RE: Thanks... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


sleepwalker -> RE: Thanks... (20/10/2008 6:50:44 PM)

Raiders of the Lost Ark was 1hr 45 too.




elzupasmonkey -> RE: Thanks... (20/10/2008 7:51:39 PM)

Does anyone else realise you can buy the Quantum of Solace soundtrack on uk itunes just now for £5.99?

Or is it just me?

Listening to it as we speak. [:)]




Felix -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 8:37:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...




jonson -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 8:59:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...


[sm=893confused27-thumb.gif] [:D]

Can't wait, looks ace! Booked my tickets last night for the Friday night performance. [:)]




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 9:28:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...

You are correct 100%!!




Felix -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 9:38:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...

You are correct 100%!!


Then you're no Bond fan... [:D][;)]

I cant believe people are moaning that it doesn't appear to be 'funny'. Bond shouldn't be funny!




The Hooded Man -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 10:35:23 AM)

Fleming's books were full of humour, it's just there was balance and they didn't slip into too much parody. Dark Horizons has a round-up of reviews which say the film is good but not great, dour and doesn't stand out as a Bond film.




MOTH -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 11:08:01 AM)

Guardian has a similar round up and they have the same consensus - ok but no better and not much different from Casino Royale. I had hoped this would be an improvement on the disappointing Casino Royale, which, despite the excellent Craig, I found overlong, disjointed and poorly plotted (similar to the way the excellent Bourne Supremacy built upon the so-so Bourne Identity), but it seems it'll be another ho-hum actioner. Pity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/oct/20/quantum-of-solace-reviews-roundup





Monkeyshaver -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 11:23:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...

You are correct 100%!!


Then you're no Bond fan... [:D][;)]

I cant believe people are moaning that it doesn't appear to be 'funny'. Bond shouldn't be funny!

Eh? I AM a Bond fan 110% & the movies have always been light-hearted (rather than all out funny) with quips & gadgets as well as unique stunts that you donít find in any other movie. Casino Royale had none of this! Well, he had his trusty SONY ERICSON! Of course all the reviews bang on about how it was a return to the dark tone of Flemings original novels (by critics that have probably never read the books) but making the character like he was originally conceived half a century ago has resulted in a movie that is just a run of the mill action movie with nothing that marks it out from the likes of Bourne Identity etc. If someone can tell me what was unique about Casino Royale that set it apart from the rest of the current crop of action movies I would be grateful. I am expecting the same from QOS so will not watch it.
I love the original novels, & Faulkís recent Devil May Care was great, but I see the Bond of the written word & the Bond of the silver screen as two distinct & separate things & enjoy each for their own merits.




st3veebee -> Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 11:44:54 AM)

Odd review, I saw 4 stars and waited to read a long list of great things I should expect to see or feel, but didn't. Seemed like a definitive 3-star review. Still can't wait to see it, and as for Bond not enjoying himself? Suits Craig far more, pouting the gloom he does very well. Only downside thus far? That awful song.... new way to die or something




MOTH -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 11:51:29 AM)

yep - smells to me like the boul Kim's 3 star rating was upped by the powers-that-be to appease the needs of the great unwashed.




The Hooded Man -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 12:02:50 PM)

It's a bit like the Kingdom of Crystal Skull reviews, it's not that good - 4 stars.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 2:06:11 PM)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4969426.ece




Guchmeister -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 2:45:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4969426.ece


The reviews have been a right mixed bag to be honest. You can find a selection for either side of the fence. Still, don't let me stop you selecting ones to support your personal dislike..![:D]




davieboy -> (21/10/2008 3:36:47 PM)

can't wait to see it, review kinda weird not many positive things in it. Still, they must have given it four stars for a reason




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 3:56:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guchmeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4969426.ece


The reviews have been a right mixed bag to be honest. You can find a selection for either side of the fence. Still, don't let me stop you selecting ones to support your personal dislike..![:D]

Thank you for not stopping me!




jackmansgirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (21/10/2008 6:26:49 PM)

I thought so too!  My immediate reaction was that the review was very lukewarm indeed, and didn't really explain the 4 star rating.

Or maybe it was just the stye in which the review was written.  Mr Newman?




boyd -> You would have thought it was horrific, ahem. (21/10/2008 6:58:49 PM)

In all honesty it surprised me that Kim Newman was the man to review Quantum Of Solace anyway. The review also struck me as particularly downbeat for 4 stars. I'm sure he could outdo most people (myself included) in terms of film knowledge but I gather he's more a horror man. I guess he feels the film will tick most of the boxes for all the Bond fans out there, even if this installment wasn't entirely his cup of tea... or blood... or whatever he drinks.




darth silas -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 8:20:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...

You are correct 100%!!


Then you're no Bond fan... [:D][;)]

I cant believe people are moaning that it doesn't appear to be 'funny'. Bond shouldn't be funny!
Then you're no Bond fan[;)]

Humour has always been an essential ingredient of Bond movies.Even Timothy dalton managed to be humourous to a certain extent.Craig is just a sour puss.




jackmansgirl -> RE: You would have thought it was horrific, ahem. (21/10/2008 8:46:43 PM)

A large glass of white wine I believe.

I know, I wouldn't have thought it either.




bad hat harry -> RE: Thanks... (21/10/2008 8:58:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

This will be awful!


I'm betting you're a Roger Moore fan...

You are correct 100%!!


Then you're no Bond fan... [:D][;)]

I cant believe people are moaning that it doesn't appear to be 'funny'. Bond shouldn't be funny!
Then you're no Bond fan[;)]

Humour has always been an essential ingredient of Bond movies.Even Timothy dalton managed to be humourous to a certain extent.Craig is just a sour puss.


sounds like you two have a lot in common then.

i like that the new bond movies are more serious. i'm glad that they've taken a movie series that had long since fallen into self parody, because of the quality of some of the movies & because of austin powers, & have started to treat it with some respect again.

i guess it's time to add " No sense of humor" to the list of gripes about the new bond movies, along with "blond hair", "too short," "looks like a bouncer", "not suave enough" etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. it's like a list of the stupidist reasons for not liking a movie. they could make something really great & people would still bitch that his hair is apparantly the wrong color

god, some people just want the equivalent of a james bond tv show. inevitably the bond movies will slide back into camp in a few movies time but hopefully later rather than sooner, & if i want to watch that i'll dig out my bond dvds & i'll be able to watch 20 movies where they did exactly that.




MOTH -> RE: You would have thought it was horrific, ahem. (21/10/2008 9:03:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackmansgirl
I thought so too!  My immediate reaction was that the review was very lukewarm indeed, and didn't really explain the 4 star rating.


quote:

ORIGINAL: boyd

In all honesty it surprised me that Kim Newman was the man to review Quantum Of Solace anyway. The review also struck me as particularly downbeat for 4 stars. I'm sure he could outdo most people (myself included) in terms of film knowledge but I gather he's more a horror man. I guess he feels the film will tick most of the boxes for all the Bond fans out there, even if this installment wasn't entirely his cup of tea... or blood... or whatever he drinks.


I refer you to my previous comment - the powers that be at Empire have probably tacked on an extra star.
When it comes to blockbusters, Empire's reviews attempt to strike a balance between critical credibility (the review) and what the public expect to see awarded due to hype (the rating). It's basic marketing - it gives them a wider appeal to the 'average' filmgoer (ie only watches the big films) and the non-regular Empire reader. The review is for discerning readers, the rating is for the casual reader.




Guchmeister -> RE: You would have thought it was horrific, ahem. (22/10/2008 9:31:19 AM)

It depends what you regard as humour I suppose. Craig has some charming moments like the *MILD SPOILER* ' Then that means we have all night..' comment in the trailer.

Not 'jokes' as such but mildly humourous comments, a sly smile and a glint in the eye works better for me than 'Christmas' jokes and a double taking pigeon..!

(not to diss other Bonds because I have enjoyed them all..[;)])






Monkeyshaver -> RE: Thanks... (22/10/2008 9:46:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mightyhypnotoad

It  never ceases to amaize me how many people are still clamouring for a return to the gadget driven, innuendo laden Roger Moore era Bond movies. These same people don't seem to realise that Moore's teniorship as Bond relied so heavily on those tired plot contrivances because he was already too old (and sleasy for my liking) to be Bond by the time he got his Debut in Live and Let Die in '73. Roger Moore single handedly reduced the spy thriller genre to a bad joke. What gaulls me even more was the reaction when Tim Dalton tried to embue Bonds flagging popularity with some much needed respectability. By reintroducing grit and a general ruthless bastardness to Bond (a road that Craig has pretty much followed) he got eaten alive (rather unjustly) by the fans who had become so placated by ridiculous special effects and bimbo's with bed me names, they had no idea what Bond was supposed to represent anymore. Bring on the darkness bring on the gloom and keep us yearning for our Quantum of Solace.

Thank you for telling me what Bond is suppossed to represent.!!
& the names of many of the "bimbo's with bed me names" are taken exactly from the novels Ė Honeychile Rider, Mary Goodnight, Pussy Galore.




filmburner30 -> RE: Thanks... (23/10/2008 9:38:35 AM)

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=164823&section=review&page=all#reviewnav

The Bourne thing and the mentioning of past Bonds crops up here too.

I think the thing we have to remeber is that Bourne changed the way we look at Bond
Die another Day was silly in the extreme and while that was large and grandiose to no effect the Bourne Movies looked mean and lean in comparision.

Dont get me wrong i LOVE  the old Bond Movies with there enormus sets ,great innuendo and larger than Life villians, but i do think its admirable that the current Bond Team are forging there own stream with the series.

Maybe the only way to stop this moaning is to let Paul Greengrass have a go at a Bond or Maybe and this is a very long shot John Woo i know his recent films have been gash  but remeber The Killer,Face Off and Hardboiled? one can only wonder what his version of Bond would be like.

Paul Greengrass would be interesting too grafting his Bourne Action Nous on to a Bond feature 




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Thanks... (23/10/2008 9:50:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: filmburner30

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=164823&section=review&page=all#reviewnav

The Bourne thing and the mentioning of past Bonds crops up here too.

I think the thing we have to remeber is that Bourne changed the way we look at Bond
Die another Day was silly in the extreme and while that was large and grandiose to no effect the Bourne Movies looked mean and lean in comparision.

Dont get me wrong i LOVE  the old Bond Movies with there enormus sets ,great innuendo and larger than Life villians, but i do think its admirable that the current Bond Team are forging there own stream with the series.

Maybe the only way to stop this moaning is to let Paul Greengrass have a go at a Bond or Maybe and this is a very long shot John Woo i know his recent films have been gash  but remeber The Killer,Face Off and Hardboiled? one can only wonder what his version of Bond would be like.

Paul Greengrass would be interesting too grafting his Bourne Action Nous on to a Bond feature 

Bourne didnít change the way I looked at Bond, but it did change the producerís way they looked at it, they looked at it & thought lets just imitate it!

007 is already a pale imitation of Bourne, please donít go the whole way & get that Bourne bloke to direct it!! The idea of John Woo is almost as unpalatable as Tarantinoís desire to have a go a few years back




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Thanks... (23/10/2008 10:02:54 AM)

Casino Royale is nothing like Borune. And this is coming from someone who loves both.




rancorpuppet -> On Bond Enjoying himself... (23/10/2008 10:17:00 AM)

The universal approach taken towards all the rebooted pop-cultural heroes of western cinema in the last five years has been to treat them as the oddities they would be in reality and make real the almost monstrous nature of the heroics they indulge in.
Nolan's Batman is a near fascistic oligarch of his own making, Bourne is Frankenstein's monster with quicker reflexes, Singer's Superman was as near to the alien as we've seen him portrayed. Craig's Bond of 'Casino Royale' became a monster, a revenant who garnered almost the accoutrements of villainy in order to become like those he went after.
Dry quips and louche banter may only be acceptable in this rebooted saga if we see Bond become a detestable weapon of the state - becoming almost a villain, almost psychotic. It would be a brave director who could take Bond down that path in the future, Craig has more than the acting chops to deal with it and I think it would be a remarkable experience in the genre if done well. Macbeth, after all, is a hero at the beginning.




filmburner30 -> RE: Thanks... (23/10/2008 12:28:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: filmburner30

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=164823&section=review&page=all#reviewnav

The Bourne thing and the mentioning of past Bonds crops up here too.

I think the thing we have to remeber is that Bourne changed the way we look at Bond
Die another Day was silly in the extreme and while that was large and grandiose to no effect the Bourne Movies looked mean and lean in comparision.

Dont get me wrong i LOVE  the old Bond Movies with there enormus sets ,great innuendo and larger than Life villians, but i do think its admirable that the current Bond Team are forging there own stream with the series.

Maybe the only way to stop this moaning is to let Paul Greengrass have a go at a Bond or Maybe and this is a very long shot John Woo i know his recent films have been gash  but remeber The Killer,Face Off and Hardboiled? one can only wonder what his version of Bond would be like.

Paul Greengrass would be interesting too grafting his Bourne Action Nous on to a Bond feature 

Bourne didn't change the way I looked at Bond, but it did change the producer's way they looked at it, they looked at it & thought lets just imitate it!

007 is already a pale imitation of Bourne, please don't go the whole way & get that Bourne bloke to direct it!! The idea of John Woo is almost as unpalatable as Tarantino's desire to have a go a few years back
agreed but if someone had said to you the Director of Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner was going to have a go a few years back you would have laughed your head off, of the most recent Bond Directors for Me Martin Campbell did the best job, but overall Guy Hamilton and Terence Young gave us the most interesting Bonds

To be Honest i dony really care who directs just as long as they keep the franchise going
here some more names i bandied about with mates

Matthew Vaughn
Paul McGuigan 
James McTeague
Tony Scott
Neil Marshall (that split the discussion i can tell you)
Pete Travis
Saul Dibb




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Thanks... (24/10/2008 11:50:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: filmburner30

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: filmburner30

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=164823&section=review&page=all#reviewnav

The Bourne thing and the mentioning of past Bonds crops up here too.

I think the thing we have to remeber is that Bourne changed the way we look at Bond
Die another Day was silly in the extreme and while that was large and grandiose to no effect the Bourne Movies looked mean and lean in comparision.

Dont get me wrong i LOVE  the old Bond Movies with there enormus sets ,great innuendo and larger than Life villians, but i do think its admirable that the current Bond Team are forging there own stream with the series.

Maybe the only way to stop this moaning is to let Paul Greengrass have a go at a Bond or Maybe and this is a very long shot John Woo i know his recent films have been gash  but remeber The Killer,Face Off and Hardboiled? one can only wonder what his version of Bond would be like.

Paul Greengrass would be interesting too grafting his Bourne Action Nous on to a Bond feature 

Bourne didn't change the way I looked at Bond, but it did change the producer's way they looked at it, they looked at it & thought lets just imitate it!

007 is already a pale imitation of Bourne, please don't go the whole way & get that Bourne bloke to direct it!! The idea of John Woo is almost as unpalatable as Tarantino's desire to have a go a few years back
agreed but if someone had said to you the Director of Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner was going to have a go a few years back you would have laughed your head off, of the most recent Bond Directors for Me Martin Campbell did the best job, but overall Guy Hamilton and Terence Young gave us the most interesting Bonds

To be Honest i dony really care who directs just as long as they keep the franchise going
here some more names i bandied about with mates

Matthew Vaughn
Paul McGuigan 
James McTeague
Tony Scott
Neil Marshall (that split the discussion i can tell you)
Pete Travis
Saul Dibb


To be honest I think you need a director who isnít well known for a distinctive directorial style. The style should be Bond rather than someone like Woo stamping his imagery onto the film. Even though I wasnít a fan of CR I agree that, with the right material, Martin Campbell is the man for the job.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.736328E-02