I liked it, but then I like Pierce Brosnan. Could do with less of the women and sex stuff tho. But I guess that’s part of James Bond. I watched it purely for the enternainment and I like the gadgets. The invisible car was something else. I wouldn’t mind having one of those.
I think it was way better than Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough. Those just weren’t “fun” enough for me. I think it was the best Bond since GoldenEye, although I haven’t seen many of the old Bond films.
I liked most of the big action sequence in Iceland, I thought it was fairly creative. I thought that Brosnan did an excellent job, although it is true that his behavior after being tortured for fourteen months wasn’t at all realistic. And I liked Berry’s performance quite a bit. Overall, I’d rank it second best of the recent Bond movies behind The World is not Enough. My only complaint is the fencing scene. You get the feeling that the thinking behind that was: “Hey, the public seems to want to see swordfighting right now, so let’s put a scene in regardless of whether or not it makes sense.”
I liked the part when Moneypenny ( I think thats her name) was playing that virtual game with Bond on the desk. It reminded me of Next Generation. I think Data used to play similar simulation games.
Data used to pretend to be seduced by James Bond?
GGGAAAARRRR!!!
One of the worst movies EVER! Ever-ever. EV-ER! EV-AHR! EVER!!!
My biggest complaint ICELAND IS FULL OF PLANTLIFE, GREENLAND IS THE ONE FULL OF ICE YOU PIECES OF BARGAIN BRAND HOLLYWOOD SUCKFEST WRITERS!!
Every other line was a horrible one. Cliche, unfunny, base. The writing was autrocious. She dies stabbed by a book of “The Art of War”? And then she’s called a bitch?!! People actually clapped when Halle Berry called her a bitch! WTF! What-The-Fuck people? WTF?
We can turn someone into someone else, but we can’t take diamonds out of his face? Wait… we can turn someone into someone else?! The hell?
The only funny thing in the movie was the crack about Bond’s liver.
Why in the hell would you eat a fig in the middle of a sex-a-thon?
All the extreme stunts? Why? Brother can’t take a bus anywhere anymore? Surfing, Hovercraftshootouts, explosions, surfing with a parachute down the iceberg that has Leo DiCaprio frozen inside of it… and that’s just naming about 10% of things along those lines found in this movie. Give me a break, give humanity some credit. We don’t all crave something that’ll make us drool into our Raisinets.
I’m tired as all hell of Hollywood spitting out crap that is nothing but “Things that go ‘Boom!’ and ‘Oooh, baby!’ Plus ‘X-treme’ stunts!” or “Son of things that go ‘Boom!’ and ‘Oooh, baby!’ Plus ‘X-treme’ stunts!” XXX for example and most recently, the PG-13, let’s market it to 13 year old boys who needs something to think about while they learn about masturbation, eXtreme Ops. We’re Xtreme atheltes, we wear granny panties, say “damn”, show breif limited nudity, bikini shots and destory terrorists so some pre-teen can blow his first load in his pants in the front row and so we can squeeze blood from the rock that is the patriotic American’s heart!
Hooray for Hopllywood! Hooray for mindless suck filled, blow inducing, $60 megacrap that makes triple that in the U.S. alone! Are we evolving or de-evolving?
So, IMHO, I give the latest Bond installment 2 middle fingers up.
I’ve just seen the film. I thought it was pretty average James Bond fare. It was fun, but not a “thinker”. I have to agree that the F/X were sub-par, referring specifically to the second surfing scene. It also followed the Bond formula a little too closely. I’m sure everyone knew who the “mole” was as soon as the character was introduced. As a helicopter pilot, I cringed at the helicopter scene. You just can’t do that. I also had trouble with the Russian transport aircraft staying airborne for so long. Also, I thought they overstressed the inuendos. I think they should have been more “naturally conversational” for best effect.
But there were compensations. I liked that Bond was captured. He was often captured in the books. Come to think of it, he was captured often in the films as well. In the books Bond is a brave and resourceful agent and that’s about it. No gadgets. I thought it was fun to see him captured and not having any gadgets to help him escape. In one of the books his genitals are being painfully tortured and his captor is about to kill him. Instead there are Other People who are out to get the Bad Guy and they kill him, leaving Bond alive. I thought that the resolution of Bond’s capture in the film had the same sort of “feel”. That is, sometimes you just can’t rely on resourcefulness.
I liked the references to other films. “Diamonds are forever”, indeed! And the Union Jack parachute was nice. “Q” admonishing Bond about the watch. “This makes your 20th one, doesn’t it?”
The car was great. One thing bugged me though: For years and years I’ve been thinking about writing a science fiction script where a guy wears adaptive camouflage. My idea was that his uniform would be composed of a fabric that contains millions of little camera/projectors. Units on the back would capture the image behind the character and units in the front and sides would do the same thing. I thought it out very well in my story. So it was annoying that the Bond film “stole” my idea for the car.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a vast glacier in the middle of Iceland? Maybe the film’s location was not supposed to be on the coast (in spite of the pre-surf glacier scene).
I wouldn’t worry. The 1987 flick Predator beat James Bond to the punch by a cool fifteen years by having its title critter dressed in armor with adaptive camouflage capabilities.
Easy there, Mercutio! Just what were you expecting? It’s a Bond movie. Is it Art? No. Entertainment? Yes.
This movie does one thing: It takes a whole bunch of cool stuff (hovercrafts, space lasers, swordfights, invisible luxury cars, etc.) and crams it all together. It does this quite well. If you were expecting more, you certainly have poor judgement when it comes to picking thought-provoking films. Perhaps you should lighten up, just a little.
what Mercutio said.
There was a time when there was a Bond flick with a good story and a couple of really cool stunts. Now there are a bunch of stunts (some pretty shoddy FX for all the scratch) and a little story in between.
Oh yeah, I found that part strange. I thought it was really happening and couldn’t believe it because Bond has never had anything going with Moneypenny, has he?
I enjoyed it, as a Bond movie, if you know what I mean.
There were a lot of places in the film where I thought “Boy they spent a lot of money making this thing.”
(Spoilers…)
I’ll say one nice thing before I launch into rant-mode: Pierce Brosnan isn’t too bad as Bond. I’m almost to the point where I can forget he played Remington Steele. Halle Berry was OK, in spite of the script she was working from. John Cleese makes a great Q.
Now for the bad stuff: pretty much what Mercutio said.
I hated the writing. In the scene where Bond first meets Jinx I thought they were joking. I thought they were old friends pretending not to know each other and trying to out-do each other with cheesy pickup lines.
When I realized that these were real pickup lines I sprained my eye-rolling muscles.
I thought the adaptive camoflage car was over-the-top, even for a Bond flick. And by the way, if cameras on one side are projecting an image to the skin of the car on the other side, you can’t hide behind the car! And I think the supercars are too powerful in general. The machine guns that can track and shoot down missiles… bah.
There’s such a thing as too many special effects. In The Matrix they used bullet-time photography because time-warping was relevant to the story. In Die Another Day they used it just to transition between scenes (and to give fogeys like me headaches). When I find myself thinking as Cranky says, “Boy they spent a lot of money making this thing,” I get distracted from the story. The movie would have been much better if they’d cut the special effects budget in half. At least.
I expect Bond movies to be mindless action flicks. But they don’t have to put so much effort into making them mindless.
(Maybe I’m turning into a grumpy old man who ought to watch fewer movies and read more books.)
I would contend that the use of bullet-time effect when Q stops Bond’s test of the Virtual Reality training system was a situationally apropriate use of the effect, as opposed to the other times, when as you say, it was merely used as transition.
It’s a BOND film…what do you expect?
I liked it - everything in the Bond formula was in the film. Actually, this one seemed to have more of a plot than most.
I don’t understand the nitpicking on how ridiculous some of the stunts were…of course they were ridiculous and of course they were over the top.
Again, it is a BOND film!
Geez…to hear some of the nitpicking, it’s like going to see a Disney animation and come out complaining there wasn’t enough sex in it, and the jokes were childish…
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in the Lord Of The Rings, the Wizards do things that can’t be done in real life either…and don’t get me started on the unrealistic Treebeard!
When Cleese walked around the car the first time we (don’t?) see it, his legs were briefly distorted by the corner of the car. I immediately thought “Ministry of Silly Walks!”
Cleese has a lot of the classic Q-isms down pat. Including the crack about this being Bond’s 20th or so watch, and “please set a record – bring it back this time” (rough quote).
Judi Dench is deliciously cold as M. She might be better than the original actor; she’s definitely appropriate given the Bond legacy.
Overall for the movie: I’d rank it in the middle of the series. The evil plot was truly evil this time (even if it did sound an awful lot like Diamonds Are Forever), a welcome relief from the past several movies. (But I haven’t seen TWINE.)
One bit that had me chuckling was Jinx’s first appearance.
[ul][li]Bond is standing in the bar, looking out to sea with his binoculars[/li][li]CUT TO Jinx emerging from the surf in slow motion[/li][li]CUT TO Bond in the bar, reacting to her in normal motion[/li][li]CUT TO Jinx again, in slow motion[/li][li]CUT TO Bond, normal motion.[/li][/ul]
I half-expected Bond to stare at his binoculars and mutter “What’s wrong with these damn things? They keep showing objects in slow motion!”
Why didn’t the “invisible” car cast a shadow? Light wasn’t really passing through it or around it. It should’ve cast a shadow just like any other car, which would completely defeat the camouflage! I mean, the shadow would be re-created on the lit side of the car by the camouflage, and you’d still see the shadow if you were on that side of the car. Face it: That camouflage would have worked only at night, and it would be a lot cheaper simply to paint the car black like a stealth plane.
Bryan, I don’t know why they used slo-mo either. Whenever I look at a hot chick, time seems to speed up for me.
I noticed these references to past Bond movies: The old car Bond drove in Cuba was identical to the one Connery drove in Dr. No. Brosnan used the same kind of miniature aqua-lung that Connery used in Thunderball (though I had trouble believing Bond could swim so far in freezing water without a wetsuit). The fake alligator used in Octopussy was in Q’s laboratory, and so was the miniature jet.
I still haven’t changed my mind; I still think it was just average Bond.
The jetpack was from Thunderball and the shoe-knife was From Russia with Love.
Fire a missle at the sattelite, and the sattelite turns to destroy it.
Why not fire TWO missles at the sattelite simultaneously from OPPOSITE sides?