51 replies to this topic

[bodie]

Why would Q have Klebb's shoe in his little gadget den?

[ray t]

i could CARE LESS what that critic thinks.

yes, EON has always been praised for REAL stunts. OK

OK...so what?

BIG DEAL

Let me REITERATE:

the story, the locations, the characters, the acting, the SCORE (!!!), the (real) stunt work and set pieces, the titles and its accompanying song, the costumes, the set design, etc. were ABSOLUTELY ENGAGING.

the movie moved like a BULLIT

i was never bored

the 2h 10-odd minutes flew by.

and i got VALUE FOR MONEY

it was BOND AND BEYOND............

can hardly wait to see it again in 2 hours....so SCREW the critics. I am my own critic

PS...CGI is here to stay...or should we all be ostriches with our heads in the sand.

gimme a friggin' break:rolleyes:

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t
so SCREW the critics. I am my own critic

And screw any of us too if we don't agree with all your opinions?

[Diipla007]

Well, it seems that things get a bit bitter in here. Everyone has there own opinion I guess, however, this is a Bond film. CGI is great, but they kind of overkilled it in this film. All I hope is that the next film is more like The World Is Not Enough. God only knows why the producers believed that they needed to compete with idiot flicks like XXX. I don't ever remember seeing insane lines for that movie. Bond is the ultimate action hero. NO COMPARISON. With dedicated fans, Bond will last forever and never succumb to and imitate rip-off films of any type. He's an original. All others are cheap copies.

[JackChase007]

Personally, I would like to see Bond 21 either like DAD or TWINE, just as long as there is little/no CGI. I love both films for their respective "genres" as Bond movies, but I do like DAD a little more because it's just such a fun movie. Seen it three times already, and more to come...

[jeff319]

My one complaint: FAR too much CGI, in places where it was totally unneccessary. It certainly didn't help that much of the CGI just wasn't very good.

It was however, a fantastic movie! I plan to see it a couple more times during it's theatrical run.

[Sigma]

Everyones entitled to his/her own opinion, so here's mine. CGI is now a part of film technique, and while i think some of it was dire in DAD, and browsing the threads shows that we pride ourselves on the fact that Bond films are always changing with the times. So, can we concentrate on the brilliant acting, great action sequences and suprisingly good story? This CGI thing has been blown completely out of proportion, with shots accounting for about 1-2 minutes being discussed more than the remaining 2hrs or so of the film.

[JackChase007]

I'm going to be so bold to say that DAD features the best ensemble cast in many years for the Bond movies.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

Originally posted by ray t
sure....er, whatever

i meant what i said. "film appreciation". yes,we know its only a film but surely it's good for people to get together over a common interest, even if at times it does seem a bit needlessly obsessive. i thoroughly enjoyed it, even the title song (albeit., after a 2nd viewing).

[B5Erik2]

The problem that a lot of us have is that for the last 30-45 minutes or so this ISN'T a BOND film.

It turns into some Gen X movie. It is interchangeable with xXx or Mission Impossible, or something like that.

CGI? OK, look, do you think that the plane sequence looks HALF as good as the plane sequence in The Living Daylights? I don't, because they used a REAL plane with REAL people dangling off of it for The Living Daylights - and it looked TEN TIMES BETTER! THAT'S what separates BOND films from the rest (well, one of the things).

REAL stunt people doing REAL stunts.

Also, the script, the acting, the CGI - ALL of it was bad in the last 1/3 of the film. Brosnan is robotic, just reading his lines without the conviction he shows in the first 1/3 of the movie, and everyone else is just overwhelmed with the ridiculousness of the final 1/3 of the film.

There is no Bond STYLE or CLASS or PANACHE during the final 45 minutes. NONE!

There's PLENTY of it in the first hour, but by the last 45 minutes it's all GONE, replaced by a dumbed-down kiddie action movie.

So pardon me if I (as a 25 year Bond fan) am COMPLETELY disappointed with the way that the film degenerated into a wannabe John Woo/Wachowski Brothers movie. I'm willing to bet that Brosnan didn't like the last 45 minutes, either (his robotic performace in that part of the move could very well be evidence of that).

DAD isn't a total waste of time, but it's not very high on my list of Bond films. I liked a lot of things about it, but the things I disliked were SO egregious that I simply cannot, and WILL NOT overlook them. I expect better from EON.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

thankyou! this captures my point entirely!

well, almost....

i'm ambivalent when it comes to DAD; if anyone in the UK saw the royal premier on ITV then you'll recall David Arnold's point about the "bond movie". after i first saw DAD i was left thinking that it was more of an action movie (as erik said, in the style of XXX or Mi2) and much less of a Bond movie. TND was more bond that DAD, and i think that says something not wholly positive...

[General Koskov]

I didn't notice Jinx' jump was CGI, so there's one instance where CGI worked (you're not supposed to notice it). As well, Icharus looked more real than the real DAF satellite, and it was CGI (I think).

However, the aeroplane slowly disintegrating was rediculous, and so were the winged-torpedoes that Bond and Jinx flew into Korea (when I saw the previews, I thought Bond had done the ultimate stunt: disarming a nuclear bomb in mid-drop). The lasers were no fun either, because Bond seemed to have every punch timed and thus there was no suspence--and I still sweat while watching GF.

[DLibrasnow]

I like the fact they shook up the formula for DAD. They needed to do something to keep the series from extinction. If they tried releasing one of those 1960s/70s Bond movies it would undoubtedly flop.
Hopefully, they have even more surprises in Bond 21.

[Sigma]

Koskov, you didn't notice that Jinx's dive was CGI? I thought that was the most noticable, and therefore worst, CGI bits in the film! Thought the plane was quite good though, a sort of 'all hell breaking loose' feel to it, and definitly preferable to the normal ground based ending (Although the brutality of Goldeneye's end fight still ranks as the best.)

[JackChase007]

I dunno - I just think that DAD's a bloody fantastic movie...call me stupid if you'd like...

[B5Erik2]

Originally posted by JackChase007
I dunno - I just think that DAD's a bloody fantastic movie...call me stupid if you'd like...

OK, you're stupid.

DAD wasn't horrible, but enough parts were pretty bad to detract from what started out as one of the BEST Bond films, and turned it into something other than what works in a Bond film.

If you liked it, great - so did I. In fact, I LOVED it while I was watching it. Once the sensory overload had worn off, however, and I was able to digest the whole thing, I started picking it apart - which I had NEVER done to nearly this degree with ANY other Bond film before. That really bugged me. There's nothing worse than having elation give way to disappointment. That's what DAD was for me - a caffeine fuelled roller coaster ride that left me shaken, but ultimately, not stirred.

[ray t]

B5Erik2, what are your favourite 3 james bond movies...and did you watch all 3 of them during their theatrical run?

[B5Erik2]

I'm glad you asked.

I'll give you my top 10:

1. Dr No
2. Licence To Kill
3. From Russia With Love
4. The Living Daylights
5. Tomorrow Never Dies
6. For Your Eyes Only
7. Goldeneye
8. Goldfinger
9. Thunderball
10. The Spy Who Loved Me

It really is hard to rank a lot of those, because I love them all. I posted a topic about ranking DAD with all the rest, and that listing was slightly different than this. It's pretty close to this list, though. Truth be told, I've found a lot to like even in my least favorite Bond films (Live and Let Die, Moonraker). I just think that Bond is at his best when there's a real human being on screen, and not a cartoon character.

I've seen all the Bond films in the theaters since Spy. Most more than once...

[ray t]

erik, thats an interesting list

you do realize that DR NO is more "fantastical" than LTK...

even now...and in 1962 it was groundbreaking....

the idea of toppling mercury rockets and under-mining the US space programme....by a man who had steel hands who lived under the sea...it was "bond and beyond"....

....not unlike a man using a space weapon to destroy land mines


my top 7:

Thunderball
The Spy Who Loved Me
OHMSS
Die Another Day
Goldfinger
Tomorrow Never Dies
From Russia With Love

but i love them all

PS

Diamonds Are Forever needed to be remade primarily because sean looked like hell ....DAD is that remake...

villian changes his identity because of past crimes and is at the end of a diamond smuggling pipeline using the gems for a space based laser cannon...villian uses his false identity to mobilize talent that can help create said weapon under false pretence (unilateral dis-armament for world peace/creating green zones to grow crops for the hungry)

[Mousey]

There are those of us who don't like DAD for other reasons than it being a 'fantastical' bond movie. Personally I agree with the reasons that B5Erik2 stated above.

There is nothing wrong with a fantastical bond movie but there is in DAD.

That's my personal opinion if you'll let me state it.

[B5Erik2]

Originally posted by ray t
erik, thats an interesting list

you do realize that DR NO is more "fantastical" than LTK...

even now...and in 1962 it was groundbreaking....

the idea of toppling mercury rockets and under-mining the US space programme....by a man who had steel hands  who lived under the sea...it was "bond and beyond"....

Actually, toppling rockets wouldn't be all that hard - IF you had tons of money, which Dr No did. Just find out the radio frequency that mission control uses to send commands to the rocket, and broadcast false commands/coordinates at a much higher wattage. Rocket crashes. Hell, back in the early days of the space program lots of rockets crashed on their own, so Dr No isn't that far fetched. You might need to find out the system and code that mission control is using, but you could buy that information from someone working at mission control (so many national secrets have been given up for relatively small amounts of money that it's not hard to imagine someone giving up this info, and Dr No had the resources to offer a lot of money).

Steel hands? So what? Minor plot point - and just look at them as prosthetics.

Dr. No is more of a detective movie - Dr No even calls Bond a "stupid policeman." The fantastic stuff is just window dressing. The goal of the villain is pretty big, but not by later Bond standards. Hell, Dr No is just pissed at the Americans and wants revenge. Overall, it is a mystery/suspense/detective movie. "Who killed Strangways, and why?" THAT'S what Dr No is all about. VERY simple.

Add to that Connery's brilliant performance, a script as tight as a drum, and some FANTASTIC scenery (and I guess you could include Ursula Andress as "scenery" if you wanted to - she's certainly fantastic), and Dr No really sets the standard for all Bond films to follow.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by bodie
Why would Q have Klebb's shoe in his little gadget den?

Who said it was Klebb's shoe?? I don't recall Q or Bond commenting on whose shoe it was