I'm just announcing that I uploaded all my videos again to youtube, for better quality.
So go check out the videos!
One topic I was about to write was the new James Bond film. I'll just talk about it briefly. I liked it. I know that even though Bond is now portrayed a bit confused and clearly lost person, they still are not intellectual films, and they possibly shouldn't be , but I like the way Daniel Craig makes James Bond feel like a complete lunatic from time to time. He has this crazy-look in his eyes, which is nice.
All the old James Bonds were just clean fellows who had no soul but it did not worry them, now it feels like Bond is all the time ready to fall apart, when he has no clear mission, like chasing a bad guy. But I think the new bond is a bit more real and there is some moral in his character, absurdly violent as he may be, but at least he clearly is a non-well person.
So, I can't understand why people have disliked the new Bond film. It is fast and exploding, but that is just the way an action film has to be, and since it was a clear sequel, continuing straight after Casino Royale, it is totally understandable that there is no need to stop and explain what is happening. Even though there were some plot holes in the film, or some bad writing at least, but they were hard to notice when the movie went on forward so fast..
But I think that the next Bond is hard to do, because this film worked because of the blow of Casino Royales freshness, but it wont last three films, so if Bond doesn't go mad in the next film or something, the series will fall back to the uninteresting saga of films that it was before Casino Royale.
1 kommentti:
I didn't understand why many people thought it was so much worse than Casino either. I did think it wasn't quite as good structurally, and the ending especially lacked punch.
The idea that you really have to be a seriously fucked up sociopath to be able to do the things Bond does was introduced quite nicely in Casino Royale. There was a glimmer of redemption with the love interest and then all went to hell. Hence the sequel is so dark. I think the logical progression is for bond to really grapple with some moral issues now that he has worked revenge out of his system. Give the guy some humanity.
I think I'm getting too old for the action in today's action films. They tend to move so fast it all becomes sensory overload. And I think this works against the main innovation (in my mind anyway) of the new Bond films, which was to show carefully worked out action sequences where people seemed to be methodical and consistent in their actions however incredible (like the beginning sequence of Casino).
Of course this was already done in the first Bourne film.
The real worry with a portraying action heroes as borderline amoral antiheroes rather than knights in shining armor (like during the simpler cold war era) is that rather then making people question the moral choices or making people more sceptical it seems to make them jaded and gets them to accept ideas like "torture is okay if the good guys do it" (24). I know its supposed to be just entertainment but that doesn't mean that it does not reflect and even shape a moral worlview of some sort.
Lähetä kommentti