4 days ago
Showing posts with label Bond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bond. Show all posts
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Annoying movie subtitle
I was at the theatre today to see Hellboy 2 (which I'll review briefly when I go through lots of media in a subsequent post that I swear I will write eventually). While there, I noticed a poster for the new Bond film, which will come out here on October 31st. I'm obviously very interested in seeing it, but its subtitle ("Quantum of Solace") really annoys me and (less relevantly) seems to break from the Bond subtitle formula. Maybe the subtitle of the 2010 Bond film will be "Strangled Perturbations"?
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Casino Royale
Continuing my alleviation of my movie review backlog (but not in any reasonable order), I'll now discuss Casino Royale, which Lemming recently reviewed. The original version of the film is supposed to have been a debacle, but check out the star power---among its stars were Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and Orson Welles! (There are also some other recognizable names.) This version of the film, on the other hand, was extremely good.
The film serves as a sort of 'reset' to the Bond universe. Besides having a new actor playing Bond (more on that later), we travel back to a point (set in 2006, so not traveling back along only one dimension) in which Bond hasn't yet been promoted to 007 status. (The film starts at the final events resulting in his promotion to 007 status.) Thus, James Bond spends a good chunk of the film (and for some of these things, most or all of the film) grittier, less refined, driving a rented Ford rather than an Aston Martin, not so great at keeping his cool under pressure, and not giving a damn whether his martinis are shaken or stirred. Yes, even the last one---in fact, especially the last one. If you want to sum up what this film means to the Bond franchise, the fact that he doesn't give a damn about his martinis does the best job of quickly convey that we've gone back to his roots.
One of the things I mentioned is that Bond is grittier. In fact, the entire film is grittier, and I expect the next couple Bond films will remain this way. The new Bond, Daniel Craig, fits this image. I do think he makes a good Bond, but he's a major step down from Pierce Brosnan in my book, and I'm sorry but he just doesn't look like Bond to me. He did very well with the repartee, but I still can't picture him as James Bond. He does fit the image shift, but while I enjoyed the film immensely, I have a general preference in my film tastes for less grittiness.
Anyway, the repartee between Bond and the main lust interest (Vesper Lynd) was excellent---especially in their early conversations when she couldn't stand him. (I could use the term "love interest," but that term just doesn't feel right for a James Bond film.) It was great to see such a persistent foil to Bond in one of the Bond girls! M was there, but Moneypenny was nowhere to be found (that doesn't bother me). Q wasn't there either, which is unfortunate, because I always enjoyed the scenes with Q.
There was a chase scene just after Bond becomes a 007 that was fantastic, and the pace of the film was excellent---events transpired at just the right pace.
Anyway, the film was really good, but my own preference (which I expect is in the minority) would be for the franchise to go back to being less gritty. In short, the film was extremely good but not fantastic. (Granted, very few films are.)
The film serves as a sort of 'reset' to the Bond universe. Besides having a new actor playing Bond (more on that later), we travel back to a point (set in 2006, so not traveling back along only one dimension) in which Bond hasn't yet been promoted to 007 status. (The film starts at the final events resulting in his promotion to 007 status.) Thus, James Bond spends a good chunk of the film (and for some of these things, most or all of the film) grittier, less refined, driving a rented Ford rather than an Aston Martin, not so great at keeping his cool under pressure, and not giving a damn whether his martinis are shaken or stirred. Yes, even the last one---in fact, especially the last one. If you want to sum up what this film means to the Bond franchise, the fact that he doesn't give a damn about his martinis does the best job of quickly convey that we've gone back to his roots.
One of the things I mentioned is that Bond is grittier. In fact, the entire film is grittier, and I expect the next couple Bond films will remain this way. The new Bond, Daniel Craig, fits this image. I do think he makes a good Bond, but he's a major step down from Pierce Brosnan in my book, and I'm sorry but he just doesn't look like Bond to me. He did very well with the repartee, but I still can't picture him as James Bond. He does fit the image shift, but while I enjoyed the film immensely, I have a general preference in my film tastes for less grittiness.
Anyway, the repartee between Bond and the main lust interest (Vesper Lynd) was excellent---especially in their early conversations when she couldn't stand him. (I could use the term "love interest," but that term just doesn't feel right for a James Bond film.) It was great to see such a persistent foil to Bond in one of the Bond girls! M was there, but Moneypenny was nowhere to be found (that doesn't bother me). Q wasn't there either, which is unfortunate, because I always enjoyed the scenes with Q.
There was a chase scene just after Bond becomes a 007 that was fantastic, and the pace of the film was excellent---events transpired at just the right pace.
Anyway, the film was really good, but my own preference (which I expect is in the minority) would be for the franchise to go back to being less gritty. In short, the film was extremely good but not fantastic. (Granted, very few films are.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
