Search
Search results
Bread Beauty Revolution: Khwaja Ahmad Abbas 1914-1987
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, Iffat Fatima and Syeda Hameed
Book
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas distinguished himself by his ceaseless passion for revolutionary politics, which...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jarhead (2005) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Jarhead starts as we meet Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who joined the marines, it isn’t long before he gets taken by Staff Sgt Sykes (Foxx) to the US Marine Sniper division going through the training regime meeting his spotter Alan Troy (Sarsgaard).
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019
Entertaining Enough
In the battle of DC vs Marvel in the Cinematic world, the prevailing theory is that DC is "righting the ship" with back-to-back decent films - AQUAMAN and SHAZAM. And...after viewing both of these films, I will agree that they are moving the ship in the correct direction, but they have a long, long way to go before they can say they have "righted" this ship.
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated One of us is Lying in Books
Sep 6, 2018
The Pacings (2 more)
The Plot
The Characters
A Great Read!
I forgot how I came across One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus, but I'm really glad I did. This story pulled me in right from the start and never let go!
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Like many others, I've been pretty much sold on The Batman since the first trailer dropped, to the point where I was worried that my own hype would leave me disappointed. Luckily that's not the case. Matt Reeves has crafted the definitive live action Batman experience.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thunder Force (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
I love Octavia Spencer's versatility, so a superhero type of film was intriguing, and the combination of her and Melissa McCarthy felt right. Then they throw in Bobby Cannavale and Jason Bateman too? There appears to be a lot to love about this film.
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.