Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


April 29, 2009
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Should I see it?
Yes - but only if you fast forward to the action sequences and ignore the rest.



Short Review: The film is great when Bond is punching guys and being chased - but do we need to see him pout and mope? We pay to see Bond kick butt, not cry in his beer.


Even if you are a fan of the rebooted Bond, which I am not, this outing may disappoint. Yes, there is interesting sequences, but the film is missing a soul and any real value.

Daniel Craig returns as the brooding version of James Bond - the existential Bond, the Bond who bleeds, the Bond distracted by the stinging, gaping hole in his soul…the Bond that’s no fun and far too moody to like. The Bond franchise had run its course. It had become a sad parody of itself. It had become the paunchy forty year old man hanging around in college bars buying the co-eds drinks and still going home alone. Instead of putting the toy away, the producers felt the need to revise the classic hero. This wasn’t done by revisiting the core of the character, going back to the original films and discovering what made him work. No, they looked at their competition, Jason Bourne, and decided to mimic what he was doing. Now, we have an odd hybrid of Bourne and Bond. The chase scenes are entrancing cinematic candy, but when everyone stops to talk the flaws in the movie are quite noticeable.

Daniel Craig’s Bond isn’t the kind of guy you’d want to be. He’s not even the kind of guy you’d want to befriend, talk to, walk by or know that he existed. His personality is as pleasant as chewing gravel. He’s stuck with a “oh, I’m so wounded – poor pitiful me, look I’m burning with rage because I’m so distraught” thought bubble over his head throughout the production. In this production, his pouting nature is exasperated by his illogical actions. He’s just lost his love but he muscles through his grief to not only kill countless bad guys, but also bed a good looking redhead and then move on to kill more bad guys. So, what’s we’ve expected to believe is that Bond will go through a life threatening car chase, ruthlessly slaughter villain and civilian alike – stop, throw the back of his hand to his forehead, expel a whimper, continue on killing people in his moral vacuum, mope some more, and top it all by diddling his co-worker? He's gone from being sensitive to being sociopathic.

The film is a jumbled mess. The previous film, Casino Royale, had its moments – except the six hour long card game that made its final act. This film is an inferior sequel. The action sequences are better, but the story itself is lacking. This is partially due to the lack of logic that was applied to the proceedings. I’m sorry, but to believe that M’s closest confidant is a double-agent…if she’s so inept as to allow her private guard to be double agents, then why would she trust Bond or anyone else? Why wouldn’t they be just as likely to be double-agents? Why is she allowed to continue in her position if she can’t even keep control of her own office? This is the first of a long line of logic issues the film distributes but fails to resolve. The evil plot that drives the film, which I won’t go into so I won’t ruin the movie for those of you who insist on seeing it, is likewise illogical. The Bond villain Dominic, played by Mathieu Amalric to great effect, is a creepy businessman. His machinations all lead to a concept that doesn’t really work and doesn’t quite seem worth the effort involved. This is where the film runs into its biggest issue – and this will happen on all of these rebooted Bond films. When you recast Bond as a more “realistic”, existential hero, this means your plots need to be more realistic as well. The glory of Bond in the past was that it was all done with a wink. Everyone understood it was all a lark. This reboot takes itself so seriously, but still wants to be able to still retain the overblown Bond plots. It is a disconnect and it doesn’t stand.

To sum this up, will people like this? Most will enjoy the flash and bang of the chase sequences. If you loved Casino Royale, there may be enough here to tickle your fancy. If you love film, you will be frustrated. This is a fatally flawed film that doesn’t avoid the potholes of the new direction the franchise has taken but strikes each one as they pass along.






Other Critic’s Reviews:
Black Sheep Reviews
Cinema Autopsy




Labels: , , , ,



Share






November 5, 2008
Casino Royale (2006)
Should I see it?
A weak yes.


Short Review:
Two hours of Bond crying in his martini.



The James Bond franchise, while still successful, had become tedious and struggled for years to come to terms with the rise of socially sensitive audiences. In a post-modern age, Bond felt like a throwback to a bygone era. Today, male characters are supposed to be introspective and not allowed to walk with a swagger. Like most of our society, Bond was in need of a “re-envisioning”. Throw out the classic Bond (tall, dark, handsome, cool, collected, charming) and replace him with post-modern Bond (tall, blond, receding, brutish, wracked with guilt and generally unpleasant). The things in our culture are being redesigned for us by the elites to remove heroism from the public sphere. This “updating” is happening all over the place (Batman, I'm looking at you).

Gone is the man of the cold war and in comes in the post-modern half-man. He’s sensitive, he’s troubled by his masculine traits, and he’s oh so grumpy. Everything needs to be more “real”, meaning the heroes and bad guys remove their white and black hats and settle for nice moody gray hats. Instead of our heroes holding set morals and making clear, decisive choices everything is a wash of existential muck. The heroes of our modern myths have been knocked down from their pedestals and replaced with brooding mopes.


I have never been a huge fan of James Bond. I’ve always found the films to be too corny for my tastes. I always understood his draw however. Complaints that the franchise had become to heavy with gimmicks and flash are reasonable and the films could have done with more plot and less goofy antics. The inability of producers to keep Bond from his descent into irrelevance was killing the series. Bond was in need of attention, they gave him an overhaul. Daniel Craig was cast in a striking move to abolish the physical remnants of the previous incarnations of Bond. With his villain’s eyes, pumped up body and blond hair, it was clear when he was cast Bond was in for a change. The plot and its devices changed dramatically as
well. Gone is Q and his gadgets, goodbye Miss Moneypenny and sayonara to all of you overblown villains. The plot in this new version of Bond is more serious, more real. The problem with the piece is that Bond isn’t about being serious and it’s certainly not real. Yes, this piece is closer to the original books but that’s isn’t important anymore. Bond is a cinematic brand. Its like McDonalds trying to sell whole foods.

When an audience goes to see a Bond film they know what they can expect to see. This film sets to break all of these expectations. It does this successfully by ignoring its pedigree and showing the darker side of 007. As a separate movie, this film is pretty g
ood. Not great, but good. The structure is somewhat disjointed but it still works. Craig is a convincing hired killer and the story has some interest. This is a good film, but it is not Bond. With all other Bond movies you could remove the music, his name and that whole “shaken, not stirred” routine and you’d still know you’re watching a 007 film. This movie is missing the central heart of the franchise and is only connected by the frivolous references thrown in as an awkward reminder of who we’re watching.

I liked (not loved - liked) the movie and chances are that you will like it as well. If you want the same ol’ 007 you’re used to, you’re out of luck. There’s a new sheriff in town and he needs therapy. In effect, this is like redesigning Star Trek without Spock and making Kirk longing for emotional love and respecting other people's boundaries. The name is the same but the formula has
changed.

Click on James Blond to view the trailer
James Bond Movie Image

Related Reviews:
Daniel Craig movies
Layer Cake (2003)
Infamous (2005)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Critics United
Roger Ebert


Labels: , , , , , , ,



Share






August 16, 2008
Movie Trailer: Casino Royale
They've turn James Bond into James blond. Instead of being fun and frivolous, he's now moody and serious. He mopes around killing guys in brutal fashion expelling his internal rage. I was just looking for a goofy spy flick and its turned into this existential search for meaning, geez.

Visit the official site






Screenwriter: Neal Purvis (Die Another Day),Robert Wade (The World is Not Enough), and Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby)
Director: Martin Campbell (The Legend of Zorro)
Actors: Daniel Craig (Infamous), Eva Green (Kingdom of Heaven), Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal), and Jeffrey Wright (The Invasion)


Labels: , , , ,



Share






July 9, 2008
Movie Trailer: Quantum of Solace
James Blond is back in the worst titled movie of the year. Quantum of Solace? This is James Bond not some undergrad lit student's weak attempt at writing a Robert Frost knockoff.

Daniel Craig returns in this sequel to Casino Royale. This time out Blond tries to uncover the secretive organization that blackmailed his chick-a-poo from the last flick. The big bad Bond villain this time is Mathieu Amalric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). Since we've cast away the over-the-top, goofy Bond routine and everyone's oh so serious and thoughtful, Amalric isn't a mad scientist or devious arms dealer but a crooked business man looking to corner the market on some natural resources. I'll take Dr. No any day.

My griping about the reworking of the Bond franchise aside, it looks like it could have promise if done right. Hopefully, they'll avoid the stuffiness of the last film and concentrate on what makes the Bond franchise work - the fact that they're fun to see.


Click here to see the official site




Screenwriters: Neal Purvis (Casino Royale), Robert Wade (Johnny English) and Paul Haggis (Crash)
Director:
Marc Forster (The Kite Runner)
Actors: Daniel Craig (The Golden Compass), Mathieu Almaric (
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), Judi Dench (The Chronicles of Riddick), and Olga Kurylenko (Hitman)

Labels: , , , ,



Share