This definitely feels more like a good old fashioned Bond movie than either "Casino Royale" or "Quantum of Solace" ever did. There are multiple reasons for this but the foremost one is that the Bond character himself feels like a far more seasoned secret agent.

"Casino Royale" and also "Quantum of Solace" were prequels to the series, in which Bond also got setup as a character. He was still a bit of a rouge and obviously new to the business, while in "Skyfall" he obviously had plenty of missions behind his name already and all of the familiar trades his character is known for are pretty much all present in this movie as well. While in essence this movie is still being a part of the 'prequel-series' as well, it leans more toward- and also includes the things that made the older Bond movies special and great to watch. "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" tried to do new things and new directions, with all of its characters. Some of its worked out fine but there was always something missing from it. Something that truly made it a James Bond movie. Something that Sam Mendes managed to find and include in this latest Bond outing.

Looking back at it, I believe the first two Bond movies with Craig tried to force too much drama and depth with its main character upon us. This movie in a way is even more dramatic than any of the other Craig Bond movies but it at the same time is more subtle and therefore also more effective with it. And don't worry. Even while this movie has plenty of depth to it, it never turns into a sappy, dramatic movie. On the contrary! It has plenty of comedy and action in it, which again, is part of the reason why it feels more like a good old fashioned, entertaining Bond flick!

So Bond returns to old form in this one, making me hopeful and excited again for all of the future Bond movies to come!

It still remains odd that a director who is know for dramatic and more quiet and subtle movies and stage-plays got picked to do an entertaining and action packed Bond movie but Sam Mendes definitely did a great job with the movie and I can definitely see and understand better by now why the producers and studios picked him and thought he would be the right choice for this particular Bond movie.

Not that everything is perfect about it though. It's a bit surprising to see how the big and spectacular action sequences didn't appeared to be troubling Mendes but how the small action set-pieces appeared to be far more difficult for him to handle. Or well, perhaps it isn't surprising at all, since it's fair to assume more people were involved with the setup and shooting of the big action moments, while for the smaller moments Mendes was left more on his own. The fist fights and minor shootouts come across a bit messy but luckily there are few moments like this in the movie and they don't ruin the important parts and aspect about the movie, or that particular one scene.

Another thing that felt a bit lacking at times though was its pacing. It's unevenly paced mostly. The movie at moments goes to fast and glosses over things too easily, while at others it's moving to slow and you are just waiting for something good to happen again. Perhaps this also has more to do with its writing. The story in essence, with its main plot line, really is a quite simple and straightforward one, that besides is nothing we haven't seen before, in a similar genre movie. The movie still manages to present itself as something original and interesting as well, which is in my opinion mostly due to Sam Mendes his storytelling skills.

Another thing that makes it apparent how somewhat lacking its writing was is its main villain. Javier Bardem is awesome, his character however isn't. The character isn't even in the first half of the movie, which perhaps was supposed to add to his mystery but I just don't think his character got written solidly enough to make a true great impact on the movie. There were some interesting dynamics between him and certain characters they could had touched upon but the movie only seems to scrape the top of it and never goes all the way with it. At least not far enough for my liking. A shame since, again, Javier Bardem himself did an absolutely great job!

Because Sam Mendes was the director, there is very little wrong with this movie visually. It's actually a beautifully and classy shot movie, with some great cinematography by Roger Deakins. It's never too artistic and never gets into the way of its storytelling but I do believe that the persons who are looking for something that's a bit more special and beautiful to watch, this is a perfect movie. It might be true though that people are going to complain about the many camera tilts in the movie. Personally I liked it and it helped to create a certain style and atmosphere for the movie, which I thought was an effective one.

All in all I think this is a great movie, that marks the end of the reboot/prequel series and returns to old and more familiar Bond grounds, with its characters, gadgets, action, comedy and whatnot's. Esepcially the ending, which I won't spoil for you, makes it apparent the series is completely returning to its old formula again for the new, coming Bond movies, which I, for one, am very excited and happy about!

8/10

Watch trailer

Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Helen McCrory, Javier Bardem and others

Current release date: November 9, 2012

Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Helen McCrory, Javier Bardem and others

Current release date: November 9, 2012

Centered on a new CIA operative in the universe based on Robert Ludlum's novels. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Tony Gilroy

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton and others

Current release date: August 3, 2012

This is a rather surprisingly good atmospheric piece of work from the early '80's. It's an horror that mostly lays its emphasis on its atmosphere.

Even though the movie is from the early '80's but is still that feels and moves like an '70's movie, which is a positive thing to note because of the great style and way of film-making that flourished in the '70's. It's a sort of movie that takes its time to set and build up things and features some slow moving sequences. This of course also adds to the atmosphere of the movie.

It shows a lot of scenes from the 'wolves' point-of-view, kind of "Predator" like style. This is a great move and surely adds to the tension and also mystery of the whole movie.

It's very different from just the usual genre work, from the same time period. It's a pretty refreshing '80's horror movie. It's refreshing since it doesn't merely tries to be a typical monster horror movie but one that is well written instead. It has a sort of more 'realistic' approach so to speak. But yes, it's also definitely true that in this case this style of film-making also takes away some of the horror of the movie. The movie also doesn't alway makes the best choices with its story. And because the movie is rather 'slow', not an awful lot is ever really happening all the time in this movie in terms of horror or action. (Of course this changes more and more when the movie heads toward the ending and its conclusion.) The only real horror and tension is now basically only in its atmosphere, which also suffice enough in this case by the way, since its all done so great.

It sort of all makes you wonder why Michael Wadleigh never directed any more movies. This was his only featured movie he so far ever directed and he further more only makes music documentaries.

The movie features some absolutely great and dynamic cinematography. And they by the way must have really loved the steadicam. I mean, which other movie ever billed the steadicam photographer before its director of photography? And it's not like this movie is one of the first featuring a steadicam, since it's an invention from the early '70's actually.

The musical score by James Horner is also quite effective but James oh, James, why did you basically used this very same score later again for the movie "Aliens". Oh well, Horner just never has been really known for his originality and he copies his own work more than often, which doesn't take away that his scores are often highly effective for his movies.

The movie with Albert Finney, Edward James Olmos and Gregory Hines, among others, features quite some big popular names in it. The casting doesn't seem always likely but all fit their parts well and did a more than good job.

A refreshing and good original piece of work that is surely a recommendable one!

7/10

(Review originally written at 29 January 2008)

One thing that the Bourne movies also really learned us is that magazines, books and towels can be more lethal weapons than guns or knives. I mean with this that the Bourne movies mostly redefined the action genre by having the guts to be different and original.

Still I am glad it's the last out the Bourne series, also because this one is definitely the least out of the Bourne series. They with this movie obviously ran out of ideas and this movie is also mostly a rehash of the previous two Bourne movies. It's really more of the same and actually made me realize how much alike all of the Bourne movies actual really are to each other. The story is actually quite similar to the second movie, also because halve of this movie is set at the same time the second movie was set in (getting confusing?). There again is also an assassin on Jason's tail and his superiors once more want to see him dead to cover up illegal secret mission and.

Just because you have lots of shaking camera-work and fast editing doesn't mean you have a good action movie as well. It makes the movie fast paced but in my opinion they could had gone a bit more easy on its style. Paul Greengrass already sort of overused this with the previous movie "The Bourne Supremacy". The shaky cam and all works great for its action sequences and more realistic moments, such as in the other Paul Greengrass movie "Bloody Sunday" but making an entire action movie, with an obvious fictitious over-the-top action story is a whole other thing. The same goes for the overall same gritty visual style. This visually has as a result that Madrid looks absolutely the same as New York, New York looks like Moscow and Moscow looks like Tangiers. A reason why I think they could had gone a bit more easy on its consistent visual style.

As a matter of fact once you really start thinking about it, this movie isn't even really THAT action filled, in terms of having lots of fights, chases and explosions.

The main reason why this movie is in my opinion the least out of the Bourne series is simply because of its story. This movie has such an incredible simple storyline that it really seems that they simply pushed it entirely to the background and let the action instead tell the entire story on its own. Nothing wrong with it, since this definitely worked out for the movie but it of course is a very cheap way of film-making, that makes you get away with practically everything. And does this movie really reach a satisfying enough conclusion for the trilogy? In my opinion not really, since I don't really have the reason that lots have changed for Bourne. Somehow I don't think he picks up a normal quiet life after all he has been trough.

Matt Damon is perhaps the biggest winner after his three Bourne movies. Before these movies he sort of had a dull and very boyish, nerd like image. His career was already getting sort of slow, before he signed up for the first Bourne movie. He by now has officially been taking serious by lots of critics and movie goers all over the world and he has proved that he can actually handle action really well and is even a convincing action star. Joan Allen also luckily returns in this movie and so does Julia Stiles, though I have the feeling they should had dropped her two movies ago. David Strathairn, Scott Glenn and Albert Finney are some of the new welcome additions to the cast this time.

It's a real fancy and fast, slick looking action flick, that all in all forms a satisfying enough conclusion of the Bourne trilogy.

7/10

(Review originally written at 30 April 2006)

"Corpse Bride" is a typical dark Tim Burton movie, that does not disappoint-, with lots of crazy characters and an unusual dark Gothic atmosphere. It's a movie that amuses and entertains, despite the fact that the movie does have its obvious flaws.

The story itself for the movie is pretty simple but it serves it purpose. After all, it's not the story that makes this movie, it are its characters and the unusual settings of the movie. This movie is definitely a case of style over substance but what a style this movie has. Visually the movie looks really impresses and it's amazing to see how much the stop-motion effects have improved even more, since "The Nightmare Before Christmas". What really is the best about this movie are the looks of the characters. First of all they all look crazy and weird and they are all beautifully crafted and created.

The movie can perhaps best be described as a mix between "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "Sleepy Hollow". It has the settings and atmosphere of "Sleepy Hollow" and the crazy silly characters from "The Nightmare Before Christmas". Fans of those other two previous Tim Burton movie will therefor not be disappointed by this movie. In my opinion this movie is even better than those two other earlier Burton movies.

The characters do not only look great and weird but they also are perfectly voiced by its actors. This time Burton uses lot's of well known actors to voice the characters of the movie. Helena Bonham Carter is perfect and Albert Finney and Christopher Lee are also perfectly cast. Especially Lee is hilarious due to the seriousness he voices his character with. Other well known actors who provided their voices for this movie are Johnny Depp, Emily Watson, Michael Gough, the fantastic Deep Roy and Danny Elfman.

The movie has some good music, that might not be that good on its own but it suites the movie its story and atmosphere well. So good job Danny Elfman!

The movie entertains well and it has some great and hilarious sequences in it. The humor is quite morbid and black, after all the movie features lots of corpses and other death related elements. Leave it up to Tim Burton to create some good dark humor without ever really going over-the-top with it. The story might have some holes in it and it all is terribly simple and the ending might feel rushed and abrupt but it all in no way does make the movie any less enjoyable or entertaining to watch.

This movie does not disappoint and it entertains well!

8/10

Watch trailer