Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War in Books
Feb 23, 2019
This is yet another non-fiction spy story by Ben Macintyre that reads like a novel. This book features the double-agent that began working for the KGB, and became an agent for the UK for ideological reasons.
My favorite section was the escape section, it was completely riveting and entertaining. I can't wait for Macintyre's next book.
My favorite section was the escape section, it was completely riveting and entertaining. I can't wait for Macintyre's next book.
David McK (3402 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 26, 2020
Known in the UK as 'Avenger's Assemble' (to avoid confusion with the other Avengers film!), this was the first of the MCUs big-screen cross-overs, bringing Captain America, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Bruce Banner/The Hulk (here played by Mark Ruffalo instead of Ed Norton), Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye (and not forgetting Agent Coulson, pre TVs Agents of SHIELD!) all together for the very first time to face off against Thor's brother Loki, returned from the (supposed) dead and at the head of an army of Chitauri - with the post-credit sting revealing, for the very first time, just how is the 'big bad' behind the entire thing!
That 'Battle of New York' at the end of the film would have further ramifications down the line in both the movie and TV side of things for Marvel, with the (not shown here) clean up activities afterwards even providing the impetus for one of the newer (at the time of writing) releases, in Phase III's Spiderman: Homecoming
That 'Battle of New York' at the end of the film would have further ramifications down the line in both the movie and TV side of things for Marvel, with the (not shown here) clean up activities afterwards even providing the impetus for one of the newer (at the time of writing) releases, in Phase III's Spiderman: Homecoming
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated Eight Perfect Murders (Rules for Perfect Murders - UK) in Books
Feb 18, 2020
Mystery Homage
This book had such a great premise and was a lot of fun to read. Part thriller and part homage to mystery books classic through to the more obscure. It was handy to have the GoodReads page to hand to check out any books mentioned that I wasn't familiar with.
The owner, Malcolm Kershaw, of the mystery book shop "Old Devils" writes blogs for the shop's blog. The blog entry that this book relates to is the list of "Perfect Murders" where he gives examples of books with what he considers to be perfect murders in them. When an FBI agent turns up on the doorstep theorising someone is using his list as a guide, Malcolm can't help but get himself involved in the investigation.
I read this under what I presume is the UK title: "Rules for Perfect Murders" and loved all the book name drops; for an avid mystery/thriller reader it was a great kick. The ending was slightly anticlimactic for me but the story itself is a quick exciting read with plenty of nice little twists.
Many thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the ARC in return for an honest review.
The owner, Malcolm Kershaw, of the mystery book shop "Old Devils" writes blogs for the shop's blog. The blog entry that this book relates to is the list of "Perfect Murders" where he gives examples of books with what he considers to be perfect murders in them. When an FBI agent turns up on the doorstep theorising someone is using his list as a guide, Malcolm can't help but get himself involved in the investigation.
I read this under what I presume is the UK title: "Rules for Perfect Murders" and loved all the book name drops; for an avid mystery/thriller reader it was a great kick. The ending was slightly anticlimactic for me but the story itself is a quick exciting read with plenty of nice little twists.
Many thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the ARC in return for an honest review.
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated Need to Know in Books
May 22, 2019
A CIA analyst specializing in tracking down Russian sleeper agents in the US stumbles upon a file with photos of some of these. One of them turns out to be her husband. When she confronts him with the question 'how long have you been spying for Russia?' instead of denying it, he immediately replies, '22 years.'
This book makes you question how far you would go to protect your husband, your children and your life?
Even if you don’t typically enjoy spy or political thrillers, this is a fantastic read! It's hard for me to know what to say as I don't want to give anything away about the plot. Best way to describe is get in and buckle up for the thrill ride as more and more layers are peeled back and discovered.
We have here a strong female CIA Agent and a host of other well developed characters that add to the well developed boiling pot that is the plot.
Loads of twists and turns throughout. It kept me on my toes and on the edge of my seat. I literally found myself shouting at my kindle at times!!
Highly recommend reading this.
* Thank you to Random House UK for my 'wish for it copy' for which I have given an honest review in exchange*
This book makes you question how far you would go to protect your husband, your children and your life?
Even if you don’t typically enjoy spy or political thrillers, this is a fantastic read! It's hard for me to know what to say as I don't want to give anything away about the plot. Best way to describe is get in and buckle up for the thrill ride as more and more layers are peeled back and discovered.
We have here a strong female CIA Agent and a host of other well developed characters that add to the well developed boiling pot that is the plot.
Loads of twists and turns throughout. It kept me on my toes and on the edge of my seat. I literally found myself shouting at my kindle at times!!
Highly recommend reading this.
* Thank you to Random House UK for my 'wish for it copy' for which I have given an honest review in exchange*
Ross (3284 KP) rated Tell Me Lies in Books
Jan 28, 2020
A change in style for James
I received a free advance copy of this book from the publishers and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Ed James' new series takes place in Seattle rather than the UK-based series he has penned to date. There is also a change in subject, focusing on child abductions rather than the standard "murrdurr" fayre.
Special Agent Max Carter is tasked with tracking down a senator's abducted children. With the clock ticking, we see the action from the abductor's PoV as well as Carter's and the father's. The senator finds himself trying to help the abductor of his children to uncover a government conspiracy in which he may have been involved. The mix of different perspectives allows the story to flow with a good pace, with different angles of the emerging story adding up for the reader in way they wouldn't yet do for the characters. In the middle of the book the investigation did start to feel a little samey (both the FBI agents and the abductor/senator teams going through the same leads one after the other), but this didn't last long.
The change in location sadly comes with a change in writing style and this was a downside for me. I like James' flowing narrative and the American tone and style were quite jarring. I would say more American than genuine American authors. However once I accepted this it did not spoil my enjoyment of the book as a whole.
The ending of the story was mostly satisfying but with some loose ends that I hope to see addressed in subsequent books.
A departure for James' readers but worth the trip, and a good book for fans of Harlan Coben and David Baldacci.
Ed James' new series takes place in Seattle rather than the UK-based series he has penned to date. There is also a change in subject, focusing on child abductions rather than the standard "murrdurr" fayre.
Special Agent Max Carter is tasked with tracking down a senator's abducted children. With the clock ticking, we see the action from the abductor's PoV as well as Carter's and the father's. The senator finds himself trying to help the abductor of his children to uncover a government conspiracy in which he may have been involved. The mix of different perspectives allows the story to flow with a good pace, with different angles of the emerging story adding up for the reader in way they wouldn't yet do for the characters. In the middle of the book the investigation did start to feel a little samey (both the FBI agents and the abductor/senator teams going through the same leads one after the other), but this didn't last long.
The change in location sadly comes with a change in writing style and this was a downside for me. I like James' flowing narrative and the American tone and style were quite jarring. I would say more American than genuine American authors. However once I accepted this it did not spoil my enjoyment of the book as a whole.
The ending of the story was mostly satisfying but with some loose ends that I hope to see addressed in subsequent books.
A departure for James' readers but worth the trip, and a good book for fans of Harlan Coben and David Baldacci.
Hazel (2934 KP) rated Slow Burn (Dan Shepherd #17) in Books
Aug 15, 2020
Number 17 already ... I can't believe it ... I never get bored of reading about Dan "Spider" Shepherd's escapades, scrapes and feats of derring-do! Mr Leather is extremely adept at keeping things fresh and exciting; these books never get old or feel like they are being re-hashed just for the sake of it and if you haven't yet read any of them, what is wrong with you!!! You don't even need to read them in order to appreciate them but be warned, once you read 1 you will want to read them all.
Here we have the topical and very believable and scarily plausible tale of home-grown terrorism, the use of drones as weapons by terrorists, the question of whether to allow jihadi brides to return to the UK and the minor story of Chinese spies. This sounds like a lot but don't be put off, it flows seamlessly and effortlessly and, for me, it feels like an accurate reflection of the life of an MI5 agent having to keep lots of plates in the air at once whilst trying to stop a disaster of epic proportions from happening.
This is an exciting read full of brilliant characters which is hard to put down ... yes I know this is a cliché but absolutely accurate in this instance. There is less of the personal story in this one and more action ... I wonder if this is because the next instalment sees Spider and his son, Liam, team up on an operation? Or is it going to delve into the Chinese intelligence angle? Whatever it is, I for one can't wait, so hurry up Mr Leather and write faster 😀
Many thanks to Hodder & Stoughton and NetGalley for my copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
Here we have the topical and very believable and scarily plausible tale of home-grown terrorism, the use of drones as weapons by terrorists, the question of whether to allow jihadi brides to return to the UK and the minor story of Chinese spies. This sounds like a lot but don't be put off, it flows seamlessly and effortlessly and, for me, it feels like an accurate reflection of the life of an MI5 agent having to keep lots of plates in the air at once whilst trying to stop a disaster of epic proportions from happening.
This is an exciting read full of brilliant characters which is hard to put down ... yes I know this is a cliché but absolutely accurate in this instance. There is less of the personal story in this one and more action ... I wonder if this is because the next instalment sees Spider and his son, Liam, team up on an operation? Or is it going to delve into the Chinese intelligence angle? Whatever it is, I for one can't wait, so hurry up Mr Leather and write faster 😀
Many thanks to Hodder & Stoughton and NetGalley for my copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018) in Movies
Jul 3, 2018
Not quite as good as the original
Before watching Sicario 2, I really wanted to try and watch the original movie again, but never got a chance. I remember it being brutal and intense, with outstanding performances from Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro. I remember it gripping me from beginning to end. But, strangely, I couldn't remember very much about it at all other than basic plot details. I know I would recommend it in a heartbeat though, so I was excited for what the sequel would bring.
In Sicario: Day of the Solado (or just Sicario 2: Soldado here in the UK...), the brutal intensity is introduced right from the start. A suicide bomber blows himself up at the U.S. - Mexican border. Then, in a Kansas supermarket, terrorists enter and detonate two bombs, followed by a third which is detonated while a woman and child plead to be set free. It's shocking, upsetting, and sticks with you uncomfortably for a while, serving as a push to get you behind federal agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) as he's brought in to start a war between the Mexican drug cartels. The plan has something to do with securing the border from terrorists, which kind of doesn't make much sense, but after the events in the opening scenes, you just want somebody to get out there and kick some ass. And with the promise that he's allowed to play things "dirty", you know that Josh Brolin is more than capable. He locates and recruits Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) to help him out, with the promise of getting revenge against the family responsible for the death of his own family. They kidnap the daughter of a top gang boss, and attempt to blame it on a rival gang. But things don't go according to plan.
Like the original, there are plenty of intense, well executed scenes, but this just didn't grip me in the same way as the first movie did. Benicio Del Toro is just brilliant, but the lack of Emily Blunt was noticeable. Still a very enjoyable movie though.
In Sicario: Day of the Solado (or just Sicario 2: Soldado here in the UK...), the brutal intensity is introduced right from the start. A suicide bomber blows himself up at the U.S. - Mexican border. Then, in a Kansas supermarket, terrorists enter and detonate two bombs, followed by a third which is detonated while a woman and child plead to be set free. It's shocking, upsetting, and sticks with you uncomfortably for a while, serving as a push to get you behind federal agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) as he's brought in to start a war between the Mexican drug cartels. The plan has something to do with securing the border from terrorists, which kind of doesn't make much sense, but after the events in the opening scenes, you just want somebody to get out there and kick some ass. And with the promise that he's allowed to play things "dirty", you know that Josh Brolin is more than capable. He locates and recruits Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) to help him out, with the promise of getting revenge against the family responsible for the death of his own family. They kidnap the daughter of a top gang boss, and attempt to blame it on a rival gang. But things don't go according to plan.
Like the original, there are plenty of intense, well executed scenes, but this just didn't grip me in the same way as the first movie did. Benicio Del Toro is just brilliant, but the lack of Emily Blunt was noticeable. Still a very enjoyable movie though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.