The Peanuts Movie: The first movie I've seen this year to surpass expectations for it

Today, I look at the first modern big-screen adaptation of Charles M. Schulz's classic comics.

The Peanuts Movie:
Charlie Brown, the social pariah of his school and community, seems to never have the upper hand on life. His constant embarrassments and failures only reinforce his peers' views of him. Suddenly, a new student arrives: a little red-haired girl. Instantly becoming infatuated with her, Charlie Brown must find a way to impress her while not making a fool of himself, as he always does.
    It's probably the most basic film I've seen this year. There's no twist or action scene or grand epic finale, it's just a simple, nice film. The only surprise I had was how much I enjoyed it. Even though I'm very nostalgic for the Peanuts cartoons, I was kind of on-the-fence about this film. BlueSky Animation is sometimes hit-or-miss with their projects, and I'm so nostalgic for the characters it seemed like it would be surreal to see these characters in a new, modern take. Luckily, the people who wrote the film are Schulz's own son and grandson, and the studio was able to get his widow on board, so my worries were slightly eased. Finally, after seeing the film, I can say it felt like a full-length Peanuts special, though with slightly more cohesion, and that's the highest compliment paid to it. It didn't update any of the timeless feel of the strips and specials, with the characters making no references to any modern tech or social media, which is something they could have so easily done to appeal to the modern audiences. This was a film made by people who cared enough to try and accurately replicate the look and feel of the original material, while adding in the polish of modern animation and adding in their own takes on characters.
    The animation is so unique, it looks exactly like a 3D version of Schulz's original drawings, and some of the sequences, such as Snoopy's fantasies, provided some nice visual flair among the sometimes simplistic environments explored by our main characters, and showed the full scope of what can be done in a Peanuts cartoon now. The opening animated short featuring Ice Age's scrat was fairly amusing as well and had some nice animation, but felt a little jarring when placed next to the tonally so distinctive Peanuts.
    The opening 20th Century Fox logo's theme music being played by Schroeder on piano reminded me of The Simpsons Movie featuring Ralph Wiggum wailing the Fox theme music. The ending credits feature a character dancing by whatever credit is being shown on screen at the time, and they put the detail of having Schroeder as the music icon, and it's the little touches like that that show me that people who made this put a lot of thought into it.
    The story, like I said, is charming in its' simplicity. While the ending is not nearly as melancholy or bluntly realistic as the strips and specials could sometimes be, it still retains the theme of failure as just a part of life that Schulz included many times in his work. The writers included some nice references to the strips and previous specials if you are familiar with them (a moving truck company is named after Peanuts producers Lee Mendelson and Bill Melendez), but doesn't rely on one's nostalgia for them to make it a great movie. There were time in the film where I was actually on the edge-of-my-seat because I could so relate to Charlie Brown's fear of being in front of his peers trying to do something, his fears of failure in front of his peers, etc.
   The music by Christophe Beck is great, as it is able to try and replicate Vince Guaraldi's unmistakable style that he used in scoring the original cartoons, but doesn't feel like a carbon copy. The only complaints about the music are the uses of pop songs: once in a montage, and over the end credits, with at least one being by Meghan Trainor. They don't fit with the end of the movie at all and I feel are the only things that could date the film.
    The voice acting is excellent, with most of the performers replicating the sound of the original voice actors remarkably. Bill Melendez, who passed away, still voices Snoopy and Woodstock through archival voice recordings.
     The only other complaint I have with the film is the fact that it would make for a great film to watch for the holidays, only the climax takes place in summer, which kind of throws that off. But you almost can't watch it any other time of year, because 3/4 of it is set in the holiday season.
    The Peanuts Movie is brilliant in its' simple, down-to-earth approach. It is non-pretentious, and has no need for the spectacle seen in so many animated features these days. Not since Wreck-It-Ralph has an animated film come along that has touched me in a way that I can't really explain, but one came around again: this one. Especially after the disappointments of Frozen and Big Hero 6 and the semi-disappointment of Inside Out, and unlike Goosebumps, it doesn't almost entirely rely on nostalgia to keep you entertained. No need to modernize or reference pop culture every few minutes for cheap laughs, just telling a nice, uplifting story. I don't know if it's just my nostalgia talking, but it made me feel almost like a kid again watching it, and it's the first film this year to surpass expectations I had for it, and the first film since Sicario I've wanted to go back and see again, only even moreso than that film. I can see myself watching it in coming years during the holiday season along with the other Peanuts specials. If you have no attachment to the franchise at all, you can still appreciate it as an above-average family film. If you do enjoy the franchise, you'll probably love this movie. This is something I think it is safe to say Charles Schulz would have been proud to call his own. 8/10 stars.

                                                           (Image: Wikipedia)

The Martian: Overhyped science fiction film with some nice touches

Today, I take a look at a film that came out almost two months ago but people are still going out in droves to see.

The Martian:
During a mission to Mars, an intense storm hits, separating astronaut and botanist Mark Watney from the rest of his team. Believing him dead, they return to their primary space station to return to Earth. Watney is miraculously alive, however, and must figure out a way to survive on the harsh planet until rescue can arrive for him.
    This movie's hype was pretty amazing considering ti's just a run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie that just happens to have an ensemble cast of famous stars. I haven't read the novel by Andy Weir, though I fully intend to, so I'm judging the film solely on its' own merits. Matt Damon is a very strong lead, with some nice funny dialogue, but never does he feel too tongue-in-cheek, he knew when to play the situation straight and play out the gravity of his situation. The ensemble cast is too big to list here, but I felt they were all fine. A bit typecast (and cast solely on name recognition it seems on the whole), but decent. Major critique though: there was not one supporting role I felt could've not been filled by any other actor and been just as fine. Everyone was just sort of bland, as with most ensembles nowadays. I also found it amusing that they made Tolkien references, when Sean Bean, featured here, was in the Lord of the Rings films. But they aren't the real focus of the film. Damon is the glue that holds the film together, and, of course, the suspense.
     For a science fiction movie that isn't an adventure film this story had some great suspense. Every problem that is solved only serves as a catalyst for the next problem, so the movie never feels boring. Not only that, but there is a surprisingly squirm-inducing self-surgery scene early on that was fairly ballsy for a big movie like this to feature. And for an October release, this has all the polish of a summer blockbuster. It remind me of Interstellar quite a bit.
     Much like that film from last fall, this is a movie that tests your patience. It is almost draining, as so much has happened by the end that you want to feel invested, but ultimately feel like you should just go home and go to sleep. And, much like Interstellar, some of the designs felt a little too reminiscent of other science fiction efforts (including Ridley Scott's own Prometheus).
    Drew Goddard (the writer) also exhausted their two "fuck" limit for a PG-13 film far too early. If you don't known the MPAA generally likes to keep the uses of the word "fuck" in PG-13 films to about one or two tops, excluding inaudible uses and completely excluding uses in the sexual connotation. This film used it up a little too early, and got away with it a few times (mouthing the word, not saying it), but at certain times, (Minor Spoiler Here) the character is typing a message and is using the word "fuck", and other characters' reactions suggest it is uncensored, but then it is censored on-screen. Not only does that take me out of the movie for being lazy, it also completely seems out of character for Watney to self-censor.
    Ridley Scott has produced better work than this, so it is sad to see that this is most successful film of his career. However, The Martian is an enjoyable, if predictable and patience-straining movie that relies a lot of name recognition in its' casting choices. It's about on par with Interstellar for me, in terms of both entertainment factor and overlong run time (and both feature a stranded Matt Damon). 6.5/10 stars.

                                         (Image: Wikipedia)

R.I.P. Gunnar Hansen

On Saturday November 7, the horror film world lost Gunnar Hansen, one of its' best known icons. Though Hansen hadn't been doing too much work as of late, he cemented his place in film history, being the first and best actor to portray mentally retarded serial killer cannibal Leatherface in the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre in 1974. His portrayal felt so real and raw and terrifying that his lack of other notable work is completely insignificant in comparison to his lasting influence on the entire world of pop culture and horror cinema, and his amazing performance in a legendary movie.

Gunnar Hansen
1947-2015 (age: 68)            
     
(Images: Wikipedia, fastcocreate.com)

Spectre: Bond sequel left in the shadow of "Skyfall"

The 24th installment of the Bond franchise may be a sign of Craig retiring from the series.

(Spoilers for all previous Daniel Craig films below!)

Spectre:
After the death of M and the partial destruction of the MI6 organization in Skyfall, James Bond has been on the trail of an elusive criminal organization. His only clues are a ring with an octopus emblem, and some unclear ties to the Quantum organization, Le Chiffre, and Raoul Silva. As Bond becomes entangled in an increasingly vast web of terrorist plots, as well as dealing with MI6's new merger with MI5 under the leadership of the surveillance-obsessed C, he is forced to confront his failures as a spy and as a human being, and come face-to-face with a ghost from the past.
    I was hyped for this films from the word "Go." The trailers, the director, the cast, and even the title got me pumped for a Skyfall-esque adventure that would surely leave Mission:Impossible- Rouge Nation in the dust. What I got was an uneven film that wound up not even surpassing the slightly above mediocre Rogue Nation, let alone leaving it far behind.
    Daniel Craig and the returning cast are all still very good, with Ben Whishaw's Q given more to do (and Naomie Harris' Moneypenney and Rory Kinnear's Tanner even less), and Craig still remaining my favorite Bond. Dave Bautista was good as the hulking enforcer Mr. Hinx (his lack of dialogue was also a nice touch and a throwback to older Bond henchmen), and Andrew Scott as the meddling C was a fantastic addition, though he is a bit typecast in these type of roles since his appearance in Sherlock. Lea Seydoux's Bond girl Dr. Swann was a definite improvement over Silva's disposable mistress in the last film, and feels like her and Bond have actual chemistry. Monica Bellucci's character was literally just there for exposition and eye candy. She's almost pointless. There are a few returning actors whose appearances I will not spoil, but it was nice to see them back, albeit briefly. I will touch upon Christoph Waltz in a bit.
    The action sequences are good by Bond standards, but do not feel as innovative, raw, or well-constructed as in Skyfall or Casino Royale. The cinematography isn't as stunning as the last film either, despite being from the same cinematographer as Interstellar, Her, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and sharing the same director, Sam Mendes. I will give it this, the opening tracking shot was extremely impressive (the opening scene's visual palate even felt similar to Live and Let Die) and the location scouts were brilliant. This is also more of a globe-trotting adventure than either Skyfall or Casino Royale, another semi-throwback. However, this film seems to try to throwback a little too often. The entire first half, particularly in the car chase sequence in Rome, feel a little Roger Mooreesque, not only for my tastes, but for Craig's Bond. However, it never falls into the laughable territory of Moore's later films or Die Another Day.
    The music by Thomas Newman is unique for a Bond film, almost Elfmanesque at times. But the music is far from the best part about the film, as evident by the opening song.
    The opening song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, was written with his producer in about 20 minutes and it shows. The vocals by Smith are exceedingly impressive, but the instruments are so mellow and muted it is hard to find a hummable tune and it ultimately comes off as forgettable. The song feels like it is trying to be Adele's "Skyfall" and doesn't try too many new things, and ultimately builds to nothing and peters out at the end, much like the film's last act. The song has grown on me the more I've listened to it, but when I first heard it when I saw the film, I was underwhelmed. I wouldn't usually critique a theme this much, but the opening song is such an integral part of the Bond formula. This song initially felt like it didn't fit but it's slowly felt more at home in the Bond music library, definitely better than Madonna or Jack White/Alicia Keys' efforts, which still, after multiple years of listening, don't feel like Bond song material. The opening credits sequence that accompanies it also feels slightly lazy, with repetitive visuals that don't feel as intriguing or as striking as those in the openings of Skyfall or Casino.
    As far as story goes, this one is surprisingly lackluster. There's confusing romances (particularly a short-lived one between Bond and Bellucci's character), some occasionally awkward or ill-timed humor, and this one suspends disbelief a lot more, especially considering Craig's more gritty take on the role (people take unrealistic beatings and walk away barely scathed, there's escapes that logically make no sense, etc.). There's even a scene where a man has his eyes gouged out and it comes off oddly tame and unbelievable. I wasn't expecting a lot of gore, as this is still a PG-13 movie, and gore is sometimes less effective, but the man who was being killed seemed oddly restrained for a man having his eyes torn out. He didn't scream or anything, just kind of grunted in pain. That came off as a little silly and a scene that definitely could've been handled better. The villain also doesn't really appear until the last act, which would've been fine, only they rush his reveal, motivation, etc. all in the final act rather than building it up as they have in previous entries. There is also a torture scene in the film that sounds great on paper but is mishandled and doesn't feel as vicious or disturbing as the one in Casino Royale, which sounds laughable on paper.
    The climax is my biggest story gripe. It doesn't feel as personal, unique, or spectacular as the one in Skyfall, and ultimately feels rushed and all too similar to the climax of Rogue Nation, which sucks considering both films already had similar set-ups, and I wanted to see this film do something different. The second act is very talky, as like previous Craig films, but this one never feels like the dialogue is all that investing or that the stakes are all that high, so the middle drags for quite a bit and comes off as dry. The story, at least the bare bones of it, is very similar to Skyfall in many respects (again, same director) and feels like it took everything that film did well and knocked it down several pegs. Even C's character feels like what the character Mallory could've become in the last film given a more cliche script.
    I wouldn't usually compare this film so much with its' predecessors, but it forces you to. For one, this is the only direct Bond sequel aside from Quantum of Solace, and it serves as a connector between all of Craig's film, bringing his take on Bond full circle, something I enjoyed, but also felt cemented his impending retirement from the franchise. All this and I still haven't talked about the worst part of the movie: the villain.
    Christoph Waltz is a great actor. Fantastic even. But here, he just isn't that good. Not that his performance is bad, but he's given so little to do, so little motivation and background to work with. The motivation given is so dumb and cliche and simplistic it's insulting, especially for a character with so much potential. The motivations of Silva and Le Chiffre in the previous film were simple, too, but original and interesting, and almost made them a tad empathetic. Here, there's nothing human about this character, and while that may work for some villains, here, it plays the opposite way: he's more cardboard cutout than person in this role. The fact that he and Seydoux are paired here again only reminds me of how much a better villain he made in Inglorious Basterds. Despite the seeming perfect casting of this character, he just feels weak compared to Silva and Le Chiffre. I'll delve even deeper into this in the semi-Spoiler talk below.
    Spectre is a worthy sequel to Skyfall and neatly ties up Craig's series (and the Bond timeline in general, but more on that below). However, this connection to the other films will prevent newcomers from enjoying this film if they've never seen one of Craig's Bond films. The film isn't perfect, nowhere near, and it's more than slightly disappointing. I heard negative buzz about the film before going in, which lowered my expectations exponentially, which is great, because I feel as if I went in with my initial high expectations, I would've hated it through-and-through. This is decent conclusion to the Craig Bond series (if it is one, but it sure feels like it), but is not all it could have been. Is it the worst Bond film in 30 years, as some have speculated? Hell no. We still have Die Another Day and the later Roger Moore library of films. I really wanted to give this one a 7, but I can't lie to myself or you, the reader, about how much I enjoyed this. 6.5/10 stars.

My reviews of the other Craig Bond films:

http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-craig-bond-trilogy.html

A review that elaborates upon some of my complaints, but overall a differing view than mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbe5sJUg1KA

An entertaining reddit thread on the film (SPOILERS):
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3qsd4d/official_discussion_spectre_uk_release_spoilers/

                                   (Image: Wikipedia)



Semi-Spoiler Segment:

I will not give away the identity of the villain, as it completely ruins the mystery of the film, but I will say the name initially given (Franz Oberhauser) is not his name by the end of the film. Given the title, if you are familiar with Bond history, you can easily guess who this is. The problem is the same as in Star Trek: Into Darkness: the reveal of the villain's true identity will mean nothing to you as an audience member if you are not an already established fan of the franchise. The other problem with this is I think what happened is the writers said "We can write a sub-par character and just attach an iconic Bond villain to it and pass this sub-par character off on icon status alone and pure name recognition". Also, to soil the name of such an iconic villain by underwriting them, giving them an abysmally overdone motivation for vengeance, and rushing their entire character arc and relationship with Bond is disgraceful to the franchise. It's funny: Skyfall's villain was using a fake name, too. But Silva was revealed to be some nobody agent named Rodriguez we'd never heard of before. As a result, the writers had to make him distinct to stand on his own, and is therefore more memorable and impactful than the supposedly iconic villain in this film. However, this villain reveal ties together the entirety of the Bond timeline. Here's my theory: It's no doubt that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, and therefore is his first assignment ever in both literary and films worlds. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, so that's second in the timeline. Then the Pierce Brosnan timeline happens, as they also feature Judi Dench as M. Then Skyfall, which drops a reference to GoldenEye as well as killing off Dench's M, cementing that this takes place after the Brosnan era. Then Spectre, which is a direct sequel to Skyfall and establishes one of Bond's most recurring and elusive nemeses and re-establishes M as a man, as he was in the older films. This is the film that leads to the original series of films, at leasts the pre-Brosnan ones, and therefore Spectre solidifies the Bond timeline. It may just be my theory, but I feel its' the best one I've heard, if you want to accept that there is any sense of continuity, which Bond films have never been too concerned with.