 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard-W,
I do buy into the first assignment BS and felt the movie delivered that because all Bond had to do was win the card game and force LeChief to turn himself in MI6... not save the world once again.
I liked that this Bond didn't have sex with a woman and left to go to the airport where in other films he probably would have made some cheeky comment and done the deed.
I like that this Bond is a killer and that he seems to take pleasure and go to far and when he kills with Vesper's help, I like that it takes an innocent to remind him that others can't handle taking life.
I enjoy seeing him winning an Anston Martin or getting hints of his past or seeing how he did have love in his life and how it haunts him... and I liked QUANTUM OF SOLICE because Bond doesn't sleep with the female lead who is just as damaged as he is.
I'm sorry but I buy into this bullshit that the Craig era Bond films are doing because I see them about a man who will BECOME James Bond and not about the world's most famous spy.
It is what I get out of them and maybe it is easier for me to swallow since I don't help 007 in such high regard.
We can agree to disagree.
You've stated what I like about the spirit of the recent Bonds. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connery drinks martini - NOT beer
Connery drives Aston Martin - NOT BMW
Connery wear Saville Row - NOT Tommy Hilfiger
Connery is real 007
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
never knew people cared so much about the products used in these movies?
if anything, i thought that most if not ALL the Bond films showed off on purpose to set trends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/
Bond is the kind of character to sample all types of food and drink. He has his favorites, but still a connoisseur. Let the guy have his beer.
A GERMAN beer????!!!!'
Bond is a SCOTSMAN frevvinsakes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
So do most of you want to go back to the "play it safe" Brosnan era? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have added the blood streaming with the colors of the Union Jack running down from the top of the gunbarrel to make it stir up more controversy and tied-in to the plot.
I agree that Timothy Dalton's interpretation was the best since the early Bond's and the producers came closest to making Bond tougher and more genuine after the Moore era in LTK.
JP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So do most of you want to go back to the "play it safe" Brosnan era? Really?
With the exception of the risible Die Another Day, I'd take the style, direction and fun of the Brosnan flicks over the current movies every time! The opening of Tomorrow NeverDies, for example, was more fun in 10 minutes than the whole of both Craig flicks to date.
True.
Unforunately, that opening would prove to be the peak of the Brosnan era.
What a shame that the producers abandoned the thoughtful FRWL style of GOLDENEYE and turned 007 into a gun-totin', bike ridin', generic action hero
what a waste of a great Bond
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 28, 2012 - 1:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
So do most of you want to go back to the "play it safe" Brosnan era? Really?
With the exception of the risible Die Another Day, I'd take the style, direction and fun of the Brosnan flicks over the current movies every time! The opening of Tomorrow NeverDies, for example, was more fun in 10 minutes than the whole of both Craig flicks to date.
True.
Unforunately, that opening would prove to be the peak of the Brosnan era.
What a shame that the producers abandoned the thoughtful FRWL style of GOLDENEYE and turned 007 into a gun-totin', bike ridin', generic action hero
what a waste of a great Bond
brm
I don't agree. I dont think the Brosnan movies jumped the shark until DAD which I thought was atrocious on all levels.
TND I thought was damned good fun throughout and only really suffered due to the most wimpish villain ever in Elliot Carver (the delivery of his line "there's no news like bad news" is possibly the most cringe-worthy thing ever spoken by a Bond baddie).
And whilst I wasnt a huge fan of TWINE, it still had its moments - the opening speedboat chase is terrific for example.
DAD was dreadful from start to finsih, dreadfully directed, a stupid baddie, all that rubbish with Bond in a beard. Seriously, the only scene I liked was in the Underground station with John Cleese. The rest of it was pants, and of course it features the worst scene ever in any Bond movie, that dumb CGI sequence as Bond parachutes away from the lazer. Unforgivably bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 28, 2012 - 4:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
I spent a beautfiful sunday indoors with my curtains drawn and just two DvDs forming the centre of my world. Casino and Quantum. As long as there are more sunny days . . .
The action sequences are far too tightly edited in QOS. This appears to be a near universal condemnation. The story doesn't feel as though it is tending towards a climax, although it does. But so what? It just feels bland and dimensionless. There's no real buildup. I could go on. There was one interesting moment. And that is when Bond while flying the DC-3, forces his armed attacker to reduce airspeed to a point where the pilot can't manoeuvre his faster plane at the slower speeds that don't hamper the DC-3. There are a couple of shots of the bad guy's airspeed indicator, which attempts to let the audience know something of what is supposed to be going on, but probably doesn't. There is another explanation, which is that Bond uses the DC-3's larger fuselage wake turbulence to stall the engines and wings of the smaller pursuer aircraft which he has trapped close to the ground, with no possible way to recover (have I seen that somewhere before?)
I feel CR is the better offering of the two films because it paints a more generally coherent storyline despite it's QOS predilection for expecting the audience to pick up on sharp deviations of plot appearing from out of nowhere (quantum-like fluctuations in storyspace.) Who was the geologist floating at the bottom of Dominic's quay when he and Camille lean over to take a peek? Ok, we can view the DvD again and fill in the blanks, wherever they may appear on first viewing. Cramming in so much for the audience to absorb can make deciphering the plot a wee bit confusing at various times. That fuel bowser stunt at Miami airport was very obviously 'borrowed' from 'Raiders.' So nothing new there, although the sequence at the Madagascar construction site was extremely well done. Sir Richard Branson also makes a cameo, as does one of his branded airliners. A pity he couldn't have briefly teamed up with Craig in a Sheriff J. Dubya Peppa funny men routine 
If anything is needed to spruce up the new Bond it has to be coherence. There's an art to rounding out a movie in all the right proportions. These first two Bonds don't seem to have delivered on that promise. I'm hoping that may yet be rectified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So do most of you want to go back to the "play it safe" Brosnan era? Really?
With the exception of the risible Die Another Day, I'd take the style, direction and fun of the Brosnan flicks over the current movies every time! The opening of Tomorrow NeverDies, for example, was more fun in 10 minutes than the whole of both Craig flicks to date.
True.
Unforunately, that opening would prove to be the peak of the Brosnan era.
What a shame that the producers abandoned the thoughtful FRWL style of GOLDENEYE and turned 007 into a gun-totin', bike ridin', generic action hero
what a waste of a great Bond
brm
I don't agree. I dont think the Brosnan movies jumped the shark until DAD which I thought was atrocious on all levels.
TND I thought was damned good fun throughout and only really suffered due to the most wimpish villain ever in Elliot Carver (the delivery of his line "there's no news like bad news" is possibly the most cringe-worthy thing ever spoken by a Bond baddie).
And whilst I wasnt a huge fan of TWINE, it still had its moments - the opening speedboat chase is terrific for example.
DAD was dreadful from start to finsih, dreadfully directed, a stupid baddie, all that rubbish with Bond in a beard. Seriously, the only scene I liked was in the Underground station with John Cleese. The rest of it was pants, and of course it features the worst scene ever in any Bond movie, that dumb CGI sequence as Bond parachutes away from the lazer. Unforgivably bad.
as usual you are wrong
the opening bits of DAD were quite good and actually harkened back to Fleming more than the previous films.
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that both TOMORROW NEVER DIES and DIE ANOTHER DAY were terrible films. Most Bond films I see at least twice in the theatre. Not those two. Bottom of the barrel Bond as far as I'm concerned. However, I do like GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. But CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than both of those. And I'm not just talking action. Take the scene in CR where Bond first meets Vesper and compare it to the scene in DAD where Bond first meets Jinx. The CR scene is vastly superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who the hell cares about Fleming? Most of the best Bond films - whichever actor you prefer in the role - have been nothing like Fleming's books at all
I was surprised how close they stuck to From Russia With Love and most of the changes made for the film were for the better.
Its been years since I read the books (which are dated and, for the most part, really badly written)
Oh my God, I never thought I'd live to see someone say that, but I totally agree. I read all the novels when the recent Casino Royale was released and I was struck by how poorly written these were. Ian Fleming (and his estate) owe a great deal to the films. He was an average writer at best. He cranked out a couple of okay novels, but for the most part, his style was obvious and amateurish, even for the time. Even in the decent Casino Royale, he stops the story to gives us a multi-page office memo detailing LeChiffre. Exposition was layered on, grinding the narrative to a halt. He would never sell today, and would be forced to go the self publishing route. They were mostly dime-store "read 'em on the plane and forget them" books. If not for the films, and arguably JFK who listed FRWL as a favorite book (and to be fair, it is a superior Bond novel and not a bad read), his work would be forgotten today. I wonder who actually created the "iconic" character? Fleming or Connery?
Still, having said that, the character of Bond in the books is fascinating and his arc is fun to watch as he gradually becomes more disenchanted with his job and he becomes more abused and dragged down. I give Fleming a lot of credit for that. The literary Bond has never been filmed and this is something I'd love for the films to tackle, but fans would be in an uproar. More than they are now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
