Judi Dench sucks Benedict Cumberbatch’s face Advertising ...

Discussion with someone at work regarding a hypothetical scenario, and whether it is protected by free speech laws, or whether it'd be classed as slander and treasonous propaganda or something.
The scenario discussed is as such:
Tom Cruise decides he dislikes President Trump after Trump is accused of being a Scientologist, and slanders Scientology relentlessly over Twitter. Cruise decides he wants Mission Impossible 7 to be all about President Trump being a Russian plant, and how Ethan Hunt's team uncovers all this evidence of Trump's wrongdoings, they take out fictional villains involved, but leave Trump and Putin to the public. Both are portrayed by convincing impressionists further made more realistic by top tier CGI.
Executives and studios aren't very keen on this idea due to the political focus. However, with President Trump also ruffling feathers amongst other industry leaders (such as special effects teams, marketing companies, and more) and fellow A-list actors willing to put up their own money for the project, it begins to gather steam. The rumored project begins to get a lot of traction online after John Williams is reported to have put his name to the project for free. Elon Musk has had agreements between SpaceX and foreign space agencies put in place so MI7 can be partially filmed in space too.
There's a lot of action, but also a lot of very obvious focus on all the negative press associated with President Trump and his ties to Russia. It's kind of like Ethan Hunt became a Redditor and scrolled through every anti-Trump thread, taking it all as fact that he did these things. The movie comes out (either through a studio taking the risk, or Cruise and his like-minded team of actors and industry specialists acting independently) and gains a lot of traction. Not only do a large portion of Trump haters love the propaganda involved, but it seems to be a genuinely well-written story with excellent cinematography, faultless pacing and story beats, groundbreaking space filming, and perfectly cast roles from Tom Cruise to Daniel Radcliffe, Johnny Depp and Dame Judy Dench to Helen Mirren and Gal Gadot. So essentially, this is Mission Impossible's Endgame. A must see.
Can the President decide he hates this portrayal of his character and have the movie banned from theatres and home release? Or is it able to remain public due to free speech laws?
TL;DR If a big budget must see AAA movie came out portraying the government or president in a bad light (regardless of accuracy) could they pull the plug on its release or would free speech protect it?

Ceci n'est pas un film: Cats (2019)
CJ Sheu
---
I don’t understand the visceral hate of Cats (2019), the latest offering from Tom Hooper. It’s a perfectly respectable recording of a stage musical performance, touched up with a bit of CGI.
What? It’s meant to be a film, you say? Well, that does change things considerably.
Les Misérables (2012) should’ve been proof enough that Hooper has no worldly idea what to do with a film camera (Film Crit Hulk wrote a comprehensive explanation of this), but apparently winning an Oscar really does still mean something, Green Book (2018) notwithstanding. The result of the industry’s trust in Hooper is this weird amalgamation of film and stage show featuring weird digital amalgamations of humans and cats (and humans and mice, and humans and cockroaches). I personally had no problem at all with the digital fur technology, but the sight of cockroaches with human faces being eaten alive by Rebel Wilson’s character is some seriously Lynchean shit. Among the innumerable scathing reviews, not a few found the film impossible to grade at all. I think this sui generis concoction is simply due to a mismatch of medium, material, and director.
First, a plot summary: White-furred Victoria (Francesca Hayward) gets dumped by her owners and finds herself among the Jellicle Cats, who are preparing auditions for the annual Jellicle Ball, at which elderly Jellicle Cult leader Old Deuteronomy (Judi Dench) will make the Jellicle Choice and allow one of them to (literally) ascend to the Heavyside Layer to begin a new cat life—but one feline hopeful, the evil Macavity (Idris Elba), plays dirty and whisks the other contestants to a barge on the Thames. That’s it; that’s the plot.
Structurally, the film can be split into two acts and a weird fourth wall-breaking coda. In the first act, outsider and audience surrogate Victoria is guided around and introduced to the colorful cast of Jellicle Cats by Munkustrap (Robbie Fairchild). Hayward doesn’t have much to do here, and even her facial expression rarely changes from open-mouthed wonder. Fairchild, though more active, is also unmemorable when compared to the likes of Jennyanydots (Wilson), The Rum Tum Tugger (Jason Derulo), and Bustopher Jones (James Corden), just to name a few. But here I should also mention that, since the cats are introducing themselves, they’re self-consciously putting on a performance, and T.S. Eliot’s whimsical taxonomical poems (sometimes altered by Andrew Lloyd Webber) render these showcats as types instead of characters. In this sense, Wilson and Corden are typecasted, and Derulo is given the cinematic newcomer treatment.
It’s here that the film suffers a medium mismatch. The stage musical was all about immersive spectacle, so its goal was to be as big and loud and brash as possible. But film is necessarily limited by the frame: You can only look from one angle in one direction at a time. I think the original idea was for Victoria to guide the camera, as most outsiders tend to do in films about hermetically sealed and semiotically complete fantasy worlds such as this one. But Hooper has no clue how to stage and block the dance numbers to let the camera take it all in. Perhaps counterintuitively, the camera should not simply be placed among the dancers in emulation of Victoria’s line of sight; after all, she’s still part of the film. You have to deliberately choreograph the numbers so that a blank space is left for the camera, and what goes on in front of the camera needs to be differentiated from what happens behind it. Quick editing doesn’t make up for it, either: In a cinematic version of the old fable about blind villagers encountering a giant land mammal, twenty brief close-ups of an elephant from oblique angles does not a complete elephant make. This problem dogs (sorry) the film most egregiously when the dance numbers have no nominal lead; I’ll never forget when the film cuts away from Hayward, principal ballerina at the Royal Ballet, mid-pirouette.
With the introduction of social pariah and elderly has-been Grizabella (Jennifer Hudson), the film slides into the second act, in which Victoria gains some agency and influences the Jellicle Choice. JHud gives the most complex and moving performance of the film when she sings “Memory,” and she does it twice. We remember it as a sad song, but it’s also angry in that Grizabella is both haunted and taunted by memories of her glory days. Hudson sells all of it, fluidly emoting along with the lyrics. This sets us up for the emotional gut-punch of Hayward capably singing “Beautiful Ghosts,” a new song that answers both emotions: longing for what Grizabella has had, and gently reproaching her for her ressentiment. When Victoria sings “I’ll dance with these beautiful ghosts,” referring to the Jellicle Cats, it’s with a sense of not community, surprisingly, but resignation. (Also, Hayward dodges the high note that Taylor Swift sings over the end credits, instead ending on the whisper that some fans wanted when the single was released ahead of the film.)
Speaking of Swift, she plays Bombalurina, Macavity’s lead henchcat, and has a naughty (but not dirty) number to introduce Macavity. Honestly, with all the cuts and weird camera angles, it’s more like a music video than anything else, and her acting is similarly conveyed in brief bursts. It’s no wonder Swift got the part based only off of her unsuccessful audition for Éponine in Hooper’s Les Mis, as playing Bombalurina merely requires her to do what she’s been doing with aplomb since at least The 1989 World Tour (2015). Even Bombalurina’s dancing is recognizably Swiftian.
Macavity’s gatecrash is preceded by, among other things, Ian McKellen’s turn as Gus the Theatre Cat, another washed-up cat star. McKellen is the only actor to truly understand what he’s gotten himself into, and his performance is perfectly calibrated between stagey and camera-oriented. Whereas Hudson delivers an enhanced concert performance and Dench goes for naturalist interiority, McKellen gives us a broad stage performance that’s toned down to accommodate Hooper’s obsession with close-ups. And it’s when we compare Hudson’s and McKellen’s numbers that we finally see what the story is really about: “the Trauma Of Old Age and the Sweet Release of Death,” as Aja Romano puts it in her excellent comprehensive primer on everything Cats.
But you’d be hard-pressed to remember that owing to the catchy songs, energetic dancing (choreographed by Andy Blankenbuehler), and sheer spectacle of it all. It’s a fun time as long as you go in with no expectations of story or character or empathy or suspension of disbelief or spatially coherent editing or anything remotely resembling either humans or cats (or mice or cockroaches). Just don’t think of it as a film, and you’ll be fine.
(Make sure to check out Film Crit Hulk's love letter to Cats. And read this hilarious account of watching the film while high on mushrooms.)
---
Original post (I make no money off my site, and there are a ton of reviews to check out): https://reviewfilmreview.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/cats-2019/.
Original Twitter reaction thread (not everything made it into the review): https://twitter.com/cj_sheu/status/1210481932951265282?s=19.

In this three part series, Brad Jersak delves into what it means to say that the Bible is "inspired by God".
In Part 1, he describes how he used to believe, despite not wanting to use the term "dictation theory" in something rather similar. He looks at what 2 Timothy 3 doesn’t say about Scripture being inerrant, historical accurate and so forth and then focuses on what it does say about it being useful - for testifying to Jesus and training in Christlikeness.
Part 2 goes into how God breathed into the Bible authors who exhaled a text containing both divine inspiration and human agency. He ends with a summary from the early church which says that the Holy Spirit is infallible, Scripture is inspired and that the Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God
In Part 3, Jersak introduces the term "phenomenological description" which means describing things as they appear to us, rather than how we know they actually are. Related to my post recently about the compatibility of science and religion where I mention that most Christians today don't believe in a flat earth, Brad raises the idea that "maybe the person who originally coined the word “sunset” really did think the sun was revolving around the earth." Scripture only becomes untrue when we don't realise (or accept) that the Bible authors may have outdated worldviews and/or be using phenomenological language and try to read Scripture literally.
He concludes quoting Antony the Great, a Christian hermit from ancient Egypt: "To say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

I recently watched The Night Manager (2016) and was completely blown away by it. It's written by David Farr and all six episodes are directed by the excellent Susanne Bier. For anyone who hasn't heard about this miniseries, it's an adaptation of a classic John le Carre novel set in the post-Cold War 1990s. The TV series modernizes the narrative and sets the opening sequence in the Arab Spring firmly establishing a political landscape as part of its setting. It also uses nationality as an integral part of its characters which informs character motivations and makes the commentary made by the show more interesting.
Certain liberties were taken with the adaptation. Jonathan Pine's handler in the series is Angela Burr instead of Leonard Burr. A gender switch in the mentor figure works to prevent this narrative from becoming over-saturated with male figures trying to outwit each other and not only provides representation for women, but illustrates that pregnant compassionate women can be badasses in a spy thriller. Honestly, I didn't even know that this character was gender-switched from the source material until I read up on it. Olivia Colman's humanist depiction of Angela Burr was so far removed from Dame Judie Dench's cold, calculating M that I did not really compare the two at first. Angela Burr is exactly what Jonathan Pine needs in a handler (a caring authority figure who has his best interests at heart) while M is exactly what Bond needs (strict, someone to reign him in). Both these roles complement the spies they serve to protect but Angela Burr's character serves to be in sharp contrast to the rest of her world which is a corrupt, destructive and selfish one.
Tom Hiddleston plays Jonathan Pine, a hotel night manager turned infiltrator, while Hugh Laurie plays a gun-running, army-commanding elitist Brit named Richard "Dickie" Roper. The most interesting thing in the series is the way that both of these characters represent British ideals. Roper is the conqueror, the colonist, the profiteer. He is threatening and powerful. He's elevated his position in the world from a nobody to "the worst man in the world." He's also a racist and has no regard for human life. Meanwhile, Pine is the epitome of polite and reserved and is as efficient and competent at his job as Bond in Casino Royale which is probably the version of the character most comparable to Pine. Pine also deeply cares about the innocent people he sees at risk, including those in Roper's company and makes an effort to save them. Note that the thing that's missing from Bond narratives is the "deeply cares" part.
At one point Pine outlines his motivations for risking his life as hinging on the fact that Roper is British; he cannot turn a blind eye to an evil British man laying waste to the world. Pine's other motivation is avenging the murder of Sophie, a woman who came to him for help and who he subsequently sleeps with. His love for country and obsession with revenge seem familiar. Pine avoids being being the righteous uncaring British badass by actually building relationships with the people he takes help from and seeks to help: this includes Angela, Yousef, Jed and Sophie. The way in which Pine doesn't let ethnicity or social standing factor into how he treats people further distances him from Roper. Roper's motivations are also laid bare in his musings on how Churchill and a band of other Europeans sat around a table and decided which sections of Africa was whose to rule. This is just one of the ways the show depicts the fallibility of British authority as not-so different from Middle-Eastern authority; in that world, the intelligence agencies, both British and American, are corrupt and colluding with Roper. The tension from these differing ideas of what drives the British man create a political statement about colonialism and the true influence of the West on the developing world in a way that spy thrillers haven't.
Now, why do I think that this is what Bond movies should be like in the current era. For one, I'm all for political commentary in movies with shootouts and explosions. Another reason is that Jonathan Pine is what Bond should more closely resemble in this current era; I'm a huge fan of the Bond who was borne out of hyper masculinity and modernity, but seriously, is it too much to ask for him to evolve and grow as a character. One more reason is that this show managed to really show the stakes of the bad guy winning versus the good guy winning and it made it plausible and realistic; there is no world domination or a global catastrophe at stake. Bad guy winning equals the status quo of needless suffering in the world while good guy winning equals constructive change in the world. Additionally, The Night Manager made a point of not showing that white people from America and Britain aren't saviors when they intervene; Egyptian rebels acted at the climax to blow up the arms shipment and Egyptian strongmen take care of Roper at the end. This show was aware of the pitfalls of a spy narrative and it avoided them with grace.
All of these reasons and more make The Night Manager a masterful thriller that comments on Western intervention and influence on conflicts around the world and I highly recommend a Bond fan to see it, if only to know what we'e been missing out on.
Sorry if this is messy and long but I just felt like talking about this show and no one I know has watched it and I couldn't help but sort-of word vomit my thoughts.

Hey folks! I'm planning on watching all 23 of the James Bond films between now and the release of Spectre in November. 007 films have always been my guilty pleasure and I thought it might be worth trying to have a more analytical discussion about them. If you all are interested, I'll be posting one of these discussions/reviews every 2 weeks. So here goes!

CASINO ROYALE (2006)

Story

It’s often said that Bond films are made and broken by their villains. I say that this is a fine metric for all pre-Craig entries. Don’t get me wrong. Le Chiffre is perhaps one of my favorite Bond villains and I’ll get into that shortly, however this film isn’t dictated by the quality of the villain as he is overshadowed by a far more fulfilling character. We finally have our first film that is truly about James Bond.

For the first time in the illustrious 44 year history of the franchise, we get a film that honors James Bond as a three-dimensional character. The role is juicy and Craig delivers spectacularly. The film dives deep, deep into the psyche of a spy — of a killer. I revel in the pointed exchanges between Bond and M. It is a pleasure to watch Bond arrogantly defend his actions. He is smug, self-righteous, and (to his superiors and peers) frustratingly correct more often than not. The caustic sparing between Bond and Vesper Lynd in their first meeting on the train even takes the title of greatest dialogue sequence away from Pierce’s Bond vs. Dench’s M in GoldenEye. It’s intelligent, it’s hysterical, and it’s real. It’s everything that a conversation between a top-tier, egotistical field agent and an aggressively ambitious agency accountant would be.

And speaking of Vesper, there is no doubt that she is the greatest of all of Bond’s female cohorts. Obviously with 20 films to choose from, there are no shortage of female characters to consider. Pussy Galore is first competent female character who isn’t being played by forces out of her control. She’s completely dismissed for being a lesbian and taken advantage of in a terribly unsexy love scene. Tracy Bond is a fiercely independent and upstanding young woman. But ultimately she is restricted by her role as the obedient daughter. Anya Amasova is the first truly self-reliant, professional female. Even her character's integrity is completely undone as the writers go for a cheap sex scene at the end of the film. None of this applies to Vesper. She is self-sufficient. She is clever. She is human. The scene in which Bond comforts her in the shower following his visceral killing of a couple of thugs is one of the most striking and easily the most touching scenes in the entire series.

Finally, as I mentioned before, Le Chiffre is one of my favorite villains. He is a welcome breath of fresh air in a series that had clumsily escalated to the point of villains wearing cheap Ironman knock off suits shooting lasers from the moon. Le Chiffre is a mathematical wizard who enjoys embezzling the money of his criminal clientele. Best of all, the entire plot of Casino revolves around Le Chiffre’s necessity to recollect $100 million of his clients’ funds that he lost betting the wrong way on a stock shortage. This sets up a fantastic dynamic between hero and villain. Unlike Everything that Le Chiffre does, he does out of fear and desperation. As the veil thins and the stakes raise, his actions become increasingly wretched, eventually concluding in a skin-crawling torture scene.

Look and Sound

Plain and simple, Casino Royale is the sexiest looking Bond film yet. Even the stylized scenes (the cold open and it’s accompanying flashback) are positively stunning. Daniel Craig’s introduction isn’t one of flash and spectacle. He doesn’t get a big Hollywood close up. His first lines are as dry in content as they are in delivery. The first time we see him, he is sitting in the far corner of a dark office. All we see is his face, unmoving and small in the film’s frame, his body obscured in noir-like darkness. Mads Mikkelsen's already superb performance is also greatly enhanced by top tier lighting.

When the frame moves, the direction is just as immaculate as when it is still. The camera motion invokes a high level of energy during a series of perfectly choreographed, photographed, and executed action scenes. The stunt work and effect work is above and beyond any heretofore seen 007 footage. The parkour chase scene and airport chase scene are two of the most exhilarating sequences the franchise has to offer.

David Arnold’s score is above average, though ultimately it doesn’t stand out too far from its contemporary film scores. That said, my absolute favorite music decision is that of the delayed gratification of the James Bond theme. It is absent throughout the entire score until the final seconds in which the familiar tune slowly and smirkingly edges in as our protagonist saunters into frame to utter the ever-iconic line, “Bond… James Bond.”

Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name” is solid though I wouldn’t rank it terribly high in the annals of Bond Song history. The accompanying credit sequence on the other hand is quite possibly my favorite. Title designer Daniel Kleinman dispenses with the standard 3D abstractions in favor of flat colors and 2D design.

Casino marks the final Bond film in which Peter Lamont acted as Production Designer. His mark on the series is as notable as his predecessor, Ken Adam. Where Adam emphasized the stylized mid-century modern world of Connery's Bond, Lamont took the world in a decidedly new direction. Beginning in 1981 on the production of For Your Eyes Only, Lamont aimed to produce a world that felt tangible, modern, and realistic. In this final film, his efforts reach their zenith. When paired with the positively stunning lighting from cinematographer, Phil Méheux, the combination is a world that requires no suspension of disbelief.

Callbacks, Recurrences, and Tropes

From the first frame, things have changed. Immediately following the MGM lion’s roar, we find ourselves at the snowy exterior of a foreign government building. No gun barrel sequence here. The scene plays out with Bond discussing his first ever kill as a government agent. During the conversation, we flashback to the fight. It climaxes with Bond’s nemesis springing back to life and aiming a gun at 007. The POV snaps into the barrel of the gun as Bond reacts, shooting the would-be killer in the familiar manner of the traditional gun barrel shot.

Casino Royale is the first film of the series not to include either Moneypenny or a Quartermaster. While Dr. No didn’t include a character by the name of Q, it did have Major Boothroyd, MI6’s armorer. Incidentally, Q is referred to as Major Boothroyd in The Spy Who Loved Me. It's a bit confusing but the moral of the story is that there is no gadget master in Casino Royale. With that is the absence of the traditional gadgetry as we’ve come to expect. One of the few prop callbacks is the return of the iconic 1964 Aston Martin DB5. The DB5 makes its fifth showing in the series, following appearances in Goldfinger, Thunderball, GoldenEye, and a brief cameo in Tomorrow Never Dies. In one of the wiser casting decisions, Judy Dench was asked to return as M. She provides a pleasant bridge in the casting change between Brosnan and Craig.

Casino also marks the return of CIA Agent Felix Leiter — this time portrayed by Jeffrey Wright. It shouldn’t come as a surprise by this point that Wright’s portrayal of Leiter is also undoubtedly the best of the series. Gone is the portrayal of Americans as cowboys and the rednecks. That’s not to say that the character isn’t without his Americanisms. I do get a chuckle every time Bond asks Leiter what will become of the poker game winnings if Bond beats Le Chiffre. Leiter response with a toothy grin, “does it look like we need the money?”

Casino even handles one of the more preposterous 007 traditions in spectacular fashion. It would seem entirely out of place for a character to have a name like Pussy Galore or Xenia Onatopp. The gag still makes an appearance, however. When briefing Vesper on their upcoming mission, Bond playfully informs her that her undercover alias is Stephanie Broadchest (and that she’s just going to have to trust him on this one).

Finally, even Bond’s signature drink order is adjusted to reflect the new character’s coarse nature. After being denied reentry into the poker tournament, Bond orders a drink while he stews over his course of action. He then responds to the bartender’s “shaken or stirred” inquiry by snapping, “does it look like I give a damn?”

Overall Impression

Spectacular. Visually stunning. Emotionally gripping. Engaging, exhilarating, electrifying. The strongest and most unique entry thus far. Technically proficient in every way with writing that is entirely without equal. Every facet from the cinematography to the costuming appears to be fully thought out and executed in with the utmost care and proficiency. I suppose it’s a bit of a faux pas to refer to another review in your own review but Roger Ebert said it best when he explained that as the years went on, he was becoming less convinced that he would ever need to see another James Bond film until he saw Casino Royale.

Quick Hits

Category	Score	Note
Writing	9.5	Top notch. Sharp, smart, funny.
Directing	10	Gorgeous framing, excellent camera moves, pulled some fantastic acting from his cast.
Acting	9	As true to real witnessing real life as you’re going to get in a Bond film.
Cinematography	10	Even for a non-Bond film it’s still positively breathtaking.
Production Design	10	Peter Lamont continues to deliver.
Score	8.5	Rock solid without being exceptional.
Editing	9	Fantastic pacing. Never feels slow or dull.
Effects	9.5	Stunts and effects are mind blowing.
Costumes	10	Watching Daniel Craig evolve into the Bond that we know and love is a spectacular moment.
Personal Score	9.5

Score - 95 / 100

Film	Score
Casino Royale	95
GoldenEye	86
Goldfinger	85
On Her Majesty's Secret Service	82
The Spy Who Loved Me	80
The World is Not Enough	79
From Russia With Love	76
The Living Daylights	75
You Only Live Twice	73
License to Kill	72
Dr. No	70
The Man with the Golden Gun	68
Tomorrow Never Dies	68
Live and Let Die	66
Thunderball	61
A View to a Kill	59
Moonraker	59
For Your Eyes Only	55
Octopussy	48
Diamonds Are Forever	37
Die Another Day	30

Bonus Category!

So for each movie my wife and I will be enjoying a spirit or cocktail that relates to the film. This was the easiest cocktail choice yet. Bond hands us the drink on a silver platter by actually listing out the exact ingredients and measurements for the Vesper Martini. It is as follows

• 3 measures Gordon's Gin
• 1 measure vodka
• 1/2 measure Cocchi Americano vermouth (Bond asks for Kina Lillet which has been discontinued so the internet suggested Cocchi as a "perfect substitute")
• garnish with a slice of lemon

Shake well over ice until cold. Garnish with a thin slice of lemon rind.

So what do you folks think? How does Casino Royale fare in your opinion?

This is more for discussion purposes than anything else. Feel free to put in your own names for characters in the blanks, or to explain why your choice for a particular character is superior is superior to my suggestions. :)
Anyway, suppose that Invisible, Inc. were picked up for a four-season animated series that followed the shenanigans of the eponymous agency as it attempted to sabotage the ruthless influence wielded by the corps. If you had your pick of actors and actresses, whom would you cast in the roles of the agency's employees?
Are there aspects you would like to see in such a show that go beyond the selection of the cast?
Brian Decker ("Decker"): Liam Neeson
Maria Valdes ("Internationale"): Penelope Cruz
Raymond Malik ("Shalem 11"): ???
Jolie Murphy ("Banks"): Kerry Condon
Dr. Tony Xu ("Xu"): ???
Nika Muratova ("Nika"): Irina Shayk
Alex McTeague ("Sharp"): ???
Esther Martins ("Prism"): ???
Olivia Gladstone ("Central"): Judi Dench
Young Olivia Gladstone ("Olivia"): Helen Mirren
Derek Mossman ("Monst3r"): Idris Elba
Young Derek Mossman ("Derek"): ???
Collette Phan ("Rush"): Kelly Marie Tran
Matei Cernat ("Draco"): ???
Incognita: Ellen McLain
Operator: ???

Okay, I've been making blogs for awhile and this is my review for Spectre. If you want to read the review on the blog it's here. If you want to visit the blog, it's here. Here's the review:
This week I took a stroll into one of Belfast’s cinemas. I won’t say it’s name for legal reasons so we shall call it Nodeon.
A small popcorn and coke set me back £3.20 and the popcorn tasted like recyled cardboard. On the brightside, the staff were friendly and the comfy seats were a pleasure for the anus.
We had to walk through a crowd of viewers for the previous Spectre screening, all wearing black ties. I would make some joke about their pomposity but the ties probably signalled they were out to raise money for charities which makes them pretty much immune to ridicule.
Finally I got to watch everyone’s favourite STD laden spy return and boy was it average.
The movie opens with the Day of the Dead festival. Bond promptly seduces a women before stepping out her bedroom window and creating an international shitstorm. He runs in through the floats and displays (probably getting photographed a million times) before jumping into a helicopter to fight some baddies. Bond, in a showing of true idiocy attacks both the pilot and the passenger. Only luck saves the lives of Bond and the defenceless crowd from helicopter rotor based decapitation and possibly death. I found myself wondering how many hits on youtube Bond was getting and if his enemies ever paid attention to viral videos.
I’m usually a fan of Bond’s opening credits but Spectre’s tentacle porn display backed by Sam Smith’s subpar track left me less than inspired.
Q (Ben Whishaw), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and M(Ralph Fiennes) return from Bond’s previous outings along with a brief cameo from Judi Dench’s M.
Andrew Scott arrives to play the role of C, a rival to M. C believes the double 00 program to be an anachronism in an age of information wars. He intends to win this war by sharing the information on UK citizens with the rest of the world. C comes across as a clear villain from the minute he steps onto screen. His plans are played off as something big that requires legislation to facilitate it but the GCHQ has been sharing UK data with international spy agencies for rather a long time in real life.
New femme-fatales bolster Spectre’s lineup.
Lea Seydoux takes on the role of Madeleine Swann, daughter to Mr White, who appeared in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.
Monica Belluci (the new oldest bond girl) has approximately 2 minutes of screen time. She talked about being a “bond lady” rather than a “bond girl” which is awkward because essentially all she does is get saved by Bond. Then he pushes her against a surprisingly robust mirror where she promptly strips and gives him another clue in the treasure hunt. He rewards her with the sex. Belluci’s characters begs Bond for help but he just leaves her with a telephone number for an American embassy. Good thing for her, the organisation out to kill her doesn’t have a wide reach or anything…
Dave Baptista turns up as the muscle man baddie that Bond has to beat this time round but doesn’t really give us any memorable action set pieces.
If you are starting to get a feeling that this Bond movie is sticking heavily to the classic script then you’d be dead right. Every standard Bond scenario is included. Every scene feels meticulously planned in all the wrong ways. It feels like spontaneity is dead. No moments stand out as individually interesting. It uncludes the Bond standards; the sponsored car, the effervescent horny women, the Evil McEvil villain. When Casino Royale came into town it felt dark and intriguing, now it’s like the lights have been turned on and we can see that nothing has changed from the Brosnan days.
In Spectre, Bond continuously overcomes odds which he stacks against himself through stupidity and the hunger to be a lone wolf. The real life M15 even commented on how Bond is unlike their real life agents:
they are perhaps more ordinary than perhaps is described in fiction Bond displays an almost fanatical lack of self preservation, strolling into obvious traps throughout the movie. At one point the movie’s villain, Franz (acted by Christoph Waltz) even comments on this. Bond soon finds himself in a new torture chair. The scene lacks the grit of the ropey, testical slapping antics of Casino Royale. As a side note, whoever has been creating the hand restraints for torture devices in the bond universe needs to be fired.
The eponymous villain organisation, Spectre takes the stage for the first time in the Daniel Craig Bond movies although Franz would have you believe Spectre has had a part in all of the previous Craig movies. Franz boasts that he is the author of all of Bond’s pain but the link to Bond’s history feels forced at best, downright cliched at worst.
References to characters from the previous movies are shoehorned in to try and back up Spectre’s supposed scope but that just opens up plotholes. Raol Silva was part of the Spectre plot? What? Why? How? It makes no sense at all. In fairness little of Skyfall’s plot makes sense if you stop to think about it but the slick pacing distracts you. Spectre sputters between action sequences and boring exposition so you notice every little plothole.
Craig’s Bond followed the path shown by Bourne. Audiences wanted a more visceral realistic Bond and the studios were more than happy to provide. More and more of the modern action movies are action-comedies and Bond directors don’t seem to know whether to follow suit or not. Worse still the dark realistic violence of the reborn Bond universe has to be kept separate from the comedy scenes lest it fall into the region of dark humour, so abhorred by mainstream audiences. Spectre feels trapped in the swirling trends of modern cinema and in an odd way, the characters and their actors feel lost at sea too.
Bond has overcome being the “old dog” in Skyfall only to have to fight the same fight in the new movie. If Craig stays presumably this will be a theme in the next one.
Lea Seydoux, is a fine actress and when they give her the space to build the character of Madeleine Swann she does with aplomb. This doesn’t last long however. Soon they need her dish out some needed plot points and fall in line with the pre-destined Bond-girl role. It’s painful to watch. She is wasted on this role.
The Bond B team with Q, Moneypenny and M running around London seems odd. Doesn’t M have any loyal agents? 009 is mentioned, can’t M bring him in on this?
Andrew Scott’s C and Christophe Waltz’s Franz end up feeling like inferior simulacra of the villains they played on other mediums.
At this point in the review it probably seems like I’m railing on the movie and that’s unfair. The movie never really becomes bad, it’s just inferior.
The building collapse scene wasn’t as good as Casino Royale. The car chase isn’t as good as Quantum of Solice. And the train fight isn’t as good as Skyfall. Spectre is easily the most mediocre of Craig’s movies. The action scenes and plot points feel like they are placed there to fill out the Bond checklist rather than because they belong organically to the movie. Whilst Spectre is a perfectly watchable action movie don’t expect it to be memorable, because it isn’t.

DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002) Twelve years ago already? How did that happen?
I thought the first half of this movie was a really good spy/adventure thriller. But then, right at the hour mark, it just falls completely apart and collapses into a mess of excess, like having a second Thanksgiving dinner when you are already full. Too bad. If they had cut out all that ice palace and supercar stuff and gone right from Bond being taken back into the Service to the attack of the solar ray satellite, I feel this would have made the movie be better regarded by fans than it seems to be. Too much is not helped by piling on more.
Bond is up against some evil masterminds from North Korea this time. One is a terrorist named Zao (he's the one who ends up running around with diamonds stuck all over his face; he must like the fashion statement, he could get them removed easily enough) and the other is a general's son who gets gene therapy to look like a posh blond white guy and who launches a typical Bond villain megalomaniac attempts to provoke WW III (again) by blowing up the mines across the DMZ with concentrated sunlight from a satellite. Bond is helped by an America spy named Jinx, played by Hale Berry, and hindered by a double agent from his own team.
Pierce Brosnan had such bad luck with this role. He himself did a fine job. He looks perfect as 007 (actually matching Ian Fleming's desciption of Bond better than any of the other actors) and he has the right mannerisms and approach. I like the way Brosnan underplays the character's reactions. A very slight smile, a frown, a moment to digest new information. He also moves sharply and professionally when handling a gun, and in general seems to be paying attention to what the character is supposed to be doing rather than just looking good for the camera, But Brosnan got handed weak scripts, tired ideas and lack of emotional substance to work with. He also was stuck with the overblown gadgetry which has since been toned way down for Daniel Craig.
The duel of the STAR WARS-cars on the ice field here goes way overboard into the ridiculous. You couldn't get that much weaponry and equipment into a Greyhound bus, much less a little sports car. And the invisible Aston Martin wins the "Oh Come ON!" Award for the year. As soon as it appears, all attempts at plausibility fly out the window never to return. The hilarious little cartoon figure of Bond windsailing over the icy water was funnier than I expected. You know what the best action scene was? I think it was the duel between Bond and Gustav Graves, with the two men getting angrier and it escalating into an actual swordfight as things get heated. It had more emotional content and feeling of real physical danger than all the big explosions and fireworks.
Halle Berry is no help to the flick. Yes, she is a beautiful woman. Maybe she is fine in other roles, it could be she is an actor of limited range but good within those limits. But here, everything she does falls flat and seems forced. She delivers her lines with no flair. Judi Dench as M is good as always, although I think she has done enough of the role and someone new should have been brought in for Craig`s films. As the new Q, John Cleese goes a bit too far into the comic relief but I have to cut him some slack for his wonderful delivery of acidic dislike for 007. When Bond tells him, "You're cleverer than you look," Q snorts, "Yes. Well, better than looking cleverer than you are." The ongoing friction between Q and 007 is a minor highlight of these films.
Even with all the shortcomings and the bloated action sequences, the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY works just fine. The opening has Bond captured by the North Korean miltary and held prisoner for over a year, beaten and abused and repeatedly stung by scorpions only to be given the anti-venom. It's something new for the character, no blithe escape within a few minutes. He shows real courage when he is finally taken out of his cell and told to march across a foggy bridge. Expecting a bullet in the back so he can be reported as shot while trying to escape, Bond straightens up, keeps a stiff upper lip and walks calmly across. To his surprise, he finds he is being traded for Zao. Even more of a surprise, M suspects him of leaking information while a prisoner and has no intention of returning him to duty or letting him go free. Bond has been set up, nobody trusts him, this is rock bottom for the world's most famous secret agent.
In a scene that is classic movie-Bond (as opposed to Fleming's Bond), our boy escapes from his own service. Soaking wet from swimming across Hong Kong harbor, wearing only hospital pajamas, bearded and with long unkempt hair, James Bond casually strolls into a ritzy hotel where he knows the manager is working for Chinese intelligence. In short order, he has seen a barber, gotten a new wardrobe and fine meal and has a deal with the Chinese agency to track down and assassinate Zao... which is what he wanted to do anyway. Way to go, James.
This was the 20th Bond flick and the fortieth anniversary since DR NO in 1962, and I think they might have known it would be Brosnan's last entry as well. The movie is crammed to the gills with little nostalgic touches from earlier films. The most obvious is the visit to MI6s museum, where we see Rosa Klebb's dagger-tipped shoes and Red Grant's watch with the strangling wire in it (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), the jet pack (THUNDERBALL), the snorkel with the fake seagull (GOLDFINGER) and so forth. But there are a lot of other references. Jinx emerges from the sea in a bikini as Honey did in DR NO, when Bond goes to Cuba he is seen driving a vintage Sunbird like the one in DR NO. I have wondered if Brosnan's Bond was supposed to have tangled with SPECTRE and Goldfinger and the rest, only within the previous few years rather than decades earlier? It's hard to say. The movie doesn't specifically tie him to those events. It would be nice if he had picked up Oddjob's bowler and said, "He had me worried," but the movie is careful to avoid that.
What else? Oh, we do get a brief look at Bond's office at MI6. Some nice touches with the model sailing ship and nautical picture on the wall... Bond was a Commander in the Royal Navy, after all. The half empty whiskey decanter and container of ice is another good detail, as is seeing Bond actually cleaning his gun and with paperwork on his desk. All very reminiscent of Fleming's character, which is always a good thing.
Ah well, thanks Pierce. You did the best you could with what you had to work with and it is appreciated.

You might be wondering whether there’s room for another Bond film on the box office with the release of the latest movie for the franchise. Last year (2012) marked “50 Years of Bond”, and the number of films produced to date are now a total of 23 including the recent Skyfall.
As with many predecessors in the James Bond series, the genre of the film does not escape - this being action and drama with the usual elements of adventure and crime. The flow for most of this and past movies (not to mention other typical Hollywood films) have reminiscent similarities with a series of events taking place leading up to a final showdown with the villain. Skyfall has a unique mix of modern and retro aspects, this ranged from elements that were either part of the storyboard to supporting props that were used in filming. Not only did the eye candy make the film enjoyable to watch, but the visceral topics discussed and plot took it further.
An action-packed opening ends with a failed mission causes a series of events along with its aftermath, and the main concern being agents across the globe having their identities exposed after losing some valuable data. To make matters worse, MI6 headquarters gets attacked which leads to M (played by Judi Dench) being challenged by Gareth Mallory (actor Ralph Fiennes), Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee on questioning whether her abilities are fit to run the agency. As a result, Bond (Daniel Craig) takes on covertly finding clues with the help of another operative Eve (Naomie Harris) that ultimately lead him to the villain, Silva (Javier Bardem) and discover his true intentions and past. At the same time, Bond is challenged both physically and mentally for the time of being an agent with thoughts of the past and present lingering with him.
In terms of acting, Judi Dench’s role as M was more evident in this particular film seeing her more throughout the film rather traditionally where she is seen assigning and congratulating Bond both at the starts and ends. Her story is told and emotions highlighted as events unfold with efforts of relationship and trust building with Daniel Craig. Another point was the choice of locations appeared to be one of the more visually pleasing traits of Skyfall, and it really sets or changes the mood as the movie progressed. This included the fast paced action sequences in Istanbul (Turkey), seriousness in London (UK), mysteries of Shanghai (China), and peacefulness of the Highlands (Scotland).
Although some research led to discovering that many scenes merely depicted the supposed location and they were either constructed sets or CGI enhanced, as it was interesting to see how essentially four movies from different locations were joined into one. Another interesting piece was the depiction of Hashima Island off the coast of Japan, being the lair of James Bond’s villain and looking at a documentary that was produced about it really highlights its history and occurrences from the non-fiction side of things with its origins as being a coal mining island with habitants. Personally I also have a thing for advertisement placement in movies, there’s no surprise of seeing Sony mobile phones and computers given they are the production/distribution company for the series. Cars are also a popular theme when it comes to Bond movies as well, and it was amusing to see how ones by Volkswagen and Jaguar were seamlessly placed into the film rather than the pointless demise of a BMW in The World Is Not Enough. The use of the original Aston Martin from older films was also a nice touch by mixing retro and modern.
Throughout Skyfall there may have been subtle references to past movies in the franchise, for instance the more recent Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale - to even Goldfinger for observant fans. Asides from contrast to its own similar films, the finale and “last stand” so to speak showcases similarities of classic siege movies. It may not be on the same scale as scenes from Kingdom of Heaven, but more reasonably it would be something on the level of Assault on Precinct 13 with the use of more old fashioned booby traps and weapons.
This film is one that casuals and fans alike should definitely look into with not only the visuals being one of the aesthetically pleasing elements, but also the deep storyline and (possibly political) topics being discussed in which they attempt to capture the audience – letting them take a moment to reflect. This being, in the fictitious side and also reality, the information age and how technology virtually connects everything in the world today as it is something that can be potentially used in a new era of cyber warfare.

Check out our other reviews over at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com
Spectre is the much awaited, brand new James Bond 007 starring Daniel Craig as the English super spy. It follows in the footsteps and is seen as being part of a quadrilogy with Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace (Really?) and Skyfall. Spectre also stars Christoph Waltz as Franz Oberhauser, Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, and Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny with Andrew Scott playing Max Denbigh/C.
Bond films are always centered on four things: Bond himself, his relationships with both the Bond girls and MI6, the travelogue aspect of the spy life and the villain of the movie. Spectre has all four of them, all in differing aspects of good and bad.
What was always going to be difficult for Spectre was how it would follow up on the huge success of Skyfall. It was undoubtedly one of the best Bond films of all time and based on our review, could be the best ever as we gave it an A+. So what was going to be the thing that set Spectre apart from Skyfall and the other 22 Bond films? Well, the aforementioned four aspects to a Bond film should be able to clear it up.
The story starts with Bond following a lead from events of the previous films that takes him to Mexico chasing down a member of the same group: Quantum, which included Le Chiffre, Dominic Greene and Raoul Silva. Wrapped around Bond’s story of finding out the kingpin of this organization is the merging of MI6 with MI5 back in London. The London story follows a more modern NSA-inflected dilemma with the agency trying to implement a mass surveillance system as opposed to the 00 program after the events of Skyfall seeing the much maligned 00 program as being “old-fashioned” and “out of touch”.
Now, there’s been a lot of iffy reviews about this movie, calling it boring and terribly ordinary. I, alongside another fellow critic on our blog absolutely loved this film. As soon as the final shot was shown and the credits started to roll with the familiar Bond theme, I turned to Mr. Chulbul with a massive grin on my face and a big thumbs up. Spectre ended up being very entertaining all the way through for the two of us. However, two others in our group thought it was just average and that is how the reviews are going for this movie so far. So what’s causing these mixed reviews, as there are undoubtedly some issues in this film.
Once again, Daniel Craig as James Bond is on form, but not on the level that we saw him in Casino Royale or Skyfall. The important thing we have gotten used to (assume we forget about Quantum of Solace for the rest of the review) is that the Bond portrayed by Craig is one where the audience really connects to him at a personal level. There’s always the threat of imminent danger where Bond may not succeed, be that in a fight or him not closing the deal with a woman. His performances have literally felt like they hurt to the audience (a la the car flip scene in Casino Royale, you actually felt like you were in that car being flipped like 10 times). In Spectre, Bond has moments of both success and agony (real agony in a certain dental based scene), but I would say he’s much closer to the Bond from Quantum of Solace (here’s that movie again) where he’s cold and brash for the most part. But that’s not to say that this is a bad thing for this movie, Bond may be a cold person, but it works in the context of the movie, unlike Skyfall, where it was an internal battle between Bond and Silva and their mutual connection with M, the relationship between Bond and Oberhauser is one that is way more personal and thus requires Bond to cut off people as much as possible until the very last moment.
So, 007 gets a better than Average grade for his character in the movie, what about his relationships? Well, it’s good and bad on this front, with one of the biggest missteps ever in a Bond movie. But, first his relationship with MI6. His interactions with Fiennes’ M seem to be perfectly normal and quite similar in tone to the relationship he had with Judi Dench’s M minus Skyfall where it became much more personal. But it’s the burgeoning relationship, or lack thereof, with MI5 and Max Denbigh or C, that is the problem in the film. Their relationship or as C sees it, his relationship with the entire 00 program is the reason for this movie and that aspect of the movie is the strongest because you have serious doubt in the middle of the film as to whether the 00 program will continue to exist past this movie. But for some reason, that only lasts until about 20 minutes before the movie ends and we find out which direction Spectre is going to take which makes you as viewer say “what was the point of all that?” Only Sam Mendes could tell you but if they had been more steadfast on the surveillance vs. human spying issue, they would’ve gotten more out of the film.
This leads into the third of four things (I’ll come back to the Bond girls in a bit), the Bond villain. Which in this case, could be mass surveillance but as per billing credits, it’s Christoph Waltz’s Franz Oberhauser. It has to be said that Oberhauser doesn’t show up till about 30-40 minutes into the film. Unlike Casino Royale where Le Chiffre showed up right at the beginning of the film. And unlike the villains in Casino Royale and Skyfall, Oberhauser is criminally underused apart from the sequence where Bond and Madeleine Swann pay him a visit at his base in a crater in the desert of Morocco. Other than that, even during the final climax, Oberhauser isn’t directly involved in the action opting to stay on the sidelines instead. However, for the bits that Waltz is in the movie is acting masterclass on his part as per usual. One thing to remember, once you’ve watched the film is that Spectre ends up being a sort of an origin story for Oberhauser’s “character” and that if the next Bond film were to follow in the footsteps of this, we could see a proper masterful performance. But that’ll be a big if especially if there’s a new Bond, but Sam Mendes concluded the story in a way that the next movie could have multiple different options.
So I’d say we got an average villain at the end of the day, one who would only make the hard-core Bond fans excited. Then how about the Bond girls. Well, it’s a tale of two halves. Monica Bellucci is older, similar to Bond’s age, that would’ve gone with the more progressive times in Hollywood. However, the movie’s biggest misstep was the courting scene between Bond and Bellucci’s Lucia where she’s in the movie for literally 10 minutes, if that. And even once they’re back at her house, the courting feels very rapey, where it looks like Bond may just use her for information and leave (a la Casino Royale), but once he gets the info, then he sort of forces himself onto her where as a viewer you’re left with an uneasy feeling of what in the actual hell is going on. I would say the movie loses an entire grade because of that.
However, there is some redemption in the form of Léa Seydoux playing Madeleine Swann. For anyone who’s seen Blue is the Warmest Colour, there’s no question the talent she has acting wise. But in Spectre she shows that she can hold her own in a big Hollywood blockbuster opposite 007 himself. Her relationship to Bond is very similar to Ilsa Faust from Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and her relationship to Ethan Hunt. They both have instances where they are able to stand on their own feet and even help out the hot-shot spy in saving them. But they both have important roles in the films that drive the plot forward and are not just there for sexual appeal, which is what the previous Bond films have had a problem with especially before Daniel Craig took over. The move towards a strong female role really started with Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd and has now continued into Spectre.
And finally the Bond travelogue. This also leads in with the cinematography of the film, helmed by the great Hoyte van Hoytema, who has, amongst his back catalogue, cinematography credits for Interstellar and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The opening scene in Mexico City is more than enough to explain how great this movie was shot, with a beautiful panning shot of a square with a tumbling helicopter where the Day of the Dead parade is occurring. It’s one of those scenes where you really do have to watch the film to understand the beauty of it. The movie also includes a beautiful opening 4-5 minute chase which looks as if it has been shot in one take. Apart from that, we get a much grungier London, along with the mountains of Austria and the desert of Morocco.
Spectre is a great attempt at an undeniably tough act to follow after the critical and box office success of Skyfall. However, there are issues with the film, mostly due to character development which ultimately hinders the plot and where it can go. This is also a 150-minute film, which may be a tad long for viewers who can’t sit through character development (wasn’t an issue for me).
Spectre is a solid addition to the Bond canon and may even crack people’s top 10 Bond films, but The Film Lawyers will give it an average B-