the amusement of passers-by.  There he meets Annie (Charlotte Le Bon) who would become the love of his life and the first accomplice in his greatest stunt, the walk between the towers, which he keeps referring to as “the coup.”  For years, he plans out the monumental walk, gathering more accomplices along the way including mathematician Jeff (Cesar Domboy) and photographer Jean-Louis (Clement Sibony).  Once the Towers are finished being constructed, Philipe makes his way to New York and covertly takes notes on every aspect of the building, making sure that every safety measure is taken before he makes his walk, something he learned from his longtime mentor Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley).  In New York, he gains the help of more accomplices like J.P. (James Badge Dale) and Albert (Ben Schwartz) and has everything he needs to pull off his stunt.  The remainder of the film follows Philipe and his team as they put the plan into motion, trying to have everything go off without a hitch.  Much of the drama of the movie’s latter half comes from all the unexpected roadblocks that get in the way, including nearly getting caught by security and almost losing the wire when one of their support lines breaks.  Not to mention all the death-defying prep work that they must do on the edge of what was at the time the tallest structure in the world.  All this leads to a tense and harrowing road to the titular walk between the towers.

The Walk does an excellent job of dramatizing this true life event, but it’s not entirely a perfect adaptation either.  Perhaps part of the reason why this movie didn’t grab a hold of me as strongly as I hoped is because I had already seen the Oscar-winning documentary called Man on Wire (2009), which told the exact same story as this film.  Because of the documentary, I already knew where the story was going to go, which took some of the tension away from my experience watching this movie.  But, at the same time, if someone were to watch this movie without knowing what happens, they’ll probably be on the edge of their seats because this movie does indeed do an effective job of laying out the stakes involved.  I think my bone of contention comes from the contrasting depictions of the event from both movies.  They both do a great job of showing all the details that went into Philipe Petit’s walk, giving the story a very heist movie feel to it.  Unfortunately, the cinematic treatment feels more superficial in comparison, with the all embellishments becoming far more apparent and distracting as the story unfolds.  The Walk works at it’s best when it doesn’t try to show off how clever it can be and just let’s the story take hold on it’s own.  Now, using the embellishments may be an intentional choice on the filmmakers part, because the story is told solely from the perspective of it’s protagonist, something the documentary didn’t have as it used multiple accounts to tell it’s story.  That helps to make the cinematic excesses feel somewhat less intrusive, since it’s clear that Zemeckis wants the audience to see the experience from his main character’s sometimes boastful perspective.  But, even still, I felt that some of the cinematic flourishes reduced the tension in the story, which the documentary better conveyed overall.

But, in the end, it becomes a minor nitpick in an over effective movie.  One of the film’s best strengths is the direction of Robert Zemeckis.  Over his long and productive career, Zemeckis has become a master of blending drama and comedy together in his movies, and making both work to the story’s advantage.  He’s also been a director who has loved to push the medium of film further, trying out new techniques in camera work and visual effects, such as blending Live Action with Animation in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) or digitally inserting Tom Hanks into old news reel footage in Forrest Gump (1994); and let’s not forget that he changed cinema forever with a little trilogy of films called Back to the Future.  One of the reasons why I’m not as enthusiastic about his years in motion capture animation is because it took away some of the creativity from Zemeckis’ style away, as he no longer was bound to the constraints that the medium of film had put on him, and had forced him to be creative in order to overcome them.  Now that he’s returned to live action, the old rebellious Zemeckis is back, and his visual flair is just as strong as it was back in his heyday.  There are plenty of neat little ideas that he plays with in this movie, like showing a passage of time in Philipe’s training through the visual of his tightrope getting thinner with every step he walks across it.  Plus, Zemeckis keeps the tone light throughout, with Petit’s grandiose personality driving much of the tone.  It never gets too serious and much of the movie’s entertainment comes from it’s sense of humor.  Much like it’s subject, the movie has to keep a tight balance between it’s tense, action packed moments and it’s lighter comical tone, and Zemeckis proves to be a perfect match for this kind of project.

One thing that could prove difficult for audiences is the character of Philipe Petit himself.  Let’s just say subtlety is not one of the words you would use to describe the man.  He’s impulsive, confrontational, stubborn, but also something of a hero as well.  He manages to inspire the support of his friends, while at the same time driving them crazy with his seemingly death wish-like zealotry towards his mission.  This is largely reflected in Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance, which may be grating for some viewers.  Gordon-Levitt, who is not French, speaks throughout the movie in a very thick accent that may or may not make some people believe he is overacting in an embarrassing way.  I, however, didn’t mind his performance, because I think that his work here is meant to be over-the-top on purpose as a reflection of the real life Philipe Petit.  For those of you who have seen Man on Wire, you’ll know that Philipe has a very explosive personality and is certainly a show off.  I think that’s what Joseph Gordon-Levitt wanted to capture in his performance and it works to the advantage of this movie.  Philipe may be an obnoxious nut, but he’s a lovable nut too.  What matters is that you want him to succeed, and the movie does an excellent job of getting us on his side.  In that respect, Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s wacky performance is exactly what is called for, and he manages to carry the film as a result.  His works is also grounded by an able supporting cast.  I particularly like the subplot involving Cesar Domboy’s Jeff, who’s fear of heights is challenged greatly by Philipe’s mission.  Overall, Gordon-Levitt’s Philipe Petit fits right in line with many of Robert Zemeckis’ other larger than life characters, and becomes a hero worth rooting for, even while he spends the whole movie breaking the law.

But, of course, this wouldn’t be a Zemeckis film unless it had a sense of scale to it.  And where The Walk really shines is in it’s visuals.  The movie was shot in 3D, which does help enhance the experience in some ways, but the movie can still hold up in 2D as well, thanks to a strong visual presentation throughout.  Shot by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski (Pirates of the Caribbean), the movie is very colorful and does an effective job of establishing the sense of place within the movie, especially when capturing the look of the 1970’s time period.  Of course, the biggest challenge of the movie is getting the high wire walk itself to look just right.  One of the movie’s best achievements is recreating the Twin Towers themselves, which almost becomes a character in their own right; a mighty and unpredictable beast that our hero must conquer.  Because of the attacks on 9/11, the towers no longer exist today, so the entire location of the film’s climax had to be recreated from scratch, and amazingly, with the help of practical sets and visual effects wizardry, the Twin Towers come alive again in this movie.  Not only does the movie authentically make you feel like you are there, but the size and scope of the setting also really enhances the experience of seeing Philipe make his walk across his wire.  I especially like the moments when the camera glides overhead, showing us something that only Philipe would have seen during his stunt and that’s the precipitous space in between the towers, which he refers to as “the void.”  And that visual of the void is one of the things that really makes the 3D experience worth it.  It’s a great triumph of epic film-making when you make a moment like that work in your movie, and it’s one of the advantages that this film has over the documentary.

So, in conclusion, I would say that The Walk is a worthwhile movie experience, even if it’s not a perfect one.  It does hold up within the Robert Zemeckis filmography with it’s delightful blend of humor and tense drama, and it doesn’t try to make itself feel more important than it should, which is refreshing for a Hollywood prestige picture.  It may not be as laugh-out-load funny as Back to the Future, nor as emotional as Forrest Gump or Cast Away (2000), but it’s a worthy product from one of Hollywood’s great masters.  And being in a monumental year for the filmmaker, given that Back to the Future (1985) is reaching it’s 30th anniversary, this movie helps to re-confirm that Zemeckis is still going strong all these years later.  The only thing that could have been more perfect is if the movie was released on October 21 this year, since that’s the date featured in the fictional future from Back to the Future Part II (1989), but I guess that would have been too much of a nerdy expectation to hold the director to.  For what it is, The Walk is an invigorating movie experience that does an adequate job of depicting a remarkable human achievement and the steps it took to pull that event off.  If you want a more in depth look into the story, I recommend watching the documentary Man on Wire, which gives you more perspective from everyone involved.  But, to get a sense of what it was actually like to be on the wire itself, then you’ll get a magnificent experience out of this as well, which treats the subject with as much attention to detail that a good movie can.  If it’s at your local IMAX screens right now, then I highly recommend that you check this out, but if you have to wait another week, I hope that this review has been helpful in convincing you to check it out.  If you see it, find the biggest screen possible, because this is one movie that uses every inch to it’s maximum.

Rating: 8/10