007

So I managed to score free tickets to the new Bond movie on Thursday night (thanks Kavie). I enjoyed most of Casino Royale except for the laughable penultimate poker scene (I have a straight, hey I have a flush, hey I have a full house, wait I have a four of a kind, wait I have a straight flush!)

Casino Royale did employ vicious fighting scenes and had one of the coolest Bonds around in Daniel Craig. The guy was intense, rough, but managed to pull off a sophisticated edge quite flawlessly. The infusion of a character driven Bond rather than a silly special effects Bond was a welcome reprieve for Bond fans. "Die Another Day" was just a ridiculous jumble of special effects that made me feel sad. When Pierce Brosnan went wind-surfing over the cliff or when he outdrove the laser I started to feel wistful about the good old days.

I have a great affinity towards James Bond movies, because these are the movies that my dad and I watched together growing up. He was the one that got me into the series and he started me off with the Connery films. Sean Connery was the Bond that I grew up with. As a kid, not knowing much better, I also enjoyed the Roger Moore movies as well. Now I realize that he was a little too cheesy. I thought audiences were a bit too harsh towards Timothy Dalton and the only positive from the Pierce Dalton era was the creation of one of my favourite video games ever, "GoldenEye" for the Nintendo 64.

So I welcomed the reboot of the Bond franchise with the introduction of Daniel Craig. However, after the promising start of Casino Royale, I wondered about the choice of the director for Quantum of Solace. Mark Forester has done some decent movies (Finding Neverland, Kite Runner, Monster's Ball) but I thought he was a strange choice for an action blockbuster. But I think these major studios are looking for quality directors to oversee these blockbuster franchises (see Christopher Nolan and Batman) in the hopes of appealing to a wide range of people. Action plus character driven pieces are the bread winners these days and Hollywood simply likes to mimic this trend because it seems to work.

Too bad it doesn't work for Quantum of Solace. My major beef with this movie are the terrible edits of the action. It looks like someone was trying to emulate the Bourne series, but to a worse effect. So many of the set pieces were elaborate and gorgeous looking, but the money was wasted because you could rarely tell what was going on. The edits were so quick that you got no sense of danger for Bond. Scenes would be a blur which meant all the realism that was added back into the series was negated to bring about an over fizzle to the proceedings. I liked how Bond was angry and clearly disturbed by the events of Casino Royale. I liked Daniel Craig again as Bond. I liked the interaction of Bond with M (the brilliant Judi Dench). I liked the continuity of the characters, bringing back two characters from the first movie. But when the movie ended and I exited and I was not sure if I liked the movie.

I am still thinking about it this movie. Maybe the grim tone and lack of humour in comparison to Casino Royale works against this movie. I have a feeling that I will look forward to the third movie due to the implications of the end events of this movie. Let's hope they find a director better suited to making decisions when concerned with action scenes.

If you want some yuks, go see Role Models. I have always been rooting for Paul Rudd, who has been terrific in so many movies. See "Clueless" or "40 Year Old Virgin". This movie that he wrote, has him playing a perfect role for his acting style. This R-rated comedy tries to be too crass at times, but there are some nice moments and a lot of laugh out loud spots. Not for everyone, but a decent comedy from the Apatow crew.