Wow, I loved it.
From the get-go, adrenalin-pumping scenes ... all the car and boat chases one can hope for, in exotic cities around the world - from Haiti to Bolivia to Italy and Russia ... wonderfully Bond.
The most amazing thing: the two Daniel Craig Bond films have completely reinvented Bond without destroying the character - there is a clear continuity between Craig and the other Bond films, but what we have in the series now is Bond for the 21st Century.
Tougher, grittier ... no gadgets, only one bedroom romp - what's Bond without it? - but not the stylized sexuality of early Bond. The series is clearly moving away from the "Bond Girl" pattern.
Craig's co-star, Olga Kurylenko (Camillie), is a women intent on revenge, as is Bond. The two stories intertwine nicely as the film unfolds. Though beautiful, Bond and the story resist the obvious potential for a love interest. Bond's lost his true love, and for now, Camillie is his partner in a mutual-interest partnership to undo the bad guys.
Shaken or stirred? You'll have to see the film to see where this one goes.
Some of the best music I've heard in a long time.
Craig is Craig - cold and dangerous ... yet touched by the love of a woman, Vesper Lynd, now dead. Be sure to see Casino Royale first, or see it again, to catch the flow - Quantum of Solace picks right up where Casino Royale ended.
Judi Dench as M is incredible - tough, focused, kind - a great role for her.
The bad guys are bad in a 21st century fashion - oil and water and politics in a volatile mix of desperate schemes. Though kept to a minimum, there were some trenchant observations about American CIA tactics in light of the Bush years.
For anyone in or around LA, saw this at the ArcLight in the Dome.
Worth seeing?
For sure, if you're a Bond fan, and if you're just looking for some adrenalin flow and beautiful scenery, you'll love it as well.
And 2010? Another? Hope so ... I think so ... Craig and MGM have found the right formula.
The New York Times has a thoughtful review, though I'd take issue with a few of its comments - apparently the reviewer wanted a few more computer gadgets, but I'm glad to see gadgets disappear. The new Bond genre is not about techno-wizardry, but about Bond's world of geo-political soundrels still to be defeated, not by computer geeks but Bond's steel-hard determination.
P.S. saw the first trailer for Star Trek (2009) - thrilled the audience, me, too.
3 comments:
I found this Bond to be a decent followup to the last one. I'm surprised to see how roughly it is being treated by the critics. I miss some of the gadgets and some of the comedy relief, but I enjoy the serious approach that this new series is taking.
If you've ever read the original books, you'll know that gadgets are movie gimmicks, not essential for Bond.
Ian Fleming was livid when he saw how much gadgetry had taken over his hero. Craig restores the grit and bravado of the original, without resorting to one-upmanship via sci-fi weapons.
Stushie, I've not read any of the Bond books ... your comment is helpful in understanding the new Bond films vs. the older ones ...
Post a Comment