agkato Reviews

Quantum of Solace (2008)

More Merciless Heroes Not Needed

[6/10 · 7 November 2008]

First, the caveats. I was personally not convinced by the selection of Craig as the next Bond and I did not like Casino Royale as a James Bond film, but liked it enough as an action film. I therefore promised myself that I would view this next Bond installment as a purely action film. I left the theater more convinced that Craig is not the right actor to portray Bond.

The fact is, there are already too many action films where the hero defies the standard classification of a hero; where the hero could very well be an antihero: gritty, cold, tough and merciless. Only James Bond seemed to have all the qualities of a classical hero: suave yet tough, charming yet unfaltering, elegant yet determined. In other words, someone you could really cheer for. This was the formula and, as a James Bond fan, I loved it. This, on the other hand, is not the James Bond I know.

I realize that the owners of the Bond franchise wanted to take him to a new direction. In fact, much has been said about Craig's portrayal of Bond as being the closest to the Ian Fleming Bond. My answer is, who cares? I mean, really? I have no doubt that those who've watched Bond portrayed by Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan know Bond to be what he is: a wry, womanizing, gadget-using, alcohol-chugging, no-strand-of-hair-out-of-place-even-after-a-tough-fight super secret agent. That's how he was portrayed and I was happy that way. Every Bond movie was like clockwork: beautiful lady, nasty villain, mostly confusing story lines, sexy theme song, naked lady silhouettes, etc., etc.

This Bond is different, though. Different to the point of being unsettling, like running out of coffee so that you'd have to take tea with your breakfast, or vice-versa for our British friends. I'm really sorry, but Craig is not Bond and when his fourth Bond movie is completed, I'll be as happy as a clam.

Vantage Point (2008)

Take it for what it is, a good, entertaining film

[8/10 · 23 February 2008]

Some reviewers make it out to almost be a B-movie, but it isn't, not by a long shot.

The story revolves around the assassination of the US president who is attending a counter-terrorism summit in Spain. The film is told from multiple viewpoints and the events that transpire within a 23-minute time frame, thus a Groundhog Day-like experience.

Vantage Point is really just an action film . . . pure and simple. When seeing this film, don't expect a complex and deep storyline; it certainly isn't that. The proper approach is to just take it for what it is. I liked this film because it had no pretensions. It didn't want to pretend that it needs to be over-analyzed by the viewer. There are no lengthy sub-plots and behind-the-back conspiracy pieces, no need to explain who is fighting for what cause. And if you approach with this frame of mind, then I assure you, you won't get bored or disappointed.

It's a movie that doesn't need to be analyzed ad nauseam. It doesn't care about needing to tie up lose ends and explain all the circumstances surrounding the assassination. Approach it from *that* "vantage point" and you'll appreciate it more.

Casino Royale (2006)

Destroyer of Formulas

[1/10 · 20 November 2006]

I've watched all the James Bond flicks from Connery to Brosnan and if there's one characteristic of all of them, it's formula. From the opening credits to the tech wizardry to the beautiful women to the action sequences, they all have to be there. Unlike other films where formulas are shunned, the Bond films thrive on formulas; which is why people keep coming back for more.

I had a feeling that the formulas that made all the other Bond films work had to be changed in order to justify the selection of Daniel Craig as a "different" Bond, which really doesn't make sense because you don't fix a franchise that ain't broke.

For instance, the gratuitous violence (for a Bond film) just can't be justified. Yes, the other Bonds killed people, but they managed to do it smoothly. There was no need for James Bond to get his suit wrinkled and stained and his hair all out of place in order to kill. It was unrealistic, but who said Bond was real? People loved Bond that way, and it worked.

True, the film had some entertainment value, but I felt that it was too long. The action scenes were just too repetitive. The gambling scenes overly stretched. I think that it would have been better with maybe 30% of the film left on the cutting room floor. In fact, my wife even slept midway through one of the action sequences.

As to the new Bond, he just seems, well, out of place. Again, I suppose the reason is really simple: Craig is not formulaic. He's not as smooth as the Bonds of the past. I don't even get why he mumbles his words. If the mumbling is intended, it absolutely doesn't work. I thought that Bond was an orphan, raised by the powers that be to be both a lethal killer and well-skilled in social graces.

All in all, I would say that this Bond doesn't work because it tries too bloody hard to work. It's the same as a golf swing. You change the mechanics of your backswing and you realize that you change the rest of your swing as well just to compensate.

Casino Royale is simply just a double bogey in my book.