Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Great Bond

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Great Bond Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 10:23:41 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7025
Joined: 18/11/2006
bond as le carre style spy film?-

http://commanderbond.net/16210/a-thinking-taller-bolder-spy.htm

i liked it even after it turned into an ep of 'spooks' but that ending was a bit too sad for a bond film.
no skipping out of the cinema humming the theme tune this time.

< Message edited by spark1 -- 1/11/2012 1:24:31 PM >

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 211
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 11:23:26 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: londonnut

ORIGINAL: Jobloffski

quote:

'get your filthy hands off her!!'


lol! a line like that is worthy of Austin Powers not Bond Oh fuck off! It's all about delivery what is inside the character at the time, and whether the line is being said as the throwing to the floor is being done, for example, M is his achilles heel for his humanity coming out of him, and obviously, if you say the above line in an AP way, it's ridiculous. If the words escape from you in a hissed way as you are throwing someone who was attacking the one person you have left in the world that you care about, they would sound very different.

He didn't need a line here; not giving him a line says more about the character than giving him one - the (professional) writers knew that; throw a knife off screen - job done.



The clue was in Kilcade's earlier line delivered when he layed their meagre collection of weaponry (incl. dagger) on the table, saying something along the lines of the old ways being best. (Yes I am aware of the concept of 'foreshadowing', and it was painfully obvious that the knife would be the kill weapon from the nano second it was referred to. That was where no line was necessary, and a moment of directorial lingering on that knife more than other weapons, almost imperceptible at first view, very noticeable ever after like foreshadowing is supposed to be, whenever possible, even for 'professional' writers, thanks for that very fucking snarky 'put down', there dude. Everyone's an amateur until they're paid, but sometimes you have to be a 'professional' writer to be this writing class 101 about how foreshadowing is presented and be allowed to get away with it. Foreshadowing is supposed to be something when you look back you might kick yourself for not noticing, or is then something seen again with a knowing feeling. The line here may as well have been 'when the bad guy arrives, you might want to stab him with this'. The foreshadowing moment here was also a cheat/misdrection moment to make it look like they had less to work with than they actually had, when by lucky chance there was also a car with twin machine guns trained on the front door where the large group of assassins very politely congregated so most of them could die straight away, and enough material in the house to make nail bombs that were on CEILINGS and effective enough to kill instantly anybody there just for cannon fodder with no maiming or surviving to shoot at anyone at all. A smaller group of assassins and more cat and mouse would have fit the location better, this was pure 'line up up to die' henchman inclusion made more silly than necessary by the spookiness of the location. Way too showboaty for the story that was being told. The ending of Witness (with which the ending invites comparison) was much more effective with fewer gunmen, in daylight). .


Brings the whole end sequence to a fitting conclusion where the message was Bond - having being stripped of gadgetry (except for the twin machine guns in the car that allowed him to take out almost all the first group of assassins walking together en masse to their prey like idiots, which is not out of place for a Bond film per se, but more out of place in a remote location where there are no distractions from the action) - is simply a bloody good agent who relies on his skill experience and ingenuity. And miraculous recovery from not being able to fire straight with a gun to being able to kill someone with one flying stab through someone's clothes, to somewhere guaranteed to kill him instantly and not allow either the survival of the person or the death clench of the hand holding the gun to put a bullet through the brain of the person he was trying to save. There's being true to to the stripped down to basics Bond theme and there is silliness contradicting the avowed realism of the modern Bonds. An assassin, with only one weapon at his disposal, and a talky target, you time the mental torture of M so that at the point he;s trying ot make her pull the trigger the knife is pushed in, baddie taken by surprise, bond and baddie face to face as the light of life goes out of his eyes. Simple, clean, clinical, with no ludicrousness. or at least break a chair over the cunt's back before going in for the kill to extend the 'gotcha' moment and create the sudden break in the tension that was being built up (and create a moment of apparent triumph to then accentuate the tragedy that followed. Drama is all about creating a moment that the next moment is made more dramatic by, and a more 'yesss!! dispatching of the baddie would have set up a greater realisation of the tragic event to follow. It was a very damp squib conclusion to an often slow burn of a film, with the dramatic punch of the final 'showdown' hampered by the break to the oppressive atmosphere of waiting for the showdown by the false large group of faceless goons showdown pre the real showdown carnage all over the house. In my 'non-professional' opinion




< Message edited by jobloffski -- 1/11/2012 12:20:08 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to londonnut)
Post #: 212
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 12:45:57 PM   
londonnut

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/8/2009
Very much enjoying being your #nemesis


< Message edited by londonnut -- 1/11/2012 12:47:25 PM >

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 213
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 12:54:15 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
You know my nem-esis...

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to londonnut)
Post #: 214
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 1:07:32 PM   
primebhoy


Posts: 943
Joined: 7/5/2008
From: Scotland
Watched this last night, and whilst I thought it was good, I didn't leave the cinema thrilled. After an excellent start (possibly one of my favorite action sequences in the whole franchise) it just fell flat for me (so much so that I actually nodded off after Bond left Macau, a scene which was another best part of the movie). Can anyone tell me why Silva was on that deserted Island, where it was supposed to be, how he got the island, and how he managed to do all the things he done up until then? I'm not sure if this was explained in the 5 or so minutes I dozed off, or if it wasn't elaborated upon at all.

The final chapter was also a bit of a let down. I get the arguments that it was flipping the usual bond infiltrating the villains lair, but it just didnt create any thrill points for me! It was a bit like the army attacking the monarch of the glen, and at no point was Bond really tested or did I feel like he might not make it. The closest we got to that was when he fell into the ice but he was always going to get the better of 'Random Thug'. To have no final struggle or fight between two similar characters was disappointing!

Like others I may change my mind after a couple of views, and having gone from hating QoS on first viewing to watching it last week and loving it, it may well happen, but for me Skyfall left me disappointed.


_____________________________

'Old Man your about one C**t hair away from hillbilly heaven' - Blade II

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 215
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 4:37:01 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1050
Joined: 30/9/2005
**SPOILERS**

quote:

ORIGINAL: bozo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.


I think you're overthinking this. It's a fast-paced action-adventure movie, not a profound deliberation on the meaning of life. A memorable, menacing and scary villain is enough and Silva ticks all those boxes. Were you expecting Iago or something?



Really? I don't think I asked for a philosophical treaty on the nature of good vs evil to be included in the film.

You say Silva is a 'memorable, menacing and scary villain'. Yes, he is memorable, I suppose, but menacing and scary? No. I found Silva to be a villian who lacked a real overall sense of menace. Like I said in the post you've quoted, he doesn't push Bond to any great limit (at least I don't think so, anyway), and much of his plot to get at M relies incredibly heavily on happenstance. I know that the mechanics of plotting require a suspension of disbelief to work, but Silva's plot has remarkably forward thinking in parts to have worked. Take his escape from the glass cage, for example, as he's making his way to M. At one point Bond corners him as he's making his way up a ladder, only for Silva to make his escape by detonating a bomb that sends a tube train down on top of Bond. Sure, it's a well executed action sequence, but to believe that Silva had the foresight to set the explosives up in that exact spot so that he could throw off pursuing forces with a train on their heads, not mention to exact timing this would need...

As for the film being a 'fast-paced sction-adventure movie', that's another point I'd contend against. It could do with some editing as the film is a bit overlong, and the pacing in the mid-section is saggy.

All my opinion, however.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 1/11/2012 4:38:55 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to bozo)
Post #: 216
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 6:30:43 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
I think it's probably a shame for the film that Silva isn't glimpsed (hair seen rather than face) directing and participating in an atrocity of some kind in the opening,away from the main chase, but with it being clear to us where the details of the agents were destined to go) causing major panic and adding a little more urgency to the race against time at the start and establishing him right then and there as a 'terror to be reckoned with' so the events under his direction had a face (or at least hair) attached to them. I can't even remember if he was the recipient of the hard drive tbh and for me that;s almost unforgivable, not remembering such things!

If you are going for the dark knight as a touchstone, and having the villain as dark reflection of the hero and trying to undermine his belief in his, er, beliefs, there's nothing wrong with going the whole hog and having him do something incredibly heartless at the start to introduce him. TDK introduced the joker to the other crims by having him speak as he walks into a room, talking as he does too, but we'd already seen what he was capable of before that, we didn't know what the hell he might do next. Maybe the hints of Jokerism(including getting caught being part of the plan) were lifted without due consideration for just how much impact the opening sequence of TDK has in setting up the nature of the beast. Imagine TDK if there had been no sight of the joker before he introduced himself to the crims? There'd be no 'big beast' casting a shadow over events that we knew more about than Batman, creating a sense of threat we knew was coming and he didn't, that made things the Joker did more scary, because we were able to see the heores helpless. In Skyfall it was just something suddenly going bang, with no established 'identity' for tor the unseen villain. Ah hell, screw it. no more comments on this film from me until I've seen it again

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 1/11/2012 6:32:53 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 217
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 8:18:45 PM   
Jackie Boy

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 2/1/2006
I thought it was pretty bloody good actually, even if Bardem's character is criminally underused. Silva was wonderfully camp, with just a dash of menace. Even still he was a powerful presence on screen, & his backstory generated much sympathy.

I can't praise the visuals enough. It's hands down one of the finest looking movies i've ever seen.

Granted it's a little lightweight & a smidgen too long, but as far as i'm concerned it's definitely a return to the golden age of Bond.

_____________________________

"If you're not against me,don't cross this line! If yes,do."


(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 218
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 9:32:45 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.


Agreed. He is not too bad, but hardly in the class of a Scaramanga, Blofeld or Largo.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 219
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 9:35:08 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple. Many of those films didn't have much of an emotional core because they were pure fantasy and the girls were disposable sex objects.

The problem with the reinvented Bond films is that they've never really stepped out of Bourne's shadow. After Die Another Day tried to hard to match action films like Triple X, Casino Royale tried to hard to match the Bourne films to the extent that they even hired their stunt team to do all the action. Bond is just too glossy to exist in the same gritty world as Bourne and if audiences want gritty they should just watch the Bourne films.

I don't really understand the criticisms of Skyfall. It nails it. With some clever plotting it delivers a Bond that is both traditional and serious. It reintroduces all the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film in a logical and understated way, while delivering action and set pieces that are visually stunning and original. At the same time the characters and relationships are more developed and complex. The world is less black and white and more relevant to our times. This provides the films with a emotional and dramatic core that the audience can believe in.

Skyfall has taken the franchise out of the shadow of the Bourne series while still delivering a Bond that you can believe in a post 911 world. I struggle to understand why people are so opposed to this.


Bond is entertainment and family entertainment at that. I don't agree that the films have dated. In fact watched Thunderball the other day on Sky 007 and it was as fresh as I am sure it was in 1965.

Bond doesn't have to be Bourne, Bond should always aim for the fantasy element. I am not against the odd realistic attempt now and again, but for every From Russia With Love we want a Goldfinger.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 220
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 9:37:25 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.


Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.


Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 221
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 9:40:37 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005
BTW whatever happened to the disc with all the names on it?

And isn't there and argument for saying Silva won?

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 222
RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 10:15:33 PM   
TheGodfather


Posts: 5362
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Sin City


Skyfall
After Quantum of Solace, 007 finally returns to his old level with Sam Mendes`debut in the franchise. It`s a return to the quality of Casino Royale.
From the beginning it has quite the pace with a very strong action sequence and opening credits (wich are the high point of the film).
From thereon it only goes downhill with a storyline and motives from a bad guy ( a brilliant Javier Bardem who gets a brilliant introduction by the way) that don`t really do justice to the Bond universe to an ending that I found to be a bit of an anti-climax.
As an action film it is ok but from a Bond film I did expect more to be honest than that Mendes gives us here.

7,0/10



_____________________________

Jules: "What" ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What?
Brett: What?
Jules: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?

(in reply to Jackie Boy)
Post #: 223
Considering I'm not a "Bond-Fan"... pretty gr... - 1/11/2012 11:29:52 PM   
TheMightyBlackout


Posts: 260
Joined: 28/4/2012
From: Oxford, UK
Javier Bardem makes an excellent villain, although I'm not convinced that he's an excellent *Bond* villain. He carries a layer of madness and tragedy that lifts him way above other characters in his class, but at the same time caps his overall global-threat-level. Ultimately, this makes him arguably more human than anyone else on-screen, which may be the point, but seems a little out of place for a story where we're meant to be cheering the good guys.

A hugely entertaining movie which doesn't outstay its welcome.

_____________________________

More reviews and rambling like that ^^^ at: >>>WorldOfBlackout.co.uk <<<

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 224
RE: Great Bond - 2/11/2012 12:53:40 AM   
musht


Posts: 1881
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.


Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.


Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.



Moonraker is a terrible, terrible film let alone a terrible Bond film. It's awful!! Proper Bond? How can you say that, it's because of Moonraker and Moore's Bond in general that Austin Powers exists. Now if you want to defend Moonraker as a bit of fantasy fun that's fine BUT it is not "proper Bond", it's just not. IMO none of Moore's films can be put in that category as Moore was essentially a caricature of Bond.

Of course it's your opinion and I respect that even if I strongly disagree with it

< Message edited by musht -- 2/11/2012 12:16:23 PM >


_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 225
RE: Skyfall - 2/11/2012 7:01:31 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Skyfall is now my third favorite Bond film of all time,the writers and director Sam Mendes have created one of the very best Bond movies that any fan could wish for. .From the very first stunning opening sequence,to the final explosive ending this is one the
best bond films ever.The lead actors, especially Craig, Bardem and Dench really show what great actors they are,with a script which gives them plenty of interesting plot twists.And what a script,it has so many nods and winks to the Bond books,and film's,they are to many to mention,and has to be one of the best crafted scripts for any bond.Especially in the middle section,where we learn so much more about Bond himself and M,and this all takes place takes place in Britain,and makes full use of both London and Scotland.Don't worry though we get the far off lands of dreams for the first section,all shot in a stunning visual style that lifts this franchise to new heights.Cinematographer Roger Deakins, has turned this Bond film into one of the most visually stunning films of this year,i kidd you not.Excellent use of color and light in all the locations,and a big bonus no shaky-cam,which spoiled the last Bond-movie, Quantum of Solace for me.All the Action in this film is all smooth,just like Bond himself,and yet it it's a real rush you feel while watching this one,and though it's just over 2 hours long,it flies past.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"
Post #: 226
RE: Great Bond - 2/11/2012 10:15:07 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.


Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.


Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.



Moonraker is a terrible, terrible film let alone a terrible Bond film. It's awful!! Proper Bond? How can you say that, it's because of Moonraker and Moore's Bond in general that Austin Powers exists. Now if you want to defend Moonraker as a bit of fantasy fun that's fine BUT it is not "proper Bond", it's just not. IMO none of Moore's films can be put in that category as Moore was essentially a caricature of Bond.

Of course it's your opinion and I respect that even if I strongly disagree with it


Yes it is my opinion and I disagree with yours completely too.

Bond is fantasy and fun. Proper Bond (in terms of the cinema) has many fantastical elements (jet pack, Aston Martin DB5 etc) and indeed even from Dr No we had a space element which was used again in You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever (all Connery era Bond).

Also to suggest that Austin Powers exists due to Moore is wrong. Matt Helm, Get Smart and many other spy spoofs (even the Casino Royale of 1967) all came about due to Sean Connery's tenure as 007.

Indeed look at Austin Powers... Dr Evil, Goldmember (the SPECTRE influenced meeting room a la Thunderball where Mustafa gets 'killed'), all from Connery's era.

So I think you have that wrong.

So you don't like Moonraker. Fair enough. But I disagree that it is not proper Bond. I would argue that it is quintessential cinematic Bond. Far Out as the old poster went for Thunderball (I think.)


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 227
RE: Skyfall - 3/11/2012 11:35:49 AM   
cooperman2

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 15/8/2012
Monstercat. As a Bond fan of thirty years standing i think the gunbarrel at the start is very important. The dot progressing across the screen conbined the classic Barry/Norman music lets you know you are about to see something really special and not just another generic action film. It's a real hair's on the back of the neck moment. As for Skyfall, what a crushing dissapointment ,not Quantum of Solace bad but anyone expecting a return to Casino Royale quality is going to be severly let down. I think the praise it's been getting from critics is purely down to the fact that it's Sam Mendes directing. But I think the current producers are far more interested in impressing critics than the fans. Well guess what, the critics dont pay their wages we mug punters do when we pay through the nose to go to a cinema to watch their work. Try impressing us for a change

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 228
RE: Great Bond - 3/11/2012 1:08:39 PM   
musht


Posts: 1881
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.


Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.


Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.



Moonraker is a terrible, terrible film let alone a terrible Bond film. It's awful!! Proper Bond? How can you say that, it's because of Moonraker and Moore's Bond in general that Austin Powers exists. Now if you want to defend Moonraker as a bit of fantasy fun that's fine BUT it is not "proper Bond", it's just not. IMO none of Moore's films can be put in that category as Moore was essentially a caricature of Bond.

Of course it's your opinion and I respect that even if I strongly disagree with it


Yes it is my opinion and I disagree with yours completely too.

Bond is fantasy and fun. Proper Bond (in terms of the cinema) has many fantastical elements (jet pack, Aston Martin DB5 etc) and indeed even from Dr No we had a space element which was used again in You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever (all Connery era Bond).

Also to suggest that Austin Powers exists due to Moore is wrong. Matt Helm, Get Smart and many other spy spoofs (even the Casino Royale of 1967) all came about due to Sean Connery's tenure as 007.

Indeed look at Austin Powers... Dr Evil, Goldmember (the SPECTRE influenced meeting room a la Thunderball where Mustafa gets 'killed'), all from Connery's era.

So I think you have that wrong.

So you don't like Moonraker. Fair enough. But I disagree that it is not proper Bond. I would argue that it is quintessential cinematic Bond. Far Out as the old poster went for Thunderball (I think.)



I will accept your point about Austin Powers, that may have been a slight exaggeration on my part. However I do feel that Moore was a caricature and his films were absolutely ridiculous and a complete misstep in tone (A misstep that started with Connery in DAF and it could be argued YOLT as well)

And I agree that Bond should have fantasy elements however I think Moonraker takes it to a whole new level which I personally don't think fits in with what I consider Proper Bond; of course you have to have fantastical elements and silly gadgets (the DB5, the briefase) but there is a line (the gondola, I've always thought the jetpack was even a bit too far) and they crossed that line far too much in Moore's films.

All that said I do consider Moore's films to be Bond films but if someone asked me to recommend them a "proper Bond" it wouldn't cross my mind to recommend a Moore film. But god knows I don't want to start an argument that neither of us is going to budge on so let's just agree how great it is that Bond can cause this kind of division, he's not a fixed entity that only appeals to certain kinds of people.

Lastly I'd like to apologise for the tone of my original response, I'd coincidentally just finished watching Moonraker and needed a rant

< Message edited by musht -- 3/11/2012 1:09:29 PM >


_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 229
RE: Great Bond - 3/11/2012 2:51:17 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Skyfall had a disfigured bad guy who had his own island base. And it had Bond fighting around dragons. And it had a cool car. And it had Moneypenny and Q.

Isn't all that traditional Bond?

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to musht)
Post #: 230
RE: Great Bond - 3/11/2012 3:23:39 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2410
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast


<<a deleted post>>

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 3/11/2012 3:32:10 PM >

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 231
RE: Skyfall - 3/11/2012 5:04:10 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester
I really enjoyed this film, and I would say it's up there competing for the best Bond film for me. I loved the nods to the Bond films of the past, the acting (for the most part) was top notch and Bardem's Silva was just brilliant.

The only downside for me was Thomas Newman's Soundtrack. It just didn't gel with the film.

4/5

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 232
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 12:24:31 AM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.

This is a clear sign Craig's 'loose cannon' Bond has run its course and needs some reinvention in Bond 24. Why not make him a regular 00 agent with no emotional hang-ups? The new M gives him a mission, off he goes. No emotional connection to the mission, no moping about his past, his parents, Vesper, Tracy. Just Bond as a regular 00 agent. It seems Craig is not a talented enough actor to do a Connery/Moore type James Bond. The writers have to give his Bond 'issues' in the hope this will give Craig sufficient motivation to 'act the part' whereas Moore and Connery had simple 'no emotional subtext' plots and fans were happy with them. I doubt Craig could ever be a charming smooth James Bond.

No amount of actor training can make some actors be smooth or charming or cool. This is why Laurence Olivier would have been a terrible, artificial James Bond and Roger Moore was a cool James Bond. Most people would say Laurence Olivier was a much better actor than Moore but it takes much more than being good at acting to be a credible James Bond. Elements of Bond's character come from within the person, perhaps it's some inner confidence and smoothness that comes to the surface when acting? - and I don't believe Craig has it within him. Having said that, some people believe Craig is a great James Bond because he's not smooth and that slick so I guess everyone has their own view of what James Bond is like but the original film blueprint Bond was Sean Connery and I don't see much of Sean Connery's Bond in Craig's Bond!

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 4/11/2012 12:36:14 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 233
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 1:28:49 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.


This is a clear sign Craig's 'loose cannon' Bond has run its course and needs some reinvention in Bond 24. Why not make him a regular 00 agent with no emotional hang-ups? The new M gives him a mission, off he goes. No emotional connection to the mission, no moping about his past, his parents, Vesper, Tracy. Just Bond as a regular 00 agent. It seems Craig is not a talented enough actor to do a Connery/Moore type James Bond. The writers have to give his Bond 'issues' in the hope this will give Craig sufficient motivation to 'act the part' whereas Moore and Connery had simple 'no emotional subtext' plots and fans were happy with them. I doubt Craig could ever be a charming smooth James Bond.

No amount of actor training can make some actors be smooth or charming or cool. This is why Laurence Olivier would have been a terrible, artificial James Bond and Roger Moore was a cool James Bond. Most people would say Laurence Olivier was a much better actor than Moore but it takes much more than being good at acting to be a credible James Bond. Elements of Bond's character come from within the person, perhaps it's some inner confidence and smoothness that comes to the surface when acting? - and I don't believe Craig has it within him. Having said that, some people believe Craig is a great James Bond because he's not smooth and that slick so I guess everyone has their own view of what James Bond is like but the original film blueprint Bond was Sean Connery and I don't see much of Sean Connery's Bond in Craig's Bond!



1) I don't love the film and need to see it again because was a little distracted by the pretty cinematography but

2) Re the bit in bold. You're just LOOKING for things to have a go at. Have you ever heard of a storytelling/filmmaking technique called 'compare and contrast'? You know, that use of similar incidents ON PURPOSE to highlight differences between where the characters are at first time a set up/shot/event takes place and where they are later. In this instance, the earlier incident is about the beginnings of their relationship (as far as the Craig era goes) and the later one, at what turns out to be the beginning of the end for their relationship. First time, anger from M, but half hidden amusement at her new promotee, Second time surface anger frim M but now she NEEDS him and asks where the hell he has been.

Fair enough, you don;t like the films, but you clearly have no idea about things like establishing and developing themes that run through a series of movies and the re use of similar situations or shot framing to make a point about character or story. it's now essentially a trilogy ABOUT 'loose cannon Bond' ON PURPOSE and that now being done and dusted, over, like the relationship with M. M not sure of him in the first film, but his blunt ways get the job done. She's not sure of him in the second one, thinks he has lost it completely, he tells her when she;s glad to have him back that he never went away. In the third one, despite provocation that would justify him abandoning M, he doesn't, his dedication to dute gets him back on the rails and after all, she knows she was right to promote him. For all her failures, she got one thing right. Like, there's a story and everything, connecting all three Craig Bond films so far together.

A story that makes what you;re asking for possible, because now the films have got rid of all the things he has an attachment to, including his mentor, his family home, his belief in love, his ability to drop his defences and trust, he has nothing left but his duty. You're so busy noticing what the films aren't doing you're not noticing them get closer to being ready to be what you're asking from them. Q, Moneypenny and a Bond freed from hang ups to hang onto.

Give it a rest, FFS

EDIT And there's even a sly subtle joke in the way the film develops: fractious relationship between Bond and M, but finally, he does takes her home with him ;-)

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 4/11/2012 1:56:39 AM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 234
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:09:10 AM   
matty_b


Posts: 14579
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.



Probably the most desperate criticism I've heard so far, and considering that includes Private Hudson and Cool Breeze posting about Bond that's saying something.

I suppose you've conveniently forgotten how two of your precious Roger Moore films had the EXACT same chase scene (with the riverboats)? So there you go. So desperate and ran out of steam. And in his first two films as well.




_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 235
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 11:26:10 AM   
Magneto

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Scotland
Brilliantr film.

_____________________________

In chess the pawns go first.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 236
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 12:08:56 PM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
The Observer's take on Craig's Bond (quite funny)....

quote:

It takes itself far too seriously, the suavity of the character is lost; the heartless charmer, the well-dressed psychopath who will unhesitatingly deploy violence to get what he wants but who wants nothing more, due to an accident of his nature, than the furtherance of British national interests has been replaced by a gnarled potato-headed bruiser haunted by his own past. Batman without the gear. I miss the jammy sod in the bow-tie whose toast always lands butter side up.


The review of Skyfall is halfway down this article which compares the new Star Wars films with the James Bond franchise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/disney-star-wars-lucas-david-mitchell



(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 237
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 12:13:51 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester
And in reply to that, manwihtheplan, take a butchers here:~

Rotten Tomatoes

Seems like you and The Grauniad are in the minority.

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 238
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 1:34:06 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I'm starting to miss Silas.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Ref)
Post #: 239
RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 1:52:35 PM   
musht


Posts: 1881
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.



Probably the most desperate criticism I've heard so far, and considering that includes Private Hudson and Cool Breeze posting about Bond that's saying something.

I suppose you've conveniently forgotten how two of your precious Roger Moore films had the EXACT same chase scene (with the riverboats)? So there you go. So desperate and ran out of steam. And in his first two films as well.



They had one in Moonraker as well, even did the boat cutting another boat in half gag twice.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Great Bond Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125