Spectre

3 Stars (out of four)

We continue the story of the relaunched James Bond, and it is good, but still a tad odd.

Spectre continues wher Skyfall let off.  In another direct sequel, this movie opens in Mexico City, where Bond (Daniel Craig continuing a singularly satisfyingly intense portrai of our favorite spy) assassinates a man and picks up a mysterious ring with an octopus on it.  We find that it belongs to the shadowy organization, SPECTRE, a group that profits on anything horrible in the world and the primary author of everything bad that happened to Bond since Vesper Lynn's assassination in Casino Royale.  Bond pursues the group until he finds its leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Woltz in a deliciously evil performance).  Blofeld and Bond appear to be connected in some way, which Bond discovers as he tries to save London from another big attack.

So, considering this is one of the most action filled franchises in cinema history, there is not a lot of action.  This particular installment is long on story, and appears to be suffering from post-production cuts like its predecessor, Quantum of Solace.  For parts of the movie, I found myself lost, like I came in 39 minutes late to a two-hour movie.  It's also pretty long, clocking in close to 2.75 hours. The movie is not particularly exciting, with only a couple of major action pieces.  All the familiar characters show up and are a lot of fun.  I love the new M, Q and Moneypenny.  I like the fact the movie has nor succumbed to the temptation to put more gadgets in, because this inevitably results in overkill, like the battle of the super cars in Die Another Day.  This relies more on good old fashioned espionage and skullduggery.  Another element I particularly liked about the film is its dark and very cruel, evil undertones.  This is not a happy-go-lucky movie like the Roger Moore set.  It is very serious and somber, and therefore very interesting to watch.  Despite the plot holes, the intense tone makes this film very interesting.  It gives Bond a more "real" feel, rather than being an indestructible superman.

Real or not, however, it may be disappointing to some Bond fans.  It is a totally different tone and feel with the possible exception of License To Kill.  As I said, it is a totally different tone than a Bond film.  It is deadly serious.  This is not a movie to be taken lightly, but this is the direction Bond needs to go.  I hear many fans criticizing the film, that it sucks or it's too long, but no real criticism other than they don't like it.  Very serious takes are needed in this franchise to keep it from slipping into Three Stooges style dreck like Diamonds Are a Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, or Die Another Day.  Please, when you go see this film, remember the depths these films can sink to when fans start whining about "Where's Q?  The gadgets?  The supercar?"  Etc, etc, etc.  please do not let these uninformed people take Bond away from this leaner, meaner, post-Bourne Bond which will require another reboot.  I like the direction has been going with the Craig series, despite some misfires, and I, for one, want to see it continue.

Steve Jobs

3 Stars (out of four)

Steve Jobs is a fairly complex movie about a very complex person.  It is pretty darn good, but, in the end, may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Steve Jobs tries to tackle most of the issues of Steve Jobs' life through three of his most iconic product launches: the MacIntosh, the NeXt and the iMac.  These three products encapsulate the first (and arguably most dynamic) half of Jobs' fascinating life and career.  This period of time was the most complicated of his life, covering his repeated denial of his first daughter's paternity, his famous firing (and subsequent rehiring) at his company Apple, and hints at the beginning of the second (and arguably more successful) part of his life where Apple redefined the world with the iPod, iPhone and iPad (upon which this review is currently being written).

Icon.  Arrogant.  Visionary.  Petty.  Artist.  Cruel.  Genius.  Stylistic talent.  Machiavellian manipulator.    Horror of a human being.  Dreamer of a better, kinder world.  Denier of his own child.  Loving father.  Jobs was all these things and more.  At one point in the film, Jobs says, "I am not well-made."  That sums him up quite well.  As with all things in life, things are much more complicated than they first appear.  Aaron Sorkin tries to make sense out of a very complicated man in a very short amount of time.  Drawing heavily on Walter Isaacson's great biography of the same name, Sorkin ingeniously uses the famous product launches combined with flashbacks to illustrate the events that happened up to that point.  The problem is that Jobs is so complicated, it is almost required to have a little foreknowledge of the man and the events in his life to make sense of the plot.  Newcomers to Jobs will be a little lost.  However, the movie boils down to three main stories: the relationship with his coworkers (illustrated by Steve Wozniak, played incredibly by Seth Rogen); the father-son dynamic of the fatherless Jobs (Michael Fassbender) and father figure John Sculley (Jeff Daniels); and centrally, the relationship between Jobs and his daughter.

The whole cast is incredible and the visuals by Danny Boyle interesting and creative.  For people who have an enduring fascination with the man, this is a great film.  For all others, it may fall a little flat.  Myself, I loved it.

Crimson Peak

2.5 Stars (out of four)

We can all thank Guillermo Del Toro for having such imaginative bad dreams, because they always materialize as sumptuous, visual feasts for the eyes.  Unfortunately, as time goes on, the stories are getting less imaginative.  Too bad you can't have everything.

IMDB says "In the aftermath of a family tragedy, an aspiring author (Mia Wasikowski as Edith Cushing) is torn between love for her childhood friend (Charlie Hunnam as Dr. Alan McMichael) and the temptation of a mysterious stranger (Tom Hiddleston as Thomas Sharpe).  Trying to escape the ghosts of her past, she is swept away to a house that breathes, bleeds - and remembers."

Whoooo!  Scary stuff.  Or is it?  The previews promised a fairly scary, gothic haunted house story.  But, in reality, is a fairly stock ghost story written for the post-feminism audience.  I actually encourage strong, female characters, but I hate it when they are stereotypes of modern women stuck in an age that holds their aspirations down and the female protagonist is a misunderstood lion that people just "don't get."  Everyone else around her is either loved but hopelessly stuck in another time, stupid or evil.  This movie plays every Harlequin romance trope out to a nauseating degree.  Without giving too much away, Edith Cushing leaves a perfectly nice guy she grew up with and actually likes (and likes her back) to go away to England with Thomas Sharpe, a mysterious good-looking English landed gentry but penniless lord and his equally mysterious sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastaine).  Edith does this because Sharpe reads and likes her story she is writing and that most everyone else dismisses (thus obviously making him more evolved and intelligent than everyone else around him).  She finds herself in a beautiful, huge, but disintegrating manor house built in the middle of nowhere.  Ghosts start showing up for a reason I won't get into.  Things go bad.

This movie sort of annoyed me for the reasons stated above.  Wasikowski is basically annoying and Hunnam phones it in, turning in the most wooden performance since Pinocchio or Showgirls.  But all is not lost.  This is, after all, a Del Toro movie, and it's the visuals that matter most.  He delivers them in spades.  The scenes in the Crimson Peak manor are incredibly atmospheric and a joy to watch.  A collision a harsh colors and dark shadows, hinting at evil lurking around every corner.  This melange of elements guarantees I will never tire of what Del Toro can do.  He is a singularly gifted director of the visual, from Cronos and The Devil's Backbone to his masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth.  His style uplifts even mediocre material like Pacific Rim, Blade Ii, and the Hellboys.  His films are always interesting and enjoyable to watch, the sheer joy and horror of the visuals are a symphony for the eyes.  Hiddleston and Chastaine play the most gleefully evil characters, and they are clearly having a ball with it.  They are so much fun in these roles.  Go for visual, but check your brain at the door for the story.