538 replies to this topic

[bond 16.05.72]

It seems to have come fashionable of late to have a go at Nolan or call him overrated but for me he's produced nothing but quality product.

Nolan is who he is. I don’t mean to have ‘a go’ at anybody, but if I am, it’s at those who would overrate him. I’m not at all concerned with what’s fashionable on either side of the debate.

I still think TDK was a superb film and are not joining the lets slag it off because it's fashionable group.

Good for you. Stick to your guns. Likewise, I’m not going to join the “Let’s defy the ‘Let’s slag TDK™’™” group simply because that’s becoming the next fashionable trend.

Word of advice: if you want to enter a conversation in which your opinion will be respected, don’t start the conversation off by baselessly discounting the other guy’s. 100% of the time people won’t like that. And I'm a person.

It's always the same when anything is raved about the backlash comes in time and I'm sure I've been on your side of the fence with other films and directors and if I offended you I'm sorry.

[Zorin Industries]

it would also be silly to pretend that "arthouse" is something that doesn't exist at all.

Then I will be "silly" on this one. "Art house" does not exist. It is a label and construct used by people who wouldn't dare go near anything that they deemed to be "art house".

[Loomis]

it would also be silly to pretend that "arthouse" is something that doesn't exist at all.

Then I will be "silly" on this one. "Art house" does not exist.

So you don't think non-mainstream filmmaking exists?

It is a label and construct

As are most expressions.

used by people who wouldn't dare go near anything that they deemed to be "art house".

I use the expression (while conceding its drawbacks), yet some of my favourite films are arthouse affairs. For me, it's not a term of abuse.

Also, one of my favourite cinemas is the Renoir off Russell Square. It's definitely an arthouse cinema. It's certainly not like an Odeon. It never shows anything other than arthouse/non-mainstream/"world cinema" fare. TRANSFORMERS will never play there. By the same token, Derek Jarman will never play at my local Odeon.

[Zorin Industries]

it would also be silly to pretend that "arthouse" is something that doesn't exist at all.

Then I will be "silly" on this one. "Art house" does not exist.

So you don't think non-mainstream filmmaking exists?

It is a label and construct

As are most expressions.

used by people who wouldn't dare go near anything that they deemed to be "art house".

I use the expression (while conceding its drawbacks), yet some of my favourite films are arthouse affairs. For me, it's not a term of abuse.

Also, one of my favourite cinemas is the Renoir off Russell Square. It's definitely an arthouse cinema. It's certainly not like an Odeon. It never shows anything other than arthouse/non-mainstream/"world cinema" fare. TRANSFORMERS will never play there. By the same token, Derek Jarman will never play at my local Odeon.

My thoughts are that the world's cinematic output does not boil down to naff polar opposites of 'mainstream' and 'art house'. That does a great diservice to cinema, its global audiences and how films are consumed. Spectatorship of cinema is a little more than mainstream or art house. And yes - I would say mainstream does not exist either. These are labels and stigmas, not the reality of film consumption the world over.

And yes, "art house" is only a label. No filmmaker gets up in the morning and says, "I am going to make an art house film this week".

You like some "art house" films. Great. I am glad. But those titles are not produced to be and centred towards being "art house". The difference is they fall out of the specatatorship and comfort zone of wider audiences (note I did not say "a general audience" as, like "mainstream", it does not exist). And let's certainly not label something "art house" just because it cannot secure a big-hitting distribution deal.

Let's agree to not agree...

[Loomis]

No filmmaker gets up in the morning and says, "I am going to make an art house film this week".

Perhaps no filmmaker ever says that, but audiences and critics do talk of "arthouse" films. Or do only the views of filmmakers count and not the views of those who consume their products?

I see what you're saying: a film is a film is a film. Fine, that's one way of looking at it. Another is to realise that there are all manner of films, genres and niches. And, yes, as with everything else, there is a mainstream. U2 are a mainstream band. The Fall are not. If the works of a Derek Jarman can be considered to stand out sharply against the general run of fare that normally plays in a multiplex, then, yes, I'm afraid it's non-mainstream. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that. Whether Jarman and his ilk just happened to "fall out of the specatatorship and comfort zone of wider audiences", or whether such people knew all along that they were making low-budget films for elite metropolitan audiences.... is irrelevant.

I am sorry that you view expressions like "arthouse" as "labels and stigmas" - they are not intended as such, at least not by me (neither do I consider "popcorn movie" a term of abuse). I see nothing inherently dismissive or pejorative about these words.

[Zorin Industries]

Can I ask then what "art house" films have you seen that have stood out for you, Loomis, for whatever reasons - good or bad?

No filmmaker gets up in the morning and says, "I am going to make an art house film this week".

Perhaps no filmmaker ever says that, but audiences and critics do talk of "arthouse" films. Or do only the views of filmmakers count and not the views of those who consume their products?

I see what you're saying: a film is a film is a film. Fine, that's one way of looking at it. Another is to realise that there are all manner of films, genres and niches. And, yes, as with everything else, there is a mainstream. U2 are a mainstream band. The Fall are not. If the works of a Derek Jarman can be considered to stand out sharply against the general run of fare that normally plays in a multiplex, then, yes, I'm afraid it's non-mainstream. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that. Whether Jarman and his ilk just happened to "fall out of the specatatorship and comfort zone of wider audiences", or whether such people knew all along that they were making low-budget films for elite metropolitan audiences.... is irrelevant.

I am sorry that you view expressions like "arthouse" as "labels and stigmas" - they are not intended as such, at least not by me (neither do I consider "popcorn movie" a term of abuse). I see nothing inherently dismissive or pejorative about these words.

Yet - in fairness - you do use a phrase like low-budget films for elite metropolitan audiences which is - without having a further argument with you, Loomis - sort of a bit "dismissive".. which is what I have been trying to say about films what are perceived as being made for houses that are made of art.

[Judo chop]

As far as I can tell, a label like “arthouse” is like any other categorizing label. It allows a frame of reference in discussions. The thing itself is much more significant than its label, and if there is time, it’s better to talk specifics. But if we’re going to talk in generals, which sometimes we must, labels become necessary. (Perhaps to someone like Zorin, a necessary evil.)

I drink beer. I enjoy stout. There are almost a dozen accepted subcategories of stout out there. To the sensitive, experienced palate they are quite distinct and it may seem a disservice to a grand Russian Imperial Stout to simply refer to it as ‘stout’. But many times it’s a nice convenience to have. There are some qualities than can be expected of a stout beer of any kind. If a person doesn’t like dark, roasty flavored beer at all, the term is sufficient and serves a purpose.

<To self: Yeah Judo. I’m sure that’ll end the debate. >

Anyway, if I’m looking to be entertained by some mindless fun, and someone with half a brain tells me, “MOVIE X is an arthouse film”, I know that MOVIE X is not what I’m looking for. ‘Arthouse’ as a descriptor I believe can serve some purpose.

Gah. I really don't like these kinds of conversations. I've said my peace which is worth exactly 2 cents, and now I take my leave to have a stout. Perhaps a Foreign Extra Stout? (Of the 'Export' class. Not the 'Tropical', naturally.)

EDIT: Damned apostrophes get me very time!

[Zorin Industries]

I think I started this one when I read somewhere on CBN (maybe not here as such) that SOLACE and ROYALE had "art house moments"...!!? And from that point I have had my back up about labels and narrow mindedness (not including Loomis or you here Mr Chop).

I too will and do watch anything as long as it holds my time favourably. I have yet to walk out on a film at the cinema and give every film the benefit of the doubt until my doubt no longer benefits from me wasting my time.

[Loomis]

Can I ask then what "art house" films have you seen that have stood out for you, Loomis, for whatever reasons - good or bad?

BARAKA. KOYAANISQATSI. And I liked what I've seen of UN CHIEN ANDALOU, as well as certain works by Messrs Greenaway and Jarman.

Yet - in fairness - you do use a phrase like low-budget films for elite metropolitan audiences which is - without having a further argument with you, Loomis - sort of a bit "dismissive".

But the thing is I don't type "low-budget films for elite metropolitan audiences" with a sneer on my face (you'll have to take my word for that, obviously ). I type it neutrally as (as I see it) a simple statement of fact. Ain't no value judgements going on with me.

I think I started this one when I read somewhere on CBN (maybe not here as such) that SOLACE and ROYALE had "art house moments"...!!? And from that point I have had my back up about labels and narrow mindedness (not including Loomis or you here Mr Chop).

Well, as you say, even McG makes artistic decisions. But I fancy that much of the time people are being complimentary rather than negative when they speak of "art house moments" in SOLACE and ROYALE - I know I am. There's a very atmospheric and wonderful moment in SOLACE (Greene and Medrano in discussions at the desert hotel) which I'm pretty sure I've said "could have come from an arthouse movie". I can think of similarly lyrical moments in ROYALE and even YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE or THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. It's just conversational shorthand, though.

I too will and do watch anything as long as it holds my time favourably. I have yet to walk out on a film at the cinema and give every film the benefit of the doubt until my doubt no longer benefits from me wasting my time.

[Bucky]

it is too bad forster will not be coming back. i would have loved to see him do another bond film.

[Odd Jobbies]

it is too bad forster will not be coming back. i would have loved to see him do another bond film.

Me too. I think Campbell learnt a lot from Goldeneye, which made CR far superior. Don't see why such a talented filmmaker as Forster couldn't make an equal improvement. Maybe he'll come round after a long break!

[PotterBond007]

Maybe one of the guys from 24. That's a Bond-like show. . . (Bryan Spicer or Jon Cassar)

[Odd Jobbies]

How about John Hillcoat, the man who's after Craig to star in a heist movie?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0384825/

The Proposition was an outstanding movie and The Road is getting good buzz.

In those 2 movies he's worked with Danny Huston and Viggo Mortensen respectively. Two high calibre actor who'd make outstanding Bond villains.

Perhaps he's too 'Art House' (couldn't resist that, but please lets not start that debate again) But Forster was arty-farty and i enjoyed his effort tremendously.


Edit to add: Hillcoat would also uphold the apparent new tradition of bald directors!!!

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 11 September 2009 - 05:33 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

How about John Hillcoat, the man who's after Craig to star in a heist movie?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0384825/

The Proposition was an outstanding movie and The Road is getting good buzz.

In those 2 movies he's worked with Danny Huston and Viggo Mortensen respectively. Two high calibre actor who'd make outstanding Bond villains.

Perhaps he's too 'Art House' (couldn't resist that, but please lets not start that debate again) But Forster was arty-farty and i enjoyed his effort tremendously.


Edit to add: Hillcoat would also uphold the apparent new tradition of bald directors!!!

Fantastic idea. And... if Craig likes him, maybe he will want EON to hire him. Having said that - doesn´t Craig appear next in a Jim Sheridan film?

Jim Sheridan. Hmmm...

[Odd Jobbies]

SecretAgentFan,

He certainly is. I love 'In The Name Of The Father and would give my i-teeth to see Sheridan favorite Dan Day Lewis verbally and physically fight it out with Craig. But i'm not sure Sheridan has the action chops and fear we'd get another Michael Apted/Vic Armstrong collaboration type of disjointed abomination.

On the other side of the coin there's Johnny Mostow, who can do action pretty well, but i don't think has the dramatic chops and would give us another DAD circus piece.

Now, if we can get the love child of those two - the action + the drama, then hey hoe. Sounds like Chris Nolan to me!

Here's the new mostow trailer for Surrogates to be going on with. Great concept (Matrix meets Terminator), perfect casting - Willis does vulnerable bad arsce like no other...in the right hands. So, great drama??? We'll see - if this shows mostow can pull off intimacy and irony with nuance, then maybe he gets the call (somehow i think it won't)

http://www.apple.com...ler2_large.html

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 11 September 2009 - 07:16 PM.

[Lazenby]

First choice undoubtedly would be Martin Campbell for the obvious reason that he had made the best Bond picture since OHMSS and FRWL. He was able to bring a great script to life.

If Campbell declines, I would keep the list small and not try to over think the choice. I would look at:

Matthew Vaughn
David Fintcher
Stuart Baird

[SecretAgentFan]

SecretAgentFan,

He certainly is. I love 'In The Name Of The Father and would give my i-teeth to see Sheridan favorite Dan Day Lewis verbally and physically fight it out with Craig. But i'm not sure Sheridan has the action chops and fear we'd get another Michael Apted/Vic Armstrong collaboration type of disjointed abomination.

On the other side of the coin there's Johnny Mostow, who can do action pretty well, but i don't think has the dramatic chops and would give us another DAD circus piece.

Now, if we can get the love child of those two - the action + the drama, then hey hoe. Sounds like Chris Nolan to me!

Here's the new mostow trailer for Surrogates to be going on with. Great concept (Matrix meets Terminator), perfect casting - Willis does vulnerable bad arsce like no other...in the right hands. So, great drama??? We'll see - if this shows mostow can pull off intimacy and irony with nuance, then maybe he gets the call (somehow i think it won't)

http://www.apple.com...ler2_large.html

I agree - Mostow is, actually, one of my favorite action directors since BREAKDOWN. I know that T3 was not a great film but IMO it was more due to the concept that Mostow had to work with (the producers kind of wanted him to do another T2-clone).

SURROGATES looks fantastic - maybe it´s the sleeper action hit of the year. And Mostow definitely could do a great Bond film.

[Quantumofsolace007]

if surogates is as good as it looks I wouldn't mind Mostow Dirececting Bond 23.

[Odd Jobbies]

Surrogates will have to be absolutely amazing to forgive him for T3 and U571. After the liberties taken in adapting U571's true story i wouldn't be surprised if he tried to make Bond an American.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Perhaps they are taking longer with the script to entice Roger Mitchell for director. I believe eon has triedto get him 3 times.

[Zorin Industries]

Perhaps they are taking longer with the script to entice Roger Mitchell for director. I believe eon has triedto get him 3 times.

I imagine Roger Michell will not be directing a Bond film.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Perhaps they are taking longer with the script to entice Roger Mitchell for director. I believe eon has triedto get him 3 times.

I imagine Roger Michell will not be directing a Bond film.

Am i getting closer to an actual choice .

All i want is an amazing bond film that i love

[Odd Jobbies]

Mitchell wouldn't be a bad choice, but it doesn't get me too excited either. If it were more FRWL than QoS, then he could be OK - the well handled tension of Enduring Love would translate well to a Bond vs. Grant on a train over dinner kind of scenario.
But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Pity Mitchell didn't get to see through Captain Correlli's Mandolin - he'd have made a better job than the chocolate-box PG-13 fiasco we got with all it's teeth missing. Though i dare say that after surviving a heart attack Mandolin's were the furthest thing from his mind.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 15 September 2009 - 09:03 PM.

[The Shark]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

[Zorin Industries]

Perhaps they are taking longer with the script to entice Roger Mitchell for director. I believe eon has triedto get him 3 times.

I imagine Roger Michell will not be directing a Bond film.

Am i getting closer to an actual choice .

No. I think Michell had to bail on directing a Bond for health reasons as much as anything else - factors that would no doubt still come into play down the line.

[Trident]

Perhaps they are taking longer with the script to entice Roger Mitchell for director. I believe eon has triedto get him 3 times.

I imagine Roger Michell will not be directing a Bond film.

Am i getting closer to an actual choice .

No. I think Michell had to bail on directing a Bond for health reasons as much as anything else - factors that would no doubt still come into play down the line.

Had to? Or would have had to?

Makes a difference, you see...

[Odd Jobbies]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

Oh yes, those are 2 fantastic pieces of cinema. The Coens rarely put a foot wrong and i thought There Will Be Blood was the best movie (and leading performance) in a couple of decades. It's was as though Kubrick had risen from the dead!

So, if Eon were to hand over the reigns/give absolute final cut to real filmmakers, such as the Coens, PT Anderson, David Fincher, or Tarantino then i think we could potentially have a Bond movie that surpasses FRWL for intelligent content.

However, they could also end up with a product that artistically mangles the formula to the point of no return - that gives the hero depths and challenges that it will be hard to match in the next movie. How could they return to the usual strategy of hiring an artistically malleable craftsman (such as Campbell) who understands their demands and is willing to conceded to them. They're afraid of becoming trapped in situation in which they have to gamble on auteurs in order to continually up the artistic stakes.

I'd say that this almost happened with QoS; they took a chance on independent auteur, Forster and ended up with a visceral piece of art-as-action, a feature length moodboard that was almost abstract Bond. It has polerized the audience since it needs the viewer to accept that this is a different take on the formula - it's a European take on the action movie; like the U.S formula it's action over plot, but forster is more concerned with the tone and mood of the action, rather than the geography and pyrotechnics . Personally i loved QoS and think the poor reviews misunderstood it. I hope Eon give this kind of filmmaker another go, but i doubt they will.

So, no i don't think we'll ever see another FRWL, sadly. The nearest we'll get is CR. It's gambling scenes are comparable to the tension teasing of the dinner carriage/sleeping compartment scene in FRWL. I was delighted that they spent so much time with such an anti-action movie scene, but in the final analysis it's not thrilling as FRWL.

But i don't want to bad mouth it - what they did around that scene - the stairwell fight, the poison was superb and thanks to Haggis, Campbell, Craig and Green there's plenty of opportunities for us to see Bond's previously avoided inner demons. Maybe that's better than tension? I'd prefer both, but tension means stretching the scene out and these days they just seem to get shorter and shorter. Eon's all too aware that old fashioned tension bores and marginalize the younger audience who want just the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

[Zorin Industries]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

Oh yes, those are 2 fantastic pieces of cinema. The Coens rarely put a foot wrong and i thought There Will Be Blood was the best movie (and leading performance) in a couple of decades. It's was as though Kubrick had risen from the dead!

So, if Eon were to hand over the reigns/give absolute final cut to real filmmakers, such as the Coens, PT Anderson, David Fincher, or Tarantino then i think we could potentially have a Bond movie that surpasses FRWL for intelligent content.

However, they could also end up with a product that artistically mangles the formula to the point of no return - that gives the hero depths and challenges that it will be hard to match in the next movie. How could they return to the usual strategy of hiring an artistically malleable craftsman (such as Campbell) who understands their demands and is willing to conceded to them. They're afraid of becoming trapped in situation in which they have to gamble on auteurs in order to continually up the artistic stakes.

I'd say that this almost happened with QoS; they took a chance on independent auteur, Forster and ended up with a visceral piece of art-as-action, a feature length moodboard that was almost abstract Bond. It has polerized the audience since it needs the viewer to accept that this is a different take on the formula - it's a European take on the action movie; like the U.S formula it's action over plot, but forster is more concerned with the tone and mood of the action, rather than the geography and pyrotechnics . Personally i loved QoS and think the poor reviews misunderstood it. I hope Eon give this kind of filmmaker another go, but i doubt they will.

So, no i don't think we'll ever see another FRWL, sadly. The nearest we'll get is CR. It's gambling scenes are comparable to the tension teasing of the dinner carriage/sleeping compartment scene in FRWL. I was delighted that they spent so much time with such an anti-action movie scene, but in the final analysis it's not thrilling as FRWL.

But i don't want to bad mouth it - what they did around that scene - the stairwell fight, the poison was superb and thanks to Haggis, Campbell, Craig and Green there's plenty of opportunities for us to see Bond's previously avoided inner demons. Maybe that's better than tension? I'd prefer both, but tension means stretching the scene out and these days they just seem to get shorter and shorter. Eon's all too aware that old fashioned tension bores and marginalize the younger audience who want just the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Well said. Very well said.

[Zorin Industries]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

Oh yes, those are 2 fantastic pieces of cinema. The Coens rarely put a foot wrong and i thought There Will Be Blood was the best movie (and leading performance) in a couple of decades. It's was as though Kubrick had risen from the dead!

So, if Eon were to hand over the reigns/give absolute final cut to real filmmakers, such as the Coens, PT Anderson, David Fincher, or Tarantino then i think we could potentially have a Bond movie that surpasses FRWL for intelligent content.

However, they could also end up with a product that artistically mangles the formula to the point of no return - that gives the hero depths and challenges that it will be hard to match in the next movie. How could they return to the usual strategy of hiring an artistically malleable craftsman (such as Campbell) who understands their demands and is willing to conceded to them. They're afraid of becoming trapped in situation in which they have to gamble on auteurs in order to continually up the artistic stakes.

I'd say that this almost happened with QoS; they took a chance on independent auteur, Forster and ended up with a visceral piece of art-as-action, a feature length moodboard that was almost abstract Bond. It has polerized the audience since it needs the viewer to accept that this is a different take on the formula - it's a European take on the action movie; like the U.S formula it's action over plot, but forster is more concerned with the tone and mood of the action, rather than the geography and pyrotechnics . Personally i loved QoS and think the poor reviews misunderstood it. I hope Eon give this kind of filmmaker another go, but i doubt they will.

So, no i don't think we'll ever see another FRWL, sadly. The nearest we'll get is CR. It's gambling scenes are comparable to the tension teasing of the dinner carriage/sleeping compartment scene in FRWL. I was delighted that they spent so much time with such an anti-action movie scene, but in the final analysis it's not thrilling as FRWL.

But i don't want to bad mouth it - what they did around that scene - the stairwell fight, the poison was superb and thanks to Haggis, Campbell, Craig and Green there's plenty of opportunities for us to see Bond's previously avoided inner demons. Maybe that's better than tension? I'd prefer both, but tension means stretching the scene out and these days they just seem to get shorter and shorter. Eon's all too aware that old fashioned tension bores and marginalize the younger audience who want just the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Well said. Very well said.

[Zorin Industries]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

Oh yes, those are 2 fantastic pieces of cinema. The Coens rarely put a foot wrong and i thought There Will Be Blood was the best movie (and leading performance) in a couple of decades. It's was as though Kubrick had risen from the dead!

So, if Eon were to hand over the reigns/give absolute final cut to real filmmakers, such as the Coens, PT Anderson, David Fincher, or Tarantino then i think we could potentially have a Bond movie that surpasses FRWL for intelligent content.

However, they could also end up with a product that artistically mangles the formula to the point of no return - that gives the hero depths and challenges that it will be hard to match in the next movie. How could they return to the usual strategy of hiring an artistically malleable craftsman (such as Campbell) who understands their demands and is willing to conceded to them. They're afraid of becoming trapped in situation in which they have to gamble on auteurs in order to continually up the artistic stakes.

I'd say that this almost happened with QoS; they took a chance on independent auteur, Forster and ended up with a visceral piece of art-as-action, a feature length moodboard that was almost abstract Bond. It has polerized the audience since it needs the viewer to accept that this is a different take on the formula - it's a European take on the action movie; like the U.S formula it's action over plot, but forster is more concerned with the tone and mood of the action, rather than the geography and pyrotechnics . Personally i loved QoS and think the poor reviews misunderstood it. I hope Eon give this kind of filmmaker another go, but i doubt they will.

So, no i don't think we'll ever see another FRWL, sadly. The nearest we'll get is CR. It's gambling scenes are comparable to the tension teasing of the dinner carriage/sleeping compartment scene in FRWL. I was delighted that they spent so much time with such an anti-action movie scene, but in the final analysis it's not thrilling as FRWL.

But i don't want to bad mouth it - what they did around that scene - the stairwell fight, the poison was superb and thanks to Haggis, Campbell, Craig and Green there's plenty of opportunities for us to see Bond's previously avoided inner demons. Maybe that's better than tension? I'd prefer both, but tension means stretching the scene out and these days they just seem to get shorter and shorter. Eon's all too aware that old fashioned tension bores and marginalize the younger audience who want just the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Well said. Very well said.