San Francisco, 9:44 PM
Tue Dec 1
29 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Why they ever made Bond more "realistic" is beyond me. The past 2 Bond films were boring travesties (excluding the chase at the beginning of Casino). Instead of trying to cover new ground, Bond is treading in Bourne's wake.
Bond is doing a terrible job of it too. Trying to be more realistic, while at the same time having an idiotically impossible aerial battle between a fighter plane and a cargo plane, all culminating in Bond diving into the sky and opening his parachute only 100 feet before the ground? Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
I'll likely go see the next Bond film. I can't help but give it a chance. I will have no reservations about walking out on the movie and asking for my money back though.
I... liked Quantum of Solace? I liked it thoroughly, although I do agree. It could've been better. It just needs sprinklings of much more ridiculous villain, (although I think Mathieu Amalric looked suitably mad enough) and Q and Moneypenny. I sincerely hope they rehire John Cleese as Q. He was the best thing in (cough) Die Another Day.
And more Aston chases are always welcome. Quantum's was top notch.
@Pessimippopotamus will steal you a ★ for 50 coins: as a fellow appreciator of quantum of solace i am patently unwilling to agree that 'it could have been better' on the grounds that it is irrelevent; everything 'could have been better.'
@Disate: Goldeneye was f*cking awesome. You people are insane. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are made of epileptic seisures and boring characters.
@ManchuCandidate: i, for one, agree with meredith and manchu. we need to see a return of the larger than life, the campy, the gadget filled, the oversexed, the 'real' bond. to that end we obviously need to fire this craig asshole and see if timothy dalton can be persuaded to reprise the role.
@tetracycloide: You lost the argument at "timothy dalton". While craig isn't the best he is better than dalton in fact IMHO only George Lazenby was worse. Quantum lacked something and that was any real resolution. The ending sucked and the villainous plot sucked. Craig was alright.
If you want a new bond I'd look to someone like clive owen.
the plot lines in quantum were only disjointed if you weren't paying attention. this could be the fault of the film if you found it boring for not grabbing and holding your attention but it would not be accurate to say the plot sequence didn't make sense.
@tetracycloide: "the plot lines in quantum were only disjointed if you weren't paying attention"
Nope. It was definately disjointed. It was actually fairly easy to follow what was happening in the film, it's just that it was all plotted out so poorly. That, and nearly every scene in the film had a stupid action sequence attached to it, which drew attention away from any semblance of character or plot.
Agreed, Quantum showed the extreme limitations the new format puts on the James Bond franchise.
Plus what was wrong with how they were making the films before? I watch James Bond for James Bond. If I want to see a Bourne movie I'll go see a Bourne movie.
sex awesome booms and neat stuff james bond be cooler if had more. me like no big story tell stuff stuff that hurt tiny brain, make annoying thought making while missing sex and 'slposions. why bond so sad all time? i be happy if me bond, making sexy time and killing time for bad men. new bond need more pretty lady and more 'slposions so i want be like bond more too.
I will also add that the "story" was about James Bond. It was all subtext, small moments expressed not through banal dialogue, but through Daniel Craig's masterful acting chops. Greene, the water, all that was subordinate to a symbolic journey Bond was going on to purge himself of his feelings. This is not explicit backstory, but implicit emotion. Isn't that what film is supposed to be? Isn't that what makes a movie rewarding? Or is it stuff blowing up and you being told what to think at all times?
I think it is meaningful to point out that Meredith's only critique of the film in her response on this board besides not liking certain characters was that she didn't think the action scenes were "badass" enough. God bless you, Meredith, but this isn't Moonraker we're dealing with. QoS was not a "James Bond movie." It was a movie about James Bond. Bond going through understanable grief over the death of someone he loved and being exposed to a murky world he doesn't understand.
@dwschilling: Daniel Craig is a phenomenal actor hands down. But I just did not think that this movie was cohesive enough. His depression was in and out, his motivations were confused because of the plot points and the promise of revealing a back story was never actually delivered, for me. What do I know about Bond and M now? She loves him like some strange son, well we all kind of knew that was going to happen. He can't trust anyone? We figured that out in CR.
I'm all about seeing an angry and depressed Bond killing everyone because, heart broken, he no longer cares. I didn't feel like it delivered that at all. Sure he caused a lot of damage and acted reckless and angry but the bouncy plot got in the way of actually revealing any true emotion. The final scene when he finds peace helped a little but most of the time it was just a lot of sad faces mixed with bouts of sex and killing that didn't really stand out as a true marker for what he was going though. Even when they offed Mathis and Bond callously tossed him in the dumpster (which I thought was great) the actual scene came out of nowhere and didn't really flow with what was going on. Too much too fast, too shaky and Camille, no thanks.
But hey that's just me, I got what they were trying to do, I just wanted to see a more fleshed out, well everything. I agree that the Director's cut could change how I feel about the movie.
And yes it wasn't cool bad ass Bond enough for me. The action scenes in CR brought down the house. But the exploding hotel in the middle of the desert was so so. Plus during the moments when he did collect himself his steely sexy demeanor was forced due to the dialogue, that stationary line was awful. Maybe I just can't swallow a depressed Bond. Perhaps that's my real problem but I still feel like I didn't get that Bond because I was too busy trying to piece together the plot and understand why I should care about this new secret society and what they were actually trying to accomplish.
I don't know what people are complaining about, Quantum of Solace was a great film--except for the final fight scene in the hotel. The fuel cell in every room, in the hotel in the middle of nowhere, that part made no sense.
But the rest of it--the conspiracy theory of wealthy people trying to control the world; the attempted takeover of Bolivia's water supply, and the attempted coup in the same country... all those were almost too close to real life for comfort.
Putting the conspiracy aside for the moment; a corporation called Bechtel did effectively take over and privatize (part of) Bolivia's water supply for a short while--until the people revolted at the idea that they weren't even allowed to collect rainwater, and had to pay the corporation a quarter of their income for access to a basic resource. See [www.thecorporation.com] or the following video:
Then, only a few months ago, a group of wealthy conservatives, backed by the American DEA, tried to overthrow the democratically elected president (Evo Morales) because they didn't like the fact that a left-leaning, indigenous man was running things.
So, I suppose we can argue over whether the new Bond is fun and cool enough--but I for one like the gritty new Bond that brings real world issues to the foreground--even if they are heavily dramatized. I like a hero who's actually fighting for something, not just trying to look good in a tux.
@an aching taste of blue: This same hero did walk past a load of people desperate for water in the film though, without saying a single word about the massive amount in walking distance.
@twDarkflame: They would've gone straight down there, tipping off Quantum, and gotten themselves killed. Not to mention tipping off Quantum that someone was wise to them. One of the villagers might even describe Bond, and then they know he's alive.
Like maybe one other person on here, I kinda liked QoS. I mean, there was no real character arc like in CR, but it didn't need one. All he had to do was go from Vengeance to Duty. From now on Bond is Bond. Any character development happened with Olga Kurlenko, even if she felt a bit hamfisted for the first thirty minutes.
And QoS deserves special recognition if only for the "Quantum" baddie reveal at the opera house. Very well done.
But, yeah, I don't like supporting Paul Haggis. Bring us more writers.
Quantum, while too short, not shot as beautifully as Casino, and a bit too Bourne, was still better than anything Brosnan had to offer. And the Opera scene was some of the best Bond has ever had to offer.
03/05/09
Bond is doing a terrible job of it too. Trying to be more realistic, while at the same time having an idiotically impossible aerial battle between a fighter plane and a cargo plane, all culminating in Bond diving into the sky and opening his parachute only 100 feet before the ground? Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
I'll likely go see the next Bond film. I can't help but give it a chance. I will have no reservations about walking out on the movie and asking for my money back though.
03/04/09
Please stay away from this repetitive and worn out franchise and make & direct the sequel to 28 Months Later.
If you do so, I shall bake you some cupcakes. And you bet your sweet ass they're delicious!!!
- Me
03/04/09
03/05/09
03/04/09
And more Aston chases are always welcome. Quantum's was top notch.
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/04/09
@tetracycloide: I don't see how Wall-E could've been better.
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/05/09
Golden eye was better that that piece of shit.
03/05/09
03/04/09
-A plot that just makes enough sense in the real world for folks not to question it
-Fight scenes that don't cause epileptic seizures
-Bond acting like Bond, not Bourne or the Trainspotter or whatever the fuck is in vogue action series.
03/04/09
03/04/09
If you want a new bond I'd look to someone like clive owen.
03/04/09
03/04/09
03/05/09
Nope. It was definately disjointed. It was actually fairly easy to follow what was happening in the film, it's just that it was all plotted out so poorly. That, and nearly every scene in the film had a stupid action sequence attached to it, which drew attention away from any semblance of character or plot.
03/04/09
Plus what was wrong with how they were making the films before? I watch James Bond for James Bond. If I want to see a Bourne movie I'll go see a Bourne movie.
Exploding hotel? Bitch please.
03/05/09
12/10/08
EVER!!!!!!!
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
I think it is meaningful to point out that Meredith's only critique of the film in her response on this board besides not liking certain characters was that she didn't think the action scenes were "badass" enough. God bless you, Meredith, but this isn't Moonraker we're dealing with. QoS was not a "James Bond movie." It was a movie about James Bond. Bond going through understanable grief over the death of someone he loved and being exposed to a murky world he doesn't understand.
12/10/08
I'm all about seeing an angry and depressed Bond killing everyone because, heart broken, he no longer cares. I didn't feel like it delivered that at all. Sure he caused a lot of damage and acted reckless and angry but the bouncy plot got in the way of actually revealing any true emotion. The final scene when he finds peace helped a little but most of the time it was just a lot of sad faces mixed with bouts of sex and killing that didn't really stand out as a true marker for what he was going though. Even when they offed Mathis and Bond callously tossed him in the dumpster (which I thought was great) the actual scene came out of nowhere and didn't really flow with what was going on. Too much too fast, too shaky and Camille, no thanks.
But hey that's just me, I got what they were trying to do, I just wanted to see a more fleshed out, well everything. I agree that the Director's cut could change how I feel about the movie.
And yes it wasn't cool bad ass Bond enough for me. The action scenes in CR brought down the house. But the exploding hotel in the middle of the desert was so so. Plus during the moments when he did collect himself his steely sexy demeanor was forced due to the dialogue, that stationary line was awful. Maybe I just can't swallow a depressed Bond. Perhaps that's my real problem but I still feel like I didn't get that Bond because I was too busy trying to piece together the plot and understand why I should care about this new secret society and what they were actually trying to accomplish.
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
But the rest of it--the conspiracy theory of wealthy people trying to control the world; the attempted takeover of Bolivia's water supply, and the attempted coup in the same country... all those were almost too close to real life for comfort.
Putting the conspiracy aside for the moment; a corporation called Bechtel did effectively take over and privatize (part of) Bolivia's water supply for a short while--until the people revolted at the idea that they weren't even allowed to collect rainwater, and had to pay the corporation a quarter of their income for access to a basic resource. See [www.thecorporation.com] or the following video:
Then, only a few months ago, a group of wealthy conservatives, backed by the American DEA, tried to overthrow the democratically elected president (Evo Morales) because they didn't like the fact that a left-leaning, indigenous man was running things.
So, I suppose we can argue over whether the new Bond is fun and cool enough--but I for one like the gritty new Bond that brings real world issues to the foreground--even if they are heavily dramatized. I like a hero who's actually fighting for something, not just trying to look good in a tux.
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
And QoS deserves special recognition if only for the "Quantum" baddie reveal at the opera house. Very well done.
But, yeah, I don't like supporting Paul Haggis. Bring us more writers.
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
I'm all for more of whatever they have to offer.
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
GAH! CUT IT OUT!!
12/10/08
12/10/08