284 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Now, if I were Jeremy Renner, I'd be a bit wary of appearing in a movie with Tom Cruise, especially considering the Church he's affliliated with has supported anti-gay marriage laws... and Cruise himself is so deep in the closet, it's a wonder Renner didn't smack him around a bit to make him come to his senses.

[coco1997]

Now, if I were Jeremy Renner, I'd be a bit wary of appearing in a movie with Tom Cruise, especially considering the Church he's affliliated with has supported anti-gay marriage laws...

If I were an actor, I'd be wary of appearing in films with 99% of the wackjob paleoliberals that constitute Tinseltown. But I like getting paid and hence would not be that stupid.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I wouldn't roll my eyes, at that; aren't you and Felix Leiter getting married in New York?

[Chief of SIS]

English

[Righty007]

I wouldn't roll my eyes, at that; aren't you and Felix Leiter getting married in New York?

Yep, right after he buys me the best lunch in New York.

[Captain Tightpants]

English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0LQnQSrC-g

This is a trailer. It tells you enough about the film without giving a single plot detail away (I hate it when trailers do that) - I very much doubt the story will revolve around nuclear terrorism; that was just a warning to Hunt to be very careful.

[Simon]

What is the car in this film??

Looks like it could get you from A to B efficiently enough.

[Loomis]

English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0LQnQSrC-g

Thanks, Chief. The cinematography really does look stylish, and the stunts really do look breathtaking. Roll on December.

[marktmurphy]

What is the car in this film??

Looks like it could get you from A to B efficiently enough.

Appears to be the BMW EfficientDynamics concept car. No idea why they'd be driving about in that.

[Simon]

Cheers Mark.

There appears to be one clip where a front end shot of the car shows one car-width headlight.

Same car?

[marktmurphy]

Cheers Mark.

There appears to be one clip where a front end shot of the car shows one car-width headlight.

Same car?

Looks very similar to my eye:



Oh, here we go:

http://www.autoguide...t-protocol.html

Apparently it's called the i8 now, and is actually a production car. Pretty sure he's got a 6 series convertible in that sandy action bit too.

[Matt_13]

Definitely excited for this.

[Simon]

Cheers Mark.

There appears to be one clip where a front end shot of the car shows one car-width headlight.

Same car?

Looks very similar to my eye:



Apparently it's called the i8 now, and is actually a production car. Pretty sure he's got a 6 series convertible in that sandy action bit too.

Ah - perfect screen grab.

Cheers fella.

[DR76]

MI 2 is also my favorite. Impressively entertaining and some nice cinematography.

Although MI2 is my least favorite of the three films, it featured my favorite action sequence - the shoot-out inside Brendan Gleeson's building - and my favorite leading lady, Thandie Newton.

[Loomis]

MI:2's my fave!

... the MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN of the M:I franchise...

Wow, Loomis, that good, eh?

I do, of course, mean that The Critical Consensus™ tends to cite TMWTGG as the worst Bond film, and M:I-2 as the worst of the Ethan Hunt franchise.

However, none of the M:I efforts is as good a film as TMWTGG. I do enjoy all the M:Is (and am very confident that GHOST PROTOCOL will blow QUANTUM OF SOLACE out of the water), but none reaches the heights of BOND 9. Very few films do, of course.

With 007 currently at a low ebb in his cinematic and literary incarnations, it's good to know that we can still rely on Hunt.

[dodge]

Oh, and is it just me, or is Cruise far more bulked-up in this flick than we've ever seen him before? He looks so musclebound he could be co-starring in EXPENDABLES II (hey, that's a thought).

Thought so, too. May also have to do with him taking aim at Jack Reacher in the near future if rumour is to be believed.

Tom as Jack Reacher? Well, that's certainly something to think about--considering that JR stands about six-five.

[univex]

MI:2's my fave!

... the MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN of the M:I franchise...

Wow, Loomis, that good, eh?

I do, of course, mean that The Critical Consensus™ tends to cite TMWTGG as the worst Bond film, and M:I-2 as the worst of the Ethan Hunt franchise.

However, none of the M:I efforts is as good a film as TMWTGG. I do enjoy all the M:Is (and am very confident that GHOST PROTOCOL will blow QUANTUM OF SOLACE out of the water), but none reaches the heights of BOND 9. Very few films do, of course.

With 007 currently at a low ebb in his cinematic and literary incarnations, it's good to know that we can still rely on Hunt.

Long live TMWTGG lovers Scaramanga is one of the best villains ever. Maud Adams (twice Bond girl, nuff said), locations, ..., everything but the song is great
And do you really think GP will blow QOS out of the water? Not that its an impossible mission of course

Edited by univex, 01 July 2011 - 01:24 PM.

[Dustin]

Oh, and is it just me, or is Cruise far more bulked-up in this flick than we've ever seen him before? He looks so musclebound he could be co-starring in EXPENDABLES II (hey, that's a thought).

Thought so, too. May also have to do with him taking aim at Jack Reacher in the near future if rumour is to be believed.

Tom as Jack Reacher? Well, that's certainly something to think about--considering that JR stands about six-five.

Well, apparently Lee Child stated that Reacher's build is
merely an allegory for his steely determination and irresistible willpower.

One supposes the several million dollars Cruise's production company shelled out for the Reacher rights helped Child a lot in seeing his character that way.

[Harmsway]

It looks about on par with the franchise's offerings so far, which means it will probably serve as a decent timekiller.

[Loomis]

On that I would have to agree with you. For as terribly dated and shoddily edited as 'Golden Gun' is, it still manages to be light years ahead of any one of the MI movies.

Not sure that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is any more dated than any of the other Bonds - and shoddily edited? Really?

[Loomis]

Some films date more than others; 'Golden Gun' is a prime example.

I still don't see how it's any more dated than, say, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. Or GOLDENEYE, for that matter.

And I'd certainly say it's a lot less dated than its two immediate predecessors, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and LIVE AND LET DIE.

If THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is "dated", then so is every Bond film.

And "shoddily edited" may have been the wrong phrase, but a consistent criticism, especially for first time viewers, is that the film feels incomplete and piece-meal; that the film is a compilation of different scenes or story lines, but that the individual parts are greater than the sum total. I concur.

I've seen the "incomplete" criticism levelled many, many times at NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, but I've never seen it levelled at THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. And its script seems to me more focused and coherent than that of many another Bond flick. What would you say is missing from the film?

The M:I films have been nothing but vanity projects for Tom Cruise.

No doubt, but they're still quite entertaining.

What he did to Jim Phelps is an abomination.

No worse than what some of the Bond continuation novelists have done to some of the Fleming characters.

I wonder - and I doubt that Cruise and Paramount will be this brave, but, still, I wonder - whether the traitor in GHOST PROTOCOL will turn out to be Hunt himself (Renner's line in the trailer, "We all have secrets, don't we, Ethan?", is intriguing). This would kind of bring the film series full circle (Hunt becoming what Phelps became in the 1996 film) and "explain" Cruise's exit and Renner's character taking over the lead in future outings.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

That would be an interesting revelation, but I doubt they are brave enough to go that route.

[Harmsway]

LALD, other than being tagged as a blaxploitation film, is timeless.

It's very easy to say "other than being tagged as a blaxploitation film," but really, the blaxploitation elements of LIVE AND LET DIE are often front-and-center. They can't just be brushed aside.

I'd have to watch 'Gun' again to remember what my biggest criticisms were, but I do remember the first time I ever saw it and remember thinking that it seemed to be a bunch of individual components without a narrative to make it whole, much the same way as a pizza could, theoretically, be made up of individual slices yet not equal a whole pie.

The story does kind of amble along, but I do think that's part of its charm. Not every Bond film has to be super-intense.

I haven't finished reading all the continuation novels...yet, but unless any of those authors had M turn traitor against his/her country, I would have to disagree.

Well, nothing like that happens with M, but Benson sure does a number on Draco.

[Dustin]

No, 7.

Never Dream Of Dying if I recall correctly. Wraps up the Union thingy and reveals a few surprises.

Edited by Dustin, 02 July 2011 - 08:21 AM.

[Jim]

This film looks like quite an entertaining film.

I have no views on the people making it, just as I have no views on the cow that was milked for my brekkie. If I had a view, it would still be a redundantly incidental one.

[marktmurphy]

This film looks like quite an entertaining film.

I have no views on the people making it, just as I have no views on the cow that was milked for my brekkie. If I had a view, it would still be a redundantly incidental one.

Do you have views on films made by Pierce Brosnan?

[Jim]

Yes, but they epitomise redundancy and incidental...ness? Incidentalcy? Incidentalois? That thing, anyway.

[Loomis]

LALD, other than being tagged as a blaxploitation film, is timeless. When is a film about drug-running out of date?

I was under the impression that you felt LICENSE REVOKED (1989) to be out of date about three years before it was even made (what with all its tired MIAMI VICE-isms).

Obviously films that dealt with the Cold War are somewhat dated, but i'd suggest that OHMSS is less dated that OP or FRWL or TSWLM because there is still a bio-threat that countries are dealing with today. But I digress.

The Solex Agitator plot still feels topical, given the world's current quest for new sources of energy.

I'd have to watch 'Gun' again to remember what my biggest criticisms were, but I do remember the first time I ever saw it and remember thinking that it seemed to be a bunch of individual components without a narrative to make it whole, much the same way as a pizza could, theoretically, be made up of individual slices yet not equal a whole pie. I also remember reading mainstream criticism of the film for those exact reasons, and it may have been included in books such as The James Bond Bedside Companion, or Steven Jay Rubin's book. I can't recall for certain.

Well, let me know if you think of anything. I can't for the moment think of any narrative flaws in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (although there may well be some).

It strikes me as a well-constructed and well-paced script. The story may not be the greatest in the world, but it does have forward momentum and does make rudimentary sense - it all hangs together coherently and without any wobbly bits, if you ask me. And, of course, it has all the right elements, including elements that are nowadays sadly rare, such as travelogue, a smidgen of sophistication and the Flemingian element of the bizarre. It's formulaic, of course, but a formula from the days when the Bond films really did do what they said on the tin and did it with flair and charm.

[univex]

Just wanted to say I really do love the Man With the Golden Gun - favorite Moore Bond film

[Loomis]

Just wanted to say I really do love the Man With the Golden Gun - favorite Moore Bond film

Well, I'm very glad to hear it. I'm getting the sense that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is finally getting something of a long-overdue reappraisal by Bond fans, who are discovering that it's a great piece of entertainment and by no means the turkey it's usually been made out to be.

Like MOONRAKER, TMWTGG spent many years as one of those Bond films that the old-school "experts" (e.g. the Raymond Bensons of this world) virtually instructed fans not to like.

But I strongly believe that the good aspects of TMWTGG are as good as the good aspects of any other Bond film (I'm putting this somewhat clumsily, for it's late here in Britain, but you get what I mean). For instance, Christopher Lee is up there with any other Bond villain - period. Barry's score may not be his best, but it's still Barry and he's still on fine form. The travelogue is as good as in any other 007 outing (and probably better), the corkscrew jump stunt (forget about the slide whistle sound effect for a moment, although personally I have no problem with it) is as amazing a stunt as anything else in the series, Nick Nack is as bizarre and cool a henchman as any other, the dialogue has the sort of style and wit not glimpsed in the series for decades, and Moore gives his darkest and most Flemingian performance.