Movie Impressions: The Peanuts Movie

To be honest with you, I wasn't really exposed to Peanuts.Unbelievable right? Though before watching, I did do my research and read a bunch of strips. And from what I can see, the movie is faithful to its source material. It is rather surprising to me that Blue-Sky studios actually took time off from milking the Ice-Age franchise and produce a refreshing animated movie that I have seen in a while.


The story is brisk as we follow Charlie Brown trying to woo her crush, The Red-Haired Girl in an attempt to finally have a fresh start to have a friend who doesn't ridicule him . The situation is simple and relatable in that way and feels, human. The story really feeds itself from the source material and its history, almost to the limit that if the story taken to isolation just might not have the depth that it has. Now the story being relatable is also a predictable one. But if you have seen any romantic movie, you could have guessed it, so the question here really is 'how' instead of 'what'. The sense of  humour here is also nice with some witty writing and visual gags that reference the past but adding a unique twist to them. Though, I wish it tried to go into more high-browed social/psychological satire like some of the Peanuts strips did but I guess the whole story in here can be interpreted as a story on crushing. Nonetheless, the main highlight of the movie is going to be its presentation and the various nods to the comic and the animated stuff.

The biggest nod of them all would be the animation style. It blends hand-drawn with 3-D computer animation superbly. The bodies of the characters are fully fleshed 3-D shapes but have eyes and expressions like as if they were drawn by pencil, it really adds visual identity to the movie that bridges the gap between the comic strips and the movie. It also is a nice addition that the overall animation itself plays in a stop-motion kind of style that again fits perfectly in Peanuts. I was really happy with the animation here plus the cinematography in general is really well done, presenting you a very welcoming world and is surprisingly homely. And also sometimes they actually punctuate or add thought bubbles here and there which I thought were nice touches.

Charlie Brown and his gang is the heart of what Peanuts is and it is really good that they had such an illustrious history because it motivated the writers to be faithful and create something that could be on that level. Charles M. Schultz, the creator of Peanuts, said that Charlie Brown was the caricature of the average person. He suffers from a big inferiority complex that comes from his many mishaps-which I can identify with honestly- and yet still pushes forward towards his goal. He is the quintessential underdog which makes you root for him instantly. The story also doe .There are a myriad of other people in this movie with equally intriguing characteristics and it would be too long if I described all of them. But each one of them is unique in their own way does add variety to the experience(Such as Lucy.)

Did you know that in some regions the title is actually Snoopy and Charlie Brown, The Peanuts Movie? Honestly, I couldn't have been asked to write the whole thing for the title of this post, but it actually makes sense since half of this movie is also centred on Snoopy. These sections are bookmarked in the story and the premise is Snoopy (being the intellectual he is) is writing a story inspired by Charlie Brown's current predicament, and places himself as a WW1 flying ace saving his love from the clutches of the Red Baron. I like the sense of fantasy here and how it parallels with the main narrative. But sometimes it becomes too distracting. I would have loved it though if these sections provided some easter eggs for plot points that would happen later on but it is mostly its own thing. I adore Snoopy as a character though. He is like the poster boy of those animals that are shown more intelligent and talented than their human companions and he acts as a sort of wingman for Charlie Brown, always spurring him on to meet his challenges. Fans would also like to know that Bill Melendez's archival footage was used for Snoopy and Woodstock. In fact I actually like the voice acting in general, it's almost exactly how I imagined them as I was reading. I heard they used actual kids which is cool and I also chuckled at how all the adult voices were just trombone sounds.


Honestly, this movie has opened up a new world for me in Peanuts and it has certainly gained a new reader. To sum up the film in one word, I would say 'adorable'. It is a really good film. Admittedly the story is a bit on the weak side but there are definitely some emotional moments that are executed well. The characters are super-enjoyable  almost leading to the question that without the history that surrounds them, could this movie actually have stood on its own? Nonetheless I think it stands as a great example of respecting the source material its based on and trying to expand it rather than needlessly 'update' it. I think with films such as this and Creed , Hollywood may have finally started to have a heart.

Movie Impressions: SPECTRE 007

The ending of Skyfall arguably was a promise to return to a more classic bond. Yet it also dawned a rather grim realisation that Bond just may have become obsolete both as a concept in films and the real world where computers and information reign. Though can the return of SPECTRE prove otherwise.

The movie starts with the very familiar gun-barrel entry, the first time in the Craig-era Bond films. Following the ominous words 'the dead are alive' it perfectly segues into the opening sequence in Mexico City's Day of the Dead festival. In 90% of the interviews/reviews I have seen; everyone quotes this opening, and it is for a good reason. Starting with a beautiful continuous tracking shot of Bond through the busy streets of the city (to a brilliant score) that gradually builds up to a crescendo of a brutal fight in a helicopter in the air above hundreds of civilians in a town square. This opening in my opinion is a great summary to what a Bond film is and effortlessly captures the character's essence. I was a bit on the fence with the new title track by Sam Smith, but with the visuals in, it fits a lot better.

When asked about SPECTRE, former-bond Pierce Brosnan replied that got confused whether he was watching a bond movie or a bourne movie. Once I saw the story, I do get his point. To be honest it tries its best to marry classic bond sensibilities with the personal, gritty tone of recent escapades. But it just doesn't work. The plot (to be honest) feels a bit longer than the story actually is and it tries to wrap up stories from previous films with varying levels of success. Hence largely the cornerstones of interest would be the action and characters.

The action in here well done with practical effects with good editing;so it doesn't leave you nauseous. However none of them could really top the intro. The DB10. I thought would be the return of automotive gadgetry in Bond, but it wasn't so since half of them didn't even work... . The chase scene that we do get is again, well done and also has an absolutely befitting score behind it. But the chase at times felt a bit boring since it was an empty street and it somehow felt too short to be really tense. Some of the locales such as Austria and Rome looked superb though I was longing for a diverse colour palette like we saw in Skyfall.

This being my first Bond review, I have to say that I was one of those people who wasn't completely behind Daniel Craig's casting and still he doesn't physically fit my description of the character. However, you cannot deny what he brings to the role is really something fresh, and he continues that in this movie with one of the best grunt faces I have ever seen. Léa Seydoux plays Madeline Swann who is the female lead of the movie. She also carried herself really well, strong and elegant but I would say do not expect Vesper levels of foil. I did like Dave Bautista's Mr.Hinx; imagine Oddball mixed with Jaws, 'nuff said.
Team MI6 represented by M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Wishaw) were enjoyable to a degree given their involvement in the story, though a little more character development wouldn't have hurt. Surprisingly, Monica Bellucci's role was small given that she was a main cast member. Andrew Scott is a good actor, but his role in here was too much of a prick than a genuine threat.

Coming to Christoph Waltz as Franz Oberhauser, I will have to go into spoiler territory.So feel free to skip, though it shouldn't make a real difference. Let me cut to the chase, He's Blofeld and it needn't be that way. After this 'shocking' reveal I still don't get why the villain couldn't be just Oberhauser because the story adds a pretty close, brotherly relationship between him and bond, and his primary motivation comes from a mere childhood grudge seems too low of a level for Blofeld. And his big plan though realistic is almost a rehash of Tomorrow Never Dies. Their relationships and the stakes (dare I say) are a bit too personal. Again if it were just Oberhauser it would have worked, but once you add Blofeld's name there will be the question of legacy regardless of it being a reboot or not. Bond has always been the thorn on the side of Blofeld's plans rather than the main centre of it. And if Bond wasn't, it doesn't explain why he started SPECTRE in the first place. Which is why I would have preferred him just being Oberhauser and it could have been that he inherited the organisation from Blofeld. Also Christoph Waltz tried his very best to present himself in the most interesting manner, but with only 3 scenes, he couldn't make a real lasting impression despite a chilling reveal, which is a bummer.

The awful truth is that the information age has taken its toll on the beloved spy. In fact arguably the real hero of the story would be Q considering the plot. In an age where computers do most of the work where does the 'suave spy' fit in ? This has been an age old problem for Bond: how do you keep him relevant? Overtime films like Casino Royale refreshed the franchise with a gritty tone or coming back back to the classic 'suave' tone as I call it. But honestly it doesn't matter as long as it has that 'oomph' factor to it. Even though Casino was gritty and much more darker there was still the ohh wow! moment to it which came out of its tension and emotional impact which matched to that of a really good bond villain or awesome gadgets, there was always something a bit out-worldly-feel to these films. That is what I felt SPECTRE was lacking, that sense of character, it just did not have that 'oomph' to it. That is except the opening sequence and the brilliant soundtrack by Thomas Newman. Bond will always be just that much larger-than-life because that is how Ian Fleming made him. And the moment you ground him too much the effect is gone.

Sam Mendes has done a terrific job here hand-on-heart, its just that the more personal story somehow did not let Bond unleash himself as much he should have been in my opinion. Nonetheless, I feel that we are in a strange transition period with Bond as he rediscovers his place in this changing world. Some teething problems will arise, but I think in the end we may have something truly special that would push the Bond's legacy forward.