 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.152.72.191
The unequivocal answer is YES. Too much action, zero character or plot development, and editing that was schizo.I'm afraid they must have been in a rush to get out an annual installment by the holiday season so they just said screw the script. Even poor Jeffery Wright (Leiter) was lousy dying from lack of script.
Bond films have always been fun but when you look at the action and compare it to reality it just doesn't happen that way so many times to any one person.
I still think Craig is the uberBond but was not allowed character growth in this franchise ticket seller.
If it comes out this poorly next holiday season they should shut it down.
Edits: 11/14/08Follow Ups:
They should've had Mighty Mouse come the rescue at the end of the crane & beam-hopping scene in the beginning of the last JB movie to give it a little reality. I can't watch that crap anymore.
We're chasing terrorists in the wrong place...they're on Wall St.
Foucan pretty much is an institution, having founded the sport of free running. He does all his own stunts and jumps in that opening sequence of CR. It pretty much blows away any other chase seen in film history by virtue of the sheer athleticism of Foucan...yet you can't find anything worthwhile about it. Of all the things to slam CR for, this was odd. Guess some folks will never be satisfied.
-------------Call it, friendo.
...of Craig's Casino Royal - I thought it was very good as Bond films go.
Thanks for the credit given Sebastien Foucan.
I've never heard of this Foucan guy. And I see nothing worthwhile in it whatever it is he does.I was satisfied when they wrote Bond scripts with clever dialogue for actors with personalities. So much for that stale old idea.
We're chasing terrorists in the wrong place...they're on Wall St.
Edits: 11/17/08 11/17/08
I just saw this too...I prepared myself by watching Casino Royale on video on Demand just before the new movie. That was not much help. Despite a number of favorable reviews I thought this movie was much inferior to Casino Royale. First, any good Bond movie has a villan the audience loves to hate (aka Auric Goldfinger)===but this movie's villan was a wimp not worhy of the title-- plus a henchman or woman (aka Odd Job, Jaws or May Day) plus some beautiful woment in skimpy bathing suits or elegant gowns. Mostly this movie had average looking women dressed like peasants. And the plot stunk, if there was one. So many people were revealed to be on both sides it was impossible at the end to determine the good guys from the bad guys. I fear we were left in the dark on this for many characters as a setup to the sext movie in the series. Finally, the poker game was really the centerpiece of Casino Royale, but this movie lacked a centerpiece of any sort, just a bunch of unrelated and ill conceived chase and fight scenes.
In short, I had NO fun at this movie..and that is saying somehing for a guy who generally loves Bond. I still like Craig as Bond, but he had nothing here to work with in terms of story line.
They would have been better off picking another 60s Connery bond movie and remaking/updating that.
David
> > First, any good Bond movie has a villan [sic] the audience loves to hate (aka Auric Goldfinger)===but this movie's villan [sic] was a wimp not worhy of the title-- plus a henchman or woman (aka Odd Job, Jaws or May Day) plus some beautiful woment [sic] in skimpy bathing suits or elegant gowns. Mostly this movie had average looking women dressed like peasants. < <
But the rebooted Bond series is trying to dispense with the formula and suave crap and bring bond into the 21st century while getting down to basics and staying closer to the Fleming character and stories. I think it has accomplished that. Maybe I'm slow but it took me about 3 times through CR before I fully realized all the character development and plot twists implications. For QoS, my biggest complaint is that it didn't pick up right where CR left off and the direction was so different. The Mr. White character acted differently than he did during CR. However, Mr Greene, the new villain seemed no less wimpy than LeChifre from CR, and far more detestable because of his schemes. The women seemed beautiful to me, but not as dolled up as traditional Bond girls. They were a bit tougher.
A word about the cinematography: artistic. It was a very interesting counterpoint to the hard-hitting action and violence--at times more of a subtle Woo vibe. I usually like seeing all the action without the camera moving or the shots too tight. But unlike Bourne Ultimatum, the camera work in QoS did not ruin the action for me.
> > And the plot stunk, if there was one. So many people were revealed to be on both sides it was impossible at the end to determine the good guys from the bad guys. < <
That's not true. The film was at its essence a revenge story, but before he could take revenge, Bond had to uncover Greene's plot to divert water from the villagers of South America and forge deals with corrupt governments. What wasn't clear to me on first viewing was Greene's relationship with the Vesper boyfriend character, but I think that was explained too. I just didn't catch it because of all the aholes sitting around me at the theater. Every time I go to a movie I can add two or three things to my list of reasons why I should only watch movies at home.
This time the theater unbelievably forgot to turn the lights off through the all the previews and for the first five minutes of the actual movie. I think someone in the audience actually had to go get a manager to have the lights turned off. The sound was screwed up--mostly the bass, although the entire system was screwy. I won't go into detail on the armrest to my left that was sticky with dried soda, the chorus of coughing behind me or the old man who suddenly had to leave my row and stepped all over me at a key point in the film. A group of kids also walked into the theater toward the end, all talking loudly.
> > I fear we were left in the dark on this for many characters as a setup to the sext movie in the series. < <
On the contrary, Bond made many important relationships in this movie that are now out in the light. The Felix character in particular was developed very strongly--he stood up for Bond and helped save him, earning him a promotion as his boss was fired. Hopefully the Bond girl will show up again all gussied up for you with her legs showing. And most importantly, there was a turning point in the relationship between Bond and M, when she realized that 007 really is a unique agent who needs to be given more support in following or killing (more often than not) his leads. Watch for M's support to increase, even as they maintain a bit of shakey relationship. This movie had a lot going on and it disappointed me in some ways, pleased me in others and something surprised me in almost every scene. I can't wait to see it on Blu-ray and give it the attention it deserves...particularly the excellent visuals and interesting audio engineering of which I unfortunately only got the foggiest impression.
-------------Call it, friendo.
...Bond's relationship with "M" is at least as complex as his maternal relationship with Moneypenny, his adopted godmother, secretary, and in later episodes, administrative assistant. As it turns out, we learn that "M" is actually the older sister to Moneypenny, and Bond's biological mother. It turns out that M was forced to leave Bond on the steps of an orphanage (in the industrial town of Liverpool) when little Bond was only 18 months old..Bond realizes that M's last name is the last name of his biological mother, as he knew what "M" stood for, but as of the current QOS, he hasn't put all of this together quite yet.
It turns out that Bond is actually a love child of an affair M had with another young secret agent in training when she was only 19--and neither of them could pursue their rigorous training and raise bond, who even at 18 months, was a "handful" so rather than give up their careers, Bond ended up on the steps of the orphanage. M was quite a piece when she was 19 and the object of much admiration among many of the male agents in training then. M knows that she got to pursue the career she wanted that sister Moneypenny (note that M in agent M actually stands for Moneypenny, a familiar name starting with M for Bond) always wanted but never got to do, and further, she became an agent in large measure because she put Bond up for adoption, but she has always felt pangs of guilt over the "life choice" she made. Whenever Bond goes off the ranch, so to speak, she always wonders if things would have gone better had she "been there for Bond" and given up her agent career.
Meanwhile, Bond has spent his entire life in search not of a succession of one night stands as everyone thinks, but rather in search of a mother figure to represent something maternal he never had, being raised in an English orphanage and all. Of couse he is not absolutely certain who his mother was..he pretty much knows she had the "Moneypenny" name, but his secretary didnt seem old enough to be his mother despite the obvious maternal bond--no pun intended of course. Then he discovered that "M" stands for Moneypenny...and that is the reason M did not want him to utter the name because it was clear that Bond was really beginning to put two and two together and it would be only a matter of time (one or two more movies?) until he had this all figured out. Bond stayed with a variety of foster families in his youth, but he was quite a handful and alweays ended up back at the orphanage..he simply took the name of Bond from the last foster family he was with..not knowing what to do when he came of age he saw the opportunity to train at the English Spy Academy (the ESA). The name Bond was actually quite good because it described what he spent his entire life looking for,..a maternal bond he was never able to fulfill with all the succession of women he had sex with..but this going from woman to woman is typical of men who grow up without maternal love in their lives--and agent M knows that and feels all sorts of guilt.
The special effects were atrocious..the Crane scene in CR was amazing, but the DC-3 scene in QOS looked just like what it was, a plastic model plane photoshopped into a background frame by frame.
Somehow I can't get excited about a politically incorrect villian (however its spelled) whose big goal in life is to shut off the water of Bolivians, when previous Bond films have had titles like "The World is Not Enough" Am I somehow supposed to feel threatened and in danger because the Bolivians lack clean water? Sorry, I simply can't buy into the entire predicament in the plot--essential for a good action/adventure movie.
Next up--a plot in which a villian contributes to global warming by leaving the coal-fired electrical generating plants on longer than he should adding small amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere..you can see where this is headed...IMHO Bond films have been fun because they generally are NOT politically correct--i don't want to go down the "other road".
David
You are giving QoS short shrift. The bad guy, Greene, was super creepy. Having him at that meeting eating an apple was a nice touch. I don't think you understand what he was doing. He was diverting South America's water to huge underground caves in the desert. It had greater implications than Bolivia and he had the power to install regimes throughout South America. Imagine someone controlling guys like Chavez. Sounds pretty scary to me. Plus it harkens back to some of the most infamous movie villains of all time, such as Chinatown's Noah Cross (John Houston), who had a similar scheme to control Los Angeles.
-------------Call it, friendo.
...and due to your observations on QoS, am looking forward to seeing it.I like the return to Fleming's Bond - Bond is a case.
Edits: 11/17/08 11/17/08
They're all fantasy for teenage boys. Well, the version of Casino Royale
with David Niver was somewhat better, but not a lot.
I read all the books too. Equally bad, except that "From Russia with
Love" was moderately believable.
You want good spy fiction? Read LeCarre, Alan Furst, Eric Ambler, and
Robert Littell, who deliver in spades. Forget these dopey Bond movies.
Mike
hey I was a teenage boy in '63 when Goldfinger came out or was it in '64..no matter...I'm 61 now..those teenage fantasies from Bond films can last you a lifetime, and frequently do!
I still love Goldinger and its in my DVD collection..its as much fun today as it was way back then...one of my 2 or three all time favorite films.
... especially in a popcorn flicks where they need a lot of action to make up for weak plots and bad acting. what did you expect?
too fast. A punch is thrown, we see it from five different angles before it lands. Cut, cut, cut. You really can have second-rate stuntmen because nothing really has to be done. Just have a guy do one piece of it at a time, film from a dozen different angles, cleverly apply montage, VOILA!
It also gives one a headache to see several hours of it.
And the lack of sex reinforces my opinion of the girly men currently in charge of Hollywood.
007 holes up in a far away place and ruminates upon his vengeance, "Was it too much?" "What did I gain, after all, she already had been killed?" "Aren't I just perpetuating an endless cycle of violence, might I not kill an innocent, accidentally?" All of this soul-searching will be caused by a ghostly appearance of Sean Connery in the first scene, lamenting his age and worthless existence.
I felt this about the last of the Bourne trilogy also. Can't remember a thing about it.
(nt)
.
They got worse as they went on. One I thought was enjoyable, somewhat of a new thing, good action but not filled with action. Two kinda lost me as I hadn't watched One for too long, so it took me a bit just to remember what the plot was. I can only remember one thing about Three, I thought it sucked wind compared to the first two.
Kinda like many sequel movies; Jaws for example. One was good for its time, after that, well, not so good. Alien; One was great, two was still pretty good.... I'll just stop there.
We're in big trouble if that's the case.
Make an empty MERDE. 99% of today´s film.
Just plainly shit.
" Mieux vaut une tęte bien faite qu'une tęte bien pleine."
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
