JMeganSnow Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I went to see the latest James Bond movie this evening. You can see my full review on my blog should you be interested, but in general I don't recommend it at all. It just didn't work. They screwed up the plot and, I swear, the only interesting character in the movie was Judi Dench--and I like Daniel Craig as the new Bond! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I went to see the latest James Bond movie this evening. You can see my full review on my blog should you be interested, but in general I don't recommend it at all. It just didn't work. They screwed up the plot and, I swear, the only interesting character in the movie was Judi Dench--and I like Daniel Craig as the new Bond! I think the time for the Bond movies has passed. The format has become stale. I have not seen the new one and do not intend to either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted November 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Actually, I think the latest changes to the format have been awesome. The new director has really brought something back to the franchise--it isn't all tongue-in-cheek any more. Unfortunately this latest one was just a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 (edited) Quantum of Solace, Not Worth ItI disagree (naturally! ). Overall, it was worth eight bucks and three or so hours. The plot did kinda suck. You made me just realize that I filled in a lot of it myself as I went. He wants the water in Bolivia? I just took it to mean that he was using it to get to something bigger that we hadn't yet been told about. But we never were... maybe in the next film. Maybe they wanted control of the third world countries so that they could get to the more important ones somehow. After all, his organization is global, there's no way Bolivia would be the end of their scheme. Right? ... And I continued on like that. The bad things: the dialogue kinda sucked, and there were too many action sequences and not enough plot. Also the relationships were nowhere near as interesting as in the last film. Good things: This movie is much more stylish than the last; everyone is dressed impeccably and they all have great attitudes. There were great gadgets, as usual, and Bond is just as smooth as before. Like Jenni said in her review, the plot was interesting for the first hour, until it just stopped happening. Basically I saw this movie as an encore to the last. Casino Royale was an excellent movie, and this one was just good. All the loose ends were tied up except those concerning the global organization. We learned what the deal was with Vesper. All-in-all, entertaining, but I hope they get better writers for the next film. EDIT: Wikipedia tells me that the writers were the same for both films, so I don't know what the deal was there. But the directors were different, and I'm not really familiar with either. I vaguely remember liking the Bond movie Goldeneye, which Casino Royale's director also did. Edited November 15, 2008 by JASKN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I was hoping for this to be good so I hope you're wrong, haha. Casino Royale was surprisingly good. It felt like they did a great job of bringing class and style back to the Bond series. Which was absolutely needed after years of that Brosnan garbage, where he does things like falling out of a plane while sitting in a sports car, while managing to like, fly away and deploy ski's and rockets. *shudder* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I really liked every minute of Casino Royale, so I'm going to keep my hopes up. Thanks for the reviews! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I don't understand how the beautiful Ukranian-Russian actress Olga Kurylenko is supposed to be a Bolivian. They could just as plausibly put her in Kenya and pass her off as an Obama relative. This casting decision makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted November 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I don't understand how the beautiful Ukranian-Russian actress Olga Kurylenko is supposed to be a Bolivian. They could just as plausibly put her in Kenya and pass her off as an Obama relative. This casting decision makes no sense. Well, they *do* say in the movie that her Bolivian father had a beautiful Russian dancer wife. Still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 (edited) I don't understand how the beautiful Ukranian-Russian actress Olga Kurylenko is supposed to be a Bolivian. They could just as plausibly put her in Kenya and pass her off as an Obama relative. This casting decision makes no sense. Actually, with the little bronzer they give her, she could pass. Andean south americans tend to have a mestizo (mixed Indian) quality about their features. Dark hair, rouhd face, slightly flattened nose. Feature wise she's actually a pretty good fit. In this shot for instance she look very Bolivian. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2718864896/nm1385871 I'm with Jen. The plot in this one was exceedingly difficult to follow and did not drive the emotion in the film. I think this is "primacy of chase scenes" sort of plotting. Edited November 16, 2008 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 I'm with Jen. The plot in this one was exceedingly difficult to follow and did not drive the emotion in the film. I think this is "primacy of chase scenes" sort of plotting. In this film we have two people on a quest for vengeance meet and ally. Their respective targets meet to do business near the end of the film, which is when our heroes attack. The rest of the movie is setup for this resolution. Much of the conflict in the film isn't between the heroes and the villians, but between the heroes and various obstacles created by their own friends and allies. Neglect of the villians and the implausible motivations that are given to the villians diminishes the hero-villain conflict and the whole movie. Action scenes did have a choppy quality from too much cutting. There is a one-on-one fight between Bond and a bad guy in a hotel room that is chopped up like crazy. After Matt Damon's long single cut fight scenes in the Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy definitively showed how such scenes should be shot this relapse in technique is hugely disappointing. Even so, compared to most of the other crap out there it was a still a pretty good movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 I thought it was a pretty solid movie. I enjoyed the experience from start to finish. The new more serious direction that Bond is taking is great. It isn't full of stupid puns and gimmicky gadgets. I do have a few qualms with the movie though. The grand plot of the evil villain is to sell overpriced water in a backward third world country? Lame. The camera work during the fight scenes that cuts wildly every 4 frames got irritating. This trend is disturbingly prevalent, so it isn't a specific slight against this movie though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 (edited) The grand plot of the evil villain is to sell overpriced water in a backward third world country? Lame. It's based upon actual events. Which is another beef with the plot, since it's premise is that privatization is a bad thing and was the cause of increased water prices in Bolivia. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/shultz Besides that, and the murky ethical implications of the CIA backing the same villians mi6 was chasing, the shadow organization that barely shows its face, and is never really taken down. meh. Edited November 16, 2008 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted November 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 It's based upon actual events. Which is another beef with the plot, since it's premise is that privatization is a bad thing and was the cause of increased water prices in Bolivia. I knew it--not about the water riots, but I can smell the crappy aroma of "ripped from the headlines" plot writing ANYWHERE. Granted that article was pretty biased, but the company demanding a 16% profit didn't sound good--but it's really hard to tell anything with that article. What does "water and sewage hookup" mean? Does it mean "they turn your already-run water and sewage on" or does it mean "they come and install plumbing?" The latter can be pretty expensive. And if it costs half a year's pay or whatever, can't they pool with the neighbors and build a shower house/toilet? You can't expect the same kind of amenities in a poor country that you can get in an established wealthy country. It kind of reminds me of the recent hoorow here in Ohio over their "legalized casino gambling" scheme. They weren't just going to say "hey, if you wanna build a casino in Ohio, it's legal now!", no. Instead, they were going to subsidize the building of ONE casino under some pretty strict rules and add this on as an amendment to the Ohio constitution! Scam scam scam. Always a good reminder that "privatization" doesn't necessarily mean "free market". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 (edited) I saw it tonight. I agree with some of the reviews here and Jenni's. They needed more non-action-but-intense-nonetheless-scenes like the poker game in the first film and the dialogue on the train. You know what would make the next movie great? Have the leader of Quantum, or one of their high-ranking people be none other then -- DOCTOR NO! Dun dun... DDDDUUUNNNNNNN! Edit: Do you think the girl covered in oil was a throwback to the girl covered in gold in one of the other movies (Goldfinger I think)? Edited November 23, 2008 by Mammon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 EDIT: Wikipedia tells me that the writers were the same for both films, so I don't know what the deal was there. But the directors were different, and I'm not really familiar with either. I vaguely remember liking the Bond movie Goldeneye, which Casino Royale's director also did. The script was rushed to meet Writer's Strike deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Edit: Do you think the girl covered in oil was a throwback to the girl covered in gold in one of the other movies (Goldfinger I think)? Hah...I was thinking exactly the same thing at the time. "Oh my God...Greene is another Goldfinger." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.