Search
Search results
David McK (3188 KP) rated Dr. No (1962) in Movies
Apr 30, 2023
Bond. James Bond.
The first James Bond movie, based on the 6th Bond book, and starring who is for many, arguably, the best Bond of all in Sean Connery.
Now over 60 years old (at the time I’m writing this), it’s noticeable how ‘fully formed’ the tropes of the series are here right out of the gate: the flirting between Bond and Moneypenny, the mutual respect between Bond and M, the exotic locales, the girls (for better or worse), the secret bases, the villains with a penchant for explaining their dastardly plans before letting Bond escape …
There is, however, also a reason that a later incarnation of M (Judi Dench) would call Bond something along the lines of “a dinosaur. A misogynistic relic from the Cold War …” which is also on full display here!
I suppose it was the 60s, though …
Now over 60 years old (at the time I’m writing this), it’s noticeable how ‘fully formed’ the tropes of the series are here right out of the gate: the flirting between Bond and Moneypenny, the mutual respect between Bond and M, the exotic locales, the girls (for better or worse), the secret bases, the villains with a penchant for explaining their dastardly plans before letting Bond escape …
There is, however, also a reason that a later incarnation of M (Judi Dench) would call Bond something along the lines of “a dinosaur. A misogynistic relic from the Cold War …” which is also on full display here!
I suppose it was the 60s, though …
Awix (3310 KP) rated Casino Royale (2006) in Movies
Feb 21, 2018 (Updated Feb 21, 2018)
Urbane Legend XXI
Bold hard reboot of the Bond series that took it closer to the novels than it had been in generations. Newly-licensed 007 uncovers terrorist financier, beats him at cards, takes a terrible belting in the gentleman's department (emotionally and physically).
Very refreshing (at least at the time) for blowing the barnacles off Bond and going back to source, more or less; Daniel Craig seems to be the first replacement Bond not to on some level be constantly thinking about Sean Connery. Unusually tough and naturalistic, but with the expected (high quality) fights and chases grafted onto Fleming's story. Even at the time one wondered just where this new take on Bond could possibly go next (not terribly far, as it turned out: at least not while staying interesting), but on its own terms this is a thrilling reinvention and a great, credible thriller.
Very refreshing (at least at the time) for blowing the barnacles off Bond and going back to source, more or less; Daniel Craig seems to be the first replacement Bond not to on some level be constantly thinking about Sean Connery. Unusually tough and naturalistic, but with the expected (high quality) fights and chases grafted onto Fleming's story. Even at the time one wondered just where this new take on Bond could possibly go next (not terribly far, as it turned out: at least not while staying interesting), but on its own terms this is a thrilling reinvention and a great, credible thriller.
David McK (3188 KP) rated The Hunt for Red October (1990) in Movies
Mar 22, 2022
This was one of those movies (which is now over 30 years old!) that I knew about, but had just never gotten around to watching before.
I have now and, honestly? It's not that great.
Based on a Tom Clancy novel of the same name (one of his Jack Ryan novels) and starring both Alec Baldwin (as Ryan) and Sean Connery (as the Soviet submarine commander Marko Ramius), this purports to be a thriller about, well, The Hunt for Red October (it's in the title, folks!), a new state of the art Soviet sub that is virtually undetectable and in which Ramius is in charge, with his motivations somewhat murky: is he defecting (it's set during the Cold War)? Is he preparing to launch a strike on the US mainland? Why is a Scot pretending to be Russian??
I have to say, I did find it somewhat slow and ponderous, lacking any real threat or even any means of engaging the viewers interest!
I have now and, honestly? It's not that great.
Based on a Tom Clancy novel of the same name (one of his Jack Ryan novels) and starring both Alec Baldwin (as Ryan) and Sean Connery (as the Soviet submarine commander Marko Ramius), this purports to be a thriller about, well, The Hunt for Red October (it's in the title, folks!), a new state of the art Soviet sub that is virtually undetectable and in which Ramius is in charge, with his motivations somewhat murky: is he defecting (it's set during the Cold War)? Is he preparing to launch a strike on the US mainland? Why is a Scot pretending to be Russian??
I have to say, I did find it somewhat slow and ponderous, lacking any real threat or even any means of engaging the viewers interest!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
So, Wishmaster started off well enough but Christ, this series really dived head first into car crash mode.
This third entry into the not so beloved franchise isn't good-bad, or fun-bad - it's actually a festering shit pile masquerading as a straight-to-video B-Movie.
The effects are terrible and cheap, the dlailogue is laughable. The main protagonist is the least likable of the series, which is saying something. Every character in this shitty fiasco is poorly written. The music cues are intrusive and out of place, the editing is completely bizarre (surely a lot of the crew had to be drunk just to get through this)...
I'm not sure what I expected to be honest, but my expectations were absolutely exceeded.
It doesn't even have Andrew Divoff in it, the highlight of the first, and the only good thing about the second Wishmaster. He's replaced by John Novak in Djinn mode (who is fine by the way, the three or so minutes of full make up screentime is just about passable) and by Jason Connery (son of Sean) when he's in human mode. I don't recall seeing Jason Connery in anything else, and I'm sure he's a perfectly fine actor, but in this, he is literally David Brent. Once I noticed this, I couldn't get past it, and any evil he may have been trying to convey was lost in his Brent-ness. Unintentionally hilarious, but didn't make the film any less shit.
Wishmaster 3 is terrible. Don't do it to yourself.
This third entry into the not so beloved franchise isn't good-bad, or fun-bad - it's actually a festering shit pile masquerading as a straight-to-video B-Movie.
The effects are terrible and cheap, the dlailogue is laughable. The main protagonist is the least likable of the series, which is saying something. Every character in this shitty fiasco is poorly written. The music cues are intrusive and out of place, the editing is completely bizarre (surely a lot of the crew had to be drunk just to get through this)...
I'm not sure what I expected to be honest, but my expectations were absolutely exceeded.
It doesn't even have Andrew Divoff in it, the highlight of the first, and the only good thing about the second Wishmaster. He's replaced by John Novak in Djinn mode (who is fine by the way, the three or so minutes of full make up screentime is just about passable) and by Jason Connery (son of Sean) when he's in human mode. I don't recall seeing Jason Connery in anything else, and I'm sure he's a perfectly fine actor, but in this, he is literally David Brent. Once I noticed this, I couldn't get past it, and any evil he may have been trying to convey was lost in his Brent-ness. Unintentionally hilarious, but didn't make the film any less shit.
Wishmaster 3 is terrible. Don't do it to yourself.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) in Movies
Mar 2, 2018 (Updated Mar 2, 2018)
A career that spanned over forty-five years, included nearly seventy movies, and featured the same accent every single time came to an end with this, Sean Connery's final on-screen appearance, in a would-be blockbuster based on Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's idiosyncratic comic series. The original heroes of pulp fiction are assembled to battle a mysterious villain with plans for world domination.
Connery had one of his massive spats with the director and virtually disowned the movie, but it's not really as bad as all that. It's not nearly as subtle, dark or clever as the comic book, obviously, and there's a horrendous moment in the second act where the whole thing grinds to a halt, but the effects are never less than competent, and the art direction is good. In the Marvel age of movies this is not without interest, making clear as it does the debt comic book heroes owe to the characters of an earlier age. Inevitably a bit of a disappointment, but not even the worst superhero movie of 2003.
Connery had one of his massive spats with the director and virtually disowned the movie, but it's not really as bad as all that. It's not nearly as subtle, dark or clever as the comic book, obviously, and there's a horrendous moment in the second act where the whole thing grinds to a halt, but the effects are never less than competent, and the art direction is good. In the Marvel age of movies this is not without interest, making clear as it does the debt comic book heroes owe to the characters of an earlier age. Inevitably a bit of a disappointment, but not even the worst superhero movie of 2003.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Returning to a much more balanced tone that the overly "cooky" Temple of Doom, the third Indiana Jones adventure gives Raiders of the Lost Ark some serious competition for best entry in the franchise (Raiders just about beats it for me based on the ratio of melting nazi face content).
The Last Crusade is a hugely entertaining movie from start to finish. It has a fantastic cast from the ever reliable Harrison Ford in the title role, to the convincingly menacing antagonist played by Julian Glover. Of course, Sean Connery is here for the ride this time around, as Indy's old man. The dynamic between Connery and Ford is great, and every scene with the two of them is cinema gold. Alison Doody makes for a welcome change with this films female protagonist (sort of), her character finally bucking the trend of typical love interest and having some depth, and a hell of a mean streak. Its nice to see John Rhys-Davies return from his ToD absence, and River Phoenix makes for an extremely memorable young Indiana in the movies opening flashback scene - on the subject of that scene, the transition from young Indy to Harrison Ford Indy is epic, thanks in part to another wonderful John Williams score, and is one of my highlights of the entire franchise!
The pacing is spot on - the over-two-hour runtime never once feels like a slog. The constant action is some of Spielberg's best work, and is suitably high octane. Everything in between boasts an engaging screenplay that develops all of the characters nicely, and the comedy elements are well done and sporadically placed, making the sillier moments genuinely funny (even the ridiculous Hitler scene)
All in all, The Last Crusade is a wonderful conclusion to the original trilogy, and is a genuinely fantastic adventure movie that stands toe to toe with the first film in its quality.
The Last Crusade is a hugely entertaining movie from start to finish. It has a fantastic cast from the ever reliable Harrison Ford in the title role, to the convincingly menacing antagonist played by Julian Glover. Of course, Sean Connery is here for the ride this time around, as Indy's old man. The dynamic between Connery and Ford is great, and every scene with the two of them is cinema gold. Alison Doody makes for a welcome change with this films female protagonist (sort of), her character finally bucking the trend of typical love interest and having some depth, and a hell of a mean streak. Its nice to see John Rhys-Davies return from his ToD absence, and River Phoenix makes for an extremely memorable young Indiana in the movies opening flashback scene - on the subject of that scene, the transition from young Indy to Harrison Ford Indy is epic, thanks in part to another wonderful John Williams score, and is one of my highlights of the entire franchise!
The pacing is spot on - the over-two-hour runtime never once feels like a slog. The constant action is some of Spielberg's best work, and is suitably high octane. Everything in between boasts an engaging screenplay that develops all of the characters nicely, and the comedy elements are well done and sporadically placed, making the sillier moments genuinely funny (even the ridiculous Hitler scene)
All in all, The Last Crusade is a wonderful conclusion to the original trilogy, and is a genuinely fantastic adventure movie that stands toe to toe with the first film in its quality.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Felipe (17 KP) rated The Name of the Rose in Books
Dec 3, 2020
A labyrinth of mystery with multiple dimensions, pitfalls, dead ends and revelations. (2 more)
The story and structure are brilliant.
The characters are genius and the narrative is written in way that you get sucked into and are part of the narrative.
Brilliant and entertaining introduction to semiotics.
I first read this book in my freshman or sophomore year in college after having seen the Sean Connery film adaptation. Like most novels that movies are based on, the book was far better than the movie. The movie was just a superficial touching on the themes of the book but the book was a multi dimensional journey through art, philosophy, literature and theology while captivating the reader in a very good murder mystery. The tragedy of the book is the revelation to the reader that our tendency to try to form connections between random events as and ideas is futile. The library is an allegory to the house of cards that comes crashing down when we create false narratives on tenuous connections between randomn events and ideas; connections that don't really exist.
Eco takes all of his academic experience that he has absorbed in the years and uses fiction to not only tell a good story but also to challenge us on how we see the world and interpret the signs and symbols we come into contact.
Eco takes all of his academic experience that he has absorbed in the years and uses fiction to not only tell a good story but also to challenge us on how we see the world and interpret the signs and symbols we come into contact.
Louise (64 KP) rated The Dreadful Fate of Jonathan York: A Yarn for the Strange at Heart in Books
Jul 2, 2018
"When you’re old and gray like me, and someone asks you for your story, what would you rather have – nothing at all or the story you lived through tonight?"
I really enjoyed this book, but found it somewhat predictable as I knew how the book was going to end . The artwork to this book was really good and I felt that it suited the story very well with limited colours being used. I found the font quite spooky but also difficult to see what words were written in parts.
There are 3 separate short stories that were intertwined within the book , two were written in verse and one was silent which I think I understood but it’s just pictures for you to interpret in your own way.
There were important messages throughout the book, such as being out of your comfort zone, bullies,sticking up for yourself and confidence.The different monsters in the book were very creepy and all shapes and sizes. This is definitely targeted for middle graders (8-12yrs), however can be enjoyed by all ages as there were references to Sean Connery and I don’t think there are going to be many kids knowing who he is (I may be worng)
This is the first book by Kory Merritt and would be interested in reading others.
Overall I rated this 3.5 stars out of 5.
For more check out louiselovesbooks.wordpress.com
I really enjoyed this book, but found it somewhat predictable as I knew how the book was going to end . The artwork to this book was really good and I felt that it suited the story very well with limited colours being used. I found the font quite spooky but also difficult to see what words were written in parts.
There are 3 separate short stories that were intertwined within the book , two were written in verse and one was silent which I think I understood but it’s just pictures for you to interpret in your own way.
There were important messages throughout the book, such as being out of your comfort zone, bullies,sticking up for yourself and confidence.The different monsters in the book were very creepy and all shapes and sizes. This is definitely targeted for middle graders (8-12yrs), however can be enjoyed by all ages as there were references to Sean Connery and I don’t think there are going to be many kids knowing who he is (I may be worng)
This is the first book by Kory Merritt and would be interested in reading others.
Overall I rated this 3.5 stars out of 5.
For more check out louiselovesbooks.wordpress.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 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.