Different kind of Bond

Rating: 7/10 (14 November 2008)

The first thing that I have to say is that this film is different from other Bond flicks. Different how, you ask? Well, just different. While the Pierce Brosnan films stuck religiously to a concrete formula that was molded throughout the Sean Connery/Roger Moore years, this movie takes tremendous liberties with that formula. Do not expect laser watches or underwater lairs or henchman with metal teeth and diamond crusted faces, etc. Not unlike Casino Royale, but even that film had a casino and a villain with a bleeding eye. I credit much of the change in style to director Marc Forster. So, in prep for this film, don't go and watch GoldenEye again, watch The Kite Runner instead, because in some ways, it's probably closer in comparison. Alright, maybe that was a slight stretch. In either case, coming from a series that has delved into so many different genres and styles over the last 40-something years, a change is often welcomed by some, but perhaps may disappoint others.
I generally don't like comparing Bond films to one another, but as this is the first one in the series to count as an actual sequel, I have to compare it to it's predecessor. It's not as good as Casino Royale, which may very well be the most classic Bond story ever told. But it is a decent effort. I can't rank it among the best films in the series, but it's definitely worth your money.
Daniel Craig is back. The role is officially his now and there is no skepticism this time around. He's back and down to business. Olga Kurylenko gives us our leading lady, Camille, and gave a far better performance than I would've thought, considering her fairly limited career as an actress. She and Craig are a dynamite team. Mathieu Amalric plays a most creepy villain in the form of Dominic Greene. He's a Bond villain in the traditional sense, but manages to be so without feeling contrived.
What surprised me most about this film was its approach towards art house. It is driven by off-the-wall action and spectacle (perhaps moreso than any Bond film), yet remains stylish in it's cinematography. Some of it is surprisingly deep. Not only does this film deliver a bigger insight into Bond's more human and personal side, but it is packed with metaphors and symbolism and bits of foreshadowing. Which, again, can be most likely be attributed to Marc Forster. It should also be said that this film is dark. Moreso than Casino Royale, or any Bond film I can think of. At the same time, it's not without a sense of humor. One thing that people tend to find in a Bond film is an inherent campiness, and it brought a smile to my face to see the dry, sometimes silly, humor still intact.
Again, this movie is certainly not without flaws, but it is a bold effort as a James Bond movie. It still dazzles and impresses, and will certainly play with your expectations.