|
Just got back from seeing QOS. Disappointing but not awful. It lacked cohesiveness and intensity. The villainy was wanting too except for Mr. White who gave a great performance. Mr. Green and his toupee buddy were lame. No good babes and minimal fine automobiles.
BTW Chris, I liked Moonracker! Even Jaws got his love interest-- the pigtailed girl.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://filmgordon.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/04uu4.jpg http://www.kinostat.com/Olga_Kurylenko_files/olga3.jpg http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-con...-arterton1.jpg http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...WI_468x782.jpg You're right, very unattractive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And then there are the other extremes which 3 to 3.5 hour movies where nothing moves fast.
I have to agree that the editing of the fight scene and car chase was distracting. As someone said, I think it's a way to make a faster cheaper scene seem much more exciting. |
Quote:
See all they have to do is keep the girls in underwear! Lets just give these jobs to the Victoria Secret or Playboy girls. Simple! |
Saw it tonight, 1 thumbs up, but not 2...
One thing it lacked was a good "oh s---" moment; it needed a scene when Bond has to make a snap decision and the theatrical score of the movie kicks into high gear, it just never happened. Fight scene on the scaffolding and the car chase at the beginning seemed like it was trying to copy Paul Greengrass camerawork from the Borne movies...and it didn't really work. Making it a sequel to Casino Royale was a mistake. |
opening title sequence. Looks better on the big screen (the font animations/rotations are very cool). I dig it.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/frjeUqzEyt8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/frjeUqzEyt8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> |
I saw it this afternoon. It was pretty OK, not fantastic. Agreed the plot was kind of hard to follow as to what the bad guys were doing. I prefer it to any of the Roger Moore ones, which were more or less comedies.
|
Quote:
|
I think I read a few, but not many, what's your point. I know the books were kind of dark, not the comedies of the Roger Moore movies.
|
I thought the opening sequence was freaking awesome. Great song. Alica Keyes with Jack White together? Nice.
I could follow it, but they tried to do to much. They need to spend more time fleshing out the characters. The pace was just to fast. You couldn't build up much empathy for the characters. They should have chopped 10 minutes of the action sequences for plot development. And YES, the action was just insane, and not in a good way. Action sequences are supposed to be dramatic, but these this was more like a blast furnace of violence in your face. You couldn't even tell what was going on. A man jumping across a gap between buildings doesn't take you breath away if its on screen for .4 of second, and followed by 27 equally insane stunts in the course of a 40 second action sequence. That all being said, I still give it 7 of 10. Kept me entertained end to end. I am about as ADD as they come, so perhaps thats it, but I liked it. Daniel Craig rocks. They need to give the guy more time to talk, and less time fighting. He's what Bond should be. Cold, yet witty when required. I rather enjoy that he's not some chessball womanizer in these films. He's a serious customer. Some complain that the whole 'Q' aspect is gone, but have you looked around lately? Look at the gadgets we have today. People are no longer impressed by gadgets. We have them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is all treated in a light hearted manner and dealt with flippantly... to pretend otherwise is both historically (Bond is a 'period' piece regardless of film updating) incorrect and misunderstands the reasoning behind it...that's why the Moore films were so good.. because he is flippant, he is so unlikely...even if his last two were dreadful... |
Quote:
Look, the underlying tone of all of Fleming's stuff is the seriousness of the Cold War. "Redland" is a very real, tangible factor in all of his work, and the simple truth is that Bond's mission is to invariably KILL people on an individualized basis that has an effect far greater than nuclear weapons or tank divisions in terms of its effect on the enemy. Against that grim, lonely backdrop Fleming has inserted Bond's humor, vices and womanizing as a way of making the character human but also providing the reader with relief. . . Do you remember in Dr. No when he shoots the professor basically in cold blood? The original screenplay, with Fleming standing in the wings, called for Bond to empty the magazine into him, which was censored to just two bullets in the final version. Grim business indeed. Far from invicible, when Le Chiffre works over Bond's testicles with a carpet beater you really FEEL it. All the cinematic glimmer and special effects and whatnot take away from the purity of Fleming's original plot lines, if you ask me. I would like to remake a few of the short stories, like "Living Daylights" set in post-war Berlin . . . as short as necessary to get the point across. . . |
Quote:
|
It all went downhill after Goldfinger.
|
Saw it last night. I thought it was OK--and frankly (IMHO) both of Craig's movies are better than any of the previous offerings --save 3 or 4 of the Connery flicks. From Russia with Love , Goldfinger, Dr No etc were excellent. The Moore movies became farces, Dalton films OK--but lacked good stories, and Brosnan's tended to be so far out of the realm--that they became stunt and gadget shows. ( I also profess to like HMS--after further review-the "fill in" Lazenby does an admirable job).
I agree that QOS--was harder to follow--had a bit too much Bourne--not quite enough Bond, but overall I liked it--as I did Casino Royale. I was a huge skeptic of Daniel Craig --thought no way this going to work out--and I have been very pleasantly surprised. So it won't win awards and was a bit too jumpy--but overall--I like the path the franchise is going down, much better than the comedic, gadget heavy, formulaic movies that have been in vogue since the mid-70's. Just my .02 |
My wife and I loved it. Craig is tied for the best Bond imo. I thought they did an amazing job of reeling in the Bond character who became a joke as portrayed by Moore and Brosnan. This new Bond is the perfect "prequel" to the Connery series because it focuses on the developement of the character and not so much (at all?) the gadgets and goofy, " I thought Christmas only came once a year" lines that made me want to scream. We learn how the "Connery Bond" became such a hardened, but glib, badass who can crack a joke after tossing some goon overboard with a bomb tied between his legs or not get bent out of shape because last night's girlfriend is floating face down in the swimming pool. The Craig series has done nothing short of restore my faith and enthusiasm in the Bond movies. If you want to put things in perspective, watch the last Brosnan movie where he kite surfs the Tsunami. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website