No, I don;t think we were watching the same movie at all.
[spoiler] The free jumping episode broke every canon of cinematographic progression. Firstly, the villain swanned through it FIRST. in other words, all the thrills and spills to which we were exposed were initiated and completed by him before Bond did them again. Secondly the villain was not set up to be some kind of free-jumping genius (in which case we could have at least admired Bond for keeping up with him). He was just a tramp with a bad face watching a street circus. Bond, for god’s sake, is supposed to he a trained athlete even if he is a new 00 agent. Catching up with the villain should have been a cakewalk. Thirdly Bond is never in peril (not until he gets to the embassy) but the villain is. But we’re supposed to be identifying, aren’t we?, with the hero. Fourthly, there is no suspense because it’s not Bond being chased. The film makers haven’t established any macguffin to explain why it’s a serious matter if Bond catches him or not. These are basic, stupid film-making mistakes.
If you want examples of an Bond chase on foot which is real and exciting but also properly filmed and directed so that it is in fact an intensifying crescendo towards a great climax - check out Bond being pursued through a Jamaican carnical in Thunderball…
…or if you want a more mdoern chase sequence that is even more gritty, real and exciting then refer to Matt Damon’s escape from the US embassy in Zurich in the first Bourne film. Now that’s cinema! That the day would arrive when i would be touting that chimp-faced chump over Bond is a sad one indeed. [/spoiler].
I remember there was the same kijd of unanimity amongst the fanbois when Dalton took over the franchise. I thought he was crap; noone else did. History triumphantly vindicated me.
Let’s see how the revenues look for CR next weekend rather than the one we’ve just left. They will indicate how this story is going to end.
I thought the first chase scene was un-fucking-believable. In fact, the aerial scenes actually made me a little sick to my stomach. I thought it was beautifully rendered.
I think you just hated this film; which is fine, but don’t expect the rest of us to hate it just because you did.
Sweetheart, unclench your sphincter - this is all a laugh, anway. I don’t expect to convince any of you to hate it at all if you did love it. But, with some honourable exceptions, most of you aren’t explaining why tyou love it so except for some vague reference to Craig jumping through a building site and his rockhard, kissable nipples.
Believe me, I wanted to love this film. But on its own terms it was badly made rubbish. If you want a good version of Casino Royale, go and see the Bourne Identity which, believe me, I wanted to hate.
Oh, well if I seemed upset, rather than simply sounding off about a movie franchise, and caused you worry, then naturally I apologise. Let’s hope Bond 22 is better. In the meantime, go and see Snatch, The Transporter, the Man Inside and 16 Blocks if you really are interested in exciting but grittily realistic movies. No charge for this list.
I’ve seen 16 Blocks, and hated it. Saw Snatch, it was OK, but I though Brad Pitt was badly cast and barely watchable. So no thank you. I don’t really trust your judgment.
Actually, I didn’t care for Dalton one bit, I thought The Living Daylights (IIRC, his first foray as Bond) was disjointed and incoherent. Until I heard an interview with the screenwriters saying that they were toning down the humor in the film, I was firmly in the camp that this film was going to suck, and I still wouldn’t have been surprised if it had turned out to be bad. I also was among those who thought that Clive Owen should have been Bond. Not once during the film did I think, “Gee, I wish Clive Owen was Bond and not this guy.”
I don’t like grittily realistic movies. I like movies that pull me in and that I can watch mindlessly for a couple of hours and enjoy myself. What’s wrong with enjoying a film because of rockhard, kissable nipples?
Nope. Just surprised. Your passion, and derision for those who disagree is usually found in the artist and film-maker, not in someone in your profession.
Presumably if your degree in Law didn’t matter you wouldn’t mention it.
Could you name the “canons of cinematographic progression” please?
I didn’t realise one of them was “The protagonist must be chased, never be the one who is chasing.”
(if I’ve read what you had in the spoiler box correctly).
I mentioned it, hon, because I was asked. Fair enough?
No, I’m sorry you didn’t read what I had in the spoiler box correctly at all. I didn’t say ‘the protagonist must be chased’ never the chaser (or ‘one who is chasing’ as you express it so naturally). if that were the case, the Bond car chase in ‘Man With the Golden Gun’ would be crap wouldn’t it?
Count me with the folks who loved this film. It drew me in & succeeded as entertainment. As far as I’m concerned Daniel Craig IS James Bond. He’s a great example of a man whose face is not classically handsome, but, due to charisma, screen presence, talent or whatever - I simply couldn’t take my eyes off him when he was on screen.
