September 17, 2002

xXx - a review

You've got to love this film for it comes in at the peak of its genre: mindless, eye-candy action entertainment.

Vin Diesel acts as well as he needs to, the stunt doubles do the rest of the work (yup, a page and a half of stuntment, four columns wide) while the special effects fill in the background.

Explosions! A plot to throw the world into chaos! Gadgets! Fast cars! Attitude!

It's a badboy James Bond movie for the current generation. Just don't go expecting your cerebellum to pulse with the thrill of an intellectual challenge.

posted on September 17, 2002 at 10:49 AM by nicola.
Comments

predictably enough, they had the most recent James Bond film on TV the other night.

*shudder*

they really need to do something about /that/ heritage, and fast.

(and despite the other guy's assertions back in high school that Sean Connery was the better James Bond, I still stand by Roger Moore - he seemed a little more at ease, a little more "fun". The whole "Oh James !" thing fits him so much better than Mr Connery, who I'll never see in the same way again after seeing _Zardoz_. But sure, Roger Moore retired a film or two too late, as well.)

posted on September 17, 2002 10:40 PM by cos.

Moore was definately the best bond in my book too, yes, for your eyes only was the last good one he was in... and Zardoz, well I think it didn't work primarily because Connery appeared in 80% of the film in a red diapers-esque costume....

posted on September 18, 2002 4:54 PM by chister.

re: Zardoz, well yes, that's exactly what I was alluding to, though other bits were a bit trippy like how they wanted to chuck the person out of the commune for bringing the general vibe down. or whatever it was...

posted on September 19, 2002 8:26 PM by cos.
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?