My Favourite Films This Year: A Review of 2014

The odd thing about doing end of year round-ups is that I tend to find it easier to be disappointed with the films I've not managed to see during the year, than to actually pick my favourites from those I DID see!  So despite my best intentions I managed to miss a number of critical big hitters this year (Boyhood, Under The Skin, etc), but there were a lot of other strong films I did manage to see, fortunately.  In fact, it was quite hard to finalise this list, but I think I've chosen 5 films that really have stood out in my mind, and gave me a very memorable movie viewing experience.

I don't like to try and put any of my picks in any particular order - I think these films are all tremendous in their own rights, so I think it's unfair to judge them against each other - but I'll start with the not one, but two films that (if you follow this blog) are the most obvious...

Captain America: The Winter Soldier / Guardians of the Galaxy

Despite coming from the same studio, it further highlights just how well Marvel are handling their properties when these films are so different, yet both so successful in their own right.  The Winter Soldier was quite a surprise, due to the way it attempted to say something about current affairs and politics (in the light of increasing surveillance and drone warfare) - something Marvel films had previously not tried to do.  As well as being a smart thriller, it had killer action scenes, and a BIG twist that really shook up the Marvel Studio's movies in a big way.  It even became a pop-culture event as 'Hail Hydra' began trending its way across social networks etc.  And to think, some people say Captain America is Marvel's most boring character..?

Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't need any introductions - which is weird to think that, earlier in the year when the first trailer dropped, it was still considered a huge gamble for Marvel Studios.  But it proved to be an absolute juggernaut - dominating the Box Office, earning high critical praise, and gaining a big fan following.  And deservedly so, as it was possibly the most flat-out fun you could have at the movies this year.  It put Director James Gunn on the map, made a star from lead Chris Pratt, and proved that Marvel Studios, at the moment, just cannot put a foot wrong.

Here's what I said about The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy earlier this year...

The Lego Movie

Yeah, sorry, you've got that song in your head now, haven't you?  But before this year, who would have thought that a) a film based on Lego would work AT ALL, and b) that it would be as outrageously good as it is?  A true Family film, one that can be enjoyed at many levels and speaks to adults and kids (of all ages); it has a wild visual style, and is genuinely funny - and gets funnier with repeat viewings, as the makers densely filled it with so many background visual gags and one-liners.

My review of The Lego Movie from back in February...

Pride

The best British film of the year is one that is uproariously funny, uplifting, sometimes moving - but has a relevance to today's society and politics.  If there was one film that should be watched by all audiences this year, it should be this.  Not only does it provide great entertainment, hopefully it might make people reflect on the current state of politics in this country, and encourage us all to work together to address the problems we face - and not to single out and blame people who aren't the cause of them.

Here's what I said about Pride back in September...

The Babadook

One of the best offerings of its genre in years, this was a genuinely affecting Horror due to the way it handled a very real and relatable situation, at once wringing every ounce of fear, dread and tension from it - whilst never losing the perspective of its two central characters.  Helped by two superb performances, effective production design, and understated yet creepy effects work, this film gave me genuine chills.  It cleverly evokes primal childhood fears at the same time as highlighting very real ones any adult who is a parent might have.  And, crucially for a Horror, the titular spook gave me cold, fearful sweats...

My other thoughts on The Babadook from October...


As I said, it was tough to pick this list as there were other films I really, really enjoyed this year and would recommend - honourable mentions should go to '71, The Guest, X-Men Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, Nightcrawler, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The BoxTrolls, and Dallas Buyer's Club amongst others...

I know some critics like to pick the 'worst' film of the year - if I know a film is going to be terrible (e.g. the latest Adam Sandler 'comedy' vehicle) I try to avoid it.  But having said that there will inevitably be films that don't live up to expectations.  To that end, I would have to say that the film I was most disappointed with in 2014 was...

The Amazing Spiderman 2

Looking back I was, perhaps, too harsh with my review - I know a lot of people enjoyed it, and I can admit that it is a moderately entertaining, passable blockbuster, with a few moments of thrilling effects and action spectacle.  However, given that Spiderman is probably in the top three most popular and recognisable Superhero characters, with 50 years of history and some truly great and memorable story-lines and moments in his comics, 'moderately entertaining' and 'passable' really are not good enough.  It is pretty tragic that Sony seem to be wasting the potential of this character and his franchise, as exemplified by the fact that this film not only made the same mistakes as its predecessor (leaving some plot lines open, whilst tying others in an unsatisfactory manner), but it also committed the cardinal sin of making an absolute convoluted mess of its plot.  By comparison the disappointing Spider-man 3 is a successful film - at least that one knew which story it wanted to tell, and did so without leaving loose ends.  It is a real shame, also, that the tremendous work of Andrew Garfield (this role clearly means so much to him) and Emma Stone is overshadowed by the plot problems.  Some people might have been able to overlook the narrative issues (and that's before you get on to the wasted and at times campy portrayal of the films villains), but when you're dealing with a character of this calibre, who has so many potentially great stories to put on screen, the effort was simply not good enough.


So that concludes my review of 2014.  2015 is looking an exciting year for big event movies, but hopefully there'll be some real gems from the rest of the movie world in between them, too.  Thanks for reading, and see you in the New Year!

Films you can watch at Christmas - that aren't actually Christmas films...

Okay, whether you're a Scrooge or a Kris Kringle, you can't avoid it - it's that time of year, and whether you step foot outside or stay in and switch on your TV, Christmas is going to hit you about the face until you submit to the time of year.  I've always enjoyed Christmas as a time of year to get together with family, enjoy some nice food, and have a bit of time off work - though I find the weeks-long advertising bombardment (usually starting early November) hugely annoying.  There are several movies that, especially if you have kids, are great to watch in the run up to Christmas if you're looking to get in a festive mood - depending what generation you are, there are highly regarded favourites such as 'It's a Wonderful Life', 'A Christmas Story', 'Scrooged', or 'Elf'.  But is it still possible to watch a film to get in to the Festive mood, without getting overwhelmed by heart-warming happy endings or (occasionally) saccharine over-sentimentality?

Fortunately, the answer is yes; yes you can.  For there are several great movies that are as far from being Christmas Movies as it it's possible - but because of being set at this time of year, they are completely acceptable to watch in the run up to Christmas.  We're talking Action thrillers, Superheroes and pitch-black humoured Dramas - yet each one of them are almost guaranteed to put you in a Festive mood!  Here are just some of my favourites, and nary a Reindeer or 'real' Santa in sight!

Filth: depicting a corrupt Police Detective's sex, drink, and drug fuelled mental decline, this film has a subject matter that's as far from your usual heart-warming Christmas fayre as possible.  But the fact that much of the film is set during the Festive Season - with trimmings around many of the sets, and Christmas parties being part of the shenanigans - it makes it perfectly acceptable to watch at this time of the year.  Besides, if there ever was a reason to re-watch James McAvoy's superb performance as Bruce Robertson, then Christmas is a good excuse!

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: Christmas parties, trimmings and Christmas displays in Toy Stores give this sharply scripted and witty modern-noir a distinctly festive setting.  Shane Black directs form his script, and Robert Downey Jr gives a great performance which arguably put him on the come-back trail, contributing to his rise to super-stardom as Iron Man!  Speaking of which...

Iron Man 3: Shane Black scripts and directs again, and the guy clearly has a thing for the festive season - not only do Christmas presents (over-sized stuff rabbit?!), and Christmas a fireworks display (as his suits self-destruct), but the film starts at a New Year's Party - and the biggest one in recent memory, as it was the Millennium Eve!  For me, personally, there is never a reason NOT to watch any of the Marvel Studios movies, but this one is tailor-made for this time of year...

Die Hard: for me, this is THE perennial Christmas Movie.  In my household it's not Christmas until John McClaine has shot some terrorists and written 'NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN. HO HO HO' on the sweatshirt of one of their corpses..! Not only is it one of the greatest action movies ever, it's also a legitimate Christmas movies due to it being set on Christmas Eve, and many scenes having Christmas trees and trimmings in the background.  It also uses a classic festive song to unforgettable effect: altogether now - 'Oh, the weather outside is frightful...'


I'm sure there are others - I've kept away from horrors like 'Black Christmas' as, even though they're not uplifting Seasonal fayre, they're still OBVIOUSLY Christmas films...  If you can think of any other movies that are perfect Christmas viewing - despite not being Christmas films! - then please leave a comment below.

And it goes without saying, have a great Holiday Season, whether you're celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, or just the prospect of time off with family and friends - and a good film (or two)...

Sadly, the very brief cameo by this psychotic santa (on a day off from directing in Middle-earth) means 'Hot Fuzz' can't feature...

Movie Review: The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies - a muffled flourish to a misjudged trilogy...

 

Now don't get me wrong, but I loved The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  I had never read the books, but the efforts of Peter Jackson and his dedicated crew of artisans, technicians and actors made Middle Earth and its occupants a place that, like so many fans of the novels, I was sucked in to.  I cared about the characters, and marveled at this epic piece of story-telling; and, yes, I shed manly tears at points as 'Return of the King' drew to a close.  These films were an undisputed triumph, and gave Jackson pretty much a free pass to do whatever he wanted.

Sadly, people will look back on his second Middle Earth trilogy less fondly.  Whilst it has had its admirers (not to mention strong Box Office), many of those would be hard pressed to admit that these films fully justify spreading the comparatively-slightest Middle Earth book to a Trilogy.  The first film ('An Unexpected Journey') just about made it, due to the way in which it evoked a lot of warm nostalgia for how immersive and lovingly made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was - though it almost collapsed under Sylvester McCoy's unfortunate cross-eyed wizardry.  The second film, 'Desolation of Smaug', really demonstrated the folly of stretching this book over three films, with a number of aimless shots of characters walking from one side of the screen to the other, and an infuriatingly pointless romantic sub-plot.

'The Battle of Five Armies' therefore has a difficult job - to make up of the short-comings of the previous film, and justify the decision to stretch one book over three films (besides Box Office takings...).  At the very least it promises a stonking great battle, and Lord of the Rings demonstrated that Peter Jackson is very good at pulling those off.  Whilst there is some spectacular action and battling going on, sadly this film doesn't really resolve some of the additional plot elements added to the source material in convincing manner.  There are also a couple of plot holes, and issues like forgotten characters demonstrate that Jackson and his writing team don't quite have the story-telling skill required to expand The Hobbit in to the Middle Earth prequel they were wanting.

Thorin is about the only character who gets anything approaching a development arc in this film...

The film starts with a couple of scenes that really should have been the finale to 'Desolation of Smaug' (and arguably might have made that film a more satisfying experience) - the Dragon's attack on Lake Town, and the rescue of Gandalf from Dol Godur and the clutches of The Necromancer (the saga's true big-bad, Sauron).  One sequence is arguably the more effective - the showdown with Smaug is tense and doom-laden, almost apocalyptic.  Whereas the confrontation with the Necromancer is disappointingly brief, especially after the return of beloved characters from the original trilogy, culminating in almost psychedelic and bewildering flash of imagery.

Things are then maneuvered in to place to set up the titular confrontation, and whereas the Lord of the Rings managed to successfully balance a multitude of characters and locations without ever losing the audience's investment in any of them, this film doesn't quite pull off the same feat.  Whilst there is enough development in some characterisation that makes certain actions and choices understandable, in other characters this isn't the case - which makes their appearance, and choices seem a tad convenient.  For example, as Thorin (Richard Armitage) is initially consumed by 'Dragon's sickness' and greed for the treasure, it's never made clear why the other Dwarfs don't see the problem the way Bilbo (Martin Freeman) does, nor try to intervene.  Herelies one of the significant areas this trilogy fails in comparison to its predecessor - several of the central 'Dwarf Company' are pretty much background characters and rendered almost forgettable; unlike the Lord of the Ring‘s 'Fellowship', where each was clearly defined and given moments that showed growth and change resulting from the journey they've taken - as well as some fun and often air-punchingly great heroic moments.

Yet strangely, even when they're little more than window dressing, each actor seems fully committed to their role, and to the depth and richness of the world Jackson and his team are committing to film.  Because Middle Earth and its varying landscapes, settings and cultures look as great as ever.  And, initially, the battle scenes are as spectacular as those in the first trilogy.  The sight of massed ranked infantry, thousands of warriors, assembled on vast plains before great edifices, are spectacularly realised; and the moments when battle is joined, and warriors connect in a clash of blade on armour, is especilaly thrilling.  Sadly this impetus isn‘t sustained as well as it was in the original trilogy - the battle moves to an urban setting which at once creates a negative comparison with the Siege of Minas Tirith from 'Return of the King', and suffers from a lack of geographical focus, making it difficult to follow what is happening or where.  The battle is almost entirely abandoned for an isolated showdown between the film's heroes and villain stand-ins Azog and Bolg, and then is resolved by the convenient arrival of Eagles.  It almost feels anti-climactic, which isn't helped that, as stated above, not enough is done to define all the characters or justify their storyline.

Middle Earth, and its armies, look as good as they ever have done across all six films...

So, does this film justify the decision to spread this book over a trilogy?  Well, despite the fact that it doesn't feel as unnecessarily stretched as 'Smaug' did, there are still scenes and the odd shot that feel like they could have been left out and make no impact on the story overall.  Beyond that one of my biggest bugbears witht he last film - the annoying Elf/Dwarf Romance subplot - is not resolved in any manner that is either satisfying or justifies its inclusion.  I think this Trilogy's biggest problem is that, without either the need to faithfully condense a trilogy of Novels in to a faithful yet coherent series of films, or the sound basis that those Novels provided, Jackson's tendency towards self-indulgence has got the better of him.  Even with the expanded material - The Necromancer sub-plot - to tie this to its predecessor, it can be argued that there was still insufficient material to make the one book three films.  Two was a stretch, but three is too far.  Making this expansion seems to have put it beyond Jackson and the screenwriting teams' story-telling ability; for example, Legolas and Tauriel could have been left out altogether. And the showdown with the Necromancer should have been moved to the climax - this would have given the battle greater stakes in Sauron's plans to retake Middle Earth, and added a greater sense of tension as to the oucome of the battle (not to mention given the Trilogy a more persistent and charismatic villain than those Orcs...).

Worst of all, despite the title, and Freeman's best efforts, this trilogy feels like it loses focus of Bilbo - when the actual book is very much told from his perspective.  This means that a number of potentially fun and adventurous moments from the novel feel like missed opportunities; for example, when Bilbo resuces the dwarves from the Spiders of Mirkwood is a great moment in the book, one that when I read it I felt would make for an exciting and thrilling cinematic moment; instead it was handled in a puzzlingly constricted manner.  Why rush these potentially great action moments, then pad out the film with uneccessary characters and aimless shots of people walking?

Perhaps one day someone will return to these films and edit them down in to two (or maybe even one) more focussed and effective adaptation - not forgetting the fate of certain characters (Billy Connoly's Dain, I'm looking at you), nor significant Maguffins (Thorin literally loses his mind over the Arkenstone, yet it's forgotten once the Battle starts).  As things stand, Jackson has come dangerously close to doing to his own reputation what George Lucas did to his.  You can only wonder what Guillermo Del Toro would have done with these films, had things worked out as originally planned...

Monthly Marvel Musings - Casting Updates, and what's happening with 'Sinister Six'?

Time for this months'...

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

This month it's been relatively quiet on the Marvel movie news front, although there have been some interesting casting announcements, which I'll discuss below.  As well as that, even though it's a DC property, I'll discuss what the implications of that Suicide Squad movie (what a cast!) are going to have for Sony's planned Sinister Six movie...

Some Casting News Round-Ups

Although it wasn't made official at the Marvel Event in October, it was pretty well known that Benedict Cumberbatch was in talks for the role of Doctor Strange - following on from other contenders including Joaquin Phoenix, Ewan McGregor, Jared Leto, and Ethan Hawk.  Marvel Studios head honcho Kevin Feige has said that Cumberbatch has the "depth and sincerity" to play the 'Sorceror Supreme', so it seems this film has a pretty solid lead locked in now.  With the announcement of some Avengers: Age of Ultron reshoots in the new year, there's speculation we might see Doctor Strange briefly in that film, but we'll definitely see him in July 2016.  I know one thing - if they ever get Strange and Loki in the same MCU movie, on screen together, then a few ladies I know might explode with excitement..!

As well as this, then next X-Men movie has found its titular villain, Apocalypse, in an actor who has seen a growing amount of acclaim heaped on him in the last year: Oscar Isaac.  After getting praise for his work in the Coen's most recent 'Inside Llewelyn Davis', and the forthcoming 'A Most Violent Year', he'll also be seen in the next Star Wars film (you can spot him in the Trailer piloting an X-Wing).  It shows the strength of what Fox has done with this franchise that they can cast a an actor based on their qualities and skills as an actor, and no one complains about their physical resemblance to the character - something that isn't as much of an issue in some cases, but still rears its ugly head (see some of the recent commentary on some of the DC characters casting).  But this casting signals they want someone to bring a nuanced portrayal of this villain to this movie, which is befitting with the recent quality of this franchise.

Spidey's not the dad, by the way - that's (yet to be cast) Luke Cage...

Another piece of casting that will affect the MCU, but might not have garnered as many headlines, is the choice of Kristen Ritter for the role of Jessica Jones for Netflix's series that will link with Daredevil (currently in production), Luke Cage & Iron Fist (both of whom have yet to be cast) for an event series called 'The Defenders'.  Ritter is probably best known for a role in Breaking Bad, and the comedy 'Don't Trust the B*tch in Apartment 23'.  She's an interesting choice, as she's a physically diminutive actress but this isn't your typical 'Superhero' role; rather Jones is someone who gave up on using her powers after personal tragedies, and is haunted by PTSD; instead she became a private detective.  Judging by her previous work she should be able to pull off the 'emotionally scarred woman with troubled past' angle without a problem.  This character is a relatively new Marvel creation, launching in the early 2000's, but she's had ties to Luke Cage and The Avengers.  But with this Netflix series there's the potential we'll see all of these characters on the big screen in the future - as the Infinity War story in the comics featured just about every Marvel character, a lot of fans are hoping to see the Defenders in the two-part Avengers Phase 3 finale.  Time will tell, but it just goes to show that it's an exciting time for Marvel comics fans.

Well, perhaps with ONE exception...

Have DC beaten Sony to the punch with Suicide Squad, their Villain Team-up Movie?

...what a cast!!! (Pic from JoBlo)

This time last year Sony were so confident of success with their Amazing Spiderman franchise that they were announcing plans for a number of spin-off movies, including one based on a team of super-villains formed to take on Spidey - the Sinister Six.  Apparently the plan was to have them brought together not to fight the web-slinger, but on a mission to 'redeem' themselves.

But then The Amazing Spiderman dropped to lower than expected (but not underwhelming) Box Office, and a pretty negative fan reaction (yup, that would have included me).  As a result, The Amazing Spiderman 3 was moved back, and everything sort of went quiet on the spin-off front - even though Sony are still saying they will make their Sinister Six movie.  Well, following the casting announcement for Warner Bros' DC adaptation Suicide Squad last week, it'll be interesting to see what Sony will do now - because they've effectively been beaten by a movie that has got the same premise (super-villains given the chance of redemption by doing some covert, government ordered missions), and has already announced shooting and release dates.  Not only that, but Warners arguably don't have the connective tissue in place that Sony have for their Sinister Six - should they choose to include them in the line-up,  they've already established The Lizard, Electro and Green Goblin.

Warners on the other hand have not only got a new take on The Joker (Jared Leto is a brave, brave man for agreeing to follow Heath Ledger in that role) to establish without the easier option of introducing him in an actual Batman film, but they've got four characters that have virtually no recognition outside of comic-fan circles.  And the only pre-established connection is Man of Steel, a film that only hinted at a wider DC cinematic universe.  Despite this, Warners have beaten Sony at the first hurdle - and helped by a surprising (and surprisingly good!) cast, and a Director straight off the back of an acclaimed and modestly successful WW2 drama, they've already generated a tremendous amount of interest and maybe even anticipation for a fairly obscure title.

This could be the first time the Sinister Six have been defeated by non-Marvel characters..!

So where does this leave Sony with Sinister Six?  It's all been quiet from them.  But they've got an even greater mountain to climb if they want to go ahead with their Sinister Six movie - not only have they got to justify it in the face of a backlash over their treatment of the Spiderman franchise in general, but they'll be doing it amidst feeling that Warners have done this type of film first.

And this is all a shame, as Spiderman is truly one of the flagship Superhero characters, and his films should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder, quality wise, with the X-Men and Avengers movies (even if they're not in a shared universe with them).  Perhaps instead of trying to force a shared universe franchise a la Marvel Studios, Sony should cancel Sinister Six and the other spin-offs, and just concentrate on getting the main character's films right.  The future of the Spiderman franchise seems to be even more up in the air, following leaked e-mails between Sony and Marvel that confirm rumours that the two Studios were discussing sharing the rights (it didn't work out, sadly).  The only thing that's clear at the moment is Sony have quite a job on their hands to restore Spiderman back to the status he previously had...

That's it for Marvel stuff this month - there'll be more in the New Year!

Iconoclast: why I had big problems with Bond's 'Skyfall'

Today, at a greatly fan-fared press event, the title and cast for the next (and 24th) Bond movie was announced: SPECTRE.  And what a great and diverse cast it has - Christoph Waltz, Monica Belucci and Dave Bautista amongst others.  But what will the story, and eventual film be like?  Hopefully, in my opinion, better than the last Bond movie, Skyfall.

Now, I know that a LOT of people loved that film (indeed, it has been the most financially successful Bond movie to date), but I felt there were so many problems with it that it pretty much spoiled my enjoyment of it  In the first of another occasional series, here I play 'Iconoclast' and highlight the flaws of an otherwise highly regarded move.

Bond Is Overshadowed By Almost Everything:

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Bond movies, and I think that Craig is excellent as Bond.  When he made his debut in the Role for 'Casino Royal' he instantly made the role his own, and the film put him front and centre: it was all about BOND (capitals, Bold, Extra-large typeface), no gadgety gimmicks or over the top sets of villain's lairs required.  And Craig was irresistible, especially in the tense casino games taking on the villain Le Chifre at card games.  The series rightly got itself back on track by making the portrayal and characterisation of Bond the focus.  Although follow-up 'Quantum of Solace' was hamstrung due to the Writer's Strike of 2007, Skyfall could have built upon the strengths of 'Casino Royal'.

Instead, at almost every point, Bond is overshadowed throughout the film: by the cinematography, by a classic Aston Martin, by the villain, bringing back 'classic' elements like Q and Moneypenny; and even by Albert Finney with a shotgun.  To me it felt like a backward step for the franchise, making the film another reboot when Casino Royale was supposed to be one for the character.  These elements just seemed to push Bond to the back, when Casino Royal had done so much to push him front and centre, and make him awesome again.  Apart from one moment where Bond takes out several henchmen in a matter of seconds, you never feel there is a moment that makes you cheer for Bond at the same level.

Sure, it looks good - but when the main character gets lost in the visuals, you have to ask if it looks TOO good...

Bond is No Longer a Spy Anymore?

The plot, ostensibly, is kicked off by the loss of a hard-drive containing details of every MI6 undercover operative worldwide.  Yet if finding it was as easy as finding the person who apparently stole it, it's hard to see the need for Bond.  Especially in the scene that introduces Q, where he basically says to Bond 'here's the person we're looking for - oh, and he's going to be here, so go get him.'  I'm sorry, but isn't the point of Bond that he goes undercover to find the whereabouts of people, and maguffins, in that way?  Isn't he supposed to gather intelligence, not turn up and have it given to him?  This film took all of that away, and in effect reduced Bond to being a mere government-sanctioned hit-man.

And that's before you get to the fact that, once they've located the film's real 'villain', this hard-drive (and the risk it presents) is completely abandoned by the plot - so was it really that much of a problem?  And that brings me to another of the film's issues...

The Villain is a More Sympathetic Character Than Bond:

Despite being introduced in a creepy (and arguably homophobic) manner by having him make a pass at a bound and prone Bond, when we discover his motives - that he was abandoned to torture, disfigurement and left for dead by the actions (or inactions) of Judi Dench's M, it's hard not to feel that, well, actually he might have a point.  Okay, he threatens (and succeeds in) killing MI6 operatives, but put his motivations alongside the callous manner that Bond dismisses the death of a woman he's only recently slept with, and it makes you question who you're supposed to be rooting for.  Yeah, I get that part of Bond's character is that he is heartless when it comes to how he uses and discards women, but you can excuse this when you put him alongside a really nefarious villain; Silva's (Javier Bardem) motivations were too relatable to be an effective counter to Bond's worse aspects.

In Bond movies you should never get behind the Villains motivations... surely?

Add to that an irritating theme song (surely someone could have asked Adele to tone down her Cocker-knee accent so it didn't sound so much like she's singing about trifle and apple-crumble?!?), plot holes like those I've stated above, and predictable not-at-all surprises like the 'reveals' of the new M and Moneypenny; in all, these things simply stopped me from being able to enjoy this film.  I know I'm in a minority though - and I certainly look forward to the new Bond, despite my reservations about its predecessor.  I just hope it doesn't share any of these issues with it...

Albert Finney's a great actor, but you don't want to see him upstage Bond in a Bond movie, do you?