Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Just a little angry with the Daniel Craig critics

I've just been reading some comments about the new Bond film in a forum I belong to.

I didn't agree with all that was said, so I went off to read some 'professional' reviews of the film on various newspaper and film websites.

Here is my review.

Somehow the lack of a really credible and coherent storyline in the new Bond film, 'Quantum of Solace' didn't matter too much.

The trailers before were advertising Quantum of Solace, the game, and the visually disturbing action sequences had far more in common with a vid.game than a movie.


I love Daniel Craig as Bond, the only actors that really ever did it for me in the role were Connery, Brosnan and now Craig. Have to say though, that there were just not enough shots of Craig undressed to keep me really happy - this was all we got.

Having met Roger Moore years ago (before he ever did his first Bond movie), the fact that he is so short, sort of destroyed the tough-guy image - he was FAR too nice to be Bond. Daniel Craig is going to have to be careful what other roles he selects, to maintain his Bond image.


Mathieu Amalric's slimy playing of Dominic Greene was equal to all we have come to expect from Bond film baddies - I hated him on first sight.

General Medrano, played by Joaquin Cosio was a little too genial and teddybearish to start with - I was almost thinking the man from Del-Monte, but he got really nasty later.

I was pleased that we only heard rather than saw him beating up the girl - there is far too much real sexual and domestic violence against women in the world to be putting it on-screen, but it would have been even better if Camille (Olga Kurylenko) had got there in time and killed him before he got started.

The bit with junior agent Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), dying covered in oil just didn't work and I don't know why Judi Dench had to spend almost the entire movie in a dressing gown that looked like it came from Oxfam.

Going for a few post-movie drinks with my friend, we found ourselves discussing the prospect of future water wars and commercial organisations holding the world to ransom over essential resources as much as the movie itself - now that IS scary.

I don't agree with some of the less complimentary reviews I've read, the movies have always been about escapism and suspending reality - perhaps we expect too much from Bond movies, or just expect the wrong things.

2 comments:

Martin Miller-Yianni said...

Good open review of the new Bond film. If I do see the film, it will alwasy be through you opinions that it will been seen and read from you. not one for rwading reviews of film narmally as T watch hardly any, too busy with other practical things here I'm afraid.
I like you open, narrative style of writing, just how goodblogs should be.

ps thanks for you comment on the tea! :)

Ken Armstrong said...

I couldn't agree more about heightened expectation - I hate it when I do that and I guess I did it here. It's just that Casino Royale was *that* good, expectation was bound to be high.

I think QOS has lots of good stuff in it but, as I said, the action sequences were 'muddy' and 'unclear' and I think that was less about copying Bourne and more about not knowing quite what to do.

Something I haven't said elsewhere: I thought Daniel looked terribly uncomfortable on the motorbike - perhaps a stunt man now and again is okay? :)

Good review - see 'Chinatown' for the be-all-and-end-all of water conspiracies :)