Skyfall

Director: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw
Running Time: 143 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

As far as 007 opening sequences go, they don't more thrilling than the one in Skyfall. So far, we've had 23 Bond installments. Let that sink in for a minute. It's a lot. But what's more remarkable is that we've still yet to see one that succeeds as something more than just a franchise entry and can stand on its own as an accomplishment in any genre. Too often the series is hamstrung by tradition as the producers are afraid to step out of the box and take genuine risks that might upset the core audience, but result in a superior finished product. Does anyone remember anything that happened in Quantum of Solace? Skyfall is the closest we've come to perfection and its opening minutes reflect that. It's less shocking in hindsight when you consider Bond can't just die but this entry completes a transformation that's been hinted at for half a century, but really started building since Daniel Craig put on the tux in Casino Royale. He's now a full-fledged, reality-based superhero. In other words, the character's basically evolved into Batman.

Much of the picture's first half plays as a classic Bond tribute, at least until director Sam Mendes pulls the rug out to deliver what might be the craziest entry since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. As a non-fan of the franchise, it was a much needed diversion, since the more often a Bond film veers from tradition, or at least puts an exciting spin on it, the better the result. Helping a great deal is that it's visually more impressive than any previous outing and features a villain that's genuinely terrifying and dangerous. But let's just call this what it really is: Bond as The Dark Night. Mendes has acknowledged the similarities, but what's surprising is just how much of Christopher Nolan's influence seems to be all over the picture, even lifting a specific plot point. There's no denying the strategy worked. It's the strongest entry in years, and the first in a while that doesn't feel behind the times.

After being left for dead in an enthralling pre-credit train sequence, James Bond (Craig) is back after a short seclusion, though certainly not better than ever. Wounded, weak, and even lacking his  usual confident swagger, M (Judi Dench) controversially decides to put him back on active duty despite not being even close to ready. His job is to retrieve the hard drive that slipped through his fingers earlier and contains the names of undercover agents placed in terrorist organizations.  Standing in his way is cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a creepy sociopath whose actual motives remain cloudy from the get-go, yet become painfully clearer as his twisted plan unfolds with brilliant precision. Despite help from M., MI6 agent Eve (Naomie Harris), nerdy, gadget-savvy Q (Ben Whishaw), M's Intelligence superior Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), and possibly even Silva's mysterious mistress Séverine (Bérénice Marlohe), this marks one of the few times Bond seems legitimately outmatched by an adversary.

Since Craig took over the role, much fuss has been made about the franchise's detour into more serious territory, all but abandoning the series' cheekier aspects that have been so prevalent over the years.This badder, meaner Bond reached its self-serious peak with Quantum of Solace, which was so derivative and slickly packaged it became indistinguishable from your latest Bourne installment. It was also a real bore that featured a dour Craig performance, making me wonder whether a return to some cheesiness was in order. But if you watch most of those old Bond movies (particularly the Roger Moore entries), they are very much a product of their time, and not in a good way. Sam Mendes could be on paper the most accomplished director to tackle 007 and proves it here by getting serious right. There are some minor pacing problems in the early going, but the plot isn't a slog and supporting characters are actually fleshed out.

Mendes makes it feel like a contemporary action vehicle, but also a Bond movie willing to take risks while still maintaining loyalty to the Ian Fleming source. Perhaps borrowing from Nolan's recent portrayal of Commissioner Gordon, this is the first time Dench's M has been given anything more to do than stand behind a desk and act as a figurehead. She's not only showcased as an important piece of the puzzle here, but even promoted to a Bond sidekick of sorts. She also does some unlikable things and makes questionable decisions that causes Bond (and us) to rightfully doubt her judgment and consider whether she's exceeded her expiration date. But the bigger question might be whether 007 has exceeded his with Craig given the rare opportunity to play a weakened, vulnerable Bond, or at least the most vulnerable he's been since the concluding events of Casino Royale.

If these movies tend to only be as as good as their villain than Javier Bardem's bone-chilling work as Silva goes a long way. Strangely effeminate and almost flamboyantly wacked out, Silva's like no other Bond baddie we've recently seen, and comes complete with a backstory that's intricately fleshed out and surprisingly personal. There's a lot of juice behind his motives and Bardem takes full advantage, relishing the chance to play Silva as a bizarre cross  between Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero's Jokers and Anton Sigurh from No Country For Old Men. He'd walk away with the film, if not for the fact that, as lensed by the still Oscar-less Roger Deakins, it's the most visually pleasing Bond entry of all-time, with hardly a shot undeserving of being framed and hung in a gallery. This is especially true of a captivating Shangai assassination sequence and the film's finale, in which Silva physically lends even more credence to that theory that some men just want to see the world burn. Even if you detested everything else about the film, just the cinematography alone would still be reason enough to recommend this to anyone without hesitation.

If there's a weak plot link, it's Marlohe's Bond girl, who serves little purpose other than to hop in the sack (or in this case, shower) with him, which given the all business nature of this installment seems particularly ill-fitting. If she's there to merely fill a quota, Naomie Harris proves to be the exact opposite as MI6 agent Eve and, without giving too much away, proves in her few impactful scenes to be worthy of sticking around. If she's more than a field agent, than Bond is finally shown in this installment to be something more than just number, complete with a personal history that's inventively woven into the screenplay. A bearded Albert Finney is Kinkade, the caretaker of Bond's childhood home and though he plays the role well, it's impossible not to imagine that it was tailor made for the retired ex-007 Sean Connery. But no conversation about Skyfall is complete without mentioning Adele's Oscar-winning title song, a classic throwback that earns her a spot in the Bond theme hall of fame alongside Shirley Bassey, Carly Simon, Paul McCartney and Duran Duran.   

The general consensus is that each time a new Bond entry is released, it's treated as a reboot, disregarding much of what came before in order to re-energize the franchise so it continues to stick around for the long haul. But this is the first entry in a while that really does feel like a full reboot, despite its heavy influence from another series of recent films. It's also features stronger plotting and a more distinctive visual style than Casino Royale, which garnered much of its praise because of a massive change in tone, the debut of a new actor in the role of 007 and one of the franchise's more compelling love interests. While it proved exceptional at re-introducing Bond to contemporary audiences, it's still really hard not to prefer Skyfall, which simply does more with what it has, inching closer to that seemingly impossible holy grail of a perfect James Bond movie. It definitely puts Craig back in the driver's seat but sometimes you have to wonder how much of this franchise's success depends on that. It always seems to be everything else that's changing around him.

My Week With Marilyn

Director: Simon Curtis
Starring: Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Redmayne, Emma Watson, Judi Dench, Dominic Cooper, Julia Ormond, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott 
Running Time: 99 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The role of Marilyn Monroe has to be one of the most intimidating and challenging parts an actress can be asked to play, though not for the reasons you'd assume. As far as legendary pop culture icons and celebrities go, there was always a tendency to believe there had to be more to her than what we saw. She really wasn't a good actress. She wasn't incredibly talented. Yet here she is today as this tragic figure and sometimes it's kind of tricky to determine how. That's why casting her is thankless. Do you you cast a movie star who isn't much of an actress for a sensationalized look at "Marilyn?" Or find a great actress who may not necessarily come off as a big movie star for a deeper look at "Norma Jean?" Simon Curtis' pseudo-biopic My Week With Marilyn answers that question by laying claim to the most intriguing casting choice in years and Michelle Williams' Oscar nominated performance delivers on it, even in moments when the rest of the film has trouble keeping up with her.

Foregoing the more traditional biopic route, writer Adrian Hodges (adapting Colin Clark's memoirs) instead takes the Frost/Nixon approach, capturing a brief, but pivotal moment-in-time snapshot in the life of an iconic figure. The story's told through the eyes of Oxford grad and aspiring filmmaker Colin (Eddie Redmayne) who spent a week with Marilyn Monroe (Williams) as third assistant director on Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) 1957 film The Prince and the Showgirl (then titled The Sleeping Prince). Olivier, the respected thespian and stage actor, sees casting Marilyn opposite him as a chance for to regain his youth and vitality, finally becoming a full-fledged movie star. For Marilyn-- already the biggest star on the planet-- it's the rare chance to be taken seriously as an actress by holding her own onscreen with one of the best. Of course, the result of this promising collaboration ended up laying somewhere in between a complete disaster and a curious footnote in cinematic history. Over-medicated, showing up late and flubbing lines, the Marilyn who shows up on set with acting coach Paula Strasburg (Zoe Wanamaker) glued to her arm more closely resembles a frightened child in need of constant babysitting than her sexy public persona. After Marilyn's husband, playwright Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott) skips town in the midst of her meltdowns, it becomes Clark's job to look after the star and a semi-romantic friendship develops, awkwardly placing him in the middle of her feud with Olivier. An infatuated Colin falls fast and hard, ignoring warnings from Olivier and her agent Milton Greene (Dominic Cooper) not to buy into the "little girl lost" act they think she's selling.

Outside of Williams' performance and the fascinating on-set clash with Olivier, there isn't a lot here, but there doesn't need to be because those two elements are more than enough. While played well by Redmayne, Colin is kind of a flat character, functioning only as the eyes through which we can observe Marilyn as he attempts to grasp the magnitude of what's happening to him. Whether she's actually interested in him romantically seems almost beside the point. Instead, he represents for her the opportunity to have a real date, act a little crazy and enjoy the normal romantic pleasures that have proved impossible because of her fame. There's a sense all she wants to do is get rid of Marilyn and is unintentionally using Colin to do it, which can only lead to heartache for him. Then again, there are many moments where we sense she doesn't want to get rid of her at all, or simply can't. Her use of the Marilyn "persona" as a security blanket for coping with her own insecurity comes to the forefront when faced with the daunting task of going one-one with the legendary Olivier on set. She can't rely on that persona this time and without so much as a shred of confidence in her own acting abilities, begins to break. Olivier understandably loses his patience and temper, even as his reasoning behind hiring her reveals just as much about his own lack of confidence.

This is some performance from Michelle Williams, justifiably earning every bit of praise it's gotten. She just nails it. The facial expressions. The walk. The voice. Especially the voice. Everything. There's this moment when she's with Colin and they're suddenly mobbed by fans and photographers. She turns to him and asks, "Should I be her?" before slipping into character and becoming Marilyn. Williams seems to turn it on and off at the flip of a switch, alternating between the superstar we thought we knew and a frazzled train wreck of emotional dependency. The question wasn't whether she could play the latter but how well she could capture the former, which is ironic considering her career start as teen sexpot Jen Lindley on Dawson's Creek. It's a testament to how hard she worked since then to move away from that image that seeing her play this now seems like a huge stretch. There's at least a passable physical resemblance to the icon, but what Williams really brings is the depth, making Marilyn the unlikeliest addition to her growing gallery of emotionally tortured heroines.

In his Oscar nominated supporting performance Branagh subtly avoids turning Olivier into an all-out villain, instead showing a gifted actor past his prime who's grasping at straws to turn Marilyn into something she can't possibly be. Her only supporter is actress and co-star Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench), who realizes her fragile psyche responds better to encouragement than harsh criticism. The rest of the supporting players aren't as well-developed. Dougray Scott is hilariously miscast (then altogether forgotten about) as Arthur Miller, reimagined here as some kind of enigmatic stud. But the film's most thankless role belongs to Emma Watson as a wardrobe girl Lucy, who Colin strings along while he's off frolicking with Marilyn all week. It's one thing to waste a name actress for a useless, underwritten part, but quite another to insultingly pretend in the last act that the part meant anything. While her purpose is clear, it's just isn't followed through enough to have any kind of impact. There's also a scene early on with Oliver's then-wife Vivien Leigh (Julia Ormond) that comes of nowhere, seemingly thrown in only to give Ormond a juicy scene and hammer us too hard with the theme of insecurity.

When Michelle Williams was announced to play Marilyn, Monroe fanatics were predictably up in arms, but the most interesting complaint I heard was that she didn't "deserve" it. She's too short. She's not pretty enough. Not enough charisma. But the real question should have been whether Marilyn "deserves" to be played by Williams. By the end of the film I believed that she did and the choice seems especially inspired when you consider all Marilyn wanted was to be taken seriously as actress. It's likely she would have appreciated the irony. The great thing about biographical dramas is how they bring two figures together from different eras with seemingly nothing in common who must co-exist in a single performance. Using that criteria, it's difficult coming up with a more intriguing pairing than Marilyn Monroe and Michelle Williams. What Norma Jean really wanted was a career like Williams. She got Marilyn Monroe's instead. And it destroyed her. Now with a legitimately great actress playing her, she finally ends up attaining the respectability she never could on her own.             

Notes on a Scandal

Director: Richard Eyre
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Judi Dench, Andrew Simpson, Bill Nighy
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

At some point in your life you've met someone like Barbara Covett. Maybe she lived down the street from you. Maybe she's your aunt. Or your babysitter when you were a kid. She could have been your math teacher. The one all the kids hated. You know exactly who she is. She's one of those old ladies who hide their emotional pain and loneliness behind a strict and demanding facade. At first she may seem nice, until she realizes you're not doing things exactly how she wants them done. It upsets her "plan." She lives for her job because she has no friends. She goes home to her cat.

In Notes on a Scandal Judi Dench gives one of the most realistic and frightening performances of the past year as this woman and one that justifiably earned her a Best Actress Oscar nomination. To call it a performance would be selling the achievement short. There's nothing in her work here that suggest she's "performing" anything. She becomes this person. In a way it both helps and hurts the film. It obviously helps create an incredible sense of realism within the story, but hurts because there's no way the story can deliver on what we'd expect from her character. If it does, the film runs the risk of heading into thriller territory. Think Fracture starring women. So what we have instead is basically everything you've seen in the commercial for the film and nothing more. It's a fascinating character study, but by the end I kind of found myself asking: "That's it?"

Barbara Covett (Dench) is a teacher nearing retirement who isn't exactly miss popularity with her colleagues and students at the school. Basically she's exactly as I described her above: Old, strict and cranky. The only satisfaction she gets from life is writing in her journal (which supplies the narration for this story) and caring for her aging cat, Portia. She's basically a good woman, but she's spent far too much time alone and it's starting to take its toll on her emotionally.

When the young, attractive Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett, also Oscar nominated here, but for Best Supporting Actress) joins the faculty as the new art teacher, Barbara takes an immediate liking to her. Well, that's not true exactly. She completely disapproves of her carefree attitude and lifestyle which she writes vigorously about in her journal. Still, she finds herself completely drawn to her and takes her under her wing. Barbara finally, for the first time in her life, has a real friend. Her friendship with Sheba soon turns to fascination and then to obsession.

One of the wise choices Patrick Marber's screenplay (which is adapted from the 2003 novel by Zoe Heller) makes is that it just hints at a lesbian sexual desire for Sheba on Barbara's part but never goes all the way with it. He wisely realizes it's creepier and more realistic if it lurks ambiguously just below the surface. She does little things like stroking her arm and keeping a strand of her hair but that's as far as it goes. However the way director Richard Eyre films it he lets us know that to Barbara it may even be more erotic than sex. After all, it's the closest she's probably going to get.

Sheba has an obession of her own: a 15 year-old student named Steven Connelly (Andrew Simpson) whom she's been privately instructing after school. Her marriage to a much older man, Richard (Bill Nighy) is stagnant and she faces the stress of caring for a son with Down's Syndrome and dealing with a rebellious teenage daughter. For Sheba, Steven represents an escape from this. A release. At one point she even admits that she feels she's "entitled" to this student affair despite the fact it's so morally and criminally wrong. She's done everything right her entire life and now is the time to collect. In her warped rationalization she's earned it.

To the filmmaker's credit they actually cast someone who looks like he's a 15 year-old kid and they really go all the way with this. That took guts, on both the part of the filmmakers and the actors involved. It's really uncomfortable to watch this woman presumably in her late 30's or early 40's making out with and having sex with this kid, but that's the point. As an actor and a director you really have to believe in the material and think it's important to get it out there in order to do something like this. They do and it is.

While I was watching I couldn't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if the roles had been reversed. What if this had been a male teacher and a female student? Actually I do know what the reaction would have been. There wouldn't have been any because the film would have never been released. Both situations are wrong, but it's interesting how our society looks upon the two of them. The film knows this and also knows that the female teacher-male student dynamic is trickier territory to navigate. They'll be some sympathy for her even though she's an idiot and they'll always the be that portion of guys in the audience cheering this kid on and asking, "Why couldn't I have a teacher like that?"

One night after school Barbara discovers Sheba's secret and is thrust into an interesting position. Does she go to the school board (as she's contractually obligated to) with the information? Or does she keep the secret and use it to her own benefit? You could probably guess which option she takes.

Armed with this devastating and incriminating secret, Barbara uses it as a weapon to bring her and Sheba closer together. She makes it look like she's doing Sheba a favor by keeping quiet, but when Barbara feels her generosity isn't being appreciated or her affections reciprocated, she snaps. This leads to the best scene of the film when Barbara has a personal emergency and takes it upon herself to intrude on Sheba's family time. An emotionally and physically intense confrontation unfolds outside Sheba's car and you'd figure by this point she'd realize this woman isn't her friend and she's being blackmailed. That's not exactly what happens and it's from this point on that I felt the movie faltered a bit.

Without giving too much away, I think they pulled the trigger too early. I was hoping Barbara's schemes and blackmailing would escalate to dizzying levels with her further intruding upon Sheba's home life and leading the two on a collision course to self-destruction. I thought of 2003's brilliant House of Sand and Fog which took a believable everyday situation much like this and escalated it to incredible, but always believable heights. That movie had very sympathetic characters so it actually had a tougher job. Here, all the elements are perfectly in place for fireworks to go off, so there's no excuse. I didn't want it to turn into a psychological thriller but the stakes could have been raised further. It reminds me of a screenwriting course I once took where the instructor always advised us to "Raise the stakes!" At the time I thought that was silly advice (and it is if you take it too far), but it does apply here.

While I don't doubt the actions Barbara takes in this film are completely realistic and totally in line with what this person would do (after all she isn't rational), they really aren't all that exciting and make for a flat and somewhat inconclusive ending. She shouldn't have turned into a female Hannibal Lecter, but more could have been done with her in the third act. It's all but promised early on and all signs point to it. I understand this is an intimate character study and they wanted to be grounded in realism, but some opportunities were missed that could have turned this into an unforgettable film. This is only a minor complaint because on the whole this is a very intelligent motion picture that does an excellent job examining what drives us as human beings.

One of the smartest decisions made in the making of this film was the casting of Cate Blanchett. It has more of an impact on the success of the movie than it might appear at first glance. She has an unconventional beauty to her but she doesn't look so good that she's unbelievable as a real teacher, which would cause a distraction. Casting someone like, say, Jessica Alba wouldn't work. Yes, I'll concede the thought of Judi Dench stroking the arm of and collecting strands of hair from Alba is pretty hysterical, but this isn't supposed to be a comedy. It also helps that Cate Blanchett is one of our best actresses because she has the tricky task of portraying not just a woman who beds a 15 year-old, but a school teacher who makes a terrible and stupid mistake. Blanchett holds up her end of the deal as much as Dench does and delivers a ferocious performance.

The unsung M.V.P. performance of the film belongs to Andrew Simpson as the 15 year-old for doing just what he's supposed to do: act like a 15 year-old. If he did anything else, we'd feel the strings being pulled and the story would lose its impact. All of these characters are pathetic and unlikable, but they couldn't possibly be more authentic and that's where the movie strikes a chord. It sheds light on a sensitive, taboo subject in an intelligent manner without ever exploiting it. It's tricky terrain that the film navigates brilliantly. I'm willing to bet when these sorts of things occur this is exactly how they happen. Notes on a Scandal is a nice, little character study that could have been even more, but when it's over you'll definitely have a lot to consider and discuss.

Casino Royale

Director: Martin Campbell
Starring: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikellsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Caterino Murino Running Time: 144 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

I have a confession to make: I've never been a Bond fan. From the silly opening credits, to the stupid theme music, to the silly gadgets, the campy one-liners and the women named after female body parts. The only actor I ever liked in the role was Sean Connery and I actually felt a great deal of sympathy for him having been saddled with it. The latest incarnation of Bond asks us to forget all of that. In fact, it asks us to flat-out pretend it never happened.

We're back at the beginning and this Casino Royale is a faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming's source material, not to be confused at all with the 1977 Bond spoof of the same name starring Peter Sellers. I always thought it was ironic that they made a parody of the Bond films since they were really just parodies of themselves anyway. This isn't. In an effort that likely made the Bond producers' heads explode, they actually managed to greenlight a 007 movie with a shred of intelligence that actually takes itself seriously. That's a reason to see the film, but not THE reason. The whole thing works because of Daniel Craig's performance. I would say he's born to play James Bond, but that would be an insult because he's capable of so much more than that as an actor and here creates a Bond completely unlike any of his predecessors. In other words, he's a complete bad ass.

The movie starts off with Bond being assigned 00 status even though M (a returning Judi Dench) doesn't think he's anywhere close to being ready and lets him know it. From there the movie actually has us worried that it will follow the traditional James Bond non-stop action and no plot formula it's mastered for years. There's a spectacular sequence involving a scaffold chase and later an attempt by Bond to stop a bombing at the Miami Aiport. Where the movie goes next though, is surprising and ends up setting it apart from every single Bond movie before it. There's actually an attempt (and a largely successful one at that) to bring depth to the story and characters. To build suspense. To make James Bond an actual person, instead of the wisecracking cartoon character we've been tortured with for the last three decades.

Like most of the Bond films he must bring down a world renowned terrorist (a baddie named Le Chiffre played by Mads Mikkelsen) but now things are a little more interesting. To do it he must enter a poker game at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. Oh and he can't lose because if he does he's basically funding terrorism. No pressure. Along for the ride, watching his back and the money is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Fans of Bond will be surprised just how little action there is as a lot of this movie takes place at the poker table.

Much effort is put into building not only tension, but developing the relationship between Bond and Vesper. For once I got the impression the Bond girl was actually an important part of the story and not just there for decoration. The romance develops between the two happens in a way that's believable and subtle, two words I never thought I'd use in a review of a James Bond film. It helps that Green gives probably the best performance ever from a Bond girl (although I'm not too sure how high a compliment that is). It was almost as if the filmmakers finally woke up and realized that it was okay to finally make a Bond movie that was gritty and realistic with characters who have actual feelings and motivation.

At times though, they almost got too carried away as there were long stretches during the film where absolutely nothing was happening. At almost two and a half hours the film goes on for about a half hour to forty minutes too long. Also, you're likely to spot a plot twist toward the end of the film coming from miles away. Those are minor complaints in the broad scheme of things and a small price to pay for watching the best Bond outing in decades.

Casino Royale was directed by Martin Campbell and Paul Haggis has a writing credit on it, which isn't a surprise since he seems to write everything we see these days. It's beautifully shot in exotic locations, has a great feel to it and technically the most well made of all the Bond pictures. The film just drips in cool from it's lead character to the atmosphere surrounding him, and takes the best elements from the 60's era Connery Bond films, while wisely removing the campy qualities. The opening credit sequence (which in previous Bond movies have been unbearably cheesy) is visually amazing and Chris Cornell should have been giving an acceptance speech on Oscar night for his original song, "You Know My Name."

After viewing the special features on this 2 disc special edition release (which includes a documentary on all the actresses to play Bond girls) I was reminded just how awful some of those Bond movies have been. Worse than I remembered them, if that's even possible. This movie didn't have much competition, but still it's quite good. Like those other films it's mindless entertainment, but with much better writing and a performance from Daniel Craig that elevates the material. He has the ability and the opportunity that other actors playing Bond didn't to show vulnerability. How many other Bonds can you remember actually falling in love and being brutally tortured?

This is a change the series needed desperately and it boggles my mind it wasn't done sooner. Maybe it's because they couldn't find the right guy who could pull it off. It took a while but they finally found him in Craig. He's the reason to see this movie. No one else can do the role justice and every second he's on the screen he proves it. He's now stuck (for better or worse) playing Bond. I say for better or worse because he's undeniably incredible at it, but we all know someone with his talent should playing roles with more depth to them than this. I hope he chooses to do other things because he's too good to be locked into this his whole career, despite the fact that for now it's a blast seeing him try. But at least the series is finally, for the first time in a while, heading in the right direction.