Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Oliver & Company (1988) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
Cats and Dogs
This is a intesting fact that i didnt realze until now, that James Mangold wrote the screenplay for this movie.
The plot: In this animated update of the classic "Oliver Twist" tale, Oliver (Joey Lawrence) is an orphaned kitten taken in by a gang of thieving dogs, led by cavalier canine Dodger (Billy Joel) and owned by down-and-out pickpocket Fagin (Dom DeLuise). While pulling a job in the streets of New York City, Oliver winds up being adopted by a rich girl, Jenny (Natalie Gregory), and landing on easy street. But through a series of events, a loan shark threatens the peaceful new arrangement.
This is one of the weirdest cast ever. You have Joey Lawerence, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin and Bette Midler. Such a weird cast.
Other than that, its a good movie.
The plot: In this animated update of the classic "Oliver Twist" tale, Oliver (Joey Lawrence) is an orphaned kitten taken in by a gang of thieving dogs, led by cavalier canine Dodger (Billy Joel) and owned by down-and-out pickpocket Fagin (Dom DeLuise). While pulling a job in the streets of New York City, Oliver winds up being adopted by a rich girl, Jenny (Natalie Gregory), and landing on easy street. But through a series of events, a loan shark threatens the peaceful new arrangement.
This is one of the weirdest cast ever. You have Joey Lawerence, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin and Bette Midler. Such a weird cast.
Other than that, its a good movie.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Black Book in Books
May 10, 2018
Detective Billy Harney comes from a family of cops. His dad is a cop, the head of detectives and his twin sister is a cop. Billy likes to play by the rules, he's a good cop. When he takes down a brothel in the middle of Chicago filled with the city's most prominent people, the mayor, the arch bishop, etc., he is faced with a few difficult situations to get him through this arrest and trial. With the help from Goldie, a family friend and the head of Internal Affairs, Billy will get to the bottom of this case one way or another. But then those involved in the case end up dead, including himself, briefly, and his memory leading up to the trial is erased. Will he be able to find his memory before he is charged with the deaths?
James Patterson has long been on of my go-to authors. His books may be long(100+ chapters), but they are always a quick read. I've been making my way through his standalone books this year and I have to say that his is one of the best he's written in a long time as well as one of the best I've read this year.
This book had me on the edge of my seat and as soon as I though I knew who did what, I quickly found out I was wrong. The end was unpredictable and enjoyable.
I hope James Patterson continues to give us books like this.
James Patterson has long been on of my go-to authors. His books may be long(100+ chapters), but they are always a quick read. I've been making my way through his standalone books this year and I have to say that his is one of the best he's written in a long time as well as one of the best I've read this year.
This book had me on the edge of my seat and as soon as I though I knew who did what, I quickly found out I was wrong. The end was unpredictable and enjoyable.
I hope James Patterson continues to give us books like this.
Johnny Marr recommended track Gimme Danger by Iggy And The Stooges in Michigan Palace, 10/6/73 by Iggy And The Stooges in Music (curated)
Merissa (11755 KP) rated Colorado Flames With A Texas Twist (Colorado Heart #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2023
We're back with the boys of the Wild Bluff ranch and this time it's James who takes the spotlight. He is following - or stalking in his words - Brody, supposedly to make sure that Brody doesn't talk about the ranch but in reality, it is because James is fascinated with him. Brody comes across as a 'clean-cut boy' but has his own secrets to hide.
The one thing that stuck out for me in this book is the introduction to new characters, a new scene and a whole backstory that I know absolutely nothing about. Whilst I can see them having more importance as the story goes on, I have no idea who they are or what they're about right now. The other thing is that 'Mike' is mentioned more than once but from what I could understand, there is more than one 'Mike' character so I have no idea which one was which and who was being spoken about. I guess if you've read the other series, you will know more but I haven't.
On the whole, this was very enjoyable and I liked spending time with Zander, Marshall, Tucker and Billy, as well as James and Brody. Definitely enjoying these reads.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 9, 2015
The one thing that stuck out for me in this book is the introduction to new characters, a new scene and a whole backstory that I know absolutely nothing about. Whilst I can see them having more importance as the story goes on, I have no idea who they are or what they're about right now. The other thing is that 'Mike' is mentioned more than once but from what I could understand, there is more than one 'Mike' character so I have no idea which one was which and who was being spoken about. I guess if you've read the other series, you will know more but I haven't.
On the whole, this was very enjoyable and I liked spending time with Zander, Marshall, Tucker and Billy, as well as James and Brody. Definitely enjoying these reads.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 9, 2015
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Near Dark (1987) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Bill Paxton (1 more)
Lance Henrikson
Finger-Lickin' Good!
Near Dark- is a great neo-western horror film about vampires. It was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, it was also her debut film.
The plot: Cowboy Caleb Colton (Adrian Pasdar) meets gorgeous Mae (Jenny Wright) at a bar, and the two have an immediate attraction. But when Mae turns out to be a vampire and bites Caleb on the neck, their relationship gets complicated. Wracked with a craving for human blood, Caleb is forced to leave his family and ride with Mae and her gang of vampires, including the evil Severen. Along the way Caleb must decide between his new love of Mae and the love of his family.
Vampire films had become "trendy" by the time of Near Dark's production, with the success of Fright Night (1985) and The Lost Boys (1987), the latter released two months before Near Dark and grossing $32 million. Kathryn Bigelow wanted to film a Western movie that departed from cinematic convention.
The combination of the genres had been visited at least twice before on the big screen, with Curse of the Undead (1959) and Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966).
Bigelow knew (and later married) director James Cameron, who directed Aliens (1986), a film that shares three cast members (Paxton, Goldstein and Henriksen) with Near Dark. Actor Michael Biehn was offered the role of Jesse Hooker, but he rejected the role because he found the script confusing. Lance Henriksen took over the role. A cinema seen in the background early in the film has Aliens on its marquee and Cameron played the man who "flips off" Severen.
Its a classic and a cult film.
The plot: Cowboy Caleb Colton (Adrian Pasdar) meets gorgeous Mae (Jenny Wright) at a bar, and the two have an immediate attraction. But when Mae turns out to be a vampire and bites Caleb on the neck, their relationship gets complicated. Wracked with a craving for human blood, Caleb is forced to leave his family and ride with Mae and her gang of vampires, including the evil Severen. Along the way Caleb must decide between his new love of Mae and the love of his family.
Vampire films had become "trendy" by the time of Near Dark's production, with the success of Fright Night (1985) and The Lost Boys (1987), the latter released two months before Near Dark and grossing $32 million. Kathryn Bigelow wanted to film a Western movie that departed from cinematic convention.
The combination of the genres had been visited at least twice before on the big screen, with Curse of the Undead (1959) and Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966).
Bigelow knew (and later married) director James Cameron, who directed Aliens (1986), a film that shares three cast members (Paxton, Goldstein and Henriksen) with Near Dark. Actor Michael Biehn was offered the role of Jesse Hooker, but he rejected the role because he found the script confusing. Lance Henriksen took over the role. A cinema seen in the background early in the film has Aliens on its marquee and Cameron played the man who "flips off" Severen.
Its a classic and a cult film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Monsters University (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Monsters University brings Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and the whole gang back in what I can only describe as a huge win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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)