What's all the fuzz about. Lots of Action but no Bond

Rating: 3/10 (21 November 2008)

Wow what a piece of crap. I seems these days such bad movies with enormous marketing budgets are well marketed. As the first Bond with the totally unfitting Daniel Craig who is a fine actor but no Bond at all, this one has also nothing to do anymore with the classic Bond's. Although director MArc Foster seems so be a Bond Fan and paid his tribute in different scenes (Girl covered in oil instead of Gold and some others). So you can say that there was also some effort to get closer to the old ones.
Why I don't like the movie? It so much silly action which is sometimes stunning but often just senseless and so repetitive. It reminds me of the quote of Jon Peters which Kevin Smith told on a university speech about "Superman" (look it up on youtube). "Well there has to be an action beat every ten minutes" At least it looks like it. First of all the repetitive "Parcour Sequence" which we already saw in Casino Royale. Why again here? Then the car chase sequence in the beginning. There seems to be no logic at some points how he gets out of some situations, but hey as long as we have a lot of fast cutting with "nothing-to-really-see"-Close-Ups and add a lot of sound-design, the audience will buy it. Same with the plane-chase-sequence. Did someone really understand why the smaller flexible and more agile plane did fly against some mountain? Me I didn't. It seemed not logical. And the reason why the small plane would lose is not really clear. I'm sorry of course because of James Bond. Sorry I don't buy that.
Then the totally unrealistically "minority report"-Copy scene in the "headquarters". Get out of here. So sophisticated technique and still not knowing whats going on in the world. Who are you fooling'. Then the totally cheap mobile-phone-photograph scene. Bond just takes a wide shot of the crowd and the mobile phone knows on what to zoom without him touching the phone again.
Then the bodyguard of M. Workin for her for 5 years for an organization that he is ready to die for immediately as if he is on a mission of faith. In the ends it turns out the organization is all about money.
Then the totally silly explosion of the house of the Bolivian general in the end.
I just can imagine the director saying: "I don't know why but we need the house to explode consecutively, it just makes no sense. But it looks really good."
All this cross cutting in the fights. Trying to get as much symbolism in this superficial action movie as possible.
Then Bond. Craig you are just no Bond. Bond was inspired by an playboy who got all the spying information because of his ability to get women laid and talk. That's what the character was based on. And the his love/revenge emotion. Oh he is so much in love with the girl he lost in the movie before. Thats why he is on the revenge trip. This holy love of this man who never cared for women in his old movies. He cares so much for her. That he leaves no possibility out to lay girls or kiss other girls while being on his revenge trip. And then we shall buy his love/revenge emotion. Get out of here.
Why is the character of MAthis suddenly in the trunk of his jeep. And why did Bond leave the party without him or Mrs. Fields, when he knew how dangerous Dominique is, in the first place?
Questions over Questions. I wanted to get out of the movie actually after 15 minutes. Just stayed to be totally sure that it was crap and promised to not go in another Craig Bond movie to come.
So the box-office may fool the makers and you earn money with him but time will tell how one will look on these Craig bonds in twenty years. As I can still watch the old Sean-Connery-Bonds and they have magic because of the bond mood. The new ones don't have that.
Ah, I could go on forever.
But that's enough for today.