bulldawg8110

I love the Bond series. I own all of the movies, and have seen them multiple times. As much as I love the overt humor and over-the-top action of a lot of the films, it was nice to finally see a gritty Bond film. There is plenty of incredible action, but what really makes the movie is the intensely dramatic scenes and the powerful acting by the cast.

Craig brings a completely new interpretation of Bond. We can see the pain and emotional conflicts within Bond which are so rarely seen in the series. Craig's performance never ceases to be dead-on perfect. Not only is he cool and witty as we'd expect Bond to be, but he can also portray anger and hurt brilliantly. In this film we see a different kind of Bond. We see a Bond who is not yet on the top of his game. He makes mistakes, he gets misled, and doesn't always complete the mission with perfection. Craig is the perfect blend of what we consider the cinematic Bond and the literary Bond. He brings everything you could want in a Bond to the table.

The rest of the cast was also superb. Mads Mikkelson is dead-on as Le Chiffre. He can be evil and menacing, but wisely does not take the role over the top. The character of Le Chiffre is really a pawn who is in a tough position, and Mikkelson shows how Le Chiffre is really quite frightened for his life. His exchanges of steely glares with Bond at the poker table are some of the best moments of the film. Eva Green is instantly one of the best Bond girls, she is Bond's equal in intelligence and also very sexy. It is believable that a woman like this could take Bond's heart. She is the best Bond girl since Tracy in OHMSS. Giancarlo Giannini is very charismatic in his role, and while his time on screen is usually not long, he makes the character very memorable.

This movie has easily the best dialogue of any Bond movie to date. The writers did a marvelous job, and I think Paul Haggis really helped them with it. Martin Campbell...absolutely incredible directing job. The entire movie was incredibly intense, even during some of the "slower" stretches. Overall the movie was a perfect blend of drama, suspense, and action. It's not only everything you want in a Bond movie, it's everything you want in a movie...period. As a lifelong HUGE Bond enthusiast, I have to say this one was the definitive movie. Perfect in just about every way.

I'd say over half of the people I know say this is their absolute favorite movie. However, every one of those people I know who say it's their favorite movie aren't big movie-watchers. They like movies for mindless action, or stupid comedy, or cheap scares. I've noticed most reviewers who dislike this film have problems with the morality of this movie. I think movies are movies, and immorality is a part of life, so I think it should be shown in movies. However, this movie has a huge list of other problems that make it virtually unwatchable to the knowledgeable movie-watcher.

Now, there's nothing wrong with just watching movies for mindless action and such, because if it entertains you, then it serves its purpose. But as someone who appreciates the artistic aspects of movies, I have to review it in that manner. This movie has horrendously cartoonish acting by basically all of the people with smaller roles. It is riddled with generic, stereotypical portrayals. Now, if this movie didn't take itself so seriously, that would be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, this is a low-budget movie trying to be an epic Hollywood masterpiece, and it really shows. In taking itself so seriously, it falls desperately short of what it's trying to accomplish. The plot is just a formality in this movie. You can tell it only has a plot because it has to. They seem rather disinterested in the scenes involving character development.

I felt sad for Willem Dafoe. He's a great actor, but here he is in this role he doesn't seem to fit at all. He gives the best performance of anyone in the movie, but even he fails to be believable. I wasn't sure what he was doing in this mess the entire time I was watching it. The two lead actors, Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus, serve their purpose well enough. You can tell their goal was to just not mess up, they weren't really interested in delivering powerful performances. They manage to not be laughably bad, but are far from good. However, by the end of the film, how can you care about the characters? The movie expects you to be on the side of these terribly boring, uncharismatic characters. You can't have an emotional finish without any form of emotional scenes in the earlier stages.

Finally, notice how this movie is the director's only one. He's no ace director, and the comparisons to Tarantino are disgusting. Even if you like this movie, how can you think it's made in any way like a Tarantino film? The backbone of Tarantino's films and what makes them so great is the consistent brilliant dialogue. Not only does The Boondock Saints not have any brilliant dialogue, it isn't even trying to be big on dialogue to begin with. To compare Duffy to Tarantino isn't even fair, considering Tarantino has consistently made incredibly brilliant films, and Duffy has just made one cult hit that in my opinion is extraordinarily poor. This movie is certainly for those who just watch movies for entertainment. If you are looking for depth, stay far away.

I was extremely excited to see this movie. I mean, how can you go wrong with Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Ian McKellen? Unfortunately, there are a lot of flaws with this movie that made it disappointing, if not below average.

First of all, it is a movie trying to be a book. What I mean by that is that it is easier to follow complexity in written form than in movie form. I was able to follow it, but there are so many twists and turns that each puzzle solved seems to become "just another one". I mean, with so many clues, they start getting old very fast. You start to say "just figure it out already!" Just when you think the puzzle is about to be solved, it's not. And even after all of this, the ending is very predictable (I did not read the book). Some positive aspects are the fact that there is a lot of intensity, stunning visuals, and the violence is well done.

As for the performances, Tom Hanks does not deliver a powerful performance. However, I do not believe it to be his fault. His character is written so poorly that the character has no depth, very cardboard. He is a very boring character who just figures things out, and occasionally feels claustrophobic. Ian McKellen delivers a very good performance, but there is too much of his character. He should be the cool small character that shows up for a little while, steals a couple scenes, and the story moves on. Silas is a great character, but Paul Bettany is shaky. His accent falters a few times, and he displays no acting range in the role. A better actor could have made the part brilliant (imagine Ralph Fiennes in the part). Alfred Molina does a good job, but his character seems completely unnecessary.

With that said, most of the problems with this movie come from the writing. When you make a movie from a book, you have to make the dialogue more powerful and entertaining. This movie had horrendous dialogue, and even great actors like Tom Hanks struggled with it. With better writing, this movie could have been very good. Also, I think a few more of the clues could have been cut out, those were a bit much. It is worth seeing, but fails to live up to expectations.