I have to admit, I didn't watch Casino Royale for one reason only: I don't like my Bonds being blond. Even Daniel Craig couldn't convince me otherwise. But now Quantum of Solace comes out and I've been made an offer I can't refuse - a free ticket. So, I get Casino and watch it so I'm all caught up for Quantum.
I like action movies - they're lovely bits of mindless drivel that please the 13-year-old boy that surely lives deep within me. I also like revenge movies, because there's a sense of vicarious satisfaction that comes from watching a piece of scum getting garroted. Mix in my undying love for overly capable men who can drive stick and you've got the perfect mark for a Bond fan. Alas.
Casino Royale was slow. Cards? Honestly. Also, the unnecessary romps on beaches was just boring (I like my Bond to be a sexy, not all tamed). I yawned more than once and felt the movie was at least 30 minutes too long.
Quantum of Solace fixed one of my basic problems: clocking in at just over 100 minutes, it wasn't TOO long, but it still felt a bit drawn out. The action was gritty and fantastic; the bond girls were very Bond-y and capable. The villian was appropriately villainy. There were enough twists and backstabs to keep everyone happy. It was an okay movie.
But it wasn't a very good Bond movie. And why? It all comes back to Daniel bloody Craig. He just doesn't cut it as James Bond. I'm supposed to beleive that he oozes enough charm to break Bolivian spies and office clerks alike - but I don't. He's not ugly, but he's not handsome either. He looks like a bruiser - not at all suave and debonaire. And he's not smooth at all - he loses his cool more than he keeps it; he seems to be in a constant state of shaken and stirred.
I know Pierce Brosnan was a bit of a ponce, but you know who they could have had? Clive Owen. Now there's a Bond I can get behind.
I give both movies 3 out of 5 stars.
2 comments:
"he seems to be in a constant state of shaken and stirred." LOL
and I agree, Clive Owen would make a great Bond .... mmmmhhhhmmm!
Don't you think though, that with current Bond movies, you can't have a suave and charming heroe ... it's just not realistic anymore. Current Bond fans, do they go watch the movies for the heroe or for the gadgets he has and how cool he makes blowing stuff up look?
Totally, Mags. They are going for this "realistic" Bond now, where Daniel Craig blows stuff up and looks dirty all the time. If that's the case, why are they still pushing his Don Juan moves? I mean, why DID Fields sleep with him? He wasn't very charming or all that good looking, so...
All I'm saying is if you're not going to make the spy suave and debonaire - don't make him a Bond. Start a new franchise. Bond fans have always looked for the hot cars, cool gadgets and sexy-ass women - but you can have all those things and still not be Bond, you know? I guess I'm just a cinematic purist at heart.
Post a Comment