So, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun times (and my pick for deluded submoronic tit of the decade) has decided that the new Bond flick A Quantum of Solace was not quite the best Bond film ever. Actually in his review he lambastes the film by saying that they should "(n)ever let this happen again to James Bond." Stating that Bond is "not an action hero! He is too good for that, "
He goes on to say that the opening chase scene "has no connection to the rest of plot, which is routine for Bond, but it's about the movie's last bow to tradition." BULLSHIT!!! The chase scene took place maybe 10 minutes after the end of Casino Royale and brought us smack dab back into the pre-existing plot without giving the audience any time to think or re-evaluate. It didn't treat us like children with a 5 minute attention span and took for granted that most of the people watching this movie have seen Casino Royale and have been waiting with a dry martini and a hard on for this movie to come out. Even if you havent seen Casino Royale the chase scene is classic Brocolli storytelling and in the tradition of the formula that set a new standard for action adventure flicks since the 1960's YOU FAT FUCK!
Broccoli, the man who brought Bond to the silver screen practically INVENTED the action movie genre and formula with Dr. No. Bond IS an action hero. Is Ebert saying that moviegoers don't want or deserve a more mature and interesting Bond. I am as much of a purist as anyone and I own and love all the Bond movies. Hell, I grew up with them. But that by no means precludes me from being very excited about the new direction of the franchise. Now that the camp and "comic opera buffoon(ary)" can be left to the likes of Mike Meyer's Austin Powers, we as moviegoers can enjoy the Bond that Flemming envisioned. The Bond that was born of Flemming's own experiences as a spy during WWII.
I don't really know if this deep dish swilling, stomach stapling, tasteless HACK has ever read any of Ian Flemming's original works, but a 00's main occupation IS violence. A license to kill would be wasted on someone who thinks killing is "an annoyance." That aside, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan's Bond were extremely violent, but the action was often cartoonish and at times down right campy. From Odd Job's guillotine hat in Goldfinger to Moore's several run ins with the villain Jaws, violence was commonplace in all Bond movies but it never had the visceral physicality and engaging element that Craig's Bond brings so electrically to the screen. The chase scene in the beginning of Casino Royale was perhaps one of the best peices of action movie magic I have seen since Indiana Jones ran from that giant boulder.
In A Quantum of Solace, Craig portrays a bond with depth and dimension. He is a trained killer dealing with the death and possible betrayal by his one true love in the only way he knows how. By leaving a trail of bodies that will ultimately lead him to revenge and more importantly ANSWERS! For pity's sake, this is the first time we have seen a Bond that respects a woman enough NOT to sleep with her. Shit I get pre-ejaculatory THINKING about Olga Kyrilenko.
Ebert, you are a jackass. A jackass that is moored so deeply in what has been that he can't seem to get excited about what can be. You decide to base your review on the title of the film, the fact that Daniel Craig (whom he does like) doesn't say much and that he drinks a beer. I would like to see how that Bolivian bartender would have reacted when Bond accused him of not making a dry enough martini. Fuck off you twat. The day you seduce a hot redhead with promises of hotel stationary is the day I'll suck your limp dick. Not swave enough my lilly ass. So he is not as pithy as Moore or as forthcoming with the sexual double ententes as Brosnan and Connery, so what. I would rather have a Bond that makes me understand why he uses his charm and that it serves more than his cavalier whim. He saves his jibes for times when it serves him. Like making a theater full of villains show themselves with a well placed bit of sarcasm. I love the old Bond, but I also love the new. But, that kind of opinion is only expressed by people with open minds. Go open yours up with a fire axe Ebert.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Word!
I was going to write a review of the movie, but I did not get is started in time. Now, I have to say that James Bond is a definite action hero. I don’t know what super spy trained in 10 million ways to kill a person cannot be, but I would have to say that Quantum of Solace is only a hop, a skip, and a jump from being a piece of shit.
Now, I have not read any of the books and have not seen all of the movies, but common fucking sense keeps kicking me in the balls about this.
The movie was AWESOME for an action movie, but lacked anything that really showed it was a bond movie in line for the new generation. I mean you could have removed Bond and put in Jason Bourne and you would have had the same movie. The thing that I think irritates me more, and more about the movie is how much the movie plot was a piece of shit. I mean, watch mummy 2 and then watch QoS and see how they both splash "plot" in before the next action sequence. James did not even have to stress over getting any of the clues and easily escaped from any predicament that he was in.
Bond: I need to find a gun.
(Gun Appears)
Bond: I need a bullet.
(Bullet Appears)
Bond: I need a hot chick to load the bullet into the gun.
(Chick loads the bullet into the gun)
Bond: I need my hand to grab the gun and shoot myself in the head.
(Bond’s hand grips the gun rises and shoots himself in the head. Bond is fucking dead.)
Now, I have jerked it to my fair share of Olga pics and even pretended I was fucking her when I was hooking up with a chick, but that alone does not make her a good bond girl. Her story was lacking at best. She was really only interjected for her assets. The was no expansion of her back story other than, “He killed my fucking family, I got burned and now I am butt hurt and want to kill him.” There was no depth to her story, and nothing that would force Bond to re-evaluate his current modus operandi. How fucking insightful.
Now, I know you are thinking about Bond women, "Well isn't that what them Bond bitches are good for? TNA???" Well yea, but I thought with the premise of Eva Greens' portrayal of Vesper Lynd, was to get bond away from the woman in constant distress, and with a female that on some part could be his equal. With more of that said, I think that a lot of what Bond is dated and his view of women are becoming more ill relevant with the times. I feel that this exchange from M (played by Judi Dench) and Bond (Pierce Brosnan) sum up what I think Casino Royale was trying to convey with Vesper being such a strong female lead.
M: You don't like me, Bond. You don't like my methods. You think I'm an accountant, a bean counter more interested in my numbers than your instincts.
Bond: The thought had occurred to me.
M: Good, because I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, whose boyish charms, though wasted on me, obviously appealed to that young woman I sent out to evaluate you.
Bond: Point taken.
Another thing that bugged the shit out of me is that the limited screen time of Mr. White, the villain from Casino Royale, was more compelling to me than any scene in the movie with Dominic Greene (played by Mathieu Amalric). Mr. White is a VILLIAN. He is cunning, vicious, and downright evil. He is definitely an equal to Bond. When he speaks about the hidden, secret society that is this fucking close to taking over the world, I am like holy shit how is Bond going to contend with this?
On the other hand, Dominic Greene is a fucking waste of a Bond bad guy. There was no strife to the character and I could not wait for Bond to kill him and get the movie over. He character brought nothing to the movie. The great thing about Casino Royale and not about QoS is that the drama between good a evil at the card table was more interesting than any portion of the non-violent parts of QoS, save the last scene. An example of this is:
La Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.
James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.
I cannot remember exchanges between the two main characters as anything important. The two characters were just a bunch of cock wagging and “I’m trying to be so evil.” The great thing about Le Chiffre, was that even though he was not the top dog in the evil villain group, though he made you think he was. The audience knew that Le Chiffre was just a pawn, which is why the poker game was created so that douche could get the money back to his investors after Bond foiled his AIRPLANE! plot. As the movie progressed you knew that Bond at some point met his equal. Dominic Greene in no part was Bond’s equal.
Next, what happened to the things that set bond apart from other action films? You know, “Shaken, not stirred.” Or “Bond, James Bond.” I can understand why the writers would want to distant themselves from that, but completely removing it from the movie is downright stupid. Remember of all the shit that Daniel Craig had to go through from the media and fans of the 007 franchise. I distinctly remember folks in these parts saying things like, “How can he be James Bond if he cannot even drive stick.” Or “He does not even look like James Bond.” At the end of Casino Royale, the very last exchange is:
Mr. White: Hello?
James Bond: Mr. White? We need to talk.
Mr. White: Who is this?
[a shot rings out. White's leg is shattered. He drops to the ground in obvious pain and drags himself toward the house. He is stopped at the steps by the feet of a man in a suit. He looks up to see Bond with a cell phone in one hand and an assault weapon in the other]
James Bond: The name's Bond. James Bond.
James Bond, like his portrayer had to go through all this shit during Casino Royale. Daniel Craig has got fucked up in the making of the movie. He really wanted to prove himself through blood, sweat, and tears. When he said that line at the end of Casino Royale we all fucking believed him.
So, where was that is Quantum of Solace? Oh, just lazy writers resting on their laurels.
The writers turn. Everything that I see wrong with this movie is pretty much in the hands of the writers. Loose plot elements. Like, James Bond finds the water dammed. Even with the completion of the movie, the Bolivians are still thirsty. The next thing is the dictator of Bolivia hears a CRAZY noise in the stupid Bolivian Motel 13 and the bitch serving the beer says, “That is really unstable. We could blow up in any fucking moment, and just so you know as soon as a MI-6 agent gets here, then the chances of exploding are increased by 100 million fold.” Queue up the Bruckheimer/Michael Bay ending. Strawberry Fields. Come on. Who CARES! We saw that too much greater effect in Casino Royale with married woman that was killed after he foiled the AIRPLANE! plot.
Again, lazy writers and also you think the writer/director of the Academy Award Winning, “Crash” would be able to come with better shit. [ Insert Scarcasm ]
I am sure there is more, but it is getting late.
I am not sure on what to think about the director. I mean the job he did was not that bad. I do not know how much rests in his hands for story. The movie was shot well and the action scenes are superb.
Oh, and there is one more thing about the writers. I just remembered. There are reports on the web that the writers wanted to have James Bond Jr. in the movie and the Director said, “NO!” He must have seen Superman Returns. James Bond with a son!?!?!?!? Clown shoes!
Now, the one word reviews of the movie and main actors.
Quantum of Solace = Lackluster
Daniel Craig = AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judy Dench = Distinguished
Olga Kurylenko = Shallow
Mathieu Amalric = Unremarkable
Anyways, if you read all of this
thank you. Hope you enjoyed my rant.
ps. The reason that I did not touch on Daniel Craig performance of Bond in the rant was because Jim hit the nail on the head. Daniel Craig is Bond and gets the all of the nuances and much more to playing the character. More Daniel Craig as Bond, and less shitty of everything else.
I did a review of it when I first heard the title.
I won't see it. Gave up on the franchise more than a decade ago when I was tired of seeing directors rehash the movie version of Thunderball again and again and again.
Take a potential nuclear incident, add a girl, some gadgets a la John Gardener's Bond, a cool car and a Bond, turn the handle and poop out another movie.
What really pissed me off was that Quantum of Solace was the name of a CHAPTER of a Bond novel. A chapter that related a short story that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Bond, or MI5 or Spies and stuff like that.
It was about a man who offed his wife after she betrayed him time after time and showed him not a jot of love or consideration. Not a single "Quantum of Solace".
Appropriate to me because the movies with the great exception of about 7 minutes of the original Casino Royale have HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the Fleming novels.
Bond was a drunk and a benzedrine addict that seldom won a fight or outsmarted anyone in the novels.
He just kept coming back time and again after the bad guys thought they had killed him and would only win one fight. The last one in the last chapter.
He would get rocked and his butt kicked for 170 outta 180 pages and that is what made him so cool to me when I read the Fleming novels in college.
They have defiled all of the Fleming novels and now are hunting down the cool stuff like ... A Quantum of Solace and the movies have less to do with Bond than that chapter had to do with him in the first place.
The entire franchise has reflected more Al Broccoli and John Gardener than it ever will the joy and wonder of the writings of Ian Fleming.
jof
Post a Comment