Okay, first off, Daniel Craig is a muthf*&a. The man walks, talks, lives, breathes, and sweats Bond. I could practically see the guy at home practicing the cool detached eye-squint in his bathroom mirror. He moves like a lynx in those tailored Gucci suits and THANK. YOU., Daniel Craig for working out. The body is kickin'.
BUT...
They need to give him more Bond-like stuff to do. Hello?...Where the Hot-Bond-sex at? And W.T.H. were the gadgets this time?! The super-size touch-screen was cool, but come on, now. James needs his own.
A friend of mine, who is a fan of the books has said this is closer to source, but dammit, I want MOVIE BOND. I LOVED Casino Royale, but lets not move so far away from Bond, in trying to be all new-century that we just have a Jason Bourne-clone, instead.
The Bond girls this time, were lovely, but that's it. Nowhere near the fierceness of Pussy Galore, MayDay, or even Vesper Lynd, y'all.
The movie itself could easily be tacked right on to Casino Royale. Bond is still brooding over Vesper, which means he's all about killing mofo's, left and right. This is cool. As you know, I love my action stars to kick ass and take names, BUT... the cuts, ya'll, the cuts.
The editing needed some work. Quick cuts are fine, but not too quick, Mr. Forster, come on. Give us a second or two to be able to really take in the action, and you're good. But I have to give him some credit. At least he didn't resort to the Bourne-vomit-cam.
The movie does drag at times and can be convoluted, but it was still very satisfying mostly because of my man, Craig. *ohyousofine, baby.* And the fonts were pretty snazzy too.
Full price.
PARENTS: It's PG-13 Bond. The violence is a bit more visceral, with less sex. Though, there is some almost sex-assault in this one.
P.S. I swear the villain could have been an all reptilian version of Manimal, with his facial expressions. Oh, and his side-kick?? Worst. Haircut. EVER.
P.P.S. O, HAI, Total Recall is on! :D
P.P.P.S. The new Star Trek trailer = FAIL.
Posts
6 comments:
I only saw half of the movie. Last thing I remember was Daniel Craig uber pecs and the next thing I remember was I was being helped off the floor by the movie ushers.
I agree with you about the cuts, the bond girls and the gadgets (or lack thereof). That was my only complaint for Casino Royale. Well that and Craig should've been shirtless the whole movie.
"Oh, as his side-kick?? Worst. Haircut. EVER."
THIS! to the umpteenth power.
I guess I'll be the guy who thought this movie was lame as hell. I no longer feel this Bond is quite right. It's not about the books. I could care less that this Bond is "more in tune" with the source material. The problem is that Bond has been a different Bond for the last thirty years, and Craig just doesn't feel right. He's not cool enough. The script is too violent. Bond isn't a murderer. He's not even a ruthless killer. But this Bond is. Not to mention that I thought the villain once again was extremely lame. I'll be writing up a review on my own site soon, but for now I'll just say I was disappointed.
@trav,
If you hated Casino Royale, your credibility is shot, man.
I'm just saying. I do agree that they need to bring in more traditional Bond, tho'.
@dennis
L.O.L.
I hope you're alright, now.
And dammit, there's always at least one typo. :P
Yes indeed, that hairstyle IS super-lame.
AND YES TO SHIRTLESS DANIEL CRAIG!
The man isn't traditionally handsome, but gotdam if he ain't sexy-as-hell.
The suits are Tom Ford.
@Anonymous
Thanks for the correction. :)
It's an easy mistake to make. He did work for Gucci.
Post a Comment
As always, I appreciate all comments whether you agree or disagree.
Just don't be nasty, vague, or disrespectful.
Trolling will get you deleted.
Thanks. :)