By Brett Blake THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2 represents the culmination of the franchise, and while it is as well-acted and technically accomplished as the previous entries, it is easily the least satisfying, both on its own and in the context of the larger story being told. There is good stuff to be found in it, and by no means is it a bad movie, but it’s ultimately something of a missed opportunity. Picking up immediately after the end of PART 1, the story this time involves Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as she undertakes a secret mission to travel to the heart of the Capitol to assassinate the villainous President Snow (Donald Sutherland) as the Rebellion - under the leadership of President Coin (Julianne Moore) - draws closer to achieving victory. With the help of Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and a recovering-from-being-brainwashed Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), as well as a motley crew of others, Katniss moves ever closer to ending the war as her team navigates through a deadly and booby-trapped city. Much of this review will be focused on the more problematic aspects of the film, so first let’s start with what’s good. Jennifer Lawrence continues to be a perfect fit for Katniss, and even while the character in this outing is probably the least-sympathetic version we’ve yet seen, Lawrence gives her a tremendous strength and strong moral compass, something which is tested throughout the story as the true costs of warfare become more and more apparent to her. Lawrence delivers a complexity of character that transcends - I think - what she was given to work with on the page. Her supporting roster is uniformly excellent, from Moore’s icy cold and calculating performance, to Hutcherson’s utterly broken and traumatized work, to Hemsworth’s stoic and capable turn, to Sutherland’s rather delightfully calm and restrained effort. Returning players like Philip Seymour Hoffman (in his final performance), Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Sam Claflin, Jeffrey Wright, and Jena Malone all pop up for a scene or two, and while none of them (save for Claflin) are really in the movie all that much, none of them are phoning it in and each feels completely credible, which helps to lend some gravity to the proceedings… even when the script doesn’t much help them out in that regard (more on that below). From a filmmaking perspective, the movie is a top notch piece of work. The production design is strikingly effective, presenting a bombed-out version of the Capitol that is a marked contrast to the garish opulence we’ve seen in the previous outings. The costume design is operating on a subdued level, color-palette-wise, and its a testament to the designers that this never translates into the movie feeling drab. The sound mix is alternately powerful and delicate, and James Newton Howard’s score beautifully - if subtly - underlines the emotional moments and enhances the “big” moments of drama and action. The problems with the movie lie almost exclusively with the screenplay. The bulk of the first two thirds of the movie are heavily episodic in nature: the core group encounters some dramatic or dangerous obstacle to overcome, they do, then they “stop to rest” so the characters can talk to each other. After the third iteration of this rinse/repeat cycle, the flaws in that sort of structure start to become apparent, but this is a somewhat minor issue in the grand scheme of things because the action is mostly pretty tense and exciting, and the character work is very strong. It’s just that a better integration of the two could probably have been achieved with another draft or two at the writing stage. More egregious is the fact that major, gigantic moments come and go without the weight required for them to really land; central characters die with little fanfare or fallout, and the very climax itself falls curiously flat. The ultimate narrative conclusion that’s presented here is, frankly, a curious one. Having not read the novel, it’s unclear how many of the climactic developments had their origins on that written page and how many are the result of cinematic invention on the part of the filmmakers. Whatever the case, we can only look at the film as it stands, and the big wrap-up to this whole saga is strikingly peculiar, idiosyncratic, and - yes - even a bit brave. The way the plot stands finally get tied off involves a series of strong character moments that are filled with fascinating and complex intellectual implications. There is much to chew on here, both philosophically and thematically, and it’s certainly not lacking for ambition. But a consequence of the somewhat off-beat narrative choices is that it gives the ending of this big story a feeling of anti-climax; for three prior movies, we’ve been made to believe that this is all leading to something big, a huge final showdown to pay-off everything that has come before. We get that kind of, but there’s a sense that the dramatic possibilities of the conclusion (again, as built up over the previous movies) are - perhaps intentionally - undercut by the attempts to make its intellectual points. There is very obviously a strong vision for what the ending of this story is supposed to be, but I think it’s unlikely most average (i.e. non-hardcore HUNGER GAMES fans) will find much of it to be all that satisfying here… at least in the moment. The viewers may walk away feeling underwhelmed, with a “That was it?” sort of reaction, but then may find themselves eventually mulling over exactly what the ending is saying about power, governance, corruption, and human nature, itself. In that sense, it’s a movie that might improve with time - separated from expectation - but leaving the theater it’s hard not to feel like the air was let out of the balloon somewhat, as even the film’s most shocking developments seem like they should carry more weight than they do. It all feels kind of like a downer, and while that may have been the point, it hardly results in a rousing or thrilling finish for the series. Ultimately, upon first viewing at least, MOCKINGJAY PART 2 is the least successful and least engrossing entry in the series, which would be more forgivable if it weren’t the final chapter. It’s still fine, it’s still loaded with some thought-provoking ideas and enough action to satisfy on that level, and it still has a magnetic Jennifer Lawrence performance holding it all together… but it is a bit of a bummer that this very good sci-fi franchise has fizzled out rather than dropped the mic. “Fine” in this case just didn’t quite cut it.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake It’s been one week since the release of SPECTRE, the latest entry in the James Bond franchise, and the reaction to that film has continued to grow more and more polarized. Admittedly, it’s even taken me some time to fully work out my feelings about it, but that process led me to ponder its placement in the overall series. And that, in turn, led to this article, which hopes to definitively rank the entire 007 saga. All 24 official entries, as well as the 2 “unofficial” movies to feature the character from rival studios. Hardcore Bond fans may disagree with elements of this ranking, but hey, it’s my list and I’ll rank ‘em where I want to. I have tried to embrace brevity as much as possible, so in-depth dissections of each film will not be found here; rather, I’ve tried to sum up (as concisely as possible) why the film ranks where it does in my opinion. It’s also worth noting that, aside from the first 3 films I’ll be talking about, I genuinely like all of these movies quite a bit, despite the criticisms I will level at them. With that said, shake up those martinis and let’s dive in! #26. DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002) The worst of the worst. While it has a legitimately great and unique first act (dealing with Bond being captured and held by North Korea for 14 months), it soon devolves into cartoonishness of the worst sort, including invisible cars, horrifying CGI, a villainous superweapon ripped off from an earlier Bond film, and the worst title song ever courtesy of Madonna; nothing could make your ears bleed faster than that rubbish. #25. A VIEW TO A KILL (1985) To be fair, there are good elements in this one, particularly Christopher Walken’s delightfully unhinged villain and the top notch title song from Duran Duran. But it really all comes down to this: Roger Moore is just too old to still be playing James Bond at this point, and all of the romantic and seduction scenes are simply cringe-worthy. The villain’s plot being a straight rehash of GOLDFINGER doesn’t help, either. #24. CASINO ROYALE (1967) This first adaptation of Ian Fleming’s original Bond novel is a pure spoof, and though it boasts a truly incredible cast (headlined by the likes of Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Welles, and Woody Allen), the screenplay is an incomprehensible mess, with a plotline that is nearly impossible to follow, a result of the script essentially being written on the fly (by no less than 10 writers) to accommodate the rapidly-changing whims of the movie’s 5 (!) directors. It does have an entertaining score from Burt Bacharach, and a superb song in the form of Dusty Springfield’s “The Look of Love.” #23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES (1997) Pierce Brosnan’s second outing as 007 is in no way offensively bad, nor is the storyline a mess. Instead, it’s just kind of boring. The action doesn’t have much vitality, the editing is sluggish and doesn’t enhance the excitement, and Jonathan Pryce’s villain - though entertainingly hammy in fits and starts - feels incredibly low stakes and silly. #22. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974) This adaptation of Fleming’s final Bond novel bears little resemblance to it, and while Christopher Lee is easily a “Top 10” Bond villain, his character is not well-served by the screenplay, which tries - and fails - to balance a harder edge with moments of extreme camp. Roger Moore is also curiously inert here, playing a version of 007 markedly different from the one he played in his first attempt the previous year. #21. OCTOPUSSY (1983) One of the guilty pleasure installments, OCTOPUSSY has some great moments (the pre-title action scene is a ton of silly fun), and it wisely gives Roger Moore a more age-appropriate leading lady in Maude Adams’ title character, but the plot is pure nonsense: a rogue Soviet general, in cahoots with an Indian nobleman and an all-female troupe of circus performers (you read that right), plots to detonate a nuclear weapon on a NATO base, while also selling fake works of art on the side to finance the operation. Not only do those various strands NOT really line up in the final film, the labyrinthine scheme is too clever by half. #20. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999) The movie is undeniably entertaining and lushly photographed, but the storyline - which is supposed to see Bond letting his guard down with a woman and getting burned in the process - doesn’t land. It also squanders Robert Carlyle as the villain; despite having a great gimmick (he can’t feel any pain!), the movie barely makes use of this, and instead turns the character into something of a lovesick dupe by the end. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH also has one of the series’ worst female leads in the form of Denise Richards’ Christmas Jones character. #19. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971) Though DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, for whatever reason, has a vaguely low-rent, sleazy sort of vibe (a side effect of being mostly set in Las Vegas, perhaps?), the movie features perhaps the funniest, wittiest screenplay of the entire series, with one-liners and throwaway gags that are genuinely hilarious. It undercuts the menace of series archvillain Blofeld in ways that might not sit right with fans of the novels or the earlier movies, and it completely drops the ball in exploring the ramifications of the climax of the previous film, but it’s still a grand old time. #18. THUNDERBALL (1965) Connery’s fourth film in the series was hyped as “The Biggest Bond Of All!” and it certainly was up to that point. This was the film that truly established the franchise as a huge cultural phenomenon. The filmmaking is very strong, and it features one of the prototypical espionage plots of the era: a terrorist group (SPECTRE, in this case) holding the world ransom. The only thing keeping THUNDERBALL from being ranked a bit better is that some of the underwater action sequences go on too long and border on monotony. #17. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983) Connery returned to the James Bond character after a 12-year hiatus with this “unofficial” movie, made possible by some very complicated rights issues surrounding the storyline of THUNDERBALL. As such, this is basically a remake of that film, and it’s about equally as good, getting only a slight edge because Connery, despite his age, seems to be having a bit more fun here than in THUNDERBALL, and because Klaus Maria Brandauer’s villain is one of the very best Bond antagonists. #16. QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008) A much-maligned film, this second Daniel Craig entry works best when viewed as an extended epilogue to his first. The action is edited to within an inch of its life, and the plot - involving a threat to Bolivia’s water supply (good heavens!) - is almost comically small and inconsequential. However, as a thorough examination of Bond’s mental state following the events of CASINO ROYALE, it’s a very worthwhile entry. #15. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967) This is the film where Sean Connery’s growing disinterest with the character starts to show in his performance, which is pretty much the only thing holding this one back from being a top tier entry. Outside of that, it’s got incredible sets and locations, an absolutely lovely title song from Nancy Sinatra, and Donald Pleasence doing iconic work as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in that character’s first full appearance in the franchise (he’d been only seen, literally, in the shadows up to that point). #14. MOONRAKER (1979) The James Bond series fully embraced camp with MOONRAKER, without a doubt the silliest installment to date; I mean, it features a finale set on a space station and involving a laser-gun shootout between floating fleets of astronauts! Few movies in the series embody the idea of “Go big or go home” more than this one. It is gleefully entertaining, and makes no apology for how goofy it is. An acquired taste, to be sure, but MOONRAKER is an essential example of the series’ versatility in terms of tone. #13. LIVE AND LET DIE (1973) Roger Moore’s first installment is one of his best, with a fairly low-key drug smuggling plotline that strikes a nice balance between humor and serious stakes. Moore is still finding his footing a bit, but he’s a confident and charming presence, and the undercurrent of voodoo mythos gives LIVE AND LET DIE a unique flavor. The title song, courtesy of Paul McCartney and Wings, is killer, too. #12. LICENCE TO KILL (1989) Until the arrival of Daniel Craig, LICENCE TO KILL was by far the darkest and most hard-edged Bond film, seeing Timothy Dalton’s 007 out for revenge after his close friend, Felix Leiter, is maimed by a ruthless drug kingpin (played incredibly well by Robert Davi). Some criticize the movie for trying to ape typical ‘80s action flicks, but Dalton’s determination to take down the villain is thoroughly compelling, Davi is one of the best heavies of the series, and series stalwart Q figures into the plot in a bigger way than he ever had before, which adds some needed moments of humor. This is one of the most underrated of the whole franchise. #11. SPECTRE (2015) Here it is! Time will, I think, be fairly kind to SPECTRE once those with higher expectations come to grips with what the movie really is. In many respects, this is Daniel Craig’s first “traditional” Bond entry, and on that level it really succeeds. Craig is clearly having a blast as a looser version of 007, and it’s great to see the SPECTRE organization return to the series (after a 44-year absence!), despite some misgivings about how that comes about. #10. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981) This is, by far, the most Ian Fleming inspired film of Roger Moore’s tenure. Coming immediately after the excesses and camp of MOONRAKER, the decision was made to literally return to the ground with a nifty (and fairly plausible) espionage tale about a race between British Intelligence and the Soviets to track down a missing missile command system. There’s still a lot of humor, certainly, but the stakes are high, both on personal and geopolitical levels, and the action is great and varied, with car chases, shootouts, tense mountain climbing sequences, and an extended section of snow-based action that is alternately suspenseful and rousing. #9. DR. NO (1962) The one that started it all. From Sean Connery’s first moment onscreen, he IS James Bond. Fully formed. Dangerous, charming, roguish. The plotline unfolds at first as a mystery, one which builds up the titular Dr. No as a deeply sinister individual, which pays off totally when we meet him in the third act. Joseph Wiseman doesn’t get much screentime as No, but he’s instantly memorable and chilling. Equally memorable is Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder, the prototype for many of Bond’s leading ladies to come. #8. GOLDENEYE (1995) Pierce Brosnan ushers James Bond into the 1990s with this, his first and best time in the driver’s seat. The storyline is clever in the way it incorporates real global events (in this case, the collapse of the Soviet Union) into the plot, and it fully makes the case for Bond’s relevance in a post-Cold War world. As good as Brosnan is here (and he certainly is), he’s equally matched by Sean Bean’s villain, a complex character with genuine motivations that are not (entirely) based on megalomania or personal greed. If only Eric Serra’s unique, ultra-synthy score had a bit more of the traditional Bond swagger… #7. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (1987) Timothy Dalton’s first crack at James Bond was a welcome breath of fresh air immediately following A VIEW TO A KILL, and right from the first sequence, Dalton establishes his version of 007 as a lethally competent operative with sharp edges. The plot is classic (and complex) spy stuff, and it finds Bond having to navigate several different groups, each with conflicting agendas, and the result is totally engrossing. Like LICENCE TO KILL, this is one of the most underrated entries of the series, and Dalton is certainly the most underrated James Bond. #6. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977) The archetypal Bond film, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is the one where everything clicks into place for Roger Moore. The result is gloriously entertaining, a huge-scale spectacle involving Bond literally trying to stop the destruction of mankind. Moore is at his wittiest and most charming here, creating a version of James Bond who is absolutely unflappable in any situation. The production design is exceptional, Richard Kiel’s Jaws arrives and becomes one of the best henchmen of the series, and the big moment at the end of the pre-title sequence is one of the most striking stunts in cinema. #5. GOLDFINGER (1964) When asked to name a Bond title, this is probably the one most would jump to. The film is simply packed with a staggering amount of truly iconic stuff, from the title character himself, to Oddjob, the mute and lethal henchman who throws his steel-rimmed hat, to the woman covered in gold paint, to the Aston Martin DB5 that’s tricked out with all sorts of gadgets, including an ejector seat. In many ways, this is the purest example of what a “classic” Bond adventure looks like, and it features Connery at his most cool and badass. It’s a ridiculously engaging and entertaining romp. #4. CASINO ROYALE (2006) Daniel Craig burst onto the scene with this high-powered reboot of the series. Taking the bulk of its plot faithfully from Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel (something no 007 film since 1969 could really say), the movie updates Bond for the 21st century, imbuing him with a level of pathos not seen before. Craig’s handle on the character is instant and iconic in this movie, and he’s backed up by fantastic performances from Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen, both of whom bring a complexity of character not often found in standard Bond leading ladies and villains. #3. SKYFALL (2012) This film takes the foundation of character examination that started in Daniel Craig’s first two entries and runs with it, crafting a serious look at James Bond, the man, and how his relationships impact both himself and those around him. The cinematography is jaw-droppingly stunning, the action is a ton of fun, and Javier Bardem’s Silva feels like a classic 007 villain, albeit one with modern and psychologically rich motivations. I’ve heard tell that some fans of the series complain that SKYFALL “tries hard NOT to be a James Bond movie,” but I completely disagree; I think it satisfies on the level that the best of the franchise do, but it also adds a very satisfying human and emotional layer not often present in other Bond films. #2. ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (1969) This is the big one. The one starring “that other James Bond guy,” George Lazenby, in his only attempt at the role. Based on arguably the strongest of Fleming’s novels, the film is impeccably produced. Gorgeous cinematography, legitimately stunning locales, and - for the time - extraordinary action; the final 40 minutes are stupendous, both for the level of action contained therein (we’ve got two ski chases, a car chase, an aerial assault on Blofeld’s Alpine lair, complete with 007 leading a team of commandos against Blofeld’s SPECTRE thugs, and a bobsled chase/brawl between Bond and Blofeld!), but also for the level of emotion. This is the first time we see Bond actually fall in love, and the implications of that are fully explored. Toss in John Barry’s score (one of the best ever written), and you’ve got a behemoth of a movie. Those who appreciate the Daniel Craig movies should immediately track this one down, because it’s operating on a very similar level, thematically and emotionally. #1. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963) A movie that is endlessly rewatchable. Other Bond films are funnier, others are splashier and more glamorous, others are simply “bigger,” others have higher thematic concerns, but none of them quite have the kind of chemical mixture found in this one, which features a delicious espionage plot (SPECTRE tries to pit the Soviets and the British against each other using a high-tech decoding machine as bait, while also attempting to exact personal revenge against 007 for the events of DR. NO), a host of colorful characters (on all sides), and a sense of unfolding mystery that the series never really tried to replicate again. Robert Shaw, as henchman Red Grant, is marvelous, and his scenes with Connery pop with an energy that can’t be matched; their big fight aboard a train is quick, brutal, and tense, and it remains one of the great movie fights of all time. This is one of the few James Bond movies that works first and foremost as a spy thriller, without great reliance on gadgets or gimmicks, and the film is all the stronger for it.
By Brett Blake As promised, James Bond has returned in his 24th cinematic adventure (or 26th, depending on whether or not you count the two “unofficial” movies), and while it doesn’t reach the heights of its immediate predecessor, SKYFALL, SPECTRE is a grand-scale, classy, splashy work of entertainment that allows Daniel Craig to cut loose a bit and have some fun, even as his Bond finds himself embroiled in an intensely personal mission for the third straight time. After a truly bravura and exhilarating opening sequence set during Mexico City’s Day of the Dead parade (seriously, it’s one of the best pre-title scenes in the entire franchise), the plot finds James Bond (Daniel Craig) independently investigating a mysterious (and seemingly all-powerful) organization called SPECTRE, which is bent on controlling all of the world’s intelligence agencies for its own nefarious ends. While M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Wishaw) fight to keep the 00 Section from being closed down by bureaucratic maneuvers, 007 is cutoff from help as he and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) seek to track down SPECTRE’s dark leader (Christoph Waltz), a man with some sinister secrets of his own. Though not without flaws (which will be addressed shortly), SPECTRE is nevertheless packed full of great stuff. Its central mystery is engaging and compelling for much of the running time, the editing is crisp and impactful, as well, which aids both in the pacing (in no way does this feel like a two-and-a-half-hour sit) and the staging of the action; while not groundbreaking, the setpieces are highly entertaining and varied, offering everything from car chases to close-quarters fights (a fistfight aboard a train is an especially brutal highlight of the film) to brawls inside - and hanging off the outside - of an out-of-control helicopter. If you go into SPECTRE just looking for exciting action, you will be satisfied. Additionally, all of the technical categories operate at the highest levels, with none higher than the cinematography, which is absolutely beautiful and stylish in its own way, just as the ‘60s entries were. All of the money, so-to-speak, is up on the screen, and that’s as it should be with these movies. The acting is terrific across the board. Craig has never been more at ease or more playful as Bond, and he makes it look completely effortless. He may not have yet fully overtaken Sean Connery as this author’s favorite 007, but he’s now tied him, at the very least. Craig in this outing gets to look like he’s actually having a lot of fun, despite the fact that his mission at hand is so intrinsically tied to his character’s often tragic past; there’s a real panache to his work here, and he embraces moments of levity with relish this time out. Fiennes, Wishaw, and Harris each get moments to shine (far more than their characters have traditionally gotten in the past, and they all play key roles in the movie’s climax), and their interplay creates a neat team atmosphere that feels unique. Léa Seydoux’s character is strangely underwritten a bit on the page (she’s basically along for the ride because… well, because), but she does her damndest to pick up that slack, imbuing her role with flirty charm that masks surprising soulfulness. And finally we have Christoph Waltz as the villain; not much can be said about the character without veering into Spoiler Land, but it can certainly be allowed that Waltz is great. Menacing without chewing scenery, humorous with being campy, he never hits an inauthentic note, and he brings some genuine simmering anger to the proceedings. Some people may have issues with the character as written (and I’m basically one of them; more on that below), but nobody should be able to find fault with the performance. That brings us to the more problematic or controversial areas. In a certain sense, SPECTRE feels like a film caught between two warring impulses on the part of the filmmakers: the desire to have a more traditional Bond adventure and the desire to continue the deconstruction and grounding of the character that has run through all of Craig’s previous entries. It is with SPECTRE that - for the first time in Craig’s run - almost all of the standard 007 elements are in place: the classic gunbarrel is returned to its rightful place at the start of the movie, Bond once again orders his signature drink, he has a briefing in Q’s (Ben Wishaw) workshop that is much more in line with similar scenes from the Bond films of yore, and the level of humor is amped up significantly. Also, the overall vibe of the thing is so charming and almost joyfully entertaining (even at its darkest moments), much more than the highly introspective and moody SKYFALL. All of that is great! And yet… at the same time, the movie seems to actively poke its finger in the eyes of the hardcore James Bond fans with its choices regarding Waltz’s villain, his background and motivation, and the overall placement of the SPECTRE organization within the plot. On their own, these choices are - at best - interesting (and - at worst - preposterous to the point of stupidity, though by no means some kind of “betrayal of the franchise,” as certain critics have petulantly decreed), but longtime Bond fans who have a genuine emotional investment in the franchise might feel like the filmmakers dropped the ball a bit. How these choices will play to the more casual “I really only like the Daniel Craig James Bond movies” sort of fan remains to be seen. That said, this film’s climactic developments could potentially herald some great drama for the next installment. Just based on early critical response, an interesting, polarized dynamic has taken shape. In the U.K., audience and critic reaction has been - at the very least - positive, with some critics being absolutely head-over-heels for the movie. Here in the U.S., the response has been decidedly more negative, with some respected writers throwing out hyperbole to the effect of “SPECTRE ruins Daniel Craig’s tenure as Bond!” or “SPECTRE is the worst James Bond movie in 30 years!” Now, if a person doesn’t like SPECTRE, nobody can tell him or her they’re wrong, but the worst Bond movie in 30 years? Worse than A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY?! SPECTRE may have flaws (and it does; see above), but to be mentioned in the same breath as the the absolute lowest of the low for 007 cinema is patently stupid, to be blunt. It’s fascinating to see the critical pools from either side of the Atlantic have such diametrically opposed reactions, and it remains to be seen if audiences will view SPECTRE from such polar positions. That’s a long-winded way of saying that if you’re on the fence about whether or not to see SPECTRE because of mixed reviews, you owe it to both yourself and the movie to see it and make up your own mind. It’s a lavish and compelling spy adventure, and that’s all it needs to be. Yes, it’s wonderful when the SKYFALLs come around and transcend the franchise to become truly great motion pictures, but those are rare in this series. Indeed, only four or five would be what I’d call legitimately spectacular films divorced from the franchise. SPECTRE is merely a great James Bond film, and while that might disappoint those with too-lofty expectations, it’s more than enough for me. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|