TheNorm's Top 5 Potential New Bonds

 

    Ian Fleming's James Bond, aka 007, has lived a fascinating life on the silver screen for nearly sixty years. While technically his first appearance was on an episode of the TV show Climax, played by Barry Nelson, the one (and only) Bond will always be Sir Sean Connery. He portrayed 007 in the first adaptation of Ian Fleming's Dr. No in 1962. 

    Since then, Bond has been portrayed by seven talented and incredible actors, including David Niven from Casino Royale (the funny one, not the other one). Now that the latest Bond, Daniel Craig, has retired from the role, it's natural to wonder who might take it over now. The current rumor is Nomi (Lashana Lynch) is set to take over the franchise as a recently instated Double "0" agent. This sounds like a neat idea, in theory; however, it feels less like passing the torch and more like "we're handing the franchise leftovers to a woman." Keep in mind, I love the idea of casting a woman to play Bond, as it's an idea long overdue. Plus, Lashana Lynch has shown herself capable of carrying the franchise, both as an actress and an action star. 

    Even so, I have a few people in mind to potentially take over the role of Bond. So I thought I would share them with you all. 

    This is TheNorm's Top 5 Potential New Bonds. 

#5 

Ewan McGregor 

    After surviving the Star Wars prequels as arguably the best aspect, Ewan McGregor has enjoyed a career as a solid leading man with character actor-level talent. Though he hasn't had much of an opportunity to play a character as suave as Bond, he has shown that he can handle the role. His experience with action-oriented roles and conviction as an actor make him an ideal candidate for the role of 007, at least in my book. 

    Probably the only thing that might turn him away from considering the role is his age. Having turned fifty this year, he would be the oldest to potentially take on the role. Depending on the direction the franchise goes from here, perhaps that could be just what is needed. An older Bond with experience to share and maybe a few points about old age to make towards the younger recruits. Just a thought. 

    In any case, if he was offered the role right now, I'd hope he would consider it. But maybe not as much as the next person on my list. 

#4 

Tom Hiddleston 

 

    Best known as Thor's mischievous brother Loki, Tom Hiddleston has the charisma, talent, and charm needed to portray 007. His experience with Marvel shows he can handle action scenes, his work in Shakespeare productions conveys his acting chops, and his rather stunning looks make him a perfect candidate. 

    Probably the only thing that might make him difficult to cast is his schedule. His commitment to occasionally reprising his role as Loki for Marvel, not to mention the second season of Loki's show in the works, might make his availability a bit more crowded than ideal for playing Bond. Maybe once he finished filming all of his Loki requirements for the year, his schedule would open up. That is, of course, if he's interested in taking on the role. 

#3 

Clare Dunne 

    Like I said, I like the idea of casting a woman as Bond. It would make for a fascinating and exciting dynamic that has not yet been explored with the character. While some of you might be thinking, "Why not Emily Blunt or Carey Mulligan?" and you would be right to ask. My answer: because Clare Dunne is an extraordinary talent and deserves a big break. 

    Some of my beautiful readers may recall a film I reviewed back in April called Herself. A heartwarming story of a single mother building a house for herself and her two kids. Clare Dunne was the star and screenwriter. It's a film that shows her talent and ability as a genuine artist, and while casting her as Bond would likely require a fair deal of training for the role, I have no doubt that she could deliver a fantastic performance. 

    Plus, she's Irish, and so far, Bond has only been played by one other actor of Irish descent (Pierce Brosnan). Maybe it's time for another opportunity for Irish representation. I'm just saying. 

#2 

James McAvoy 

    Aside from having one-half of the name already, James McAvoy is a remarkable actor with unbelievable range and screen presence. He can be calm, calculating, suave, assertive, and emotionally vulnerable. All qualities required to play 007. Not to mention his stunning good looks, and I say that as a heterosexual man. 

    Probably the only thing that might interfere with his potential casting is his role in the television series, His Dark Materials. Last I checked, no official plans for another season have been announced, despite the latest season leaving a rather large cliffhanger. Plus, the implication that his character will have a more significant presence in the third season if they ever get around to making it. Which I really hope they do. 

    Maybe he will have some free time to play 007, if only once, while HBO finds the money for season 3. Only time will tell. 

#1 

Idris Elba 

    Not only does he have the acting chops and action movie experience for the role, not only does he have the charm and charisma for the role, and not only does he have the best sounding voice that just oozes suaveness, but fans have been begging for him to consider the role. Obviously, Mr. Elba is not obligated to play Bond, but there is an incredible demand for him to at least consider it. 

    After the third movie with Daniel Craig, Skyfall, he wanted out of the franchise and wasn't interested in making more bond films. Sony was so desperate to keep him on and was too afraid to consider anyone else. They offered Craig a ridiculous amount of money (one hundred and fifty million dollars) for two more movies. That is more than what Robert Downey, Jr made for playing Iron Man in nine films. 

    Meanwhile, fans were suggesting Idris Elba, people within the Hollywood system were recommending Idris Elba, and, to my knowledge, Idris Elba himself was expressing interest in the role. 

    In my humble opinion, Idris Elba has been passed over for the role of James Bond far too often. It is time to finally allow him the chance to don the tux and let him do his thing. If he's no longer interested in it, then that's okay. But at least give him a chance. That's all we're asking for. 

    And before you say anything, yes, I know he's fifty, but he's Idris *fricking* Elba! Does it really matter? 

Ladies & gentlemen, the name's Norm...TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

No Time To Die - A Fond Farewell to Craig

 

Playing in theaters. 

    Daniel Craig's time as Ian Flemming's beloved character, James Bond, has seen its share of ups and downs. Ranging from profound nuances in the spy genre to pretentious overstuffed messes. Through and through, Daniel Craig has succeeded in reaching the finish line with grace and pride in most cases. While he has proven himself as a worthy Bond, his expressed desire to step away from the role makes it clear that it's time to move on, and the incredibly well-crafted latest offering, No Time To Die, couldn't have been a better send-off. This may very well be the most thoughtful conclusion to Craig's run as 007. 

    Taking place after the events of Spectre, the story follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) enjoying his retirement from active duty on her majesty's secret service. Sadly, it's not too long before a terrible situation arises demanding 007's expert handling. It turns out a terrorist named Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has stolen a secret experimental biological weapon that has the potential to wipe out entire continents. Not only that, but his former girlfriend, Madeleine (Léa Seydoux), is somehow involved. Bond must now dig up his troubled past to save the future, and in doing so, come to terms with where his ultimate sense of duty may lead him. 

    The film is not perfect, but it's a genuine blast. It successfully maintains all of the best aspects of past Bond films with Craig while minimizing (if not ignoring) the issues with the less-than-stellar outings. It also does a decent job at something that I wish more Hollywood movies would do: subverting expectations. 

    A perfect example (minor spoilers) would be Paloma (Ana de Armas), a supporting character who seriously deserved much more screentime. While on a mission, Paloma is one of Bond's contacts, who initially comes off as dorky and naive. Immediately, you think to yourself, "Oh no, not another bumbling unfunny comic relief sidekick, please!" Then, as the scene progresses, when the time for action arrives, Paloma not only kicks all sorts of ass, she does so with agency and complete competence. All while wearing a rather revealing dress and high heels. Then you start thinking, "Yes, more of this, please!" only to be disappointed when you realize she only has, at most, five minutes of screentime. At the very least, there is plenty of room for expansion in the future. 

    Speaking of the action, it's probably some of the best I've seen. Avoiding tired and headache-inducing gimmicks like shaky-cam or rapid-fire editing, the action scenes are fluid and have weight: both physically and emotionally. The chase scenes are inventive, the fight scenes feel visceral, and they all make excellent use of space. This is one Bond film I would gladly put on par with the action scenes from Ronin, and I do not make that statement lightly. 

    The cast is quite remarkable all around, but special mention must go to Rami Malek as the villain. Malek has shown to be a capable and versatile actor on par with the likes of Oscar Issac and Leonardo DiCaprio. Apparently, he's stated that he wanted to make his character for the film as unsettling as possible, and he nailed it! Every second he's on-screen, you feel uneven with everything he says and does. The best part of his performance is his genuine conviction. Unlike other actors I could mention, he's not putting on a performance for attention outside of what is needed for the story.

    I look forward to seeing what he does next. 

    My only gripe with the film is its runtime. There were times when I thought scenes could have been a little shorter, and maybe a few plot points could have been tightened or removed altogether. Even so, a movie should be as long as is needed to tell the story, and while I might have preferred it if it was a little shorter, I never felt like my time was wasted. 

    Also, not a fan of the theme song. Though it's still better than the one from Spectre. 

    No Time To Die is a delicious bottle of champagne that's just perfect for a glorious send-off. It's a fun experience of a film and an elegant farewell to Daniel Craig as 007. If you can do so safely, absolutely go see it. 

    Now, I wonder who might be up to the task of taking over the role? I might have a few ideas. Tune in next time, and I'll share my thoughts. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Dune-Part 1 (2021) - Handsome but Hollow

Streaming on HBO Max through November 21. 

Playing in Theaters. 

    Frank Herbert's Dune, published in 1965, is one of the most influential and inspiring works of science-fiction to ever hit bookshelves. It was one of the first examples of how ecology could function as a narrative device. An inspiration to many other astounding science-fiction & fantasy stories, such as Blade Runner and Star Wars. An engaging story of politics, destiny, and family rolled into a fascinating tale with spaceships and giant monsters. 

    The book was initially adapted into a feature-length film by David Lynch in 1984, and while that film has its, shall we say, sillier moments, it's still a pretty entertaining and visually striking film. This brand new adaptation by director Denis Villeneuve, while also visually striking, feels as if it's missing something. The performances (at least most of them) are pretty good, the special effects are astounding, and parts of the cinematography are pretty (I'll get back to that in a moment). Even so, despite being part 1 of a 2 part story, it didn't leave me with much of a lasting impression other than, "well, that happened," or "okay, I hope you got more in Part 2." It's not a terrible film; just not incredibly fulfilling as I might have liked. 

    Based on the novel, as mentioned earlier, the story follows an intergalactic royal family known as House Atreides led by Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac), charged by the Emperor with taking over the mining efforts of a vital element called Spice on a desert planet called Arrakis. They are taking over for the previous manager, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellen Skarsgård), who is not too happy to have "his" operation taken over. Thus, he decides to invade Arrakis and take over the planet's mining operation for himself, eliminating House Atreides in the process. A young prince of House Atreides, Paul (Timothée Chalamet), finds himself lost in the desert with his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), as they narrowly escape their execution with the help of a few allies. Now, Paul must accept his place as the new Duke and take back Arrakis from Harkonnen. But, to do so, he will need to seek the help of the indigenous people of Arrakis, The Faron, who have not been the biggest fans of their Spice mining. How will he bring them together to help his fight? 

    The film does a beautiful job establishing all of the players and themes of the story. Nothing ever feels confusing or ridiculous; everything feels tangible and comprehensive. There are evident and well-executed parallels to things like colonialism and political infighting, along with mythology and fantastic abilities. There's also a good deal of creative blade fighting, which has always been a more exciting form of cinematic combat to me. Guns and blasters are predictable and dull, with a few notable exceptions; bladed fighting makes things more interesting every time. 

    The majority of the cast is remarkable. The film treats us to fun and energetic performances from Jason Momoa, Josh Brolin, and Oscar Issac. Not to mention the ever-reliable Rebecca Furgison, whom some of you may recall as Rose The Hat from Doctor Sleep. 

    However, despite these pleasant elements, the film is not without some hard-to-overlook flaws. 

    One of my issues with the film is its leading man, Timothée Chalamet. Having seen him in previous films like Little Women (2019) (criminally underrated, by the way) and Lady Bird, I know he is capable of delivering solid performances. However, be it a lack of direction or less-than-wise creative choices on Timothée's part (we may never know), his performance feels stiff and lacking in texture. Not at all helped by some of his essential bits of dialogue, such as his famous "fear is the mind-killer" speech, is relegated to other characters (mostly his mother) for seemingly no adequate reason. His overtly bland performance, along with vital dialogue bits stripped away from his character, pulls too much focus away from his journey. Which is, ultimately, what the story is all about. 

    Another issue I have with the film is its cinematography, at least aspects of it. Photographed by Greig Fraser, the images of Dune are pretty in spots, especially scenes in daylight with gorgeous landscapes. However, I can't help but feel that Greig Fraser is one of those cinematographers who allowed himself to become a bit lazy with his lighting. Unlike some cinematographers I could mention, when he transitioned from celluloid film to digital video, he seemed to forget one vital aspect of great cinematography: contrast. More often than not, many cinematographers become too reliant upon some digital camera's ability to retrieve visual information (as it were) without requiring too much light. This tendency is often apparent in nighttime or darker scenes, where some cinematographers will rely too heavily on the camera's high sensitivity rather than cleverly place their lights. Often resulting in overtly dark shots that are too flat with no sense of texture or depth. 

    It's a minor and stylistic thing, I admit, but it continues to bother me. 

    Dune (2021) is not a terrible film, nor is it really the next Star Wars, as many have claimed. It's simply a film that exists and, while there are parts of it I genuinely enjoyed, I wasn't as overwhelmed as I thought I'd be. At the very least, it has made me more excited for Part 2. Perhaps Part 1 is merely the overture, building up to the grander presentation. We shall see. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spooky Special - ParaNorman (2012)

 

Streaming on Netflix. 

For rent on Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play, and YouTube. 

    If there is a straightforward truth regarding Halloween cinema that I will repeat until the grave, it'll likely be this: ParaNorman is the most fantastic Halloween film ever made! I do not make that statement lightly. Of all the films to enjoy at the spookiest time of the year, none are as relevant, heartfelt, or as impactful as this glorious story from the modern masters of stop-motion animation, LAIKA. In an age when most western animations delude themselves into believing that animated films are strictly for children, ParaNorman takes that very antiquated notion and shatters it to dust. Moreover, it's also a beautifully told story with beautiful characters, clever subversion of expectations, and a twist that will leave you in tears of both sorrow and joy. 

    The story follows a young boy named Norman who is ostracized by his community. Why? Well, apparently, he can see and communicate with ghosts. In a remarkable change of pace, Norman has made peace with his gift and embraces it, despite everyone else around him refusing to even consider his ability as genuine. However, his gift will soon prove helpful to the town when a sudden Zombie invasion strikes their town.

    Further complicating the mysterious event is the timing, as it happens to be the anniversary of a famous historical slaying of a supposedly evil Witch that may or may not have cursed the town. Now, Norman must face the frustrating adversity and use his gift to solve the mystery and save his home. And, in doing so, will uncover a secret that will shock anyone with a heart. 

    The first and most obvious aspect of ParaNorman worth admiring is its stop-motion style of animation. For those who don't know, stop-motion is a technique of animation often used with clay and other such malleable materials, including action figures & dolls. It's an arduous task of taking a still photograph of an object, moving part of it ever so slightly for the next frame, and repeating the whole task until an entire sequence of motion is achieved. 

    To give you a rough idea, take a look at this short video of the team at LAIKA making Kubo and the Two Strings. A fantastic film in its own right made even more astonishing when seeing how it was made. The amount of labor and precision required to create a single second of animation in this style demands a discipline unlike any other. Appropriately, it requires a kind of Zen approach. 

    Another treat this film delivers amazingly well is subverting expectations, especially with the choices in casting. In addition to giving stellar performances, many of the more well-known actors in the film (Anna Kendrick, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Casey Affleck, to name a few) are playing roles outside of the typical & expected type they usually play. For example, actor Christopher Mintz-Plasse (who typically plays geeky or nerdy characters) is cast as Norman's school bully. Casey Affleck, who's often cast as a quiet and reserved loner, plays a football-obsessed meathead with a pleasantly surprising twist, which I will not spoil here. It's almost a clever and subtle hint to how the film as a whole intends to play with your expectations, and it does so with flying colors. 

    Of the various elements that cause me to love ParaNorman the most out of LAIKA's filmography thus far, none are as prominent or as robust as its narrative and its heart-wrenching plot twist. Despite the film being nearly ten years old, I don't want to be responsible for spoiling the film. However, I cannot adequately articulate the beauty and bravery of this film without explaining the twist and why it's so important. 

    So, if you want to avoid SPOILERS, avoid any and all paragraphs written in Red.

    SPOILERS! 

    The twist is the Zombies are the undead town-founders who tried and executed the Witch back in the 1600s or so. The "Witch," as it turns out, was a ten-year-old little girl named Aggie who possessed unusual abilities. Out of fear for their safety and believing they were in the right, they accused Aggie of witchcraft and had her hanged. Her vengeful spirit was kept at bay by those who could speak to the dead, and the task was passed down to Norman, who accidentally performed the task incorrectly, causing Aggie's spirit to rise from the grave and seek her vengeance on her wrong-doers. 

    This twist rocked me to my very core because of how relevant and severe it was. Not only did ParaNorman, a film primarily aimed at children, have the courage to tell a story about death (a topic wrongfully avoided by most child-oriented media), but it also delved deeply into aspects of unfortunate historical fact. Many people, including children, have been falsely accused of "witchcraft" by religious authorities and continue to suffer such inhumanity to this day. 

    When I saw this twist, I realized this film means business, and I appreciated their efforts and conviction.

    ParaNorman is an absolute treasure of a film and a must-watch for any Halloween event. Come for the spookiness; stay for the story. It'll have a profound impact on you one way or another. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

DC Fandome Trailer Reactions

 

    I tend to refrain from reacting to trailers, even the ones I might get incredibly excited for, mostly because I am primarily interested in enjoying and reviewing the actual product rather than breaking down any and all promotional material for said product. I also find it annoying how most modern entertainment journalism is overcrowded with speculation and fan theories rather than actual entertainment news or anything with genuine substance. I don't care about that random-looking guy who appeared in the corner of the frame for a fraction of a second or what it might mean; it means nothing to me. 

    Having said that, the DC Fandome event this year was loaded with a few exciting trailers for some eye-catching content, and I find myself genuinely curious. Also, some of these trailers seemed incredibly fascinating, and I genuinely want to share my thoughts on them. Plus, it might be an excellent opportunity to reevaluate previous statements. 

    This is TheNorm's reaction to some of DC Fandome's trailers. 

    Let's start things off with what I'm probably the most interested in. 

    Black Adam is a supporting character from the SHAZAM (aka Captain Marvel) series for those who don't know. He is mainly recognized as a villain but is also portrayed as an anti-hero. In recent comic iterations, he is a troubled man who has suffered incredible loss and seeks to liberate humanity from any and all forms of enslavement. He's essentially the DC version of Black Panther's villain, Killmonger: a troubled man with a sympathetic backstory and noble intentions. Still, he is so blinded by anger that he attempts to achieve his goals in a less-than-noble way. 

    Probably most interesting about this film is their choice of actor to play the titular character, Dwayne Johnson, a performer with such likable charisma and adorable charm that it's almost impossible to see him playing anything even remotely villainous. The last time anyone attempted to pull this kind of performance out of him (arguably) was with the terrible DOOM movie back in 2005. While that film was terrible for many reasons, Dwayne Johnson's performance was not a contributing factor. Despite getting stuck with an awful script, Dwayne Johnson's charm still shined through. That is until he was asked to turn his character kind of evil, which didn't really work at the time. Partially due to his lack of experience back then and due to his natural good guy charisma. 

    Now that Dwayne Johnson has had much more experience and opportunities to hone his craft, it'll be fascinating to see how well he can play the pained villain. I, for one, can't wait to see how well he may get to stretch his range. 

    Moving on to something I honestly thought was a joke at first. 

    As portrayed by John Cena, Peacemaker became one of the many redemption points for The Suicide Squad as a cinematic franchise. Like Dwayne Johnson, Mr. Cena has natural charisma and charm, genuine comedic talent, and decent conviction as an actor. His role in The Suicide Squad was part of what made that film a joy to behold. Despite how much I came to dislike his character towards the end. 

    Without spoiling anything for those who haven't seen The Suicide Squad just yet, Peacemaker makes a few choices towards the end of the film that made me question his likability. 

    Even so, his resurgence after the movie is a delicate twist. One that will have to be incredibly clever to make me root for him once again. I am looking forward to seeing how the series asks for my forgiveness. Although, in all honesty, I am more bummed that they didn't give a spinoff to Idris Elba's character instead. 

    And now, we conclude with arguably the biggest highlight of this year's DC Fandome. 

    I have made no secret of my lack of excitement for this film. Not because I don't like Batman, but because of the ridiculous drama that preceded the movie's production along with the ever-growing & outdated fad of being "darker & grittier" than what came before. There is no denying that Batman's character and his universe do indeed lend themselves to dark stories and themes. Even so, I still yearn for a new Batman that's a little more fun, not cartoonish, just fun! 

    Even so, I am still at least interested in what this new iteration of Batman has to offer. Director Matt Reeves hasn't disappointed me yet; Robert Pattinson is a capable actor who seems to be giving his all to the role (along with the rest of the cast). Also, as I mentioned before, I do enjoy the film's use of color, albeit drenched in overwhelming darkness. There is a good chance that my feelings about this film will change substantially once I have seen it. We will find out next March. 

    Well, that's all I got for now. Here's hoping that these projects will be as exciting as they look. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spooky Special - The Haunting of Hill House (2018)

 

Streaming of Netflix. 

    In 1959, renowned author Shirly Jackson published a book titled The Haunting of Hill House, the story of a group of strangers staying in a supposedly haunted mansion to study claims of the paranormal (specifically, ghosts). Four years later, renowned director Robert Wise, known for West Side Story, The Andromeda Strain, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, adapted the book into a feature film starring Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. It was nominated for a Golden Globe for best director and has become one of the best examples of cinematic gothic horror with well-developed characters and stunning visuals. Then, in 1999, it was remade by director Jan de Bont (late of Twister and both Speed movies), starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and Lili Taylor. To make a long story short, the remake was so horrendously terrible and horribly executed that it felt less like an adaptation of a ghost story and more like a PG-13 rated parody of a bad Disney Channel movie. Complete with terrible special effects, lazy writing, and miscast talent. 

    The beloved and classic Shirly Jackson story seemed destined to never see the light of day on the screen ever again. That is, until one fateful day when a talented and determined filmmaker named Mike Flanagan got the opportunity to create a brand new adaptation of the haunted tale. The results: a fantastic ten-episode series on Netflix that not only succeeds in capturing the spirit of the original story while doing its own thing but also reminds audiences how genuine horror cinema looks and feels. It is an excellent choice for those most attracted to the haunted house genre.

    Some of you may have turned away at the mere mention of an adaptation of Shirly Jackson's story receiving a "loose" adaptation. To those fans out there, I say, please hear me out. I promise you, it's much better than you think. 

    While the original story followed a group of strangers investigating ghostly activity, the Netflix series chronicles the lives of five siblings and their shared events as victims to the hauntings in their own unique ways. The show switches between two times: the siblings as children living in the haunted house and the siblings as adults dealing with their own issues. 

    The editing must be one aspect of the show that can be praised the most (amidst the clever writing and stellar performances). Not only does it flow beautifully with perfect pacing, but it also successfully transitions between the two different times without ever feeling confusing or random. Students at film school must watch this series as a textbook example of properly editing any given sequence. 

    What makes the series particularly worthy of Halloween viewing (along with general viewing) is the perfect balance of story, scares, and suspense. This is a series that puts you on the edge of your couch throughout every second. Even when you feel a scare coming up, you'll brace yourself for it because you are that engrossed in the characters' plight. 

    Another element of the show that makes it especially fun for Halloween (as I alluded to in my previous Spooky Special) is spotting all of the hidden ghosts in the house. Every scene inside the haunted mansion, somewhere in the background or foreground (or even both), features a cleverly hidden humanoid ghost watching the events unfold. Sometimes it's relatively apparent; other times, you have to look closely. See if you can spot the ghosts for yourself. Without spoiling exactly where they are, here are a few examples. 

    Amidst all of the chilling atmosphere, gut-wrenching tension, and mastermind-level mystery, Netflix's The Haunting of Hill House is ultimately a story about family, overcoming trauma, and the power of love (but not in a cheesy Hallmark kind of way). While playing spooky "Where's Waldo" is a fun and fascinating aspect of the series, the sympathetic characters and the heartfelt story makes it truly worthy of your time. It's the perfect companion for any Halloween event as it simultaneously frightens you at the right moments while making you feel good about life and all of its delightful mysteries. It's the kind of show that brilliantly balances that delicate line between dark and light, something we so desperately need more of in these troubling times. 

    I cannot recommend enough that you give this series a chance. Even if you're not into ghost stories, you will find something here that speaks to you in some way. 

    Also, if you happen to be a big fan of Mike Flanigan, be sure to check out his latest Netflix show, Midnight Mass. I know I will. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spooky Special - Manhunter Vs. Red Dragon

    I told you I was having an old friend for dinner! 

    The works of writer Thomas Harris have become somewhat legendary on the big screen. While not as widely adapted or recognizable as Stephen King, his stories have reached a level of critical acclaim, primarily thanks to his most notorious and terrifying character: Hannibal Lector, aka Hannibal The Cannibal. As portrayed by Acadamy Award-winning actor Anthony Hopkins (this is the role that earned him his Oscar), Hannibal Lector has reached a level of cult status amongst the most famous horror cinema villains. All with only ten minutes of screentime in the 1992 Best Picture winner, The Silence of the Lambs, based on the Thomas Harris novel.

    As much well-deserved acclaim as that film has earned, there are a few other films out there based on Thomas Harris's books. One of them is Red Dragon: a story taking place before The Silence of the Lambs and involving Hannibal Lector in some capacity. This story has received the cinematic treatment twice: in 1986 (under the title Manhunter) and again in 2002 (retaining the original book's title). Both are decent thrillers in their own right with their individual strengths and weaknesses. However, in my humble opinion, one is clearly the better film, regardless of how well it may or may not follow the book. 

    This review will focus on the films as presented, without any critique of their merits as adaptations. 

    Alright, let's dig in! 

The Story

    Both films follow the exploits of former FBI criminal profiler Will Graham. After a traumatic incident involving Will's arrest of Hannibal Lector, resulting in serious injury (both physically and emotionally), Will feels he's fulfilled his duty and wants to spend his remaining days with his family. However, when word of a strange and terrifying new killer emerges, referred to by the authorities as The Tooth Fairy, the FBI begs Will to return to the field for this case, as he's the only one with the skills and talent needed to bring the killer to justice. Cliché? Yes! But it makes for a good story. 

    Both films succeed in delivering an engaging and haunting tale in their own unique ways. However, what ultimately separates them (and what makes one a bit more engaging than the other) is how they choose to tell the story. 

Presentation 

    Manhunter from 1986 was directed by one of my favorite directors, Michael Mann: late of classic works of cinema like Heat, The Insider, Collateral, and Public Enemies. One of Michael Mann's many distinct qualities is his keen sense of visual style. His use of color and subtle yet stylized lighting sets him apart from most directors, making his films an incredible sight to behold. Regardless of the genre, you can pick out a Michael Mann film in a crowd from a single glance. 

    In contrast, Red Dragon from 2002 was helmed by Brett Ratner: a director who is less of a visionary artist and more of a go-to studio errand boy. He's less interested in presenting a visually striking film and more about getting a product made in a timely fashion with little to no personal flair or identity. That's not to say he makes ugly or terrible films, far from it. Merely that it's impossible to pick out his films without seeing his name. He's incredibly by-the-numbers with seemingly little to no interest in livening things up. 

    Manhunter has a superior visual style and better striking images that pop right off the screen of the two films. Resulting in a thriller that succeeds in playing with your mind in more ways than one, at least from a visual standpoint. 

Scares/Main Villian

    These being perfect Halloween stories, it's expected that they deliver on the spookiness once in a while. Since this is a story of a serial killer, most scares emanate from the killer and the aftermath of his terrible deeds. Plus, sometimes less is much more than you may think. 

    In Manhunter, as portrayed by Tom Noonan, the killer doesn't appear on screen until at least an hour into the story. Plus, to build genuine tension amongst the rest of the cast, Tom Noonan was hidden away for the majority of production, so there would be a genuine sense of uncertainty, and maybe a little bit of genuine terror, for the rest of the cast. Much like how Bill Skarsgård was hidden from the child actors in IT from 2017. 

    When Noonan finally appears on screen for the first time, it's seriously terrifying. His evil and danger had been built up to the boiling point, making his grand entrance all the more uncomfortable. Not to mention Noonan's performance is spot on. 

    When compared to the killer's portrayal by Ralph Fiennes in Red Dragon from 2002, it doesn't have quite the same impact. They opted to not only introduce him much sooner in the story and give him lots more screentime, but they also play him up as more sympathetic than necessary. Again, if this is how it was in the book, I'm glad they kept that dynamic from the original story. I just disagree with it. Regardless of mental health issues and past traumatic experiences, in my opinion, there is no justification or sympathy for acts of cold-blooded murder.  

    While Ralph Fiennes is a tremendous actor, and he does indeed bring his A-game to his role in Red Dragon (2002), I can't help but feel as if his talent was wasted in this film. Like, his performance might have worked in a different story altogether. 

Hannibal Lector

    You knew we would have to touch base on this sooner or later. 

     Despite Manhunter technically being the first film to feature Lector, I believe that it goes without saying that Anthony Hopkins is the Hannibal lector. Much like how the late Sir Sean Connery will always be the James Bond. 

    The hungry doctor was initially portrayed by Brian Cox, whom some of you may remember as William Striker from X-Men 2 and that guy who yelled at Nicholas Cage in Adaptation. Appropriately for Halloween, you may also remember him as Mr. Kreeg from Trick 'r Treat. While he is a dedicated & talented actor who does his usual professional best in Manhunter, it's challenging (to put it delicately) to see anyone else in the role. It may be unfair, I admit, but watching Anthony Hopkins do his thing is like enjoying a homemade chocolate cake. Anything else just can't compare.  

    To be fair, as fantastic as Anthony Hopkins is in the role, it's probably the only real reason Red Dragon was made in the first place. 

    Hanniable Lector has, at most, five minutes of screentime in Manhunter, a stark contrast to his presence in Red Dragon (2002), where he appears in seemingly every other scene. As entertaining as watching Anthony Hopkins chew the scenery is (no pun intended), one can't help but suspect that many of his scenes were added out of studio demand. Once again, I must humbly ask that you please refrain from making comparisons to the book. 

Conclusion

    Of the two films, Manhunter feels more like an engaging thriller with striking visuals, a compelling villain, and proper use of everyone's talents. While Red Dragon (2002) has its moments, especially with scenes between Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton, it doesn't feel as intense or as invigorating as what came before. If you're interested in checking them both out, by all means, please do so. If, however, you're interested in a recommendation for just one of them, I'd put my money on Manhunter, both as an excellent film and a perfect choice for Halloween. 

    Thus concludes the first Spooky Special for 2021. Tune in next time as we explore, not a feature film, but a Netflix original series, one that will have you seeing Ghosts in every corner of the house...literally.  

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

The Card Counter - Kind of a Bad Gamble

 

For rent on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube. 

    Probably one of the toughest kinds of stories to make, much less enjoy, are "Slow Burn" stories. The kind of tales that take their time to build up tension and dive deeply into what it takes to get under a person's skin. Martin Scorsese, a producer of The Card Counter, is no stranger to this sub-genre of film. In fact, writer/director Paul Schrader wrote some of Martin Scorsese's most famous slow burn movies, including Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Except, while those films successfully balanced dark stories with engaging perspectives (thanks in large part to Martin Scorsese's incredible talent as a director), Paul Schrader's The Card Counter struggles to find its own balance. Resulting in a frustrating and sadly dull viewing experience. It's yet another case of a decent idea with not-so-decent execution. 

    The story follows William Tell (Oscar Isaac), a master card counter & gambler seemingly living in limbo. He travels from place to place, plays in any local casino he can find, spends one night in a local motel, then moves on to the next one the following day. As the story progresses, we learn of his troubled past. Before his vagabond days, he was a soldier stationed at a CIA black site where they practiced "enhanced interogation teniques" on suspected terrorists. After the downfall of that crime against humanity, he was sentenced to ten years in prison while his superiors walked away with promotions. After serving his time, William was content to simply live out the rest of his existence in calm travel. That is until a young stranger claiming to be the son of another soldier who suffered the same fate approaches William and offers him a chance at revenge against his former superior. Now, William must decide if revenge is still worth the effort. 

    If there is one thing this film definitively proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's that Oscar Isaac is one of the greatest actors of our time. The man has proven himself capable of portraying a wide range of emotion, character, and energy. Not only can he perfectly entertain you by reading the phonebook on stage, but he can also, depending on how he reads it, make you incredibly excited, grip your seat with suspense, or make you lean back in terror. Oscar Isaac's energy and conviction as an actor aren't seen often enough in modern movies, and we desperately need more of it. Were it not for his stellar performance, this movie would have received two stars instead of three. 

    Apart from that, there isn't enough of anything else in the film worthy of your attention. 

    As a writer, Paul Schrader seemingly specializes in bleak and cynical stories with morally grey characters that nearly cross the line between sympathetic and not-so-sympathetic. When presented by a tactful and skilled director, these stories can work. However, based on this film so far, I'm not convinced that Paul Schrader is the best director for this particular script. The impression I have from others who have seen more of his directorial efforts than myself is that he tends to be hit-or-miss with his directing. In this case, it feels like a definite miss. While his understanding of camera language and ability with actors shows to be well-practiced and decently honed, everything else seems to fall on the wayside with a lack of variety, repetitive music ques, and at least two visually symbolic shots that I guess are meant to be profound and relevant to the story, but come off as pretentious and lacking any substance outside of looking cool. 

    The Card Counter is not exactly a bad film, but it's also not as profound as it would like to be. Had the script been handled by Scorsese himself, I suspect things might have turned out a bit better. As it stands, it's regrettably too dull for its own good. While I do not doubt that Paul Schrader can direct great movies, this does not feel like one of his better outings. Still, if you're curious enough, give it a chance. Just don't feel ashamed if you decide to quit halfway like I was tempted to do.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.