Sunday, November 19, 2006

Bond Begins

The new Bond movie, Casino Royale, is a good movie. But is it a good Bond movie?

Charismatic Bond: The new guy isn't bad. But Pierce Brosnan was definitely better. Also, I can maybe believe women seeing Pierce Brosnan in a Speedo and at least not being repulsed, but the new guy is gritty (ugly) and creepy, and there's no way those hot beach chicks would have been checking him out... 6/10.

Attractive female characters: Pretty good in this department, but no Halle Berry either. 8/10.

Awesome gadgets: Bond has some incredible (and Sony-branded!) technology at his disposal, such as phones that can send and receive text messages and email, and a GPS system to help him find places while driving. Wow! It's like I'm gazing into the future! The only cool gadget that even comes to mind is a phone attachment that lets Bond send a blood sample to MI:6 for analysis over the internet. There's not even a Q. I've seen documentaries about the Amish showing off more cool tech. (Well, not really.) 2/10.

Explosions and action: But of course. Well done in this category. 8/10.

Ridiculous supervillians: WHAT? Not even one supervillian? 0/10.

Ridiculous superweapons: WHAT? Not even one superweapon? 0/10.

Ridiculous storyline: They dropped the ball here too. The story wasn't actually that bad. Definitely a good spy movie. 3/10, because it wasn't very ridiculous.

Anyway, it's a good spy movie and a dubious Bond movie. I'm glad that I went in with the knowledge that this one's a bit different and not like a typical "Bond movie," because I think I would have been disappointed if I were hoping for another Die Another Day. Definitely worth seeing... just don't expect any lasers.


Anonymous said...

I heard that they were trying to cut out the cheese and make it a lot more realistic, like the new Batman movie.

Personally, I always found it incrediably silly that Bond could score with every woman he met. The older I got, the more this aspect of the movies bothered me. At least with Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan it was at least slightly more believable.

Yet another movie I probably will never see.

Anonymous said...

I actually enjoyed this movie more for all the reasons that you did not. I felt the character had a lot more depth and they actually spent some time developing it. The plot was just as good as any of the Bond movies...which means it was okay.

Travis said...

Louise—I'd agree with the "Bond version of Batman Begins" tag. In fact, that's why I titled the post "Bond Begins."

Johnny—I never said that I didn't like it. In fact, I said that it was a "good spy movie" twice in a row, and "a good movie" right at the beginning. It's just not really what I was initially hoping for when I first heard that a new Bond movie was coming out "soon."

MajorLB said...

I think Bond scoring with every woman can be contributed to a "Tucker Max-effect"

And I think gritty (I disagree with ugly) is appropriate for this Bond. It's his beginning and before he has been betrayed in love. Pierce Brosnan was so smoooooth. I think Brosnan would have been a bad fit for this Bon time period.

Luke said...

Ok, so whether you liked it or not, for all the reasons that it didn't make you high scores in "Bond"ness, those are precisely the reasons that I really liked this one! :)

Mostly, I was just absolutely disgusted with that Die Another Day crap w/ Halle and Pierce.

D. Craig seems like a fair Bond. He's unquestionably masculine and not so terribly elegant (yet). It made a good setup for the whole, "I just got my License to Kill, and I'm pretty new to this gig" idea.

Anonymous said...

Do I even want to know what the "Tucker Max-effect" is?