Gotta agree with ya on this Dante, BOR-ING! And the ball crushing scene was something out of a Cockney Gangter film not a James Bond movie - the whole movie - eh.
The problem with this movie is that it should have been stripped down to 90 minutes. Those long ass drawn out stretches of nothingness have no place in a Bond movie. You know why they normally aren't there? Because Bond can not stand on it's narrative. And no one wants it to. We want the narrative to be paper thin and serve only as a segway to the next great action sequence. Nothing about the kills in this movie, or any Bond movie for that matter, have ever been what you would call "brutal," either. The ball whacking scene was nice, but it should have been the START of a great torture sequence, instead it ended all too quickly and abruptly. The ball whacking should have been phase one in a gruesome torture sequence.
Oh, and someone please, PLEASE tell me. HOW DO YOU MAKE A BOND MOVIE WITHOUT A SLICK ASS CAR CHASE? HOW? What's the point of all those sweet rides in a Bond movie if you aren't going to have them flying through the city, guns blazing, and ultimately exploding? Not one car chase. That is lame as shit.
And cut the poker playing. My God that was boring. I don't like watching it on TV for 10 seconds, let alone watching it in the movies for 10 hours.
My two complaints was that the card scene when on too long- and that the villain with the bleeding eye was hokey.
The ball whipping scene ended up being comic relief- which I thought was great. It did have a Abugrab style feel to it and was fairly intense.
The car chase wasn't necessary- I thought the car accident, the jet liner bit and the chase through the contruction scene was good enough.
I thought the killing of the two black guys was very realistic. I also got chills watching that guy threatening to chop off that womans arm- imagining the thousands of women, men and children with only one arm in Rwanda.
I thought the scene in Italy was well done- Personally, I was in Venice about two weeks ago- It was really cool to see the streets I was walking around on in a big movie like that-
Agreed on the poker scenes...I don't think I got as impatient as others but was kinda wondering where they were going with that...it coulda been tighter.
And the footchase at the beginning...who was the guy Bond was chasing? He was FABULOUS? Possibly two or more stunt guys but really great at his job.
My only Bitter McBitterson comment was that there was this old lady in the audience who was late in arriving and talked her way all the way to her seat and then. And THEN...she left early and talked her way all the way out of the theater so most of us missed the ending and the last line. [People were actually asking each other as we were leaving..."Did you hear that?" "What happened?", etc.] And people wonder why I wait for DVD?
OK - I know it wasn't 'Citzen Kane' or anything, but thse things really bothered INSTANTLY during the movie
- After the long free running foot chase scene at the beginning, Bond shoots him and merely takes his bag - he had PLENTLY of opportunities to shoot him during the foot chase.
- Let me get this straight, in Europe, in a fancy schmancy casino, they play 'Texas Hold'Em'?!
- And I don't how much time passed and how much in love Bond was, but I am pretty sure sexual congress would be a little painful after the punishing ball whacking scene.
I finally saw the movie. It wasn't bad. It's definitely as good as Pierce Brosnan's films but Connery is still the ultimate Bond.
Spoiler Alert!
I have a question about the plot. After the tournament is over and Bond & Vesper are having dinner. She gets a call from Mathis. She leaves to meet Mathis. Somehow, Bonds knows...
that Matthis is a double agent and Vesper is in mortal danger. He runs out and gives chase. Eventually, it results in him swerving to miss her and he rolls his car 12 times. How does he know?
This message has been edited by scalias on Dec 16, 2006 2:27 AM
I'm hoping that somebody can clear something for me... this is not about this movie in particular but about the timeline holes in the Bond Saga.
Ok, I know they are rebooting the saga, using Fleming's first novel, and adapting it to present time, but...
1) The female M granted Bond his 00 status? Weren't they supposed to have met in Goldeneye, when Bond was already a 00 agent? I was even a little amused by the introduction scene back then, when they had so much love for each other... Hell, even Zukovsky said it in Goldeneye "I hear THE NEW 'M' IS A LADY!"
2) Why the hell did 9/11 have to come up? I was buying it up until that moment, because it had no timeline.
Now, the only possible, if yet bizarre explanation I can find is this: Bond (the Bond we all knew and loved, played last by Pierce Brosnan) is dead.
Upon his death, MI-6 grabbed another agent, and put him through the same intensive training that Bond had, and when he graduated (with honors, of course), they gave him another identity and assigned him with his 'Agent' status, along with a possible "00" number and a new name: James Bond.
Yeah, I know that the whole "recycling the name along with the number" theory is very farfetched and could even be considered insulting to hardcore 007 fans, but it's the best explanation I've come up with so far.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Basically, to accept the premise of this Bond film, you have to pretend as if the previous 30 something films never existed. In this Bond universe, everything that was ever said or referenced in previous films never happened.
If you start referencing things Pierce Brosnan said as Bond then where does it stop? If Pierce Brosnan was playing Bond in the 90's, how could Bond have been battling Dr. No and Goldfinger in the 60's?
Obviously, the audience cannot completely forget the previous Bonds. You can't turn 007 into some PC, sensitive metrosexual because the audience expects Bond to be a certain way. However, you should delete any specific references from your memory bank. This Bond's back story is unique. It may have been better if they recast M to make a clean break but Judi Dench is so popular. You'll notice that Q didn't make an appearance either.
In the latest Bond, you do learn why Bond is such a love 'em and leave 'em kind of guy. He loved Vesper and was betrayed. It broke his heart so never again. You see a little of the origins of the Martini (shaken not stirred), the Astin Martin, Felix Leiter, etc.
This message has been edited by scalias on Dec 18, 2006 11:55 AM This message has been edited by scalias on Dec 18, 2006 11:54 AM
yeah, I was saddened when Q was not in this and no gadgets were used. I also thought the villains could bite it better, I always feel let down when the main villain just gets shot.
This film broke with a lot of Bond traditions. Beyond what I noted previously, Bond didn't kill or fight with the main villain. He was tied up naked, literally getting his balls beat off when someone else busted in a shot the villain.
Bond was fallible too. At the beginning, he had to kill the guy that he was chasing when he wanted to bring him in alive. He got played for a chump in the Texas Hold'em tournament too. He had to have the Bond girl (who completely faked him out) secretly negotiate his safe escape.
