|
by Simon Humphrey on Nov 5, 2008 9:11:44 AM Has anyone else seen the new movie yet? Is anyone else disappointed with it? I know traditionally every truly solid Bond film has been followed by a slightly flabby one - Goldfinger had Thunderball follow it, OHMSS had Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only had Octopussy, Goldeneye had Tomorrow Never Dies (the only sequence to kind of buck the trend would be the Living Daylights - Licence To Kill - Goldeneye period), but after how much an effort they seemed to put into Casino Royale to make it: a) a great Bond film; and b) a very solid thriller, I hoped for a lot more from this one. I know character wise this is not meant to be strictly like a traditional Bond film, it's the story of how he becomes Bond, but it still should feel like a Bond movie & this just doesn't. It also fails as a believably structured movie - the way it moves from scene to scene & what the characters do just had me scratching my head & struggling to find any sense or believability to it. While the stunts do look they were probably amazing, the camerawork is done in a constantly handheld 'gritty' style & the editing so sharp & quick that you don't get a chance to take in the majesty of any of it. And the song is s***. There are other faults I could list but I don't really want to rant here. I didn't completely hate the film - it is still Bond & it is far superior to the turdfest that was Die Another Day - but I was just left feeling frustrated by it. |
|
|
by Mark Hatton on Nov 5, 2008 12:34:13 PM
Quantum of Bollocks?
Report this post
|
|
|
by Simon Humphrey on Nov 6, 2008 12:15:33 PM
Isn't that Arsenal at the moment?
Report this post
|
|
|
by Rob Smith on Nov 6, 2008 6:14:15 PM Possibly the worst Bond ever?? (even taking into account die another day). Thought it was woeful but I seemed to be the only person on the planet that thought Casino Royale was all wrong too. I think Brosnan has another Goldeneye in him.......... As for the product placements..........shameful. I should have learned my lesson after the crap served up last time round |
|
|
by Rob Smith on Nov 6, 2008 6:14:38 PM Possibly the worst Bond ever?? (even taking into account die another day). Thought it was woeful but I seemed to be the only person on the planet that thought Casino Royale was all wrong too. I think Brosnan has another Goldeneye in him.......... As for the product placements..........shameful. I should have learned my lesson after the crap served up last time round |
|
|
by Tracy Johnson on Nov 7, 2008 12:07:35 PM The only reason Goldeneye was any good was that it had been written for Timothy Dalton's Bond and it had Sean Bean and Robbie Coltrane in it & a decent Bond Girl. You can pretty much write off his Bond (as he settled into it, after Goldeneye) as a very slightly less camp version of Roger Moore's. Rubbish! Must admit I wasn't particularly impressed with Casino Royale either - serious pacing problems with the script towards the end & very slushy (but then I never really liked the slushy aspect of OHMSS either). The action was good though and Craig's Bond is definately closer to the character I remember from the books than Moore & Brosnan - which is good news as far as I'm concerned - lets just hope they write him some decent films. |
|
|
by Mark Hatton on Nov 7, 2008 3:31:25 PM
Thought Casino Royale was pooh-poor.
Report this post
|
|
|
by Simon Humphrey on Nov 8, 2008 10:44:49 AM Okay, Casino Royale was not a traditional Bond film but it was not poor - it was a very worthy attempt to bring some realism into a series that was in danger of going into the realms of fantasy, whilst at the same time providing the excitement, glamour, charm & grandoise the Bond films are famous for. Best Bond film: Licence to Kill Worst Bond film: Die Another Day (Never Say Never Again would of course win if it were a proper Bond film but it aint) |
|
|
by Tracy Johnson on Nov 10, 2008 1:05:14 PM Agreed - Casino Royale was definately a better Bond film than any of the Roger Moore films. It just lost it a bit towards the end, that's all I had to complain about. The characterisation & set pieces were great - let"s have more of the same with a tighter script & structure. Oh & a decent song would be nice. |
|
|
by Simon Humphrey on Nov 10, 2008 1:30:54 PM Apparently because of the Hollywood writers strike at the start of the year Paul Haggis had to rush the script to get it in on time & only got it done the day before the strike started, hence I think why it wasn't as polished or well thought out as Casino Royale. Plus the song was sh*t, yes. Even managed to make me appreciates Madonna's one a bit more it was that bad. I did like the title sequence though. |
Add this page to:
Facebook
|
Del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Reddit
|
StumbleUpon
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms and conditions | Order Tracking | Affiliate programme
©2008 BookRabbit. All rights reserved.
