The problem with all this unresolved stuff is that it gives a lot for Bond 22 to hark back to: and that's if they can be even bothered. I'm not sure the writers care much about all these plotholes; they got away with it didn't they? Otherwise, 2 years after, they have to go back and explain all this stuff and generally speaking, each new film benefits from not having to look backwards much at all, or being much connected to its predessessor.
I think #22 will hearken back to certain dangling plot threads in CR...but they'll pick and choose which ones, and I'm nearly 100% certain they won't answer most of the many questions raised in this thread.
Given the statements that #22 starts "two minutes after" CR ends, and that Eon has indicated that it will be a continuation of sorts, I expect to see some linkage between the two films---but not so much that those who boycotted CR will be completely lost if they change their minds and buy tickets for #22 )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Given the statements that #22 starts "two minutes after" CR ends, and that Eon has indicated that it will be a continuation of sorts, I expect to see some linkage between the two films---but not so much that those who boycotted CR will be completely lost if they change their minds and buy tickets for #22 )
ZIIIIINNG!! {:)
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Given the statements that #22 starts "two minutes after" CR ends, and that Eon has indicated that it will be a continuation of sorts, I expect to see some linkage between the two films---but not so much that those who boycotted CR will be completely lost if they change their minds and buy tickets for #22 )
ZIIIIINNG!! {:)
"Sigh" Must you two stay obsessed over the more sophmoric phase of the Craig debate? I can't help having a Ben Stiller fit here, but it's like hearing again some old joke that grandpa heard from a 3rd grader that he finds so hilarious that must tell it to you again and again and again for the 32nd time. Must every CR retrospection somehow, lead into a caveat on the brilliance of CR/Craig/Barbara/Campbell, et al., against all odds, even though the discussion has nothing to do with "Poor Danny"? If anything, that shows me that you yourselves still nurse doubts about CR that you need to defend or compensate for like a mother of an awkward teenager. Maybe you don't feel comfortable that CR and Craig can stand on their own and nurse a sense of obligation to defend it? I think CR/Craig's success can speak for itself...any need for vindication or recompense has passed so long ago...and actually took place so long ago, don't you think?
It's not exactly CnB, but discussions here sometimes smack of the same maturity level, you know?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Er, I'm lost, what did blueman's ZIIING mean? And is he and superado for or against Craig? ?:)
The ZIIIING was blue's resounding agreement with Loeff's snub against the boycotters. Unfortunately, the "for or against" Craig debate lives on in stark black and white contrast for these guys.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
And a look at your favourites list confirms your attitude to CR, superado {[]
Well...it's on the list, it's not last, but most importantly, it's a Bond movie just as NSNA and CR 67 are, but in some respect, more so!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I *still* don't understand why Le Chiffre needs an account number from Vesper. If he typed in Bond's password and Vesper's account number he'd just be sending the funds to Vesper's account!
Hahaha, loved that movie, but darnit, (Belle de Jour) leaves too much...too much of the really interesting stuff (Catherine Deneuve's attributes) to the imagination!
Although I'm mostly a less-is-more kind of guy now, more of Catherine would have been welcomed. In fact, I remember seeing the movie as a young teenager and being very disappointed, because -- art be damned -- the only reason I went to see it was to see her naked.
I *still* don't understand why Le Chiffre needs an account number from Vesper. If he typed in Bond's password and Vesper's account number he'd just be sending the funds to Vesper's account!
If you subscribe to my view of how the plot unfolded, he indeed wouldn't need the account number, only the password. But he pretended to need the account number when talking to Bond so that Bond would believe she would be tortured for it.
Hahaha, loved that movie, but darnit, (Belle de Jour) leaves too much...too much of the really interesting stuff (Catherine Deneuve's attributes) to the imagination!
Although I'm mostly a less-is-more kind of guy now, more of Catherine would have been welcomed. In fact, I remember seeing the movie as a young teenager and being very disappointed, because -- art be damned -- the only reason I went to see it was to see her naked.
I too wish that we had seen more of Catherine. She is really gorgeous.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Hahaha, loved that movie, but darnit, (Belle de Jour) leaves too much...too much of the really interesting stuff (Catherine Deneuve's attributes) to the imagination!
Although I'm mostly a less-is-more kind of guy now, more of Catherine would have been welcomed. In fact, I remember seeing the movie as a young teenager and being very disappointed, because -- art be damned -- the only reason I went to see it was to see her naked.
I too wish that we had seen more of Catherine. She is really gorgeous.
Just a kid, too, at the time. She had an older sister, some of you older guys might remember, Francoise D'Orleac (sp?} who was very beautiful as well, although not in Catherine's super-sophisticated way. She was more of a hippie. She was killed in a car crash in Paris. The two were co-stars in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, the most god-awful musical I've ever seen but a darling of the critics.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Er, I'm lost, what did blueman's ZIIING mean? And is he and superado for or against Craig? ?:)
The ZIIIING was blue's resounding agreement with Loeff's snub against the boycotters. Unfortunately, the "for or against" Craig debate lives on in stark black and white contrast for these guys.
But most of all for you...right?? Otherwise, why the sudden eruption of hostility?? Because I posted a sentence joking about boycotters changing their minds and seeing #22?? Good God, man. I've always given you credit for more class than that.
Wow. 'Sigh' indeed. That's disappointing 8-)
I'll not speak to the 'zing,' since that wasn't mine...but my comment was NOT a 'snub,' nor was it a caveat on the brilliance of whomever. It was just a bit of good-natured ribbing---aimed at no one on this site, since I'm not aware of any boycotters who are active posters here, or I'd not have made the remark. I should have just said, "Those who didn't see CR won't be completely lost." Jeez 8-)
I haven't started a thread in the CR forum since I don't know when, because I've been far too busy looking forward to #22, rather than back at #21. I can see now I shouldn't have joined in on this particular thread---the hypersensitive territory of your own personal little CR discussion---and I'm sincerely sorry for having done so, as your disconcerting eagerness to be offended in this area is now (too late!) perfectly clear to me. You remind me of that anectodal 80 year-old Japanese soldier, running around, alone, on a South Pacific Island, still fighting WWII in his own mind---only in your case, it's the Craig Wars
Well, too bad for you. You've got more baggage than American Tourister, and I'll not help you tote it. You see, in fact, I have moved on.
Therefore, I don't think I'm the one with the problem, but nevertheless I'll steer well clear this thread from now on---I promise---and you know I'm a man of my word.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I *still* don't understand why Le Chiffre needs an account number from Vesper. If he typed in Bond's password and Vesper's account number he'd just be sending the funds to Vesper's account!
I always thought he "kidnapped" Vesper to lure Bond out in the open--what he really needs is the password. The account verbiage was just that: he already has it, and from the end of the card game on it's all a show to get the password from Bond.
As for snubbing CNBers, I'll do that all day, happily, and with no apologies to anyone. They suck, they aren't Bond fans, and the whole boycott thing was was dumber than having a sickness that needs more cowbell to cure. CNBers are an indelible part of Bond lore now, and I reserve the right to give them a hearty ZIIIINNG whenever somebody else opens that door--I do have a chip on my shoulder about how all that went down, and I'm obviously not alone (from both sides of the fence, apparently). Didn't think my add-on comment (or Loeff's little snub I added on to) was excessive, or too off-topicy (although this defense of it is ).
If somebody wants to talk that Craig's not their favorite Bond, well that's a-okay. But the CNBers are an entirely different kettle of fish, worthy of all the derision that will forever get heaped on them by (yep, I'm going there...) TRUE Bond fans. Sorry for this thread-hyjack rebuttal, like Loeff I'll bow out of now, pretty much gave all my on-topic thoughts already.
The two were co-stars in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, the most god-awful musical I've ever seen but a darling of the critics.
Why did you dislike it?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The two were co-stars in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, the most god-awful musical I've ever seen but a darling of the critics.
Why did you dislike it?
Loved it myself. ;%
Actually I think I'm wrong. The sisters co-starred in in the second most god-awful musical ever made, The Young Ladies of Rochefort or something like that. I don't know the title in English.
Why I don't like Umbrellas? It's just not the type of musical I care for. I happen to love musicals, though I don't broadcast that fact when I go to motorcycle rallies ) I acquired a taste for them through my mom, I think, who was a dedicated Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers fan. So I've watched a lot of 'em. And if I may be permitted to indulge in a little flag waving for just a moment: American musicals are the gold standard for me. The Greeks have Sophocles; the Brits have Shakespeare; the French, Moliere. We have Rogers and Hammerstein. Not that there aren't a number of crappy American musicals out there, but Broadway and Hollywood understand (or they used to, when they still made musicals regularly) what a musical is. European musical theater tends lean more towards light opera -- which is fine, if you like light opera where every word of dialogue is sung. It's not to my taste.
The problem is, when everything is sung, little is memorable. Take Evita for instance. Great story. It could have been a great classic. But Andrew Lloyd Webber, for all his musical talent, ain't Mozart and can't sustain two solid hours of memorable music (and the lyrics are awful -- it literally sounds like sung dialogue, and wooden dialogue at that). Besides Don't Cry for Me, Argentina, can anyone name a single tune from that show? And can you imagine anyone actually singing them in the shower? The songs have to underline and relate to the action and help draw the characters in the play. They have to be sharp lyrically. They have to stand out. They aren't just dialogue set to music.
Contrast Evita with Guys and Dolls: There's Adelaide, Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat, The Oldest Established, Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York, and of course, Luck be a Lady. How about My Fair Lady? You've gotWith a Little Bit of Luck, Why Can't the English Teach their Children How to Speak?, Wouldn't It Be Loverly?, The Street Where You Live (of course, that show's book and cast prove there's no dearth of raw material for musicals outside the U.S.) Even if you don't care for the genre, you've probably heard the tunes and have an idea of where they came from.
So Umbrellas really falls into the former category for me. Just not my thing at all. I'm anxious to see the musical version of Young Frankenstein that's making its way to Broadway. That ought to be a kick in the butt.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The two were co-stars in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, the most god-awful musical I've ever seen but a darling of the critics.
Why did you dislike it?
Loved it myself. ;%
I loved specifically the vibrant use of colors, the Michel Legrand music and of course, Catherine Deneuve. Also loved The Young Girls of Rochefort, which was cheesy (or "cheesier" if one thinks "Umbrellas" was too). Would these movies count as opera musicals, since every line was sung and not spoken?
EDIT: Missed HH's post about that. Yes, it was "Young Girls" that had the sisters. The only other films I remember seeing that starred Francois Dorleac are Billion Dollar Brain and Our Man in Rio (or something like that) that starred Jean Paul Belmondo and Adolfo Celi as the villain. Loved both, very very 60's. I got Billion $ on DVD but I've been looking for "Rio" on DVD for some time with little luck; has this become available?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I loved specifically the vibrant use of colors, the Michel Legrand music and of course, Catherine Deneuve. Also loved The Young Girls of Rochefort, which was cheesy (or "cheesier" if one thinks "Umbrellas" was too). Would these movies count as opera musicals, since every line was sung and not spoken?
EDIT: Missed HH's post about that. Yes, it was "Young Girls" that had the sisters. The only other films I remember seeing that starred Francois Dorleac are Billion Dollar Brain and Our Man in Rio (or something like that) that starred Jean Paul Belmondo and Adolfo Celi as the villain. Loved both, very very 60's. I got Billion $ on DVD but I've been looking for "Rio" on DVD for some time with little luck; has this become available?
It was L'Homme de Rio in French and you're right. Dorleac was the kidnapped girlfriend. What a movie! When I was a kid living in France, it was kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark is to kids today. I thought it was the most exciting movie I'd ever seen at the time. Belmondo was fantastic. I'd love to see it again. It's been years.
Man, everybody who mentions that Rio film talks about it like that, just gotta see that darn thing someday. High praise from HH and supes, that's two savvy dudes' worth of thumbs way up. {[] I'm envious.
Man, everybody who mentions that Rio film talks about it like that, just gotta see that darn thing someday. High praise from HH and supes, that's two savvy dudes' worth of thumbs way up. {[] I'm envious.
Welllll -- It was a long time ago and time isn't always kind to movie memories. I remember going to see Alice's Restaurant when it first came out and thinking for years that it was one of the best films I had ever seen. Then, just 2-3 years ago I saw it again for the first time. I realized to my dismay that it was certain -- we'll call them enhancements -- that I was partial to as a youth that apparently gave the film its gravitas (Although I still enjoyed the final 20 minutes in which they reenact the song and Arlo's visit to the draft induction center).
Moreoever, I always wonder if younger audiences who have grown up with more and more spectacular stunts will be as enthralled as I was with an older film like Man From Rio which were not as technically advanced. I just remember it as basically a two-hour, nonstop action-comedy with a very engaging and athletic Belmondo trying to save his girlfriend from kidnappers. A real cliffhanger kind of flick and a lot of fun.
I realized to my dismay that it was certain -- we'll call them enhancements -- that I was partial to as a youth that apparently gave the film its gravitas
At last we find out the REAL reason why highhopes likes CR!
This bit of information also sheds some insight into your username, hh!
I *still* don't understand why Le Chiffre needs an account number from Vesper. If he typed in Bond's password and Vesper's account number he'd just be sending the funds to Vesper's account!
I always thought he "kidnapped" Vesper to lure Bond out in the open--what he really needs is the password. The account verbiage was just that: he already has it, and from the end of the card game on it's all a show to get the password from Bond.
How do we know that le chiffre has the account number 'already'??
I realized to my dismay that it was certain -- we'll call them enhancements -- that I was partial to as a youth that apparently gave the film its gravitas
At last we find out the REAL reason why highhopes likes CR!
This bit of information also sheds some insight into your username, hh!
Verrrrrrry clever, Mr. Hat. ) I will bide my time before attempting a rejoinder :v
I realized to my dismay that it was certain -- we'll call them enhancements -- that I was partial to as a youth that apparently gave the film its gravitas
At last we find out the REAL reason why highhopes likes CR!
This bit of information also sheds some insight into your username, hh!
Verrrrrrry clever, Mr. Hat. ) I will bide my time before attempting a rejoinder :v
I've always accepted the "Mathis needs me" section as something that makes sense within the story, it's just not fully explained to the viewer. Because I believe that that internal logic is in place, I just go with it--and Bond.
I have to totally agree with you on this. I have watched CR too many times to count and thats the only part of the movie that bothers me (and my fiance) because it kinda comes out of no where and leaves you going, "how the hell did he get one thing from the other?" But in the end I just chalk it up to Bond being instinctive and just knowing things sometimes and thats good enough for me.
*~Orbis Non Sufficit~*
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I've always accepted the "Mathis needs me" section as something that makes sense within the story, it's just not fully explained to the viewer. Because I believe that that internal logic is in place, I just go with it--and Bond.
I have to totally agree with you on this. I have watched CR too many times to count and thats the only part of the movie that bothers me (and my fiance) because it kinda comes out of no where and leaves you going, "how the hell did he get one thing from the other?" But in the end I just chalk it up to Bond being instinctive and just knowing things sometimes and thats good enough for me.
What you are describing is plainly not fully understanding what's going on despite the pieces all being there to figure out (which I experience regularly during the 1st viewing of a movie), compared to when there actually may be some missing, critical pieces of information, which seems to be what "Mathis needs me" is proving to be based on the fact that no one has sufficiently explained for it after several pages of this thread.
"Internal logic" is a good explanation in real life, such as a palpable sense of foreboding that drives a person into frenzied action, like bolting up from your bed in the middle of the night thinking that your wife left the garage door open or jerking your head to the left for speeding cars trying to beat the red light.
But that brings us back to earlier posts about the format of literature and film, where logical integrity demands an accounting for key plot elements that would categorically include this sequence. Second, by its very nature actions in a narative do not occur in a vacuum and must at some point be visible to the observer; movies with "twists" best illustrate this, like the big reveal in "The Usual Suspects." Unless it's been earlier established that Bond's character is a clarvoyant or highly instinctual in a 6th sense manner, the knowledge Bond gained from "Mathis needs me" bolted him into action, i.e., it follows that something about that information cognitively signalled certain danger for Vesper and as far as we're concerned, that detail is missing in the film's final cut.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
What you are describing is plainly not fully understanding what's going on despite the pieces all being there to figure out (which I experience regularly during the 1st viewing of a movie), compared to when there actually may be some missing, critical pieces of information, which seems to be what "Mathis needs me" is proving to be based on the fact that no one has sufficiently explained for it after several pages of this thread.
You're quite right- it just doesn't work. I'm rather looking forward to the new DVD of it- surely they'll mention this in the commentary?
Comments
I think #22 will hearken back to certain dangling plot threads in CR...but they'll pick and choose which ones, and I'm nearly 100% certain they won't answer most of the many questions raised in this thread.
Given the statements that #22 starts "two minutes after" CR ends, and that Eon has indicated that it will be a continuation of sorts, I expect to see some linkage between the two films---but not so much that those who boycotted CR will be completely lost if they change their minds and buy tickets for #22
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Sigh" Must you two stay obsessed over the more sophmoric phase of the Craig debate? I can't help having a Ben Stiller fit here, but it's like hearing again some old joke that grandpa heard from a 3rd grader that he finds so hilarious that must tell it to you again and again and again for the 32nd time. Must every CR retrospection somehow, lead into a caveat on the brilliance of CR/Craig/Barbara/Campbell, et al., against all odds, even though the discussion has nothing to do with "Poor Danny"? If anything, that shows me that you yourselves still nurse doubts about CR that you need to defend or compensate for like a mother of an awkward teenager. Maybe you don't feel comfortable that CR and Craig can stand on their own and nurse a sense of obligation to defend it? I think CR/Craig's success can speak for itself...any need for vindication or recompense has passed so long ago...and actually took place so long ago, don't you think?
It's not exactly CnB, but discussions here sometimes smack of the same maturity level, you know?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The ZIIIING was blue's resounding agreement with Loeff's snub against the boycotters. Unfortunately, the "for or against" Craig debate lives on in stark black and white contrast for these guys.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well...it's on the list, it's not last, but most importantly, it's a Bond movie just as NSNA and CR 67 are, but in some respect, more so!
Although I'm mostly a less-is-more kind of guy now, more of Catherine would have been welcomed. In fact, I remember seeing the movie as a young teenager and being very disappointed, because -- art be damned -- the only reason I went to see it was to see her naked.
But back to Casino Royale
If you subscribe to my view of how the plot unfolded, he indeed wouldn't need the account number, only the password. But he pretended to need the account number when talking to Bond so that Bond would believe she would be tortured for it.
Just a kid, too, at the time. She had an older sister, some of you older guys might remember, Francoise D'Orleac (sp?} who was very beautiful as well, although not in Catherine's super-sophisticated way. She was more of a hippie. She was killed in a car crash in Paris. The two were co-stars in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, the most god-awful musical I've ever seen but a darling of the critics.
But most of all for you...right?? Otherwise, why the sudden eruption of hostility?? Because I posted a sentence joking about boycotters changing their minds and seeing #22?? Good God, man. I've always given you credit for more class than that.
Wow. 'Sigh' indeed. That's disappointing 8-)
I'll not speak to the 'zing,' since that wasn't mine...but my comment was NOT a 'snub,' nor was it a caveat on the brilliance of whomever. It was just a bit of good-natured ribbing---aimed at no one on this site, since I'm not aware of any boycotters who are active posters here, or I'd not have made the remark. I should have just said, "Those who didn't see CR won't be completely lost." Jeez 8-)
I haven't started a thread in the CR forum since I don't know when, because I've been far too busy looking forward to #22, rather than back at #21. I can see now I shouldn't have joined in on this particular thread---the hypersensitive territory of your own personal little CR discussion---and I'm sincerely sorry for having done so, as your disconcerting eagerness to be offended in this area is now (too late!) perfectly clear to me. You remind me of that anectodal 80 year-old Japanese soldier, running around, alone, on a South Pacific Island, still fighting WWII in his own mind---only in your case, it's the Craig Wars
Well, too bad for you. You've got more baggage than American Tourister, and I'll not help you tote it. You see, in fact, I have moved on.
Therefore, I don't think I'm the one with the problem, but nevertheless I'll steer well clear this thread from now on---I promise---and you know I'm a man of my word.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As for snubbing CNBers, I'll do that all day, happily, and with no apologies to anyone. They suck, they aren't Bond fans, and the whole boycott thing was was dumber than having a sickness that needs more cowbell to cure. CNBers are an indelible part of Bond lore now, and I reserve the right to give them a hearty ZIIIINNG whenever somebody else opens that door--I do have a chip on my shoulder about how all that went down, and I'm obviously not alone (from both sides of the fence, apparently). Didn't think my add-on comment (or Loeff's little snub I added on to) was excessive, or too off-topicy (although this defense of it is
If somebody wants to talk that Craig's not their favorite Bond, well that's a-okay. But the CNBers are an entirely different kettle of fish, worthy of all the derision that will forever get heaped on them by (yep, I'm going there...) TRUE Bond fans. Sorry for this thread-hyjack rebuttal, like Loeff I'll bow out of now, pretty much gave all my on-topic thoughts already.
Actually I think I'm wrong. The sisters co-starred in in the second most god-awful musical ever made, The Young Ladies of Rochefort or something like that. I don't know the title in English.
Why I don't like Umbrellas? It's just not the type of musical I care for. I happen to love musicals, though I don't broadcast that fact when I go to motorcycle rallies
The problem is, when everything is sung, little is memorable. Take Evita for instance. Great story. It could have been a great classic. But Andrew Lloyd Webber, for all his musical talent, ain't Mozart and can't sustain two solid hours of memorable music (and the lyrics are awful -- it literally sounds like sung dialogue, and wooden dialogue at that). Besides Don't Cry for Me, Argentina, can anyone name a single tune from that show? And can you imagine anyone actually singing them in the shower? The songs have to underline and relate to the action and help draw the characters in the play. They have to be sharp lyrically. They have to stand out. They aren't just dialogue set to music.
Contrast Evita with Guys and Dolls: There's Adelaide, Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat, The Oldest Established, Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York, and of course, Luck be a Lady. How about My Fair Lady? You've gotWith a Little Bit of Luck, Why Can't the English Teach their Children How to Speak?, Wouldn't It Be Loverly?, The Street Where You Live (of course, that show's book and cast prove there's no dearth of raw material for musicals outside the U.S.) Even if you don't care for the genre, you've probably heard the tunes and have an idea of where they came from.
So Umbrellas really falls into the former category for me. Just not my thing at all. I'm anxious to see the musical version of Young Frankenstein that's making its way to Broadway. That ought to be a kick in the butt.
I loved specifically the vibrant use of colors, the Michel Legrand music and of course, Catherine Deneuve. Also loved The Young Girls of Rochefort, which was cheesy (or "cheesier" if one thinks "Umbrellas" was too). Would these movies count as opera musicals, since every line was sung and not spoken?
EDIT: Missed HH's post about that. Yes, it was "Young Girls" that had the sisters. The only other films I remember seeing that starred Francois Dorleac are Billion Dollar Brain and Our Man in Rio (or something like that) that starred Jean Paul Belmondo and Adolfo Celi as the villain. Loved both, very very 60's. I got Billion $ on DVD but I've been looking for "Rio" on DVD for some time with little luck; has this become available?
It was L'Homme de Rio in French and you're right. Dorleac was the kidnapped girlfriend. What a movie! When I was a kid living in France, it was kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark is to kids today. I thought it was the most exciting movie I'd ever seen at the time. Belmondo was fantastic. I'd love to see it again. It's been years.
Welllll -- It was a long time ago and time isn't always kind to movie memories. I remember going to see Alice's Restaurant when it first came out and thinking for years that it was one of the best films I had ever seen. Then, just 2-3 years ago I saw it again for the first time. I realized to my dismay that it was certain -- we'll call them enhancements -- that I was partial to as a youth that apparently gave the film its gravitas (Although I still enjoyed the final 20 minutes in which they reenact the song and Arlo's visit to the draft induction center).
Moreoever, I always wonder if younger audiences who have grown up with more and more spectacular stunts will be as enthralled as I was with an older film like Man From Rio which were not as technically advanced. I just remember it as basically a two-hour, nonstop action-comedy with a very engaging and athletic Belmondo trying to save his girlfriend from kidnappers. A real cliffhanger kind of flick and a lot of fun.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
At last we find out the REAL reason why highhopes likes CR!
This bit of information also sheds some insight into your username, hh!
How do we know that le chiffre has the account number 'already'??
Verrrrrrry clever, Mr. Hat.
As for you Mr. Plural -- I will deal with you later as well.
But pray tell, both of you: Where is your master? my own personal Bloefeld, the dastardly ...
DAN SAME!!!!!!!! I can feel his presence, hovering in cyberspace, ready to pounce from his lair Down Under...
All in good fun, my friend! -{
I have to totally agree with you on this. I have watched CR too many times to count and thats the only part of the movie that bothers me (and my fiance) because it kinda comes out of no where and leaves you going, "how the hell did he get one thing from the other?" But in the end I just chalk it up to Bond being instinctive and just knowing things sometimes and thats good enough for me.
What you are describing is plainly not fully understanding what's going on despite the pieces all being there to figure out (which I experience regularly during the 1st viewing of a movie), compared to when there actually may be some missing, critical pieces of information, which seems to be what "Mathis needs me" is proving to be based on the fact that no one has sufficiently explained for it after several pages of this thread.
"Internal logic" is a good explanation in real life, such as a palpable sense of foreboding that drives a person into frenzied action, like bolting up from your bed in the middle of the night thinking that your wife left the garage door open or jerking your head to the left for speeding cars trying to beat the red light.
But that brings us back to earlier posts about the format of literature and film, where logical integrity demands an accounting for key plot elements that would categorically include this sequence. Second, by its very nature actions in a narative do not occur in a vacuum and must at some point be visible to the observer; movies with "twists" best illustrate this, like the big reveal in "The Usual Suspects." Unless it's been earlier established that Bond's character is a clarvoyant or highly instinctual in a 6th sense manner, the knowledge Bond gained from "Mathis needs me" bolted him into action, i.e., it follows that something about that information cognitively signalled certain danger for Vesper and as far as we're concerned, that detail is missing in the film's final cut.
And hey, did you see the DBS spin over and crash like a bazillion times...whoa!
You're quite right- it just doesn't work. I'm rather looking forward to the new DVD of it- surely they'll mention this in the commentary?