Haven't seen all eps yet. But so far pretty good. I am preparing for ridiculous conclusion let-down. Intrigue and mystery good enough through 4 eps. I know acting and else about biz: Besides subjective opinions, the acting is mostly good. By ep 2 I was rather convinced who dunnit. During 4, I was pondering alternatives but by end reconfirmed my first guess. What I want to know from someone who knows, is why this Netflix production allowed such really bad makeup for all? Over-caked grease-paint on all, and lack of subtle shading, which looks terrible on HD TV. I disagree about it having ridiculous plot holes, and I watch a lot of murder mysteries. Is it Le Carre, Tinker, Tailor? No.
Reviews
6 Reviews
No Time to Die
(2021)
Good, with great moments and intentions. Sadly not great.
10 October 2021
Bond and Craig fans will want to see it.
But film does not achieve greatness due to writing and direction and casting.
I would tell director, Fukunaga, to watch films like Casablanca, and learn how directing and camerawork and editing, with cooperation with the actors, raised that film from a 'B' movie to great. Was the power of Ingrid Bergman due only to script and acting? No, camera and editing are crucial. Lea Seydoux, and therefore the audiences and film, are let down by the directors lack of insight, care, or skill. Or watch Casino Royale and Eva Green.
Action is very good, but a Bond movie cannot be great on that alone. And the story has many intelligent self-reflections on Bond, the history of Bond movies, Craig's Bond, and our society as it has moved, or not, from 1960's. But the script is not 'tight'. Again, the action moves and has pace, but the film overall and the plot flounder.
Rami is a very very good actor, but he is mis-cast and/or mis-directed as super-villain. The super-villian needs to exude power, some charisma, and be memorable, if a bit less than Bond. Rami does not. That. Despite all the Bond and film witticism, weakens the whole need for Bond, or the film.
Ana de Armas is a find. The music and opening credits are not Bond worthy despite clever use of Bond camera-shutter/gun-barrel trope, as good as Ellish (or Zimmer) could be. And due to fails I mention, the film and plot could have almost been merely accomplished by Lashana Lynch as the action hero, instead of a Bond or Atomic Blonde.
But film does not achieve greatness due to writing and direction and casting.
I would tell director, Fukunaga, to watch films like Casablanca, and learn how directing and camerawork and editing, with cooperation with the actors, raised that film from a 'B' movie to great. Was the power of Ingrid Bergman due only to script and acting? No, camera and editing are crucial. Lea Seydoux, and therefore the audiences and film, are let down by the directors lack of insight, care, or skill. Or watch Casino Royale and Eva Green.
Action is very good, but a Bond movie cannot be great on that alone. And the story has many intelligent self-reflections on Bond, the history of Bond movies, Craig's Bond, and our society as it has moved, or not, from 1960's. But the script is not 'tight'. Again, the action moves and has pace, but the film overall and the plot flounder.
Rami is a very very good actor, but he is mis-cast and/or mis-directed as super-villain. The super-villian needs to exude power, some charisma, and be memorable, if a bit less than Bond. Rami does not. That. Despite all the Bond and film witticism, weakens the whole need for Bond, or the film.
Ana de Armas is a find. The music and opening credits are not Bond worthy despite clever use of Bond camera-shutter/gun-barrel trope, as good as Ellish (or Zimmer) could be. And due to fails I mention, the film and plot could have almost been merely accomplished by Lashana Lynch as the action hero, instead of a Bond or Atomic Blonde.
Emperor hides his emptiness with fancy clothes
21 June 2021
A generous 4 stars because I am big fan of Arthur story. So I am hooked by that, and I am hooked with fascination of watching this expensive mess.
There is such arrogance and ego without insight or wisdom in the making or unmaking of this film. Without true connection with Spirit, nor humility to Faith or True powers.
The story is not made with a creative difference like King Arthur (Clive Owen version), but a drunken, macho, mucking, deaf and blind, mess. A lot of expensive, excellent technical craft, attempts to portray Strum und Drang but results are both incoherent and video game empty.
If the casting and acting directing and acting editing had been done well, it might have survived. There are excellent actors in some secondary roles, but the 3 of 4 main leads, along with some of the other secondaries, are inadequate to the task along with Ritchie the director. Hunnam and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey are not bad actors, they cannot command the big screen, and just do not have the ability to be of gravitas or status (like 'good' Shakespeare or Stanislavski/Chekov, or others fine actors learn as important part of their craft: Ie, Helen Mirren, or. Kate Blanchett, etc.) If you can't believe or feel the "Arthur" or "Merlin" or "Morgaine", etc, how can you have a successful Arthur movie?
There is such arrogance and ego without insight or wisdom in the making or unmaking of this film. Without true connection with Spirit, nor humility to Faith or True powers.
The story is not made with a creative difference like King Arthur (Clive Owen version), but a drunken, macho, mucking, deaf and blind, mess. A lot of expensive, excellent technical craft, attempts to portray Strum und Drang but results are both incoherent and video game empty.
If the casting and acting directing and acting editing had been done well, it might have survived. There are excellent actors in some secondary roles, but the 3 of 4 main leads, along with some of the other secondaries, are inadequate to the task along with Ritchie the director. Hunnam and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey are not bad actors, they cannot command the big screen, and just do not have the ability to be of gravitas or status (like 'good' Shakespeare or Stanislavski/Chekov, or others fine actors learn as important part of their craft: Ie, Helen Mirren, or. Kate Blanchett, etc.) If you can't believe or feel the "Arthur" or "Merlin" or "Morgaine", etc, how can you have a successful Arthur movie?
White Orchid
(2018)
C script, B- direction, inadequate lead actress
10 April 2019
I am a bit loathe to criticize a young actor, but ... I know me some acting, and good for her she got job and paycheck, but Ms Thirlby does not command her part or hold up the film as lead. And together with the otherwise in several ways failed realization of a being a good modern 'noir', this movie is a failed use of budget or much of your attention. Even though the script and directing are not tops, all the other actors do their parts well. And yes, as others have stated, Ms Beals shines as always. I wonder if this is an example of using the advantage of blinded male control. Ms Thirlby openly states her bi-sexuality, and is very relaxed and natural in that onscreen. Did that unduly gain her the lead? Otherwise I can see her 'thinking' and visibly 'controlling' her acting, be a 'small' presence on screen, and not commanding as the lead detective/character. And together with her acting, hair and makeup, Ms Thirlby, contrary to the needs of plot and film, is an unconvincing blonde 'beauty' (she is a lovely person and figure in her own self). I was fascinated not because it was good.
Traitors
(2019)
Not a ten, but engrossing, addictive, educational and real too.
7 April 2019
I see a lot of mysteries and spy shows. This is not Tinker, Taikor, but very very good. Like the best of Shakespeare, one could pick at jumps and holes, but one would be missing the excellence of what is there as a whole. The production values are excellent, including direction, editing, and acting. It has a very real gritty feel and story. It is not easy white hat/black hat. The messy reality of mixed, intertwined motives - personal, political, caste - together with the force of history is engrossing, revealing, enlightening. No, one does not know the totality of anyone's motives or connections from the first, and what or who will be discovered or connected is not obvious as in many shows, but it is also not ridiculously convoluted, nor artificially opaque. It is very real. And the history is most entertaining and educational too.
Gigi
(1958)
One of the top 50 of all films
23 June 2018
Are you kidding me! A 6.8 rating! This is aesthetically and craft wise one of the top 50 films ever, subjectivity aside. The rules and styles of the society in which the story takes place, and of the times of the filming may not be what they are now. Nevertheless, like Moliere or Shakespeare, or a Rembrandt, this is timelessly excellent.
Tell Your Friends