Fan-of-Rare-Movies Reviews

Beauty and the Beast (I) (2017)

A Missed Opportunity

[5/10 · 4 March 2017]

Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You've got one of the most beloved films in your entire catalogue; the first animated film ever that was nominated for a best picture Oscar - and you give the new version of that film to the director of 'Twilight' parts 3 and 4? Has anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon's 'Twilight' films or did you just look at all the money they made during their opening weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn films who look better and have better plots (seriously).

Now the good news is, 'Beauty and the Beast' is nowhere near as bad as the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to those teen shlock movies. And that's what I don't get: if you have the chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the reviews are good) - wouldn't you want to make sure to make the best looking film possible? But over large stretches this film has the mediocre looking CGI of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms.

Emma Watson isn't half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director on her face ("now act SURPRISED" - "now show us a sense of WONDER" - "now look SAD"). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is, naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like he's having fun.

But all that is still not the worst. What sank the film for me was Beast. It's mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don't look convincing yet. Beast's face never looks real and that's just not acceptable. It's been almost 10 years since we got a completely convincing CGI "beast" face with Peter Jackson's King Kong, complete with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we got films like 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' and 'Jungle Book' that looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they spend the 200 million budget on?

I'm sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity for Disney.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Not a masterpiece - but an entertaining love letter to the classic Bond films peppered with a healthy dose of irony

[7/10 · 5 November 2015]

First off, let me get something out of the way here: I like to be entertained. Entertainment, as we all know, comes in different shapes and sizes; it can be smart, profound, intellectually stimulating and so forth – or it can just be escapist fun. Now what kind of entertainment you expect from a James Bond film is up to you; as for me, I go with fun. Regrettably, the last three 007 instalments fell a bit short in that department (at least for my taste), and since I expected this new film to be more of the same, I didn't exactly get my hopes up.

Well, I can only say I was pleasantly surprised (although judging from most reviews here, I seem to be in the minority). Instead of further exploring the somewhat dark, dramatic route the previous three films took - which, I must admit, worked very well in Casino Royale - Spectre unexpectedly goes in the exact opposite direction. Sam Mendes and John Logan apparently came to the conclusion that it was time to bring back one of the most crucial ingredients for Bond's success with audiences over the years: the fun.

Don't get me wrong; it's not suddenly ALL fun and games for Her Majesty's finest spy (and Craig still portrays him as a character driven by inner rage) - but the new film is a virtual celebration of the whole James Bond universe, from past to present, including the less grounded and over-the-top elements from the older films. In fact, after a stand-out intro sequence in classic fashion, the spy with a license to kill takes us on a ride which - tonally - feels like travelling back in time to the glory days of such classics as You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger or From Russia With Love (and it's a ride back in time in more senses than one).

This is supposed to be a spoiler-free review, so I won't go into any of the story details, but what unfolds after the introduction plays like a combination of the more grounded, serious Bond we've come to associate with Daniel Craig's films, and the more self-aware spy-romps of the Roger Moore era. It's a mix that doesn't always work and tone and pacing can be a bit uneven at times (especially during the third act), but Spectre largely succeeds in paying homage to many of the classic Bond films while still delivering the gritty action people come to expect from the newer instalments and staying true to the character Craig has so successfully made his own. And despite all the references and callbacks to classic 007 adventures, Spectre still manages to continue the storyline of the three previous films. So while his second entry in the world's longest living franchise is far from a perfect film, I believe Sam Mendes achieves exactly what he wants: he intentionally embraces the old Bond formula, but he also plays with it, twists it and introduces new story elements.

So my verdict: Spectre is a love letter to the classic Bond films, and while it might not be the masterpiece many people seem to have expected, there is a lot to enjoy here. It's a solid, almost classic Bond film with insane action, great set-pieces and a fantastic cast; upon first viewing, I'd rate it 7 stars out of 10.

Rare Film Gems For Cinephiles: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/