As the only James Bond film based on an Ian Fleming book made in my lifetime, I was extremely excited to see this film. Throw in the new Bond actor, and I actually skipped work to catch the first viewing I could get into.

A Problem [+] Read Full Review

As the only James Bond film based on an Ian Fleming book made in my lifetime, I was extremely excited to see this film. Throw in the new Bond actor, and I actually skipped work to catch the first viewing I could get into.

A Problem
A major problem with the film is the simple fact that it is an origin story, told in the present modern world (as opposed to an origin story set in the past). There are 20 official Bond films that occurred before this one, are we to assume that they are now not "official"? Or are we to just overlook the fact that those 20 films occurred in the past, while the origin story occurred in the "present"? One of the interesting aspects of the original Casino Royale film was the use of other people being James Bond. Not the mission in the original film (the 1967 comedy, not the 1950s television episode) where many people pretended to be Bond, but the idea that James Bond, 007 was/is a name used by a MI6 agent, that is passed from one agent to another when the need arises (like previous agent dead; in the comedy film, Sir James Bond passes on the mantle of "James Bond" to a new agent, the multiple "James Bond's" is a later part of the movie). The point is that many actors have played the role, and the role seems expandable to include this type of action. Interesting idea, or not, this particular discussion can be carried on some other day. The movie:

The Book and the Movie
Casino Royale is the only Fleming Bond book that I've read twice, which I only point out to note that I've read the book, seen the 2006 movie, and have concluded that the movie and the book have some strong similarities (discounting the modernization done by the movie makers, and the addition of an origin story). I don't want to get too detailed in this section, as there are those who might wish to either read the book at some point, or see the movie (or both).

Unlike some previous Bond films that only used the title of a Fleming Bond book, this particular Bond film seems to have actually used the meat/plot of the original book.

Daniel Craig and James Bond
Before Daniel Craig was named the newest James Bond, there were some who noted that the actor Jason Statham (Transporter) might make for a good James Bond. Considering the movie roles Statham has played, I thought the idea somewhat strange. Then I saw the beginning of the new James Bond film Casino Royale, and I could quite easily see Statham playing James Bond. The problem, of course, is that Bond is more than action-star, and I've only seen Statham play an action star (I'm not saying that Statham can't act, I'm saying that I've only seen him in action star roles). Luckily for the audience (except for those who would prefer to continue to watch just action), the part was given to Daniel Craig, and the movie included more than action.

So, is Daniel Craig James Bond? I don't know.
1) Craig has a hard face, and I haven't figured out if that is good or bad;
2) this movie was something of an origin story, and the film-makers have not combined all elements of "James Bond" together yet (so need to wait and see);
3) the hair - just the idea that the hair might be wrong was distracting, not whether or not the hair was the wrong shade, but the simple fact that the hair can be thought of as wrong is distracting;
4) Bond women - Bond had a different relationship with the Bond women in this movie than he normally has: the first Bond woman encounter was flowing along like previous encounters, but Bond ran out of time; the second Bond woman went the Diana Rigg route (love interest), which is not the typical Bond-Bond woman interaction; (another wait and see)

Rating
Good solid movie, somewhat distracted by "new Bond, how's the new Bond doing" part, and the "based on Fleming book, what's the same, what's different" part, and the "what the heck is Judi Dench (as M) doing in a Bond origin film, oh it's set in modern times" part. Overall, I'd give the film a solid 4.28 out of 5 stars rating.

Kung Fu Hustle is filled with many actors, so many that it becomes hard to tell which actor, or set of actors we should care about. Hustle is about crime-filled 1920s or 1930s Shanghai, where gangs run rampant, except in the poorest areas. One...
[+] Read Full Review

Kung Fu Hustle is filled with many actors, so many that it becomes hard to tell which actor, or set of actors we should care about. Hustle is about crime-filled 1920s or 1930s Shanghai, where gangs run rampant, except in the poorest areas. One gang has, apparently, came to dominate most of Shanghai. That gang is the "Axe Head Gang." The movie opens with that gang "fighting" the head of a rival gang. The leader of the Axe gang likes dancing around during fights and afterwards.

Later, two con men visit one of those poor areas, Pig Sty Alley. They claim to be members of the Axe gang and demand money, but their claims are not believed by the poor citizens (humorous scene where chief con man, Stephen Chow, keeps picking people out of the crowd of poor citizens to fight, only to find out that he keeps choosing some seemingly weak looking people (while in the crowd) who turn out to actually be strong tough people (once separated from the crowd)). Eventually the real Axe gang turns up, some Kung Fu masters spring up out of the poor mass of the Alley and . . . don't want to give everything away.

The movie can be surprisingly funny at times, but is a lot more violent and bloody than you might expect from a "comedy." I would give this film 4.22 stars out of 5.

Most of the time I prefer movies based on books, or at least feel that a movie based on a book has a certain built in depth lacking from a thin air, based on nothing movie (see Die Hard (based on book - Roderick Thorp's Nothing Last's Forever),...
[+] Read Full Review

Most of the time I prefer movies based on books, or at least feel that a movie based on a book has a certain built in depth lacking from a thin air, based on nothing movie (see Die Hard (based on book - Roderick Thorp's Nothing Last's Forever), Die Hard 2 (based on different book - Walter Wager's 58 Minutes), Die Hard 3 (based on thin air, and previous movies, obviously enough). Since Sahara was based on a book (by Clive Cussler), Sahara should have had a somewhat stronger plot than it ended up having. The film seemed to have numerous plot holes and, somewhat connected, I'm sure, was somewhat unexciting to see the plot unfold on the screen. I never read the book, so I'm not sure if the book version had the same plot holes and if it included the sequences apparently added for "fun" action stuff (see desert craft made out of downed plane scene). Sahara falls into a category of films that I like, but rarely find good movies in (action-adventure with history and exploration, discovery, archaeology: the best example of the "quality" range involve Indiana Jones movies, the best example of the opposite extreme would come in TV form - Tia Carrere's Relic Hunters). Just for being a film of this particular genre, Sahara was maybe more enjoyable, to a certain extent, than I might have thought. Though the film was not initially eagerly sought after by me, due to some poor reviews which lowered my expectations, I did find the film to be somewhat more enjoyable than I expected. Recommend: If the film falls into a genre that you like, and you don't expect too much from the film, then I would recommend it. Otherwise, this isn't the film to sample to see if you might like this genre.