Let me start by saying I'm not a huge James Bond fan. I like the movies, but they are just movies to me. The parts I tend to like are the parts that annoy Bond purists. I don't care a lick for the intrigue, the espionage, or the politics. In fact, I'm pretty much in it for the action and the gadgets. As a character, I find Bond himself to be a bit of an ass. Which I realize is part of his charm, but it really doesn't work for me. Also, Bond has a reputation for being untouchable and invincible, the type of hero who can walk out of a firefight with his tux still nice and clean. Again, that's part of the charm, but it also means there's less tension. I'm never really worried about whether the hero is going to survive; of course he'll make it, he's James Frikkin Bond!
I also haven't seen half of them. I've seen all the Pierce Brosnan ones, and "For Your Eyes Only", "Moonraker"... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least three others all the way through, including a Sean Connery one, and that one with what's-his-name, you know, George Lazerbeak or something... and bits and pieces of several others. Okay, I'm playing dumb, but the point is, Bond has always been one of those peripheral characters that I enjoy without being "into".
So why am I even reviewing this movie? Well, mostly because KJ told me to. And because overall, I really enjoyed it. It was well-written and had some great action sequences, and I never found myself bored. Which says a lot, since my aforementioned favorite Bond element - the gadgets - are nearly non-existent in this outing. Daniel Craig does a great job as a young Bond, who is already arrogent but doesn't yet have the finesse to back it up. My biggest gripe is his appearance - he looks great in the suit, sitting at the poker table, flashing that charismatic smile - but he really doesn't look young enough to be "young Bond". And I can't stand his ears. He's got a great body, though, if you're into that, and you do get to see a rather significant amount of it.
Rabid continuity-buffs will be (well, already are - I've seen some of the boards) greatly disappointed. What with it being Bond's first job, and he's already got Dame Dench as his boss - that pretty much throws the earlier Bond films out the window. There's never been much continuity between Bond films anyway, IMO, so it's not really a big loss. I mean, it's obvious that most Bond films are set in the era in which they're filmed (or Connery would have used the internet more), so it's ridiculous to think this same secret agent has remained so young for so many decades. Each Bond film (again, IMO) is meant to be enjoyed as a film by itself - that's why they're not numbered.
WJLM Factor: 15 minutes.
WJLM stands for "We Just Lost Marty", and indicates how long into the film my brother would stop watching, having decided the movie is too unrealistic. Early in the movie, there is a beautiful chase scene - on foot, through a construction site. The guy Bond is chasing must have been an Olympic gymnast before turning to a life of crime, judging by his ability to leap over walls and climb sheer surfaces. It's like watching Bond chase down Spiderman. But it's a great scene, and one that quickly pulls you into the movie.
Anyway, if you're Bond fan, then you've already seen it. If you're not, then I don't think this movie is going to change your mind about the series. But it's worth the trip to the theater, so if you've been riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket. I think you'll have a good time.
No comments:
Post a Comment