Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
I really dig the trailer, the action is more raw, i thought tha invisible cars was too much in the last movie.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 5428 Location: The Juicebox Gender: Male
On the first trailer, where the first 30 seconds-1 minute are in black and white, that was awesome. I wish they would have done the whole movie that way.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
at least someone's doing a remake of a film that probably should be remade.
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:47 pm Posts: 3677 Location: Newfoundland Gender: Male
knuckles of frisco wrote:
at least someone's doing a remake of a film that probably should be remade.
RE-made? It was never made as anything other than a parody in the first place (unless you count the 1954 American "Jimmy Bond" version which was actually pretty close to the novel).
As for the film itself, it really pains me to say this, but I'm not looking all that forward. And since I'm not in the mood to re-type the same shit I've been saying for thr last 6 months:
Quote:
First, I'm still undecided as to what to think of Craig. On one hand, he can certainly play "suave". On the other hand, his appearance seems much more suited to playing the charming villain, rather than 007 himself. Second, this damned "re-boot" pisses me off. It fucks with the Bond formula that has made 007 the most successful film franchise of all-time, not to mention that it ingores most of the aspects of continuity in the series. I mean, Bond is supposedly a new agent, but it's in the present day. And Bond's first M is played by Judi Dench (his last M). Anyone who has read the novels knows that Bond's first M was Sir Miles Messervey, so shouldn't a man be playing this role? The whole concept is just a mess and I'd be willing to bet that it has to do with the Sony merger and Sony execs pressuring EON (the "family business" that has produced Bond films since the very beginning) to shake things up, even though it's completely unnecessary. But only time will tell if my cynicism is well-founded...
and I posted this more recently on a Bond board:
Quote:
My problem with the film is not with the casting of Craig as Bond. Granted, I think he's far from perfect (Clive Owen and Julian McMahon were my picks) and would have been more suited as a villain, but he's a more-than-capable actor and I think he'll make it work.
My issue lies with the way the film itself is being made. I don't have any problem with the producers tweaking the formula to create and edgier "back-to"basics" Bond, as I think that's what most "hardcore" fans have wanted for years. However, it seems like they're doing all they possibly can to aboloish most of what makes Bond the icon he is today by coming up with a migraine-inducing plot that requires a rip in the space/time continuum for it to maintain any logic whatsoever. I can understand wanting to make this Bond's first mission, as technically that's what it is due to the obvious literary tie-in, but they should have just went all the way with it and made it a prequel set in the 50's/60's.
In the end, it' only entertainment and I'm sure if the movie bombs, EON/Sony/MGM will remedy it for Bond 22.
i also saw the midnight show last night. it was a fantastic, not just as a bond movie, but as a standalone movie. daniel craig was awesome in the role, and really did a great job with the progression of the character through the movie. also, the action scenes were great, and not rediculously overdone or cheesy. also, it was very different from any bond movie before it. one reviewer described it as the batman begins of the bond series, and i think that's probably the best way the movie can be described. if this is the direction the franchise is headed, im very excited about the movies to come.
ps-the bond girls this movie were top notch too. yow.
Saw this tonight and liked it a lot. Calling it the "best Bond movie ever" is a bit of a stretch, but it was definitely better than the last couple which were just getting a bit out of control. Daniel Craig is definitely owed a big apology from the press who practically castrated him last year.
As for the continuity issues, I couldn't care less. For those bitching about these things, how come you aren't pissed off that Bond isn't aging? I mean, the first movie was what, in 1962? Shouldn't 007 be about 70 by now then? It's a freakin' live action cartoon. Guns, cars, and sex. Don't worry about the details.
Last time I saw Eva Green in a movie she was speaking French and had a penis in her face. This was, uh, a bit of a different look for her.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
