Search
Creating Wealth Video Podcast with Jason Hartman | No-Hype Real Estate Investing Strategies for Achieving Financial Freedom
Podcast
Companion to Jason Hartman’s highly acclaimed Creating Wealth Show (audio podcast) Learn fresh new...
Mirrorwriting by Jamie Woon
Album
As the stately pace of Mirrorwriting attests, Jamie Woon is not one to rush. And when the four years...
Holby City - Series 19
6.1
Rate It
TV Show
The series was created by Tony McHale and Mal Young as a spin-off from the established BBC medical...
Drama
JT (287 KP) rated Killing Them Softly (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There was quite a significant gap between films for writer/director Andrew Dominik, five years in fact. His last feature length outing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a Western epic and here he has teamed up with Brad Pitt again for Killing Them Softly, one with a significantly shorter run time.
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Very Good Time
It's 2045 and most of the world's population has turned to the virtual world called OASIS which has become a second home for many. When the world's creator James Halladay (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves behind an easter egg inside the virtual world and whoever finds that egg will inherit both his fortune and the OASIS. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) hopes to find that egg before Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) and his greedy corporation IOI can get their hands on it and forever ruin the OASIS.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
A Stain in the Blood: The Remarkable Voyage of Sir Kenelm Digby
Book
SHORTLISTED FOR THE JAMES TAIT BLACK PRIZE FOR BIOGRAPHY and THE ELIZABETH LONGFORD PRIZE FOR...
History
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)