Main > Everything Else
New Bond Movie
Loafmeister:
I liked the new Bond movie, it was a true sequel to the first Craig movie, starting off something like 1 hour after the end of Casino Royale. The story was good and completes the "how Bond came to be a 00 agent" very nicely.
However, it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale, which I considered to be a great Bond movie. The main issue is not the story, it's not the acting, it's the stupid friggin idea of having Michael Bay quick cuts throughout every action scene. One of the reasons why I loved so much the first Craig adventure was the grittiness and apparent realism of every action scene. Now in Quantum of Solace, I can't tell what the hell is going on half the time. Understanding a movie like this has a high budget on the action scenes, I have to ask "why"? Because of the editing, all the magic of the practical effects used in the action scenes is WASTED. If I'm the stunt coordinator for this movie, I'd be royally pissed at all my hard work flushed down the toilet. I can appreciate Catwoman having quick cuts, they're used to hide the inability from the main leads to actually, you know, have a fight scene. But Casino Royale proved the opposite so...
Still, cuts don't ruin a movie, just brings it down a few notches. I love the director, the same dude who pulled out my favorite surprise movie last year: The kite Runner, but IMHO, either that was incredible pressure from the producer or he lacked judgement on this choice. The last two Bourne movies have the shaky cam crap, but you can at least admire the above average action, before you throw up that is. But this? Poor choice IMHO.
Free advice: See Casino Royale right before you see this movie, you'll enjoy it more.
hyiu:
I watched most if not all the James Bond film... and I did not read any James Bond books...
In my mind, JB is not a fighter... he's simply a spy who is good looking, a ladies man, and have a lot of cool gadgets to get him out of trouble... and he get in and out of trouble well dressed, and in cool and luxury style....
that is what's JB's image in my mind....
Yes, this is very much not real, but so is spiderman, superman, batman, x-men,.... you name it...
I simply prefer this "imaginary" world in movies...
these 2 new Bond films are good action movies... but in my mind, this new "James Bond" is no longer James Bond...
I would say its a pretty good movie if I categorize it in the "mission impossible" type of movies...
but these is not my type of James Bond movie....
patrickl:
hyiu,
Before you say Bond is not the real Bond, you should ... read the books. In the books I have read, he fights just about all the time. The fighting is described in insane detail. So much so that I tend to skip till the end of it.
ark_ader:
--- Quote from: Loafmeister on November 16, 2008, 11:50:22 pm ---I liked the new Bond movie, it was a true sequel to the first Craig movie, starting off something like 1 hour after the end of Casino Royale. The story was good and completes the "how Bond came to be a 00 agent" very nicely.
However, it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale, which I considered to be a great Bond movie. The main issue is not the story, it's not the acting, it's the stupid friggin idea of having Michael Bay quick cuts throughout every action scene. One of the reasons why I loved so much the first Craig adventure was the grittiness and apparent realism of every action scene. Now in Quantum of Solace, I can't tell what the hell is going on half the time. Understanding a movie like this has a high budget on the action scenes, I have to ask "why"? Because of the editing, all the magic of the practical effects used in the action scenes is WASTED. If I'm the stunt coordinator for this movie, I'd be royally pissed at all my hard work flushed down the toilet. I can appreciate Catwoman having quick cuts, they're used to hide the inability from the main leads to actually, you know, have a fight scene. But Casino Royale proved the opposite so...
Still, cuts don't ruin a movie, just brings it down a few notches. I love the director, the same dude who pulled out my favorite surprise movie last year: The kite Runner, but IMHO, either that was incredible pressure from the producer or he lacked judgment on this choice. The last two Bourne movies have the shaky cam crap, but you can at least admire the above average action, before you throw up that is. But this? Poor choice IMHO.
Free advice: See Casino Royale right before you see this movie, you'll enjoy it more.
--- End quote ---
I read your reply, and I concluded pretty much what you posted when the end credit rolled up, and my friend asked if I liked it. I told him the visuals were nice, but I could not get to grips with the story line, until the end of the last 5 minutes of the film. Even then it was pat.
Also your reply raised another Bond Film that suffered. View To A Kill. That film had the worst editing ever seen. I thought the censors had a go with it, until I read of the other reviews of the film, when it was released, shared the same view [sic]. Besides at that time Moore was getting a bit long in the tooth and the film needed someone younger.
Probably the one of the reasons why the new Bond movies suffer, is due to absence of Albert (Cubby) Broccoli. Even though his creative team is still in operation. his genius is not. I can draw a parallel with The Empire Strikes Back vs. the disappointing Return Of The Jedi. Irvin Kershner directed Empire, and the film is heralded as a masterpiece of filming, against Richard Marquand's interpretation, and the excuse was due to him being a relatively unknown director at the time with regard to the "genre."
The difference between these two films is like night and day.
There is no directorial experience in the new James Bond Film. Martin Campbell did a great job, and he should have continued, which IMHO would have been a better sequel. The argument of screen writers is pretty much moot, as you could have a brilliant script and a inexperienced director, making a crap film.
Perhaps I'm being too critical, but I'm tired of wasting my $10 or 6 quid on a promising film, only to be disappointed. Does anyone in the film industry learn from their mistakes?
Will we see this film on the shelves for Christmas?
danny_galaga:
--- Quote from: pinballjim on November 18, 2008, 12:25:02 am ---Saw it tonight, liked it a lot. He's a little short and I'm not too keen on the blond hair, blue eyes thing but meh.
--- End quote ---
maybe i was wrong about not being able to see 50mm difference in height in a movie. ;D
i finally saw this tonight. i enjoyed it, but would have to go with the consensus that casino royale was better. i wouldnt have noticed it but for the fact that someone at work mentioned it, but this is probably the first (eon) bond movie to not have Q in it. i found Felix to be an interesting take on the Felix of old. Only got a sniff of him here, obviously he will make a bigger showing in the next movie. i enjoy the imaginative stunts they have been coming up with in the last two. in this one, the fight on the scaffolding stands out.
id say 3.5 outta 5
edit:
was it just me, or did this scene not actually appear in the movie? i can't picture when it happened...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version