51 replies to this topic

[ray t]

Im getting SICK and TIRED of all this childish criticism of certain aspects of DAD by some of the coddled little babies in these forums.

Its a bloddy movie for heavens sake

get a friggin' life

i saw harry potter last saturday, and you guys complain about cheesy cgi. HALF of HP was cheese.

Stop the constant over-bloated whining...its making u guys sound constipated.

have nothing better to do but engage in useless intellectual masturbation? with fans like u, who needs enemies.

the reviews are better than average...and none of your incessant sniveling is going to stop me from seeing the movie several times

[Jim]

Is an individual not allowed to dislike the film, then?

There is no conspiracy to prevent you seeing this film. This you readily identify in your brave struggle to watch the film regardless of what goes on here. That is, of course, sensible and practical and it's far from anybody's intention to prevent your enjoyment of same or access to same.

This is a different issue to whether, in the opinion of those who have seen it, the film is any good or not, and trying to identify why a) it might be good and it might be bad. These are only reactions, opinions, of no more consequence or meaning than single drops of rain in a thunderstorm.

Let the heavens open.

You can't turn the tide back now - really, old boy, stop behaving like a Canute.

[ray t]

jim...youre a bit different in these forums

i understand u rate thunderball, spy and daylights very high on your list, and "twice" very high on your fleming list.

i do as well.

i'd like to know precisely why you dislike the "film", as u put it elsewhere?

give me some concrete criticism (apart from cgi) and please refrain from likening it to episode I. that one is getting old.

[DLibrasnow]

Ray,
Criticism is good, as long as it is constructive criticism. It is well known that George Lucas took the criticism of Star Wars Ep. 1 to heart and as a result produced a better follow-up than might have otherwise been the case.
It is also known that Cubby took the fans criticism to heart after Moonraker and decided to bring Bond down to earth (literally) in the next movie.
I think the most dangerous fan for the franchise is the one who showers adulation and praise on a movie, and ignores its shortcomings. With those in our close-knit community (let's face it, we all share a love of all things 007) keeping a critical eye on the latest adventure, we can hopefully lead MGM to improve even more so.
In the end, opinion is merely just that and we live in a democracy that prodes itself on freedom of speech.
All that said, I liked DAD overall, but there were some points I would like to see EON work on for Bond 21..

[ray t]

constructive criticism is fine

whining, however, about one cgi shot and the doom-and-gloom-"it has killed bond"-as-a-result type of vomiting is something else

[DLibrasnow]

Okay, well I have to agree with that.
I have started a thread in here recommending that MGM revist the controversial scene in the eventual DVD release. I figured that rather than just whining about it, I would make a suggestion on a way to satisfy fans of both the movie as it exists now, and those fans who would like to see an improved shot. The seamless branching feature on DVDs would allow for this.

I personally hope that the criticism of this scene does one more positive thing. MGM fires the people that threw this one together, before they get their hands on Bond 21.

[ray t]

thanks for that

btw, what do u give it out of 10

another thing. theres no thing as perfection in motion pictures


even thunderball, the most sucsessful bond of all time, had a lot of "errors", but that doesnt take away from my enjoyment of it.

[DLibrasnow]

I give DAD either a 7 or an 8 (out of 10). It certainly, in my opinion, is better than Moonraker and TMWTGG.

[5 BONDS]

Who is whining ray t. Why would you accept a terrible cgi shot knowing very well the Bond films have had years of praise for their technical prowess and stunts for real. Let me remind everyone it is word of mouth and hype that will provoke how a film will do at the box office.

My friend who is not a Bond fan saw it and said it was not as good as he had expected and its not as good as TND. This is coming from a non Bond fan and I agree with him. Said it was better then TWINE though.
It will only need a remark and he said the cgi shot was over the top.

Come on we are all grown up to realise that there should be some plausibilty in a Bond film no matter how ludicrous it looks.

[thanasis]

It is not just one cgi scene, ray. The vast majority of cgi used is embarassing (i.e cuba, ending)
I would rate this film 7/10 although it does demand a second viewing in order to judge better
Although the 2/3 of the film absolutely rock, as whole it is a bit of a dissapointment

[ray t]

give me your top 3 bonds and i'll cite some plausability issues in each one.

the toppling of the mercury rockets, dr no's steel hands, sylvia showing up at 007s apartment in the kings road in 1962...how plausable was that?

harry potter, spiderman, star wars, lort....how plausable are they?

james bond is a semi-fantasy based in reality and is meant to be escapist.

there were reasons why goldfinger/thunderball were more successful than ohmss for eg. similarly there were reasons why spy/moonraker were more sucessful than LTK.

if it were not for the more fantastical bonds...you wouldnt be visiting this forum because the franchise would have lacked any economic punch decades ago...and you wouldnt be getting die another day this month

[GoldfingerRand]

Wow, it really would have stunk if there were message boards like these back during the days of Thunderball, Goldfinger, and Moonraker (among others), each of which had poor quality SFX for its time (aka the matte shots)....

[Red Grant]

Originally posted by thanasis
It is not just one cgi scene, ray. The vast majority of cgi used is embarassing (i.e cuba, ending)
I would rate this film 7/10 although it does demand a second viewing in order to judge better
Although the 2/3 of the film absolutely rock, as whole it is a bit of a dissapointment

Have to agree with you here - the CGI is weak throughout and really looks fake. In a Bond film I expect to be able to suspend my disbelief in some scenes but the majority of the action sequences were so OTT that it spoils any illusion of reality. It is a shame because the first half of DAD is excellent. Pre-Credits has the well choreographed hovercraft chase (not sure about the surfing intro - bit of a waste of time) and the plot is nicely set up to segue beatufully into the best title sequence in years (and possibly going to be regarded as one of the very best). The Cuba scenes are good and a bit different and the whole return to MI6 and the Q scene work well. I went in prepared to dislike John Cleese after his first try at the role but he fits it perfectly and has a nice chemistry with Brosnan. One of the better things in the film. The fencing duel is a nice throwback to the Goldfinger golf scene and all done without the aid of CGI. But then it all turns into a videogame and becomes so laughable that I am glad I only saw it with a small audience as I think in a huge theatre many scenes are going to go down a bit like Moonraker.....
On the plus side Rick Yune is the best baddie in years (pity about Toby Stephens). For me I came out very disappointed and I think it's a shame that the best thing in the film is the credit sequence and a short scene involving Q (oh, I like the Moneypenny scene too.....very funny).
All in all poor attempt at a return to the big style action film. In trying to be different they came out looking like all the rest. I'm, sure the videogame/MTV generatoin will love it (and judging by some of the posts they do) but for another one who is celebrating his 40th anniversary....I'd rather have a drink!

[5 BONDS]

yeah but ray t I know what you are getting at but 2002 should bring better and subtle use of cgi.

You shouldn't be thinking, you should be watching and saying maybe that could happen and just let it flow.

But when you are well into the movie and enjoying how fresh and exciting this new film is and then this absurd escape just throws you off guard you are left to wonder.

[JackChase007]

I do agree that the CGI is inexusable (if I did spell that right), but I did not let it from spoiling the film. It doesn't begin to compare to the ****iness of the last two Star Wars films, and it was just a really fun movie. But I do agree with Ray that some people are being a little harsh on the film. Look at Harry Potter. Now, I know, that deals with magic, whereas Bond is rooted more in realism, but unfortunately, that is the kind of stuff Bond must deal with in order to bring in the audiences and put up a fight for the #1 spot (at least just for the weekend - I think overall against Potter is too much to ask for). Let's face it - the film had some great performances (really, aside from Madonna, they were all quite flawless), and brought back the days of a really fun Bond movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It reminds me of Thunderball - an over-the-top action movie that never stops entertaining (although, "over-the-top" has changed since 1965).

[homerjbond]

My cat's breath smells like cat food...

[ray t]

really?

thats lovely for your cat

[5 BONDS]

ray t when are you going to see the movie?

[homerjbond]

Forgive me, I don't own a cat...it's just a "Simpsons" reference I use whenever a discussion gets too involved for my tastes.

[DLibrasnow]

I was wondering where the cat reference came from...

[Mousey]

These forums are supposed to be for us to voice opinions aren't they?

And there is no way you can say 'just one CGI shot' when it was, personally, absolutely atrocious and if we can't say that on these forums then why are these forums here for?!?!?!?

[Roebuck]

Err..well it was just one brief CGI scene. From twenty films I can name numerous more ridiculous and embarrassing scenes or worse effects shots.
I'm with ray t on this. For months now I've read posts by folks praising or decrying the work of people they've never heard of. The director? Never seen any of his flicks but he's going to save/kill the franchise. The screenwriter? Best screenwriter ever, if you ignore track record of stuff that just plain stank. Now people are saying the film is ruined because of one short sequence. For goodness sake,a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss.

For all it's flaws DAD is as near to the classic Bond as we've got in many a year.

[5 BONDS]

Can you call the ending classic. The Living Daylights done it 10 times better.

[ray t]

when do i see the movie?

er, officially tomorrow evening (friday opening day) with my wife.

but i could sneak out of work for, *AHEM*, "a long lunch" tomorrow afternoon.

hopefully i can "sneak" my 7 year old in on saturday (without my wife finding out) as well. :Dhe he

[5 BONDS]

I hope you both enjoy the movie ray t. I know I have caused a stir and I intend to watch it again just to wipe away my first opinion.

I hope you will understand I enjoy the fantasy element in Bond but there are some things that Bond can do without.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

Originally posted by ray t
Im getting SICK and TIRED of all this childish criticism of certain aspects of DAD by some of the coddled little babies in these forums.

Its a bloddy movie for heavens sake

get a friggin' life

i saw harry potter last saturday, and you guys complain about cheesy cgi. HALF of HP was cheese.

Stop the constant over-bloated whining...its making u guys sound constipated.

have nothing better to do but engage in useless intellectual masturbation? with fans like u, who needs enemies.

the reviews are better than average...and none of your incessant sniveling is going to stop me from seeing the movie several times

"intellectual masturbation" - then surely it renders these forums pointless? whats wrong with a few "fans" discussing aspects of the film? i'm sure u'd do the same with harry potter, although perhaps with the ppl u saw it with and not a bunch of strangers. IT'S CALLED FILM APPRECIATION, GET OVER IT!! idiot.

[ray t]

sure....er, whatever

[ray t]

this movie MOVED like a BULLIT

having seen the movie last night, and getting ready to see it again this afternoon, i stand by the title of this thread

some people are absolutely pathetic nit-pickers

the story, the score (hats off to DA), the locations, the characters (Zao, Gustav Graves and Raoul especially) the acting (specifically brosnan, stevens, dench, berry, yun-lee, echevera, and cleese), the title sequence/song, and the set pieces were ABSOLUTELY ENGAGING.

simply, it was (is) 2h 10-odd minutes of high-value entertainment which flew by incredably quickly.

well done Eon...

...and...welcome back, Mr Bond. You had been away much too long!

[JackChase007]

I'm with you on that one Ray. I just felt that there was too much about that movie to like that nothing, not even the CGI, could bring it down. The characters were some of the best in years. Welcome back, Mr. Bond, indeed.

[5 BONDS]

Heres a quote from a critic which I strongly agree to I'm sorry.



Qoute:

My main complaint - and this is a biggie - is that Day relies far too much on
computer effects. It