284 replies to this topic

[univex]

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.

Absolutely. Interesting, over the years, whenever I found myself wanting to watch a Moore film, it as always been TMWTGG. Christopher Lee is one of my favourite villains and Maud Adams is stunning. Bond arriving at the island by plane, on its way to slay the dragon in a duel like some St.George, the flying car, the portuguese amunition/gun sight scene, the bellybullit, the karate school, and the duel, all wonderfully Bondian moments

And what about Fleming´s novel? I love it too. The construction site, the train swamp scenes, Scaramanga´s back story, Bond brainwashed, ... It´s not as beloved as say YOLT, MR, FRWL or CR, but it´s no Goldfinger (which is awfully boring) that´s for sure.

So for TMWTGG all round

Edited by univex, 03 July 2011 - 02:45 AM.

[Matt_13]

Stunner of a trailer for the new MI. I'm so in.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Holy crap... that was a huge spoiler they just gave away.

[Jim]

That does look entertaining.

[Simon]

I am not sure if Jim is applying mild sarcasm, but if Not, I concur.

Top drawer.

[Jim]

I am not sure if Jim is applying mild sarcasm, but if Not, I am concur.

Top drawer.

No sarcasm; all I ask of it - all I can reasonably demand of it - is light entertainment and it seems to promise the same.

[Safari Suit]

I can't help but kind of wish they had made a film more in the style of the first film (which would also actually better suit Cruise's advancing age), but hey that be some nice looking action there, so I'm not complaining.

[Simon]

I think it is fair to say the conventional presumption of age to physicality ratio has absolutely no relation whatsoever to Cruise' actual physical ability.

For example, if an alternate actor were half Cruise's age, do you think he would be able to better represent an agent running around the outside of a bloody great tall building?

I am erring towards, no.

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't know ... it's kind of lost its shine a little bit. The first trailer promised a lot, and in retrospect, I probably should have seen some of the plot details coming (the IMF being disbanded, so as to allow for the reboot). But the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the missiles being launched and coming in on cities. It just seems so generic a plot. Of course, a lot will boil down to how that is implemented (ie, stealing a nuclear warhead is a cliche, but OCTOPUSSY had a very original spin on it).

[Simon]

But the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the missiles being launched and coming in on cities. It just seems so generic a plot.

I swear to God, if I read one more shining light of a poster giving their (re)views on a 'plotline' for a film that is yet to be released, I think I am going to poo...

[Captain Tightpants]

I swear to God, if I read one more shining light of a poster giving their (re)views on a 'plotline' for a film that is yet to be released, I think I am going to poo...

Right, because missiles are fired on cities every day.

The entire point of a trailer is to persuade audiences to see the film. It does this by offering details on plot and character, to build up familiarity with the film, though it often does so in broad strokes. The GHOST PROTOCOL trailer offers these details:

Spoiler

- The Kremlin is destroyed, and the Russians are considering it an act of war.
- Ethan Hunt and his team are being blamed, but the government is willing to let them escape.
- The IMF itself is attacked, and the "secretary" (of what, we don't know) is killed.
- Hunt and his team are looking for an intelligence source, played by Anil Kapoor (Wikipedia and the IMdB give his character name as "Brij Nath".
- Hunt works with Bradt (Jeremy Renner) who appears to know more than he lets on.
- A missile is fired from a submarine, and is aimed at a city.

So, why would the trailer show a missile being fired and zeroing in on a city if it was not part of the plot? Or do you think it is like the make-out scene in MANOS: THE HANDS OF FATE, a subplot that was half-shot and left in the film with absolutely no connection to anything else that happens in the story?

The point is that the GHOST PROTOCOL trailer clearly shows a missile being fired. Evidently, it has something to do with the story. However, missiles being stolen/fired/detonated is a common action film plot; just the other night, I saw (half of) BROKEN ARROW, with a plot hinging on two stolen nuclear devices. And I could name half a dozen other films where this is a key plot device - DR. STRANGELOVE, THUNDERBALL, THE ROCK, CRIMSON TIDE, TRUE LIES, THE SUM OF ALL FEARS - and that's without getting into the B-movies. I just feel that it is an over-used plot device. Bad guys steal missiles, and naturally, they're pointing them around and threatening people. Like I said, a lot of how I feel about the plot will hinge on how it is done (for example, if the villains fire the missile by "hacking" into the Pentagon or whatever, it will be horrible) - but the fact that it is there to begin with does not inspire a lot of confidence.

[marktmurphy]

Looks like lots of fun.

[Safari Suit]

I think it is fair to say the conventional presumption of age to physicality ratio has absolutely no relation whatsoever to Cruise' actual physical ability.

For example, if an alternate actor were half Cruise's age, do you think he would be able to better represent an agent running around the outside of a bloody great tall building?

I am erring towards, no.

Keep yer 'air on, I was just mentioning how the slightly more grounded style of the first film would be a decent fit for an aging/maturing Cruise/Hunt in some ways. I personally don't care how old an action star is, heck if anything I like them older, but it often seems I'm in a minority there.

[sharpshooter]

Looks like lots of fun.

I concur.

[Matt_13]

Roughly 30 minutes of the film has been shot in IMAX, including a couple of amazing sounding action sequences in Dubai (including Cruise's remarkable looking sequence atop the Burj Khalifa) and elsewhere. Couple this with the knowledge that the film will be preceded by 6 mins of The Dark Knight Rises, and you can count me in for an IMAX showing. This is going to be great fun.

[Captain Tightpants]

New poster:

[Loomis]

Holy crap... that was a huge spoiler they just gave away.

I count three or four. I've no idea why trailers spoil so much, especially for films like this. I mean, it's Tom Cruise, it's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 4 - are they worried that people won't go to see it unless they blow every last twist and turn of the plot in advance?

Still, count me in for this one. I've enjoyed all the M:I films to date and this one looks as though it could well be the best of the bunch.

[Matt_13]

Only a couple weeks to go!

[Simon]

It does appear as though Simon Pegg has all his facial mannerisms and reactions down to the accuracy of the thin edge of a gnats tit.

Superb.

[DamnCoffee]

Never really liked the Mission Impossible movies, so I'll probably be giving this one a miss.

[The Dove]

I'm going to see this, but in NO WAY is it going to be as good as the first Mission Impossible (1996) directed by Brian DePalma and is the film which MOST captures the spirit of the original TV series.. MI:2 was just AWFUL!! MI:3...Only saw it once and thought it was extremely overrated. Here's hoping Ghost Protocol is a good movie..in any event its going to get the juices flowing for me for 2012 and The Dark Knight Rises, The Bourne Legacy and Skyfall..

[SecretAgentFan]

Loved the first one, hated the second one, liked the third one - and Brad Bird as director is enticing enough for me to check this one out. Liked the trailer, too.

Although the whole going rogue thing is a tired formula. Gee, does no agent just get a mission from a trustworthy superior anymore?

[Simon]

Bond seems to...

I think this was the advantage of having a series of books to work from for the first however many films - they were all just missions. If Bond was a character with no literary legacy, would he too have been shooting M in the third film for being a traitor?

[Chief of SIS]

Not a bad clip. Jeremy Renner seems likable enough so far. Didn't really like the Mission Impossibles at first. The first one's ending was disappointing, the second was a joke, but the third was superb. Perfect amount of heart for an action flick. Though I am afraid that

Spoiler

Julia has been completely discarded from the fourth one.

But I must say, in Brad I trust. Looking at interviews with him he seems like a little kid which is enough to get me excited for a December action movie to warm me up. Better than Sherlock at least (though the first one was ok). I'll gladly be seeing this in imax.

[Captain Tightpants]

Only a couple weeks to go!

It's not bad, but ... sometimes, I get the feeling that the scripts shoehorn these sequences in simply because the first one was so iconic. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 was particularly guilty of this. They'd all be fantastic sequences if they had been the first to do it, but they're only a tribute to the first.

[Matt_13]

Another one with Renner and Pegg



Agree with you Cap on the whole "suspended a few inches from the floor" bit that seems to make its way into every MI film, but they haven't done it poorly yet so no biggie. This one looks to be the best of the bunch though. Can't imagine Brad Bird screwing this up.

In essence, I'm banking on this film to give me my spy fix before Skyfall drops.

[Captain Tightpants]

The first suspension sequence was good. The second one was an obvious homage to the first, but I think it was done quite well because Hunt had to time his fall to slip through the open vents. The third, however, was unnecessary; Hunt could have rapelled down the Vatican wall just as easily as roll off it and be caught a few inches short of the ground. This one looks okay; I'm guessing Renner's suit is supposed to expand out in the updraft, stopping him just short of the fan. The trailer sort of shows him overing over it and then diving forward into a tunnel or ventilation shaft.

[zencat]

I've seen it. It's freakin' awesome! That's all I'm going to say.

[TCK]

Next film I gonna see with The lady ! Can't wait.

[Matt_13]

I've seen it. It's freakin' awesome! That's all I'm going to say.