Soulless garbage. Must have been written in less then 15 minutes. How hard can it be to write an entertaining film about transforming alien robots? If you're Michael Bay, very hard indeed. And the jokes. Wow. The jokes. I cringed after each and everyone. So many attempts at humour falling flat on their faces and smashing all of their teeth on the floor. The makers of this movie should be forced into exile.

Not surprisingly I expected this, the fifth installment, of the Transformers franchise to be pretty much crap. Especially after the abysmal fourth installment. To my great surprise I found it to be much less crappy than I expected.
I honestly do not understand why so many people seems to think this is one of the worst movies ever. The critics sure, especially the ones at Rotten Tomatoes, but I do not really care about those self proclaimed "critics". Ordinary viewers is another matter.
I mean, this is a transformers movie and it is directed by Michael Bay. That pretty much defines the movie from the start so what the heck did all those people complaining actually expect? That Michael Bay should suddenly care about things like script and stuff or anything else except big robots, special effects and explosions?
Personally I quite enjoyed this movie. Well, enjoyed in the context of watching a Transformers movie that is. I enjoyed the special effects, the robots, even the lousy jokes.
I did enjoy the tie in to the Pendragon myth and I thought the somewhat bizarre Sir Edmund Burton and his even more bizarre robot butler was great fun.
I laughed outright when I saw the World War 1 tank transformer. I was expecting the submarine transformer to actually transform though.
Maybe all those detractors of this movie are missing the bimbo with two and a half brain cells (yes I am being generous now) that used to be the lead female character in the Transformers movies but personally I quite liked that the leads in this movie was much more mature and actually showed some evidence of intelligence.
The story? Well, for a Transformers movie it is quite good. In any other context it would be somewhat...lacking. It did screw quite a bit with the Transformers timeline established in the first movies though. Oh, and for some nitpicking, the maximum operating altitude of those airplanes they used is 21 000 feet, not 12 000 feet.
Bottom line, I had great fun when watching this movie. With my low, and I mean LOW, initial expectations I was very pleasantly surprised. It is definitely a huge improvement over the fourth instalment.

The _Transformers_ franchise has never been good. Some say that the series is "Dumb fun with good action and cool explosions. To me, that could maybe be used to describe only the third movie. The first one is promising and has a certain "child-like-wonder" appeal. But neither of them are truly **good**. The second _Transformers_ is meaningless garbage.
But when _Age of Extinction_ was released in 2014, the franchise hit new, abysmal lows. Watching _Transformers_ wasn't just a chore, it wasn't just boring, it was excruciating. It was so bad I felt nauseous. I was aggravated to the point of brimming with feelings of genuine anger. They say that if a film makes you feel something, that is a victory in itself. Be it sadness, excitement, intrigue, joy, hope, nostalgia, hysteria, love, fear, warmth - whatever - I tend to agree with that statement. What I felt in _Age of Extinction_ was not a victory. It was a failure. A Guinness Book of World Records level failure.
_Transformers: The Last Knight_, is at least that bad again.
Arguably worse.
I guess it didn't dedicate an entire character to being a justification for paedophilia, so it has that up on its predecessor.
_Final rating:½ - So bad it’s offensive. I may never fully recover._

Good old-school entertainment, so much so that I thought it was from earlier 2000s rather than 2017.

a

**Once upon a time two sworn enemies teamed up!**
Maybe the critics are right, but like usual, I don't have to agree with them. This is a nice film, not a great film as a few people lauding. It is entertaining. All the stunts were good, comedies were good enough, but the basic plot itself a cliche. Yes, anybody aged 20+ would surely have seen many similar storied films. It's just in another time with another cast and crew. They had promoted it so well. So the result was incredible. But in reality JUST one time watchable film with not expecting serious laughs.
Initially I thought it could be this year's 'The Nice Guys', and they are about to repeat the same magic of Crowe and Gosling duo. But it was different. Too hard hitting, just what Tarantino fans would like to have. Besides, their guy, Samuel L. Jackson is here. Both the leads were good. That does not mean they have saved the film. That's an assumption of fanboys. Luck could be another factor!
It was about a hitman in capture decides to give an important testimony in the International Criminal Court against a powerful man. So now the bad guys are after him in his every move from England to Holland. A demoted bodyguard takes the job to safely get him to his destination. Their journey begins where they are going to encounter a series of obstacles and they finally make it where a major twist comes in before the end.
As I said, this is no special, except the way they have presented on the screen makes the difference. But again, not all films are lucky in that criteria as this one. It is like one in a 20-25 films. So if your objective is timepass, then this will do just fine. There could be a sequel, probably prequel seems a nice idea. But I'm not sure whether I want it or not. I'll just be happy if they do!
_7/10_

_The Hitman's Bodyguard_ is getting absolutely flensed by the critics, including several of whom I personally value the opinion of very highly. But when it comes to _The Hitman's Bodyguard_, I gotta flat out disagree. It's not out here changing lives for the better, and it's hardly gonna ride out the year on a palanquin of Oscar nominations, but I had a seriously enjoyable time with The Hitman's Bodyguard. Jackson and Reynolds worked. The leads and their respective romantic entanglements worked. Most of all, director Patrick Hughes worked his ass of to blend comedy, action and romance and have it pay off. This isn't Hughes' best work though, if you want to see that, check out 2010's _Red Hill_.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

For professional Bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), life is good. As an elite member of his craft, he is well paid and lives a very good life keeping high-profile targets safe the world over. When things unexpectedly take a turn we find Michael two years on having hit the skids and struggling to claw his way back to prominence in the new film “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”.
Things become complicated for Michael as a despotic tyrant named Dukhovich (Gary Oldman) is on trial for war crimes and countless atrocities, and is about to go free due to removing all those who would be able to testify against him with credible evidence. That is with the exception of one Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Darius is incarcerated but makes a deal to testify in exchange for his wife (Selma Hayek), being granted freedom. Darius knows he is a marked man but takes the chance and under the watch of Interpol Agent Roussel (Elodie Yung), they set off.
Naturally things do not go as planned and the two find themselves fleeing for their lives with numerous deadly assassins hot on their heels. Unsure who she can trust, Roussel calls in Michael even though they have some seriously unresolved issues about one another that destroyed their previous relationship. Further complicating matters is the history Michael and Darius share which makes them naturally hostile to one another.
Nevertheless, Michael and Darius set off to reach the courtroom but the imposed deadline and face numerous dangers and hilarious situations along the way.
Jackson and Reynolds work very well with one another and their banter and chiding comes across as very natural. The jokes come more often than I expected but the film is very much an action film, and the sequences are intense, funny, and gripping, especially and extended chase and fight sequence along the canals and shopping district of Amsterdam.
While some may say that the film is just a variation on the Buddy Cop genre of old, the strong cast and the winning mix of jokes and action make the film a very pleasant surprise and one of my more enjoyable films of 2017. It was a highly-enjoyable thrill ride and one of the best films this summer.
If you are a fan of action, comedies, and the pairing of Jackson and Reynolds, do not miss this film.
4 stars out of 5.

Properly underwhelming.
'Kick-Ass 2' isn't a bad film in and of itself, it just feels like a serious miscue on all counts - or perhaps I was just expecting something different. In my eyes, I feel like this plot is the type you do for the original movie in a series - not the sequel. It's a character-building story, whereas I think with a follow-up it needs to be a greater continuation.
It's also nowhere near as entertaining. 'Kick-Ass' has a lot of fun and knows it, this just disappoints as it aims for something more sincere - which didn't quite work, for me. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Chloë Grace Moretz felt off it too, at least in comparison to last time out.
Jim Carrey feels wasted, this is probably his most forgettable performance that I've seen - and I've seen alot of Carrey's work. It is at least a showing of slightly different ilk compared to his usual schtick, I guess. Olga Kurkulina plays a good character though, while Iain Glen makes himself known in a tiny role. Elsewhere, there are annoying (albeit minor) recasts, always a pet hate of mine.
In conclusion, I wanted to enjoy this but I honestly didn't. Feels like a missed opportunity.

I was actually quite surprised to see three of the leads who made the first film (2010) return for this far inferior sequel. Following on from the denouement of that enterprise, "Red Mist" (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is using his father's ill-gotten gains to assemble a force that can combat the growing number of lycra-clad have-a-go heroes that are attempting to cut crime in their community. Without dad this time, it falls to "Mindy" (Chloë Grace Moretz) to train up our still pretty hapless hero (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) so they can be ready for the formidable foes that are now facing them. ATJ still looks great with his shirt off, thereafter this is really nothing at all to write home about. It's all just by-the-numbers film making with perfectly choreographed, and extended, combat scenes with violence that has become more graphically brutal leading to a conclusion that you don't need any kind of map to find. What made the first film a bit quirkier is not in evidence here; the language and humour is largely plain crass and Jim Carrey adds really very little as this rumbles along. Hopefully we will never see any more of "Kick-Ass"; this mini-franchise has definitely run it's course and belongs in glass case.

The first Kick Ass movie was a fresh idea and I quite liked that movie. Unfortunately this one seems to have be the creation of someone that believes that a good movie can be made by stacking extreme silliness and vulgarities on top of each other until you reach about a 100 minutes or so.
Most of the movie is unbelievably silly. The original movie also had plenty of silly moments but they were more there to support the plot and not to build the movie as in this one. The main villain is so contrived and stupid that he is just not funny.
The so called “superheroes” are equally ridiculous. The costumes are just awful. Sure, they are supposed to be amateurs but still…
The entire movie is pretty much shouldered by Hit-Girl who is the only one who is not absolutely ridiculous. Without her this movie would have been a total turkey. Unfortunately the vulgarity seeking script writer managed to put her up in a overdone and very disgusting puking scene that really dragged down the movie.
The scenes with Hit-Girl in them, except the above mentioned one, and the action scenes are where almost all the enjoyment of the movie lies. The rest is either so silly or so disgusting that it is barely watchable.

*** This review contains MAJOR spoilers ***
This is actually not so much a review as it is a vehicle for me to express my utter disgust of what was supposed to be a great sequel to what I consider one of the coolest movies ever made. I absolutely loved Kick-Ass. It was fresh, it was original, and in spite of its crude and graphic violence, absolutely hilarious. Its sequel, is nothing short of an abomination.
For your convenience, I have comprised a list of Everything Wrong with Kick-Ass 2:
1. The gore. It's not that it was worse than KA1, it's that it was very different in tone. Whereas in the first movie – where the violence was equally gut-wrenching – the nature of it all was laugh-out-loud hilarious, mostly because it was executed by a foul-mouthed 12-year-old school girl. KA2 on the other hand, feels more like a snuff movie where good guys and innocent bystanders are brutally slaughtered, just for the hell of it. Which leads me to point number two:
2. The targets. In the first movie, the whole point was easy: killing bad guys. So, no bad feelings and no conflict of interest. For the second installment, it seems the moral compass has taken a 180 degree turn. Here we have to sit and watch the good guys dropping dead one by one, and it isn't the least bit funny. I'd like to give you a heads-up on the brutal murder of Dave's dad, the most innocent good guy of them all. Yeah, I didn't see than one coming either.
3. The bad guys. Good god. Rarely have I seen such an array of dumb, sickeningly stupid villains. Most of the slaughtering and mayhem is done by one block-of-concrete-with-boobs called Mother Russia (what's in a name?). Everything about her just makes you sick to your stomach, especially the way she offs her victims. She is part of the main villain's gang, and don't even get me started on this guy… Remember Red Mist? He was pretty funny in KA1, wasn't he. Yeah well, those days are over. After accidentally on purpose killing his own mother (!), he proclaims himself the new great villain of New York, henceforth calling himself The Motherf***er (again, what's in a name…). He rallies a group of equally douche baggy cronies. Their mission is to kill Kick-Ass and all who follow him. Their first strike? Killing off the best new character.
4. Jim Carrey's screen time. The poor guy clocks out at exactly 7 minutes and 45 seconds. He plays Colonel Stars and Stripes, and he is by far the best addition to the cast. What's remarkable about his performance is that he's barely recognizable. His speaking voice is low and brooding, and there's not a funny face in sight. Really cool character all around. After waiting for what feels like forever for him to finally appear, guess what; not ten minutes later – gone. Impaled, slaughtered and decapitated by Mother Russia. I'd like to have a hearty word with the "screenwriter" who's responsible for this. He needs to go back to school. Here's my advice anyway – free of charge: YOU DON'T KILL OFF THE BEST CHARACTER HALFWAY THROUGH THE MOVIE. Dumbass.
5. The "humour". In KA1, the humour was cheeky, intelligent, and perfect satire. And where it was crude, it was right up at the top, but never really over it. Second time around, we have to make do with projectile vomiting and violent diarrhoea. Really, poop jokes…? Now this is a perfect example of what 'we' (we meaning – people over 13 with normal intelligence and a healthy sense of humour) call "rock bottom". Yes. They go that low. I'm going to stop here before I start remembering all of the other "jokes".
6. Lack of proper Hit-Girl action. Hit-Girl was always the star of the show. In KA2, she is given a dumb sub-plot where she vows to quit her alter-ego job and become a 'normal', prissy little cheerleader, competing with other Barbie girls to become popular. I really, really hated this story line. I don't even care if it was in the original comics, it sucked. The reason why it sucked the most is because effectively, this means that the essence of Hit-Girl is completely vacant for about 60% of the movie! And that's WAY too much time for the most beloved character to mope around apologetically before she finally gets her s**t together roughly 10 minutes before the end of the movie.
7. Mister Kick-Ass himself. Something went wrong here. I don't know if it was the character that was poorly written or Aaron Taylor-Johnson that came up short, but he was very different from the first movie, in which he had a really cute, geeky charm about him. Here, he was inconspicuous and dull, like a bystander in his own story. Or perhaps he was just overshadowed by the abundance of new and reformed characters… In any case, he was barely there to be noticed.
8. Soundtrack. The score of KA1 was so damn cool, with original, poppy punk music and electro that consistently added something to every scene. Here, I only remember one scene that caught that vibe and it still wasn't half as good.
9. It was seriously offensive. A "joke" about rape? Are you kidding me?! And I'm not talking about some guys hanging around, talking about wanting to 'do' some girl or whatever. No, I'm talking about The Motherf***er seriously intending to rape Night Bitch, except he can't because he's got no wood. Real classy.
There are some redeeming points to this otherwise complete crap fest, but honestly, they are so few and far in between they're not even worth mentioning. Well, I guess this is what you get for hiring some D-grade nobody to replace Matthew Vaughn. Don't waste your time with this garbage.
_(June 2014)_

Looks good

**_Michael Corleone seeks redemption while a young buck takes over the shady business_**
RELEASED IN 1990 and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, "The Godfather: Part III" stars Al Pacino as aging Mafia don Michael Corleone in 1979, who seeks to legitimize his work in New York and Italy and avow for his sins. He mentors his bastard nephew, Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), while trying to steer his teenage daughter, Mary, away from him (Sofia Coppola).
MAIN CAST: Diane Keaton returns as Michael's ex-wife, Kay, while Talia Shire reprises the role of sister, Connie. Franc D'Ambrosio is on hand as Michael's son, Antonio, who wants to leave law school and become an opera singer. George Hamilton co-stars as B.J. Harrison, essentially taking the place of Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) as Michael's chief financial adviser and attorney. Eli Wallach plays an aged don and Joe Mantegna the gangster Michael put in charge of Little Italy after semi-retiring. Raf Vallone plays a dubious Cardinal and Bridget Fonda a fornicating reporter in a small role.
Part III is on par with Part II in tone and quality, but I give this one the edge in overall entertainment value. Michael (Pacino) has much more human dimension here as opposed to his one-note grim depiction in Part II. His scenes confessing his sins to a priest in a Vatican City garden and, later, with Kay in Sicily are good examples. There are several other highlights amidst the drama, like the break-in scene at Vincent's abode, the Atlantic City massacre, the street festival hit, the entire closing opera sequence that juxtaposes the performances of the play with various violent attacks and the aftermath.
Andy Garcia brings fresh blood and vitality to the trilogy in a pretty significant role, as does Sofia in a relatively small part. Winona Ryder was originally cast for the part, but she was too sick to perform and so Francis chose his daughter at the last minute and she's fine in the role. Does anyone seriously think Winona Ryder would have taken this peripheral part and done it any better? I heard all the ridiculous criticism over Sofia's performance before viewing the film and therefore kept waiting for a serious train wreck, but it never happened. She did a fine job for a side character who's an unseasoned, slightly self-conscious (i.e. wooden), flirty teen. To those sheeple who have joined the idiotic critical feeding frenzy: Shut the fudge up and get a life!
The moral of the story rings loud and clear: Choosing the life of organized crime will result in a grim life of constant heartache and premature death all around you. Needless to say, Life's hard enough without taking that foolish route.
Bottom line: This is a worthwhile crime drama with several highlights, but it doesn't rank up there with the first movie, which stands alone. If you're a fan of the first two films it's almost mandatory that you watch this one. It lacks the thrilling greatness of the first film, but it's about equal to the second, although I favor this one a little.
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours & 42 minutes (or 2 hours 50 minutes, the longer version) and was shot in Sicily and numerous places on mainland Italy, including Vatican City; the New York City area; Atlantic City, NJ; and Lake Tahoe, California. WRITERS: Coppola & Mario Puzo.
GRADE: B+

Wow, this is a really poor cousin of the first two films. Centring on the later life of "Michael" (Al Pacino) this has much more of an episodic, almost soap opera, feel to it. He is determined to become legitimate, to look after his family and to stay alive despite the conspiring of Eli Wallach's "Don Altobello" and some of his cohorts who are trying to assassinate him and claim the Corleone crown. Talia Shire is quite effective as his sister "Connie" but Andy Garcia's smarmy "Vincent" (the son of the gunned down "Sonny") just made me squirm. This film really does miss the previously strong supporting cast too. No Robert Duval; Diane Keaton (with some simply hideous jewellery) features but sparingly and the whole thing just plugs along until a rather downbeat ending that just didn't seem to do justice to the excellence of Puzo's story or to the previously established, captivating, characterisations. It looks great, the production is first rate but this is just not a story to compare with the others.

_The Lobster_ is the most awkward love story I have ever watched, but despite how off putting it was it touched me in ways I did not quite expect. The plot of this film is incredibly unique. The idea of being turned into an animal if you cannot find love is so weird in the best kind of way. I found the entire movie to be very sinister in nature, always keeping me on edge about what was to come next, and that was enhanced by the sharp orchestra playing underneath every scene. Yorgos Lanthimos wrote the entire film in a very awkward way. I understand that it was aiming for that type of sharp and poignant feel, but it just did not work for me. I could not help but wonder how much better the film would have impacted me if it felt more natural. The acting in this movie is incredible, the way that everyone could act so emotionless while still feeling genuine was fantastic, even if I did not particularly care for the style. Despite all my complaints, I still genuinely enjoyed the experience, even with its ups and downs. I am still left pondering the ending of the film and that is how a movie should leave you feeling.
**Verdict:** _Good_

This was Yorgos Lanthimos' English language debut. It was really funny. All of the actors had to perform their lines straight-faced and with no emotion which is very strange at first.
The screenplay and direction of the film was very intelligent and perfectly highlights the themes of the film. This film was very quirky and unique and so I really enjoyed it.
★★★★

This was an odd experience, as I just recently ended a self-imposed 12-year moratorium on relationships, due to a couple of bad ones I had within a short period of time in the early 2000's. It was very intriguing to see a type of dystopia exist in which 'singledom' was so vilified to the point of actually being against the law. I would never have previously thought that such a state of events was possible, but recent trends in 'political correctedness' on the one hand and both religious and political radicalism on the other means that, sadly, nothing is impossible anymore. I thought it was a remarkable idea for a film, and both the soundtrack and cinematography were outstanding. The bizarre script and bold direction brought forth some of the best acting I have yet seen from Colin Ferrell, Rachel Weisz and John C. Reilly, as well.
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing other films by this brazenly original writer/director. Long may his almost-Bunuelian take on things go forth.

> Another peculiar dystopian tale set in the future.
From the director of the Oscars nominated movie 'Dogtooth'. If you are familiar with his signature movie, you will find it so good. This is not the best movie I had seen that set in the future, but like any other it was another dystopian tale. A black comedy-romance with a decent storyline, performances and overall a nice entertainer.
The pace was very depressing, but I kept hooked to it for its frequent unpredictable scenes. The first act took place in a hotel which is the introduction to the odd world and the situation where the plot opens. When it moved to the 2nd half, especially after Rachel Weisz come into the frame, the entire scenario changed to atypical romance mode and kept that way till the last with a simple twist in the finale.
Colin Ferrell's character was something like the one from the movie 'Her'. But not the same movie, or the theme, except the combination of the genres. It was a good movie, I enjoyed it, but not as much as others say they did. IMPO, it is a one time watch movie for its peculiarness.
7/10

This is mid, very overrated and is actually disliked by the fandom.

Damsel in distress.
Except that's what makes this film stand out as different from other Bond movies.
It isn't a damsel in distress, but instead a child in jeopardy. 007 finds himself trying to protect the most innocent of creatures.
Along the way, he goes through some high octane action sequences. And he fights against a villain using genetic engineering in a weird and deadly way.
However, the biggest problems here are "predictability" and "horrible directing".
The imagery is horrible. Even when there are exotic locales, there is not one cinematic second. It's all dull and tedious.
The classic 007 films of the Connery and Moore era had cinematic beauty with exotic locales.
In the era of Daniel Craig, this poor actor has to go through movies where the director can't even make imagery out of the most exotic locations.
Why even film on locations? This may as well been done in the studio of Mr. Rogers and his neighborhood.

**No Time to Die ignores all the development and opportunities of the four previous Bond films to deliver a movie that doesn't understand or care who James Bond is at all.**
I am just so frustrated. Daniel Craig's run as Bond was solid overall, with some of the greatest films of the 80-year franchise and a couple that weren't amazing but still entertaining. But the conclusion to Craig's Bond was poorly written, out of character, and just plain disappointing. No Time to Die was The Last Jedi of James Bond. Long-time Bond fans will hate it, while those who are indifferent to the franchise or have not seen this entry will find it entertaining and possibly thoughtful. But I just don't see it. The writing was awful. The screenplay couldn't find better ways to motivate or shock than killing off characters that had been developed for over a decade. The idea of a new 007 was pitched as intriguing but hardly affected the story and sidelined Lashana Lynch's character altogether. The villains were generic, and their motivations inconsistent at best. And Bond's love for Madeleine didn't fit the character at all. He said and did things that Bond just wouldn't do. One shining moment in a film of disappointments was Ana de Armas as Paloma. Her performance was witty, engaging, and the most entertaining part of the movie. So, of course, she was only given 5 minutes of screen time. No Time to Die was clearly at a loss for what to do and failed to close this excellent chapter of James Bond history with nothing more than a mess of dreadful writing and unsatisfying conclusions.

I guess there was time to die, and as so many predicted, be replaced with a female Bond of color. Because... woke.
But it is fitting that Craig went out like that, he seemed to be the only man in the world that didn't want to be James Bond. There was nothing playful about him...
... he was just miserable, and miserable from start to finish. I don't see the draw in watching a depressing 007, and I don't see the draw in watching the inevitable new Politically Correct 007 either.
Neither seem to fit with the franchise.

This final Bond installment with Craig had the potential to be his best Bond movie.
The good:
Cinematography, locations, Story, action, and directing.
The poor: Rami Malek, the villain, is by far the absolute WORST Bond villain in the history of the franchise. He will literally "put you to sleep". Perhaps he was nervous and decided to swallow an entire bottle of Valium before each take.
Lashana Lynch, plays Bond's replacement when he retires. (Nomi) Although her acting was OK, her character is totally unnecessary in the movie, and she gives me the impression that the Producers were more interested in being politically correct
than making a great film. They could have cut 30 minutes off this over-length film by simply adding her to the cutting room floor.

As a life long James Bond fan I thought this movie was a fitting end to the Daniel Craig era as James Bond. I did not think it would be possible to top Casino Royale, however I think this movie did just that. This will cement Daniel Craig's legacy as either the best actor to play James Bond or as an equal to Sean Connery.

**A -{ _F I N A L E_ }- So Stunning, And Poetically GRANDIOSE ⚘ . . . . . . . . . . " That You Will Simply -{ _N E V E R_ }- See What's Coming ".**
This Is A **-_B I G_ -** Screen MINI Review ; Film Viewed On September 30, 2021, At "VOX CINEMAS" , UAE.
______________________________________________________
Q : "Can I just have one nice evening please . . . . before the world explodes". { Taken from one of the many -official - previews for No Time To Die; which I'll refer to as **"_N.T.2.D_ "** in this review }.
______________________________________________________
**1. " The Overall Calibre Of Acting Here, Given That This -_Is_ - , At The End Of The Day , A -_Blockbuster Popcorn Flick_ - Is Well & Truly BREATHTAKING " :** Spearheading -{ DAZZLING 💎 }- array of world-class talent in _N.T.2.D_ are : A : Hollywood veteran Léa Seydoux ...arguably best known for 'Blue Is The Warmest Colour' | 'Ghost Protocol' | 'Spectre' ...who plays the deeply damaged yet very independent, & ravishingly Lovely psychotherapist 'Madeleine Swann' ; rendering a delicate & impassioned performance that is nothing less than **MESMERIZING.** B : Rami Malik, a.k.a 'Lyutsifer Safin', the movie's -primary- ( of two ) "Classic" Megalomaniacal Bond-Villains, who unquestionably provides a most "_DELECTABLY **IDIOSYNCRATIC** PORTRAYAL_ " { on account of his having been ( -Very- ) badly scarred as a vulnerable, young boy ; as it is entirely incumbent on me to point out }. C : 'The-Man-Of-The-Hour' himself of course, Daniel Craig, who -_Did_ - actually catch me a bit off guard . . . managing to completely 'Wow', with _both_ his utterly stupendous physical performance . . . **- _A N D_ - , HIS GENUINELY SUPERB EMOTIONAL & DRAMATIC 🌠 DELIVERY.**
**2. " FUKUNAGA . . . . . . . WHO ? " :** You could -_very_ - easily be forgiven for NEVER having heard of **Cary Joji Fukunaga,** the { formerly } -_relatively_ - unknown, yet "MULTIGIFTED" Actor-Producer-Writer-Cinematographer-Director ; who, in the September of 2018 was officially -and publicly- awarded the globally "Mega-Coveted" job of not only **-DIRECTING-** _N.T.2.D_ , but of co-writing its whole script & screenplay, _As Well_. And it's no wonder, frankly, given the fact that only the very -_SECOND_ - complete picture that he -_ever_ - Directed, executive produced & co wrote { '_Victoria Para Chino_ ' | 13 minutes | 2004 | New York University | Student-movie } . . . went on to not only win the 'Best Student Narrative Short' **OSCAR AWARD 🏆** for the year 2005 . . . but -_also_ - pretty much "_Sweep The Deck **C L E A N**_ " by winning 4 of the 5 _other_ ( Major ) awards that the said short was nominated for, in that very same year.
**3. " FINAL ANALYSIS " :** Every now and then, along comes a film with the capacity to altogether, and most _U N E X P E C T E D L Y_ **. . . . - _M O V E_ -** THE VIEWER TO THEIR VERY CORE. For me, this was such a picture, & yes **. . . . IT'S PERSONAL.** And in that vein, I want to say a Deep & Heartfelt **THANK YOU** to you, Cary Joji Fukunaga, to your 'viscerally beautiful' movie's ENTIRE -{ _E N S E M B L E_ }- CAST, your uber-talented crew ; and most of all to your leading-man, **DANIEL CRAIG 🙏 💜** ; for so successfully having enthralled us 'to this degree', _even_ in the throes of what is _very much_ ( -Still- ) a raging, vicious, global, pandemic. **_Y E S_ ,** I shan't deny that I would have loved to see a _LOT_ more screen time given to -Both- **The Completely Tantalizing Ana de Armas,** _As Well_ as the **Ever Endearing Jeffrey Wright** { 'Paloma' & 'Felix Leiter', respectively } . . . . but hey, I am no less grateful for the undeniably mind-blowing experience that I just had. **A Full-Blown, Unabashed 25 Marks Out Of 10 . . . AND , YES MY WORD IS MY " _B O N D_ " 😅 💥❗** .

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/no-time-to-die-spoiler-free-review
"No Time To Die is the most emotional, personal James Bond movie of Daniel Craig's Era, holding a heartfelt farewell to the now-iconic actor. Delivering his best performance as 007, Craig finishes his memorable run in a high-stakes film with some of the best action sequences of the entire franchise.
Technically, the practical sets and locations, stunt work, cinematography, and editing are all no short of impressive, working together beautifully to create magnificent set pieces.
Despite an overlong runtime with an exposition-heavy second act and a terribly stereotyped villain with unclear motivations, the emotionally compelling narrative sets up a powerful third act boosted by an epic score.
Cary Joji Fukunaga brilliantly directs a movie packed with phenomenal performances that will leave no viewer indifferent. Massive praise to the outstanding ensemble cast.
And a humble thank you to Craig… Daniel Craig."
Rating: A-

Am I the only one that thought that Rambo was supposed to be Native American? Or at least partially so?
Anywho... this is NOTHING like the sequels. The basic plot was that a small town tries to bully a Vietnam Vet and gets a little more than they bargained for.
it was more dramatic, it had more character, and had a better story than just about anything that followed. And it worked as a survivalist action movie as well.

Sylvester Stallone Is "John Rambo", a Vietnam War veteran who is shocked to learn that the only other survivor from his crack team of Green Berets has died of a pretty pernicious cancer. He wanders aimlessly looking for a cheeseburger when he is escorted out of town by the sheriff "Will Teasle" (Brian Dennehy), who takes him for a vagrant. When he tries to come back into town, he is arrested and that sets off a chain of events that ends up pitting him against not just a rather brutal collection of local law enforcement, but ultimately the pretty useless national guard and his old CO "Trautman" (Richard Crenna). There is certainly a serious message here. This man has served his country at no small risk to himself, he even has a Congressional Medal of Honour, but has been pretty much abandoned by his government. We learn fairly early on that he has clearly been traumatised by his wartime experiences and the hostile behaviour of the local cops serves to rekindle his serious ninja skills in self-defence that quickly - though reluctantly - became self-offence. The action scenes set amongst the cold, wet and dense forest are tautly directed and quite compelling to watch, but I am afraid the acting is pretty poor. Crenna is about as wooden as one of the stakes "Rambo" uses to impale his pursuers, and the "Teasle" character just doesn't add up. We start the film with him behaving in a friendly and neighbourly way as might befit a local policeman, but after the most minimal exposure to his visitor, he turns into a violently obsessed man. Why? There is no backstory to this - and as the manhunt proceeds, and concludes, the story itself makes less and less sense. It's quite short and the first half is good, but afterwards it just slips into the ridiculous with an ending full of impressive pyrotechnics but little more substantial than a warning that we ought to expect a sequel.

**_Action/adventure masterpiece about a one-man-army_**
Vietnam vet John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) drifts into a Rocky Mountain town looking for a war buddy, only to learn that he died due to exposure to Agent Orange the prior summer. The town's sheriff (Brian Dennehy) tries to steer Rambo out of town and winds up arresting him. Big mistake because Rambo is an ex-Green beret, a virtual one-man-army, who takes on both the police and the National Guard using jungle warfare tactics.
"First Blood" (1982) is an action/adventure of the first order. It's easy to lose sight of this in light of the two comic book sequels that made a caricature of John Rambo: "Rambo: First Blood Part II" (1985) and "Rambo III" (1988). Thankfully, the series made up for it with the outstanding "Rambo" in 2008, which is grim, gritty and deep.
The Great Northwest locations are picturesque, albeit drizzly and dreary, while Dennehy is perfect as the arrogant, pushy sheriff. He essentially plays the same role in the Western "Silverado" (1985) albeit his character in that film is even worse.
Stallone is in his physically prime here, although he's not quite as bulked-up as in the two sequels. His waist is only about 27-28 inches and his chest isn't all that big, although his arms and shoulders are certainly impressive. Anyway, one good byproduct of seeing "First Blood" is that it'll inspire guys to get back in shape or get in better shape.
Stallone is outstanding in the role of Rambo. He doesn't have many lines; most of his acting is non-verbal. At the end Rambo finally lets out all his pent-up rage by screaming out: "Over there (in Vietnam) I was in charge of million dollar equipment, over here I can't even hold a job PARKING CAAAARRRRRRSSSSS!!!"
I'm not normally into DVD commentaries and rarely blow the time to listen to them, but the one featured on the Special Edition DVD by writer David Morrell is very worthwhile. Morrell talks the entire 90-minute length of the film and offers a wealth of information, like the differences between the film and his novel, how the movie set many precedents in the action/adventure genre, the incredible way he came up with the name Rambo, the 3-Act story structure of motion pictures, etc. Make no mistake, David Morrell is a genius.
It doesn't matter how many times you've seen "First Blood." The film has such a captivating anointing you'll be spellbound from start to finish every time. If you’re a sucker for lost-in-the-woods/survival pictures "First Blood" is a must.
The film runs 1 hour, 33 minutes, and was shot in beautiful Hope and Golden Ears Provincial Park, British Columbia.
GRADE: A