Review of "JCVD" (2008)

JCVD (2008)

JC is "Jerry Lewis-famous" in Belgium. Watch out Steven.

Jean-Claude Van Varenberg is not a name you would typically remember. Now replace the last name with Van Damme and that changes dramatically. They are one and the same, but the latter name invokes a certain response. Fame and celebrity invokes a certain universal scrutiny that a "normal" person lives without. It is this theme that the movie cleverly uses to spin a fictitious (and sometimes surreal) dark comedy about the random events surrounding the life of the real Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Another stunt gone bad for JC, which will likely lead to another lawsuit.

An immediate JC association is that he is an aging but once prominent international action-movie star, who is well past his prime and now making B-movies exclusively to pay the bills. The movie is constantly juxtaposing that image against a "real life" person trying to play themselves, outside of a movie. The introduction and opening credits is a 3 minute, complicated action sequence of which we would be expecting from a movie starring JC. It's the best JC action sequence of the last 10 years and it turns out to be just another scene in one of those B-movies he is making. This is NOT an action movie, however. He takes his first hit from the 20-something Asian director.

JC takes another hit during his divorce/custody hearing, in which his daughter doesn't want to be with him because friends laugh when he is on TV. Because he makes action movies he is associated with violence and all that implies. He cannot get the roles he wants, because he is typecast. It becomes a vicious cycle to pay the bills through B-movies. He returns home, to Belgium, to figure things out. He just needs to get some cash from the Post Office to pay the cabbie. A mundane situation. Then fans notice him. Everyone starts to notice. Too bad the post office turns into a hostage drama with the cops making a command center of nearby video store. Subliminally we all expect JC to take care of the situation in action-movie style. He does and he doesn't.

JC's new "thing" is getting people to smell his feet.

The movie is shot in a gritty, digital format reminiscent of a documentary/reality show style. The colors are generally muted in faded gray, greens and browns. Nothing pops but instead screams industrial and earthy. Gritty & real. I saw the dubbed version of the film and as bad as it sounded, it did not affect my enjoyment of the movie. I do recommend you watch it with the original soundtrack and JC talking in his native language.

In this era of films where I have to prepare myself before going out to the theater (by prepare I mean, leave most expectations at home & bring a flask with me), this was a surprise. That is a beautiful and rare thing these days. Though JC is playing a role, namely himself in a fictional situation, you can tell he brought some acting muscle and lay himself upon the alter for exposition. I have always had an affinity for the accent-laden action hero (Schwarzenegger being the other) and this does for JC was Danny the Dog did for Jet Li. It opened my eyes to the untapped talent still residing within an aged action star.

Belgian police take their jobs seriously.

JC ,in an amazing gesture, transcends the movie at one point and his image by stopping the film (pre-climax) and rising about it (literally) to speak to us directly. It feels like a heart-to-heart moment between JC the man addressing his audience and critics alike. The scene, though seemingly out of place, works because it seems like a genuine glimpse into the man. He talks about things that are important to him and even cries several times. I felt as if I had just been witness to a communal exorcism and rebirth. If it was all acting, I have nothing but praise and admiration for JC. He entertained me, inspired and taught me something, all within the span of 90 minutes. He can live contently in the knowledge that he is and never will be Steven Segal. And that's a good thing.

View all the screen shots here.

Review of "Iron Man (2008)"

Iron Man (2008)

Without the man on the inside its just an empty shell.

The easiest way to sum up this movie is Robert Downey Jr. He is this movie. Robert is Tony Starks. Without Robert this movie would have been empty gadget porn. Don't get me wrong, I like Jon Favreau (the director, who also makes a nice cameo as one of Stark's bodyguards). I really, really like him. I feel a certain kinship as we are both Librans (with birthdays very close together) and both grew up in Queens. I think his role as Mike in Swingers will be forever burned into my consciousness, however, without Robert this movie would have been a flat, ordinary, predictable and gadget ladened comic book based movie.

The movie is a very straight forward narrative (and very predictable) of a talented person caught up in the money, fame and drugs of living the "good life". To say that Tony Starks has an ego is an understatement. You can hate him at the same time you really like him. He is the charismatic rogue and frankly what most men want to be (lets be honest). At the beginning of the movie, Tony lacks a purpose. That purpose is given to him inadvertently when he is kidnapped by some Islamic terrorists (do we really need to get his clichéd?) and forced to build his company's top of the line missile in a cave out of spare parts. Instead he creates an iron suit and decides to escape. The experience infuses Tony with a purpose to make a positive difference in this world, of which the result is Iron Man. There are several subplots, twists and turns, but all are quite predictable (and wrap up quite nicely by the end of the movie).

The supporting cast is good, though I think they're not suppose to overpower or even make much of an impact. They are props for Downey to envelope us in his magic. Does it matter that his personal assistant is played by an Academy Award winning actress (Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts) or that his "friends" have 5 Academy Award nominations between then (Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard)? It doesn't. They are they simply there to fill in any of the rough patches and makes this movie look smooth. For the most part, they succeed, but in a behind the scenes and supportive way. They hardly stand out.

While this is a showcase for Downey, Favreau adds some nice easter eggs for the fans. There are several important easter eggs that Favreau throws out during the course of the film.* He also delves into Stark's relationship and alcohol problems of which Downey has adequate life experiences to base his method acting on. There are adequate crumbs here to lead one to at least one more film. The rest is Downey interacting with technology. What can one say about the special effects of Hollywood that hasn't already been said? This is a prime example of the technical proficiencies of a good Hollywood production, while Favreau keeps it from becoming ridiculous. Tony Starks lives & breaths technology, so it is quite appropriate. Are you taking notes Michael Bay? This is what Transformers should have been like.

To read this review you might think that I didn't enjoy this movie or perhaps have an unhealthy fixation on Robert Downey Jr. Both are not true. I liked this movie and I have never had any doubts about Robert's talent. Iron Man has joined the ranks of Spiderman 2 as my two favorite (and best) comic based movies. Both are very enjoyable, yet flawed (and definitely not horrible. Yes, I'm looking at you Fantastic Four).

Other have dismissed my qualms with the movie by reminding me that this is a comic book based movie. To this I respond with why does a comic book or comic book based movie have to be simple, predictable and clichéd? There are numerous instances of the medium's seriousness and complexity. Why does a summer blockbuster have to be flashy, trite and predictable? It doesn't have to be that way.

This movie is much like most staged performances. You don't want to get to close to the sets/stage or you might risk dispelling the illusion. The same goes for Iron Man. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

*EASTER EGG SPOILERS

-READ AT YOUR RISK-

-Rhodes makes a comment about a second suit, alluding to War Machine (spin off or next movie??)

-S.H.I.E.L.D is formed.

-In the final scene (pre-credits), Starks admits publicly that he is Iron Man essentially doing away with the duality of superheros (the hero and the disguise).

-After the credits Samuel L. Jackson makes an appearance a Marvel's Ultimate Nick Fury.

-Many allusions to what could be the next movie featuring the Mandarin

Review of "Commando (1985)"

Commando (1985)

Commando. Kirby. Code Red. Coordinates. Got it.

I used to have a VHS copy of this movie that I watched so much, that I wore out the tracking. This is only the second movie (the first being the Terminator), I had ever seen, in which the Austrian sensation did not yield a sword, wear a furry loin cloth or ride a horse. This has the quintessential formula for a Schwarzenegger action movie. Key elements of this formula would include non-stop action, gun play, one-liners delivered with accented stoicism, the muscles and a body count numbering in the hundreds.

In Last Action Hero (an often misunderstood and underrated Schwarzenegger parody action movie with comic elements), Jack Slater (Arnold) and Danny (his pint-size partner from the real world) are in a video store. We are shown an alternate universe where Sylvester Stallone is the star of Terminator 2 : Judgment Day. In that same universe, this movie could well be looked upon as Schwarzenegger interpreting John Rambo.

John Matrix (Schwarzenegger) is a single dad and retired ultra-elite commando living incognito with his daughter, Alyssa Milano. A prepubescent Alyssa Milano, on top of that. I can't make this stuff up. Other members of his elite unit are being systematically eliminated in a convoluted ploy to reveal Matrix's location and kidnap his daughter. Her kidnapping would be used as leverage to force Matrix to perform a presidential assassination. Instead, Matrix uses his commando skills in detecting her location and executing a rescue. His skill set would include : commando driving, commando killing, commando shooting, commando hand-to-hand combat, commando jumping, commando sneaking, commando super senses, commando acting and commando shopping.

The plot isn't very convoluted and reveals itself to be quite straightforward. The non-stop, over-the-top action, sheer personality and pronunciation of Schwarzenegger is what keeps this movie entertaining. That and the sheer body count. I counted 89, but that is a conservative estimate. 85 of those occurred in the last 20 minutes of the movie. The supporting cast is atrociously bad and does nothing to help him. This is a one-man-show. Dam Hedaya's presidentially Latin accented English, Alyssa Milano's best Tammy Faye Baker impersonation and the pathetically whinny (and psychotic) nemesis of Bennett (Vernon Wells) do little except show off the smoked Gouda inherent in the movie. Wells is much better as the crazy, silent type (see the Road Warrior and Innerspace) than the talkative psychotic. Even pre-Boca Rae Dawn Chong barely manages to steal any of the spotlight from the Governator.

I have enjoyed this movie from my youth and it has not lost any of its 80's charm (steel drum soundtrack included). It is impossible to take this movie seriously, so don't. In the real world, the movie would have ended when Matrix jumped out of a jet airline into a 3 foot deep marsh or during the Mall mêlée or while single handedly taking out a small and well armed militia (and dishing the catchy one-liners). So kick back, have a drink (or several) and let off some steam. This is one is sure to not let go.

Review of "Caligola (1979)"

Caligola (1979)

Roman Tax Reform..........couldn't hurt ??

This is one of the earliest movies I can remember seeing. The other two being Conan the Barbarian and Halloween. My initial view was a brief 30 minutes or so, caused by a cultural misunderstanding. It would take another 10 years or so before I saw the movie in its entirety. It is interested to see how things have evolved and shows like Rome and the Tudors (movies like the Gladiator, 300 and Alexander) have come in the aftermath of this movie. It would almost seem as the prototype for the dramatic historical fiction narrative. It is graphic in terms of sex and violence and tries to depict Rome in terms of its own morals and not ours. This isn't an everyday Roman's view, but rather a look at lasciviousness of the ruling class.

Written by Gore Vidal, starring a pretty good cast. Peter O'Toole (as the dying and diseased Emperor Tiberius), Malcolm McDowell (Caligula) in yet another full frontal movie (Clockwork Orange), Sir John Gielgud and Helen Mirren (thats right the Queen herself).

It is nice to see Peter O' Toole and Malcolm McDowell fully embedded in the hedonism of ancient Rome. I can easily see them as downing cartons of wine before scenes and hanging out with John Holmes in the mirror room. It is nice to see the classically trained (Mirren and Gielgud) joining in this Roman foray as well. I can't help but me reminded of Fellini in terms of style. I am thinking of the influence of Roma and Satyricon. It is heavily stylized and the theatricality is quite visible. At time is feels more like theater than a movie. It might lead one to forget that one is watching porn.

Even though there is a heavy story about how Rome works and perhaps the other motivations of the young Emperor (sympathetic eye towards Caligula amongst the cruelty and scandals), the politics of Rome and the question of morality, it is still in the context of the incest, sex, orgies, homosexuality, sex, bestiality, sex, masturbation, and pure unabashed hedonism (and sex) of a corrupt and failing system. The authenticity and production quality leads more to the impression of a stylized documentary rather than porn. And just when you are comfortable with that assessment of the movie, it shoves some genitals in you direction just to make sure you remembered this was a porn. Yet despite all this it still somehow works and has some time to develop. As opposed to most porn, it doesn't forgo the story for the sex. The story develops organically, while periodically linked by one of Rome's eccentricities (a.k.a. the sex). The scene where Caligula rips the Emperor's ring off is amazing. The sheer energy of this scene(sound and imagery) sets the mood for the rest of the movie. Powerful imagery such as the metaphor of casting a ship to sea (and thus declaring war) to the frenzied energy of a fellatio.

This one is hard to recommend to anyone. This is a view at your own risk kind of movie, not suitable for the TGIF/Fast Food Nation family crowd. It is artistic, graphic and somewhat accurate. I guess its a lot like the history its trying to recreate.

Review of "The Prestige (2006)"

The Prestige (2006)

Magic meets OldBoy!! A mystery wrapped up in an enigma, in the pocket of Edward Nigma.

If you are looking for a "magic" laden adventure this is not the place to search (and neither is the Illusionist). Magic does not exist in either. Both are narratives routed in reality. That is the sleight of hand that is being pushed by both.

According to Alfred (Batman's butler), there are 3 parts to a magic trick :

1) The Pledge : This is the part the magician shows you something ordinary and may even let you examine it.

2) The Turn : This is the part the magician takes something ordinary and does something unexpected with it. This is the disappearing part.

3) The Presige : This is the punchline and the "ta-da" of every trick. It is easy enough to disappear. This is the reappearing.

Director Christopher Nolan is still doing a time narrative, albeit not as complicated as his Memento or as dark as Batman Begins. Two magicians (Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier and Chrisitan Bale as Alfred Borden) begin their serpentine, first as colleagues and friends and then as rivals and much, much more. It is an interesting choice of last names. A Nostradamus-like prediction, so accidentally accurate to their character states. Nolan throws us clues through out the movie (much like Memento). We are forced to wait till the end and then we can follow the bread crumbs wherever they lead in the movie. Second viewings turn into a "where's Waldo" type of clue searching game. It is very much in the same light as a magic trick. If you found out how most work, you would realize it is rather obvious once you know.

The peak of their relationship came during their act, in which tragedy ensued (the accidental death of the girl from Coyote Ugly, also known as Angier's wife). It then dwindles down to a magician's grude and a"what-you-can-do-I-can-do-better" scenario. The director has a knack for generating an interesting weave of images and complex narratives. Much like its shadow (The Illusionist), both were marketed as something else. This one has a better cast with a better chemistry, especially between the two main characters. It also had a much better supporting cast in David Bowie, Scarlett Johansson and Michael Caine. The story did not drag at all and felt much shorter than 130 minutes.

Magic is much like religion. We want to believe and such the Prestige will suck you in, till the end. It also helps that it has a style and a narrative. Technology is the new magic. It is the new fire for a new millennium for a new Prometheus to threaten the gods with. We can become gods, but like everything there is a price. If you are willing to pay your own way through this world and not just spectate or ride on someone else's bus, then you should watch this movie. Also if you haven't done so, see Street Trash. You can do it either before or after the Prestige. It works on multiple levels and viewings. Shocker might work as well. YEAH!!!!

Review of "Jesus Camp" (2006)

Jesus Camp (2006)

Scariest movie I have seen since Halloween and I was 7 then.

This isn't the kind of scary movie involving twisted carnage or shock value. If you are an intelligent human being that asks questions, this is the kind of movie that will scare you to the core of your being. This is probably the first time in many years, in which I was intensely frightened by a movie. It is also the best kind of documentary. One in which you sit back, not add any commentary, and let the images and sounds speak for themselves. It is funny to think that the filmmakers genuinely intended this movie to show a softer, more personal side of the Christian Evangelical movement in the US.

The whole premise of this documentary is to follow around a group of children, their parents and the camp they go to. A religious camp that inspires and teaches about JC. JC in the house!! JC as in Jesus Christ. There's nothing wrong with JC, if you actually follow what he taught - love and acceptance. It is clear (even before watching this) that Evangelicals have an agenda. It isn't just religion, but rather more a neo-fascist organization veiling itself in JC and the garbs of religion (American for Americans, American for Christians, etc). I use the term fascist because fascist ideals used nationalism and the idea of one-people-one-country to justify an us against them agenda. Again this is nothing new. There are parallels in the Islamic and Jewish faiths as well. The Islamic version have been called terrorists. Funny, I don't see much of difference in ideology, just methodology.

Evangelicals seem to have embraced the 21th century and its advantages. Instead of terror, why not divide and conquer and take over everything from the inside. They prefer the silent coup. They are not afraid nor lackadaisical. Their political power has grown consistently. While we sleep, they take over. They are the Starbucks of the 21st Century. They'll soon be on every street corner dishing out red bracelets and pamphlets. Islamic fundamentalists have other issues and methods, but I bet you if the Evangelical's methods stop working they'll be resorting to blowing themselves up soon enough. I mean they use the term war frequently during this movie. They call themselves Christ's Army. Is this any different from Jihad ? Isn't burning Harry Potter and witches a bit 17th century, not to mention violent? It is also funny to think most Evangelicals support the death penalty. At times, it almost seems like the Evangelicals praised the recruitment tactics and "teaching" methods of the Islamic fundamentalists. It is as if they are striving for the same results.

Early indoctrination is key in both. Get them early and bombard them constantly with rhetoric. Add group influence and it becomes difficult to deal with. It is the way cults work. Break their individuality and then re-form them into the community, where they get acceptance by the "mob". What they are taught is intolerance and linear thinking. If you are not a Christian then you are not one of us and don't belong in this country. History is also molded to reflect this. Apparently the architects of the United States of America used Judeo-Christian beliefs to found this country. Things like the Bill of Rights ,the Constitution, freedom of religion, the separation of church and state and the Age of Enlightenment (Age of Reason) are fabrications of the liberal media and Satan himself.

I am torn. I feel terrible for these children, but at the same time I fear them. These kids will probably grow up to do the same to their kids. Its their right to teach their own kids as they will, but please leave me and mine out of it. I don't go around telling other people what do to do and especially not what they should believe. Evangelicals do not have that separation. It is JC, 24/7, whether it is bowling, running a power point presentation, dancing, singing, talking or buying groceries. Everything relates to JC. How are you suppose to have a discourse with a person who not only will not listen, they wont even consider the possibilities outside of their sphere of knowledge? This is the inherent flaw in everything fundamentalist. Discourse is not an option. You either are with them or becoming one of them or you're not.

The only comical moment was to see Pastor Ted Haggard, in light of recent news. It was alleged that he had homosexual activity (which he is against) and even used crystal meth. Apparently he used to frequent gay bars and invite gay men to his congregation. I believe that is the most original pickup line I have ever heard. Kudos Pastor Ted, kudos. The allegations were so false, of course, that he resigned or was forced out. After 3 weeks of intensive counseling, he was heterosexual and drug free. This is the kind of stuff that give credence to my arguments.

Watching this documentary reminded me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers or maybe one of the many movies about the Inquistion (like the Name of the Rose). The idea that organized religion is not a beacon for truth, but rather a tool of chaos. Those who don't follow the practices I do, are inherently wrong. What is more saddening is that this is all done in God's name.

Much like M. Bennell, we need to find the pods and nip them in the bud. Till then, keep alert and ever vigilant. They are out there amongst us and we must unite.

Review of "Body Double" (1984)

Body Double (1984)


80's Post-Scarface Brian De Palma's take on film noir and the Hitchcockian thriller.

I continue to celebrate the year 1984, by watching yet another wonderful movie from that year. A year that brought us Orwellian homages via Apple commercials and even a situation close to my heart involving a plane, a rabbit hat and a Chevy Monte Carlo (gray). As Conan's chronicler would say - "But that is another story...."

After the exploitation films popular during the 70's, there was what I like to call a film noir retrospective revival during the 80's through most of the industry. It brought back the gritty, sordid, sexual and action based narrative back from the mindless thrills. It started in the 70's with Sam Peckinpah's violent epics and movies like Taxi Driver. The 80's with movies like Scarface, added the 80's "crisp and bright" stereotypical look, feel and sound.

Of course this movie is yet another in the VHS "I remember that cover" story revolving around my childhood and recently gone defunct mom and pop video store, I once patronized. It also did a heavy stint on the Skin-a-Max Cable tour I believe. This movie is probably as close to a grind house movie as you can get to from a studio film.

Jake Scully is a somewhat struggling, B-movie actor with a severe case of "stage fright" and mild claustrophobia. After one of his episodes, he finds himself at home watching his girlfriend having sex with another man. He gets about as good a look as someone could get without being called a habitual voyeur. He then loses his acting job as the lead; as a vampire in Vampire's Kiss. He is down on his luck and ends up meeting a "fellow thespian", Sam Bouchard. Through Sam, Jake is given the job of house-sitting a very expensive house in the hills of Hollywood. I think its the same house "Mad Mel" took out in Lethal Weapon 2. He is told that the neighbor has a particular habit she does every night at the same time: (cough) Masturbate (cough). More than an audience now, we are made participants in the voyeurism through the telescopic lens. Jake believes the neighbor, Gloria Revelle, an attractive, yet abused hot 80's trophy wife is being followed by an "Indian". He proceeds to do the "heroic" act of following her himself. It is hard to reveal the rest without revealing the intrinsic goodness of the mystery.

This movie occurred after Scarface, yet is full of similarities. De Palma enhances the close up shot with all the background action. It is the background and at the same time it isn't, because the story is happening out there even though the eye if focusing on the clarity of the foreground. Your eyes are in a constant frenzy to keep up with everything that is happening in the shot. He uses that to describe the fear of claustrophobia as well as the ecstasy of voyeurism. The infusion of a melodramatic and over the top symphonic score further enhances those emotions. There are long sequences in which there little to no dialog. There are other scenes in which the dialog is in the background conversations and noise. Even if there is no dialog or sound, we are constantly accompanied by the eerily familiar score. The music is reminiscent of Hitchcock's music man – Bernard Hermann (composer on North by Northwest, Psycho, the Birds, Cape Fear and even the Twilight Zone). It is a bit more crisp (like the hair and clothes of the time).

This is very much a stylized, modernization of a Hitchcock mystery and film noir in a 1980's perspective (the clothes, colors, hair, porn's transition to VHS and the television airwaves, the yuppies and the coke). This movie has multiple layers and a very sharp edge. Voyerism is a big component. There is also a underlying parodistic component regarding the movie business. Did I mention there is the very, very, very nude Melanie Griffith giving it her all as Holly Body in Holly Does Hollywood ??

I especially enjoyed the director's porn music video (Frankie apparently did come to Hollywood) as well as the director's definition of the title of the movie during the ending credits. Both are a nice wink, wink to the audience. Why not watch it? Its a good match. Looks real, looks good and best of all there's no tan lines.

Review of "Casino Royale" (2006)

Casino Royale (2006)

No no, Peter Sellers and David Niven are not in this one ...

Casino Royale is the first book of the James Bond series, written by Ian Flemming. This is the second movie adaptation with the same name (the first being a comedy, see 1967). Daniel Craig of Layer Cake fame is now James Bond. First of all I would like to clear the air of my experience with the Bond franchise. With the exception of License to Kill, the Bond franchise has been rather campy and over-the-top (a perfect entertainment vehicle). I have never really taken the franchise seriously, simply because it didn't seem to take itself too seriously. Bond had become synonymous with gadgets, girls, cars, over the top stunts, one liners, unbelievable plots and the now stereotypical nemeses (usually with a crazy looking/acting henchman, crazy conspiracy theory to take over the world, crazy built in timer doomsday devices, etc,etc.). License to Kill stands as my favorite James Bond movie, with the much underrated and often maligned Timothy Daulton. He was much different then the others. He had a certain mix of youth, emotion, athleticism, charisma, and suave, mixed in a very good proportion. He could be happy, sad, angry, confident, sexy, etc. Bond tended to be very one dimensional usually (with some exceptions, namely in License to Kill and On Her Majesty's Secret Service).

Sean Connery is still my favorite and tops my list. Daniel Craig is now second (his stock will rise if he keeps this up maybe giving Sir Connery a challenge in the top spot), with Daulton coming in third. Roger Moore picks up the next spot. Aussie George Lazenby is next followed by my all-time most reviled bond, Pierce Brosnan. After the despicable Brosnan Bond movies, the franchise had gone the way of Star Trek, namely into the gutter. The series need a serious dose of adrenalin and a good stiff, shock from a heart defibrillator.

What is the best way to administer the above? Simple. Clinical death followed by a new miraculous lease on life. Kill off Bond and start fresh. Forget the previous 20 something movies. Daniel Craig is Bond. Being that this is Fleming's first book, this is also the origin of Bond : How did Bond get his double 0 moniker and his first assignment as full agent. If you haven't seen it, please go watch Layer Cake. I cannot say enough about that movie and it's influence on this one. Daniel Craig is a youthful, prideful, supremely confident, athletic, suave, and yet slightly cockney James Bond. It is like looking at your college pictures. There are certain things you would like to change, but can't because you wouldn't be here without all those experiences. The same thing goes for Bond. He actually evolves during the movie. Craig's Bond isn't the always cool Connery, or the never sweats Moore, or even the bad one-liners of Brosnan. He is a real person, or as close to one as you can get from such a well known and fictional character. You actually feel like Craig can actually be James Bond, something the Brosnan never did for me (I always felt like he was playing a role and playing it apathetically).

Now to the plot. More realism and less campy is definitely the goal of this movie. There is no crazy megalomaniac boss at the top, but lots of little bosses all with not-so-grand schemes. This usually just involves promoting terror or making money. James Bond, after getting his 00 license to kill, turns a bit into Shelock Holmes and discovers a hornet's nest in the Bahamas. This all eventually leads him to Montenegro and a poker match at the Casino Royale, where the stakes are much higher then the $10 million buy in.

The movie seems to take notes from other "realistic" action movies (the Bourne series anyone). The opening sequence, with the chasing of the "burned" assassin is clearly a note to Banlieue 13. The assassin is Sébastien Foucan, a co-founder of Parkour along with David Belle (Leito from Banlieue 13). The fighting is also much more graphic and intense (thank you so much, Tony Jaa). Also Bond seems to rely less on his gadgets, which is good. He's no Batman, he's an agent of MI6. Even the series dependence on crazy cars and chase sequences is diminished. James doesn't actually use cars much, except to get from point a to b, and actually crashes his very nice and expensive sports car after only using the defibrillator (interesting mirroring metaphor to the franchise). There are fewer Bond girls as well. Only two (Eva Green and Caterina Murino) in this movie, which is not a bad thing, and actually allows for some character development.

The movie itself seemed to also take homage from within. Casino Royale seems to amalgamate the two aforementioned On Her Majesty's Secret Service (which goes into details about how Bond falls in love for the only time, plans to quit and his love interest is killed by one of his nemesis) and License to Kill (in which Bond goes AWOL on a personal vendetta against a drug lord who fed his CIA buddy, Felix, to a shark). This is not a perfect movie, but it does mark a new beginning. I didn't like a few things. First of all the product placement was ghastly. Thank you so much Sony for hedging your products into the plot to the point of distraction. Secondly, the love/betrayal/love plot between James and Vesper was a tad predictable. Also the inclusion of poker over Bond's preferred Baccarat was an interest sign of the times. It's nice to see Bond still prefers Bollinger and martini's (though he hasn't really picked how he wants it prepare yet). Of interest also note one of the funniest and equally cringing torture scenes ever. Anyway, this was a highly enjoyable movie, one of the best in the franchise and a great new beginning. I eagerly anticipate Bond 22 - Coming Soon.