Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) in Movies
Feb 15, 2018 (Updated Feb 15, 2018)
Mmmm, Blood of Dracula
Superior Hammer horror movie. Victorian hypocrites looking for naughty kicks get mixed up with one of Dracula's disciples, inadvertently bring him back. Dracula is not grateful and uses their own children to get them.
Usual strong Hammer cast, polished production values, lush James Bernard score - topical (for the time) subtext about the generation gap, and the depiction of Dracula as an avenging angel of darkness is an interesting new twist on a character who seemed in danger of running out of things to do. Dracula was originally supposed to be reincarnated as Ralph Bates, but the distributors insisted they get Lee back, much against his will as usual.
Usual strong Hammer cast, polished production values, lush James Bernard score - topical (for the time) subtext about the generation gap, and the depiction of Dracula as an avenging angel of darkness is an interesting new twist on a character who seemed in danger of running out of things to do. Dracula was originally supposed to be reincarnated as Ralph Bates, but the distributors insisted they get Lee back, much against his will as usual.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Dig (2021) in Movies
Jan 31, 2021
Acting from Fiennes and Mulligan - top notch (1 more)
Cinematography is gorgeous
Why make it so "man heavy" when history was otherwise? (1 more)
Found the asynchronous editing irritating
Archaeology with no fedora required
It’s 1939, and as World War 2 approaches, widower Edith Pretty (Carey Mulligan) hires rough and ready excavator Basil Brown (Ralph Fiennes) to dig into one of the ancient earth mounds on her property at the site that will become famous as Sutton Hoo in Suffolk. Requesting the help of her cousin Rory Lomax (Johnny Flynn) to photograph the effort, the site slowly gives up its Anglo-Saxon treasures attracting the attention of first the Ipswich museum and then the pompous Charles Phillips (Ken Stott) of the British Museum. A battle is on for both the control of the site and the resting place for the treasures found.
Against this backdrop there is a critical illness emerging, a son (Archie Barnes) and his attachment to the father figure of Brown and a potential romance between Rory and archaeologist Peggy Piggott, trapped in a loveless marriage.
Talent:
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Ralph Fiennes, Johnny Flynn, Lily James, Archie Barnes, Ken Stott, Monica Donlan.
Directed by: Simon Stone.
Written by: Moira Buffini (from the novel by John Preston).
Bullet points of my thoughts:
+ Superb acting by Mulligan and Fiennes – Oscar noms for both?
+ Young Archie Barnes impresses as the son Robert
+ Cinematography by Mike Eley shows the open Suffolk skies at their best
+ Based on fact, a fascinating historical record of the real excitement of uncovering the past
o The script deftly melds the archeology with the love story subplot: but was the latter really necessary?
– Curious “man heavy” script, replacing some of the historical female characters with men and making Peggy Piggott (Lily James) a bit of a klutz
– Asynchronous editing decision I found to be distracting and unnecessary.
For my full review, please see the video at https://youtu.be/m8Ad8B8dkSY .
Against this backdrop there is a critical illness emerging, a son (Archie Barnes) and his attachment to the father figure of Brown and a potential romance between Rory and archaeologist Peggy Piggott, trapped in a loveless marriage.
Talent:
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Ralph Fiennes, Johnny Flynn, Lily James, Archie Barnes, Ken Stott, Monica Donlan.
Directed by: Simon Stone.
Written by: Moira Buffini (from the novel by John Preston).
Bullet points of my thoughts:
+ Superb acting by Mulligan and Fiennes – Oscar noms for both?
+ Young Archie Barnes impresses as the son Robert
+ Cinematography by Mike Eley shows the open Suffolk skies at their best
+ Based on fact, a fascinating historical record of the real excitement of uncovering the past
o The script deftly melds the archeology with the love story subplot: but was the latter really necessary?
– Curious “man heavy” script, replacing some of the historical female characters with men and making Peggy Piggott (Lily James) a bit of a klutz
– Asynchronous editing decision I found to be distracting and unnecessary.
For my full review, please see the video at https://youtu.be/m8Ad8B8dkSY .
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Mork And Mindy in TV
Apr 20, 2017
Classic Comedy (2 more)
Feel Good show
Life Lessons
Na-nu Na-nu
Now here's a show that not many people know, especially someone of my age because it's a show that's been off the air for 3 decades. However if you are a fan of the late great Robin Williams, this show is a must see.
The show is actually a spin off, after the character of Mork appeared in an episode of Happy Days. After the then unknown Robin Williams became so popular in his role that the producers decided to give him his own show.
One great thing about Mork and Mindy is that we learn life lessons through Mork learning about human life. With lessons about lying to people, talking to strangers, and the importance of laws etc. It's packed to the brim with humour both scripted by the writers, and some improvised by the brilliantly entertaining Robin Williams which made him really popular with the audience.
Mork from Ork, gets himself into all kinds of trouble on the show and the show is filled with memorable words and phrases such as "Na-Nu Na-Nu" which, from how it's used in the show, is used as "Hello" and "Goodbye". There's also "Shazbot" which seems to be a curse word, meaning something along the lines of "Damn".
Some of the special effects of the show are, to this day and age, very bad. However some of the effects are brilliant and practical including the moving furniture when Mork uses his 'alien abilities'.
One of my favourite aspects of the show is seeing the other cast members trying not to laugh too much at Robin Williams' performance especially when he improvises.
At the end of each episode, Mork must report back to his world leader Orson (voiced by Ralph James) and tell him about what he's learned on Earth.
The show ran for 4 seasons and remains as one of the funniest shows I have seen.
The show is actually a spin off, after the character of Mork appeared in an episode of Happy Days. After the then unknown Robin Williams became so popular in his role that the producers decided to give him his own show.
One great thing about Mork and Mindy is that we learn life lessons through Mork learning about human life. With lessons about lying to people, talking to strangers, and the importance of laws etc. It's packed to the brim with humour both scripted by the writers, and some improvised by the brilliantly entertaining Robin Williams which made him really popular with the audience.
Mork from Ork, gets himself into all kinds of trouble on the show and the show is filled with memorable words and phrases such as "Na-Nu Na-Nu" which, from how it's used in the show, is used as "Hello" and "Goodbye". There's also "Shazbot" which seems to be a curse word, meaning something along the lines of "Damn".
Some of the special effects of the show are, to this day and age, very bad. However some of the effects are brilliant and practical including the moving furniture when Mork uses his 'alien abilities'.
One of my favourite aspects of the show is seeing the other cast members trying not to laugh too much at Robin Williams' performance especially when he improvises.
At the end of each episode, Mork must report back to his world leader Orson (voiced by Ralph James) and tell him about what he's learned on Earth.
The show ran for 4 seasons and remains as one of the funniest shows I have seen.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the latest cinematic outing for James Bond (Daniel Craig), Director Sam Mendes has crafted a thrilling and deep film which deftly combines the threads of the three previous Craig outings and sets the stage very well for future outings for the series.
In “Spectre” Bond finds himself operating alone when the 007 division is in danger of being shut down due to his latest unsanctioned actions and a change in the political landscape back home.
With the powers that be convinced that surveillance is the way of the future not agents with a license to kill, Bond is racing against time to get the truth behind a mysterious figure named Franz Oberhausen (Christoph Waltz), who is the head of a very mysterious, large, and deadly organization.
From locales ranging from Mexico City, London, Rome, Austria, and North Africa, Bond stalks his target in a deadly game of cat and mouse as his every move seems to have been anticipated by the deadly organization.
Further complicating matters is that Bond is not able to call upon his resources as M (Ralph Fiennes), is unable to do little more than watch due to the pending end of the division and his new superior.
In the trademark style that the series is known for, we have exotic locale, beautiful women, gadgets, fast cars, and thrilling and intense action sequences that combine for a winning formula.
I had been a bit disappointed with Craig’s earlier films as I found them to be a bit muddled and did not find his take on Bond to mesh with the suave agent I had grown up following. That being said, “Skyfall” helped turn things around and with the plot elements of “Spectre” in place; it clearly shows a connection between the earlier films and sets the stage very well for future outings in the series.
Waltz is fantastic as the lead villain as his less than imposing stature is highly deceptive to the danger the man empowers. Audience learn more about the backstory of Bond and how he became the man that his is and Dave Bautista makes a fantastic henchman echoing shades of Odd job and a train sequence from “From Russia With Love”.
In all, thanks to the intense action, great characters and compelling story, “Spectre” is the best of the Craig Bond films and I cannot wait to see what they do next.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/05/spectre/
In “Spectre” Bond finds himself operating alone when the 007 division is in danger of being shut down due to his latest unsanctioned actions and a change in the political landscape back home.
With the powers that be convinced that surveillance is the way of the future not agents with a license to kill, Bond is racing against time to get the truth behind a mysterious figure named Franz Oberhausen (Christoph Waltz), who is the head of a very mysterious, large, and deadly organization.
From locales ranging from Mexico City, London, Rome, Austria, and North Africa, Bond stalks his target in a deadly game of cat and mouse as his every move seems to have been anticipated by the deadly organization.
Further complicating matters is that Bond is not able to call upon his resources as M (Ralph Fiennes), is unable to do little more than watch due to the pending end of the division and his new superior.
In the trademark style that the series is known for, we have exotic locale, beautiful women, gadgets, fast cars, and thrilling and intense action sequences that combine for a winning formula.
I had been a bit disappointed with Craig’s earlier films as I found them to be a bit muddled and did not find his take on Bond to mesh with the suave agent I had grown up following. That being said, “Skyfall” helped turn things around and with the plot elements of “Spectre” in place; it clearly shows a connection between the earlier films and sets the stage very well for future outings in the series.
Waltz is fantastic as the lead villain as his less than imposing stature is highly deceptive to the danger the man empowers. Audience learn more about the backstory of Bond and how he became the man that his is and Dave Bautista makes a fantastic henchman echoing shades of Odd job and a train sequence from “From Russia With Love”.
In all, thanks to the intense action, great characters and compelling story, “Spectre” is the best of the Craig Bond films and I cannot wait to see what they do next.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/05/spectre/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The creators of this remake of Clash of the Titans changed quite a few things from the original 1981 film. They perfected the special effects, lost all the campiness, but still failed to make an engaging film. Director Louis Leterrier, (Incredible Hulk, Danny the Dog) needs to find a way to redeem himself after this emotionless film.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
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)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lilies of the Field (1963) in Movies
Jan 31, 2022
Strong Performances by Poitier and Skala
The film that Sidney Poitier won his Best Actor In A Leading Role Oscar for (becoming the first Black Man to do so) is the type of film that is rarely made these days - a simple film of love, faith, friendship and inspiration.
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has been four years since Daniel Craig graced the screen as James Bond, in large part due to financial issues with MGM studio. Thankfully the matters were resolved and Academy award-winning director Sam Mendes kept his schedule free to avoid any conflicts that would have kept him from filming the latest chapter in the series. “Skyfall” has a very satisfying and enjoyable plot that twist and turns yet is not difficult to follow as it takes the audience on an emotional roller coaster.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
