Author Topic: Why this Bond?  (Read 31060 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BBQ Platypus

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4201
  • Liked: 59
  • SURF'S UP, SPACE PONIES!
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #75 on: May 16, 2007, 12:31:38 AM »
Are the people who criticize this film referring to the several poker scenes?

One of the things I noticed was that they don't actually show a complete poker game, or anything resembling it, they show a bunch of random scenes, that really don't seem that important.  All of these tedious cardplaying scenes then stem off into plot points.  It seems that a montage of several scenes them ending or starting a game would have been appropriate, then showing an extended game when he wins it all, so it isn't incredibly anticlimatic.

Well, I'll agree with you there.  The original novel goes into greater detail in describing the progression of the baccarat game.  Presumably, these scenes were cut for pacing purposes.  Even if the director and writers had wanted to extend these scenes, I doubt the studio would have let them get away with it.

Quote
Also, as far as incoherence goes, it's never really explained who the guy at the end is.  Yes, I saw him at the beginning, but they never really detail what he has to do with the Africans or who he really works for.  If it was the intention to leave this abiguous for the future movies, they could have at least defined the relationship between him and the Africans or whatever.

Well, the movie deliberately makes the exact nature of Mr. White's dealings a mystery.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is the head of (or at least a major player in) a terrorist organization of some kind.  I imagine they'll go into greater detail in the next movie.

I personally was able to follow it, but I can see how someone could get a bit confused.  LeChiffre is an international banker who offers his services to terrorists, drug cartels, and the like.  Basically, he's a money launderer.  The African militants are clients of LeChiffre's.  They're the ones who make the initial $100 million investment.  They're also the ones who sent the two thugs to try to threaten and/or kill him.

Overall, I think that the terrorist organization makes a good replacement for the novel's SMERSH (a Soviet counterintelligence agency, replaced for obvious reasons).  International threats are rarely as clear-cut as they are in the movies.

Quote
Also, if Vesper was cooperating with the Terrorists to save her dad, until they got the money, wouldn't they have killed her dad regardless because Bond killed the guy at the end who had the money?  Also, what did killing herself really contribute besides drama?  It really didn't fit into the plot, she wouldn't have known if the terrorists had gotten the money or not.

I'll agree with you here - to a point.  They could have made Vesper's motivations more clear.  My take on it is that, like much of the movie, the affair goes much deeper than what is explicitly revealed.  She was also likely aware of the possible consequences her treason would have.  Here's a post from the IMDB boards that can explain what I mean far better than I can:

Quote from: an IMDB poster who, surprisingly, is not functionally illiterate
To answer your first question, Vesper's betrayal can be explained to be deeper and far more stemmed than his stint with getting Bond to lose. We have no specific idea how long they have been blackmailing her.

Let's say she does tell Bond... then what? The issue is that she still betrayed her country, and would be faced with inuqiry, and at worse, death. In the literal versions of Bond, any betrayal burns him a lot, and in the novel, when he read the letter, his love extinguished fast. Would Bond in the movie do the same?

Vesper was unsure of her grounds. She faced death either way (in her thinking, most probably), and coupled by emotions that she doomed her boyfriend, and betrayed Bond... she might not have been thinking straight.

Second, she could be very afraid of the organization. How far is their reach? If she told Bond, wouldn't the organization just go up and kill them both at once? I recall in TWINE where the villain there was offered protection by Bond, and she flat out refused, fearing that "he" would kill her, and blew herself up. Was she feeling those fears as well?

Actually, I think this is one of the rare cases of a movie that overestimates the intelligence of the viewer.  Again, although the pieces do fit together, the filmmakers could have made this a bit clearer.  Regardless, I still found this movie to be at least ten times more enjoyable than any of Brosnan's films (which were all total rubbish except for Goldeneye, which was OK, but hardly a masterpiece).  NINE THUMBS UP! *

* I have eight extra thumbs growing out of...various places.
Correction: the coat hanger should be upside down.


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #76 on: May 16, 2007, 08:22:35 AM »
Well, the movie deliberately makes the exact nature of Mr. White's dealings a mystery.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is the head of (or at least a major player in) a terrorist organization of some kind.  I imagine they'll go into greater detail in the next movie.

Overall, I think that the terrorist organization makes a good replacement for the novel's SMERSH (a Soviet counterintelligence agency, replaced for obvious reasons).  International threats are rarely as clear-cut as they are in the movies.

Did anyone else assume by the end that Mr White represents SPECTRE? I don't think Eon have the rights to the names SPECTRE or Blofled anymore, but Mr White gave me a very strong numbered SPECTRE agent vibe. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Mr Black or Mr Red appear in the new series, working for the same shadowy organisation.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 08:24:26 AM by Sharktopus »


Offline hare.29

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #77 on: July 03, 2007, 06:15:27 AM »

"Actually, I think this is one of the rare cases of a movie that overestimates the intelligence of the viewer. "

I think this might be the reason behind the strong reactions to this movie. A sizable portion of the public was going to this thinking, 'Ok, Bond movie. I'll just shut my brain off for 2.5 hours and enjoy the whiz-bang stunts, gadgets, puns, etc.' Then, when the movie doesn't hold your hand plot-wise, people get annoyed.
My biggest beef was the running time. Come on, hollywood. If you're going to continue making half-day long movies, put some intermissions in them. Bring back the 'let's go out to the lobby' bit.


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2007, 11:21:59 PM »
My biggest beef was the running time. Come on, hollywood. If you're going to continue making half-day long movies, put some intermissions in them. Bring back the 'let's go out to the lobby' bit.

Not likely, considering that a sizable number of braindead moviegoers got up and left after the first half of Grindhouse, thinking it was over.


Offline Jeyl

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #79 on: July 15, 2007, 05:37:03 PM »
My biggest beef was the running time. Come on, hollywood. If you're going to continue making half-day long movies, put some intermissions in them. Bring back the 'let's go out to the lobby' bit.
What would you have cleared out than? If you have a problem with the running time, than there obviously is some material that can be removed that won't be missed.

From what I've seen, I don't think the running time was an issue for the masses. Sure Casino Royale is the longest running Bond film to date but It's also the highest grossing Bond film to date with the world wide gross coming in almost at 600 million dollars.

So what in this film could have been cut out that would have made the 94% positive reviews on rottentomatoes.com more positive?


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #80 on: July 15, 2007, 11:28:40 PM »
I would have cut most of the nonsense in Venice. Did anyone seriously believe Bond was going to retire from MI6 and run off with Vesper? She couldn't have been more doomed if she'd beamed down with Kirk and Spock wearing a red shirt. The moment Bond tenders his resignation, the entire audience is waiting for her inevitable death. I love the movie, but each of the three time I've seen it, I start to zone out during the sinking building setpiece.


Offline Ortega

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Liked: 33
    • Ortega's Covers
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #81 on: July 15, 2007, 11:42:03 PM »
She couldn't have been more doomed if she'd beamed down with Kirk and Spock wearing a red shirt.


 :D :D :D


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #82 on: July 16, 2007, 12:02:02 AM »

I wish I had access to Photoshop right now, but I think you get the idea...


Offline Ortega

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Liked: 33
    • Ortega's Covers
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #83 on: July 16, 2007, 12:07:45 AM »
 :D :D :D :D :D :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


i actually fell out of my chair laughing.......


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #84 on: July 16, 2007, 12:11:50 AM »
Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.


Offline Bob

  • Afraid of the Wind
  • Posts: 21333
  • Liked: 2405
  • Complete waste of time at www.robertpreed.com
    • My Stunning Home Page
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #85 on: July 16, 2007, 04:25:39 PM »
That was good.........   :D


Offline nxylas

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #86 on: August 20, 2007, 08:59:42 AM »
You know, I'm glad they chose this movie over an easy target like Moonraker. It's received so much undeserved adulation that it needs someone to point out that it's just as absurd and implausible as any other Bond film, despite its "for your consideration" pretentions.


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #87 on: August 21, 2007, 08:49:07 AM »
The new and improved version:



Offline nosebleed

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
    • Nosebleed Industries
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2007, 11:46:19 AM »
Actually, I could see "A View to A Kill" getting riffed more than "Moonraker". What an atrocious monster that was... and Christopher Walken, Moore being in his late 50s in that movie are easy targets... but I do love "Casino Royale" and "The Living Daylights" (Even if it did have Mitchell!), I think Dalton is horribly underrated (He was good in Hot Fuzz, too).
Sean


Offline Road_Element

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Liked: 51
  • The Names Servo, Tom Servo
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #89 on: July 17, 2008, 03:13:36 PM »
Me, I am a big James Bond fan, hence the 007 in my screen name.

But to me this was a dull dull Bond movie. Basically it is Bond stripped of most all of it's action, crank up the amount of sex, and give no big gadgets. And what a crappy plot. Oh bad guy tries to blow up a plane and fails so he has to win back the money before the terrorist kill him. Yawn.  No witty 1 liners, no big action packed gun fights. There were a few sparse action sequences, but they were overly far fetched even by bond standards. Come on the crane chase was laughable (Bond SMASH!!) when the bad guy is part kangaroo.

I will admit there have been some turkeys in the Bond Franchise (Moonraker, Die Another Day, etc) Heck I actually like some of the classic Bond formula. You get good action sequences, cool gadgets, you get naked chicks in the credits, and you get funny quips.

I would like to see other Bond films done (DAD, TLD, Moonraker, etc), but this deserved it in my opinion..

Also feel LOTR needed it too. I am not a LOTR fan and that movie is too damn long with out the riffing.

To the bolded portion, so basically what you're saying is that it was dull because it was more dignified and cerebral than the two hour explosions we've come to expect from Bond movies and instead more closely resembles the books and the Connery movies than the mediocre, drawn-out explosions or cheesy jokes that Brosnan and Moore were known for?

Dont be so hard on Rattrap007. I think this film had it coming for being the most pretentious and self important bond movie ever made. Not to mention the one hour of boredom by the poker scene. Not to mention that the connery movies were at least fun to watch. Not this Bourne Rip-off
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 03:15:54 PM by Road_Element »