Movies Old and New: Spectre

One Sentence Synopsis: With the 00 program on the verge of dissolution, a message from the now deceased M (Judi Dench), sends James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) within the depths of Spectre, a secret criminal organization that has more to do with Bond himself than he realizes.

---

The Franchise Age is still alive and well in cinemas right now, more specifically the aspect of creating an intricate world of interwoven characters, locations, and stories. When Marvel shattered records with The Avengers, the culmination of Phase One and several years of hard work and strategic thinking, they proved just how viable the entire idea actually was. If the right amount of time and effort was put into the richness of the story, the depth of the characters, and the scale of the action, a fanbase would emerge, and an entire cinematic universe would find its place in Hollywood. 

Ever since Marvel’s success, studios have been desperately trying to recreate this success, but in a fraction of the time. We’ve seen people try to take shortcuts before in making this happen, and it never works out (I’m looking at you Amazing Spider-Man 2). It’s all too obvious when a studio decides to forget dealing with all of the “hard stuff,” simply shoving in as many details in one movie as they can without taking the time to flesh it all out. These cheap, lazy methods are one of my biggest pet peeves in film, and sadly, you see more and more of it every year.

This is where we find ourselves with Spectre, a film that tries to do so much, yet really only accomplishes so little. In an attempt to connect the past three Daniel Craig outings in this franchise, director Sam Mendes not only trivializes them, but fails to capture anything that made them so interesting as James Bond films: strong character arcs, gripping action scenes with high stakes, brilliant yet complex writing, none of its here, and it’s extremely disappointing.

Sure, on a technical level, Spectre is all well and good, no question; beautiful cinematography, solid camerawork and editing, and a soundtrack that feels right at home with the rest of the Bond saga, with Sam Smith’s original song “Writing’s on the Wall” in particular being a fantastic addition to the library.

But that doesn’t cut it when you have an absolute failure of storytelling such as this. Let’s just face facts: nothing works.

The film’s plot is nothing but a lifeless string of story beats, never really connecting to form anything actually interesting: any even remotely interesting themes or motifs are buried underneath dull and expository dialogue, it lacks any engaging mystery as every plot detail seen through the film’s eyes as “mysterious” can immediately be figured out when the audience decides to read between the widely-spaced lines, and there isn’t a single moment that doesn’t reek of a hackneyed, overdone nature that the James Bond movies usually do a pretty good job of distracting you from.

When it comes to characters, we have a serious lack of any fully developed character arcs as well as any strong writing. Because of this, every talent this movie has up its sleeve is wasted to some degree, ranging from “just underused enough for me not to care” levels (Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw), all the way up to “oh dear god you blithering idiots of a studio” levels (everyone else, including Daniel Craig).

Unlike its predecessor, Spectre doesn’t seem to give many of its central characters the time of day, and even in times when it decides to, it fails to engage. Daniel Craig, who’s cold, almost aloof performance as Bond is far too indicative of how little he actually wants to play the character at this point, is given an arc that does actually raise some solid questions about Bond as a character (you know, kinda like what Skyfall did?), but it’s given barely any time to actually answer those questions in favor of adding another bland action scene in the fray (don’t worry, we’ll get there).

Lea Seydoux, this film’s token Bond girl, had the potential to be one of the only Bond girls to actually give Bond a run for his money in skills and confidence, as well as be a romantic partner that wasn’t solely a damsel in distress, but, big shock, both of these ideas never end up seeing the light of day. Madeline Swan is just as boring, cliche, and helpless as you’d expect her to be.

But really, my tears in this area go to Christoph Waltz, who, despite being a two-time Academy Award winning actor who was basically born to play a Bond villain, is wasted here as well, with a bland motivation to boot. It’s just a mediocre villain given to an actor who just barely manages to pull it off without staining his career. It doesn’t help that the film’s slow pacing and far-too-patient editing makes his intimidating presence feel like a snail that just won’t get to the god damn finish line already.

As previously mentioned, the writing is incredibly expository, concerned more so with making sure the plot is unraveled rather than the characters themselves. Barely do we ever get a moment to dissect a character’s emotions, discuss the importance of the relationships between certain characters, or perhaps get a sense of why we all should care about what’s going on. There’s no emotional connection we feel with any of these characters, and the film severely suffers as a result.

But what may be the story’s cardinal sin is simply its failure in achieving what it sets out to do; Spectre attempts to interweave the three most recent Bond films, painting them as all singular pieces in a convoluted puzzle. Unfortunately, not only does the film fail to meaningfully connect these important events visually or narratively (like a better James Bond film would’ve done), it also manages to use cringeworthy tropes in doing so, causing the entire film to lack any impact. To go any farther in explanation would spoil the film, but simply put, Spectre’s attempts at “world-building” are not only severely flimsy, but evocative of other films that are arguably worse, yet also fall to the exact same problems.

To make matters even worse, not even the action can make up for the lack in story and character, for even that aspect of the film is fatally flawed. Even with admittedly well shot action scenes such as the opening scene, as well as one specifically fun brawl between Craig and Bautista (who is basically this film’s pair of walking fists), most of the action set-pieces we get lack any serious panache. Perhaps there’s one or two big hits, but for the most, the action lacks any suspense or stakes, mostly due to a lack of anything really happening. It all eventually boils down to just a bunch of punches, kicks, and explosions, no more, no less.

It’s a tragedy, honestly, to see a movie franchise as classic as this one reach new lows. I’m gonna be real honest with you guys; Spectre is a movie that shatters the shiny illusion of the Franchise Age, and almost gives you an explanation as to how it may cease to be. For every polished, intricate cinematic universe that works, we get one or two movies that try to replicate this fortune without actually putting the effort into it. If movies like Spectre keep being made, the Franchise Age will become nothing more than an oversaturated mess of lazily thrown together pieces of garbage that will still make enough money for the studios to pat themselves on the back.

I’m not usually one to stand on a soapbox, but these rebooted Bond adventures have given us some of his best moments, and to see it all collapse is heartbreaking. Spectre really isn’t a terrible film, but its methods cannot be overlooked; perhaps parading it as an omen is a tad too bombastic, but it definitely spells danger for not only the Bond franchise, but for films of this caliber, period.

4/10 - Weak

---

Rule Thirds Review

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: Steve Jobs

One Sentence Synopsis: Set during the moments prior to three historical product launches, Steve Jobs tells the story of the titular Apple co-founder (played by Michael Fassbender), his complicated relationships, and how his brilliant yet infamous personality would lead to Apple becoming one of the most successful companies of the 21st century.

---

About month ago, as I sat down to read The New York Times, I couldn’t help but notice a strange foldout that came within this week’s paper. As I took it out and opened it up, I was shocked to find a four page, double-sided advertising spread for the upcoming Steve Jobs film. One side featured the four prominent character posters, and the other featured an extensive quoting of the film’s TIME review, along with another recognizable poster. Needless to say, I was absolutely floored by the sheer lengths Universal had taken to advertise the film in this one newspaper, let alone its efforts outside of them. Forgive me for getting the impression that this film was important, and that I should be excited for it.

To be fair, I didn’t need a newspaper to get me excited for this film, for the talent behind it was enough: a critically acclaimed director, Danny Boyle, a talented screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, and a leading man who’s proven his mastery of character and conviction, Michael Fassbender, not to mention a supporting cast that can also hold their own, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, and Jeff Daniels. This kind of a cast and crew is something any film fan dreams of seeing come to life.

Thankfully, for the most part, Steve Jobs is an excellently made film, without a doubt; everything it attempts to do is, at the very least, a success, and we definitely have one of the best films of the year. However, the way I see it, I find myself stuck in the situation where I found myself wondering how the film could’ve been better in my eyes, thus keeping me from immediately calling Steve Jobs one of my favorites of the year.

My main concerns naturally come from the film’s most unconventional quality: it’s structure. Sorkin goes for an interesting three-act structure, with each act being the events preceding a different presentation given throughout Jobs’ career, each one having a huge effect on his career. I commend Sorkin for taking a vastly different approach and making it work, for this film’s patterns and visual choices practically beg to be dissected and discussed on a thematic level. 

However, for a structure that seems so out there, when translated to film, it feels quite tame in its execution; there’s no incredibly dynamic quality to the film’s movement on a cinematographic level, for it essentially plays out like any act would, only confined into a single space. This begs the question why this structure was chosen if it plays out so similarly to any film, yet keeps it locked within a space, with exceptions few and far between. Perhaps a more real-time, long-take approach would’ve given this structure more of an impact and more of a dynamic feeling, but as it stands, the structure is something that gives the film an edge, but not quite enough to be considered the preferable approach.

Besides for that personal gripe, Steve Jobs is definitely a well-crafted character study from top to bottom, and this is mostly thanks to its on-screen talent. Fassbender once again proves that he can fully immerse himself in any identity he chooses, as he absolutely nails the quick-witted, perfectionist nature of his subject down to a tee. Kate Winslet, his assistant and confidante, is fully transformed both verbally and physically, emerging as a brand new character I’ve yet to see, yet beg to see more of. 

Seth Rogen doesn’t really escape his off-screen persona, instead using his likable, “nice-guy” personality he personally has to aid the character as well. It also helps that when necessary, he can pull off dramatic weight, and rather impressively at that. Jeff Daniels is truly excellent, sporting a sharp delivery with a human emotion; his scenes with Fassbender are easily the best scenes in the film, making me believe that he is one of, if not the only supporting actor I’ve seen so far this year that strongly warrants a nomination in this year’s race.

But when it comes down to it, it’s Sorkin’s script that makes this film shine; as many will tell you, it’s a special style of dialogue that is often imitated, yet barely ever duplicated; few people write sharp, hard-hitting dialogue like Sorkin, and thankfully he has the cast that can pull of the exact pace and delivery that this banter deserves. What’s even better about the dialogue here is that it’s incredibly smart while still keeping a very organic dynamic to it. These conversations feel real, driven by what the characters themselves need to say. This balanced combination of inherency mixed with poignancy is very rare, and deserves to be appreciated, especially in a year where several film lack this quality.

Everything else, simply put, is as well done as you’d imagine: solid cinematography, an intriguing score, flashy but nevertheless colorful transitions, and a heartfelt center that never feels too mushy for its own good. 

It’s hard for me to describe it in any other way guys, Steve Jobs is a well made film through and through. Part of me wants to be slightly depressed that I can’t be more ecstatic about this film, because it’s absolutely worth a watch, and arguably one of the best films of the year. I just can’t find myself falling it love with it as much as I did with The Martian or Inside Out. It’s more of a respect rather than a love, and sadly, movies that I respect don’t usually make it on the favorites list. But the fact that I respect it is something I immediately appreciate in and of itself.

8/10 - Great

---

Rule Thirds Review

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website