It was great, but I think much of the applause it is getting is in reaction to a hackneyed formula that went on far too long. If you compare it to the first two or three Connery films and try to pretend they stopped there, it's flaws show. For one thing, it was too long--I thought that poker game was never going to end--, had too much deus ex machina and who exactly the villains were was too confusing. They could have treated us to at least ONE neat gadget (I did miss "Q") and I'm surprised they didn't make more out of the drama and mechanics of modern international money laundering. Also, the heart filibrator scene was absurd and Craig's miraculous ability to cure a face full of wounds within hours was too silly.OTOH, Craig was great, the girl was criminally ravishing and the photography was stupendous (anyone else get vertigo watching that chase on the African construction site?). Worth the price of admission alone was Craig's retort to the bartender asking whether he wanted his martini shaken or stirred ("Do I look like I give a damn?"), which had me rolling for half an hour.
I love some things about Bond (the theme music, opening titles, Bond girls, villains etc), but despite the length, I honestly think this was the first one - even including Goldfinger - where I haven't got bored and fidgety about halfway through, or so confused by the plot that I don't care what happens next.The was a TV programme a while about these amazing acrobatic french youths calling themselves "free runners" (this sort of thing - but not those guys) who leap around buildings and jump off ledges. I wondered if the guy he was chasing round the construction site was one of those.
I'm with Brit: it was probably the best Bond film since the Conneries, with the possible exception of Live and Let Die. I loved the epic, important feel of it, and Daniel Craig seems even closer to Ian Fleming's Bond than Connery (which is not to say that he's better, but he's more believable when he's being nasty).
It was an excellent movie. Not predictable like most Bond films. No incredible plot devices, like secret labs inside volcanos, which for some reason were built without anyone ever witnessing the construction.However, I was struck afterwards with a couple of puzzlers. One, he didn't ever try to conceal his identity, which kinda works against the whole "secret" agent thing. Second, the whole idea of catching the bad guy by beating him at cards was pretty lame. Why not just take him into custody?Third, Bond really didn't accomplish much. He never recovered the money that was going to the terrorists, and that was the mission. Plus he destroyed a Venetian villa in the process, what's the price tag on that? He didn't seem to be very bright for a secret agent, but then if he were brighter he wouldn't be getting himself into positions of peril. Bond always had more luck than brains anyhow.
Duck - you're not one of those men (it's always men) who ruins movies by pointing out all the logical inconsistencies in a deafening whisper, are you?
Of course not! Only afterwards.If it's on the TV, though, then all bets are off.
Post a Comment