tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314552338152486048.post-19564362794255440192008-11-16T14:28:00.003-05:002008-11-16T19:14:07.276-05:00<p>Orders have been issued: We go to see Bond today. I hear it's a movie with a buncha violence and action. Whatev. I pretend that's what I'm interested in, too. Uh-huh.</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Updated, no spoilers:</span> Lots of action, too many short-cuts with the action, however. Herky-jerky camera work and 2-second scenes keep you from engaging too deeply, from buying into the scene. Some of the hand-t0-hand really was some of the best action. If the intent was to keep viewers a bit emotionally removed, to parallel the protagonist, well it worked. Which means you leave the theatre feeling just the eensy-est bit of an idea of something missing from the formula.<br /></p><p>Don't misunderstand: go see it and see it on the big screen. It's very enjoyable and well-paced. The plot... eh... paper thin, but who cares. It had very, very few 'moments" and even fewer lines. The intelligent dialogue from Casino Royale disappeared with the writers' strike, I guess. Even a correctly done flashback to Vesper, to connect him to his loss and motivation, would have added some emotional depth. But I'm a girl. What do I know?</p><p>For the ladies, I don't think there was enough of Bond in a tuxedo, but I'll temper that by saying there has never been a Bond who could wear jeans quite so well. Rowwrr!<p><br /></p><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7314552338152486048-1956436279425544019?l=primordialslack.blogspot.com'/></div>Joan of Argghh!http://www.blogger.com/profile/14729682908266300507noreply@blogger.com3