The Protege (Martin Campbell, 2021)

 When her mentor (Samuel L. Jackson) is murdered, an assassin (Maggie Q) goes on the run to find his killers. 

I am a big fan of Martin Campbell’s movies. I do not think he makes enough of them. 

Sadly his forte is in action and adventure movies, which are not made that frequently. If you want action nowadays, it generally involves superheroes. And the reason why Martin Campbell has not made a lot of movies recently is because he tried a superhero movie once, and it did not work out.

So when I saw the advertising for his latest action thriller The Protege, I was excited.

So it is disappointing as a fan to say that this is the sloppiest Campbell picture I have seen. The editing is off, the sets look cheap and some of the action shows the stunt doubles.

 

The bigger issue is that the movie cannot figure out what it wants to do. 

The movie wants to be a character study about assassins, a murder mystery and a twisted romance. The problem is that none of these elements work on their own, and the movie is so evenly focused on all three that it all feels like a muddle.

Campbell is at his best with a simple scenario based around characters with clearly defined personalities which can be conveyed through action.

This script does not fit his strengths.The mystery has no real stakes and the personal story is leaden. And while there are action sequences, aside from showcasing Q’s professionalism and improvisational skills, the character remains a bit vague.

Q is an action star who Hollywood has failed to figure out. While I enjoyed watching her in this movie and she does well with the action sequences, it felt like something was missing. 

The most potentially  interesting element of the movie is the relationship between Q and Michael Keaton’s henchman.

I think they are supposed to be attracted because of their shared life experience, but the movie does not spend enough time developing either their personalities or why they would be attracted to each other.

Another issue is that Maggie Q has more spark with Jackson than with Keaton.

Keaton is on solid form but the lack of chemistry works against him.

Perversely, this does give their rapport a weird tension because it never feels like they share the same feelings about each other. That is not the same as effective.

The Protege is not a good movie. Here is hoping Q and Campbell find better vehicles for their talents.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Spider-Man (Sam Raimi, 2002)

Man + Spider + Willem Dafoe = this movie.

Since a new Spider-Man movie was out in theaters and I had nothing to do, I watched all nine theatrical Spider-Men. 

I used to be a Spider-Man fan when I was a kid. The 90s cartoon was on, and I remember being interested in the toys. I think I only read a couple issues of the comics, so my knowledge was limited to the basics. I got into the Ultimate version in the early noughties for a bit, but I was not interested enough to keep up.

While I liked the character and his rogues gallery, I have never been able to get into the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. They always left me cold.

I think they have good dramatic bones but they never quite work on me. I think it has something to do with how simple they are.

Chalk it up to personal taste, but I always found the Raimi movies weirdly two-dimensional. 

There is something a little simplistic and over-the-top about how these movies are executed: from the performances to the shot selection to the presentation of the world within the story, they all feel a little exaggerated. 

The actors are all well cast but they seem to be projecting one key idea each, rather than feeling like people. It is fine if characters embody specific ideas - I just find these characters lack a lot of interior life.

There is a strange sense of emptiness around the main action - I think I am missing a sense of the wider world around our lead character.

This is not so much an issue in the first half of the movie. The filmmakers focus on Peter and his relationships with the key supporting players. There is something refreshingly grounded and banal about Peter’s daily life. 

There is no deeper message to any of it other than that key theme of power and responsibility that I do not need to repeat.

What also comes through is Raimi’s affection for the key threats of Peter Parker’s story: his relationship with Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris); his crush on Mary jane; even the way he is bullied and ignored at school.

Some of it might come off a little corny, but it works because this movie believes in it. There are no cheap jokes at Peter’s powers or even Goblin’s costume. 

This movie’s strength is its sense of earnestness.

Tobey Maguire is almost otherworldly in his awkwardness. His wide eyes and slightly tremulous voice are perfect for a character who is used to being a wallflower. He is not as funny as the comic book character but I did not notice it until the end of my marathon. Peter is reeling with guilt about his Uncle’s death and the tension of his dual identities - the filmmakers do not try to wedge in gags. It is a lesson some other versions of the character could take on.

Buttressing Maguire’s portrayal are Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Watching all of these movies back-to-back cemented how important these characters really are to Peter Parker as a character.

On screen for minutes, Cliff Robertson manages to convey a warmth and hard-won wisdom that avoids feeling sanctimonious or saintly. Rosemary Harris has to wade through some obvious messaging in the sequels, but she gives May a no-nonsense attitude and empathy which complements Robertson and Maguire. 

While it would be easy to reduce May to a sage for dispensing advice to Peter, one thing I noted in the sequels was how the writers bring May into the action. The films provide key slivers of context - her battle to save her house in SM2 - that ensure that she is not isolated from the world. Her struggles are her own, and a part of Peter’s broader world.

 

The focus on these relationships won me over on this viewing, particularly the set up of his relationship with his family, and the bonding scene with Mary Jane in the backyard.

I really liked Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane on this viewing. She feels like an ordinary person. I was never a fan of the comic book character Mary Jane being an actress/model. That element always came off a little male wish fulfillment, but this movie dodges that. One of the best threads of the original trilogy (and Spider-Man 3) is Mary Jane’s career struggles, and I admire the way the filmmakers do not subordinate her goals and motivations to Peter’s. 

One of the things I like about Spider-Man, and that these movies acknowledge is that while Peter may be the central character, he exists in an ecosystem of other people who are trying to make their way in the world - even when he is not around.

I really liked the first half of this movie, as we are introduced to the main characters and Peter gains his powers.

And then the Green Goblin enters, and that sense of simplicity which had put me off is highlighted in a negative way.  The film is walking a tightrope to keep a foot on the ground, and the characterisation of the Goblin throws the movie off center. 

I am a fan of the sillier aspects of superheroes - my favorite superhero movie is Batman Returns - but it all depends on the movie. The makers of Spider-Man elected to create a sincere dramatic piece without a lot of fantastical elements. The Green Goblin costume feels like it is from a different movie entirely. 

Raimi’s approach to this movie is fairly standard in following classic Hollywood continuity. There are a few flashes of his hyperactive style (the crash zoom into Norman’s face when he comes to in the lab; Peter’s superimposed montage when he is daydreaming about buying a car), but otherwise Raimi locks the camera down.

When the Goblin shows up, it creates a dissonance.

Willem Dafoe is a great actor and I like his performance out of the suit. 

There is something inherently heightened about Dafoe, and it is understandable that he would go bigger to create a sense of differentiation between the personalities of Norman and the Goblin. However in the suit he comes across as a panto villain. When he is baying for Spider-Man’s blood while flying on his glider, it is perfect - in every other scene his Goblin is a cartoon.

If Raimi had directed Spider-Man in a style closer to what he did in Spider-Man 2, this representation of the Green Goblin might have come off. Sadly, the combination of Willem Dafoe’s performance plus that suit refracted through Sam Raimi’s direction does not work. 

The juxtaposition is like putting a Power Rangers villain in a romantic melodrama like The Notebook. It undermines the movie’s sense of internal reality.

I have a feeling the filmmakers were afraid to make the Green Goblin look organic. Maybe the technology was not ready, or maybe the filmmakers were afraid to be too faithful to the comic books. I think they should have just bitten the bullet and done some kind of makeup job on Dafoe’s face. 

While I criticize the Goblin, I thought the final showdown was effective - it was more brutal than I remembered, and Peter’s final acknowledgement of Uncle Ben is a great final payoff.

Whatever my other criticisms, Peter’s throughline is the best part of this movie. Sure, it is a little obvious at times in signposting key shifts, but it is a solid character arc. It is the purest distillation of the character’s development, and still the most dramatically satisfying of his cinematic incarnations.  

In watching any movie, you want to meet it on its own terms. With Spider-Man, I have never been able to do that - this was the first time I was able to plug into Raimi’s take on the character. It helped that I watched eight other movies, and my viewing was also affected by how much time has passed since it was released. So much has changed with the comic book superhero in movies. 

While its producers hoped for sequels, Spider-Man was created as a singular movie. There were no added subplots setting up other movies and it does not tie itself in knots trying to adhere to the source material (the organic web shooters being a prime example).

Spider-Man is a good movie. I am not sure if I will ever love it, but if you are interested in the genre, this is an important text.

It is clear that the filmmakers wanted to emulate  Superman - The Movie, in terms of its sincere take on the central character. It does not have the humor of that movie,  but like the 1978 epic, the foundation of the movie is so solid it overcomes its flaws. Whatever fireworks are going on, this movie is so earnestly wedded to the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man that it manages to get to the finish line. 

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

OUT NOW: Dune

A desert world is the heart of an intergalactic empire. It is also the site of a power play by the emperor to destroy potential rivals.

Newly installed as the planet’s governor, Duke Leo Atreidis (Oscar Isaac) is aware that broader forces are out to get him. 

He has a plan to build bridges with the planet’s indigenous population, the Fremen, and break the empire’s power.

Before he can enact this plan, his base camp is invaded and he is killed.

The final survivors of this battle - Paul (Timothee Chalamet) and his mother (Rebecca Ferguson) - flee into the desert.

Will they survive?

I need to watch more Denis Villeneuve movies. So far I have only watched Siccario and Blade Runner 2049.

He has a great sense of tone and atmosphere. He is good at creating an overwhelming sense of environment and mood. I am less sold on his ability to convey characterisation or build narrative momentum.

There are a lot of elements I like in this movie.

I found myself invested in the scope and the look of everything - it felt very tactile and lived-in - but emotionally detached. I was excited by the experience, but as a dramatic narrative, it left me unmoved.

Part of the reason may be that the movie ends in a weird place. There is an earlier sequence which feels like it is a natural cliffhanger, but then we keep going…

The film is also filled with elements of Middle Eastern language, history and culture - some I could pick out; my friend pointed out other examples. It feels like it is setting up to make some kind of greater point or allegory, but it always feels half-finished.

It might have something to do with the casting - most of the focus is on House Atreides, and the Fremen are played by a mixture of actors from different backgrounds, with the main entry point (Javier Bardem) played by a Spaniard. 

I do not know if that is necessarily the right choice but whenever the film tries to present an empathetic stance toward the indigenous culture it feels false.

I do like how stripped down the story is and how certain details (the latex-covered spider-woman) are not explained.

But when it came to Paul’s story, the movie is hollow. Every time the movie tries to align with his POV, I felt at a remove. The only times I felt something was when we were shown snippets of his visions of Chani (Zendaya). Those snippets created a sense of mystery and curiosity that did not exist elsewhere in the movie - it is a strong device and it is a little baffling when Paul starts describing visions we never see. Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie likes to say that movies should be about emotion over exposition - this movie grinds to a halt every time something is explained.

The movie has such a strong sense of place, I remember wondering if the movie would work if there was no dialogue - it is not as leaden as something comparable, like Warcraft, but every time we had a dialogue sequence, I felt the air being let out of the movie. It might have been a little more baffling, but it might have added to the experience.

It is a relief when Jason Momoa shows up - he feels completely at ease in the world, but also interacting with the other characters and delivering the dialogue.

It is a feast for the senses - but I do not think the film amounts to much. It probably needs the second half of the book to make sense.

To contradict that last paragraph, because of that ellipsis, I am actually looking forward to seeing how it all resolved. That is not a good sign for this movie as a singular entity, which I find frustrating - but the movie won me over enough that I want to hold off on a final judgement.

I guess that is a qualified endorsement?

Happy holidays!

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Widows (Steve McQueen, 2018)

After their respective husbands are killed following their latest heist, a group of widows (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, and Cynthia Erivo) have to work together to repay the debt the dead men owe an unscrupulous crime lord who is running for public office.

Working against a literal deadline, the widows will have to go above and beyond to pay the debt and escape with their lives.

Tense, funny and filled with great performances, Widows was one of the best studio releases of the last few years. After years of CG-filled blockbusters, here is a genre movie for adults, fronted by a great cast. It is like a throwback to the studio thrillers of the nineties.

The opening sequences which introduce the title characters is terrific - cross-cutting between the couple's last day together and the husband's final moments fleeing from the cops.

Race and gender are foregrounded throughout the film - this is a world based on power and transaction, and all the widows are struggling to survive with this dynamic. Manning (Brian Tyree Henry) sees Mulligan (Colin Farrell) as holding the power he needs - he sees the political system in Chicago for what it is - the ultimate marketplace, with Mulligan as the custodian of ultimate transactional power.

In one standout moment, McQueen captures the divide between the different Chicagos in a single shot - Mulligan's car ride from an event in an empty lot in a black neighbourhood to his palatial estate.

The movie is a really strong when it focuses on the power of transaction in the widows' former relationships. Even (SPOILERS) Veronica comes to realise that she is considered expendable.

I found the movie to be most effective in showing the widows figuring out how to get out of their predicament. Because they have had to negotiate a world dictated by men's beliefs and desires, they are aware of how to beat them at their own game. 

While men are shown plotting and killing, the movie is filled with scenes of women working, raising kids or planning the heist. The impression the film creates is of a world in which women required to do everything. In order to survive they will need to play the men at their own game.

The election that drives the plot highlights the limits of American democracy - if Manning wins, it may mean an improvement for some people in the community, but what about people like the widows?

The acting across the board is really strong:

As Veronica, wife of Liam Neeson's Harry, Viola Davis is the deceptively calm eye in the storm. She is barely holding it together. Underneath, she is a raw nerve of grief and betrayal. Michelle Rodriguez’s Linda is a hardworking woman who has had to carry her parasitic partner. Elizabeth Debicki is Alice, an abused woman who gains independence after her abuser dies in the heist. The final member of the team is Belle, played by Cynthia Erivo. Belle is Linda's babysitter who is trying to make more money for her own daughter.

One of the best actors of his generation, Brian Tyree Henry is instantly convincing in whatever role he plays. He is also great as Jamal Manning, the gangster who the Widows are pitted against. Both Goliath and David, he is complicated figure who is both a threat to the title characters and someone engaged in a broader strategy to build political power in Chicago. 

While Henry is good, the real standout villain of the piece is Manning's brother Jatemme, played by Daniel Kaluuya.

There is a type of villain where no rules of morality or decorum apply - a character who is literally capable of saying or doing anything. As Manning's unpleasant enforcer, Kaluuya epitomises this sense of unpredictability. While there are many antagonists in Widows, Kaluuya is the most overtly threatening - the camera prowls around him, like a terrified bystander. He is so present in his scenes, he almost pitches the movie into a more conventional direction. We are shown repeated sequences of his character wrecking ruin, and the usual expectation would be that he would be the widows' ultimate obstacle. The resolution to his character feels like a minor flub - an example of the movie's inversion of tropes does not come off.

Colin Farrell is one of those actors cursed with the looks of a leading man. Colourless in a would-be blockbuster like Total Recall or Swat, he is at his best playing men with horrific flaws. Mulligan is a man who thinks he is trying to escape his past but he is all to willing to go back to his old tricks to win. There is an adolescent quality to Mulligan - he is still a boy trying to get out from under his father's thumb.

Sometimes a genre picture tries to consciously about something and falls flat. It is a hard balance to strike - you can end up with a movie that is at war with itself, its genre conventions blunted by a desire for greater realism; or its subtext neutered or trivialised by the (assumed) need to fulfil genre expectations.

When I first watched Widows on its initial release, these two components did not feel seperate - they felt felt of a piece. On a second viewing, I began to see an imbalance. The movie is still good, but I am not sure that it manages to balance its themes and genre as well as I initially thought.

I am looking forward to watching it again - it might warrant another review...

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE SIZED REVIEW: Brooklyn's Finest (Antoine Fuqua, 2009)

Antoine Fuqua has finally reached a point in his career where he has recognised what his forte as a filmmaker is. He started out making action movies, struck Oscar gold with Training Day and spent about a decade trying to thread the needle between genre efforts and more prestigious works. Movies like Tears of the Sun, King Arthur and Shooter seem torn between being action movies and higher-minded social pieces.

Contrast that run with most of his work in the 2010s - aside from the boxing drama Southpaw, he has stuck to action movies and they do not feel self-conscious about their genre.

Released at the beginning of 2010, Brooklyn’s Finest now feels like the culmination of his attempts at respectability. 

Interweaving three different narratives, Brooklyn’s Finest is based around three cops in various kinds of crises - good fodder for a movie but these various crises has been the basis of plenty of cop movies you have seen\heard of before.

And that is the problem.

The acting is solid across the board, and the technical elements are solid, but it feels like reheated leftovers. That familiarity also highlighted a more unpleasant subtext. There is something insidious about the way this movie spends its runtime showing the viewer the systemic racism, corruption, and incompetence of the police, and ends on the equivalent of a shrug. 

Maybe I am soft-selling it, but while it is bleak, there is something so familiar and predictable about the bleakness this movie ends on, that it just reinforces how unoriginal this movie is. It feels like a parody of the genre but without jokes.

While it is not funny, the movie’s use of metaphor is hilariously on-the-nose: 

• Ethan Hawke’s home is filled with crosses; when he hides the bag of money, his hands are covered in the dead man’s blood and he has to wash them off. 

• ‘White Rabbit’ by Jefferson Airplane, a song about drugs,  plays while Richard Gere and Shannon Kane cut lines of coke (not the drug described in the song). 

• Deep cover agent Don Cheadle stands in front of multiple images of himself, a visual metaphor for the ways he is deceiving others and himself. 

The Ethan Hawke scenes are tense and lead to a predictably destructive finale. Cheadle feels underpowered for his role, but has great chemistry with Wesley Snipes. And Richard Gere is solid as a burned-out veteran.

Aside from its adherence to formula, another problem is that none of the main characters’ stories have room to breathe, and they feel too similar in theme and tone so they cancel each other out. If the script focused on one storyline, it would be a stronger film.

A collection of cop movie cliches, Brooklyn’s Finest is watchable but pointless.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

OUT NOW: Venom - Let There Be Carnage

 After the events of the last movie, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and Venom (Tom Hardy) are attempting to make a life for themselves.

The pair find themselves in conflict - between Eddie’s moral code, and Venom’s craving for human brains. 

This conflict reaches its climax after Eddie downplays Venom’s role in restoring his reputation as a journalist. 

Feeling that Eddie does not appreciate what it brings to the relationship, Venom leaves.

Eddie thinks he will be fine - until serial killer Cletus Kassidy (Woody Harrelson) breaks out of prison. Bonded with another symbiote and paired with his lost love Shriek (Naomie Harris), he is gunning for vengeance on Eddie.

Will Eddie and Venom make up before it is too late?

About 30 seconds into this movie I realised I could not remember what happened in the last Venom. 

Thankfully, that was not a problem.

If you are going to watch a Venom movie, this is probably the one to start with. 

The original is a beautiful accident - a bland superhero tale juiced up by the relationship between its central characters.

To the filmmakers’ credit, they recognise what worked about Venom, and strip the movie down to those ingredients. 

We get more focus on the relationship between Eddie and Venom, with the villains (Cletus Kassidy and Frances Barrison) acting in juxtaposition.

There is nothing more to it - there is no big scheme to foil, or extra mythology to build or sequel-teasing (at least that I noticed).

In another plus, the movie is a trim 90 minutes. Movies are so long and bloated nowadays - this movie feels like a smarter play. 

Where the original felt like a throwback to shitty blockbusters from 20 years ago, this movie feels like a programmer, a mid-budget genre movie that knows exactly what it is, and does not have airs above its station. 

This movie is really efficient - it moves quickly from scene to scene, and the plot is relatively straightforward so you cannot get lost. There are alos no digressions or extra subplots. 

This movie is far from perfect - Michelle Williams is still over-qualified for this; the opening flashback features some ridiculous over-dubbed voices; the final battle is a familiar CG-fest - but if something is not working, or corny, it is over quickly.

The centrepiece remains Hardy arguing with himself - his commitment to these roles is so earnest and lacking in vanity that it makes the movie far more enjoyable. 

What helps is that the script - based on a story co-written by Hardy and the film’s writer, Kelly Marcel - plays out Eddie and Venom’s relationship like a romcom. It is present in the original, but this time the movie strips out any other elements so that it becomes the focal point. 

Hardy/Hardy is such a commanding centre, the couple overshadows Woody Harrelson as the villain.

Harrelson is solid as Cletus, but he is somewhat sidelined. He is at his best when he is playing off of Naomie Harris - they have a childlike infatuation that is weird enough to contrast with Eddie-Venom, except they do not get the same screen time. 

While her role is small, Naomie Harris is in the same zone as Hardy. Her body language and vocal choices fit this movie like a glove. While I wanted more of Harrelson and Harris, that would mean making this movie longer.

Maybe they can contrive a way for them to return - or as different characters. 

While the third act is the usual drawn-out nonsense, once the day is won, the movie does not stick around. 

What a delight to leave a movie and still have time in the day. It is no masterpiece, but Venom 2 has a b-movie zippiness elevates it above the bloated CG dreck of most big budget blockbusters. 

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

OUT NOW: No Time To Die

Separated from his lover Madeline (Lea Seydoux), James Bond (Daniel Craig) is retired and hiding in Jamaica.

When Spectre steals a bio weapon, Bond heads back into the world to defeat the organisation once and for all.

This puts him on collision with Madeline, MI6 and a mysterious man (Rami Malek) with plans beyond any SPECTRE could have dreamed up…

There was a point in No Time To Die where I thought it was going to be great - the segue into the main title sequence. 

Daniel Kleinman is one of the great creative forces of the latter-day Bond franchise, as important as David Arnold was a composer - and even more underrated.

A kaleidoscope of colour and texture melding, blurring and breaking the series' iconography (guns, DB5s) and key symbols (Lady Britannia), Kleinman's sequence is one of the all-time best credit sequences in the film. 

It also solidified what I thought over a year ago - Billie Eillish’s song is great.

I’ll get it out of the way: I did not like this movie. It is too soon to say I hated it, but I was frustrated by how little I was engaged by it.

First, the good:

The cinematography and the acting is good across the board.

Bond’s sojourn in Jamaica and mission to Cuba are the most enjoyable parts of the film.

These movies are not tied to the broader storyline, it is great to (briefly) hang out with Felix, and Ana De Armas has a great time as the green-but-talented agent Paloma.

But outside of these sequences, I felt the strain of this movie’s goals: give Craig a send-off and retrofit the film that came before in order to do it.

Otherwise this movie is a lot of interesting ideas which feel crowded into one movie. Like the movie introduces  idea of M being unfit for duty and responsible for the villain’s weapon. It is an interesting, scary idea - however like Judi Dench’s M reckoning with her own actions in Skyfall, this movie is not that interested in resolving this idea. 

Another idea which deserved its own movie is the new 007.

I was really looking forward to seeing Lashana Lynch play a new 007, but it feels like she barely gets anything to do.

Just as it looks like they will start working together, she tells M to give Bond the 007 designation. It comes out of nowhere and leaves her in limbo.

She gets some action in the climax, but that is about it - I thought there was going to be some kind of passing of the torch or something to show how she is worthy successor.

Lynch is good, but the script loses its nerve with the character, and she ends up feeling like window dressing.

Even the villain feels like a minor element of the story.

Rami Malek’s accent was something I noted in the trailers - I did not think it was that ridiculous in the movie, and I appreciated how he underplayed the character. But by the end of the movie I was wishing for something more. 

I kind of liked the idea of Bond caught between two warring villains, but for this to work, Spectre and Blofeld need to feel like a legitimate threat. And they do not. 

To give the filmmakers’ a scintilla of credit, Blofeld is consistent with his last appearance - I did not like the characterisation last time and I appreciated that he did not last long here.

Spectre was scarier when they were the faceless men behind Mr White.

Once again, Craig’s tenure is undermined by a lack of genuinely threatening antagonists. 

As far as henchmen, we get a few scuffles with Primo (Dali Benssalah) but it never feels like Bond will lose. I left the movie wishing they brought back Dave Bautista’s Hinx, just so Craig could have a real opponent.

For a film filled with action, I had trouble getting invested in any of it  - there is a lot of shooting but I cannot remember any of it.

The fight scenes and car chases seemed to be made up of a lot of repeats on the same moves (Bond manages to flip three cars chasing him),  and not a lot of reversals to give the scenes a sense of unpredictability. 

The one take battle up the stairs is kind of interesting but at no point does it feel like Bond will lose.  

The underlying issue is that Bond's creatives are no longer focused on single stories. They want epic, multiparty narratives and character arcs.

This movie proves the folly of this approach.

They want you to be invested in the love story between Bond and Madeline. They want you to remember Vesper (Eva Green) from Casino Royale. The filmmakers have premised this finale on the emotional weight of previous episodes - it does not have anything of its own.

In a five-film marathon, it might work. But it is not how movies are supposed to work.

Maybe if the leads had chemistry, I would buy the romance. Chemistry is really important, and you cannot act chemistry.

Craig and Seydoux do their best and they do not quite get there. 

It is frustrating because this film is putting all its efforts into making you buy it. The script's conception of Madeline is a shade better than in Spectre - we get a flashback and some more backstory but it still feels unfinished. 

I liked the idea (this is a recurring theme with this review) of Madeline being involved in some kind of betrayal. It would have given her character some definition beyond the bland outline from Spectre, but instead we have a contrived conspiracy to fool Bond. 

This movie is big, expensive, filled with concepts and things I should like. And I was not invested in any of it.

When Casino Royale came out it felt new and exciting. The films could go anywhere. It’s scope had no limit.

But after four sequels, the series feels smaller and more focused on its own history, lost in a struggle to find its title character’s inner life. It feels tired and out of ideas.

It is as if Casino Royale never happened.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.