Firstly the beginning of the movie: Frenetic action shots, but not too frenetic, i thought it worked well. I was conscious of all that has been said about the editing. Bond arrives in the city, opens the trunk and the James Bond theme is faintly there. I actually thought the main titles worked well enough. The song? okay, but since there have been so many great Bond songs it's forgetable. That's three in a row.
I could see a lot of stylish shots from Foster.
Now the interrogation scene: the action editing is too frenetic, and i couldn't tell who was doing what. Continued out into the street as Bond chases the rogue. I understand what they're going for, but i think it can be dialed back a notch or two and still be effective.
I think they went too futuristic for MI6 headquarters. Seemed a little sci-fi. Maybe the computers are getting that way, but still.
People have said there is script missing, and it's hard to follow. To me the main thing is Bond, M, and Tanner and the rest have conversations and they're just talking too fast.
The title of the city being placed on screen has gotten a lot of talk. I think the way they styled the letters was kind of cool,and it didn't bother me so much. Actually i kept forgetting where Bond was anyway!
When Bond kills the guy on the balcony, the way he looks around reminded me of Lazenby in OHMSS, strangling the guy in the snow.
I loved the opera scene. Almost reminded me of FRWL or Thunderball, Terence Young type thing. At the end, when Bond comes down, and Greene and his men see Bond....priceless.
Is Craig a great Bond? Yes, he is. He has the coldness, he's got Connery's coolness.
I really didn't feel that the action overwhelmed the movie the way some people did.
Is it the best Bond movie? No, certainly not. Top 10? No. Probably a half hour in i thought it was really good. As it got closer to the end i just felt it wasn't "epic" enough for a James Bond movie. I would also say i like realism in a Bond movie, but i felt this movie got a little bit too real world. The references to the price of oil, and the value of the dollar also are not advisable. That stuff tends to date. ( And the price of a barrel of oil was, oh, about $100 dollars more when the movie was shot.) Plus, i've heard this movie cost $200 million, and i can't say i saw that on screen. The stuff with the CIA, and how muddled right and wrong were i didn't care for. Is that the real world? Yes. But i'm not sure it's right for James Bond. I guess i like it black and white a bit more. The plane chase seemed like padding. It slightly reminded me of YOLT and the helicopters chasing Bond around the volcano. The gunbarrel at the end: i thought it worked. I like it at the beginning, but it did work i guess.
In closing, sometimes Bond movies are good or bad based on too much or too little comedy, too much action, etc. This movie seemed to flow the right way, but it did seem like there was something missing. People have said it's the last part of Casino Royale. Yeah, i feel that way. Like an epilogue. (as a side note, the stuff with vesper, i don't know. That's not what Fleming wrote. Are they re-interpreting this for the screen , or are they clueless? Bond was mad at her at the end of the novel because she made the choice to betray England, and "walk down the hall with the secrets on a silver platter".)It's a good movie, Craig is good as Bond. Arnold's score works as usual (and will be forgotten as soon as you leave the theater.)But i don't know. They got a bit too much Bourne in there. Too much of the "good guys might be the bad guys". Ultimately it seems a little short. I'm not being negative when i say ,I like it, but i can't rank as one of the better Bond films.
Edited by FlemingBond, 23 November 2008 - 09:48 PM.
