camillomanera

I do not understand how critics (Rotten & co.) can give 45% to this movie. They say it is predictable, I say it is so unpredictable that, sometimes, the plot is too much intricate. They say it is over lasting, I say it takes each minute to give me something, something good. They say it misses originality, I say it is an idea, a new one, a mix of Nazi/Alchemy/critic to modern society and so on. Photography literally amazing, as it is set in a magic place, up to Swiss mountains. The actors are playing their role perfectly. Villains and protagonist, everyone is giving something more to this movie. Really, suggested. Mystery, Suspense and a present for the eyes.It is not a 10 just because some secondary parts in the plot are really not fully explained. There remain - at the end - some "black spot" in the story. P.S. Life (horror with Jake Gyllenhaal) has a higher rating. I guess many of these "critics" should change profession.

What made Martin Campbell's Casino Royale, and Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace an innovative success? It was not the plot, full of twists as many other Bonds in past. It wasn't due to the special effects, which were much used in Brosnan's movies too. It was not the English charm of Craig, and I do not need explanation for this. Well, I worked on my theory and finally I decided that existed 3 Bonds in total, in spite of the seven actors who played that role. The first Bond was The Bond: Sean Connery; a strong super human, charming, the embodiment of perfection and courage, with a special agent's physique due role. He was the real incarnation of Ian Fleming's character. Then all the other Bonds till Craig and finally, the third, Daniel Craig. However Craig lost the mysterious charm that was surrounding Connery, he brought back Bond in state of credibility. Craig was suffering, really suffering. He had pains, addictions, age, he definitely had really human problems. And many time, during the first two movies, he was overcoming seemingly insuperable obstacles, in a very human way: just fighting. He was fighting such as anybody, with a survival instinct, would do. For sure less charming of the predecessors, but more credible, and closer to the audience that could finally identify themselves with a new super human. He made possible to transfer the state of super humanity to the spectator. This has been the key of success of the Nolan's Batman too, but this is another story. I won't go further and I do not want to spoiler. I gave a disappointed 4 stars. The last Bond missed all these aspects, resulting in some granted, lacking surprises, sometimes ridiculous but very expansive and megalomaniac movie. The decline started already with Skyfall, and was very noticeable in the apex. But – at least – it was ruined only the final. I cannot save almost anything of this last Bond. I just save the very cured movie photography, the locations, and few other things. I hope the next movie won't be directed by Sam Mendes, who misunderstood this: nobody wanted an "expansive Steven Seagal's movie" (and Steven played in better action's movies then this one).