Tag / Action

by theactivespectator

Top Gun: Maverick – Review

Rating: 12a Cast: Tom Cruise, Jennifer Connelly, Miles Teller, Val Kilmer and Glen Powell. Directed by Joseph Kosinski. Written by Peter Craig, Justin Marks, Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer and Christopher McQuarrie. Length: 130mins. 

 Thirty-six years after Top Gun was released and became a smash hit, Tom Cruise is back doing what he does best – flashing his superstar smile and jumping into an aircraft for this brand new blockbuster that doesn’t fail to take your breath away. Top Gun: Maverick re-joins our hero – Naval captain Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell, not quite where we left him at the end of the first movie. He’s still flying, he’s still fast and he’s still unapologetically himself. He’s recalled to Top Gun, to train the Navy’s best young aviators for an almost impossible, dangerous and time sensitive mission. While the mission is a challenge in itself, Maverick has to face (and train) the son of his ex-wingman and best friend ‘Goose’ as well as reuniting with an old flame… 

What is so wonderful about this film is that the original was a perfect standalone – it didn’t need a sequel, it was so well rounded just as it was and was released in a time where it was much more common to release a film on its own. BUT, come 2022…delayed ever so slightly due to Covid:19 the sequel lands and it is almost perfect. It embodies just the right amount of nostalgia and reference to the original, the plot is interesting and exciting – different to ‘Top Gun’ but is so well thought out and fitting with the first film. I just think it’s so difficult to create a really great sequel full stop, but to manage to create a sequel over 30 years later and for a film that no one expected a sequel for seems like an impossible task and the creative team nailed it. 

I don’t know enough about how much Tom Cruise was involved, other than I expect him to have been the driving force and quite frankly he deserves a pat on the back. This film released at the perfect time, bringing audiences of all ages back into cinemas and reminding folk what watching motion pictures on the big screen, as they were designed, is all about.  

Tom Cruise doesn’t drop a beat with his Maverick; I expect the initial role was so important to him and he seems to pick the character straight back up with ease. The casting was perfect. Particularly in the selection of Miles Teller as ‘Rooster’. Not only does Teller look like his fictional father but he brings really authentic emotion. This character ‘feels’ so much in this film and is really going through all sorts while still competing to be selected for this mission and Teller nails it. It’s really quite wonderful to watch the character develop and grow in confidence throughout the movie and see his relationships change with him. Jennifer Connelly plays the beautiful, confident bar owner Penny who, of course, captures the eye (and heart) of Maverick. My only slight comment here was that the romantic element wasn’t really necessary. It’s nice – it’s well performed, it breaks up the story a bit and of course the romantics are there for it but it didn’t progress the plot. Maybe I’m scraping the barrel for criticism, but that’s all I’ve got!  

Top Gun: Maverick is simply, a brilliant piece of cinema. Everyone should watch it, at least once, on the big screen. It has a relatively short running time but it holds its audiences from the first moment and doesn’t drop them.  

by theactivespectator

The Lost City – Review

Rating: 12a Cast: Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Daniel Radcliffe, Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Brad Pitt. Directed by Aaron Nee and Adam Nee. Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox, Adam Nee and Aaron Nee. Length: 112mins

In the Lost City Sandra Bullock plays Loretta, the author of a novel franchise-series that focuses on fictional stories around archeological realities that Loretta and her late husband studied together while he was alive. Her Lara Croft style adventures feature her own character going on adventures with her lover, a character named Dash. What real life Loretta isn’t too keen on, is the reality that her cover model, Alan (Tatum), is a key factor in selling the books and some have trouble separating the fictional characters from the real life. The story ramps up though, when Loretta is kidnapped by an evil British billionaire who takes her to a mysterious Island which is about to be destroyed by a volcano in the hopes that she can help him find an ancient treasure; meanwhile Alan takes it upon himself to rescue her and quickly discovers that ‘Alan’ isn’t quite the natural hero as his character in the books…

The Lost City isn’t a particularly ‘unique’ film – it fits neatly into the genre of ‘adventure comedy’ and it’s not shy about using cliches like a seemingly charming British villain or a volcano due to erupt at any point…but it’s okay. I think most of its audiences are very aware of the ‘type’ of film that they’re going to watch and as long as that is the case, then there won’t be any disappointment.  

Bullock is an absolute master at this level of comedy, she brings such an authentic feel to ridiculous situations and I think just having her lead a cast automatically relaxes an audience into something that’s a bit familiar. Tatum is also playing his stereotype – the handsome idiot – but it’s his stereotype for a reason and he’s very good at it. It was interesting to see him play a more family friendly role and was nice to see that he doesn’t solely rely on some of the more, perhaps, cheap laughs around language or sexuality that we’ve seen him do so many times. The real genius that probably comes from their sheer level of experience is that both Bullock and Tatum are smart enough to know how silly the whole thing is. They perform in a way that suggests ‘they know that we know, that they know’ how ridiculous the action is.

The Lost City is the perfect film for escapism. It isn’t the best in its genre. In recent years I would suggest that films like Jungle Cruise hit the mark a little better than this one. But, it’s a solid, amusing film to watch when the real world just gets a little too much.

by theactivespectator

Ambulance – Review

Rating:15
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Eiza Gonzalez, Garret Dillahunt, KeirO’Donnell and Jackson White.
Directed by Michael Bay
Written by Chris Fedak
Length: 136mins

Michael Bay’s Ambulance is tale of two estranged brothers, Danny (Gyllenhaal) and Will (Abdul-Mateen), and a bank heist gone wrong. Based on a 2005 Danish picture of the same name Michael Bay drags the story out to a much longer telling of the story. While the plot is relatively basic, Bay manages to pad out the movie with a whole lot of extra ‘stuff’, some of it nonsensical and some of it to add the Michael Bay wow-factor. 

Watching this film was unusual for me, mostly because having watched the trailer a couple of times I thought it looked awful. The trailer really put me off. It’s a pity, because at the core of the film, partially concealed by Bay’s posturing is a relatively slickly executed action film – Danny and Will hijack an ambulance: inside is a critically injured cop and a ballsy paramedic (González); outside are guns, explosives and a lot of very angry law enforcement officers. While in general I thought it was better than the trailer suggested it would be, it was frustratingly ridiculous at some points. I’m not just talking about the slow motion stunts or classic ‘Bay’ whoosh of a camera down the side of a building to heighten drama, but some of the core plot points, that used up so much time, just made no sense. One example that I can give without spoilers is a big emphasis on confusing the police by joining with other ambulances, thus stretching the polices attention and giving an opportunity to escape. However, the plan was to spray paint the focal ambulance, which makes no sense at all, and they spend so long discussing and achieving this and they somehow manage to slip a neon green ambulance past a police blockade…I’m all for a bit of creative licence, but it surely should be at least a tiny bit plausible! 

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhaal are fine; there’s nothing in their performances that will blow the audience away but that’s more down to a relatively basic script and character stereotypes.  The tension building is effective throughout, the score having a strong impact, however the whole film is a build. They don’t really let it drop, which either exhausts it’s viewers, or loses their attention. The film essentially plays out as one extra-long car chase, with Bay’s trademark direction present in all its glory. Throughout, Bay’s camera rarely stays still, sweeping and swooping through the LA streets as the ambulance does its best to evade the constantly growing police presence. This kinetic camerawork, coupled with Bay’s choppy editing style can at times leave it’s audience feeling nauseous. 

Despite it’s glaring flaws, audiences seem to quite enjoy it. Ambulance wasn’t for me – but I appreciate that many others might enjoy the escapism and high speed car chases to allow them to step into a couple of hrs without thinking about todays troubles. If you can forgive some nonsensical choices and enjoy a high speed action film, then there’s a good choice you’ll enjoy it. 

by theactivespectator

Uncharted – Review

Rating: 12A Cast: Tom Holland, Mark Wahlberg, Antonio Banderas. Sophia Ali and Tati Gabrielle. Directed by Ruben Fleischer Written by Rafe Judkins, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway, Jon Hanley Rosenberg and Mark D. Walker Length: 116mins

Uncharted is a straightforward action/adventure flick and a bit of fun for all the family. Of our leading characters we have Nathan Drake (Holland), a tough kid with a passion for history, making money as a cocktail waiter/pickpocket, ripping off rich people in the bar and ‘Sully’ (Wahlberg) who observes Nate’s thieving and presents him with a proposition: a scene with similarities to that of George Clooney meeting Matt Damon for the first time in Ocean’s Eleven. Sully entices Nate into helping him track down a golden key that could lead them to riches, riches that Nate had heard about and studied with his brother, who incidentally is now missing. In preparation for their quest to seek out Magellan’s  16th century loot, Sully’s admission that he once knew Nate’s brother, only adds a personal drive for Nate to assist his new partner in crime. 

Nate and Sully’s relationship is the heart of the narrative, though the film takes an origin story approach in this first instalment. Our two heroes learn to trust each other as their adventure unfolds, even if the road to get there is a bumpy one. They’re a far cry from the chummy partners in crime that are portrayed in the origin materials, with Nate questioning Sully’s motives every step of the way. Chloe Fraser (Sophia Ali) adds an extra layer of intrigue as a fellow treasure hunter, with a steely focus and determination of her own. Nate is never quite sure who to trust, or if he can trust anyone at all.

Tom Holland is the real driving force of the film. He brings his usual ‘cheeky chap’ vibes while throwing himself fully into the widespread story. Wahlberg has been criticised for his role in this movie, it seems several fans of the games were upset with his casting initially, but his portrayal of Sully is a bit flat – it’s fine, but nothing to shout about. Sophia Ali and Tati Gabrielle bring sass and strength to both of their characters which helps to broaden the overall feel of the movie. Of course, Antonio Banderas is the ultimate family movie villain, he’s just threatening enough to know he’s the ‘bad guy’ without engaging in a darker side that wouldn’t be appropriate for a movie of this type and certification. 

Uncharted isn’t a great action movie, but it is a good one. It’s definitely a good option as a film for all the family. It’s simplistic ‘solve the clues onto the next’ type plot doesn’t keep you guessing and it’s twists are obvious to audiences to enjoy a film of this genre. But purely based on entertainment value, I can’t really criticise it too much – it’s simple, possibly a bit forgetful, but enjoyable in the moment. 

by theactivespectator

The Batman – Review

Rating: 15 Cast: Robert Pattinson, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, Paul Dano and Andy Serkis Directed by Matt Reeves Written by Matt Reeves and Peter Craig Length: 175mins

One of the most anticipated movies of the year has landed after delays from it’s original release date due to Covid:19. A famous character, a famous city, a top billed cast and a whole lot of pressure to satisfy one of the more vocal fan bases. The Batman, presents us with the Riddler; a sadistic serial killer, who begins to murder key political figures in Gotham and forces Batman to investigate the city’s deep rooted corruption in positions of power, and causes our hero to question his own legacy. 

Immediately, audiences are going to compare this movie to The Dark Knight trilogy which is so well loved by many. Fans of the character seem fairly loyal to Christian Bale’s portrayal of Batman in the Christopher Nolan films which places a lot of pressure on Pattinson to perform. Pattinson is not shy of a challenge though, and while he shot to stardom in 2008 teen hit ‘Twilight’, he has constantly proven himself to be a highly skilled, deeply intricate performer. His presentation of Batman is fairly standard, it’s a shame we don’t get very much of Bruce Wayne in this film, while Pattinson is great as the Dark Knight, I don’t think he’s given very much material to utilise his abilities as an actor. Perhaps, if more films do follow, we will be allowed to explore more of Bruce Wayne’s personality rather than the vigilantes hard exterior. Having said this, I put none of this on Pattinson’s performance, he works intricately with the dialogue and plot that is in front of him, quietly portraying ‘vengeance’  and the dilemma that presents as the plot progresses. While the casting of our hero was largely talked about, no one seemed to doubt the immovable Zoe Kravitz when she was cast as Selena Kyle. Kravitz brings a really human reaction to the events in the film and the chemistry between her and Pattinson brings their shared scenes an exciting level of energy. Her mystery, vulnerability, strength and humanity create a really layered character and is captivating every moment she’s on screen. With a cast of this calibre it’s difficult to not write an essay on each performance, Paul Dano is haunting and unique in his role as Gotham’s sadistic villain, entirely captivating throughout andJeffrey Wright is solid in his portrayal as James Gordon, highlighting the characters’ need for justice to prevail even when surrounded by corruption.

The length of this film may be it’s downfall. At a run time of nearly three hours it’s a commitment to ask of a paying audience. While the majority of the film remains captivating, I feel like the first half hour could take cuts without anything being lost to the story. It’s a shame, as the rest of the content really does serve the plot. While a slow start may put people off, I hope that they give the rest of the movie the attention it deserves.

Matt Reeves takes on a very particular challenge with this movie, no doubt aware of the big boots it has to fill and the comparison that would follow. Reeves somehow manages to create a real piece of art with this film, visually it’s really impressive; it’s dark, yes, but that’s to be expected in Gotham. They took such care with the choices around cinematography and I think it paid off beautifully, theres a lovely balance between pleasing the technical ‘film buff’ and the ‘Batman fan’ and I hope that audiences recognise the detail put into creating the overall look and feel of the world we step into. 

The plot is great. It’s clever without being confusing, it’s not predictable and has so much intricacy written into the dialogue that knits the film together. I personally really enjoyed seeing the detective side of our hero, it’s not just about rocking up and knocking out the ‘bad guys’ (though there is plenty of that, don’t worry), it’s a wise choice to move in a slightly different direction with the lead character, giving audiences a fresh perspective. 

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it’s escapism at it’s finest, and as often is the way with hero movies, allows us to consider basic themes of good vs evil, right vs wrong, bravery, discernment and wisdom in our choices. It’s length is forgivable for the feeling that the audiences leave with and I highly recommend going to watch this on the big screen. It is worth noting, however, that for UK audiences it is certificate 15, which does limit those who can go and enjoy in cinemas. 

by theactivespectator

The 355 – Review

Rating: 12A Cast: Jessica Chastain, Penelope Cruz, Diane Kruger, Lupita Nyong’o, Bingbing Fan, Sebastian Stan and Jason Flemyng. Directed by Simon Kinberg. Written by Simon Kinberg and Theresa Rebeck. Length: 122mins

When a top-secret weapon falls into mercenary hands, scorned CIA agent Mace Brown (Chastain) goes off grid in an attempt to retrieve the weapon. She joins forces with former rival and German intelligence agent Marie (Kruger), her MI6 ally and computer scientist Khadijah (Nyong’o) and Colombian psychologist Graciela (Cruz) to track the weapon down, all while staying one step ahead of a mysterious woman, Lin Mi Sheng (Fan), who is tracking their every move.

The plot is relatively basic in the ‘spy film’ genre; a threat is established and the intelligence agencies around the world race against time to get their hands on it. Although somewhat generic, the fast pacing of the movie keeps the audiences attention, meaning the audience doesn’t sit and think too deeply into logistics or intricate details. The writing does lack surprise, the main twist isn’t difficult to see coming, and its missing any real suspense or humour. But I think it works. Audiences have such high expectations in this genre and of course it will be compared to the well established, male led franchises like James Bond, Mission Impossible or Jason Bourne, but I think it’s our job as audiences to try to avoid such comparisons. Not to say that it shouldn’t be scrutinised to the same level – we have expectations and a desire for those to be met, but I think it’s an obvious concept that a female led movie in a genre that is dominated by male leads should be different. Celebrating the strengths and weaknesses of the characters, as you would expect in any other film, depending on who they are and how their stories unfold.

While the character relationship development is perhaps a little clunky, particularly between Mace and Marie, the group forms with an interesting chemistry. The writers do manage to avoid some of the cliches one might expect to see; our group doesn’t become really close, really quickly, they don’t all use their appearances to get what they want (apart from one of the characters, once…but even then it’s not a massive plot point). The focus relies on the concept of five, highly trained individuals who are going after their mission. The writing also allows our leading ladies, to retain their own sense of feminimity throughout, without changing for the sake of making any of it’s audience ‘feel better’, they are strong, they are determined, they are skilled, they have vulnerabilities and they are human. It makes it work.

It’s been said that the cast are ‘wasted’ in The 355, and yes, I can understand that the acting abilities of the cast were not stretched to reach the full potential of their skill, but the work didn’t need it. Chastain’s character goes through real emotional turmoil throughout and she rides it with just the right level of drive, Kruger brings a real strength and passion to Marie, while Cruz doesn’t push too hard for her character to be anything other than it’s written to bes. Nyong’o and Fan play roles who are somewhat more mysterious with their past experiences hinted at but not really explored. All of the women are generous in their performances, none demand focus and quite frankly having 5 leading ladies in an action movie who are all aged between 38-48 is something I would like to see more of.

Unfortunately, I’ve already seen some folk turn their nose up and not being willing to watch the film purely because it features “women playing mens roles” (not my words, but a quote from a moviegoer who didn’t buy a ticket for this particular feature…), which is really sad to me. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film that isn’t trying to push any agenda and it’s really worth a watch. While not a perfect movie it had everything that I wanted from a film in the action/spy genre.

by theactivespectator

Spider-man: No Way Home – Review

Rating: 12A Cast: Tom Holland, Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina. Directed by Jon Watts. Written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers. Length: 148mins

After a Covid affected shoot and postponed release dates, the fans finally flocked to cinemas to see whether the long awaited third instalment of our present day Spider-man lived up to the hype. No Way Home seemed to have heaps of extra pressure piled onto it’s release, fired by casting rumours, teaser trailers that made the most restrained Marvel fan squeal and of course, the long wait to finally see the film released. Fear not, as per the ‘Active Spectator way’, this will be an spoiler free review, so if you haven’t seen it yet, it’s safe to continue reading…

So, the end of the second film ended with the big reveal – that Peter Parker was Spider-Man. That was the perfect springboard to start the third film with high energy, allowing the audience to focus in on what was to come. From here we see the issues that Peters fame brings, how it impacts his life and the lives of those around him, which leads to him approaching Dr Strange in the hope that he would cast a spell which would cause people to forget that he was Spider-Man. The spell doesn’t go quite to plan and we see from the trailers that some familiar villains come crashing into Peters world, and a multiversal drama ensues… 

The plot is full on. We have action, humour and heartbreak around every corner and, even if an audience member wasn’t a full blown fan, I think it would be difficult to not enjoy. Tom Holland’s Spider-Man is so endearing, he’s funny and Holland does such a great job in committing to the character that he’s built. Even though he’s been Spider-Man for years now and has appeared in several films within the MCU, Holland really maintains the fresh, youthful feel of the character, which at this point in his Spider-Man career, could easily slip. This film is so full of talent, you can’t even comment on them all. Every single cast member brings it, the nostalgia of seeing the familiar faces has such a power on an audience; particularly around a film with such a committed fan base. It would be easy to allow sloppy writing when playing the nostalgia card but I don’t think that was the case, everything fit with the atmosphere that they created. 

One thing that is worth commenting on, is the ‘moment’ that a lot of audience members find themselves, known as ‘Superhero fatigue’. The feeling that we’ve just had SO many superhero films thrown at us over the last few years, taking away some of the initial excitement and wonder that the earlier films brought. If that is how you feel, then maybe you need to take a break and come back to this one. It’s full of everything you might expect and relies on an audience that has kept up to date with all of the previous films and TV series…you need to go in to this with a level of anticipation and openness for accepting what it is.

I’ll be honest, I went into this film a little bit hesitant. I was aware that so many people had such high expectations and I was nervous that it would completely miss the target. I didn’t need to worry. Spider-Man: No Way Home hits all the right notes, both as a part of the MCU as a whole, and within it’s own little Spider-Man world. Full of emotional beats, witty one liners and stellar performances, I would go as far as saying it’s one of my favourite Marvel films so far. With concerning news headlines around Covid back in the limelight, it’s a perfect opportunity to step into your imagination, escape from the real world and support your local cinemas. 

by theactivespectator

Venom: Let There Be Carnage – Review

Rating: 15 Cast: Tom Hardy, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Williams, Naomie Harris and Stephen Graham Directed by Andy Serkis Written by Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy Length: 97mins

In Venom: Let There Be Carnage we rejoin Eddie Brock (Hardy), a struggling journalist and host to the cheeky, gravel-voiced alien ‘symbiote’, Venom, seemingly living their now entangled lives. The plot revolves around serial killer Cletus Kasady (Harrelson), who Eddie interviews in hopes to reignite his career. Throughout the action Kasady is infected with his own symbiote, Carnage, who wreaks havoc and sets his sights on destroying Venom while searching for Kasady’s mutant girlfriend.

It sounds as ridiculous as it is…but if you buy into the world then it’s definitely an easy and somewhat entertaining watch. Venom and Brock are somewhat lesser known ‘anti-heroes’ but after the success of the first film, fans were keen to jump back in and see which stories were left to tell. What I really enjoy about this film, is the lack of backstory. Serkis doesn’t feel the need for overcomplicated world-building. It seems that you either buy in, and accept what you’re being told, or you don’t and that your enjoyment will likely hinge on that level of acceptance.  Searches dispense with the detailed explanations and instead amps up the humour, leaning into the more goofy dynamic between Venom and Brock.

What is interesting about this film is the level of absolute talent interwoven. Tom Hardy really creates a wonderful character dynamic between his human character and alien counterpart, while the humour is at the forefront, there is a connection that the audience can see, he creates a brilliant emotional core that shows itself at intervals throughout the action which can’t be an easy task to undertake. Woody Harrelson jumps straight in and throws all of his energy at his part, Kasady is an interesting serial killer, if slightly predictable at times. Supporting characters including Eddie’s ex, played by Michelle Williams and Kasady’s girlfriend Frances, played by Naomie Harris don’t really get much of a look in. Harris is fun but underused, and Williams is really just brushed over. It’s a shame to have such talent in a film without really needing or using them. 

This quirky sequel is lighthearted, action packed and amusing. You’ll know if you’re going to like it, probably from just looking at the poster. It’s an easy, short watch that will allow you to escape reality if you can get behind it. If you didn’t enjoy the first film, you’re unlikely to enjoy the second. Take it as it is and it’s a fun way to spend 90 minutes but if you’re looking for stirring plot points or world changing revelation then it’s not for you.   

by theactivespectator

The Last Duel – Review

Rating: 18 Cast: Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, Ben Affleck and Alex Lawther. Directed by Ridley Scott. Written by Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Length: 152mins.

Inspired by Eric Jager’s 2004 account of France’s last officially recognised duel, Ridley Scott takes on the task of telling this medieval tale broken down into three chapters and told from three perspectives. The story is one of rape-revenge focussing primarily on three characters – Jean de Carrouges (Damon), his wife Marguerite (Comer) and Jacques Le Gris, exploring the downward spiral of de Carrouges, the arrogant rise of Le Gris and the impossible choices facing Marguerite as her husbands absence is taken advantage of. 

The Last Duel gets somewhat bogged down in the mud and blood of its period; a whole mix of arrows-in-the-face type violence and war, none of which I have a problem with, but it seemed to drag the film out and distract from the main story. While it did assist somewhat in setting the scene, I didn’t feel that it was fully necessary to include so much.  Having said this, the actual storytelling was really clever and very well written. Each perspective was similar enough for the audience to know what’s happening, but with brilliantly subtle changes, contrasting tone and dialogue – right up until the rape scene which was, in line with telling the story from perspectives, a significantly different event to each character. 

This film was expertly cast. Adam Driver played his role perfectly, he is fully believable in his arrogance and aggression but allows an appealing vulnerability into his role that just keeps his Le Gris interesting, until, of course, you realise the sort of man he is. This is one of Matt Damon’s finer performances in recent years. He plays in contractions – he’s clearly a well respected, strong warrior, but he is overwhelmed and constantly trying to keep his head above water. We see a good amount of Damon’s range in this film, he really is a brilliant watch. Jodie Comer is phenomenal. Those of us who have watched her rise in the acting industry are very well aware of how brilliant she is but this film is a mighty task and she’s flawless. She fully holds her own while working with Hollywood A-Listers, she demonstrates depth, innocence and the complexities of her character and without her the film would not have such an impact.

Interestingly, many reviews are not speaking of The Last Duel too favourably. It seems that many issues from a reviewers point of view surround the fact that, though Comer is brilliant, the drama is centred on the men; the three part structure means Marguerite can only get one third of our attention. I can see what is being said here – it’s an important topic and it could seemingly pull focus. However, there were three parties involved at the centre of the story, the time period would not allow or listen to a woman making accusations without the backing of her husband and so I cannot see another way to tell this story. Also, the films title is The Last Duel – an act that could only be undertaken by the men, the duel is featured (perhaps taking a little too much screen time in my view…) and therefore the history of the two men, their perspectives and the journey that got them to the duel are important. The story is told, the impact on Marguerite is brilliantly portrayed and audiences are walking away with her story at the front of their mind. For me, that tells me that the film has done what it intended to do.

by theactivespectator

No Time To Die – Review

Rating: 12A Cast: Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Rami Malek, Christoph Waltz, Ana de Armas and Lashana Lynch. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge Length:163mins

 Finally – the long awaited 25th instalment of Ian Flemings well loved British agent, 007, has hit our big screens. After having it’s release postponed several times throughout the Covid:19 pandemic, the world seemed to hold it’s breath as thousands returned to the cinema. With all eyes on it’s release, No Time To Die not only wanted to end the ‘Daniel Craig as James Bond’ era with a bang; but shouldered the pressure of enticing customers back to the cinemas.

In No Time To Die Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace and quiet is short-lived when his old friend and CIA agent Felix Leiter turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology. 

While this film has been criticised for not being ‘Bond enough’, I would have to disagree. The writers have done a good job in creating a story that is fleshed out with action, relationship, humour and, of course, gadgets. There are some lovely nods to past Bond films through the use of its score, one liners and the familiar location of a private island which calls to mind 1962 release, Dr. No. It was a wise move to bring the likes of Phoebe Waller-Bridge into the writers room, you can certainly see her influence around the strong female characters and wit, as well as being mindful of keeping the essence of James Bond in a post #MeToo society. 

No Time To Die gives it’s audiences the chance to experience the deeper relationship between James and Madeleine, showing a more emotional side of 007, a side that we don’t usually get to see. The chemistry between the two, in my opinion, was better than it was in Spectre which made the whole relationship feel more authentic. Due to the deeper relationship and their history, it presented an opportunity for another two strong women to enter the story without being love interests. Lashana Lynch and Ana de Armas didn’t disappoint. Both brought flair and humour to characters who were fiercely capable and complimentary to moving the story forward. As far as Bond villains go, this film hits the jackpot. While having two different villains does take away from the impact of one sole threat, you can’t really complain when the characters are manned by the cool, controlled calm of Christoph Waltz and countered with the somewhat wired, yet considered, Rami Malek. 

Visually this film doesn’t disappoint and is full of action. As Daniel Craig’s final Bond film it does have loose ends to tie up so the franchise can move forward. Unfortunately the length is a slight sticking point, at 2hrs43 it is quite a commitment and there are certainly moments that could have been cut, as they serve no purpose in moving the plot forward. No Time To Die is absolutely worth a watch, and on a big screen. There’s something wonderful about returning to a packed cinema to watch a film from long running franchise, with multigenerational audiences all enjoying and connecting to a character that has graced Cinema and TV screens for years.