Hallowen Month 2017 Announcement

Hi, how’s everyone doing? I just wanted to come out and give a special announcement regarding this year’s “Halloween Month.”

When I first started out blogging and October came, I was heavily inspired by James Rolfe with his “Monster Madness” marathon that he had been doing on his website, Cinemassacre. Watching his videos every year since he started out, I really liked his reviews on all the horror movies and I thought that I would do my own version of it, crediting James and saying he was my inspiration.

Last year, around this time, when he had announced that it was going to be his tenth and final year doing “Monster Madness,” that’s when I came to a realization: I was running into the same problem he was.

Now, I feel like I don’t have enough horror movies to fill the entire month of October out with anymore. With the number of horror movies that I have watched, I’m running out of movies to fill up the entire month of October with. You might be saying, “Well, watch 31 Halloween related movies and write a review on them.” That could work, but you got to understand the procedure that goes into making these reviews.

First, I have to select the movie that I want to review. If I haven’t seen it, I have to watch it. Once that is done, I have to find a reviewer who I agree with what they are saying and write a review while crediting that reviewer that I am citing. Plus, there may be times when I am typing up a review, and I pause in the middle because I get distracted.

I wouldn’t mind watching 31 Halloween related movies, but if I were to do that every year, then that would interrupt what I want to review every month of the year. I would be putting all my efforts into October and not for the remainder of the year, and that wouldn’t be fair to all of you. Plus, cramming 31 movie reviews in October is really tiring and I do feel burnt out by the end of the month that I feel I need to take some time off before posting reviews again, which I have stated every year. If I were to watch and review 31 horror movies, that would be really exhausting.

Now I know there are those saying, “Why don’t you let someone write the review for you?” Then it wouldn’t be me saying what I think, but someone else. My fellow partner, reviewreviewer1, hasn’t contacted me for some time now, and we haven’t really collaborated on a review since the Star Wars joint reviews. We were going to redo the Spider-Man movie reviews, but I lost the reviews of the films that we had done. Also, he might have a different opinion on a movie then I would, so if he likes the film and I don’t, then it wouldn’t make sense for him to write the review. If we agree, then we can put our inputs together in our reviews. However, that too takes some time and effort, as you might have noticed with the Star Wars reviews.

Just to let you know, I am going to be reviewing 31 movies this “Halloween Month,” but this will be the last year that it will be done. That seems fitting to end that off with five years. With that said, “Halloween Month” is not going anywhere. I will still be reviewing Halloween movies in October, but they will be shorter. It will either be on a franchise that has a number of sequels that will be spread out throughout the month, or it will be the traditional Friday reviews.

With this format, it will open my reviews up for more time and effort, which I feel will be needed, since I don’t plan on what month will be what reviews until time gets closer. I already have October ready, which will be on the top three franchises that fit Halloween horror, and I think you all know which ones I am referring to. I feel that they are right to end off the 31 movie review tradition for “Halloween Month,” and I'm really excited to review those three franchises.

I personally want to thank James for the inspiration he gave me on creating “Halloween Month,” and I feel like I can relate to him when he officially retired “Monster Madness.” Only difference is that he did the marathon twice as long as I did mine, but he’s more of the horror buff than I am.

Just to recap: this coming October will be the last “Halloween Month” with the 31 horror movie tradition. Now I can open up my schedule for more movie reviews down the road, and “Halloween Month” will continue, but in a shorter and concise method. I don't think I will ever run out of horror movies to review for October, since the genre never ends.

Check in next month to see what I review for September and prepare for “Halloween Month 2017” this coming October. I feel like I owe it to my online audience who have been reading my reviews since the beginning to give them a heads up now until later. Take care.

Spectre

Daniel Craig said that he'd rather "kill himself" than star in another Bond film – and in "Spectre," released in 2015, his torture's evident. He's always been a different type of Bond – more human, more tough, cooler – but here he looks facially bored. I agree with Max Weiss when he said in his review, "Someone needs to remind Craig that there’s a difference between “unflappable” and “not able to muster any facial expressions.”" 

Weiss goes on to say, "This is particularly ironic because, with Spectre, Craig has been gifted (trolled?) with the cheesiest opening credits sequence of any Bond film in recent memory. I’m talking Octopussy levels of cheesy. Suffice it to say, it involves Craig shirtless, bronzed, and draped in octopus tentacles and hot babes. Sam Smith’s disco-flavored theme song adds to the wonderful awfulness." 

Weiss continues, "There’s some real cognitive dissonance between those retro-cheesy opening credits and the film itself—which is slick, expensive-looking, and largely bloodless." The tone is made right from the start. The starting Bond scenes are supposed to be eye-popping, so dangerously over-the-top that you laugh with enjoyment. Instead, we're given a standard rooftop chase scene, an explosion, and a fight on a falling helicopter, everything that looks pretty basic by Hollywood action standards. Weiss said, "At least the backdrop to all of this—Mexico City’s Day of the Dead parade—creates some arresting images. Director Sam Mendes sure knows how to frame a pretty scene." 

From there, it's the same thing we're used to seeing, but done in a surprisingly boring way. There's a new M (Ralph Fiennes (wasted)) and a new villain (Christoph Waltz (predictable)), and some story involving the same subject of global surveillance. Weiss mentioned, "There’s much globetrotting—Austria, Rome, Tangier, and London are among the locales—all ticked off in a workmanlike way, with skyline shots to prove they were really filmed on location (the film showed us the London Eye so many times, I assumed it would eventually become part of the action—no such luck)." As always, Bond goes solo and his friends at MI6 (including Ben Whishaw's Q and Naome Harris's Mrs. Moneypenny) cover up for him. As always, he crashes fancy cars, hunts down the villain and his henchmen (Dave Bautista is believably scary as the head henchman), and sleeps with two women – Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux (both really hot) - the latter which he falls in love with. Sadly, the romance with Seydoux is as unbelievable and boring as the rest of the film. (When she tells Bond she loves him, even he looks a little surprised.) 

For a Bond film, there are surprisingly a few gadgets – despite there is a funny part involving a car that Bond steals from Q's lab that hasn't been checked for any sort of mistakes – and when the loving, dashing Bond theme interrupts the action, it actually feels misused. 

Weiss commented, "Here’s the deal. These days, Bond films are competing with the likes of Mission Impossible, the Bourne series, and even the Fast and Furious franchise for action supremacy. If they can’t top them, action wise, they better take advantage of their inherent Bondness." The cars, the women, the tuxes, the martinis, the jokes – these are the traits we're watching for. It's all meant to be enjoyable entertainment, on top of a wink, not dry and serious stuff. A Bond that takes itself too seriously is not a Bond to watch. 

Despite all of this that is mentioned above, this one isn't as bad as "Quantum of Solace." It's actually enjoyable compared to that, but when comparing it to "Skyfall" or "Casino Royale," this isn't on the same level of enjoyment that we get from a Bond movie like that. If you want to check it out, you can, but it won't be really that memorable, I'm sorry to say. 

Now that concludes "James Bond Month." I wonder what's next for the Bond series. When will the next one be released? Will Daniel Craig reprise it again, or will they switch actors? If they do, who will they select? What will the next story tell? The possibilities are endless, and we will see when that time comes. I hope everyone enjoyed these reviews, and hopefully those who have never seen any Bond film will be motivated to watch them after reading my reviews. 

Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store for everyone next. In the meantime, I'm going to take a well needed vacation after posting reviews everyday this month.

Skyfall

In this 50th year of the James Bond franchise, with the sour taste of "Quantum of Solace" still in our mouths, "Skyfall," released in 2012, thankfully redoes Bond in one of the best films ever. This is a non-stop, enjoyable, smart entry of one of the favorite characters, with Daniel Craig at the helm of a role he debuted in "Casino Royale," but didn't do so well in "Quantum of Solace" - but it may not have been completely his fault. Roger Ebert said in his review, "Or is it just that he's growing on me? I don't know what I expected. I don't know what I expected in Bond No. 23, but certainly not an experience this invigorating." 

The movie's inventions start in the beginning scenes, which expunge the usual pursuing portrait in the camera lens, and start off swiftly. Bond and another agent are in Istanbul, chasing a man, played by Ola Rapace, who has stolen a critical hard drive, and after a chase through city streets (which contain about three Fruit Cart Scenes), Bond is running on top of a train. We know from the prior films that Bond can do almost anything, but "Skyfall" amazingly has him control a giant Caterpillar and continue the chase by smashing a flatcar filled with VW Beetles. 

It's the type of hilarity we see in a Bond film, but this one does something new: a dead-serious M, following what happened from MI6 in London and choosing a serious choice. After the villain agent uses Bond as a human shield, M's other agent, Eve, played by Naomie Harris, has both men in clear shooting range. The pressure is intense. "Take the shot!" M orders. Bond looks like he dies, but since this is around the 20-minute area, we're not at all shocked that he doesn't. 

M begins to put together the eulogy of Commander James Bond, and she could just be writing her own. Time goes by, she's aged, and her new boss, Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes, gathers a public hearing meant for her to explain her actions. It's time for the people to have the question answered. Even Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and, as we see, Miss Moneypenny are basically younger. 

M is not ready to retire, and "Skyfall" finally gives a role worthy of Judi Dench, one of the best actors of her time. She is just a co-star of the film, with a lot of screen time, emotional dialogue, and a character who is way more complex and sympathetic than we think in this franchise. The film is made by a considerable director (Sam Mendes), written by the masterful Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan, and give not only an awesome Bond but an awesome movie, that's all. If you haven't seen a Bond movie for years, this is the time to start back again. 

There's a thinking that you can rank the franchise based on how good their villains are. In "Skyfall," this is an intelligent narcissus named Silva, played by Javier Barden, whose unpronounceable Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" was as high of a villain as Hannibal Lecter. Here he is a bleached blonde computer genius who stole the drive that has classified identities of every MI6 agent. Ebert asked, "Are we supposed to think of Julian Assange?" 

This is an innovative Bond with love and respect for the old Bond. This is clearly seen during Bond's visit to the old Scottish mansion that has Kincade, played by Albert Finney, living in it, who has secrets to tell and continues the movie's rewriting the character's back story. During the previous Bonds, did we ever think about Bond's origins in life? "Skyfall" even gives a moment made to inspire affection for Bond fans: a reappearance of the Aston Martin DB5 from "Goldfinger," which is still in good working condition. 

Just as Christopher Nolan gave new life to the Batman movies in "The Dark Knight," here is James Bond brought back, refreshed, back on the road and ready for another 50 years. Ebert ended his review by asking, "And am I completely misguided when I expect to see Miss Moneypenny become a Bond girl in the next film?" 

"Skyfall" is up there with "Casino Royale." After an underwhelming Bond film in "Quantum of Solace," "Skyfall" made Bond fans interested in the series again. Definitely don't skip this one because it will give back what made Bond so great again. This one is a must and is one of the best in the series. 

Alright everyone, tomorrow is it. The finale of "James Bond Month" will be tomorrow, so stay tuned for the conclusion. Will the latest one be good or bad? Only one way to find out, so hang on tight. 

Quantum of Solace

Let’s jump right in and say to James Bond that he better not let this happen again. “Quantum of Solace,” released in 2008, is his 22^nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23^rd, they better go back to the storyboards and remake everything from step one. One important fact: “James Bond is not an action hero!” He is too good for that. He is a behavior. Violence is irritating for him. He’s there for the foreplay and the smoking. He once in a while meets a truly evil villain. Roger Ebert mentioned, “More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.”

Ebert said, “"Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again," words that could have been used by Kent after King Lear utters the saddest line in all of Shakespeare: "Never! Never! Never! Never! Never!" The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive.”

You won’t see that here. The chase, with Bond constantly being shot at with machineguns, is so swiftly and so obviously made up of unintelligible CGI that we’re mainly looking at bright colors flying around each other, cut together with Bond at the steering wheel and POV shots of fast driving monster trucks. Let’s think this together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by a machinegun bullet, despite how many rounds have been fired? The hit men should just drop that and say, “No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie.”

The chase has nothing to do with the rest of the story, which is usual for Bond, but it’s about the movie’s last look at tradition. In “Quantum of Solace” he will have not relaxing quality time with the Bond girl, played by Olga Kurylenko. Ebert said, “We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen.” In this film, what’s the name? You want to know? Camille. That’s it. Camille. Ebert said, “Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O'Toole's friend Cam Shaft.”

Daniel Craig is still an amazing Bond, one of the best. He is handsome, swift, muscular, and dangerous. Everything but loquacious. Ebert said, “I didn't count, but I think M (Judi Dench) has more dialogue than 007.” Bond doesn’t look like he wants to sleep with Camille that crossed his mind. He smashes a hotel in the middle of a huge, empty, endless Bolivian desert. Ebert noted, “It's a luxury hotel, with angular W Hotel-style minimalist room furniture you might cut your legs on, and a bartender who will stir or shake you any drink, but James has become a regular bloke who orders lager. Who are the clients at this highest of high-end hotels? Lawrence of Arabia, obviously, and millionaires who hate green growing things. Conveniently, when the hotel blows up, the filmmakers don't have to contend with adjacent buildings, traffic, pedestrians, skylines or anything else. Talk about your blue screen. Nothing better than the azure desert sky.”

Why is he in Bolivia? Chasing after a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but … Dominic Greene, played by Mathiew Amalric. What is Dominic’s evil plan to rule the planet? For starters, the villain wants to corner the water supply of … Bolivia. Sounds bad. Ebert said, “This twisted design, revealed to Bond after at least an hour of death-defying action, reminds me of the famous laboratory mouse who was introduced into a labyrinth.” After fighting his way for days through ridiculous corridors and all these dead ends, finally, finally reaching thirst and starvation, the demented man edges finally to the training button and throws his little body at it. What comes down the chute as his prize? A licorice gum ball.

Dominic Greene doesn’t have a base on the moon, or at the bottom of the sea. He controls everything from a simply shipping warehouse with loading docks. His villainous car is given by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn’t have to sneak out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peaks through. Ebert said, “Greene could get useful security tips from Wal-Mart.”

There is no Q in “Quantum of Solace,” except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. Judi Dench, what a sly person. Bond doesn’t even come near her. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn’t bring much to the film. Ebert credited, “Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it.”

This movie is a disappointment. After such an amazing hit with “Casino Royale,” you would think that they would do it again, but they didn’t. Instead, we get a very underwhelming Bond film, which has been a while now, but it shouldn’t be this way. If you want to, go ahead and skip this one.

However, look out tomorrow for a redeeming film in “James Bond Month.”

Casino Royale (2006)

Now we have come to the fantastic 2006 Bond film, “Casino Royale.” Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “"Casino Royale" has the answers to all my complaints about the 45-year-old James Bond series, and some I hadn't even thought of. It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one.”

This movie is new from the start. This might be your first Bond film you have seen. Actually, it was the first Bond. It was Ian Fleming’s first James Bond book, and he was still trying to find out who the character was. Ebert noted, “The longtime Saltzman-Broccoli producing team could never get their hands on the rights until now, despite earlier misadventures by others using the same title, and maybe it's just as well, because it provides a fresh starting place. And it returns to the family fold; with her father's passing, Barbara Broccoli is producer.”

Yes, Daniel Craig makes an awesome Bond: Slimmer, more silent, less women-obsessed, and able to be hurt inside and out, not caring if his martini is shaken or stirred. Ebert admitted, “That doesn't make him the "best" Bond, because I've long since given up playing that pointless ranking game; Sean Connery was first to plant the flag, and that's that.” However, Daniel Craig kills it as Bond, in a movie that makes a new world for the character.

Every time a new Bond film was released, it was like seeing a ritual. There was the opening stunt scene that didn’t do anything for the story, except to dissolve into the titles, the title song, Miss Moneypenny, M with a mission of life-threatening to the country, Q with some new gadgets, an antagonist, a series of hot women, some damsels, some evil, all frequently in areas of scantily clad, the villain’s devious plan, Bond’s near death, and a lot of chases. It could be great, it could be usual, but you always knew about where you were in the stages.

Ebert said, “With "Casino Royale," we get to the obligatory concluding lovey-dovey on the tropical sands, and then the movie pulls a screeching U-turn and starts up again with the most sensational scene I have ever seen set in Venice, or most other places.” It’s a movie that keeps on giving.

This time, no Moneypenny, no Q, and Judi Dench is back as M, given a larger role, and allowed to look really hard and disapprove to the dangerous Bond. Ebert noted, “This time, no dream of world domination, but just a bleeding-eyed rat who channels money to terrorists. This time a poker game that is interrupted by the weirdest trip to the parking lot I've ever seen. This time, no laser beam inching up on Bond's netherlands, but a nasty knotted rope actually whacking his hopes of heirs.”

Ebert went on to say, “And this time, no Monte Carlo, but Montenegro, a fictional casino resort, where Bond checks into the "Hotel Splendid," which is in fact, yes, the very same Grand Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary where Queen Latifah had her culinary vacation in "Last Holiday." That gives me another opportunity to display my expertise on the Czech Republic by informing you that "Pupp" is pronounced "poop," so no wonder it's the Splendid.”

Ebert continues, “I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. Vesper Lynd, however, is definitely stirring, as she was in Bertolucci's wonderful "The Dreamers." Sometimes shaken, too.” Vesper and Bond have a shower scene that finally answers why nobody in a Bond movie ever looks like they have any real emotions.

Ebert said, “A review should not be a list. So I should not enumerate all the scenes I liked. But I learn from IMDb that the special credit for the "free running" scenes of Sabastian Foucan refers to the sensational opening Madagascar foot chase in which Foucan practices parkour, or the ability to run at walls and angles and bounce off them to climb or change direction; Jackie Chan could do similar feats.”

Which brings us to another point. Most of the chases and stunts in “Casino Royale” take place in something unclearly guessing real space and time. Ebert said, “Of course I know they use doubles and deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real.” Recently, with the start of portable cameras and CGI editing, action movies have replaced visual disaster for visual beauty.

Ebert mentioned, “I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about "The Bourne Ultimatum." One guy said, "Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?" Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are.”

The plot focuses on a series of high-stakes poker game, where Bond will try to remove le Chiffre, played by Mad Mikkelsen, of 10 million or more pounds that would go to finance terrorism. Le Chiffre (“The Cypher”) has problems on his own, because he owes so much money to the people who give him what he needs. Director Martin Campbell builds suspense in the extended poker game by really focusing a lot for long periods of times on the eyes of the two people, which is very much effective because Le Chiffre’s left eye has tears of blood, queuing a classic Bond line. Bond not being at the poker table is more than ordinary interest.

This is the second Bond film that Campbell directed, after “Goldeneye,” but he makes it into his own and everyone else’s usual. He’s helped by Craig, who gives the idea of a tough guy, damaged by life and his job, who actually does care about people and right and wrong. To some extent, the earlier Bonds were shameless experts. With this one, since he has a huge scene involving a merchant’s house in Venice, we can give ourselves a pass for knowing that if you hit him, he bleeds.

As the first Bond film that the great Daniel Craig played 007, he really killed it in here. In my opinion, he is on par with Connery as the best Bond. I can’t decide which one is better because they are both good in their own ways. On top of that, everything in this movie is just edge-of-your-seat excitement that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. If you want to start off with Craig’s 007 films, it’s a great place to start. This is another 007 movie that is a must see because this could be the best Bond movie ever, but that’s debatable. LazerDude99 and Jeremy Jahns both said this is their favorite Bond, which I can understand.

Seeing how Craig made a great debut as Bond, check in tomorrow to see if the next one will be good or bad in “James Bond Month.”

Die Another Day

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, "I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant. Handsome if a little weary, the edges of an Irish accent curling around the edges of the Queen's English, he plays a preposterous character but does not seem preposterous playing him." 

"Die Another Day," released in 2002, is the 20th Bond film in 40 years, not counting "Casino Royale." Halfway into the film, Bond's boss M says, "While you were away, the world changed." She talks about the months he was in prison in North Korea, but she might also be talking about the universe of the Bond franchise. This movie has the same impossible stunts, like when Bond flies down the façade of a glacier being melted by a laser beam in space. This has as many scenes that are tough and tenacious enough to blend in any current action movie. It also has a heroine who pays off from 40 years of progress in the way we see women. When Halle Berry, as Jinx, first shows up on screen, there is an on purpose and loving tribute to the first Bond girl, Ursula Andress, in "Dr. No." In both movies, the woman appears from the beach wearing a bikini, which, in slow motion, looks like it is catching up. Even the wide belt looks the same. However, Jinx is a new type of Bond girl. Ebert noted, "She still likes naughty double entendres (Bond says "My friends call me James Bond" and she replies, "Well that's a mouthful"). But in "Die Another Day" her character is not simply decoration or reward, but a competent and deadly agent who turns the movie at times into almost a buddy picture." 

The film starts with an unusual moment: The villains are not fictional, but real. Ebert noted, "The North Koreans have for the time being joined the Nazis as reliable villains, and Bond infiltrates in order to--I dunno, deal with some "African Conflict Diamonds," if I heard correctly, but I wasn't listening carefully because the diamonds are only the MacGuffin." However, they do decorate the memorable cheekbones on one of the villains, Zao, played by Rick Yune, who looks like he has, as Ebert puts it, "a skidded face down through a filled of them at high impact." A chase scene including hover tanks in a mine field is kind of weak, the hover tank not being the nicest looking of cars, and then Bond is kidnapped and tortured for months. He's freed in a prisoner exchange, only to see that M thinks he has been brainwashed. Ebert asked, "Is he another Manchurian Candidate?" Eventually he proves himself and after a visit to Q, now played by John Cleese, for a new arsenal of gadgets, including an invisible car, he's back on the field in the same types of eye-popping stunt moments. For the first time in the Bond franchise, a CGI effect joins the traditional use of stunt men and trick photography. Ebert noted, "A disintegrating plane in a closing scene is pretty clearly all made of ones and zeroes, but by then we've seen too many amazing sights to quibble." 

The North Koreans are sided with Gustav Graves, played by Toby Stephens, a usual world-conquering Bond villain, whose space flying mirror is not completely original. What is original is Gustav's chose to monitor his operation in a gorgeous ice building in Iceland. Since his mirror operates to penetrate heat on Earth, this looks like wanting trouble, and not before long the ice palace is melting down, and Jinx is stuck in a locked room with the water level rising toward the ceiling. (Ebert said, "Exactly why the room itself doesn't melt is a question countless readers will no doubt answer for me.") Other characters include the villainous Miranda Fronst (the hot Rosamund Pike), whose name is a hint as to which side she is on, and Damian Falco (Michael Madsen), whose name, as Ebert puts it, "unites two villainous movie dynasties and leaves me looking forward to Freddy Lecter." Oh, and Miss Moneypenny, played by Samantha Bond, who looks like she's overlooked, makes a last-minute appearance and practically flirts with Bond. 

Ebert noted, "The film has been directed by Lee Tamahori (whose credits include "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls"), from New Zealand, who has tilted the balance away from humor and toward pure action. With "Austin Powers" breathing down the neck of the franchise, he told Sight & Sound magazine, it seemed like looking for trouble to broaden the traditional farcical elements." "Die Another Day" is still completely silly from one part to the other, obviously, but in a little more understated way. As it continues, Bond after Bond, as the strongest franchise in movie history going towards half-century. There is no way to think this franchise will ever stop. Ebert ended his review by saying, "I suppose that is a blessing." 

In my opinion, I think this is the best of the Bond movies that star Brosnan as 007. The only flaw I had, which is very minor, is the effects look similar to something we would see in a Nintendo 64 or Sony Playstation game. Other than that, this movie was enjoyable from first minute to last. It was action-packed, with never a dull moment, and I know if you liked the others, then you will love this one. Do not skip this one, it is a must. My friend (who I mentioned saying that Octopussy is his favorite good Bond girl) says that Miranda Frost is his favorite villain Bond girl, and I can understand why. Also, expect a brief Madonna cameo in this movie.

Look out tomorrow where we look at more excitement in "James Bond Month."