It's very easy to hate on this movie. Paul Haggis wrote it, so it should come as no surprise that the script is way too obvious when talking about geopolitical issues. Some of the action scenes are too jitterily filmed to know what's going on. In fact, all the action sequences and the filming of locales is derivative of Paul Greengrass's "Bourne" movies and "The Constant Gardener."
Some true Bond fans will also hate on the lack of gadgets, puns, and other typical Bond fare. But here's where I like the movie. Bond should not be limited to being a Roger Moore-like skirt-chasing wiseass. He's a dark, brutal mess, who surrounds himself with people who die. That's how Craig plays him, and that's what gives me hope for the next entry in the series, so long as it heads in the same direction. There's also Olga Kurylenko to consider, who is one of the better Bond women in a long time. More of the next Bond film should be like the opera scene in "Quantum," which is an artistic gunfight that plays out silently while an opera star belts out a dirge. It's finely done.
I left this film realizing just how important the director is, and how that choice is arguably more important than the right Bond actor. Marc Foster, bless his "Monster's Ball" self, just doesn't know action. That's why Michael Mann should direct the next Bond film. It would be nothing but Bond cruising around in different vehicles, listening to Audioslave or Paul Oakenfold, and there'd be hot chicks, and loud gunfights, and guys being guys, and rich people in great houses, and coke dealers wearing silk shirts, and sleazy informants, and more driving of vehicles while Audioslave plays. And it would be great.
Also, in case anyone cares, I noticed during the credits that Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron were the voices of bar patrons. Listen for them if you happen to watch it again; I didn't hear them, and I don't know why they were in the movie.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment