Bridge of Spies

Based on the 1960 U-2 incident during the cold war, Bridge of Spies is the story of James B. Donovan and his journey negotiating the release of Francis Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor from the Soviet Union after defending a KGB spy in his trial. He uses KGB Spy prisoner Rudolf Abel as a trade and as a source of bizarre friendship during the film. Written by the Coen brothers and Matt Charman and directed by Steven Spielberg, this film has the basic components for an Oscar winning film. Tom Hanks leads the relatively small core cast and isn't joined on screen by many other Hollywood a-listers. Although having said that, many smaller names such as Jesse Plemons were a welcome surprise to the films cast list even though his screen time was minimal.

The film's story, as I mentioned is based on true events, was gripping. The film flowed nicely from our introduction to Abel, to the court case, to Donovan's time in Germany. I felt the film was paced well and kept audience attention throughout. The setting for most of the film, Berlin, was a creative way of depicting additional international tensions alongside the main storyline revolving the US and the Soviet Union. One of the things that I found to be interesting was the way Abel was treated in the first third of the film. Although perceived to be the enemy, the way Spielberg focused on the nations opinion of Abel and Donovan as influenced by the media, is an insight into society today. We are so quick to judge when we're told the verdict by our 'trusted' media. For example, the drama surrounding the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. Many assume they know right from wrong, guilty from innocence because they've seen one, 10 part docu-series that has publicly acknowledged it's biased content. A nice touch was when the film circled back on itself. The final sequence mimics an earlier one where we first see the public opinion of Donovan and his work. But this time, he's given a polite smile of gratitude before gazing out the window to be reminded of his time in Germany.

Tom Hanks, whom I most recently saw in a Carly Rae Jepson music video, was great. I cannot fault his performance. He certainly stood strong and proud, as I suppose we would wish of any lawyer defending human rights. I think what struck me about his performance was that the role wasn't noteworthy. In fact, the story could be considered lack lustre too. Hanks brings attention to the film because of his existing reputation as an actor and performed well in a role that could have been overlooked had it been differently cast. I think as Hanks grows older, we will continue to see him tackle similar roles. Lawyers, fathers, officials of some capacity. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

I enjoyed this film and it's interpretation of the real events. Do I think it was Oscar nomination worthy? Perhaps not. The film was well constructed, acted and its themes were compelling. But what I felt the film lacked was punch. It didn't leave me speechless or, better yet, wanting to talk about it until my throat hurt. Having just seen the Revenant, this felt like it had a more subtle impact. Perhaps my opinion comes down to timing. Had I seen it before DiCaprio's film, I might have felt differently.

Creed

I knew that this review would be hard to write for several reasons. One, I've never seen any Rocky films. Two, I thoroughly dislike the likes of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Rourke. Not because I think they are bad actors, but because I feel like their time has passed and I feel like they're delusional to believe that they're not a faded, decrepit version of their once great selves. And three, boxing films have never been at the top of my 'must see' list.

All of that aside, I saw the newest Rocky instalment, Creed, today. Happy as I am that the film has taken on a new name despite being an obvious follow on from previous films, I still left feeling entirely unsure. Spin-offs and sequels like this are rarely popular but with the recent success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, I was willing to give the film the time and energy I would dedicate to any other cinema experience. Directed by Ryan Coogler, who is also the concept creator for the film, Creed follows the life and training of Apollo Creed's son with the help of a very weathered Rocky Balboa. The redeeming qualities within the film were resting on the shoulders of new title character Adonis Johnson Creed portrayed by Michael B. Jordan.

Jordan was the best part of this film. He was dedicated (clearly he worked incredibly hard to get into shape for this film), believable and actually had me enjoying large chunks of a film that I thought I would hate. I didn't think that I'd seen any of Jordan's previous works until it clicked on the way home from the cinema - Friday Night Lights. I binge watched the show last year and fell in love with (several of) the characters. Jordan played Vince, someone who would probably empathise a lot with Adonis. Once I started looking through the rest of his IMDB, I realised that Michael B. Jordan has a history of impressive and compelling work. He's a talented actor and hopefully he won't slip into the trap that action films can sometimes be. I'd love to watch him continue to stretch himself physically and emotionally to become a better and more noteworthy actor. 

The fight scenes, which some would argue is the focus of any good boxing film, were captivating. I was incredibly surprised at how much I loved these scenes, considering my predisposition of disdain towards boxing/fight films. But watching Jordan and his opponents go head to head in clearly, physically demanding, precisely choreographed scenes was hypnotising. My first thought throughout these scenes was that the training for this film must have been exhausting and that it was SO worth it. I'd love to know a little more about the preparation that went into these scenes and how they were shot/directed by Coogler. 

As I mentioned above, I left the cinema unsure. I felt like there were many areas that the film could have succeeded and propelled itself out of the shadows of its predecessors but instead it was almost stagnant. Creed should have developed itself as a step forward and then quickly ditched its attachment to Balboa. It's a horrible thing to wish on someone, even a fictional character, but I felt like Rocky should have died in this film. When he was diagnosed with cancer and initially refused treatment, it was my hope that he would die either just before or just after the fight. It would have been the perfect catalyst for Adonis to fight harder and would have solved the whole Stallone problem. The problem being he felt unnecessary. The film could have succeeded without him in my opinion.

Regardless, I think if Creed is to continue on to a sequel, I'll venture out again into the world of boxing. I did thoroughly enjoy Jordan's performance and his portrayal of this role. So, if you love boxing - go and see it. If you don't - maybe see something else. I can't say for certain whether or not this film was a hit or a miss. 

Room

Emma Donoghue's award winning Room has finally been adapted for film! The 2010 novel won over critics and global readers for it's unusual yet captivating plot told from the perspective of young Jack, a boy born in captivity. Jack and Ma live in the claustrophobic confinement of 'Room' until Ma is able to convince their captor, Old Nick, that Jack is deathly ill. A close escape follows and Jack is able to lead the police back to his mother and the two are freed. From this point onwards, the story focuses on recovery and is quite overwhelming.

The film adaptation follows the novel's storyline nearly exactly, which is to be expected considering Donoghue was the film's screenwriter. Directed by Lenny Abrahamson, the films aesthetics clearly captured Donoghue's vision and her intentions for the visual representation of her world. Abrahamson's previous works are similarly groundbreaking with the focus being primarily independent film. Other than his film Frank, with writers Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan, Room is likely to be his biggest success due to it's existing following since the release of the book.

Starring Brie Larson as Joy 'Ma' Newsome and Jacob Tremblay as Jack, Room has some of the best performances I've seen in some time. Larson in particular is compelling in her role. She truly encapsulates the frustration of the character both inside and outside of 'Room'. In particular, her interactions with Jack are challenging yet confirming in order to help him develop within such a small space. Larson seemed stretched at times when trying to accurately portray the mental struggle of her character, yet prevailed in becoming one of the strongest performances within the film. Her ability to portray such pain and helplessness will no doubt serve her well as she moves on to new productions in 2016.

As for Jacob Tremblay - such a young talent that I'm sure will continue to blossom. Not only has this young actor taken on an incredibly challenging role but is also taking on a role that has been established for the last five years by a top selling novel. Absolutely the shining beacon of light within this film, Tremblay was one hundred percent committed to his role. His interpretation of Jack was hard to watch at times as we witness him grow separately from his mother after they are freed from captivity. To take on the role of a character who has never known the world that Tremblay himself lives in, is challenging. But his performance was everything it needed to be. His soft facial features combined with the soft spoken nature of his character was a wonderful match. He was realistic in his portrayal and didn't overact the part which lead to a seamless transition between pre-world Jack and post-world Jack. 

There is no surprise that this film is gaining the attention of film critics and film lovers worldwide. With a Golden Globe already won, Room is hopefully going to collect a few more accolades as the 2016 award season continues.

South Park and Television Violence

With Television fast becoming the most popular medium of entertainment for people across the world, it is no surprise that the government is increasing its involvement. For years, television has been victim to increasing censorship in what seems like all but one area – animation. With other formats such as talk shows and reality television kept to strict limits, it is surprising that some forms of adult animation continues to portray the taboo with little to no consequences. In particular, the use of violence, or rather the overuse of extreme violence, goes unpunished in the world of adult animation. Within the context of American Animation designed for television, the debate regarding television violence continues on today after nearly 25 years. In 1990, American President, George Bush, signed the Television Violence Act. This granted the ‘TV networks, cable operators, and independent stations three years of immunity from antitrust regulations to allow them to establish guidelines for TV violence’ (Foerstel, 1997:216). Since then there has been several studies conducted to prove that the violence shown on TV has direct consequences especially in regards to children. And even when the child’s behaviour is not effected, it often desensitises them to more extreme forms of violence. In a way, adult animation is akin to a gateway drug, providing a comfortable situation that seems innocent enough when in actuality it is dulling our perception of what is acceptable. After all, if it’s portrayed on television, can it really be that bad?

Animation seems to be one format of television that continues to break boundaries and challenge the limits of censorship and those set by the Television Violence Act. South Park in particular has made a name for itself by displaying vulgar characters and plot lines that are often protested in response. Often the episodes upset the general public, the government and on occasion, religious groups because of the depiction of subject matter that is widely considered ‘taboo’. ‘Parker and Stone’s gleeful determination to be equal opportunity offenders’ result in an abundance of enemy’s and public bodies prepared to try and take the cartoon series off air (Stratyner, Keller 2009:6). Before each episode, creators of the show Trey Parker and Matt Stone present us with their own personal take on the ‘mature content/parental guidance suggested’ warning that is satirical and becomes somewhat of a foreshadow of the shows lack of consideration for the rules and regulations in place. Still, the boys from South Park have been on our television screens for over 15 years.

Society has been evolving to slowly accept increasingly radical images of violence. The internet has allowed a new generation to access to disturbing content with a single click. There are sites dedicated to images and video files of people dying. With this information so accessible, television audiences are no longer surprised by the same story lines that they used to be. Now in order to shock, writers have to push the boundaries of censorship and create images that only a decade ago would have caused nationwide uproar. The research that promotes the assertion, that exposure to television violence frequently has the ‘effect of desensitising people to violence and increasing violent and aggressive behaviour’, is widely supported (Murtagh, 2007:34). Consistently trying to controversial, South Park is popular in part, because people are tuning in to see what they will do next. They push the limits further than any other format on TV today. But when analysing a show like South Park, it is important to decipher whether or not you’re offended by the events in the show because of their nature or if you’re offended because they are courageous enough to talk about it. Whilst most shows on television still opt for the less controversial route to the same destination, the straight forward offensiveness of South Park garners the majority of the attention. In many cases South Park is simply insensitive about a subject, so much so that it is protested. However, in the cases of government involvement in banning the show from certain countries, it is hard not to consider that the opposing party was merely annoyed at a situation being brought to light.

Cartoon boys telling each other to do obscene things and to act in certain ways is considered dangerous to the thousands of impressionable children watching. And it is no surprise that only the adults are contesting the show. ‘An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day’ (Nielsen Media, 2004/5:132). Children grow up wanting to do the things that they cannot do, and as a result many grow up watching explicit material either on TV or on Film. South Park has managed to escape criticism for a lot of their work because they have never deliberately targeted the show towards children. However, as a cartoon, the show immediately appeals to a younger audience and combined with the content, which would make their parents wince, South Park suddenly becomes a must see show amongst young teens. And although society is not as easily shocked as it once was, there is still a universal agreement that we should be a certain age before being able to watch certain material.

Parents and activist groups have found South Park to be a repeat offender in influencing bad behaviour in kids. ‘A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence on children find that there is a high correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times violent behaviour’ (Martin 2003: 6). Obviously this is largely to do with the plot lines, language and imagery but some of this is partially to do with the continued representation of the main characters, a group of young boys. ‘Not a single character in South Park elicits a complicated emotional reaction from the viewer. Indeed, through the portrayal of repeated violent acts, the viewer becomes immune to the “reality” of this violence and is discouraged from registering any emotional reaction’ (Halsall 2009:33). Combined with the belief that viewers are being desensitised by television, merging explicit content with simple characters that do not use intellectual thought or consideration in many of their interactions, it’s understandable that our generation may be on a downward spiral towards inferior understanding of basic social situations.

Animation is a format that brings in large audiences and has done so since its beginning. In part because it is the simplest way of capturing the ‘hearts and imaginations of children and adults alike’ (Browne, Browne 2001:141). The rise of the adult cartoon in the last decade has pushed the genre to the forefront of everyone’s attention. And brings into question the reason behind its popularity. Cartoons provide comfort to adults as it reminds them of their childhood. Saturday morning cartoons, a childhood staple for many children across the world, provided the foundation for many of the shows on television today. Many American shows such as Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy use basic animated slapstick like the skits often seen in their predecessors over twenty years ago. The reason why these cartoons are popular amongst adults is because of this familiarity. They seek comfort in a format that hasn’t evolved its basic form in years. Yes, technology and its advancements has improved the quality significantly, but when stripped back to their core, shows like South Park could just as easily be a glorified Beavis and Butthead. Animation is able to avoid certain censorship issues because of this. The format doesn’t intimate its viewers, even with its sometimes provocative material. It sits almost docile in the background, unassuming and unobtrusive. So much so that animation only makes headlines when a show steps so far over the line that it would be impossible not to notice. Many institutions have attempted to change the content of animation over the years to be a controversial medium that is subjected to blacklisting, censorship and boycotts in an attempt to promote the popularity of the genre.

As afore mentioned, South Park manages to avoid repercussions for refusing to conform. In many ways, these shows are important as they remind society of why we have censorship rules in the first place. Perhaps containing the majority of television violence to one genre allows for the outlet that people need without polluting our screens with every sadistic detail. It’s important to have extremes in society to remind us why we need discipline and structure. Even though censorship can be limiting at times, it is an important part of modern culture because it can refine the relationship between the government and its people as well as its control over the constituents. It is often thought that censorship reflects ‘the moral tone of the country’ and that we are protected from the things that we cannot handle (Cohen, 1997:5). If South Park were to be censored, its unlikely audiences would see the same turmoil between evil (Cartman/Government) and the reflective moral voice of reason (Stan or Kyle/the people). And with governmental turmoil sweeping European countries, this comparison is more relevant now than ever before. When considering ‘censorship as a necessary evil’, there is always an exception to the rule. In this particular case of television violence, adult animation is that exception (Marshik, 2006:129). Sometimes in order for things to grow and progress within a genre, there needs to be limitations, however, animation have proved time and time again that no boundaries will stop the creative process.

Is it possible that we are becoming too protective over our children and the things that they watch? It is entirely possible that too much consideration has gone into a very basic issue. ‘Often in matters of censorship, the intended context is moot. When someone believes that it represents something entirely different perception becomes reality’ (Nuzum, 2001:2). Or maybe, we have overlooked South Park and shows like it simply because they provide the adult mind with stimulation, forgetting that it could be having a more extreme effect on the next generation. With the minds of our future leaders at risk, society is questioning censorship within television but is yet to make any real steps towards limiting the risqué content. Protested largely because it highlights many modern day issues that often go undiscussed on a public podium, South Park is the prime example of a long disputed show that has yet to face real consequences. And because of this, we have to accept that some formats are not subjected to the same rules and regulations that apply to all others.

Animation, with its comfortable aesthetic and familiar tones, lures audience into a secure world that deals openly and hilariously with the taboo matters in society. And although contested by world famous actors and world renowned politicians, the show has not slowed down since its launch. Censorship in prime time television has been increasing with many shows cutting out swear words, suggestive imagery and over sexualisation of characters. Whereas, after the watershed, programs predictably push the limits of acceptable behaviour on TV. Series’ like South Park paved the way for other ludicrous shows to continue to make leaps and bounds forward in the war against censorship. Battling governments and celebrities alike, South Park has used its popularity to stay alive and to contest the notion that audiences dislike the unspoken truths in society.


Bibliography

Browne, Ray and Browne, Pat (2001) The Guide to United States Popular Culture, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press

Cohen, Karl F (1997) Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers

Foerstel, Herbert (1997) Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia, Connecticut, Greenwood Press

Halsall, Alison (2008) ‘Bigger Longer & Uncut’ in Taking South Park Seriously, New York, State University of New York Press

Keller, James and Stratyner, Leslie (2009) ‘Introduction: An Unofficial Explanation and Brief History of South Park’ in The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Televisions Shocking Cartoon Series, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers

Marshik, Celia (2006) British Modernism and Censorship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Martin, Kevin (2003) Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children, Washington D.C, Diane Publishing Inc

Murtagh, Kevin (2007) ‘Blasphemous Humour in South Park’ in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing

Nielsen Media (2004/5) Nielsen Media Research, New York, Nielsen Media

Nuzum, Eric (2001) Parental Advisory, London, HarperCollins

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

To my wonderful boyfriend and Star Wars fans who haven't yet seen this film - this review will have spoilers so you better avert your eyes!

Back with a bang! The Star Wars franchise, now owned by the Disney corporation, is back in cinemas with a whole host of new and familiars faces. Directed by J.J Abrams, The Force Awakens is set to be the first in the Star Wars sequel trilogy following on from the events in Return of the Jedi. After 30 years, fans are thrust back into the world that George Lucas originally created to discover that the First Order has risen and is hunting to kill Luke Skywalker - the last 'Jedi'. We are reunited with Leia and learn that the Resistance are hoping to find Luke and first and save him - and have him save them. Throughout we are treated to callbacks to previous films, a touch that felt unnecessary at times but was likely included to appease die hard fans. The pacing was great and did not feel rushed which allowed for such moments to take place. But clearly keeping the fans happy was not the primary goal of this film. The creators are clearly trying to link this film to its predecessors but are also distinguishing the film as a powerhouse of it's own. 

***SPOILERS*** 

Perhaps killing Han Solo is the only way to move this film on from the popular storyline of the first six films. The way that Kylo Ren seems conflicted in his actions, after all he is Solo and Leia's son, could imply possible redemption in future instalments. However, I do believe 'once a villain, always a villain'. It's one thing to fall to the dark side, but to discover light seems like too big a challenge even for Ren at this point.This death allows fans and the general masses to move their attention towards Ren and the younger generation.

The new faces that I mentioned were led by Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Adam Driver (sort of - he will likely be recognised more for his role in Star Wars than his role in HBO's Girls). Isaac, thought to be dead shortly after the film's opening fight scenes, makes a return with the Resistance to save his new allies. Although he wasn't featured heavily, I feel that Poe, the character played by Isaac, may become the Han Solo of the new films as pilot Rey moves towards embracing the force and becoming a Jedi.

Ridley was spectacular. I found it took some time to warm up to her and her style of acting - which I would say seems very much based in theatre - but once I did, I found her character, Rey, to be completely believable and her portrayal compelling. It is my belief that her character will be revealed as a relative of either Obi Wan Kenobi or Qui-Gon Jinn. I don't think the creators of this new season are stupid enough to focus on another brother and sister storyline which is why I'm thinking she's not related to Leia or Luke. I'm hoping that with the next film, we delve further into her origin story and get the answers to some of the questions that this film simply did not answer.

Boyega was another pleasant surprise. A true light within the film with most of his actions geared towards doing what is right, he provides the film with a one giant helping of heart and hope. His character, Finn, has real gumption and determination which Boyega accurately portrays. I felt like he was one of the characters that will have an interesting twist in future films and that it may involve either family or losing Rey to the darkside.

As for Driver, portraying villain and Vader grandson Kylo Ren, his face was hidden for a large portion of the film but was revealed for the last third. He was distant but almost sympathetic which is what I think will propel the character into the hearts of fans. He is the best direction for this film to follow and dare I say, a better baddie than even some of the best - I'm looking at you Vader! 

The return of Han, Chewbacca, Leia, Luke and several other Star Wars classic characters was a lovely sight to see. They have helped introduce old fans to a new film but hopefully they will feature slightly less in the upcoming films. I only say this because I think the new cast is strong enough to hold the fort on their own. The films humour, from both new and old characters, was a great touch. Throughout there were jokes and hilarious gestures that had me giggling quietly in my seat. And with adorable BB-8 pulling out the 'awes' this film had everything I needed.

Seeing the film in 3D was a little overwhelming. I felt overloaded at times by my senses but wouldn't have opted for anything else. The best way to see any new blockbuster is at a cinema and in the best possible seat with the best quality screen that you can find. I've never been a huge Star Wars fan, I've seen every film but I've never felt any allegiance to the characters or the franchise. But now, I'm excited to see how this new cast, with the odd familiar character, will develop next year in Rogue One.

Burnt

Directed by John Wells with a screenplay by Steven Knight, Burnt is the story of Adam Jones as he tries to reclaim the respect of his peers and finally get his third Michelin star after a troublesome past in Paris. Focusing on this star, Jones moves to London and reconnects with old friends (and enemies) with the hope of reestablishing his career as one of the most talented chefs in the world. After facing several setbacks, due to his drug history and his tendency to be an asshole, Jones' restaurant takes shape and soon the world is taking interest. It is worth noting, that this film's twist was unexpected and excellently executed. But I wont mention the moment in this review as the film has only just been released in the UK. 

Adam Jones is the typical rebellious, creative mind. His own arrogance stands in his way at nearly every juncture, and his obsessive nature makes for stressful viewing. However, I would say that Cooper's performance was spot on. Cooper is known mostly for films that fall at either end of the spectrum - award winning or forgettable. In a radio interview, Cooper explained how he was adamant that he master the lingo and the actions required to be convincing as a chef. He claimed he has worked previously in a kitchen and that this was a good starting point for what was going to be a long journey of education. Joined on screen by Sienna Miller, he quickly appeared comfortable in the role and was frankly a delight to watch - despite the character's personality, being at times, unbearable. 

Speaking of Miller, whilst her character was a welcome addition to the film's overall cast, I felt the inclusion of a romance subplot was unnecessary. Personally, I would have preferred if the film had focused solely on the food and the road to a Michelin star (or three, as this chef aims for). The blossoming love story between Adam and Helene cheapened the film and felt like a last minute addition to the plot in order to appeal to wider audiences. For example, my mother was disappointed by the film because she wanted it to explore more of the relationship between Adam and Helene... Needless to say, I was disappointed by her observation. Furthermore, Helene being a mother added nothing to the film. Literally nothing. Wasted screen time and money trying to make a character more relatable and likeable. I would have preferred ten extra minutes of Adam Jones talking about how amazing he is.

Daniel Brühl's performance was another pleasant addition to the cast. Not only because I see so much of him in a French, Sommelier friend of mine, but because he was convincing in the role. I haven't noticed Brühl in his other films despite having seen many, but will certainly be keeping my eye out for him in the future. Hopefully his efforts are recognised by heavy hitters in the industry who have roles that will test, challenge and inspire him to do more films in mainstream Hollywood. Hopefully leading to more Brühl on our screens and more recognition for his hard work.

As for the film's overall aesthetic. An obvious amount of scenes were created and manipulated in order to display the cooking and the food. Please do not make the mistake that I made and eat before you see Burnt. Otherwise, you'll be rushing home to cook up some store bought meal that will make you sigh with disappointment in comparison to the dishes seen on film. The inclusion of frequent French language (and therefore subtitles) was an interesting decision but didn't hinder the film's progression in anyway. The use was natural and flowed amongst the scenes. After the first few times, it is easy to forget that the characters are speaking a different language. It'll be interesting to read the reviews for this film as they begin trickling out. I'm not yet sure whether it will be making as big an impact as the cast and crew would think, but then again it is entirely possible for a film like this to surprise us all come award season.  

Spectre

James Bond is back. Daniel Craig returns, yet again, as Ian Fleming's infamous spy. Spectre is a continuation of Craig's previous appearances in the series and follows him on a journey across the world to discover and defeat an enemy organisation, Spectre. The film has several references to the previous Daniel Craig Bond films and features an interesting scene where Bond walks through a derelict MI6 building and is confronted by pictures of enemies and loved ones from previous films. This format, of continuing a story line instead of having stand alone films, has come at a time when the Bond films are moving towards a more accurate representation of the character and themes seen in the original books. 

Honesty time! Daniel Craig has never been my favourite Bond... I've been very vocal to fans of the films in the past about how the actor has never captured my attention and how I lost interest after his first appearance in Casino Royale. Even in a film that is arguably one of the best written Bond instalments, supported by brilliant actors and shot by brilliant creative minds - Craig was the least interesting thing in the film for me. I kind of wish he'd kept his mask on from the beginning of the film (which was an opening sequence that was shot beautifully and should be the envy of many filmmakers in the industry). It is an unpopular opinion but I cannot help but feel like Brosnan would have been more convincing. I'm looking forward to the regeneration of the Bond films when they eventually cast a new lead. This may re-ignite my love for the character and his adventures.

One of the things I was thoroughly looking forward to in this film was that the 'Bond girl' was going to be an appropriate age. For years, we've been watching this womanising spy lure and seduce younger women who become his companion for the duration of one film before he quickly discards them. However, for a change, Spectre was said to heavily feature Monica Bellucci. A woman who is actually four years older than her male co-star. All of the promotional material, from magazines to television interviews, suggested she would be a Bond girl and that James Bond was turning a corner towards more appropriately aged Bond girls. Even Craig himself spoke about how it was high time his character was with someone who was age appropriate in an interview with The Red Bulletin. But the reality is, Bellucci's character was simply another notch in Bond's belt. Appearing on screen for no more than 10 minutes, Bellucci provides information (and her body) to Bond before he disappears and becomes romantically attached to Madeleine Swan. Swan is played by Léa Seydoux, a beautiful woman - 17 years Craig's junior. The costumes, particularly those seen on Léa Seydoux, made me envious and gave us moments of what felt like 40s Hollywood glamour. The scene in which Bond and Swan are waiting for Oberhauser to collect them in the desert, is perhaps a perfect example of the aesthetics within Spectre being inspired by 1940s fashion and Hollywood glamour.

Andrew Scott was a surprising but welcome addition to Spectre. Playing the role of Max Denbigh, or 'C', Scott is a watered down version of his Sherlock character. With the same devious smile and mannerisms as Moriarity, C doesn't quite kill anyone himself but he is certainly responsible for many deaths worldwide. Partnered with Bond's enemy Oberhauser, he's taken over MI6 and plans to take control of the world's surveillance systems to help benefit the Spectre organisation. I find Andrew Scott's choice of roles to be limited - from what I've seen of him thus far - but excellently executed, which suggests that if Scott wanted to, he really could play a multitude of diverse roles. I do enjoy him as the sinister, smartly dressed character that he portays in both Spectre and Sherlock, and would love to see him develop his talent and choose more challenging roles.

The film has received astounding reviews and is already a huge hit with fans of both the films and the books. Admittedly, the plot was smart and I enjoyed the references to previous films. I thought that the opening sequence in Mexico city, shot in one continuous take, was captivating and a wonderful opening to a film that clearly attempts to adopt more artistic cinematography than its predecessors. Spectre moved at a steady pace without boring the audience which was helped by moments of comedic relief inbetween the high octane fight scenes. However, despite an otherwise wonderful film, I am still struggling to find Craig convincing as Bond. I cannot help but groan when he's seducing his many women and feel disinterested when he is supposed to be compelling. It seems that my days of enjoying Bond films are over unless I can some how get over my distain for the current Bond, James Bond.