Paddington In Peru (2024)

I do try to avoid listening to too many other opinions and/or reviews before checking out films for my self, but it's sometimes very difficult, especially when it comes to a big release like Paddington In Peru (the third film in a series that has proved to be both delightful and hilarious so far). A lot of people seemed to say the same thing. This wasn't as good as the previous two films, and part of the reason for that stems from taking Paddington back out of London. I would have to agree. The joy of watching Paddington in movies has been the joy of watching him seem confused about British life while also managing to embody the kind of pride and good nature that we should all aspire to.

Having received an alarming letter about Aunt Lucy and her health, Paddington and the Brown family embark on a trip to visit her at her retirement home in Peru. Unfortunately, Aunt Lucy has disappeared by the time they get there. There are one or two clues pointing to where she might have gone, and Paddington knows that he must do whatever it takes to find her. The Brown family will help, of course, and they might also be assisted by Reverend Mother (Olivia Colman), a not-suspicious-at-all nun who keeps clarifying this by mentioning how unsuspicious things are, and a riverboat captain named Hunter Cabot (Antonio Banderas), as well as his daughter, Gina (Carla Tous). 

Dougal Wilson is now in the director's chair this time around, someone who seems to have spent a lot of time over the past two decades making music videos and short films for the likes of John Lewis and Apple (I say short films because they are sometimes a bit precious about their adverts, but they're adverts). And it's Mark Burton, Jon Foster, and James Lamont responsible for the screenplay, with the latter two having spent some time writing for Paddington in his TV adventures. Nobody does a terrible job. They're just not great. There's nothing here that comes even close to rivalling some of the set-pieces or laughs from the previous two movies, and that's a real shame.

While things are weakened by the relocation of the main characters, they're also undermined by some strange casting choices. Emily Mortimer has taken over the role of Mary Brown from Sally Hawkins. I like Emily Mortimer, and she does well in the role, but I think it's particularly odd to recast such a central character in a film aimed at younger viewers, especially when everyone else manages to return. It may lead to parents being asked a few questions as children learn about the fickle nature of scheduling and movie roles, whereas a better screenplay might have been crafted around some premise that had Mrs. Brown absent (a journey through loss and/or grief could have been an interesting parallel with the physical journey through jungle environments). Bonneville puts on his Henry Brown persona like a comfortable sweater, and he's very good, while both Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin portray the now-young adult Brown children. I have nothing against Harris and Joslin, but if any characters could be recast without anyone really noticing then they were the most likely candidates. It might even have made sense to keep the children at a younger age, allowing them to seem more vulnerable and ill-equipped as they joined Paddington on his Peruvian adventure. As for the titular bear, it's hard to think of anyone other than Whishaw voicing him now, which makes his return to the role essential, and every line of dialogue that he speaks is a comforting little hug. Colman is fun, if a little underused, and Banderas is also a welcome addition, and especially entertaining when he also portrays a number of his ancestors who plague him in spirit form.

It doesn't feel right to spend too much time being critical of a Paddington movie. There are good intentions throughout all of them, it's just that this time around those good intentions aren't matched by the dialogue and plotting. There's still enough here to enjoy though, especially when you get around to a speech in the finale about the idea of home, family, and being able to embrace the idea of being firmly British and being a Brown. And the end credits provide one or two delights that ensure most people will have one last chuckle.

Worth a watch, and maybe a repeat viewing will see it grow on me, but I doubt anyone will revisit it as often as either Paddington or Paddington 2. Part of me hopes, and assumes, that this is the final part of a two-thirds-brilliant trilogy. Part of me also knows that I would still be optimistic about any fourth outing for our marmalade-sandwich-loving little pal.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: Passages (2023)

People who know me even slightly will be unsurprised to find out that I was happy to prioritise this film in my viewing schedule. Because I am happy to make time for anything starring the absolutely never-less-than-stellar Adèle Exarchopoulos. Put her in a main role alongside Franz Rogowski and Ben Whishaw and there is no holding me back.

Rogowski plays Tomas, a man in a turbulent period of a relationship with Martin (Whishaw). That turbulence is caused by his own behaviour, with narcissism and insecurity creating an unpleasant environment for the couple, and things become much more complicated when Tomas starts a relationship with Agathe (Exarchopoulos). Claiming to be in love with Agathe, and ready to commit, Tomas cannot stop trying to visit Martin, holding himself between a past he cannot let go of and a future he won’t fully grasp. And that isn’t good for anyone.

Directed by Ira Sachs, who also co-wrote the script with Mauricio Zacharias (and there’s an additional dialogue credit for Arlette Langmann), Passages is a thoughtful and brilliant look at some adults struggling to make relationships work while one adult tries to have his cake and eat it. It is in line with other films from Sachs, with everything shown in a realistic and natural way that keeps it aimed very much at adult viewers who will recognise the easy confusions of love, sex, personal freedom, and commitment to others.

Sachs is helped by his superb cast, although he is used to working with great performers who seem to deliver wonderful performances in response to his work. Exarchopoulos is arguably the most riveting actress working today, and portrays someone here who is optimistic, but also strong enough to take a stand when it is necessary. Whishaw does likewise, although his character is a bit more manipulated by a partner who is familiar with how to connect and reframe the conversation they are having. As for Rogowski, he is just brilliant in a role that requires him to clarify his neediness and selfish nature.

I am choosing not to say any more, for fear of any minor spoilers I think you should avoid, but I highly recommend this to you if you are a fan of any of the main players. It takes a few scenes to settle in to the main thrust of the plot, but things soon become riveting, and I know that many viewers will spend the second half of the movie hoping that Sachs can resolve things in a way that feels plausible and satisfying. And he absolutely does.

I can’t imagine wanting to rush to revisit this, but I really appreciated it while it was on. It’s akin to a bold and challenging stage play, and I wouldn’t be surprised if any incarnation of the screenplay had ever been developed with that in mind. Definitely worth your time.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Women Talking (2022)

Written and directed by Sarah Polley, based on a book by Miriam Toews that was based on a real-life incident, Women Talking is the heavy-hitting Best Picture nominee that I was least looking forward to watching. It felt like the subject matter would be too grim, and the presentation of the premise (summed up by the title, it is essentially just women talking for most of the runtime) didn’t cry out to me as something cinematic. But I have been wrong before, and I suspected that Women Talking would be worth the time and emotional investment, even if it wouldn’t be high up on my “best films of 2022” list.

I may have to wait until I one day muster the strength to revisit this, but the obvious “surprise” that I should reveal now is that Women Talking WOULD actually end up on my “best films of 2022” list. It’s an incredible and impressive work, and easily the best directorial work yet from Polley.

I should provide a bit more information about the plot. The setting is a small, isolated, religious community. The women in that community are horrified when it is revealed that many of them have been drugged and raped by the men. They have to gather together to discuss their options. They can stay and do nothing, stay and fight, or leave. And they only have limited time to decide, while the men of the community are away to help the rapists avoid any serious repercussions. The rest of the film shows the women debating two of the three choices, whether to stay or leave, and they are helped in their debate and discussion by one man who is still trustworthy and supportive.

Although showing a horrific situation specific to a certain setting, Women Talking uses the premise to inevitably show the difficulties that face any woman stuck in an abusive situation. The variety of viewpoints, all from women considering their own situations, show the full range of emotions and thoughts that would probably go through the mind of any one woman finding themselves in this awful situation.

The focus is very much on the dialogue here, in terms of both individual lines and exchanges between people of opposing views, and Polley helps herself no end by assembling a cast of talent who all rise to the challenging material. Jessie Buckley, Claire Foy, Rooney Mara, and Judith Ivey (my personal favourite of the nominal leads) are all given at least one moment to metaphorically punch viewers in the gut, Ben Whishaw is very lovely and sweet as the man helping them to gather their thoughts and make a final decision, and there’s a small role for Frances McDormand that allows her to make a strong impression with only a few minutes of screentime. Others worth mentioning are August Winter (playing someone transgender who provides yet another interesting nuance to the ongoing conversation), Michelle McLeod, Sheila McCarthy, and Shayla Brown, all helping to show more and more ways in which the lives of the women have been impacted over the years by the behaviour of the men.

As weighty and dialogue-heavy as this is, Polley excels at knowing how to treat the material onscreen. We’re shown the aftermath of horrific events, not the abuse itself, and there’s enough movement to stop it from feeling like a stage play, which could so easily have been the case. A lot of scenes are visually drab, as you might expect with a film about this kind of community, but moments of sunshine make infrequent appearances, providing welcome respite from the pain and sadness. I would like to read the Toews book one day, but this feels like a great achievement in how it has been moved from the page to the screen.

Women Talking may not be a film that you want to rush out to see, but it’s a strong and confident work of art. And you might find yourself considering a repeat viewing of it as soon as the end credits roll. I certainly did.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

No Time To Die (2021)

I have to admit to being a bit Bond-fatigued by the time No Time To Die was released. It was a culmination of various factors. I was greatly disappointed by Spectre. I was as fed up as most people were by the seemingly constant whinging from Daniel Craig in between every instalment in the franchise. And, of course, the global pandemic meant that the release date was pushed back for quite some time. I decided that I would remain hopeful, but be prepared for disappointment.

Disappointment was certainly not forthcoming.

No Time To Die is immediately up there with the very best of the Bond films, vying for a top spot alongside On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and a couple of other superior 007 adventures, and it allows Craig to end his tenure on a real high note. It’s a film that gets so much right that it almost makes up for the stumbling steps that got us to this point.

The plot is simple. Bond is retired, he wants to get on with his life with Madeleine (Léa Seydoux). Retirement is interrupted by the pesky Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) being a sneaky schemer once again, and Bond eventually ends up looking to return to his old role when he learns of a deadly bioweapon that can be used to target not just individuals, but entire races. Bond being involved doesn’t make everyone happy. There’s a new agent using the 007 tag (Lashana Lynch) and M is under a lot of stress with the situation. Blofeld, still imprisoned, may actually welcome the chance to see Bond once more, especially as they both seem to have a common enemy, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek).

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also helped on the screenplay with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, this is a near-perfect Bond film that packs enough into every main sequence to distract you from the aspects that aren’t present. You don’t get Bond the womaniser, you don’t get a whole load of gadgets, and you don’t get gunfights and explosions without a lot of consideration and attempts at diplomatic diversions by those giving the orders.

You do get just enough of everything though. There are glamorous women around Bond. There are a couple of decent gadgets used in the midst of the action. And it’s interesting to think that, for all the growth of the character we have seen over the last couple of decades, Bond is shown as essentially the same blunt tool used when needed. The world may have moved on, but new and different problems can be solved with the same old solution.

Craig does well once again in the main role, all blue-eyed piercing stares and pouting. Waltz is underused once again, but also once again superb in his limited amount of screentime. Seydoux does well with what she's given, and she is able to play her part with some ambiguity as others try to figure out whether or not they can trust her. Lynch is a badass, and quickly shows why she was assigned the 007 number, so I wouldn't be averse to a spin-off with her character in it (or seeing her have a similarly strong presence in whatever we get next in the series). I also wouldn't be averse to seeing another main role for Ana de Armas, playing an agent named Paloma in a fantastic set-piece that takes place in Cuba. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear are as good as ever in the respective roles of M, Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner. But what of the main villains? Dali Benssalah is a good henchman, and has a memorable look thanks to his character having one electronic eye alongside one normal eye, and David Dencik is enjoyably cowardly and selfish as the scientist who has created a scarily effective weapon. Malek is really the only weak link, sadly as Safin, a character who isn't written well played in a way that is far too quiet and lacking any real sense of showmanship (which all of the best Bond villains have). Can Malek do anything other than the soft-spoken and kind of awkward character he has made his specialty over the last few years? I'm not seeing anything to prove otherwise, and I don't think he was the best person to put in this role.

Transplant a better villain into this and you could have had the greatest Bond film of all time. As it is, well, it remains a strong contender. Fukunaga directs like someone who simply knows how to run a well-oiled machine, from the sound design to the sets, from the wardrobe to the lighting, and on and on. It's also well worth mentioning the music by Hans Zimmer, providing a score that pieces together various motifs while always complementing the visuals (as any great score should). The stuntwork is superb, the pacing means that the hefty 163-minute runtime goes by briskly enough, and there's at least one moment that feels like one of the most unexpected and iconic moments in modern action cinema. 

By the time the end credits roll . . . you may very well be slightly shaken. 

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Little Joe (2019)

Emily Beecham plays Alice Woodard, a young woman working for a corporation that specialises in developing new species of plants. One of those plants, referred to as "Little Joe" in a reference to her own son (Kit Connor), is designed to respond to care and attention, much like a pet or well-behaved (and very stationary) child. Alice takes one home, although that's very much not allowed, and soon starts to worry about what the plant might be doing in order to ensure its continued survival. There are also co-workers acting strange, by either getting too emotional (in the case of Bella, played by Kerry Fox) or not seeming very emotional at all (in the case of Chris, played by Ben Whishaw).

The first film I have watched that was directed by Jessica Hausner, who also co-wrote the script with her regular collaborator Géraldine Bajard, this certainly won't be the last time I explore her filmography. Hausner and Bajard have taken an interesting premise, a quirky way to rework some material very reminiscent of the paranoid '50s sci-fi classics, and given themselves a huge boost by utilising a great cast in the main roles. It also helps that they have reframed the ideas in a very relevant, almost cutting-edge, environment. This is a film about plants, about emotions, about personality, and about the scientific ways in which all of those things can be manipulated.

Beecham, who I last saw in the excellent Daphne, is an excellent lynchpin for everything that occurs. She's very composed, but retains an ability to observe and empathise that some of the other main characters seem to lack. As her character reacts, or doesn't react, to various changes, it allows the viewer to consider just how things have the potential to be viewed in different ways as the situation develops. Whishaw is in his safety zone, very quiet and slightly uncomfortable when interacting with anyone else, but he's perfect in his role, and works very well alongside Beecham. Connor is a very good young actor, David Wilmot is very good in the role of Karl (basically . . . a team leader/boss), and Fox gives yet another of her many great performances as the alarmed and potentially paranoid Bella.

The beauty of Little Joe lies in, well, the beauty of Little Joe . . . and co. It's a visually gorgeous film, making use of sterile environments that contain some vivid splashes of colour, and both the shot composition and the ways in which the actors are placed/set to move throughout really provide a treat for the eyes, all while the intriguing ideas being sprinkled throughout the runtime provide a treat for those who enjoy intelligent sci-fi.

I can easily see many people hating this. Unlike the creation at the centre of everything, it's not an easy creation to love. And yet love it I did/do. Almost every scene has something to either draw your eye or get you thinking, and many scenes have both. And there's at least one moment that would easily rank for me as one of the best of the year. Hausner has assembled a hell of a collective to get this just right, and that ends up showcasing the fact that Little Joe sure can sing!

8/10

Paddington 2 (2017)

I try my best not to mix my own politics with film reviews, unless the films are making a strong political statement or something happens that I find so downright loathsome that I just have to say something. And yet here I am with this review of Paddington 2 and it feels as if I should start off with a bit of a statement.

Don't worry, I believe what I am about to say is actually quite bipartisan, but I suppose that really depends on how you're viewing the world around you. Because that world has been getting a bit crappier and crappier for most of the past few weeks, months, and years. Natural disasters, idiots and criminals in positions of authority, tensions between countries with nuclear weapons, business closures and job losses, murders and cowardly terrorist attacks, and the general downsizing of some of my favourite chocolate bars.

Why am I doing my best to make us all a bit depressed? Well, Paddington 2 is an undeniably fun and lovely film, but it's also the perfect kind of film to make you forget about global problems for a while, and I think the timing may be as much a key to its success as the quality of the film itself.

Returning to helm once more, after doing such a great job with the first movie, director Paul King (also co-writing again, this time with Simon Farnaby, who also has a hilarious cameo) crafts another perfect mix of comedy, sweetness, and sheer entertainment.

The plot revolves around a pop-up book. Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw) wants to save up his money and buy it as a great birthday gift for his Aunt Lucy. Which makes it very unfortunate when the book is stolen. And it's even more unfortunate when Paddington is mistaken for the thief, leaving him to spend some time at her majesty's leisure while the cunning thief (Hugh Grant, clearly having a blast) uses the book to decipher a code that he hopes will lead to a heap of treasure. Prison life leads Paddington to meet Knuckles McGinty (Brendan Gleeson), and an unlikely friendship develops. But is that enough to keep our little bear in good spirits while people outside the prison walls try to prove his innocence? Or will a prison break be necessary?

Watching Paddington 2, and enjoying it SO much, got me thinking about both of the Paddington films. They both have the same strengths. First of all, the cast. Most people return here to the roles that they had in the first film, and the cast includes Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Julie Walters, Peter Capaldi, Jim Broadbent, Tom Conti, and many, many more. Some scenes are a veritable who's who of British talent. Second, this is how you update a cute character who came to prominence in what might be labelled more innocent times. Paddington Bear isn't the type of youngster who has grown up with Twitter and Facebook, he doesn't have a smartphone in his pocket, and a lot of his values are as naive as they are admirable. But keeping him that way, almost a wide-eyed innocent often wrong-footed by the world around him, makes him a great character at the heart of these stories. And the fact that he never doubts himself, the fact that he always treats everyone the same way, makes it easier to accept those reciprocating his kindness and selflessness in a way that somehow doesn't feel too schmaltzy and annoying.

There are other reasons for the films being so successful, of course. The production design, the visuals, the CGI, the music, the pacing, every aspect of the film feels like it has been given due care and consideration. The script balances out the jokes with the emotional content, nicely weighting things on one end or the other through alternating scenes, and both major elements work. And I think I already mentioned Hugh Grant. He may be portraying a very different kind of villain from the character played by Nicole Kidman in the first film, but that doesn't make him less of a threat. He's the type that you want to boo and hiss at, even while laughing at his vanity and showiness (he plays a hammy actor who hasn't starred in a hit for quite some time - at least those costumes he has will help him in a variety of different disguises).

I haven't taken the time to rattle through the entire cast and sing their praises because this is an ensemble piece that brings the best out of everyone, whether they're onscreen for ten seconds or one hundred minutes. You don't view Hawkins, Bonneville, and co. as the supporting cast. You view them as the Browns. You don't spend the film contemplating how good Whishaw is in his voice role, you just accept that he's Paddington. And so on.

There's not much more I can say about it. I don't agree with some who think this sequel is superior to the first movie, but I couldn't say that it's inferior either. I rate both the same, and recommend picking up a nice double-bill immediately if you've somehow avoided either film until now. Buy the films, clear your schedules, make yourself a nice plate of marmalade sandwiches, and then sit down and press play. You'll thank me for it.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Is Spectre a Bond film that completely misunderstands Bond?

Unfortunately, what has set me back to the keyboard is a movie that has disappointed me. Well, not just disappointed me. Perhaps saying that it angered me would be closer to the truth. You see, many have decided to come out again in favour of James Bond, and many are heaping some great praise upon Spectre. And I, for the life of me, can't see how this is possible. From the perspective of a Bond fan, Spectre is a bad movie. It is, in my eyes, the worst instalment in the entire official series. And I've endured The Man With The Golden Gun.

For anyone interested, I have previously written about Bond movies here (Connery, with a hint of Lazenby), here (Moore), here (Dalton), here (Brosnan), here (Craig), and here (a couple of interesting movies that are never really considered "canon"). And I reviewed Skyfall here. I'm not linking to those reviews and articles to claim to be any kind of expert. I simply think that if you browse through those and share any of my taste then the following may be a bit easier to stomach. Otherwise, feel free to think of me as someone talking out of his posterior.

Now, although this won't be a full, standard movie review, I'd like to try to pinpoint a few aspects of Spectre that make it such a bad Bond movie. Let me try to highlight everything in, hmmmmmmm, 7 main points.

1) That opening. The opening sequence of Spectre has some great moments. In fact, up until a building collapses and Bond (Daniel Craig, once again totally at ease in the role) has to get to ground level, I was very happy. But then it simply reprises the opening minutes of Casino Royale. We've seen Bond do this before, keeping pace with a target through a busy, exotic locale. We've seen him do many things before, of course, but the familiarity of his drinking, his seduction of women and his one-liners are part of the appeal. Watching repetitive scenes, as opposed to repeated character traits, isn't the same thing. Then we have some great helicopter stunt work. Seriously . . . kudos to all involved. But was I the only person noticing one or two moments of green screen that were all-too-obvious? The 21st century equivalent of Roger Moore's stunt double taking up most of the screentime in his latter outings? The visuals were decidedly so-so, and a bit irritating in their incessant reminder of the events from the previous movies that have SHAPED our hero (don't you know), but I could have accepted them if they'd been accompanied by a decent song. Oh no. The worst Bond movie in the Bond-verse also has the worst Bond song. I don't think Sam Smith should ever be allowed to write jingles for breakfast cereals after his godawful slice of drabness put forward here.

2) The ladies. Bond has always been about the Bond girls as well as the man himself. And there was much talk about Monica Bellucci being a leading Bond girl. She is *gasp* 50. I love Monica Bellucci, and was looking forward to seeing her role in the movie. If anyone had told me that she was in it for about all of five minutes then the poor treatment she receives at the hands of the scriptwriters might have been easier to stomach. The other main Bond girl here is played by Lea Seydoux, who easily fares better than Bellucci. Sadly, the makers of the movie use her as a way to show a Bond developing a heart and feelings. You know, like he did in Casino Royale . . . . . . . . before events changed him into the figure we knew he had to become.

3) This is not a Mission: Impossible movie, but nobody told the writers that. Okay, Q (Ben Whishaw) is a younger man here than he ever was in the older movies, but we don't need an unnecessary scene putting him in some danger out in the field. We can watch Simon Pegg try to keep up with Tom Cruise for that kind of fish-out-of-water fun in an action spy franchise. And I know that the new M (Ralph Fiennes, who looks more and more like Leonard Rossiter with every performance he gives) has seen action in the field, but that doesn't make me want to watch him join in the battle either.

4) Stunt set-pieces are for the stunts and the gadgets. This is pretty much why every Bond movie exists. So it's weird to see a car chase occur in which Bond spends a large amount of the time speaking on the phone to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Or a fight sequence in which Bond faces off against a physically superior opponent (Dave Bautista) for no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you're supposed to think that there's always a reason for Bond and co. to be in physical danger, but the last 30-40 minutes contradict that, as it contradicts so many things.

5) Bond, as he is displayed onscreen, isn't the introspective type (bar occasional moments of brilliance, such as THAT final scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Whether by choice or necessity, he acts and he moves on. Sometimes the consequences aren't as good as expected, but the alternatives are often a hell of a lot worse. Not here, however. Oh no. This is a thoughtful Bond. A Bond who looks as if he wants a bit of a holiday. Which isn't what you really want from your number one international secret agent.

6) The villain(s). A good Bond movie can be made or broken by the villain. Christoph Waltz is on hand here, another reason to rejoice. Until you realise that he's given a character who is completely mishandled. The big speeches never feel powerful enough, the threat only gets specific in a strange, and ill-fitting, torture sequence, and his development from the start of the movie to the end is as laughable as it is predictable.

7) Can I fit my problems into only seven main points? Oh, oh, I think I can. The biggest problem with Spectre is one that almost occured in Skyfall. Director Sam Mendes and co. seem unable to decide on just what to do with their lead character. One minute they're tearing down his established world, allowing him to rise again from the ashes like some kind of 00-phoenix. The next they're trying to shoehorn in familiar elements that they either want to reinvent for the modern era or they're adding unwanted touches from other movies that were themselves influenced by Bond (the shadow of Christopher Nolan seems to be a problem here, yet again).

Bond CAN be serious (Licence To Kill remains one of the best in the series, and it's also one of the darkest). He CAN be silly (look at most of those Moore outings). He can be an entertaining mixture of the two (as has been the case with most of the Brosnan and Craig films). But he always has to ultimately be Bond, and everything else should stem from that. Don't try to make a movie that you then use to shape James Bond. Let James Bond shape the movie that you're making.

 If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Paddington (2014)

I've never read any of the original Paddington Bear stories, but I did grow up watching some of the delightful stop-motion TV episodes, narrated by Michael Hordern. I liked the little bear, initially because he was an identifiable figure (he is, after all, a small, curious child with an addiction to a certain type of sandwich), but later on I viewed him with enduring affection because he was a quintessentially charming British creation. Despite hailing from deepest, darkest Peru, Paddington is as synonymous with the UK as red telephone boxes, a good cup of tea, and people who will do anything to avoid social embarrassment.

And it is this quaint, and largely bygone, view of Britain that makes Paddington such a great success on the big screen. It celebrates many of our idiosyncracies, while also viewing them with the look of puzzlement that they probably deserve.

The basic plot sees Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw) arriving here on our shores and hoping to find a new family. He is eventually approached by the Browns, ending up being allowed to share their home until he finds somewhere else to settle. While making many strange new discoveries, Paddington causes numerous accidents (some minor, some pretty big). He soon starts to outstay his welcome. Meanwhile, a taxidermist named Millicent (Nicole Kidman) finds out about this rare beast arriving in the UK and wants to add him to her collection.

Directed by Paul King, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Hamish McColl, this is the very definition of fun for all the family. Kids will love the central character and many of the jokes. Adults will also enjoy many of the jokes, while also being able to spot a myriad of subtler gags and references strewn throughout the film (a personal favourite of mine involves the Brown family in a reversed "Evolution Of Man" tableau). The pacing is perfect, the rendering of Paddington feels very real, and a number of set-pieces ensure that you'll be hoping to see more antics in a sequel even as the end credits are still rolling.

Whishaw is a perfect vocal fit for the main character, helping Paddington to remain very much the furry child that still has so much to learn. The Browns are nicely portrayed by Sally Hawkins and Hugh Bonneville (as the mother and father), and Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin (the daughter and son). Bonneville gets to have the most fun with his role, but Hawkins also has some great little moments, while Harris and Joslin both react very differently to the presence of the little bear in their home. Julie Walters is the housekeeper who seems unfazed by anything, and even thinks that the Browns may benefit from Paddington's presence, and Peter Capaldi is a nosey neighbour, providing some more laughs in the second half of the film. This may not be the kind of film that you'd expect Kidman to do well in, but she does. Her villain is perfectly balanced, she's a genuine threat to Paddington without ever being TOO terrifying for younger viewings. And the motivation for her character is surprisingly brilliant.

With cameo appearances from many other fine British performers (Jim Broadbent, Michael Gambon and Imelda Staunton in voice form, Alice Lowe, Steve Oram, Matt Lucas, Geoffrey Palmer and Simon Farnaby being the main ones), a lively score by Nick Urata, plenty of iconic imagery and clever use of pesky pigeons, this is a film that easily proves more than just bear-able.

Oh come on, I got all this way without one groan-inducing pun. There had to be one.

9/10

The movie won't be out on shiny disc for a while, so treat yourself to some nostalgia here - http://www.amazon.com/Paddington-Bear-Complete-Classic-Various/dp/B004HI79LY/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1419689429&sr=1-1&keywords=paddington+dvd

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Layer Cake (2004)

Layer Cake is an important movie for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's the film that saw the hugely talented Matthew Vaughn step out from the shadow of Guy Ritchie (he'd previously been producer on Ritchie's movies). Secondly, it showed Daniel Craig's leading man potential and even, yes, gives him a Bond moment. Third, it showed that British crime movies could still be fresh and entertaining without coming across as some pale Lock, Stock-wannabe. Fourth . . . . okay, I'm not sure if there are any more reasons so I'll stop there. But Layer Cake is certainly more, thanks to what it achieved, than just another UK gangster movie.

The story revolves all around Daniel Craig's smart drug dealer, a man who wants to make his million and get out of the business. Of course, anyone who makes the big shots a lot of money will always struggle to extricate themselves from the criminal lifestyle and that's exactly the case here. Avoiding the police, trying to stay alive and setting up a deal involving a million stolen pills, Craig really has his work cut out for him.

Mixing a smart script with great performances (Craig is superb but he's more than capably supported by the likes of Kenneth Cranham, Colm Meaney, Michael Gambon and everyone else who appears alongside him), cool visuals and an ideal soundtrack this film may not cover any new ground but it gives everything a fresh coat of paint with it's easygoing, effortless air of . . . . cool. This film has style in abundance. That's not to say that it glorifies the lifestyles shown or any of the violence we see, hell no. There are people here we'd never want to meet in real life and when things erupt into violence they do so with absolute brutality, impacting on the lives of those involved. There are no consequence-free, thoughtless actions here. Everything is weighed up and accounted for, even if it's after the fact.

It's an absolute corker of a film that has grown on me with each subsequent viewing. I'm sure that many others will still simply cast it aside as "yet another British gangster flick" but that's not the case and I hope that others give it a chance and end up enjoying it as much as I do.

9/10

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Layer-Cake-DVD-Daniel-Craig/dp/B0006HIPOK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1371682047&sr=8-5&keywords=layer+cake