Category: movie-reviews

Lucky me! My most anticipated movie of this year is the first one I see! Now my expectations for the rest of 2016 can be as dulled as is necessary to get through this “job” without going mad!

The film in question is the latest Oscar nominated movie by Alejandro González Iñárritu, “The Revenant” starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a man out in the wilderness trying to get his own back for something.

Whenever I talk to people about this movie, they say that they either want to see this movie because of the intense trailers that have run for it or because the lovable Leo is in it. As a pretentious cinephile, my reason for excitement was Iñárritu. The man’s last film (and as of this moment the only movie I’ve seen of his) was “Birdman” and if you’re familiar with this blog, you’ll know that that was the first and best movie that I reviewed last year.

So in those 12 months has anything changed? Can this movie do pulsating tension and glorious action as well as “Birdman” did tragicomedy and introspectives on the nature of love both familial and of a film fanbase?

First of all I’ll address an elephant in the room regarding our lead. Namely, that he has not won a small golden naked man. To state what may be obvious from the trailers, Yes, DiCaprio deserves an Oscar for this movie like he may have done on a number of previous scandalous occasions that the Internet gets hung up on. I’m not however going to do the clichéd thing and say “If he doesn’t win, I’m done with the Oscars.” I was done with those things just after it became cool. My award to Leo, regardless of what happens in a few months is the following paragraph:

This is the best performance I’ve seen from the man since “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”. He completely invests himself into the difficult situation his character gets thrust into, mainly expressing it through some Native American language, which I must confess I cannot identify, and through sheer physicality. Leonardo, if you’re reading this, and I know you are, you definitely deserved that long break on the beach you took while you grew your beard between finishing “Wolf of Wall Street” and starting this, ironically in the style of Jordan Belfort!

In support we have Tom Hardy who has not put a foot wrong in the time I’ve been aware of his fine talent. His exceptional, dirty and growly performance been nominated too as a supporting role, which seems a little strange considering his lead role in “Legend” was, in fact a better one. I suppose it gives him more chance against Leo.

In the press coverage of this film, much has been made of the extraordinarily complex, expensive and outright dangerous production that was “The Revenant”, and from what we’ve got it only shows one thing. That Alejandro González Iñárritu and his crew make up the best examples of those who work for their art. Inniritu is officially one of my favourite directors of our time, having only seen two of his films. In the flabbergastingly beautiful and thrilling sequences in this movie, he has confirmed to me the blasphemous truth that a group of filmmakers with enough talent, can in fact offer a simulation of godlihood over a moving image. It’s movies like this that remind me what cinema can do.

This story in film form is utterly superb. While I believe I still gravitate to “Birdman” more, that’s little fault of the movie. Each do what they do best and yet “Birdman” spoke to me personally with a louder voice. Whether you love or hate “Birdman”, you should watch this.

Before you do though, I must make a serious note to those who have a problem with violence against animals. I have seen no evidence that there was any animal cruelty involved in the making of this film or that any were harmed. However, the simulation of some scenes were so intense and impressive that I’d imagine it would upset some. I’m surprised it has not been put in the BBFC rating card, but this is me telling you to be prepared and I hope that the entirely necessary yet hard to watch scenes don’t get in the way of your watching experience of this great movie.

I’ve seen criticism of this movie’s level of violence. Some have complained that the pain is pointless and the revenge plot has been done before. Yes it has been done before and yes, this movie contains heaps of pain and violence. I can’t possibly fault that though. This overwhelming sensory experience had a point that I know has been done before, but few times as well.
Happy New Year!
Recommended Scenario: If you love films.

I’m very sorry that this review is so late. I mean, this movie came out months ago, I watched several days ago, what’s wrong with me? Anyway, I’m here now and let’s review Amy.

Amy is a documentary which takes us on a journey alongside Amy Winehouse as she rises to fame as a gifted jazz singer, before, through various extraneous circumstances, she dies at the age of 27 in her London home.

I did not avoid providing that “spoiler” to Ms Winehouse’s fate, for a number of reasons. While one could argue that hiding broad stroke facts about a person before seeing their life documentary can aid in keeping the suspense up, as it did in this film’s director’s other masterpiece Senna, he and his genius, BAFTA-winning team approach the subject of this even more recently deceased celebrity with an overarching theme of inevitability.

This movie does not ascribe the inevitability of Amy’s death to the music industry. It fully acknowledges that a jazz singer can live a long and happy life. A very touching scene, if you can call it that, wherein Amy is singing with her idol Tony Bennett, gives the audience all that they need to know about her drive for music and how she wants to keep going at it till she’s the same age as Bennett. This was one of the moments where I could tears almost feel come to my eyes.

I must confess that when I was younger, having never sat down and actually listened to Amy Winehouse’s music, I was deeply judgemental of her whenever I could be bothered to think vaguely about her. Perhaps it was the drugs or her appearance in the media or the fact that I thought that, again without having listened to her, she’d be just like much of the rest of the modern pop scene of the time, which I found terrible. All completely unfounded.

Upon hearing about this documentary and how well received it was and how it was helmed by the team behind Senna, my favourite documentary of all time, I decided to listen to her music. And you know what, I may be no music critic but I know what I hate. And I don’t hate it. In fact it’s rather good. It’s soulful, intelligent and her voice is superb.

Hearing it in the movie, I feel was even better. There was a real effort to connect both Amy and her craft and it pays off in spades. We see her writing. We see her struggling to write. We see her record. We see how much this woman cared about music.

Through just archival footage and the occasional interview in the background, Amy gives us a retrospective tour of the entire life of this woman. The Winehouse family and friends provided the filmmakers with hours of home video footage to pull from. And like with Senna, the editing of it all is masterful.

Please find this movie on DVD/Blu-Ray. It’s a heartbreaking story that I’m sure everyone, whether they’re familiar with Amy Winehouse or not, should see.

Do I prefer it to Senna? At this moment, yes, but that may be due to the fact that I’ve seen Senna so many times recently!

Recommended Scenario: If you are a cinephile wanting to see the documentary form at its finest or if you want to cry.

I would not want the job of J.J Abrams. Don’t get me wrong, I want to be a feature film director and it would be awesome to be able to put my name to some big franchises like Mission Impossible and Star Trek. However, while the former has a fanbase that is relatively easy to please (show Tom Cruise running and defuse a bomb once and a while and you’re golden), the other has one of the greatest cult followings in history that Abrams must satisfy. And on top of that, now, he has to keep at bay the most discerning fans in the galaxy. Star Wars fans.

(At this point in a review I generally give a brief low-down of the film’s plot, but I don’t want to spoil anything more than what everyone saw in that initial trailer that split the internet in twain.)

Just in case you’ve never been on the internet before, you should know that we’re at a point in history where fans of Star Wars have a power too great and terrible to imagine. For over a decade, people have been picking apart the prequel trilogy and special editions of the originals. I honestly believe that in terms of historical significance, the success of the first lot of Star Wars films is equal to that of the failure of those meant to preceed it (apart from The Clone Wars which were actually alright).

One can learn so much about art from the rise and fall of this film series. The way its quality ebbs and flows is a sight to behold. I recently read an article recommending film students to watch Red Letter Media’s review of The Phantom Menace from 2009 and I could not agree more. For those who don’t know, the very popular YouTube channel, Red Letter Media, who generally deal with films and pop culture, created a comedic epic review of the first Star Wars prequel and followed it up with similar reviews of the other prequels. It truly is a masterpiece of art criticism and blending it with comedy. You can watch it here. Be warned it is about the 70 minutes long and there is strong language.

So in order to bring this franchise back from the dead, critically (commercially it was always going to make billions from the name alone), a miracle has been needed for a long time.

That miracle is Star Wars: Episode VII, The Force Awakens.

Our story is easy to follow. Our action spectacular and dirty. Our heroes and villains, easy to love, hate and above all care about. And to top it all off we have John Williams in the orchestra pit once again!

The internet nerd community has been up in arms about this and that detail from the little we’ve received from the thankfully secretive trailers and on-set photographs. And you know what, it doesn’t matter anymore. Yes we have a lightsabre with a cross thing that some people who never picked up a sword (let alone one made literally out of light) in their lives, found stupid. Yes we have some of the original cast reappearing which some wannabe cynics said was meant simply to “please the fan-boys”. And yes we have a black guy in a Stormtrooper suit*. We got a good movie and we should be proud of it.

I cannot tell you how happy I was watching this film. The direction, writing and acting from the old and new stars is simply excellent. This is a great Star Wars film and I feel so good writing that.

It is a dangerous thing to take our past out of context. Film historians shall debate for generations what outside factors made the first films so great and the latter ones so bad.

What one cannot argue is that those original films were great. Not necessarily for their craft, though there certainly is some great craft at times in all of them. It’s because movies are not released in a vacuum. Episodes IV through VI changed cinema, through groundbreaking effects and building on top of the work of those who came before, inspiring many filmmakers to come.

There’s no denying that those films are greater than this one in terms of what they did to the movies. In thirty years time, I doubt we shall be quoting Episode VII. Yet like I said when I was talking about the prequels, there is a lot we can take from this.

What made this particular chapter in the expanding Star Wars saga so good was the filmmakers’ willingness to look at the internet and as much as I like to mock some of the more childish responses to the prequels, there was some constructive criticism within.

Yet what if I was to put a stop to this talk about historical context and importance and legacy and simply look at the Star Wars saga as a series of science-fantasy movies. If I could strip away all of the baggage these films have that the world put on them.

Well… if I may be so bold… I’d say that Star Wars: Episode VII, The Force Awakens, is the BEST Star Wars film ever made!

I am prepared to be eaten alive by the internet.

Recommended Scenario: If you’ve seen the previous films. You could actually skip I-III if you can’t bare it.

* This last point is one I just want to briefly address. I shouldn’t be surprised that the race unnamed Stormtrooper from the first Force Awakens trailer would be a subject of contention for some. Yet even I am bitterly disappointed by the lack of humanity shown by some online. Mr Boyega, I apologise on behalf of these people. You did an excellent job.

I’m getting this review up a little late. Sorry. Been busy. Anyway, Pixar…

That special hive of animation geniuses has now given us a simple road trip story of an anthropomorphic”Good Dinosaur” and a small human child who acts considerably more animalistic. In this reality, the meteor that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs missed the planet 65 million years ago and thus a few million years later, those dinos have evolved to become fully sentient and capable of agriculture while the newly evolved humans are similar to cockroaches, pests to the dinosaur crops.

I have to admit, when I first saw this film advertised, I was a little concerned. Not really because I thought that Pixar would make a bad movie out of it, their track record has had only one dud and two OK movies, while when they’re good, they are really, really good (I’m still talking about Inside Out). I did however think that this story was a little beneath them. It seemed like a cross between Ice Age and Barnyard. While Inside Out received similar criticism for being similar to Osmosis Jones, it provided something new and beautiful. What would they bring to this movie that seemed so simple?

Well keep it simple is what they did and it worked pretty well.

First of all, that world I mentioned at the start of this review is a neat idea and it’s pulled off nicely. We see how dinosaurs could use their physiology to cultivate the land in the way humans did at the time of the agricultural revolution.

The story they pull off in this world, while uncomplicated and with a slightly clunky structure at times, is a nice road trip concerning two characters I cared about. I was intrigued when I found out how young they were playing our titular sauropod, for some reason, I assumed that he would be an adult. This reduction in age was actually an improvement for this character, as his personal situation seemed more appropriate.

He and his companion and adversary little human, meet various different colourful characters that range from heroic to terrifying, from funny to life-altering. These people (dinosaurs to be exact) were well-written and performed and end up showing how harsh this world is to those on their own.

That harshness is one of the biggest pros and cons of this movie. I was surprised when I learned that this was given a PG rating rather than a U when I saw it advertised. It seemed to colourful and nice for parents to be required! Now that I’ve seen it though, I agree with this rating. It’s not as scary as some family films, though I suppose there will be some scenes that will scare young kids and some rather violent and gory moments. On one hand I respect the bottle of Pixar for pushing this violence envelope and how far they were willing to go to give the point that the wild really is tough. On the other, some of it is a tad excessive. I’m always for filmmakers going up against some of the evident hypocrisies of our rating system in the name of good art, and this is good art, but there still needs to be some of restraint.

With that said the world that they do present, with all its cruelty, is staggeringly beautiful. This is some of Pixar’s best animation and compositing work since Finding Nemo. While I think Inside Out had better work on the humans, the landscapes and animals of this movie are spectacularly realized. It’s hard to believe that I thought that our dinosaur protagonist looked cheap and green when I first saw him. Now I think he’s wonderful… and green.

Is this one of Pixar’s masterpieces? No. Is it a good wee adventure movie that will satisfy kids and the adults that BY LAW have to accompany them to see it with? Absolutely.

Recommended Scenario: When you want a break from Alvin & The Chipmunks!

Spielberg and Hanks, Coen #1 and Coen #2. Director and Actor, Writer and Writer. Two separate, highly successful double acts, joined together at last for a Cold War epic thriller. Surely this has gotta be good.

Bridge of Spies tells the story of an insurance lawyer played by Tom Hanks who is assigned to defend a man, played by Mark Rylance, whose been accused of being a Soviet Spy. In 1957, Hanks’ character’s got one tough job.

When I say that this movie was written by the Coen brothers, that is not the whole story. It was written by them and Matt Charman whose work includes Suite Française and some uncredited touching up on the terrible screenplay to Roland Emmerich’s 2012. Thank goodness, his abilities were able to gel with those of two academy award winning writers.

Bridge of Spies is a testament to what great writing can do to a subject that could go one of two ways, dull or exhilarating. How these writers managed to balance the seriousness of the subject matter and the humour that can blossom between the soldiers in this war of the words is an absolute marvel. (I think you can count more than one pun in that last sentence.)

The Cold War was a battle of ideas, of ways of life. Where people from both superpowers would go to another country and fight it out through middlemen. What this film captures at times is how barbaric this, on the surface, rather peaceful and mature conflict was.

Steven Spielberg is at the helm of this movie. Like with Lincoln, he makes the act of making political maneuvers sounding interesting look easy. It really isn’t and that’s why he is still one of the greatest directors of our time, regardless of his image as “the guys who makes movies for the masses”. (Don’t go bringing up Crystal Skull, whatever problems there were with that movie, I don’t blame him for.)

The standout performances of this film are of course from Tom Hanks as real-life lawyer James B. Donovan and Mark Rylance as Rudolf Abel. Hanks, as ever, is the best there is at playing the likable every-man, it probably not being a coincidence that his character reminds me very much of Marge from the Coen Brothers film Fargo. Rylance made the whole cinema laugh hard many times as his character dryly took in the situation he found himself in.

What I find interesting about Bridge of Spies, is that it never comments on what each side of the Cold War is fighting for, despite both sides making points of telling the audience how important what it is they’re fighting for is. It is more interested in showing how much the foot-soldiers care for their respective countries, how honour is based on principles that are worth suffering and playing hard-ball for.

In a way, this is Spielberg’s most complicated movie since Munich. Unlike in that movie, though, there is still a main goal to be accomplished and there is no question as to who the good guy is. And just like in every movie he’s ever done, the audience must root for whoever Tom Hanks is playing.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to be thrilled by an excellent telling of a true story that gives you that warm Spielbergian feeling as the credits roll.

I’m not going to lie to you, while I did want to see this movie at some, there were two side-reasons why I ended up choosing to see it over Steve Jobs. One, Brooklyn‘s been out for a bit longer than Steve Jobs and thus won’t be in cinemas for much longer. Secondly, Steve Jobs was booked up completely. At 15:15 on a Monday? And the studio is pulling Steve Jobs from over 2000 cinemas in America due to “low box-office performance”. Shows domestic box-office still matters I suppose. Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah…

Brooklyn is an adaptation of the book by Colm Tóibín, written by Nick Hornby. It follows an Irish girl, Eilis Lacey, as she moves to get a better life in America and the drama, love, loss and joy that comes as a result.

The time period depicted in this film about transatlantic emigration is of particular interest to me. It is set in 1952, not long before my Grandfather moved from Scotland to Canada, where he met my Grandmother. Scenes on Eilis’ journey, feel very grounded in reality and no doubt would be relatively close to the what my Grandfather experienced.

Beyond that element, this story seems to have a real grounding in what, as someone not altogether familiar with the subject would assume, life in the early 50s would be like for women in Ireland and in America. I could feel a genuine connection to the mostly female cast. What I found fascinating was that as I was watching, I began to think about how little I see of women just sitting in a room talking about stuff and how most movies don’t show us it in all its simple beauty. This is not a cry out for more movies to pass the utterly superficial Bechdel test, but it is an observation worth noting.

Eilis is played by Saoirse Ronan. This actress is on top of her game right now and this movie demonstrates her abilities better than any before it. While I’d imagine a large proportion of the internet will be campaigning for a well-deserved Oscar nomination for this role, but if that deeply flawed measure of a performance’s work doesn’t come her way, she can get a Craigie Award or something from me.

The side characters are all well-played. Many of them fall into the usual tropes, the Mum sad to see her girl go, the kind but quirky landlady, the kind Priest etc. While these parts are slightly cliched, at least they’re played and written well. With the exception of one character, there are no villains or characters who act stupid for the sake of being stupid. Even that exception, one could argue is coming from an understandable position of bitterness and loneliness, which might require stepping into her shoes in order to sympathise with.

Then we come to the romantic side of the film, which is done actually rather sweetly and kindly. In a romance movie, writers generally try to make the characters ultra quirky or have their romance be forbidden in some way. While that works in some films, I’m so glad these guys are just so normal. Somehow I’m deeply invested in two ordinary people being in love in the ordinary way. That’s down to some ingenious writing.

Even the “love-triangle”, if you can call it that, which ensues is done super-smoothly and one can genuinely understand why Eilis would be conflicted. To say why would constitute a spoiler. Unfortunately that spoiler was already spilled when the trailer was released. I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the film and something big happened on screen while I was gone and because I’d seen the trailer, I hadn’t really missed anything. Seriously movies, stop doing that!

I’m finding it near impossible to work out whether Testament of Youth was better or lesser than this movie. That’s a question that is really making me scratch my head. They’re both very good historical romance films, one based on a true story, the other on an award-winning novel. Both are exceedingly well-acted and written. And both are proof that these “lovey-dovey” stories can be rather good. If you want my advice, see both.

Hopefully soon I can see Steve Jobs.

Recommended Scenario: This would be a great date movie. Yet regardless of your relationship status, this is a pretty moving piece.

Has there really not been a major motion picture based on the women’s suffrage movement? This is Selma all over again! Come on Hollywood! People fighting for rights is Oscar bait gold! You don’t want any more allegations of sexism, racism and every other ism, do you?

Suffragette chronicles a story a fictionalized story of a number of women in the Woman’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), more commonly known as the suffragettes who fought for the right for women to vote in Great Britain between 1903 and 1917, through the mantra “deeds not words”.

Historical movies about protests are some of the easiest political movies to make, at least in terms of sticking to their themes and messages. In Roland Emmerich’s up and coming film about Stonewall, he simply has to have a protagonist acting as our eyes and ears to the movement in which they are gradually assimilated into and to the terrible injustices that spur it into action. (Judging by the trailer to that film, the protagonist’s probably a little too relatable, if you know what I mean, but there are plenty of articles and angry YouTube comments on that so far.)

In Suffragette, we have Carey Mulligan as our fictional stand-in Maud Watts, whose arc is the classic sceptic to revolutionary that screenwriters find perfectly comfortable to pen for. That may sound harsh, but in all seriousness, she’s a good character in all senses of the word. Well-acted, well-written and as a mother and wife, it does actually show an angle to the women’s suffrage movement I hadn’t quite considered, through all my time in school learning about it. That these were women with personal lives that could be destroyed by their protests. That’s what I took from this movie and that is one of the most disturbing things about it.

Watts is witness to some pretty terrible treatment of her peers at the hands of the dominating patriarchy, often characterized by a few recurring bad-guys. While it is well-presented and honest, for some reason I felt disconnected from it. I knew I was to be disturbed by how terrible things for women were back then and don’t get me wrong, I do know that and I appreciate that the film is trying to make that as a further point and good on it. I just wasn’t as shocked as I thought I would be, (apart from one scene which I knew was coming, but still had some impact). Maybe that’s what is shocking.

She also meets some interesting supporting players in the WSPU. Anne Marie Duff, Natalie Press, Helena Bonham Carter and others do a great job as ladies that are ticked off at being second class citizens in the then modern age of 1912. Meryl Streep comes in in a brief scene as the leader of the Suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst. The actress’ legendary status in real life, mirrors the mythic manner in which her character is portrayed. It’s becoming abundantly clear that Streep, with her 19 Oscar Nominations, likes to use that power to occasionally come into movies about the suppression of her sex as a pivotal player, in the same way Oprah Winfrey is doing with movies on the suppression of her race.

The fact that women used to be unable to vote is, rightly, baffling to us in 2015 and we should try to wipe out such sexism in the world today. That’s the basic message of movies like this one. Its other message is obviously that when the suppressed band together, they can accomplish the amazing. Historians continue to debate the direct impact of the woman’s suffrage movement on woman’s suffrage. Other factors include but are not limited to women’s involvement on the home-front of WWI, economic factors, the gradual evolution of voting rights for men which had been happening over the course of the late 19th century and the fact that other countries gave women the vote first. While these are valid points as to the actual granting of the vote, they are not the point of Suffragette (2015).

Whether or not the WSPU, with their window smashing and bombs, had a net positive effect in the short term, (they actually stopped campaigning years before their goal was accomplished, is largely irrelevant in the long term. Generations of girls look to these women as heroines of their time, who refused to take all that they’d been burdened with for so long any longer. This movie pays tribute to that.

But that’s not what I’m here for. The question is, is it any good?

Yes. It’s very good. I won’t call it great. There’s nothing altogether wrong with it. I just feel that it’s not got that special something that Selma had (namely some stand-out emotional kicking scenes and performances, along with a simply brilliant song). That said, should you see Suffragette? Definitely. It’s adequately written and directed and its performances are pretty good, including one from Ben Whishaw, who has been on fire recently.

My inner Higher History student wishes that they’d at least hinted at those other factors I mentioned, but that’s the sort of nit-pick that someone would poke me for at a dinner party if we were talking about this movie!

Recommended Scenario: If you want to feel a little more empowered to change the world, whoever you are.

This movie’s not had a UK theatrical release as of yet. Hopefully its Netflix popularity is such that that situation shall be rectified.

While browsing for movies on Netflix, my younger cousin and aunt came across this documentary about two twins who were separated soon after birth and through social media found one another when they were 25. I am so grateful to them for finding it.

It’s actually rather fitting that I was only able to hear about then watch this movie through a streaming service, since this is one of the best and most subtle tributes possible to the power of the information age in which we live in.

Samantha Futerman is a Korean-American actress, known for supporting roles in Memoirs of a Geisha and 21 & Over and various online videos. In 2013, she was contacted through Facebook by a French woman called Anaïs Bordier, who believed that they may be twin sisters. This film, co-directed by Futerman, chronicles in what feels like real-time, that fateful year in the lives of these two people.

Twinsters is infinitely fascinating. It is an examination in how something so impossible as this meeting can happen in the 21st century. At a time when almost all headlines regarding social media and the world wide web right now focus on the very real problems that can and have arisen in the brief period in which these things have been around, it is refreshing to me, as someone whose part of this bizarre revolutionary generation, to witness something uncomplicatedly miraculous and wonderful as this happen as a result of it.

I also find it compelling because I am deeply intrigued by the dynamic of female friendships, particularly between sisters and even more so by twins. This may partly be because I will never be twin sisters with anyone, no matter how much I wanted it, but it’s also because there is a divine beauty in the connection that people, and especially girls, can have with one another.

The final and most important reason that this movie is intriguing, is that these two women are infectiously likable! We get treated to an intimate view into these two which you don’t see very often when the media talks about my generation (these ladies are 9 years older than me and I feel that qualifies myself as part of their generation).

While I’ve been mentioning some pretty big issues so far in this review, regarding social media, generational divides, inter-female relationships etc, big issues aren’t the concern of Twinsters. Even when it touches briefly on the question “Why were these twins separated to begin with?” it doesn’t distract from the twins themselves as they learn about one another and begin to love one another.

These two never saw one another from birth till they were in their mid twenties, but they feel as close as if they lived together all that time. It’s something that at certain points had this hard-as-nails “film critic” crying.

The construction of this documentary is wonderful. I feel it captures the bouncy personalities of Sam and Anaïs in its style and execution. I very much hope for Futerman to get other projects through this one.

If I had one complaint, it would be that it felt like it ended a few times before the actual ending. That’s really a nitpick and the ending itself is so perfect that it makes me even more glad that the documentary of these events was released only 2 years after they happened.

I highly recommend Twinsters as it’s a moving and highly modern piece of documentary filmmaking. Good luck with everything Samantha. Bonne chance avec tout Anaïs.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to be moved by a happy story as it unfolds in real-time before your eyes.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can watch it on Netflix now.

Wow! It’s been 3 years already? Huh. Time for another outing of 007, then!

MI6 agent James Bond returns for more explosions, girls and the return of some old enemies.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been 9 years since Casino Royale, the first Bond film to star Daniel Craig. Back then there was an uproar over his blond hair and blue eyes along with his appearance which isn’t exactly un-handsome, but far more in the way a Laurence Dallaglio way than a Pierce Brosnan way. There still is a website called www.danielcraigisnotbond.com. A lot of people were really not liking his casting.

Yet here we are years later and I can freely say it. Daniel Craig is the best James Bond we’ve ever had. Not only is the man charming as hell, but his “rugged” appearance makes you believe this man could beat the snot out of you. He also has had some of the best acting in Bond history, particularly in Casino Royale, where he had to laugh while being tortured in a way I simply can’t describe and where Bond finally experienced love with a woman rather than feeling like he’d won a trophy for all the murdering he’d done. I like the classic bonds of the 60s through into the 90s in a more historical curiosity than genuine love. Craig has been my introduction to Bond.

And now his tenure is over. Yep, it’s over. Those people over in the Daniel Craig hating corner can stop typing and yelling and can see this past decade of darker, more complex Bonds which started as a reaction to Bourne, the terrible reviews of Die Another Day and 9/11 as an apocryphal part of Bond’s otherwise completely perfect and untainted history.

Can I blame them? It’s almost impossible to treat all of the “official” James Bond films (starting with Dr No in 1962, not including Never Say Never Again) as canon. I mean the guy changes his face every few years, pretty much never ages and whose origin story is 44 years into the series’ run! The only other explanation is that 007 was a time lord a whole year before Doctor Who began to air.

I honestly have no idea where Daniel Craig’s era lands chronologically in the series. All I know is that it feels like a four-part origin story that feels at once far-more self-contained and yet connected to the previous entries. Throughout, Craig is transforming little by little into the legend. What we need now is for the Young Bond series to come to the big screen for the prequel to the origin.

The title of this spy thrill-ride is in reference to (and I won’t give a spoiler warning as it’s pretty much integral to James Bond lore) the name of the terror organisation which acted as the mega baddy through many of Bond’s early adventures.

The main baddie is played by Christolph Waltz, one of my favourite living actors (oddly enough behind Javier Bardem, player of Skyfall‘s antagonist). Here he’s doing his classic super polite psychopath routine again which was always meant for roles like this. So he does a good job. The only problem is that he goes from being the nemesis of Bond who hurt Bond (or at least Daniel Craig’s Bond, depending on your view of the mythos) to someone with a personal connection to Bond. This comes off as forced and way too OTT. I can see why they did it. A personal qualm between Hero and Villain is something great stories strive for. But there is a point at which it becomes comical.

Spectre feels like a “proper” 60s Bond movie. The grit has been weaned organically away from the past 4 movies apart from the odd overly violent bit which shows us how brutal the world of spying is. In this way I feel that “twist” I just mentioned does make sense in the reality it is presenting.

This vibe continues into the Bond girls. Yes, spoiler alert, Bond still manages to find two attractive women in every single mission who are willing to sleep with him. You can call him a misogynist and a bad role model for men acting as the ultimate pubescent fantasy, but who cares, he’s James Bond, man!

These ladies come in the two traditional categories. The one who sleeps with the assassin for no reason after what appears to be some form of sexual assault and the main one that still goes to bed with Bond but has a bit more depth and a little bit of an attachment to her.

While these tropes are deeply, deeply unsettling when you stop and think about them, the way they handle it here, without much of the irony seen in this year’s Kingsman: The Secret Service and with actresses who seem to be at least close enough to Daniel Craig’s age, comes across as reasonably good. For some reason, though, I bought the “will-sleep-with-Bond-at-a-glance” lady’s relationship with our spy friend more seriously than the “main” girl. That is a sign something got a bit lost in the writing room when they tried to make the words “I love you” make sense!

The side-plots tie in quite well with the whole end-of-an-era feel, though by the end I believe some questions are still to be answered in future scrapes. Ralph Fiennes proves himself as a fine replacement to Judi Dench as M. Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw are simply perfect once again as Moneypenny and Q respectively.

The action’s really good. While I preferred Skyfall‘s lensing by Roger Deakins, Sam Mendes returns with Hoyte van Hoytema as his new DP to give a good look to this picture. The opening action sequence is arguably an upgrade from Skyfall and the opening number by Sam Smith accompanied by one of the greatest title sequences I’ve ever seen is a far cry from simply titles projected onto belly-dancers from From Russia With Love.

Let’s then rank the Bond films of my favourite Bond:

Casino Royale (2006)
Skyfall (2012)
Spectre (2015)
Quantum of Solace (2008)

The flaws I’ve casually mentioned in the writing of this review aren’t enough for me to say this is a bad Bond movie, but I don’t think it’s as great as some people are saying it is and it certainly isn’t as great as Casino or Skyfall. I think I might marathon these movies when I have 10 hours free.

As much as I adore Daniel Craig as Bond in all these movies, he’s leaving at the right moment. Other Bond actors didn’t have the luxury of a story arc in their movies and left due to such factors as poor writing, lack of box office or the fact that they’ve aged beyond being able to realistically be a secret agent. I will probably never be James Bond, but I’m glad Mr Craig has had a good run in the Aston Martin.

Wait, is he not quitting till 2020? Internet make up your minds, I have a review to post!

Recommended Scenario: When you want to see some good old-fashioned beating of bad-guys.

P.S My pick for James Bond would be someone I’ve never heard of, to give them a shot at the title.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.