Questões de Inglês

No Time to Die: Daniel Craig's final Bond film gets five-star reviews

29 September 2021

    Daniel Craig's fifth and final James Bond film, No Time to Die, has received rave reviews from critics.
    The movie premiered at the Royal Albert Hall on Tuesday, following several delays prompted by the Covid
pandemic.
    In his five-star review of the film, Kevin Maher of The Times said: “It’s better than good. It’s magnificent.
[5]    Craig is a towering charismatic presence from opening frame to closing shot, and he bows out in terrific, soulful,
style.”
    But while most critics were positive, some suggested the film did not quite justify its 163-minute running time.
    In his own five-star review, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw described the film as an “epic barnstormer” which
delivers “pathos, action, drama, camp comedy, heartbreak, macabre horror, and outrageously silly old-fashioned
[10] action”.
    “It is of course a festival of absurdity and complication, a head-spinning world of giant plot mechanisms,” he said,
but concluded the film as a whole is “very enjoyable and gleefully spectacular”.
    Stephanie Zacharek of Time was broadly positive about the film, but suggested Craig’s swansong didn’t warrant its
length.
[15]     “At two hours and 43 minutes, it’s too long and too overstuffed with plot - more isn’t always better,” she said. “And
it features one of the dullest villains in the series’ history, played by Rami Malek in mottled skin and dumb silky PJs”.
    “But forget all that. No Time to Die, its flaws notwithstanding, is perfectly tailored to the actor who is, to me, the
best Bond of all.”
    No Time to Die marks the culmination of an over-arching storyline that began with Craig's first Bond film Casino
[20] Royale, released in 2006.
    In another five-star review, Robbie Collin of The Telegraph said: “[Director] Cary Joji Fukunaga’s extravagantly
satisfying, bulgingly proportioned last chapter to the Craig era, throws almost everything there is left to throw at 007
the series can come up with.”
    “We’ve been expecting you, Mr Bond, for quite some time,” he added, “and what a joy and relief it is to have you
[25] back.”
    The Independent’s Clarisse Loughrey was less enthusiastic, awarding the film three stars and describing the
premise as “generic spy nonsense”.
    “Cary Joji Fukunaga has made a smashing piece of action cinema with No Time to Die – it’s just a shame it had to
be a Bond film,” she said. “What’s most disappointing is how strangely anti-climatic the whole thing feels.”
[30]     She added: “Despite Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s much-publicised contributions to the film’s script, No Time to Die
hardly feels like the radical feminist rewrite we were promised.”
    There was a similarly lukewarm response from Screen Daily’s Jonathan Romney, who said: “It’s certainly a film
that breaks many of the canonical rules of the series, though not entirely to dazzling effect.”
    “There’s plenty to gawk at, and to argue over, in this episode,” he added, “yet No Time to Die is oddly lacking in
[35] pleasure or real wit.”
    Empire’s John Nugent agreed that the film was too long, writing that the middle third is “bogged down by plotting
and exposition doesn’t justify that heaving runtime”.
    However, he noted: “This film does things that no Bond film has ever done, and despite relying heavily on tropes
that feel not only familiar but comforting, it is the unfamiliar things it does that make this such an exciting entry.” [...]

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58718299. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.

No Time to Die: Daniel Craig's final Bond film gets five-star reviews

29 September 2021

    Daniel Craig's fifth and final James Bond film, No Time to Die, has received rave reviews from critics.
The movie premiered at the Royal Albert Hall on Tuesday, following several delays prompted by the Covid
pandemic.
    In his five-star review of the film, Kevin Maher of The Times said: “It’s better than good. It’s magnificent.
    Craig is a towering charismatic presence from opening frame to closing shot, and he bows out in terrific, soulful,
style.”
    But while most critics were positive, some suggested the film did not quite justify its 163-minute running time.
In his own five-star review, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw described the film as an “epic barnstormer” which
delivers “pathos, action, drama, camp comedy, heartbreak, macabre horror, and outrageously silly old-fashioned
action”.
“It is of course a festival of absurdity and complication, a head-spinning world of giant plot mechanisms,” he said,
but concluded the film as a whole is “very enjoyable and gleefully spectacular”.
Stephanie Zacharek of Time was broadly positive about the film, but suggested Craig’s swansong didn’t warrant its
length.
“At two hours and 43 minutes, it’s too long and too overstuffed with plot - more isn’t always better,” she said. “And
it features one of the dullest villains in the series’ history, played by Rami Malek in mottled skin and dumb silky PJs”.
“But forget all that. No Time to Die, its flaws notwithstanding, is perfectly tailored to the actor who is, to me, the
best Bond of all.”
    No Time to Die marks the culmination of an over-arching storyline that began with Craig's first Bond film Casino
Royale, released in 2006.
    In another five-star review, Robbie Collin of The Telegraph said: “[Director] Cary Joji Fukunaga’s extravagantly
satisfying, bulgingly proportioned last chapter to the Craig era, throws almost everything there is left to throw at 007
the series can come up with.”
    “We’ve been expecting you, Mr Bond, for quite some time,” he added, “and what a joy and relief it is to have you
back.”
    The Independent’s Clarisse Loughrey was less enthusiastic, awarding the film three stars and describing the
premise as “generic spy nonsense”.
    “Cary Joji Fukunaga has made a smashing piece of action cinema with No Time to Die – it’s just a shame it had to
be a Bond film,” she said. “What’s most disappointing is how strangely anti-climatic the whole thing feels.”
    She added: “Despite Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s much-publicised contributions to the film’s script, No Time to Die
hardly feels like the radical feminist rewrite we were promised.”
    There was a similarly lukewarm response from Screen Daily’s Jonathan Romney, who said: “It’s certainly a film
that breaks many of the canonical rules of the series, though not entirely to dazzling effect.”
    “There’s plenty to gawk at, and to argue over, in this episode,” he added, “yet No Time to Die is oddly lacking in
pleasure or real wit.”
    Empire’s John Nugent agreed that the film was too long, writing that the middle third is “bogged down by plotting
and exposition doesn’t justify that heaving runtime”.
    However, he noted: “This film does things that no Bond film has ever done, and despite relying heavily on tropes
that feel not only familiar but comforting, it is the unfamiliar things it does that make this such an exciting entry.” [...]

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58718299. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.

No Time to Die: Daniel Craig's final Bond film gets five-star reviews

29 September 2021

    Daniel Craig's fifth and final James Bond film, No Time to Die, has received rave reviews from critics.
The movie premiered at the Royal Albert Hall on Tuesday, following several delays prompted by the Covid
pandemic.
    In his five-star review of the film, Kevin Maher of The Times said: “It’s better than good. It’s magnificent.
    Craig is a towering charismatic presence from opening frame to closing shot, and he bows out in terrific, soulful,
style.”
    But while most critics were positive, some suggested the film did not quite justify its 163-minute running time.
In his own five-star review, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw described the film as an “epic barnstormer” which
delivers “pathos, action, drama, camp comedy, heartbreak, macabre horror, and outrageously silly old-fashioned
action”.
“It is of course a festival of absurdity and complication, a head-spinning world of giant plot mechanisms,” he said,
but concluded the film as a whole is “very enjoyable and gleefully spectacular”.
Stephanie Zacharek of Time was broadly positive about the film, but suggested Craig’s swansong didn’t warrant its
length.
“At two hours and 43 minutes, it’s too long and too overstuffed with plot - more isn’t always better,” she said. “And
it features one of the dullest villains in the series’ history, played by Rami Malek in mottled skin and dumb silky PJs”.
“But forget all that. No Time to Die, its flaws notwithstanding, is perfectly tailored to the actor who is, to me, the
best Bond of all.”
    No Time to Die marks the culmination of an over-arching storyline that began with Craig's first Bond film Casino
Royale, released in 2006.
    In another five-star review, Robbie Collin of The Telegraph said: “[Director] Cary Joji Fukunaga’s extravagantly
satisfying, bulgingly proportioned last chapter to the Craig era, throws almost everything there is left to throw at 007
the series can come up with.”
    “We’ve been expecting you, Mr Bond, for quite some time,” he added, “and what a joy and relief it is to have you
back.”
    The Independent’s Clarisse Loughrey was less enthusiastic, awarding the film three stars and describing the
premise as “generic spy nonsense”.
    “Cary Joji Fukunaga has made a smashing piece of action cinema with No Time to Die – it’s just a shame it had to
be a Bond film,” she said. “What’s most disappointing is how strangely anti-climatic the whole thing feels.”
    She added: “Despite Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s much-publicised contributions to the film’s script, No Time to Die
hardly feels like the radical feminist rewrite we were promised.”
    There was a similarly lukewarm response from Screen Daily’s Jonathan Romney, who said: “It’s certainly a film
that breaks many of the canonical rules of the series, though not entirely to dazzling effect.”
    “There’s plenty to gawk at, and to argue over, in this episode,” he added, “yet No Time to Die is oddly lacking in
pleasure or real wit.”
    Empire’s John Nugent agreed that the film was too long, writing that the middle third is “bogged down by plotting
and exposition doesn’t justify that heaving runtime”.
    However, he noted: “This film does things that no Bond film has ever done, and despite relying heavily on tropes
that feel not only familiar but comforting, it is the unfamiliar things it does that make this such an exciting entry.” [...]

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58718299. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.

The parents who don’t want to go back to the office

    For Ellen, a 36-year-old mother-of-one living in Westchester County, north of New York City, an article that
appeared online in May 2021 changed everything. That week, one of the most powerful men in the finance industry
told a conference that remote working didn’t work for “those who want to hustle”, and signalled his intent to bring
employees back to the office.
[5]    Ellen, who had spent her entire career working on Wall Street, almost choked on her coffee. “During the previous
18 months, I’d spent every single waking hour of the day doing nothing but hustle,” she explains. She was worried by
what the comments implied for workers in her industry. “I didn’t want to go back to the office. I’d come to love working
from home. I’d proved that it could work, and I didn’t want it to change.”
    But it did. In the weeks that followed, a handful of major financial-services companies, including Ellen’s employer,
[10] called time on allowing employees to choose where to work.
    The pandemic, Ellen had rarely seen her three-year-old son during the week. But since Covid-19 hit, she had
become accustomed to having lunch with him and being around for bath and bedtime – which meant readjusting to
office working was “devastating”. “Through all the pain of the pandemic, the one huge upside was that I’d had a
chance to really bond with him,” she says of her son. “I was working, and we have a nanny, but I was at home and the
[15] opportunity to hang out with him between Zoom meetings and calls was priceless.”
    For years, parents have been calling for more autonomy to decide where and when they work, and to construct
their working week around opportunities to care for their children. In March 2020, the pandemic granted those
requests for many, as people were sent home to do their jobs. But now, amid signs the pandemic may be coming
under control, and as a cautious transition back to pre-pandemic habits gathers pace, many employers are asking
[20] employees are to come back into the office full time.
    Generally, workers are split on how they feel about going back in person. Some applaud the social advantages of
being back in the office, while others are recoiling at the prospect. But parents are fighting back particularly hard,
especially those who work long hours.

    [...]
[25]    According to a May 2020 survey by PwC, parents of children under the age of 18 were more reluctant to return to
the workplace than non-parents, and of all respondents who said they were hesitant to go back, more than a fifth cited
their responsibilities as a parent or caregiver. Additional PwC research in January 2021 showed that more than half of
employees would prefer to be remote at least three days a week once pandemic concerns subside.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211007-the-parents-who-dont-want-to-go-back-to-the-office. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.

The parents who don’t want to go back to the office

    For Ellen, a 36-year-old mother-of-one living in Westchester County, north of New York City, an article that
appeared online in May 2021 changed everything. That week, one of the most powerful men in the finance industry
told a conference that remote working didn’t work for “those who want to hustle”, and signalled his intent to bring
employees back to the office.
[5]    Ellen, who had spent her entire career working on Wall Street, almost choked on her coffee. “During the previous
18 months, I’d spent every single waking hour of the day doing nothing but hustle,” she explains. She was worried by
what the comments implied for workers in her industry. “I didn’t want to go back to the office. I’d come to love working
from home. I’d proved that it could work, and I didn’t want it to change.”
    But it did. In the weeks that followed, a handful of major financial-services companies, including Ellen’s employer,
[10] called time on allowing employees to choose where to work.
    The pandemic, Ellen had rarely seen her three-year-old son during the week. But since Covid-19 hit, she had
become accustomed to having lunch with him and being around for bath and bedtime – which meant readjusting to
office working was “devastating”. “Through all the pain of the pandemic, the one huge upside was that I’d had a
chance to really bond with him,” she says of her son. “I was working, and we have a nanny, but I was at home and the
[15] opportunity to hang out with him between Zoom meetings and calls was priceless.”
    For years, parents have been calling for more autonomy to decide where and when they work, and to construct
their working week around opportunities to care for their children. In March 2020, the pandemic granted those
requests for many, as people were sent home to do their jobs. But now, amid signs the pandemic may be coming
under control, and as a cautious transition back to pre-pandemic habits gathers pace, many employers are asking
[20] employees are to come back into the office full time.
    Generally, workers are split on how they feel about going back in person. Some applaud the social advantages of
being back in the office, while others are recoiling at the prospect. But parents are fighting back particularly hard,
especially those who work long hours.

    [...]
[25]    According to a May 2020 survey by PwC, parents of children under the age of 18 were more reluctant to return to
the workplace than non-parents, and of all respondents who said they were hesitant to go back, more than a fifth cited
their responsibilities as a parent or caregiver. Additional PwC research in January 2021 showed that more than half of
employees would prefer to be remote at least three days a week once pandemic concerns subside.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211007-the-parents-who-dont-want-to-go-back-to-the-office. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.

Why inexperienced workers can’t get entry-level jobs

By Kate Morgan20th September 2021. “Entry-level” jobs used to be the way for new graduates to enter the workforce. But many are now requiring prior experience.

    As anyone who’s graduated from university or applied for their first job in recent years can attest to, something
new – and alarming – has happened to entry-level jobs: they’ve disappeared.

    A recent analysis of close to 4 million jobs posted on LinkedIn since late 2017 showed that 35% of postings for
“entry-level” positions asked for years of prior relevant work experience. That requirement was even more common in
[5] certain industries. More than 60% of listings for entry-level software and IT Services jobs, for instance, required three
or more years of experience. In short, it seems entry-level jobs aren’t for people just entering the workforce at all.
    And while that first job is harder than ever to get, it’s also more important than ever, says Alan Seals, an associate
professor of economics at Auburn University, US. It may be the bottom-most rung on the employment ladder, but a
worker’s first position sets the tone for their career.
[10]     “The most important time in your career is the first three years,” he says. “The quality of your first employer really
matters. So, how do you get that first job?”
    The simple answer is workers need something more than motivation or a college degree to enter the workforce
now, whether it’s lots of internships, or the connections to get around a complex application process without an
algorithm weeding them out. But not everybody has access to those advantages, and the result is that workers are
[15] being left behind. 

The rise of the internship

    An ever-growing internship market means more young people are fleshing out their resumes before they even
leave university, says Seals, who notes many students are now getting their first internship after first year.
    “Internships are now the entry level,” he says. “Most of the students in college are doing or trying to do internships,
[20] and now it’s increasingly common to do more than one.”
    Seales says this fact impacts the entry-level job market on multiple fronts. First, companies can save money by
using interns to do that work without having to pay junior employees; the more interns a company has, the fewer
entry-level jobs it’s likely to open.
    Second, because applicants with one or more internships on their resume aren’t tough to come by, those who
[25] don’t have internship experience are left out in the cold. That can happen to students who can’t afford an unpaid or
low-paid internship, or those who have trouble securing one.
    “In some cases, you need to have had an internship to get an internship. It’s also tough if you’re an ethnic
minority,” says Seals. A February 2020 study he co-authored showed that employers are “less likely to respond to
[intern] applicants with Black-sounding names” and much more likely to hire those who’ve had internships before.
[30]     Add to that the fact that the vast majority of internship opportunities are geographically located near major cities,
meaning those who don’t already live there or can’t relocate are out of luck. [...]

Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210916-why-inexperienced-workers-cant-get-entry-level-jobs. Accessed on: October 10, 2021. Adapted.