treborquest

Daniel Craig had said he didn't want to do another James Bond movie. But eventually with the script they convinced him and I think they did well by that.

Okay, there is a more emotional and personal story to this one. But is that a bad thing? To me, this movie that is over 160 minutes long didn't feel long at all. I loved the action, think some of the plots were well thought out, but it also had it's flaws. Some aspects were too thick on the nose (wrist, hand... etc), the humor was sometimes too forced, but sometimes it did work (I loved Paloma, and she was a great Bond Girl (Sorry Ana, but that term is a keeper, as it is one that should be an honor imo) and very bubbly, which was rather new). But the biggest flaw I think is the Americanization of the action shots. The way the ocean is on fire while the ship is sinking... that looked so extremely fake. Bond doesn't need that Hollywood sauce.

I think over all, this is a solid Bond movie, and if I had to rank the Craig ones then Casino Royale is my favorite, followed by Skyfall, and this one would come third. Then Spectre and I think people stating that this is the worst bond movie ever keep forgetting Quantem of Solace (even though I think there are even worse Bondmovies than that).

So don't overthink it, don't be all 'boohoo' about it not being a typical Bond movie. It was, it just opens a door to a new Bond (First like of the new movie: hey, you've changed a lot..... Yes, plastic surgery has come a long way... didn't Roger Moore do that already?) and they can now go into the direction of more old style Bond, and maybe do a 008 Nomi-spin-off.

As long as she will have lots of Bond Blokes (or whatever that should be called).

8 for effort.

This movie had quite some potential. Yes the focus is on family drama and it has some exciting moments, but the further the story progressed, the more they let go of logic and common sense. A 7 year old kid who gets fractions at school and half of the time acts like an adult needs a carseat and doesn't know how to unbuckle a seatbelt? small airplane vs shockwave? driving away from a road and into the woods without knowing where you are or where to go? most of the plotlines were thought up for extra drama but didn't feel necessary or were too forced to feel natural. some of the actions were cringe worthy. The acting wasn't all that great.... so why 4 stars still? Because if you stop thinking about it, it's actually an ok movie and entertaining, but other than that.... it's just bad and a shame of potential.

The Grand High Witch is killing it. but seriously, she's terrible. From the start on, with the weird Chris Rock voice-over, this remake goes wrong wherever it can wrong. The acting is stiff, the focus is hardly on all the other witches, the CGI is not good. Even the housekeeping cart seems to come from the CGI box. Positive thing: Octavia Spencer is doing her best to be a genuine grandmother, and she succeeds, but that's about it. OK, yes, I am a fan of the 1990 movie. Even though it wasn't as close to the original story, I really can't believe Roald Dahl would recognize his book in this mess. The first movie was gorgeous in it's authenticity. It has folklore, it has an edge, it has a heart. This is Hollywood factory work and seems to want to be much more than it can deliver. It made me miss much more than the purple glow in the witches eyes. It made me want to just throw up like a witch who smells children. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch it. I am sure that an entire generation who never grew up with the original will disagree, but to me, this is like cursing in a church. It's horrible.