Post by Miss O'Jenny on Nov 1, 2008 13:30:58 GMT
Thought I'd leave this 'til it was out for general viewing.
I wasn't really going to see this. I haven't seen Casino Royale and Daniel Craig doesn't really do it for me. However, I was convinced to see it by some workmates.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was a good action movie, and I occasionally take a fancy to action movies. It was a little laughable in places, but it was an enjoyable enough watch.
My problem with it comes from the James Bond side of it. James Bond is supposed to have charisma, charm, be suave and sophisticated, a natural seducer, etc etc. Daniel Craig cannot portray any of these qualities. Of course, the seduction bit of it can just be blamed on a terrible script, as the line was absolutely and utterly awful. So bad, I tell you. Everybody's all like, well, it is back before all those films, maybe he just hasn't learnt all that yet. But, in general, those are not traits that you 'learn', they are natural, built in, instinctive. Learnt charm comes across as sleazy.
And since when did JB get that dirty? Since when was he ever covered in blood and dust and dirt? Don't think it happened very often in the other films. My friend Allan justified this by saying that the books were exactly like that, action packed and muddy. But I don't care. In it's film medium, a premise and an expectation has been built. It no longer matter's what happened in the book, but what happened, the tone, themes, personality of the other films does, even if this is supposed to be a preclude to those other films. The only way I think that argument could be used would be is they went "oh, we're completely forgetting about the other films and starting a new Bond series." which would be impossible to do, unless they left it for like, 20years without a making one.
Also, if it's a preclude, then how come Judi Dench is still 'M'?
And why was all that fuss made about Gemma Arterton being the new Bond girl? She was a bit shit. What was with that Goldfinger-esque oil death? It was just too similar to the Goldfinger death, which if it had been placed after that film, could have given some emotional meaning, having copied the death of a previous girl, and he'd be like 'oh noes', but it doesn't.
Anyway, that was a bit of a rant about things I don't like it, but it is a good film in it's own way. It's just not James Bond for me.
Bring on the Connery.
I wasn't really going to see this. I haven't seen Casino Royale and Daniel Craig doesn't really do it for me. However, I was convinced to see it by some workmates.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was a good action movie, and I occasionally take a fancy to action movies. It was a little laughable in places, but it was an enjoyable enough watch.
My problem with it comes from the James Bond side of it. James Bond is supposed to have charisma, charm, be suave and sophisticated, a natural seducer, etc etc. Daniel Craig cannot portray any of these qualities. Of course, the seduction bit of it can just be blamed on a terrible script, as the line was absolutely and utterly awful. So bad, I tell you. Everybody's all like, well, it is back before all those films, maybe he just hasn't learnt all that yet. But, in general, those are not traits that you 'learn', they are natural, built in, instinctive. Learnt charm comes across as sleazy.
And since when did JB get that dirty? Since when was he ever covered in blood and dust and dirt? Don't think it happened very often in the other films. My friend Allan justified this by saying that the books were exactly like that, action packed and muddy. But I don't care. In it's film medium, a premise and an expectation has been built. It no longer matter's what happened in the book, but what happened, the tone, themes, personality of the other films does, even if this is supposed to be a preclude to those other films. The only way I think that argument could be used would be is they went "oh, we're completely forgetting about the other films and starting a new Bond series." which would be impossible to do, unless they left it for like, 20years without a making one.
Also, if it's a preclude, then how come Judi Dench is still 'M'?
And why was all that fuss made about Gemma Arterton being the new Bond girl? She was a bit shit. What was with that Goldfinger-esque oil death? It was just too similar to the Goldfinger death, which if it had been placed after that film, could have given some emotional meaning, having copied the death of a previous girl, and he'd be like 'oh noes', but it doesn't.
Anyway, that was a bit of a rant about things I don't like it, but it is a good film in it's own way. It's just not James Bond for me.
Bring on the Connery.