NOW WATCHING

Forostar said:
Or is Bond just a label to make the film sell better?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Anyway, I have no idea what Fleming's books are like, but I always liked Moore's relaxed, humorous approach to the character best. All the Bond films are completely over the top, but the ones with Moore sort of realized this and added the appropriate touch of humour and adventure. When Bond doesn't even brush the dust of his smoking, something is terribly wrong.

From a more technical perspective, I really hate the editing style of Quantum of Solace and nearly every other modern action movie. No shot lasts more than a couple of seconds, which makes it impossible to immerse yourself in the movie. For example, the opening scene is a car chase, but its such a blur of rapidly changing shots that every drop suspense is squeezed out, and it doesn't look impressive either. The pacing is also wrong - the location changes every few minutes so there's no time to explore an environment or have more than 45 consecutive seconds of dialogue. It's like a pinball machine. Where are all the good screenwriters?
 
Shadow said:
...but if you're like me and think Roger Moore was the best Bond, you can safely skip it.
Click to expand...

No.

Onhell said:
There's your main problem. No one compares to Connery.
Click to expand...

No.

Wasted155 said:
I thought the same thing about the new Bond character, but I am hoping to see some change...Guess we'll see in subsequent films if he can 'sharpen' himself up.
Click to expand...

Hopefully not.

Perun said:
Obviously, Connery is Bond
Click to expand...

H no.

Forostar said:
I heard that Quantum is a nice action film, but not really a Bond film. (I can imagine what Shadow says - and my favourite Bond actor is also Moore).
Click to expand...

Ugh.

Shadow said:
Anyway, I have no idea what Fleming's books are like...
Click to expand...

This is the problem.  Nobody has read the damn books.  Daniel Craig is the closest thing to the novel James Bond there is, and the only other one who got close to getting it right was Timothy Dalton.  James Bond is a rough, brutal murderer who has a suave side, not a suave man who happens to be a killer.  The difference is incredibly important.

I happen to love the Craig portrayal of Bond infinitely more than the other Bonds before him.  He is a man of violence, not sex (and violence).  Now, Bond is supposed to be a *better* killer than Craig portrayed in Casino Royale.  He is supposed to be a bit smoother, a bit more sophisticated.  And there are supposed to be a few more gadgets.  However, aside from that, I am pretty happy with Craig.

What I am not happy with, as Shadow said, is the direction and editing.  That is terrible and crap and I hate it.  Give me something I can fucking watch.
 
Yes, but the movies are not about the books. Screw that. You can't argue away nigh-50 years of Bond culture by saying it doesn't have anything to do with the books. The Bond of the books and the Bond of the films are two different characters with a different history of reception by the audience. The Bond of the books may be a cold-hearted killer, but the Bond of the movies is a flamboyant playboy who happens to have the coolest job in the world.

And let's get this straight: James Bond is not an intellectual topic. Bond movies are supposed to be over the top. They're supposed to be entertainment, with no affiliation to reality. You're supposed to be sitting on the edge of your seat, cheering to every nonsensical explosion, gnawing on your fingernails during the obligatory countdown, popping your eyes at the Bond girls and just wish you were Bond yourself. It's really amazing how seriously people sometimes take something like James Bond.
 
LooseCannon said:
Shadow said:
...but if you're like me and think Roger Moore was the best Bond, you can safely skip it.
Click to expand...

No.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: if The Spy Who Loved Me is your idea of what a Bond movie should be, you won't find the character you like in Quantum of Solace. As it's not a particularly good action movie either, I'm not recommending it.

This is the problem.  Nobody has read the damn books.  Daniel Craig is the closest thing to the novel James Bond there is, and the only other one who got close to getting it right was Timothy Dalton.  James Bond is a rough, brutal murderer who has a suave side, not a suave man who happens to be a killer.  The difference is incredibly important.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. I still think Craig's Bond is a pretty dull affair.
 
LooseCannon said:
No.

No.

Hopefully not.

H no.

Ugh.
Click to expand...

I doubt I've ever seen you so articulate...

This is the problem.  Nobody has read the damn books.
Click to expand...

As stated by Perun, so what? We're talking about Bond movies, sure we've discussed the books movies are based on and short comings, but it is not a prerequisite to have read the source material.

One thing all seem to agree on though, is the editing. I blame this on the internet, reality tv and people's decreasing attention span. From tv ads to movies all visual media seems to pander to this choppy editing style to make it seem like a lot of chaotic events are going on, but it's just fluff. A visual filabuster if you will.
 
Onhell said:
One thing all seem to agree on though, is the editing. I blame this on the internet, reality tv and people's decreasing attention span. From tv ads to movies all visual media seems to pander to this choppy editing style to make it seem like a lot of chaotic events are going on, but it's just fluff. A visual filabuster if you will.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

As far as Daniel Craig is concerned, I loved Casino Royale and will eventually see the new movie.  Craig is much better than Pierce Brosnan in the Bond movies, who was not a good choice for Bond in my view.
 
Well, I saw it, and the editing was bad enough to ruin about half of the action scenes for me.  I loved the story and Craig was great.
 
I liked Craig as Bond. Much better than the muck-up they made with Brosnan...

Anyways, Flemming only wrote 14 Bond books... They have now made 21-22 movies... So blame some of your grief for the writers as well...

Onhell said:
I doubt I've ever seen you so articulate...
Click to expand...

LOLZ
 
Well, I recently went to see Mirrors with Kiefer Sutherland. This was a really good thriller I thought, not only because I love Kiefer Sutherland, but I'm a fan of supernatural type films. I'm not going to spoil the film, so I will only say, go see it, well, actually, go rent it, I think its out of theatres now, I'm not sure, cause its said to come out on DVD on January 13th of this year, so I'm not sure in that respect. And last night I saw the movie The Ref, with Denis Leary, hes a comedian if you dont know who he is. This is a good movie for the season cause it takes place on Christmas, so if your into watching movies that pertain to the holidays or like watching movies in theme of the present season then this is a good one to check out, its freakin' hilarious! :lol:
cb13.jpg

2789092813_6b2007c350.jpg
 
I watched Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna a couple nights ago on the Hallmark Channel (for a "chick" channel they got pretty good movies). It is a 4 hour movie based on the true story of Anna Anderson, a woman in the 1920s claiming to be the long rumored missing Anastasia, daughter of Czar Nicholas II. There had been several frauds before her, but she seemed to be the real deal. The movie starts with the revolution, the family being captured, then murdered. Fast forward a few years and a woman suffering from amnesia is admitted into an asylum in... Germany I believe, and she is covered in what looks like bullet wounds. One day, one of the other inmates tells her, "I thought I recognized you! You're Anastasia!" as she shows her a newspaper with a picture of the royal family. This begins to jog her memory and the story takes off.

She is interviewed by several family members and they are split as to her identity. Sure enough she has memories that only Anastasia could know, but at the same time she refuses to speak Russian claiming it is due to the horrors the people put her through and her physical likeness to the Grand Dutchess was a little off. Finally she takes the family to court wanting nothing more than her true name, Anastasia Romanov. The trial began in 1933 ending in 1970 with a verdict of who the fuck knows. Both sides were very convincing and it proved impossible to tell who was right. She died in 1984 of pneumonia in the U.S.

After doing some quick homework it turns out that as convincing as she was and as convinced as she was, she was a fraud anyway. DNA testing confirmed that she was not a Romanov. Also, the rumors of the missing Grand Dutchess had been around since the family was assassinated and compounded by the fact that when the mass grave where the family was dumped was eventually found it only contained 5 of the 7 bodies. Alexei's and one of the girl's bodies was missing. However two charred bodies (well... skeletons) were found nearby and DNA tests once again proved that one was Alexei's and the second the one of the missing girl... all 7 bodies were accounted for. 

A very good movie even though it is outdated. (made in 1986, two years after Anna's death.)
 
cornfedhick said:
Just Netflix'ed the animated version, with John Huston as Gandalf.  I remember it from when I was a kid. 
Click to expand...

I never realized it had John Huston in it. It was a long time ago what I saw it. Around that time I wasn't very interested in actors etc.

However, I'll never forget these 2 hilarious moments:

1. Gandalf: "I have to seek and find wizard Aruman!!" and later "ARUMAN!!! ARUUMAAAAANNN"
2. Aragorn or someone else shouts at an elf at a rock: "Legolas! Legolas!" (Should have been another elf, I think it was Glorfindel).

And Aragorn is ugly as hell, with some leatherface! Also Gandalf walks like he's drunk as f*ck!
 
Onhell said:
I haven't, what's the Watchmen case?
Click to expand...

Movie studios fighting over the rights to the film based on the graphic novel, Watchmen.   I can't comment on it, but here is an article from the LATimes:   http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-watchmen16-2008nov16,0,5337353.story
Forostar said:
I never realized it had John Huston in it. It was a long time ago what I saw it. Around that time I wasn't very interested in actors etc.

However, I'll never forget these 2 hilarious moments:

1. Gandalf: "I have to seek and find wizard Aruman!!" and later "ARUMAN!!! ARUUMAAAAANNN"
2. Aragorn or someone else shouts at an elf at a rock: "Legolas! Legolas!" (Should have been another elf, I think it was Glorfindel).

And Aragorn is ugly as hell, with some leatherface! Also Gandalf walks like he's drunk as f*ck!
Click to expand...
I don't even remember Aragorn, Saruman or Legolas being in The Hobbit.  Here is the DVD of the animated version:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00005MP59/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top