if you haven't yet seen it.....
crawfordboon
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
(apologies in advance for any offence caused)Oh and some potential SPOILERS!!!
....DON'T BOTHER!!!! This film is a travesty. I've just seen it, eagerly turning up at one of the earliest showings on its first day on general release, like some little terrier beckoned by his master. I feel sick with myself. It was startlingly bad. How they can honestly say that this belongs in the same series as entries like Diamonds Are Forever and Live and Let Die is beyond me.
It would have been laughable had it not been so tragic; as it is I think we're faced with the death of James Bond. I ask myself, how can something I've looked forward to, something that has been so highly praised, be such a disappointment?? What do the film critics get paid for? What's the matter with them? This should have been branded Mission Impossible 4 for all the flavour of James Bond that it has. The plot doesn't start until halfway through, most of the action sequences are uninvolving, repetitive and overlong. There is a long set piece poker game in the middle that reminds me of the Quiddich match in Harry Potter or the race scene in the middle of Phantom Menace for how long and staged it is. The acting is wooden. The leads have very little chemistry between them. The plot is full of holes and is threadbare at the very best. The trappings of James Bond, like the theme, are gone. And most importantly, Daniel Craig is not Bond. I mean this 100% - halfway through a chase sequence, after wondering who was being chased and why (since the film had not established this) I asked myself - who is this person chasing him? Apparently it was James Bond, but so unconvincing is Craig that I really did wonder whether all this publicity about him wasn't just some really overstaged gag, to cover up the surprise that Pierce Brosnan was still the star. Unfortunately not, we're stuck with an uncharismatic lead.
Worse, the film gives us no reason to care about any of the characters, for the most part their motivations are unclear, and because so much of what we see consequently has little meaning, it becomes boring. I lost track of the number of times I checked my watch, hoping the film would get on with it, cut to the chase (It's far too long, as well). The finale is limp, every plot development is entirely contrived, and there's a palpable lack of humour.
More artistically, the film just doesn't have the James Bond sense of fun. What happened to camp sight gags, cheesy dialogue, overplayed double-entendres, a smug and unflappable 007, and comic relief characters? All are missing in this horrendous abortive stepchild of a Bond film.
Usually I consider the willingness to buy the DVD or see it again as a benchmark for a quality film. Well let me say that I got a text from a friend as I was leaving the cinema, wondering if I want to see it with him next weekend. I'll have to ring him later, when I've calmed down, to apologize for the abusive reply he received.
I wish I could say this was a sarcastic review, which represents a mocking of cynics and critics, but sadly not. The film is technically competent and well photographed, which is to be expected for such an experienced crew , but it is too far from the conventional Bond style that it doesn't deserve the status as a 'Bond film'. It seems to have been created with the idea of making Bond "the way Ian Fleming saw him" - if that's the aim then so be it, so long as you accept that Fleming's Bond is a cinematic dud here. We have come to expect OUR James Bond, that of the cinema, to have debonair charm, suaveness and sophistication, and a complete knowledge that not only is he unbeatable, but that everything he is witnessing and involving himself in is entirely ridiculous and preposterous. Sadly that is missing. Instead we have a film pretentious enough to take itself far too seriously, trying to make Bond a human with "emotions" - it's a noble attempt I guess but it founders onscreen and is plain embarrassing when Bond tells Vesper "I Love You" despite there being no credibility whatsoever for such a development, with the aforementioned lack of chemistry and wooden delivery exacerbating the problem.
I'm sorry if this has seemed aggressive and angry, but my blood is boiling after the sh1t EON served up today. It's reasonable to tell it how I see it - God knows there have been enough reviewers praising the "gritty" and "vulnerable" style of the new Bond, so if these people can have their say, I don't see why my equally honest opinion can't be heard alongside it.
....DON'T BOTHER!!!! This film is a travesty. I've just seen it, eagerly turning up at one of the earliest showings on its first day on general release, like some little terrier beckoned by his master. I feel sick with myself. It was startlingly bad. How they can honestly say that this belongs in the same series as entries like Diamonds Are Forever and Live and Let Die is beyond me.
It would have been laughable had it not been so tragic; as it is I think we're faced with the death of James Bond. I ask myself, how can something I've looked forward to, something that has been so highly praised, be such a disappointment?? What do the film critics get paid for? What's the matter with them? This should have been branded Mission Impossible 4 for all the flavour of James Bond that it has. The plot doesn't start until halfway through, most of the action sequences are uninvolving, repetitive and overlong. There is a long set piece poker game in the middle that reminds me of the Quiddich match in Harry Potter or the race scene in the middle of Phantom Menace for how long and staged it is. The acting is wooden. The leads have very little chemistry between them. The plot is full of holes and is threadbare at the very best. The trappings of James Bond, like the theme, are gone. And most importantly, Daniel Craig is not Bond. I mean this 100% - halfway through a chase sequence, after wondering who was being chased and why (since the film had not established this) I asked myself - who is this person chasing him? Apparently it was James Bond, but so unconvincing is Craig that I really did wonder whether all this publicity about him wasn't just some really overstaged gag, to cover up the surprise that Pierce Brosnan was still the star. Unfortunately not, we're stuck with an uncharismatic lead.
Worse, the film gives us no reason to care about any of the characters, for the most part their motivations are unclear, and because so much of what we see consequently has little meaning, it becomes boring. I lost track of the number of times I checked my watch, hoping the film would get on with it, cut to the chase (It's far too long, as well). The finale is limp, every plot development is entirely contrived, and there's a palpable lack of humour.
More artistically, the film just doesn't have the James Bond sense of fun. What happened to camp sight gags, cheesy dialogue, overplayed double-entendres, a smug and unflappable 007, and comic relief characters? All are missing in this horrendous abortive stepchild of a Bond film.
Usually I consider the willingness to buy the DVD or see it again as a benchmark for a quality film. Well let me say that I got a text from a friend as I was leaving the cinema, wondering if I want to see it with him next weekend. I'll have to ring him later, when I've calmed down, to apologize for the abusive reply he received.
I wish I could say this was a sarcastic review, which represents a mocking of cynics and critics, but sadly not. The film is technically competent and well photographed, which is to be expected for such an experienced crew , but it is too far from the conventional Bond style that it doesn't deserve the status as a 'Bond film'. It seems to have been created with the idea of making Bond "the way Ian Fleming saw him" - if that's the aim then so be it, so long as you accept that Fleming's Bond is a cinematic dud here. We have come to expect OUR James Bond, that of the cinema, to have debonair charm, suaveness and sophistication, and a complete knowledge that not only is he unbeatable, but that everything he is witnessing and involving himself in is entirely ridiculous and preposterous. Sadly that is missing. Instead we have a film pretentious enough to take itself far too seriously, trying to make Bond a human with "emotions" - it's a noble attempt I guess but it founders onscreen and is plain embarrassing when Bond tells Vesper "I Love You" despite there being no credibility whatsoever for such a development, with the aforementioned lack of chemistry and wooden delivery exacerbating the problem.
I'm sorry if this has seemed aggressive and angry, but my blood is boiling after the sh1t EON served up today. It's reasonable to tell it how I see it - God knows there have been enough reviewers praising the "gritty" and "vulnerable" style of the new Bond, so if these people can have their say, I don't see why my equally honest opinion can't be heard alongside it.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
'More artistically, the film just doesn't have the James Bond sense of fun. What happened to camp sight gags, cheesy dialogue, overplayed double-entendres, a smug and unflappable 007, and comic relief characters? '
Watch a Roger Moore film then ! lol
Not everyone is gonna like it but it's good to see why people don't like it with references, rather than just beiing peeved that DC is playing JB. Although I agree that it was perhaps 2o mins too long.
Are you telling me the camp sight gags, cheesy dialogue, overplayed double-entendres, a smug and unflappable 007, and comic relief characters are all missing?
{[] Praise be to Jesus!!!!!
(Thanks for leaving in the sex and violence, though)
ha ha Double H, nice one
yes, indeed! And what was with the lack of cool gadgets? The tracker bug thing was functional enough but it's been done before. le Chiffre's inahler was a rather patehtic way of saying about a bland man "we know he's evil, he draws sugestively on an inhaler, oooh!" And although the Bods are known for JB always having the right gadget for the moment, the fact theat he has a defibrilator in his glovebox is just too much. Le Chiffre himself was, aprt from a Blofeld-like scar and the aforementioned inhaler, bland and nondescript - entirely unmemorable.
Not read the novel than? Le Chiffre in the novel used an inhaler too. Sounds to me like they're sticking pretty faithfully to the source material.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=27098
Otherwise the site will be swimming in individual member's review threads; yours isn't any more noteworthy than anyone else's so it doesn't need its own thread.
Thanks.