Spectre (6/10): Doesn't live up to the standards set by Skyfall

“You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.”

Sam Mendes did a fantastic job sitting in the director’s chair for Bond’s previous movie, Skyfall, so expectations were really high for what he could deliver in his follow up: Spectre. If there is something that Daniel Craig has brought to the franchise is that he has turned Bond into a serious character from the start. Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film, but I’ve enjoyed all of his films, which wasn’t the case when Pierce Brosnan was playing the titular role. After the success of Skyfall it would be impossible to live up to the expectations Mendes had built with his now demanding crowd, so it is only normal that Spectre feels like an average spy thriller. The film still continues to look gorgeous, but the story did lack some originality and for that it feels predictable and familiar. Spectre also has pacing issues, but I’d say the main problem is that we’ve seen better spy films released this year. Mission Impossible raised the bar in its action sequences, while Spy was a comedy action film that barely missed a beat. If Spectre would’ve come out any other year it might have been a bit more interesting, but after the fresh success of both those films I felt like this was a letdown. As much as I love Craig as Bond, he didn’t have much to work with here and the villains didn’t present much of a threat either. Spectre has the look and feel of the rest of Bond films, but it fails to entertain or bring anything new to the table. Out of the four films Craig has played Bond this is probably the most formulaic one.  

Spectre opens with a rather impressive sequence in Mexico during the Day of the Dead celebration, which was a perfect opportunity for the marketing campaign to include the cool looking skeletons in the posters and the trailers. Bond (Daniel Craig) follows a gorgeous women through the crowded streets of Mexico during the parade to her hotel room, kisses her and walks out to the balcony saying he’ll be right back. That is when we realize he’s actually on a mission and a series of gunshots, explosions, and chases ensue. It was a great opening sequence but the film failed to build up the momentum from then on.  What we get next is what we’ve seen before, Bond arrives in London and is suspended by M (now played by Ralph Fiennes) for causing so much caos without being authorized to actually be in Mexico. Bond is working on his own because he doesn’t know who he can trust after the previous M left him a secret message before being murdered. Her message is what led him to Mexico in the first place and then to Rome where he discovers a secret organization responsible for several terrorist attacks that is led by a man named Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). Blofeld discovers Bond and sends his assistant, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) to try to stop him. In order to uncover what this secret organization is all about, Bond enlists the help of the daughter of one of its former members, Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw are also back playing the roles of Moneypenny and Q respectively. 

Spectre is a little over two hours long and the pacing really doesn’t help the film either. You can feel it take its toll because the action sequences are far from being impressive and the plot is predictable. As cool as Craig is playing Bond, we’ve seen him do it so many times that we need more now. Waltz is a talented actor, but he seems to excel only when working with Tarantino. Here he doesn’t get much to do really and at times his character seems a bit cartoonish. Bautista is menacing, but he says one word in the entire film. Lea Seydoux is the Bond girl and she looks great, but there isn’t much more she can do to add to the story. Spectre isn’t a bad film, but the success of Skyfall raised the bar and left us a much more demanding audience. I think the major issue here was the screenplay which felt rather weak and bland. There is some fun to be had with the movie, but it ends up being forgettable in the end with a rather unsatisfying climax. Spectre has its moments but it is just too dull when compared to the other Bond films.  

Paddington (5/10): I'm not jumping on the Paddington bandwagon.

"Long ago, people in England sent their children by train with labels around their necks, so they could be taken care of by complete strangers in the country side where it was safe.”

This quote is taken from a scene in which Aunt Lucy (voiced by Imelda Staunton), a CGI animated Bear living in a Peruvian rainforest, prepares her nephew Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw), a charming but mischievous marmalade-loving bear, to travel to London after a terrible earthquake has destroyed their home. Apparently the real life images of the children leaving the train station during the war along with a teddy bear in a store at Paddington Station is what inspired Michael Bond nearly sixty years ago to create this beloved children character which has now been brought to the big screen by director Paul King (Bunny and the Bull). To be honest, I wasn’t familiar with the character and this was the first time I was introduced to his world which sort of feels like it comes from the same universe as Stuart Little where you simply have to accept the fact that it is apparently normal for a talking bear to walk around the city and be adopted by a loving family. I’m not going to jump on the Paddington bandwagon here because despite the sweet and charming story I did find it rather tedious, boring, and extremely predictable. With a 98% of critics on Rottentomatoes liking this film, I’m definitely in the minority here, but I simply didn’t find it appealing. 

Once Paddington arrives in London he is temporary welcomed by the Brown family until he finds the explorer who had befriended his uncles forty years ago in Peru. Henry (Hugh Bonneville) and Mary (Sally Hawkins) Brown are the parents of Judy (Madeleine Harris) and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin), but other than Mary no one seems too pleased about the intrusion of Paddington in their house. Eventually they all warm up to him despite his mischievous behavior, but not everyone is as welcoming as they are. There is a museum taxidermist, Millicent (Nicole Kidman), who hears rumors that this Peruvian bear is living with the Brown family and she wants him for her personal collection. Peter Capaldi plays the role of Mr. Curry, the Brown’s next door neighbor who is willing to help Millicent take the bear away from his neighborhood, while Jim Broadbent is Mr. Gruber, an antique shop owner who tries to help Paddington locate the mysterious explorer.  

It is evident that the film has an underlying message about the poor way in which immigrants are treated. Paddington is a beloved and charming character that will easily win the hearts of children. The story follows pretty much the same basic formula as most classic children films did. Visually the movie is very stylish and there are several set designs that reminded me of Wes Anderson’s work. Especially those scenes where he uses rostrum camera insert shots to animate several objects. I’ll give King credit for those visually beautiful scenes, but I simply didn’t feel engaged with the characters as most people did. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I had never heard of Paddington before, but as a film on its own it definitely didn’t stand out for me.

My Review: Cloud Atlas (8/10)

¨I´m just trying to understand why we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.¨

Many critics have called Lana and Andy Wachowski´s new film, Cloud Atlas, ambitious and pretentious, but in my opinion it is a well made sci-fi film that is ahead of its time. Probably on a much lesser scale than 2001 or Blade Runner, but this film seems to have all the elements needed to become a cult film over time. Cloud Atlas is one of those movies you have to pay close attention to in order to understand where the plot is heading; it is definitely not for the casual viewer. It requires your time and patience, but if you stick with this film you will be rewarded by the end. This is by no means as good as Wachowski´s The Matrix (although it tries to remain philosophical), but it is much better than their recent work. Tom Tykwer (The Perfume) co-directed the film with the Wachowski siblings and it is without a doubt his best work yet. The film is unlike any other movie you´ve seen before as it connects six different stories over several centuries and connects them in some way or another. You could say it is kind of like Magnolia, but those stories take place during a similar time period, here the connections take place during the past, present, and future. Two parallel filming units were required for this monstrous production as the siblings directed three stories and Tykwer the other three. Cloud Atlas is based on David Mitchell´s award winning novel, and it was no easy task adapting it for the big screen. I think that their effort will be rewarded over time as it has the potential to become a sci-fi cult film.

The plot is a little difficult to explain as there are six separate stories happening over different time periods and in a way every story connects and overlaps with each other. The movie switches between one scene that can be taking place in 1849 to another in the post apocalyptic future. The first story takes place in the Pacific Ocean in 1849 as Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is keeping a journal of his voyage while battling some sort of illness and being attended by Dr. Henry Goose (Tom Hanks), and at the same time helping a former slave, Autua (David Gyasi), escape from his oppressors. The next story takes place in 1936 as the composer Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) is corresponding with his former lover, Rufus Sixsmith (James D´Arcy) about his experience working for the world famous composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent). In 1973 the story centers around a journalist named Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) who is investigating a murder that took place in a nuclear power plant. In 2012 a publisher named Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) gets hoaxed by his brother and is forced to live in a nursing home while he makes plans to escape. In 2144 a clone known as Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae) participates in a revolutionary underground movement in New Seoul under the guidance of Hae-Joo Chang (Jim Sturgess). And finally in 2321 Zachry (Tom Hanks) is living somewhere in post apocalyptic Hawaii in a tribe that is being threatened by the blood thirsty Kona Chief (Hugh Grant). Every story is interconnected with each other as the actions of each individual impact one another in different time periods kind of like in a ripple effect.

The complexity of each story is the reason why the film is almost three hours long, but if you pay close attention and don’t get lost with all the flashbacks and flash forwards you might just enjoy this film. Cloud Atlas is pretentious for many because it is a little philosophical as it explains how we seem to cross our paths over and over again. Every actor in this film plays several different roles (as many as six) and we can see how each one shapes his or her future depending on the actions they take. The way the film was shot allows for the audience to experience a little sci-fi action (2144 segment), some comedy (2012 nursery home escape), some retro mystery (1973), and even romantic tragedy (1936). That is why this film is one of its kind. The sci-fi scenes were spectacular and the designs quite visionary in style. The film, although very exhausting, is exiting; and I had a great time. I understand why this is such a divisive film considering it is so complex and epic at the same time. The film does feel a bit disjointed and disconnected at times, but when it seemed to lose me it got right back in track again. I think this film was quite original and is worth your time if you are willing to put your mind to it. The performances weren’t as strong as I would have liked, but it is a difficult task to play six different characters at once. By all means check Cloud Atlas out; you will either love it or hate it.

    

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/