[sisenor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1rocketpilot /img/forum/go_quote.gif (and let's try to avoid spoilers for the folks who haven't seen it!).

Thank you very much for real..I always appreciate that. For example, there's a Robert Heinlein forum that I wanted to check out, but every post has major spoilers and it's really lame...they don't even specify if the post is going to be a spoiler. But I digress (I always wanted to say 'but I digress'...don't think I ever have)

Anyway, I'm a check it out.

 

[Asr]

Saw the movie a few hours ago.

I was impressed, mostly by the fact that it was simply an action movie that felt like it had substance instead of being "all flash" like the most recent Brosnan movies. The recent Brosnan flicks felt like cheap action flicks with no plot and explosions for the sake of explosions (esp Die Another Day).

Also liked the fact that this Bond maintained his cuts & bruises through scenes instead of showing up like he hadn't just been in a fight the previous day. Felt much more real. And his physical fights with the villain characters were much more "tactile" too, instead of them feeling fake like an overproduced movie.

My one major gripe is Eva Green's character (they could've left out the plot twist with her character IMO and just treated her like a standard Bond girl) and the fact the Aston DBS got practically no action! As soon as Bond started tearing down the highway I was getting excited, and then...it overturns and crashes? That was so disappointing, I wanted to see that thing literally fire on all cylinders.

 

[gsansite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flecom /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was good but since it is technically the first movie where james bond is developing, well, james bond... it dosent fit... first are the little things, like, hey, its the year 2006 and all of a sudden on his next mission its the year 1962... oh ya and Judy Dench (aka "M", who before the 90's was always a man) exclaims how she missess the cold war... so they didnt even try to make this movie fit... also they didnt introduce Q branch at all... which i can kind of understand in a way since Desmond Llewelyn died in 1999 and he was the only character that was in almost every movie (think he was in 17 or 18 of the [now] 21 movies)... other complaints, the opening song is NOT on the sound track... i have all 20 soundtracks from all 20 movies and on EVERY SINGLE ONE the opening song is on the sound track... now i have to buy some jack hole's cd to get one song? What? if i ignore the other 20 movies i have watched and review the movie on how it stands alone... i stood in line for an hour to get in at the midnight showing opening day and all i have to say is it was really an excellent movie, i was entertained for all 2 hrs 32 mins of it... and will probably go watch it again... but it really bothers me how it dosent fit in properly at all with the rest of the series... oh well...

So we're supposed to believe Brosnan/Bond is 78 in Die Another Day? Lets face it there has never been any real continuity/canon, they can pretty much do what they like.

I was surprised that this film was actually quite good. Absolutley terrible editing and pacing, saved by some good performances, story and set pieces. In many ways it has similair shortcomings to Batman Begins, with the focus on the series set-up rather than the film itself. Will be interested to see the next Daniel Craig Bond film.

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanee /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah yes, Manfred. Lady Fiona McTarry (Agent Mimi), who dubbed the only remains of M -- his toupee -- a "hairloom".

Yup, she always cracks me up in that role - just like the somewhat unusual funeral rites of the McTarries in general...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanee /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did the Lady serve up a nice haggis, or am I thinking of another film?

Not sure about the haggis, actually. Shall I check? I've got the dvd...

Grinnings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Saw it last night; It started strong and with interesting things in it, and I appreciated how it went for the "Classic Bond" feel. But near the end, it took a monotone plunge that even the final scene couldn't help it recover.

One word though: balls.

 

[trivik12]

Saw it last night and loved it. Was skeptical about Daniel Craig when I heard he was replacing PB. But he did a good job. Dialogue delivery was good. His looks aint his asset.

Screenplay was excellent until post torture scenes. Didn't like romance scenes that late in the movie. I was just waiting for the last action scene which wasn't as good as the 1st action scene (The other guy who was jumping all over the place did a great job). But movie felt more real than any bond movie made since early Sean Connery ones. Also it relied more on action than gadgets which was good. I heard Q will make a comeback with Bond 22 and we will see more gadgets.

Also there was some good one liners in the movie. I cringed at the torture scenes though everyone in the theater was laughing when Bond was shouting "To the right". I loved the poison sequence though. That was one true bond moment. I laughed loud that after recovering bond asks vesper "Are u OK" and also came back to the poker table and said "That last hand almost killed me".

 

[hempcamp]

Saw it tonight. Pleasantly surprised -- great shots during the filming, not a lot of CGI fluff, the story isn't bad either.

One mildly irritating thing is the time aspect -- it's written as a prequel but clearly technology and scenery in the movie is way after any of the other Bond movies. They could have "vingage-ized" the movie, kept the modern vehicles and gizmos out, and had the same great story line.

--Chris

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif (...) They could have "vingage-ized" the movie, kept the modern vehicles and gizmos out, and had the same great story line.

Much harder to do product placement in a vintage context, though. And where are the evil smileys, when one needs 'em, btw?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[jumpinjohn1234]

saw it, it was a very good bond movie. A lot better than the last one.

I just wished someone was there filming Bond was chasing the guy at the construction site. Somone needs to put that on youtube to compete with the russian jumpers.

 

[derek8555]

Daniel Craig was the weakness in that movie IMHO, he always sounded like reading off a script, especially near the end...and his look is just.... quite idiotic IMO

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Gun handling: Atrocious. Craig's Bond runs around with his finger on the trigger pretty much 100% of the time.

Hey, he's got a "licence to kill", not a "licence to observe the rules of firearm safety"!

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the plus side, Bond never uses a holster.

Does he carry it around in his pocket? Serious answer appreciated, as I know nothing about guns.


Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif One mildly irritating thing is the time aspect -- it's written as a prequel but clearly technology and scenery in the movie is way after any of the other Bond movies. They could have "vingage-ized" the movie, kept the modern vehicles and gizmos out, and had the same great story line.

Did you want them to set it in 1955?

"Welcome to MI6, Bond. This is your enemy!" *Points to picture of Nikita Khrushchev*

 

[Romanee]

Finally saw it! Great Entertainment. Great Bond. Great Fun.

Sure there are flaws in the writing and directing -- but same goes for all Bond films and most films in general.

Seems this flick has the least Bond femme exposure.

Love the Aston. Slam bang action. Love D. Craig's bone dry Bond.

Great sinking building in Venice!

...'nuf for now.

 

[puiah11]

hey Romanee what'd you think of the Airplane chase? The opening chase?

 

[MorpheusZero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Gun handling: Atrocious. Craig's Bond runs around with his finger on the trigger pretty much 100% of the time. Even when dropping the slide on a fresh magazine. There was also one absurdly long reload during a fight scene. I really expect better from a world class assassin, and this sort if thing is really easy to fix. There's also the usual complaint about clacking guns and odd sounds emanating from silencers, but I suspect those will never be fixed.

Yeah I'd really like to hear some realistic silenced gunshots... anywhere, really. The little "peew" sound that they give out would be dwarfed even by the sound of the action/slide working. I've always been a big Bond fan but IIRC they've always had crummy gun handling, e.g. "shooting from the waist" etc...

 

[chadbang]

Grabbed it tonight. I don't get out to theaters these days. Ah, finally the dvd. I've been a Bond fan since my father took me to Dr. No when I was seven years old. Well, this is probably the best Bond flick since "Goldfinger" - which is where I consider the series ended. "Thunderball" was pretty dull and after that, well, the rest just sucked. Yes, Roger Moore sucked, Lazenby, Brosnan. Craig brings back the bad ass Bond that Connery set up. I loved "Casino Royale" tonight. A great Bond flick returns.