A great series set in a world where superheroes are a real phenomenon.
Capitalism is omnipresent, profit and money are in everyone's mind.
Of course the 'Sups' abuse their power for their own interests and many more cruel and immoral things.
Every hero's doing is explained, some more, some less. There's a perfect balance between big serious storylines and little kind of darker humor ones.
'The Boys' are trying to destroy this whole system due to personal problems with some of the 'Sups'. The focus clearly is around them and what they're doing.
So it's definitely an Anti-Superhero show which look and topic reminds me of 'Watchmen' or some other more Noir candidates in this genre.
The whole series is explicit, which adds up really well. Without the violence and the handling with sexual situations the whole show wouldn't be that impressive and near to the reality. Not appropriate for younger viewers, if you ask me.

Wonderful premise, beautiful pictures, handsome, good and sexy actors, what could go wrong?
Unnecessary, stupid decisions.
Everywhere.
The typical "say something!" \*stuttering and stammering* to introduce some side-story, or secret personas where the only thing to change is the hero's suit, or a wimpy protagonist who has way too many scenes of indecisiveness, long and drawn out dialogues (seriously 2x the speed and it's like things are normal again), extraneous lies to create drama, etc. etc. etc.
It's like a trope collection turned into a superhero series with a "*gotcha!*" twist. Seriously, the acting and the story is good, but the tropes kill every redeeming quality.
It's a tragedy

This movie & book honest to god changed my life. I also feel that they supplement each other well. The movie includes details not included in the book and vice versa. Read the book and then watch the movie, its a spiritual experience.

This movie was godly. No other like it. Truly a spiritual experience.

Really complex and sweet movie with a great story, script and performances from Lerman, Watson and Miller.
Also, great directing and cut. A really good movie for a rainy day.

Maybe a little better than the second movie, but still not a patch on the first. It's worth a watch for the in-jokes but have a standby movie ready.

Not my favorite. I didn't really like the 3rd movie because I'm not really into western type movies.

"Marty" (Michael J Fox) is stuck in 1955 when he learns of the untimely demise of his mentor "Doc. Brown" (Christopher Lloyd) back in 1885. Luckily, the DeLorean is on hand and back he goes - to the wild west - to try and prevent this calamity. Once there, he has no idea how to get back; a task not made any easier by local bully "Mad Dod" (Tom Wilson) who has it in for this meek city boy from day one. Spielberg is at his best with stories like this, and borrowing heavily from the Western film genre - and quite a bit from Clint Eastwood too, we have a quickly paced an amiable adventure film as Fox and Lloyd have to stay alive whilst figuring out how to charge the flux capacitor and get themselves home. Wilson is super as the "baddie" and Mary Steenbergen gives the "Doc" a little bit of love interest as the story ticks along nicely. These three films fit nicely with each other, and happily they all decided to hang up their stetsons after this one. It's still great fun 30 years later, with fun pithy dialogue; loads of great action photography and strong entertaining performances all through. Good fun.

As with Part II, I've come to appreciate this one more, a great blend of sci-fi and western and features once more some fine performances from both Fox and Lloyd, who each do great work portraying different characters (or at least for Lloyd a different time version of Doc Brown). Beyond that, well done set and costume designs and a good enough story to conclude the trilogy. **3.75/5**

Oh, I know you did send me back to the future. But I'm back! I'm back from the future.
Doc Brown is back in 1885 in the Old West, soon to be joined by Marty who has found that Doc is in mortal danger from Burford "Mad-Dog" Tannen.
Rounding out what turned out to be a hugely popular trilogy, Back to the Future Part III restored the core essence heart of Part 1, whilst simultaneously tying up all the threads with a fully formed story. More sedate in its telling (not hard following on from the manic pacing of part 2) part 3 fuses science fiction malarkey with, well, Western malarkey. All played out with the usual array of clever jokes and series reprises - only in a Wild Wild West setting. An interesting point to note is how the roles of Doc & Marty have been reversed from the first film, here Marty is the maniacal plot axis, whizzing around getting into scrapes as Doc ambles around in love, courtesy of the delightfully classic looking Mary Steenburgen as Clara Clayton. Thomas F. Wilson returns for villain duties as Tannen, a Western bully villain pulled straight out of many a classic Oater from way back in the day, and Lea Thompson & Elisabeth Shue ensure the "past" is not forgotten.
When Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale started making Back To The Future in 1985, could they have envisaged that they would make three films and end up with a steam engine time machine in the Wild West? Possibly not, but as part 3 hurtles (literally) towards the suspense laden finale, two things are for certain. One is that they wisely closed the series down with a surefire coda winner. Two is that between them they crafted one of the most entertaining family trilogies to have ever graced the screen. No doubt about the fact that part one is the uniformly class act of the three, but parts two & three themselves reward groups of all ages. Great Scot indeed. 8.5/10

I actually enjoyed this movie. But I do understand the criticism, especially for Wade Wilson in this movie. Standing alone, I really liked the movie, and their idea with Deadpool was creative, just poorly executed.

Well, I enjoyed the first hour or so. Not much can be said about the other 40 minutes.

I have always struggled to engage with the "X-Men" franchise, but had higher hopes that this - featuring the most charismatic of them - might change that. Sadly not! "Logan" (Hugh Jackman) has a healthy rivalry with his brother "Creed" (Liev Schreiber) honed after their birth in the middle of the 19th century. Many years later, though, and somewhat battle weary, they are offered the opportunity by "Stryker" (Danny Huston) to join his elite team of mutant commandos. Disillusioned with this, "Logan" drops out and tries to live a normal life with his new found love. "Stryker" is having none of this and so after the inevitable tragedy, battle lines are drawn as the angry "Wolverine" sets out for revenge. Some of the other "X-Men" characters feature as this meanders along, and there are a few very well-made up appearances from Ryan Reynolds ("Wade Wilson") but for the most part this a weakly constructed and dreary action drama with an over-reliance on CGI as the combat scenes recycle themselves all too often. Jackman tries hard, and he does impose himself on the story - but there is little sense of jeopardy and the nature of his "quirk" ensures that the acton scenes, though frequently at close quarters, are all rather repetitively predictable. The production standards are high, but the rest of this is immediately forgettable. Sorry.

Just about passable.
I never felt bored while watching 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine', which is why I can't give it a lower rating. The action is well done and it gives the satisfactory amount of enjoyment, shame the CGI isn't quite up to scratch though. As with the preceding three 'X-Men' releases, I really do enjoy watching Hugh Jackman as Wolverine - he is certainly the best thing about these films.
With all that noted, the film does definitely have issues. I didn't overly like the new characters and the plot didn't truly fulfil what I was expecting/wanting from an origin story, even if it is fairly fun to watch. Elsewhere, Ryan Reynolds is introduced as his well known character, I look forward to seeing more of him in the role - here, he's fine.
Four films in and there's a slow decline ongoing, hopefully 'X-Men: First Class'* at least regains footing with the opening two productions. *I'm watching these in release order.
/copied directly from my Letterboxd review\

I watched this film and felt like they shot it without an actual script, filming whatever came to mind. And what do you know, I found out later that they really didn't have a script to follow.
Makes sense now why many scenes feel rushed or incomplete, most of the effects look half rendered, and "Deadpool" looked like an absolute disaster.
And yet, oddly enough, it's not the worse film in the X-Men franchise. It just sets the bar exceedingly low.

Baaaad ... oh, baaaaaad.
Hugh Jackman is always great as the Wolverine but this story doesn't have any sense nor excuse.

Words can't describe how boring this is.

Spectre has an introspect into what is wrong with modern Bond movies.
Namely, that they don't work, because 007 is about action, exotic sceneries, cinematic brilliance, beautiful women, gadgets that go wrong or right, and most of all the wit and charm and atmosphere.
I'm not sure when the forma should have changed from exciting to dull, probably around 1995, but it changed before that year.
And it should have changed in a productive and interesting way.
Instead, it changed to just total dullness with not one good aspect. The motivation of characters other than 007 is total zero in credibility. The inspiration is zero. The strategy is zero. The dialog is clumsy.
This is to be expected from the changes around 1970, when the writer's guild became immensely jealous of talent and good writing, and only produced the writers with zero talent.
And now those writers are the "judges" of new writers, God help this culture.
The change in format should have changed long ago, about 1995, into "sons and daughters of 007", with 007 as a background figure, say fifth or sixth billing, with his sons and daughters taking center stage in this "less action, more computer" world.
A lot of us said this well before 1995. It was painfully obvious, but we live in a world where Hollywood went total hack in the seventies, with those hacks endorsing the worst hacks of today.
"Spectre" kind of gives us an introspective look at this with the timeline element. Bond faces the usual super enemy power, and fights the establishment which brings in the computer age.
The character of 007 is the only thing that is salvaged in these new movies. It isn't Daniel Craig's fault that he is 007 for the worst writers, writers who are into the neo Nazi ideology of the seventies where women must be blond and pale, and any man who tries to save a brunette is doomed, but save a blond, and you're a success. The Hitler worship is so extreme in the modern Bond movie writing that it's impossible to deny it is there.
And the directors are pathetic. Even given the ideal exotic locales, they manage to dumb down the scenery. One feels like the director actually says "How can we make this beautiful and exotic scenery look dull and depressing? Aha! I can do it!"
Of course the day will come when Craig will be the beneficiary of this fame and get to do actually good films for which he'll be remembered.
This movie is pretty much formula. The action is okay enough, and it isn't as contrived to be depressing as Casino Royale or A View to a Kill, but it is depressing and dull.

**Spectre has plenty of style, class, action, and spectacular moments but the film lacks the passion and zeal of Casino Royale or Skyfall.**
After the incredible bombastic success of Skyfall, the return of Sam Mendes, and the announcement of Christoph Waltz as the villain, expectations skyrocketed to ridiculous heights. Unfortunately, these expectations climbed too high for Spectre to meet. While the story did a decent job of trying to tie all the Craig Bond films together and introduce a new supreme criminal mastermind, it didn't fully satisfy or carry the weight it intended. There were some exceptional action sequences, with the opening scene in Mexico City as one of the most stunning and impressive of the franchise. The train fight with Dave Bautista was incredibly entertaining as well, but much of the action felt restrained like Craig was tired of the role and didn't want to push the boundaries on some stunts. Seydoux and Bellucci each brought something new with their Bond Girl portrayals providing emotional exploration and depth unusual for a Bond film. Spectre is a great spy movie and a fun Bond flick, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to the level of hype and expectation set before it. After Casino Royale and Skyfall delivered so much more than a typical Bond film, Spectre seemed to settle for the status quo (which is still good but had all the pieces it needed to be incredible.)

The word "convoluted" comes to mind, as does the word "unwatchable"
By the time Spectre came out, I was honestly sick of Daniel Craig's James Bond hates being James Bond depiction. And now I've come to really despise him, I mean Moore used to be my least favorite Bond, and I like him so much more than Craig.
But... the script was kind of all over the place. I think they were trying to do twists and turns, but they were stuck under steering with each turn, so all the twists they tried to throw at you never really worked. It ended up feeling like they were trying to be confusing for the sake of being confusing, and didn't know how to make it all feel confusing for the sake of being mysterious.
I mean Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but even he couldn't find his footing in that mess of a story.
The action was never suspenseful or even really enjoyable...
... and it all leaves you with the feeling that this is a Bond movie made by people who forgot how to tell a story. And that is kind of fitting given that is what Sony seemed to be threatening to do with Bond for a while, and it was 2015, just before the Hollywood Era of "story and characterization don't matter"
It can only go down hill from here.

Now that Dame Judi has shaken her off her cinematic mortal coil, the new "M" (Ralph Fiennes) is facing increasing pressure from whizzkid "C" (Andrew Scott) to shut down the 007 programme and rely on an international, computer generated, system of intelligence gathering. Needless to say, "007" (Daniel Craig) has his doubts about this and after a manhunt to Rome (via Mexico) that must have cost billions, he alights on an exclusive gathering of the criminal great and good working for the eponymous organisation. Along the way, he manages to enlist "Q" (Ben Whishaw) and "Moneypenny" (Naomie Harris) in his quest to find the daughter of his old nemesis "Mr White". She - "Madeleine" (Léo Seydoux) may well know how to help him thwart the ambitions of this secretive and deadly organisation before it is all too late. There are plenty of (extended) action scenes here and the gadgets work well enough, but the story is thin and the characterisations lacking. The dynamic lacks jeopardy - we know who is likely to be behind the cunning plots right from the start and neither Fiennes nor Scott bring much to the party. Indeed the latter is really rather poor. What menace there is, is delivered via some underwhelming contributions from Dave Bautista's "Hinx" and from the appearances of Christoph Waltz, but they are all too infrequent to bolster the storyline before an ending that was, frankly, ridiculous - even by "Quantum of Solace" (2008) standards. The producers seem to be constantly trying to reinvent "Bond" without realising that the more they compromise the standards of the story and weaken the traditional characters, the less impact the franchise has when surrounded by many others of this genre that benefit from stronger writing and a more charismatic star. This is shorter than many of Daniel Craig's other outings as Ian Fleming's master spy, for which I was grateful because this is all rather mediocre from start to finish.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/spectre-spoiler-free-review
"Spectre fails to reach the tremendous potential of its intriguing narrative and fascinating antagonist, but Sam Mendes still pulls off a decent James Bond flick.
The screenplay raises significant issues with an incredibly dull subplot that deeply affects the pacing of a bloated runtime. In addition to this, Christoph Waltz's lack of impactful screentime is disappointing, to say the least, despite a brilliant performance from the actor.
Fortunately, the jaw-dropping action set pieces elevate the overall film, which also benefits from gorgeous cinematography (Hoyte van Hoytema) and exceptional acting across the board. Daniel Craig and Léa Seydoux's characters relationship is emotionally compelling, making Bond's mission feel more like an interesting personal journey.
One of the best movies of the franchise is buried somewhere under the messy screenplay, but what can be found at the surface has much to appreciate."
Rating: B

> Not your usual Bond movie, but still a good entertainer.
What I liked from a couple of last Bond movies was they were off the regular 007 style, like not overly rely on spy's special gadgets. This change has been since the day one of Daniel Craig as a famous British spy, James Bond. Anyway, he's the most fittest (muscular) Bond I've ever seen and he's celebrating 10 year anniversary with this film release. But the question is whether he to do another film or done with the franchise. The doubt after the confusing end of this film.
The end was quite clear on the story perspective, so I kind of felt it was a farewell for Craig. But, later I came to know that the official source says Bond25 will be his fifth and so on till he opts out himself. 'Spectre' was a very simple Bond movie I have ever seen, but I can say the production quality was so good that you can't resist the enjoyment. The actors, they were also good, but not as I anticipated. Maybe many scenes were very ordinary for a Bond movie, that's comparable with the nowadays action movies, otherwise it was not as bad as critics expressing their disappointment.
You can't believe what I was disappointed, you know when they say what the C stands for - is that the best word they come up with against the M for Moron? Anyway, James Bond movies have always had ups and downs, the last film 'Skyfall' was a mega hit and now this has not stood up to that standard. But very entertaining with all the actions and unexpected turns in the narration. As a spy movie, it was okay, but as a Bond movie is what might upset you, so its upto you how you look at it. But to be honest, I enjoyed it.
7/10

A "correct" Bond movie. All the expected stereotypes are included, Waltz is an OK bad guy and the intro scene is something really impressive.
Nothing else really new ...

Well, cinema’s most treasured and resilient British spy guy is back as the legendary James Bond makes his twenty-fourth outing on the big screen in the highly anticipated and slickly-made Spectre. Worldwide Agent 007 fans understandably maintain their embedded expectations and vision as to what calculating and cunning mission their suave and sophisticated gun-toting, martini-sipping espionage thrill-seeker will encounter in his latest globe-trotting episode. Whatever Bond enthusiasts have in mind for the future twenty-fifth entry of the “licensed to kill” Lothario they should simply settle for the present stimulating currents that trickle as mind-bending material in the polished and percolating Spectre.
As for the dynamic performer that have served his time with action-oriented cinematic sensibilities through three previous super-charged James Bond installments, the steely-jawed and diligent Daniel Craig is back on the saddle again for his fourth stint as the crafty 007. Naturally both ardent and casual Bond followers can rattle off the filmography of Craig’s on-screen tour of duty as the debonair and daring secret service operative and even rate the previous films as they compare and contrast each edition. Some may give special attention to Craig’s first foray into stepping inside Bond’s explosive shoes for 2006’s Casino Royale that is considered a spectacular introduction for the dramatically trained actor. In 2008’s Quantum of Solace, it was a mixed bag at best as Bond followers for the most part gave this second 007 rendition an ambivalent sign of approval (not too many were thrilled with the awkward movie title either). Thankfully, 2012’s Skyfall bounced back for Craig’s take on the roguish Bond and made for some exceptional brownie points as the cagey spy returning to creative prominence. Now 2015’s Spectre hopes to make some hearty tie-ins to Craig’s past big screen adventures as the stoic jet-setting dynamo ridding the world of masterful riff raff.
In actuality, Spectre is serviceable in that it is an elaborate and excitable reminder of the preceding Bond films where bits of nostalgic elements from yesteryear are sprinkled throughout its presentation. Sure, some wily 007 fanatics may spot a few of the tossed in nods to the aforementioned Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace in particular as the proceedings unfold. For the most part, Spectre acts as a mere bridge to the launching of the upcoming 25th Bond actioner in waiting. To be fair the other Bond films have served as a welcome mat to the next chapter of the late Ian Fleming’s engaging and charismatic man of action so why should not Spectre be any different in this regard? Still, this spy caper has its signature swagger that Bond aficionados relish with familiarity: heart-pumping action sequences, exquisite locales, desirable and devious Bond women, majestic car chases, larger-than-life villains and their loyal henchmen, imaginative gadgets and inventive technology and yes…the indomitable James Bond at your service. Nevertheless. the minor knock on Spectre is that it could have risen to the occasion more than it did as it occasionally feels as if it is going through the mischievous motions. It never resorts to the levels of Bond-ish drudgery in Quantum of Solace so that certainly is a relief in that aspect.
Spectre does incorporate its share of opulence, mystery, suspense, shadowy tension and perilous plight. However, where the standard Bond film-making characteristics are somewhat consistent and captivating (i.e. the breathtaking opening sequence of the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City) there is also a questionable consideration for the weak-kneed Bond theme song in Sam Smith’s “Writing’s on the Wall” which seems so inadequately suited for a James Bond signature tune. Even the indifferent observers of the James Bond film franchise for the last five decades can attest to the two most important stamps of a Bond film–its opening scene and surging theme song. Thankfully, Spectre’s grand opening sequence obeys traditional Bond practices but Smith’s doggedly tired-sounding “Writing’s on the Wall” feels as it belongs attached to an old televised After School special from the mid-70s. Wouldn’t you give your kingdom for Paul McCartney and Wings’ “Live and Let Die” or Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does It Better” or perhaps even Sheena Easton’s “For Your Eyes Only”?
One thing that can be said about Craig’s Bond in Spectre and that is his image transformation has been elevated to that of a fashion plate whose GQ stylized look has taken quite a step up. Not since Roger Moore’s Bond has there been a clear case of dazzling attire on display for Agent 007 to strut his stuff in spiffy clothing accessories throughout his ventured travels. Craig, billed as a “blue-collar” Bond whose demeanor is more blunt and workman-like, takes comfort in basking in the finesse shadows of a classic Agent 007 almost foreign to his distinctive spin on the iconic spy. In fact, the overall vibe for Spectre seems to lie in the middle of old school and new school James Bond mythology where the shading suits both camps of the ever-lasting film franchise.
Director Sam Mendes, who handled the direction for the previous Skyfall, finds the right tone and temple for Spectre that certainly shows off its lavish and ambitious production values as the set designs, scenic locations, fabulous pre-credits action sequence are all indescribable in majestic scope. No one can accuse Spectre as to not holding its own in visual functionality. Wisely, Mendes does not forget his Skyfall background players as they reunite with Craig’s Bond and partake in the sensationalized cat-and-mouse caper. It is refreshing to see Ralph Fiennes back as “M” not to mention Ben Wishaw’s “Q” front and center. And a Craig-fronted Bond film would not be the same without Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny.
Agent 007 fans will find a common "Bond" with Daniel Craig and his fourth outing as the licensed to kill Lothario in the stunning and kinettic SPECTRE
Agent 007 fans will find a common “Bond” with Daniel Craig and his fourth outing as the licensed to kill Lothario in the stunning and kinetic SPECTRE
It is a given that the diabolical criminal network known as SPECTRE has always had its affiliation with the Bond universe especially in the classic Sean Connery Bond-age years. Instinctively, SPECTRE’s evil heart and soul was pumped continuously by that organization’s dastardly mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Oscar winner Christoph Waltz does the sordid honors of taking the reins as Bond’s nemesis Franz Oberhauser in Spectre with devilish delight and is more colorfully corrupt thanks to his handy go-to muscular minion Mr. Hinx (ex-professional WWE wrestler and “Guardians of the Galaxy” star Dave Bautista) echoing the memories of beloved brute Jaws (played by the late Richard Kiel) from The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker).
We can never forget that along with Agent 007 folklore comes the responsibility of being labeled a treasured Bond babe. And although the latest sultry women represented in Spectre will never make us forget the iconic likes of Dr. No’s Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder) or Casino Royale’s Eva Green (Vesper Lynd) for that matter they still hold their own and give a measure of titillation to both Bond and the vast amount of male admirers wishing they carried a gun and wore expensive tuxedos while being at the receiving end of a provocative smooch by these vibrant vixens. Lea Seydoux’s Madelene Swann and Italian siren Monica Bellucci’s Lucia are on board as the Bond bombshells for hire.
As a whole, Spectre has its up and down moments and never is quite sure about standing alone as an independent Bond story or being dismissed as a pit stop for 007-related flashbacks and reference bits ode to yesteryear’s glory of the super spy’s engaging and raging exploits. The verdict is that Spectre ultimately satisfies one’s craving for the invincible James Bond whether you can to relive his vintage reputation or look forward to a millennium-enhanced production that will grow with the ageless wonderment pertaining to Fleming’s literary ladies man-turned movie-making mainstay of action-packed cinema for half a century. As one-time Bond songbird Carly Simon would attest in her soothing lyrics, “nobody does it better…” Yet in the dimensional escapist world of James Bond this particular go-around could have been a tad bit better.
Spectre (2015)
Sony Pictures
2 hrs 28 mins.
Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci, Andrew Scott
Directed by: Sam Mendes
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Spy-Espionage Caper/Action & Adventure/Suspense Thriller
Critic’s rating: ** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng (2015)

In hindsight my excitement for Spectre seems a bit foolish. After Skyfall, director Sam Mendes openly stated that he wouldn’t direct another Bond movie. And even so, Skyfall wasn’t the best of the new Bond films by any measure – dragging on for much too long. But somehow I got sucked into the hype of Mendes’ vision for an homage to the classic Bond, with that somewhat iconic poster of Craig mimicking Roger Moore, and trailers the emphasized a kind of retro re-visitation of some old villains and themes. But Spectre is none of those things, instead it is a film where everyone involved feels like they are just going through the motions. Spectre tries very hard to be an homage to the vintage James Bond classics, but instead ends up feeling more like a mockery of the series.
For starters the script is outrageously weak and predictable. Bond goes from shootout, to chase, to sex scene, saying and doing the exact same things he has done for the last 23 movies. Instead of a complete story, the film is just a collection of set pieces and scenes loosely stitched together. And while some of them work well on their own, by the second or third fight scene, you won’t be able to stop yourself from yawning. When you aren’t yawning you’ll be laughing, and not in a good way. The dialogue is downright cheesy. Gone is all of Bond’s smooth charm and ability to sting his opponent’s with his tongue just as much as with his gun. Instead at one point, he throws a watch bomb and says: “Time flies!”
Bond is one a secret mission, assigned to him by M (Judi Dench) via a video message delivered after her death. The film doesn’t ever attempt to invest the audience in this mission, or in Bond’s motivation for seeking out Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) – which apparently has something to do with his foster-father and his childhood, again – but it never seems important to the story or to James. Meanwhile, a new joint secretary, Max or C as he is known (Andrew Scott), is attempting to unite the world’s intelligence under one surveillance network – and through doing so making the Double-0 program obsolete. Lucky for him, Sam Mendes is already doing that for him.
However, Spectre is a beautiful film. There are about five or six huge set pieces, all of which are wonderfully filmed. And if you are just in the mood the veg out and watch Bond cruise through the streets of Rome in a prototype Aston Martin, than this is the movie for you. But things go on for entirely too long, which would be fine if something of interest were happening. But almost nothing does. Bond gets in a situation and gets out, all while throwing a few pithy, laughable, lines out.
Daniel Craig has never been more disconnected from the character James Bond, than he is in Spectre. I must say first, that I love Craig as an actor and as James Bond – he is my favorite of all the Bonds. But here, he is uncharacteristically not James Bond. A scene for instance where bond throws his gun into the river, is done in such a fancy foppish way that I cringed. It is tough to properly convey how Craig misses the mark in Spectre, but when you see it, you won’t be able to help feeling the same way.
Maybe Sam Mendes and screenwriter John Logan did succeed at creating a perfect homage to the Roger Moore era Bond films? Because in reality, none of those films standout as great movies. From start to finish, Spectre feels like someone filling out a madlibs of Bond scenes, and praying that when they read it back, it makes some sense.

I think this is my favourite film, as yet, from Guillermo del Toro - and it gets better the more you watch it. Set against at backdrop of a Spain still trying to recover from it's civil war, the young "Ofelia" and her pregnant mother "Carmen" are sent to live with the rather brutish "Capt. Vidal". Now he is a singularly nasty piece of work and the girl longs to meet her own real father. It's in the middle of the night that "Ofelia" encounters a sprite who offers her some hope. It knows of a faun in the middle of a maze who might be able to help, and so they set of in search of this ostensibly sagely and benign creature. The meeting offers her far more than a glimmer, she need only complete three tasks and will find herself taking up her inheritance as a princess and reunited with her kingly father. What now ensues is a fairy tale full of dark magic and untrustworthy characters whom the young girl must face if she is to succeed. Given the atrocities being carried out in the real world around her, she seeks more and more solace in this nether world that is probably just as dangerous - it certainly has it's fair share of malevolence and duplicity - but with her father the ultimate goal, she perseveres with wisdom and gritty determination. What makes this work is the delicious permutations of evil it offers. Contrasting the real with the fabled, the human with the fantasy - and the decency the young girl epitomises is by no means certain of success. The visual effects cleverly integrate both of her worlds without dominating the look of the film or the potency of the story - one of love, ambition, fear, trickery. It's creatively exciting and captivating too. This is storytelling at it's best, and on a big screen can be appreciate to it's full - and dazzling - effect.

Beautiful movie from Guillermo del Toro and while I did like the movie and its World War II-era plot, I can't say I was totally in love, feeling this was more style over substance, though the acting from the young Ivana Baquero was really good. **4.0/5**

The original movie. Robin Williams makes this movie funny. Honestly without him the movie would be nothing.

Throw the dice and take a turn, Jumanji made the critics gurn.
Jumanji is directed by Joe Johnston and based on Chris Van Allsburg's short story of the same name. It stars Robin Williams, Bonnie Hunt, Kirsten Dunst, Bradley Pierce and Jonathan Hyde. The story is about a weird board game that when played unleashes hazards from the jungle with every throw of the dice. Once you have started playing you have to finish the game for normality to be resumed.
Simple in plot and coming off as an excuse to show off some impressive effects -said the critics - Jumanji defied the critics of the time to become a box office winner and a family favourite. Enough of a favourite to spawn a sequel (Zathura 2005), an animated TV series and a board game. In truth the film is reliant on the effects to entertain, with the cast (all competent and enjoyable) merely lurching from one perilous throw of the dice to another. But to call the film shallow is wrong and ignorant. There's flecks of bad parenting, peer pressure, grief and bullying, while the impact of a missing child on one town is a noteworthy addition to the story line. You wonder if those critics actually paid attention during their free viewings?
Yes it's berserker family fun, but it's not without worth in the writing either. Besides which, for the action set pieces and the laughs, they alone mean the film has its merits. 7/10