Mary Poppins

What's that? Something about "one month later"? I hear you. I never actually promised consistency, but... see, I was just beginning to fall into a nice little pattern of watching movies when I got home from work. But then an American friend of mine -who shall remain nameless- introduced me to this old, niche NBC show that you most likely won't have heard of but I subsequently binged (am still binging) because baby Brittany Snow is too precious for this world. (And also, in general, it's a really good show that tackles issues like racism and integration, police brutality, women's liberation and politics. But this post isn't about American Dreams. Maybe in the future)

No! Right now we're talking about Mary Poppins, or, more specifically, Disney's recently announced sequel to the 1964 classic. If you know me at all, you'll know that Mary Poppins is one of my favourite movies of all time- it's my go-to film if I'm feeling sad, or sick, or happy, or anything, and it's been one of my favourites for as long as I can remember.

Comforting as hell tbh

Fast forward to my adulthood and Disney announce a sequel to Mary Poppins, set 20 years after the original. My initial reaction to this was just sort of, "what??" followed by "why??" and then a few hours of processing. I may as well have set up a google alert with the amount I was searching for new information about the project. And my opinions may well change over the course of its production, but for now I'm mostly baffled by its trajectory and potential?

First things first, if you know me but at all, you'll know that I harbour a deep affection for Julie Andrews. As does the whole world, to at least some extent, but I've watched... most of her movies (they're mostly bad) and, my good friends, even paid to see her live in concert on two separate occasions (tears were shed.) Thus! The idea of someone else filling Mary's boots is a little hard for me to stomach. I assume they're planning to play it off in a James Bond kind of way, with no mention of her sudden facial transformation? That, or have a Doctor Who crossover and reveal Mary Poppins's true Time Lord genetics.

Either way, it's bound to be a little weird. And, allegedly, the bookies' favourites to take over the umbrella and carpet bag are Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, or Meryl Streep? First of all, ♫ one of these things is not like the others ♫. So, we need to address the question: Does Mary Poppins age? Because if she ages at a human rate, then none of these actresses are the correct age? However, they can all sing, so that's cool. And- full disclosure; in recent years, growing wary of Disney's penchant for needless remakes, I've thought about this eventuality. And, in fact, came to the conclusion that if Disney had to remake Poppins, I'd want Anne Hathaway to take over the role. Since then, however, I've heard Anne Hathaway's English accent, and, well, that would need help. By a different dialect coach than Dick Van Dyke had, preferably.

Love you, Bert

Once again, if you have ever heard me talk ever, you'll know that I'm a huge fan of Anna Kendrick and will basically watch her in anything (this, too, does not always work out well) however. Even with the amount I love Kendrick, which is a lot, I'm not sure about Anna Poppins. And I've never even heard her attempt an English accent- which is clearly a very important factor for me. I think Blunt would probably be the best choice here- and I believe I saw her answer a question about it at a film premiere, so that's promising- but I still just don't really see why it's necessary.

If they're planning the sequel to be a true sequel, that really follows the first movie, then it's going to be somewhat jarring, in terms of the vast difference in quality. The first movie was an experience that wasn't being offered by many other films; the animated sequence was sort of revolutionary. That sort of energy is going to be difficult to recapture for an audience who are used to seeing entire films made of CGI.

Ultimately, though, I'm expecting, and praying that I'm wrong, that this "sequel" is going to be along the same lines as Oz: The Great and Powerful turned out to be. Disney further expanded the already vast Oz universe, going overboard with the graphics and subversive themes, resulting in a prequel that looks nothing like The Wizard of Oz in terms of its narrative, aesthetic, or just anything really. I don't like being pessimistic- I'm sure Mary Poppins wouldn't stand for pessimism, but until we hear more details about the project, I'm going to remain...

The ~birds~ of The Birds

Cute pun, title, but this post is not just going to be about the women in the film. I just couldn't think of anything funny.

So, I have this habit of going into CEX on a very frequent basis, and buying things with complete abandon. On one such occasion, probably about a year ago, I bought The Birds, Hitchcock, you know- on DVD. Which I'd never seen before, save for a few clips in one of our film lectures in the first year of uni. And last night I finally got around to watching it- and, yeah, it was good!

(This post is also, despite how much it pains me, not going to be about the fact that the character of Annie Hayworth is clearly of the lady-loving persuasion, which is not an unpopular theory- I could literally cite published works that also make this claim- and is something that was screaming out of the television at me. Moving on!)

dat smirk tho

There are 52-year-old spoilers ahead. Consider yourself warned. 

I spent a good deal of the movie yelling at the characters, making up songs about how they were all going to die because of their actions, and in turn muttering "Americans", not dissimilarly to Giles from Buffy any time anyone did anything. We follow Melanie Daniels, and I'd like to say here that Tippi Hedren was pretty badass, generally speaking, in this movie, save for the initial following this creepy mysterious bloke she only just met 60 miles away to give his sister some birds. That was all a little strange, motive-wise. But you do you, Melanie. So we follow her follow this dude to his mum's house for his little sister's 11th birthday (poor Veronica Cartwright. At least she survives this one #RIPLambert) and then all aviary hell breaks loose.

No one knows why all the birds in the vicinity suddenly take a vendetta out against all humans, but everyone just sort of accepts it and really, no explanation is given. I also want to give a shoutout to the special effects of 1963 for providing me with extra entertainment. I don't want to make light of this movie, because it was good, and I'm sure it was absolutely terrifying if you didn't grow up in the age of entire movies being computer generated. And the actors did a very impressive job of overcoming the lack of any actual birds being near them, most of the time. I'm totally cool with the wideshots of bird attacks being full of painted-on birds. That's fine. But there were so many close-ups of main characters' hands getting mauled by birds and there are just, no visible injuries whatsoever and a bunch of red liquid on their skin? Is this what Psycho would have looked like in Technicolor? Because if so, praise the good Wasserman for Universal's budget constraints on that movie. Although, despite the effects of The Birds being GCSE-resemblant, I think the proposed remake reportedly floating around Hollywood would be a huge mistake. The movie totally works in spite of its SFX limits, and the story itself, of birds randomly terrorising a town, would look absolutely ridiculous in today's entertainment climate. It would have to take itself far too seriously, also need I mention the 1998 remake of Psycho?

This was probably the most frightening part

Unfortunately The Birds centres around the most annoying, Oedipal family, rather than the mysterious townsfolk and lesbian schoolteachers. In fact, they kill off the lesbian schoolteacher (of course they do) and then we're stuck with the overbearing, overcaring, hugely overreacting mother, the hero-complex-ridden manchild and the whiny little sister who is exactly as whiny in the face of bird attacks as she is in the face of alien attacks. So we've killed off the interesting characters and isolated ourselves with this little family- Melanie becomes a mother figure to baby Lambert and a figure of care for Oedipus's mother, and a chaste lover for Oedipus himself, and then for some reason goes poking around in the attic and nearly gets pecked to death. And I was watching her in her uncomfortably long battle against the birds, convinced she was going to be okay, then slowly getting more and more convinced that she was going to die (very nicely done, Hitch.) This was when I was most vocal at my television, angry that they were killing off all the interesting female characters. But my anger was unwarranted because The Oedipuses (Oedipi?), manage to retrieve her from Bird Hell, dress her wounds- also I totally thought she died in this part; she was talking and then just went completely limp. So don't be fooled like I was!- and then, it is implied, took her to a hospital.

And that's how the movie ends, with me screaming at Oedipus because he decided to venture outside, walking through swarms of birds, and then the twisted little family quite literally drive off into the sunset. (At which I said "Oh. That's the end? That's the end. Okay then.") Maybe they survive. Maybe no one survives. Honestly I don't care if any of them do. But it is a good movie.

Let's start again

Heeeyyyy! You're looking great! Have you done something different with your hair...?
Okay, it's been a while. Let's not pretend it hasn't. I'm sure we're both in vastly different places right now to when I last posted just over two years ago. For example, back then I had just finished my first year of my media degree, and was trying very hard to be a model student and follow the advice given to me to blog alongside my studies. But it didn't work. For some reason I decided to focus on reviewing films (I have left these sub-par reviews up, for posterity) but this proved to be extremely limiting, not least because I have no idea how to review films.

But that's okay, because instead I focused all my energy into my studies (definitely not into Netflix) and ended up graduating with a first, which is pretty cool! Except now I find myself workin' for the man every night and day, which leaves me with an academic hole that needs to be filled. Thus, my return to the blogosphere.

With this previous failed venture into reviewing in mind, I've decided to be a bit more... versatile with my blogging this time around. I still will most likely be discussing movies, primarily, but in less of a review sense and more of a... discourse. If you follow. Like, I wrote my dissertation about Orange Is the New Black. But it wasn't a review of OITNB, it was a discussion of the LGBT themes and its place in the broader timeline of LGBT narratives in TV. So, expect wank like that, broadly.

I'm not going to begin a new topic here, because... well I'm just not. But I promise to come back soon with some kind of rant. (Walking home from work today, in broad daylight at 6pm, some guy stopped me in order to inform me that he was "looking for a prostitute". So perhaps a discussion fuelled by this can be expected soon. We'll see.) For now, please enjoy the transformation your loving author has undergone in this hiatus. From black bob to blonde... short hair. The glasses have gotten bigger, and the selfies are now taken on phones rather than webcams. Other than that, I'm still a big idiot, so. Talk soon.

This was supposed to be a Princess Mia cosume.

Really the cereal bowl deserves all the attention here

Planet of the Apes

I'M NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT ANY OF THIS

Planet of the Apes is a 1963 novel, originally published in French, by Pierre Boulle. I recently purchased the DVD of the 1968 adaptation, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, and also the novel, all for under £5! Yay, university!
So, I went about reading the novel, and I really, really liked it. This isn't a blog where I review books, but it's somewhat relevant so I'll just explain that I thought the plot progression was natural and intelligent, the character development was interesting and believable, and altogether I thoroughly enjoyed it. (And would strongly recommend it, it's 50p in HMV and about 200 pages long, go read it.)
Soooo, this review will contain spoilers for both the book and the film, if anyone cares. And this might be a lengthy review.
SO! First things first: The premise. I was looking forward to the film, and was expecting to enjoy it, because it's obviously very well-known and is a classic; in addition, the original script was written by Rod Serling and, gosh, do I love The Twilight Zone; apparently, the script that Serling originally wrote sounds a lot more like what I had envisioned, too. And I thought all of these things in spite of the fact that the DVD cover is just a massive spoiler (oh my god, I was wrong... it was Earth all along).
I'm not actually familiar with the work of any of the actors or the creative team behind the film, so I didn't have expectations in terms of formality or acting; I especially didn't expect what I was presented with.
Now, just to be clear: I'm not saying this is a bad movie. I'm saying it's a bad adaptation of a good book. As a standalone movie, it's good; it still presents sometimes profound themes and ideas, the cinematography is interesting, and even the acting is good. But the book was a much more enjoyable experience, overall.
Obviously, production was largely hindered due to the era; making a film like this would be a lot easier in 2013 than 1968- as demonstrated by Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011. It's undeniable that the prosthetic make-up worn by the apes is impressive- especially in chronological context. It's not flawless; especially in close-up dialogue sequences, it's quite obviously a mask; but when they are still the make-up is fairly convincing.
One, slightly painful, thing to note is in the beginning sequence of the film, when the explorers first land on the unknown planet; they plant an American flag in the soil. Which isn't just a throwaway action- a number of close-ups are given to this statement, as well as a lengthy shot of Charlton Heston's character laughing maniacally in response. That whole shebang was unnecessary and uncomfortable. But it's American science-fiction in the 1960's, so I can't blame them.
As with all adaptations, the movie deviates from the book's narrative quite a lot- but not, I think, in beneficial ways. I understand that the book would have been difficult to adapt into a screenplay; it is written in the first person, and a lot of the story progresses and is interpreted by the protagonist's mind, which is understandably hard to translate to the screen, but is a shame because the narrative progression is a lot more natural, interesting and believable in the novel than it is presented in the film. For example, in the book, the protagonist- Mérou, Americanised as ~Taylor~ for the film, is an intelligent journalist, which allows for more emphasis on exciting discoveries and interpretation of events. I got the impression that the book's protagonist had more motivation and determination than his movie counterpart; Mérou was tasked with communicating his intelligence to the apes wordlessly, instead presenting himself as an outstanding scientific specimen; and then slowly learning the ape's native language in order to communicate fully and seek liberation. Taylor, however, was simply shot in the neck (what) and had to wait until he regained use of his vocal chords and simply speak to the apes... who were speaking English anyway. And I know that's incredibly easier to demonstrate on-screen, but it really sacrifices the intelligence of both the story and the protagonist. Having to learn an entire language and convince a dominating creature that you are sentient and intelligent is a lot more impressive than simply insulting your captors in your mutual language and achieving freedom through aggression. And it calls into question why Taylor is so surprised when he discovers he was on Earth the whole time, if all the creatures speak perfect English...
Another change to the narrative that made me quite angry is what they did with Zira's character. In the book, Zira is the compassionate chimpanzee- a scientist- who sees a uniqueness to Mérou and even helps him learn their ape language. She basically single-handedly cares for him when none of the other scientists would believe in his abilities, and only later mentions her scientist fiancé, Cornelius, who can help him make an appeal. In the film, however, Zira is still present and compassionate but has very little screentime in Cornelius's absence. The film presents Taylor's rehabilitation as a wholly joint effort between the two of them, when in the book Mérou has very different relationships with both Zira and Cornelius, and doesn't spend very much time with both of them at all. 
One of my main issues with the film is that they sort of changed the whole point. That is, in the book, the ape's society is almost identical to how ours was perceived to develop, at the time of publication- but only slightly less advanced. In the book, the apes had cars and aeroplanes and almost all modern technology that was available in the 1960s, when the book was written, but had not yet attempted space travel. Other than that, society was supposed to mirror Earth's almost perfectly, which apparently is what Serling's script resembled. However, in the re-write, it was decided that for funding purposes the apes should be more primitive, unable to fly or even drive- they travel by horse-drawn carriage in the film. The apes do not have sophisticated houses (not even left over from human civilisation)? And almost every visual aspect is very primitive and in no way resembles the image the book created, which I found to be one of the most disappointing aspects. 
Another thing about the protagonist; in the movie, he's presented, for lack of a better word, like a complete douchebag. The character in the book is written with a fair degree of arrogance, more acceptable in context when his species is ridiculed and mocked by a seemingly lesser species, but is still respectful, intelligent and thoughtful. In the movie, however, he gets almost everywhere by being rude and demanding (the first, famous line he speaks to the apes; "get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape".  Rude.) And doesn't attempt to respect the customs of the apes or, really, do anything to help anybody but himself, which was upsetting because I could relate to Mérou to a degree, but did not like Taylor at all.
I've definitely got a lot more I could say, but this is getting super long, so I'm going to end with the ending. Both the film and the book end in similar ways, but again, the book does it more intelligently and thought-provokingly. The book uses a lot of foreshadowing to suggest that perhaps this planet resembles Earth a little too closely, as well as characters carrying out neural research on humans and finding trapped memories of apes beginning to usurp their duties, but the novel ends with Mérou escaping back on his shuttle to return to Earth, only when he lands back in Paris, the air traffic controller who greets him is a gorilla. This is interesting and ambiguous; it could either be that he never really left Earth, just travelled through space in a circle, landing back on Earth both times, or it could be that Earth has met the same fate as the ape planet; humans have again fallen, allowing apes to rise in their place... it's uncertain, and up for debate. In the film, however, there is comparatively little investigation into the human race's history, and he discovers he is on Earth after all upon seeing the ruins of the Statue of Liberty (again with the USA imagery), which isn't up for debate and seems to unequivocally mean that he never really left Earth. Which, to me, feels less exciting, you know?
</end ramble>
TO CONCLUDE. Planet of the Apes is an enjoyable film, which does what it sets out to do and keeps audiences interested. However, the original novel tells the same story in a much more interesting and creative way, in my opinion.

DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL

Bicentennial Man

MY HEART

One of my clearest, surest memories of my dad, growing up, was the movie Bicentennial Man. As far as I can remember, my mum didn't like it, but my dad loved it, so he and I used watch it together fairly often. And that's cool, it's only a PG, as a child I was well within reason to watch it, but as a result of this exposure, I have an emotional connection to this film as intense as any other childhood movie- and I get very intensely emotional about anything from my childhood. 

Anyway, I watched Bicentennial Man last week for the first time in probably nine years. Even though I was a child when I watched it- and to be honest it's quite an adult film, thematically- I still remembered the entire plot from start to finish, even including some specific lines of dialogue; which is a testament to just how frequently I watched when I was younger. Even though it's generally poorly received by critics, I think Bicentennial Man is a wonderful film, exploring deep-seated desires, fears and ethics experienced by all people, and, evidently, certain machines. I also think that this film is the root of my extreme emotional empathy with robots, responsible for feelings- often to the point of tears- for even antagonistic robots (There's a reason Blade Runner is my favourite movie, and Deckard definitely isn't that reason).

It should be mentioned that Bicentennial Man is based on a novel written by Isaac Asimov, who wrote several stories about robots- and its written origins become obvious in the film when, near the beginning, Andrew quotes Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't actually read the novel, which isn't something that happens often, because I almost always try to read the book before I watch the film, if I'm aware that it's based on a book (this being the reason I haven't seen The Great Gatsby). I really want to familiarise myself with Asimov's work, because I love robots so much, but I still haven't gotten around to it. Maybe over summer... I'm just going to briefly mention that this is one of two films based on Asimov's work that I've seen, the other being I, Robot. And, whilst the latter was a bigger commercial hit and is more popular, I definitely think Bicentennial Man is the better picture. Everything about it is better; the acting, the music, the cinematography, the lack of ridiculously gratuitous product placement- low blow, I know, but it's so grating- except for the special effects, but it remains true that Bicentennial Man tells the story it sets out to tell very effectively without jaw-dropping scenery and over-the-top CGI.

So! The film. I might even say that Bicentennial Man is one of my favourite films, because I think the storyline is really sweet, and well written. I think that Andrew's journey is relatable, to an extent, and empowering in a strange way? Like, even before he begins his transformational journey, he tries to better himself in every way possible, learning multiple languages and teaching himself carpentry; and I think that's a message that a lot of people should note- hobbies and intellectual pursuits are beneficial, even if the creative outlet is just a mediocre film blog (wink wink).

IN ADDITION, the acting is brilliant. This is probably Robin Williams at his finest, a comedic performance with serious undertones akin to Mrs Doubtfire. He carries the character through so many changes, yet maintains a constant characterisation, so that the audience's identification with the character also remains. The relationships depicted are mostly believable, and sweet after explanation. Initially, the I'm-in-love-with-the-great-granddaughter-of-my-master thing is a little weird, but the exploration of their relationship makes it more believable and trustworthy.

I think that the majority of the characters in the film are well-written, no matter how small their part. Even the president, seen only at the very end of the film, is well executed. Rupert Burns, the technician, is a great character, expositionally, comedically and for story development, and makes a good scene partner for Andrew, effectively representing the audience. And I'm just going to throw in that, as unimportant as Galatea, the female robot, is, I love her character- she's the namesake for several flashdrives and my iPhone- and the small aside reveal at the end that she, too, is somewhere along the journey to humanity gets me every time. These goddamn robots.

There's probably a bunch of stuff I want to say and have forgotten to mention, but the gist of my opinions on Bicentennial Man are: brilliant robots, good story, heart-wrenching ending... maybe cast Embeth Davidtz in slightly fewer roles? "The looks skip a generation" is great and all, but no granddaughter is completely identical to their grandmother, I mean really. Other than that, though, good job, Chris Columbus! There are tears e v e r y w h e r e.

Thelma & Louise

SUCH BADASSES

I've had a post about Thelma & Louise saved in my drafts since January. Around January, I started to get slightly snowed under with uni assignments, and also I'm just a very lazy person, so I never bothered to finish writing the blog post. But hey, it's never too late!

(edit: this post seemed much longer while I was writing it. They'll get longer, don't worry)

While I was walking to the train station this morning, on my way to pick up my laptop from its repair (turns out laptops don't like having pepsi spilled on them, who knew?) The Ballad of Lucy Jordan, by Marianne Faithfull, started playing. The first thing I think of whenever I hear this song is Thelma & Louise, and the simultaneous senses of hopelessness and possibility that both the song and the film evoke.  Bear in mind I'm writing this blog post not having watched the film in about 5 months, so I may be a little rusty, but I have seen it many, many times...

Thelma & Louise is one of my all-time favourite films. This is true for many reasons, not least of which is that it's directed by Ridley Scott, who is one of my absolute favourite directors (I'm a bit of a broken record when it comes to this topic) and, as usual, he takes on a project that many others would produce generic, sub-par drama from and creates a visually stunning, emotionally poignant and timelessly resonating film. The dramatic performances from both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis (incidentally, both nominated for the Best Actress Oscar for their roles in this film) are incredible; realistic, convincing, funny and emotional all at the same time. And they really sell those southern accents. 

As can be expected with Ridley Scott at the helm- even those who dislike him agree that he emphasises visuals-, Thelma & Louise is visually beautiful. Not as obviously and outrightly stunning, like Prometheus or Blade Runner; if these films are supermodels, Thelma & Louise is the girl-next-door. That convoluted analogy is my way of saying that, out of the mundane American landscape, Scott managed to capture its unlikely beauty, from sweeping shots of oil rigs to tracking shots of a mini aircraft watering a field. His long panoramic sweep of the mountain ranges and desert-like environment really help position both the characters and audience, and makes identifying with the characters easy. 

One thing I really like about Thelma & Louise is its themes and conventions- the two lead characters, both women, play out different roles throughout the course of the movie; they act as mother and daughter, sisters, and the dominance in the relationship switches throughout, which makes for an interesting, varied narrative. Some critics have complained that the film is too harsh on men and portray them stereotypically, which very much feels like a first-world complaint, because these same complaints from women are often ignored and muted. However, I would argue that whilst the majority of the male characters may be unpleasant, they are all examples of the types of people that do exist in the world, and women deal with every day. This film simply sheds light on the world from a female perspective, which I think is very interesting.

I could seriously write forever about this film, but I want to wrap this up fairly soon, before it turns into an essay. I'll finish off by saying that, however much I love the acting and directing, I think my favourite thing about this film is the writing. It would have been very easy to write Thelma and Louise simply as criminals, on the run, in a similar fashion to Bonnie and Clyde, or at least have them lose some sense of morality once they were fugitives. It's true that Thelma carries out armed robbery towards the end of the film, but it's clear that she wouldn't have actually injured anyone, and the only reason she did it at all is because they needed money. It is made clear to the audience that they retain their morals and ethics the entire time, and I think that's admirable. Also, just little things like Louise stepping out of the car at night while Thelma sleeps and just, staring into the starry horizon, reflecting on her life. Little things like that, dotted throughout the film, are what provide its humanity and realism, and what add up to make it one of my favourite films.

Skyfall

The delay between my introduction post and this one was due to the fact that I wanted my first post to be about my favourite movie, Blade Runner. This proved problematic, as whilst Blade Runner is brilliant, it's of the horribly-depressing persuasion, and I could never gear myself up to re-watch it to write about it.
However, I just went to see Skyfall. And I wanted to write about it whilst it was still fresh in my mind, so here I am at midnight, before a 3-hour 10am lecture...
I am, by no means, what you would describe as a James Bond fan. Prior to tonight, the only other James Bond film I'd watched all the way through was Die Another Day, when I was in Year 8. I didn't enjoy it at all, and that experience basically put me off of Bond films entirely. In fact, when Skyfall was released, I was completely indifferent and had no intention of seeing it; my flatmates were going to see it, and I just thought I ought to, as it's one of this year's biggest releases and I'm doing a degree in media. 
I'm ridiculously glad that I went.
The film, of course, opened with a very intense action sequence (reminiscent to me of Indiana Jones), during which I was entirely gripped and completely clueless as to how things would pan out. I'm trying to phrase this as spoiler-free, but the first filmic shot of MI6 following the conclusion of the action was one of the most beautifully composed sequences of film I've seen, managing to portray a huge range of emotions all in one shot, lacking dialogue or music, challenging each audience member to draw their own interpretation of the moment. Which, it turns out, was just the start of a long exposure to breathtaking filmmaking. I was blown away by the credits sequence; I'm not a huge fan of Adele, but the song worked to set a macabre mood, and the animated sequence accompanying the theme was amazing.
As I have mentioned, the cinematography was beautiful. But, I mean, really beautiful. Cinematography is something I pay a lot of attention to in films, and I wasn't necessarily expecting brilliant cinematography in such an established staple of the action genre- I was expecting more special effects, gratuitous establishing shots and sweeping pans, but what I instead witnessed were several astounding steadycam shots (with which I am always impressed, for a multitude of reasons), unusually angled establishing sweeping shots, extreme close-ups of unimportant things to signify a scene change, depth of focus... all of which sound simple and obvious, but the way in which these things were used worked so effectively. 
The way Shanghai was captured was completely beautiful, and the way in which London was represented was patriotic without being cliché, and overall, just, very impressive.
In addition to nerding out over the technicalities (oh my god, the musical score, though), I'd hasten to add that the villain was awesome- sinister (Hannibal Lecter-esque in some respects), controlling, frightening, powerful and yet vulnerable- again, textbook traits, but carried out so powerfully by Bardem that I was enthralled with the character. Also, Judi Dench was incredible, but that was expected.
I have very few qualms with the film at all; at times the plot may have progressed a touch too rapidly, but it was all still fairly believable and had a nice degree of charm about it that didn't go unnoticed by the audience I was in.
This is definitely not a traditional review, it's mostly just me geekgasming over the cinematography, but, still. I'm definitely considering giving Bond films a second chance...