This is honestly the worst movie I've seen in a very long time. The whole "spy plot" is lazy and derivative and feels like it's been plucked wholesale from some 80s Cold War thriller...hence why this movie makes no sense. They've essentially made a Cold War thriller but set it in the modern day, without updating anything, meaning that the conflict is outdated and the movie is incredibly unrealistic. You could credit this movie by saying that they don't make movies like this anymore, but there's a reason they don't. How anyone under 30 is supposed to make sense of any of this is beyond me. It almost feels like they forget the time period at times though, seeing as this movie expects me to believe that the CIA is doing file transfers by floppy disk in 2018. The only area where this movie is putting any effort in at all is how the violence and nudity, which is excessive to the point of being repulsive. I get that a Cold War thriller needs violence, but I don't think any cinema goer anywhere can profess to wanting to see graphic and bloody depictions of a woman breaking her leg, of torture by skin grafting or a man struggle to get an erection in front a competently naked woman (am I watching an actual movie or is it porn?). It feels almost like the point of the movie was to be provocatively gratuitous and to make it's audience feel sick. When violence or sex aids the story, then by all means. But in a movie with a plot as piss-weak as this, it almost feels as though this movie exists to be graphic and extreme - and honestly, it's disgusting.

But apart from that main issue, another problem is that this movie is just plain mediocre in every other regard. It's directed by Francis Lawrence (The Hunger Games) and across all his films he has demonstrated some very bland and undistinctive filming. The cinematography is nothing special, the style is nothing special, the music is OK but certainly not James Newton Howard's best work. And there's the acting...oh boy. OK, in fairness Charlotte Rampling, Jeremy Irons, Mary Louise Parker and Joely Richardson are all pretty good...if somewhat unremarkable. Joel Edgerton as the stupidly named character Nate Nash is flat out terrible, and the low point of the movie. Jennifer Lawrence is also not doing her best work her. I think she's an overrated actress, but she can be OK in the right movie. The issue is she frequently chooses the wrong movies (Passengers, say) and in this movie she's distracted from her acting by trying to keep up the terribly uneven Russian accent she's doing. The romance between Lawrence and Edgerton's characters - which mind, is central to the movie - is unbelievable, lacks chemistry and is plain boring to watch. Francis Lawrence and Jennifer Lawrence had the exact same problem on The Hunger Games movies. I've been blaming Josh Hutcherson for years, but maybe it's these two that are to blame.

Ultimately, in different circumstances Red Sparrow could have been passable. Had the studio put its foot down, the casting had been better and Francis Lawrence (who is a hack who should never make a movie again) had not been involved, it could have been alright. I don't think it was ever destined to be great, but it wouldn't have been this either. As it stands, this movie is plain terrible as it lets its mediocre elements be dragged down by the excessive obsession with violence and sex, making it a down right nasty movie to watch, that I can't imagine would bring pleasure to anyone. If the plot had been more clever or original, or the tone had been more campy and fun, it might have been OK. But what we have is a mean spirited, dour and plain boring execution of a script packed with dumb ideas. I cannot recommend this movie at all.

Just a final comment: this movie may well prove how TV is overtaking movies as the dominant medium. Answer me this: why would anyone pay $20 to go the cinema and see this when they can stay home and watch the TV show The Americans, which is a fantastic execution of a similar idea? The Americans is amazing, Red Sparrow is a waste of time.