Biggest Suprise: The way that the gunbarrel was inroduced was fantastic! also Daniel's over all performance.
Biggest Disappointment: I thought Felix Leiter was ging to have a bigger role, he didnt have enough screen time, hopefully in bond 22 they will incorporate him more into the story.
They could have Felix in Bond 22, they could be working together but he gets captured and tortured, perhaps even ala CR. Then Bond could save him and quip "jeez, Felix, man up a little," and Felix says "mine aren't brass."
Biggest surprise #1: The outstanding performance of Daniel Craig as JB. I was expecting him to be decent, but I was blown away at how great he was.
Biggest surprise #2: The shower scene. It perfectly captured Vesper's total shock at what she witnessed in the stairwell. A moving and powerful scene.
Biggest disappointment #1: I miss the opening gun barrel to start the movie. Oh well - I guess it's better than having the gun barrel with the bullet flying at you.
Biggest disappointment #2: Anticlimactic finish. After the torture scene, it was like the air was let out of the balloon. It was overly long and unsatisfying.
Biggest Disappointment: While all of the scenes were good, a few too many seemed like reworkings of classic Bond scenes -- Professor Dent's demise and Bond's second kill; Bond's resignation and justification of it in both "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Casino Royale"; Fiona Volpe's public dispatch and Demetrious'; Bond visiting M on his/her home turf. They were certainly no identical, but I would have preferred something more wholly original in a film that worked so hard (and well) at reinvigorating the franchise.
After 40 years and twenty films, all in such a similar genre with only very slight variations in the basic formula to each film, I'd be amazed if you couldn't find similarities to previous scenes. Lest we forget the number of Bond fans crying out over the past year at the threat that this film was about to move away from the precious formula- they can never please all of the people all of the time.
You make a good point, emtiem. I doubt there's anything really new under the sun. How many times did Dirty Harry quit the force? It's not exactly groundbreaking. And the assassination -- that's what Bond does. I'm just surprised it's taken 40 years to see a similar slaying. It's kind of like what they say about themes in literature. There are no new ones, just new treatments.
HammerfistIn my own little worldPosts: 24MI6 Agent
Some Spoilers Possible, obvoiusly. But then again, that's the entire thread!
Surprise - Frankly, Craig's wit (though I saw someone else mentioned that). I do love that while deadly serious most of the time, he drops some of the most memorable lines of the series (without them seeming out of context like a few of Dalton's in TLD, which you can see are leftovers from when Moore was still the planned Bond). That was great icing on several scenes for me.
Disappointment - One word... Mathis...
Seriously, this has been bumming me today. I mean, Mathis was such a great guy in the books, if I recall correctly, and here, as great as he seems at first they ruin his character just for a "traitor" plot twist? I would not even be so mad if he wasn't played well... but he was... I think he truly had the air of a classic Bond character - the acting, the look, etc. (Is it me, by the way, or does the actor look a bit like Topol's Colombo. I dunno, something seemed to catch my eye) And then they just give him an unsatisfying end. They left some doubt to his being a traitor in the end, so maybe they'll restore him in the next movie, though even then the character is tainted now. Pity, I was really hoping for a fun long-term ally.
Biggest Disappointment: While all of the scenes were good, a few too many seemed like reworkings of classic Bond scenes -- Professor Dent's demise and Bond's second kill; Bond's resignation and justification of it in both "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Casino Royale"; Fiona Volpe's public dispatch and Demetrious'; Bond visiting M on his/her home turf. They were certainly no identical, but I would have preferred something more wholly original in a film that worked so hard (and well) at reinvigorating the franchise.
I think that with a franchise that's 40-years old, you're going to have uncalculated crossover, even if you are trying to re-imagine some aspects. Some things are really just unavoidable. I certainly wouldn't feel as good about Bond showing up unexpectedly at M's favorite coffee shop to get a brutal tongue-lashing.
Biggest Disappointment: While all of the scenes were good, a few too many seemed like reworkings of classic Bond scenes -- Professor Dent's demise and Bond's second kill; Bond's resignation and justification of it in both "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Casino Royale"; Fiona Volpe's public dispatch and Demetrious'; Bond visiting M on his/her home turf. They were certainly no identical, but I would have preferred something more wholly original in a film that worked so hard (and well) at reinvigorating the franchise.
I think that with a franchise that's 40-years old, you're going to have uncalculated crossover, even if you are trying to re-imagine some aspects. Some things are really just unavoidable. I certainly wouldn't feel as good about Bond showing up unexpectedly at M's favorite coffee shop to get a brutal tongue-lashing.
Perhaps one or two things, but not four or five. The impression I get is that the writers watched the Connery and Lazenby Bonds for "inspiration" and then reworked the scenes they enjoyed . . . not quite a Tarantino, but similar. And it wasn't quite as repetitious as, say, the "fleeing" scenes in both "Thunderball" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," right down to Bond literally running into someone he fears is the enemy. As I said, the script is strong enough that I think it could have found more originality in these moments. Did these moments destroy my enjoyment? No. But the question was what was the biggest disappointment, and that was it for me.
Surprise: Nearly Everything, From Daniel Craig's excellent Bond that probably had Pierce Brosnan's jaw dropping by the end of the movie, The suspense scenes, the action scenes, everything was a surprise
Disappointment: Now this is very minor but I missed seeing Bond walk across the screen for the gunbarrel, but they did do a good job with it (I mean we did see the same gunbarrel for 20 movies), the other thing I missed was the silloette girls dance during the theme song (btw the song was awsome). I didn't even miss Moneypenny or Q!
Suprise: That I would experience one of (IMO) the greatest final scenes in the history of the Bond films.
Disappointment: I have a few, but one that springs to mind is that not enough time was spent on developing either the relationship or the poker game. (I am probably the only person who thought that the poker sequences were too short. )
"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
Disappointment: Now this is very minor but I missed seeing Bond walk across the screen for the gunbarrel, but they did do a good job with it (I mean we did see the same gunbarrel for 20 movies), the other thing I missed was the silloette girls dance during the theme song (btw the song was awsome). I didn't even miss Moneypenny or Q!
I also missed seeing Bond walk across the screen, but I did like the new version where Bond has his back to the gunbarrel and turns round quickly. What I didn't like was the blood, it was awful. For some reason it was changed after the teaser trailer, it looked better and more realistic in that.
Surprise: The closeness to the book the movie was. Not perfect but damn close. The closeness Craigs Bond is to the book, not perfect but damn close. The over whelming feeling of tragedy.
I took my parents to see it when I got home for Christmas. Just a run down, my father is a die-hard no-one else but Connery fan. (Not James Bond die hard but does like them) My mother does not like violence or movies like that. By the end of the movie, my mother was crying and my father was extremely impressed with Craigs Bond. My mother made a comment which pretty much is the message the movie is try to send. "No wonder he is so cold, he lost the only woman he's ever loved in such an awful heart breaking way."
To me if the movie could portray those events, Bond meeting V, Falling for V, and Losing V, in a way that prevocted some sort of emotion out of you, then I think it has done its job. Hell I see myself (along with me friends) as a "cold hearted *******" and even I felt that sicking heart hits the bottom of your stomach feeling during the death scene. I knew she would die, but the whole time I kept thinking he'll save her, or she come around and everything will be fine. The movie did a great job of portraying a tragedy, which to me is exactly what it should have been like.
Disappointments: Well I am disappointed that Felix once again missed the mark. Don't honestly care wether he's white or black, just as long as he's the charactor he's meant to be. Bond only true friend.
While the male-bonding in the book with Leiter and Mathis especially would've been great to see onscreen, I agree with what EON did in CR, minimized all that and instead focused on Bond and Bond/Vesper, like slyguy says, the tragedy is the thing with CR. Maybe the next one...?
Honestly, I always thought the whole Felix thing in the books was a bit hammish and forced, barely believable in the 50s the way Fleming went about it. But then again, so much of what he wrote was uberfantastic . Wouldn't mind seeing more Bond/Felix developed in Bond 22, but I'm not gonna miss it if it's not there (as long as they fill it instead with the quality plotting and character work--in whichever direction they take it--like they did with CR...).
I tend to believe that CR should have been abd was focused pretty much solely on Bond and Vesper. I can't say that I am not very happy about that because I am happy about it. We wanted to see how Bond became Bond, and to do that required unfortunatly the Felix and Mathis relations in the movie to be cut out. I guess in the long run that is acceptable. I would much rather complain that there wasn't enough Felix and Mathis than not enough Bond and Vesper.
Biggest surprise No. 1 was the fact that they choose Montenegro for the location of CR location in the movie...
Biggest surprise No. 2 Craig- OMG he is so damm good...
Biggest surprise No. 3- The torture scene, i was laughing on that one, not because Bond was funny (well partially), but all my men friends were shocked and sympathising with him (ah the pain)
Disappointment No. 1- Valenka had only one line in the movie...
Disappointment No. 2- the car was destroyed (sad)
Disappointment No. 3- Mathis uh i can´t stand him
Biggest surprise would be the cinematography which is colourful and great to look at. DAD was colourful too, but too garish really. Those sweeping shots of Venice would make Canaletto weep with envy. {[]
The death of Vesper was pretty good and disturbing, watching her deliberatly gulp in water to drown herself; how did they film that?
Action was great, though not really a surprise with Campbell at the helm. The Miami airport scene posssibly the best action of the entire series. You really fear for Bond, though one niggle is that it's less escapist. I sort of want to BE Bond in the action scenes, here I didn't envy him a bit, getting thrown around.
When the plane is about to land and crash into Bond, pulling away at the last minute... stunning stuff. Though you do have to ask who the real hero of this scene is, Bond who is causing the problem or the airline pilot, who has just saved the 100 or so lives that Bond is endangering... all Bond is protecting is shareholders' investments at this point...
So even this scene has lots of holes in it and this is just one of the main disappointments, the number of plot holes in this film couldn't just fill the Albert Hall, but Wembley Stadium.
There's dispute over whether this action happens the same night as Bond seducing Solange, if so in why are they unveiling a plane to the world's press (who are oddly absent) at 3am in the morning... or is it 11am? ?:)
Of course, here we have I believe highhopes explanation that this is not a plot hole, but a plot vacuum, or 'sin of omission'!
This goes something like "Huh, stupid! Can't you see that this didn't have to happen the same evening, but could be the next day! What's to say otherwise!"
On this basis, Bond's tailing of Goldfinger in the Swiss Alps might have taken two months, Bond could have staked out GF as he hung out in his Swiss villa for the summer, watching with binoculars from his pension, nothing to say otherwise, you know.
In the CR DVD we could have a deleted scene where Bond checks into Miami Hotel after his flight and raids the mini bar and lounges on the bed watching the porn channel while idly awaiting that evening's exciting events at the airport! )
Even with Solange, the previous scene, plot holes abound. I mean, it's one thing for a silly, sexist Roger Moore film, but in this day and age can we really believe a bloke can get info by seducing a guy's wife? One law of adultery is that neither one mentions the spouse... so a woman like Solange, on being quizzed about hubby while she's out for a bit on the side, would in the real world pull back and say "If you're so interested, go sleep with him instead!" Then go off in a strop.
As for Bond's 'do you mind if I ask a personal question?" is that a reference to contraception? Otherwise her response "now would be the right time!" sounds a bit odd. I mean, it's like if you unclip a girl's bra and she says "Have you ever thought about God?" It would sort of put you off your stroke, like, where's this going?
Some fans query even whether they even have sex, though I took it they did. Maybe another sin of omission - in the DVD we'll get the deleted scene where Solange rides Bond reverse cowgirl while necking lustily on a bottle of vodka, wearing a sombero, well, I'd buy it... {[]
Anyway, other plot holes at Miami include:
how does Bond get thru airport security? (sin of omission cited, they just didn't show him getting frisked)
why didn't the alarm that's set off delay the plane's launch?
isn't it a coincidence Bond can get in by guessing the ellipsis passworld?
Bond thrown off the truck at high speed and after landing on concrete just picks himself up...
Reattaching the bomb or something to the villain, though said villain could still win fisticuffs and realise what's happened, surely not a wise thing to do, plus is he a suicide bomber or not, some confusion here... not very surreptious if he's not a suicide bomber by this stage. How would he get away?
Bond allows the guy to blow himself up but with all that fuel around surely that would ignite and blow the nearby plane to kingdom come anyway...
I swear it's a king of genius to come up with this number of plot holes in just one scene...
Biggest surprise would be the cinematography which is colourful and great to look at. DAD was colourful too, but too garish really. Those sweeping shots of Venice would make Canaletto weep with envy. {[]
The death of Vesper was pretty good and disturbing, watching her deliberatly gulp in water to drown herself; how did they film that?
Action was great, though not really a surprise with Campbell at the helm. The Miami airport scene posssibly the best action of the entire series. You really fear for Bond, though one niggle is that it's less escapist. I sort of want to BE Bond in the action scenes, here I didn't envy him a bit, getting thrown around.
When the plane is about to land and crash into Bond, pulling away at the last minute... stunning stuff. Though you do have to ask who the real hero of this scene is, Bond who is causing the problem or the airline pilot, who has just saved the 100 or so lives that Bond is endangering... all Bond is protecting is shareholders' investments at this point...
So even this scene has lots of holes in it and this is just one of the main disappointments, the number of plot holes in this film couldn't just fill the Albert Hall, but Wembley Stadium.
There's dispute over whether this action happens the same night as Bond seducing Solange, if so in why are they unveiling a plane to the world's press (who are oddly absent) at 3am in the morning... or is it 11am? ?:)
Of course, here we have I believe highhopes explanation that this is not a plot hole, but a plot vacuum, or 'sin of omission'!
This goes something like "Huh, stupid! Can't you see that this didn't have to happen the same evening, but could be the next day! What's to say otherwise!"
On this basis, Bond's tailing of Goldfinger in the Swiss Alps might have taken two months, Bond could have staked out GF as he hung out in his Swiss villa for the summer, watching with binoculars from his pension, nothing to say otherwise, you know.
In the CR DVD we could have a deleted scene where Bond checks into Miami Hotel after his flight and raids the mini bar and lounges on the bed watching the porn channel while idly awaiting that evening's exciting events at the airport! )
Even with Solange, the previous scene, plot holes abound. I mean, it's one thing for a silly, sexist Roger Moore film, but in this day and age can we really believe a bloke can get info by seducing a guy's wife? One law of adultery is that neither one mentions the spouse... so a woman like Solange, on being quizzed about hubby while she's out for a bit on the side, would in the real world pull back and say "If you're so interested, go sleep with him instead!" Then go off in a strop.
As for Bond's 'do you mind if I ask a personal question?" is that a reference to contraception? Otherwise her response "now would be the right time!" sounds a bit odd. I mean, it's like if you unclip a girl's bra and she says "Have you ever thought about God?" It would sort of put you off your stroke, like, where's this going?
Some fans query even whether they even have sex, though I took it they did. Maybe another sin of omission - in the DVD we'll get the deleted scene where Solange rides Bond reverse cowgirl while necking lustily on a bottle of vodka, wearing a sombero, well, I'd buy it... {[]
Anyway, other plot holes at Miami include:
how does Bond get thru airport security? (sin of omission cited, they just didn't show him getting frisked)
why didn't the alarm that's set off delay the plane's launch?
isn't it a coincidence Bond can get in by guessing the ellipsis passworld?
Bond thrown off the truck at high speed and after landing on concrete just picks himself up...
Reattaching the bomb or something to the villain, though said villain could still win fisticuffs and realise what's happened, surely not a wise thing to do, plus is he a suicide bomber or not, some confusion here... not very surreptious if he's not a suicide bomber by this stage. How would he get away?
Bond allows the guy to blow himself up but with all that fuel around surely that would ignite and blow the nearby plane to kingdom come anyway...
I swear it's a king of genius to come up with this number of plot holes in just one scene...
Flattering yourself with that last line, NP? :v
I was really depressed when I started reading your post. Then, for a second -- but just for a second -- I thought the fog was lifting and you were starting to actually get it. Because you are 100% correct about Bond's tailing of Goldfinger. It might have taken two months. And if it was important for the audience to know in that it took two months, Hamilton no doubt would have shown us. As it happens, we don't know and it doesn't really matter. But maybe they can put out an "Napoleon Plural-Only Edition" that will illustrate these crucial plot points for you. Perhaps we'll see Bond going to the bathroom. I mean, he does go some times, doesn't he? Yet, we never see it. Talk about a plothole. You must be so disappointed.
But let's see if I can't fill in some of CR's gaps for you. It won't improve your opinion of the script, but as a fan of the film, I feel it's my duty to help those who are feeling frustrated because they can't figure out the action (Memo to Purvis and Wade -- you guys owe me, BIG TIME):
-- I've already explained elsewhere that the airport sequence does happen on a different night, given the date on the bomber's cell phone. But then again, maybe the filmmakers, boobs that they are, just happened to set the phone on the wrong date, when in fact they meant the Bahamas and Miami action to be on the same night. But if it clears things up for you to have a scene of Bond waiting in a hotel room, feel free to add one in your mind's eye.
By the way -- we don't see Bond in an airplane or on a boat on the trip between the Bahamas and Miami, either, so you might want to imagine such a sequence. Otherwise, what's to prevent a viewer from thinking Bond did the backstroke all the way to Miami Beach?
-- As for the unveiling, it's unlikely they would wait until the appointed time to meet the press to remove the plane from the hangar. You don't back the world's largest plane out the garage like a toyota. Early in the morning seems about right to bring it out to the reviewing area.
-- We do see Bond starting to take off his jacket at the security checkpoint. We do not see him buy a ticket, however, without which he could not have gone into the gate area (how could you miss that one? Positively shocking). But since he did get in there, we must assume he bought one. I was kind of hoping Campbell would examine that purchase. Imagine the high drama as Bond reaches into his back pocket for his credit card.
-- You assumed Bond and Solange had sex -- well, some of us are not as quick to jump to their conclusion as others (if you know what I mean )
-- What would adulterers say or not say to each other? I guess it depends on the adulterer.
-- As for heroes falling to the ground and never getting hurt and making the correct guess on passwords, all I can say is: think of your favorite action film, NP. Then say to yourself: "That whole situation is presposterous, too." That will be true every time, if you examine it close enough. Ever notice how guys get hit over the head with whiskey bottles and it never does more than render them unconscious? And usually for the exact amount of time it takes the hero to escape unscathed. Those kinds of complaints, as well as the one concerning the attaching of the bomb to the bomber with the fuel all around is an attack not on "plot holes" but on conventions that are common to all movies (you have seen movies before, right? I thought so). Why are you making such a special effort to paint CR as a dud, when it's faults are no more egregious than those of any other action film?
I think it's because your complaints really aren't about plot holes at all. Why can't you just be an honest critic and say plainly that you're unhappy with the whole concept of the reboot, Craig as Bond, Purvis and Wade writing and Campbell directing since Day One, and it wouldn't matter if they turned in "Citizen Kane": you simply would not like it? That would be understandable. Sometimes I just don't like something for no other reason than it doesn't appeal to me. The "Star Wars" films are the perfect example. I don't care for them. I don't have a particular reason. But I don't feel I have to make a special effort to pick them apart to justify my dislike.
But I am glad you enjoyed the cinematography. I was a little disappointed in it myself ... )
But that's just it 'hopes... I HAD bought into the reboot concept, and Daniel Craig, up to a point when I saw the film.
It's all the other stuff that bugged me.
Guess there's no agreement here at all, and I concede that you're in the majority here. I feel like a Doubting Thomas in the midst of a load of Born Agains... it's like hand over ears la-la-la-la don't want to hear it...
I guess I'm the same with Moonraker up to a point. I like the film, cos I'm taken with it, love the cinematography, soundtrack and overall feel. I can't deny that it has slapstick in it mind, and that the finale is outlandish. Personally it doesn't bug me because I am charmed enough to suspend my disbelief. I know it's not realistic. CR didn't charm me, it charmed you.
I think the implication is that the whole event with Solange and Miami airport occured the same evening, and that's how the audience took it.
Maybe it was scripted so it would occur the following morning, but they couldn't film it in daylight and make it look like the real thing...
Anyhow, the somersaults some people go to to explain away or discount these plot holes (and the genius bit referred to Martin Campbell, not me) I find a bit disturbing.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
It is completely plausible that it happened in the same night. They were taking the plane out early to put into a position for the press to see later in the day. That could've happened the same night.
As for Bond and Solonge having sex, I didn't think that they did. Hence the "caviar for one" line.
Btw highhopes I must confess you've raised all sorts of interesting questions that can't be blithely dismissed about what is and what isn't credible in a movie, what is acceptable and what is not... I may address them in more detail in future if you promise not to get annoyed...
Btw highhopes I must confess you've raised all sorts of interesting questions that can't be blithely dismissed about what is and what isn't credible in a movie, what is acceptable and what is not... I may address them in more detail in future if you promise not to get annoyed...
Of course not, Nape. I'm not annoyed now. (By the way, I knew your genius remark referred to Campbell rather than yourself. I was just teasing you).
I think this is an interesting discussion, because the same issues appear in all movies, really, if they take place over a period of time. I believe, for example that there are some real timeline issues with Godfather and Godfather II that I have been unable to resolve, although they do not really harm my enjoyment of them (that may be where the charm you speak of comes in to save the day).
Which time elements need to be included or disposed of in a script is an interesting question. To me, as a viewer, I think it's up to me to some degree to use my imagination to free the scriptwriter from mundane exposition so that he can get to the meat of the story. All I ask is that the scriptwriter not insult my intelligence. Which is why my "rule," for lack of a better term, is that if an event isn't shown but you really need an explanation, go with the most reasonable one. I think my explanation for the CR's scenes is the most reasonable -- they happened over two days. I think that if the bomber's cellphone time had been July 8 at 2 a.m., then I would call that a screw up, because Bond simply couldn't have made it from the Bahamas to the Miami musuem and the airport late at night on July 7. It just doesn't compute (It was just that suggestion in someone's post that caused me to look into it -- I'd always assumed the airport stuff occurred the next day). The fact that the time was 2 a.m. on the 9th gave the scenario the wiggle room that plausibility required.
And don't get me wrong -- this is a Bond film. NONE of it is "real." But it doesn't have to be. Only plausible. My reality benchmark for CR is somewhat lower than it would be for the Godfather movies.
It's kind of a funny thread: before CR's release, we had thread after thread debating why Craig was great/sucked for Bond. Now we have seemingly the same threads, just discussing the various particulars of the film itself. Bond (in whichever form) either works for you or it doesn't, all the Bond films have holes you could drive a whole fleet of tanks through, as did the novels. Most if not all works of fiction do by nature, IMHO. Either CR's particular brand of verisimitude floats your boat, or not. It floats mine just fine, and it's a helluva lot better than we've been getting IMO.
But enough about my opinion, tell me what you think of my opinion. Anyway, you guys have fun with all that, I'll butt back out. {[]
It's kind of a funny thread: before CR's release, we had thread after thread debating why Craig was great/sucked for Bond. Now we have seemingly the same threads, just discussing the various particulars of the film itself. Bond (in whichever form) either works for you or it doesn't, all the Bond films have holes you could drive a whole fleet of tanks through, as did the novels. Most if not all works of fiction do by nature, IMHO. Either CR's particular brand of verisimitude floats your boat, or not. It floats mine just fine, and it's a helluva lot better than we've been getting IMO.
But enough about my opinion, tell me what you think of my opinion. Anyway, you guys have fun with all that, I'll butt back out. {[]
) ) )
Yeah -- if these Web sites only listed original thoughts, they'd last about 10 minutes.
But no need to butt out, Blue. Jump right in. What else is there to do until November 2008 but go over the same stuff over and over?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2007
I suppose, if I were so inclined, I could take pen to paper and cite every single instance in CR where things don't perfectly line up---just as HH says, the same could be said of most films, particularly those of the escapist ilk---but the simple fact is, I don't have that kind of free time. Perhaps, if I were driven to find problems with CR, in order to assuage nagging frustrations with its thunderous success, I'd find the time ?:)
Fortunately, I have no such frustrations, and am happy to simply let it flow over me as the cracking good escapist spy fare it is...
Otherwise, I'd have stood up---in outrage---during DN and shouted: "What's the big f*****g deal? Even if the tarantula bites him, he's not going to die! A tarantula bite is rarely, if ever, fatal! What ridiculousness! What a plot hole! You could drive a stolen moon buggy through it! That's it! I'm off!"
[somersaults out of cinema]
:v
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
Yeah, you could dropkick Dr. No's entire secret radar lab nuclear reactor soup pot...just what the heck was that set supposed to be anyway? No wonder Connery went bald.
Well I must admit I always assumed that a tarantula bite IS fatal, so what do I know? It's a centipede in the book - but of course the public wouldn't regard that as a deadly creature, even if some are.
Likewise it turns out, I've read, that you can't kill someone by painting them all gold (See the bod you love light up with Terry's... never mind, that's for UK fans )but I have no knowledge of this so assumed it was okay.
Now, with regards to The Bourne Identity's opening scene, which highhopes mentioned on another thread, I have to concede that an unconcious bloke floating in the ocean is very unlikely indeed. Personally I don't know whether you can only float if you're two stone overweight or more (I'm overweight myself - bet highhopes would like to test that theory on me! ) I understood that bodies wash up sometimes with the tide, so sometimes they float, but then again when people go missing, lakes get dredged so I confess I really don't know on this. I just assumed that Bourne could float at the time.
I'd contend, however, that when a film opens with such an unlikely scene, it's more forgiveable than it dropped in half way through. We read about someone surviving a failed parachute jump from a thousand feet up and it does happen. If a film openend with such an event, I could buy it. But if it happened to Bond or any hero or villain half way through the movie, I'd think wtf?
So the opening of Bourne I can just about buy. But I can't prove it for anyone else: they might think, well, this film is ruined for me because I can't get past such a ludicrous pretext..
Now, with regards to Bond getting his airline ticket. I'll just briefly say that the fact the date shows the next day on the phone may be factually right, I can't really imagine anyone is gonna pick up on the date when they watch the flick. I didn't (obviously). That it all happens the following evening isn't obvious to all, except for that fact, and even so that would mean that the plane wouldn't be wheeled out at 3am necessarily - or would it? Is there any proof of what time it is then? I forget. This one could run and run.
Back on topic (sort of ) ), no we don't see Bond use the loo, or buy tickets when going thru an airport, I agree. However, this is a suspense segueing into an action scene. It's the custom here to allow us to accompany our hero every step of the way, as we're on the edge of our seat. And that seems to be the style of Campbell's urgent direction. It's not like the leisurely tailing of Auric around the Swiss Alps.
A scene of Bond buying a ticket might well look ludicrous and boring... But imo it needs to be shown all the same. Otherwise I'm thinking, hang on, how did he get in there? Did he pull some stunt like he did to get in the country club, or when he surfed M's personal data base or something? Did they film it but not show it in case it gave people ideas how to dodge barriers?
I'd show Bond tailing the guy, then frustrated as he watches him be waved through customs with ticket. Bond turns to see a long queue, another long queue to buy tickets... then a free desk for a rubbish destination. Next shot: Bond approaches desk "I'd like a ticket to such and such" "Certainly sir, smoking or non-smoking?" Bond is in a hurry here and is impatent "I don't mind..." watching his man get away... "Do you have any luggage...?" etc like she's a bit of a condescending type. gonna eke it out like the jobsworth she is... Just a bit of tension there.
Then cut to Bond going thru with ticket, looking around hurriedly.
To my mind, that not only shows what happens (without showing all of it, very tedious) AND imo generates some Hitchcockian tension like the race to get to the airbase in Octopussy... That extra scene might take only about 50 secs...
Well I must admit I always assumed that a tarantula bite IS fatal, so what do I know? It's a centipede in the book - but of course the public wouldn't regard that as a deadly creature, even if some are.
Likewise it turns out, I've read, that you can't kill someone by painting them all gold (See the bod you love light up with Terry's... never mind, that's for UK fans )but I have no knowledge of this so assumed it was okay.
Now, with regards to The Bourne Identity's opening scene, which highhopes mentioned on another thread, I have to concede that an unconcious bloke floating in the ocean is very unlikely indeed. Personally I don't know whether you can only float if you're two stone overweight or more (I'm overweight myself - bet highhopes would like to test that theory on me! ) I understood that bodies wash up sometimes with the tide, so sometimes they float, but then again when people go missing, lakes get dredged so I confess I really don't know on this. I just assumed that Bourne could float at the time.
I'd contend, however, that when a film opens with such an unlikely scene, it's more forgiveable than it dropped in half way through. We read about someone surviving a failed parachute jump from a thousand feet up and it does happen. If a film openend with such an event, I could buy it. But if it happened to Bond or any hero or villain half way through the movie, I'd think wtf?
So the opening of Bourne I can just about buy. But I can't prove it for anyone else: they might think, well, this film is ruined for me because I can't get past such a ludicrous pretext..
Now, with regards to Bond getting his airline ticket. I'll just briefly say that the fact the date shows the next day on the phone may be factually right, I can't really imagine anyone is gonna pick up on the date when they watch the flick. I didn't (obviously). That it all happens the following evening isn't obvious to all, except for that fact, and even so that would mean that the plane wouldn't be wheeled out at 3am necessarily - or would it? Is there any proof of what time it is then? I forget. This one could run and run.
Back on topic (sort of ) ), no we don't see Bond use the loo, or buy tickets when going thru an airport, I agree. However, this is a suspense segueing into an action scene. It's the custom here to allow us to accompany our hero every step of the way, as we're on the edge of our seat. And that seems to be the style of Campbell's urgent direction. It's not like the leisurely tailing of Auric around the Swiss Alps.
A scene of Bond buying a ticket might well look ludicrous and boring... But imo it needs to be shown all the same. Otherwise I'm thinking, hang on, how did he get in there? Did he pull some stunt like he did to get in the country club, or when he surfed M's personal data base or something? Did they film it but not show it in case it gave people ideas how to dodge barriers?
I'd show Bond tailing the guy, then frustrated as he watches him be waved through customs with ticket. Bond turns to see a long queue, another long queue to buy tickets... then a free desk for a rubbish destination. Next shot: Bond approaches desk "I'd like a ticket to such and such" "Certainly sir, smoking or non-smoking?" Bond is in a hurry here and is impatent "I don't mind..." watching his man get away... "Do you have any luggage...?" etc like she's a bit of a condescending type. gonna eke it out like the jobsworth she is... Just a bit of tension there.
Then cut to Bond going thru with ticket, looking around hurriedly.
To my mind, that not only shows what happens (without showing all of it, very tedious) AND imo generates some Hitchcockian tension like the race to get to the airbase in Octopussy... That extra scene might take only about 50 secs...
Bourne wouldn't have actually had to sink to for his nose and mouth to go underwater, but it doesn't really matter, I never held it against Bourne anyway. With these types of movies, you have to make allowances. Again I would point to old chestnut of the bottle or karate chop to the head -- the victim becomes unconscious each and every time. In real life, they'd likely be killed by a bottle.
I like your waiting in line for the ticket scene -- it certainly could make for some additional suspense. In fact there's probably any number of things they could have done at the airport that could have been done in a suspensful way. But sometimes you have to suck it up and make an edit. Not everything, no matter how brilliant it all may be, is going to get in a movie that is already 2 hours and 20 minutes long (although I wouldn't have minded)
My biggest surprise is how much everyone loved this movie. I liked it (and loved the chase scene in the beginning, I started to get vertigo when they were up on the crane) but my biggest disappointment was that it seemed more like a generic action flick where any one of the current action heroes could have been the star than it did a Bond film.
I like the visuals for the opening credits but I absolutely hated the opening theme song. It had no hook or melody or anything to remember it by. It was just noise. Really awful. I also didn't think Vesper was hot at all. I thought she was a bad cast.
I liked Daniel Craig in layer Cake and I think he pulls off the action hero role well but they made him into too much a beef-cake instead of a cool, suave tough guy.
They also made his game Texas Hold-'Em (probably because it's the hot game on TV these days) which also didn't seem very Bond-like to me.
I don't know. Maybe I should see it again because I did enjoy it it just didn't feel like a Bond film.
My biggest surprise is how much everyone loved this movie.
I completely agree.
"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
Well not everybody...CNBers, a few people around here weren't too thrilled with Craig/CR. Oh well, things cycle, cheesy Bond will back with us before we know it.
Comments
Disappointment- Overall, I was impressed by the film. It'll take a rewatch to really catch anything disappointing.
Disappointed by: M. All around a poorly written character, and not very worthwhile on the screen.
They could have Felix in Bond 22, they could be working together but he gets captured and tortured, perhaps even ala CR. Then Bond could save him and quip "jeez, Felix, man up a little," and Felix says "mine aren't brass."
Biggest surprise #2: The shower scene. It perfectly captured Vesper's total shock at what she witnessed in the stairwell. A moving and powerful scene.
Biggest disappointment #1: I miss the opening gun barrel to start the movie. Oh well - I guess it's better than having the gun barrel with the bullet flying at you.
Biggest disappointment #2: Anticlimactic finish. After the torture scene, it was like the air was let out of the balloon. It was overly long and unsatisfying.
You make a good point, emtiem. I doubt there's anything really new under the sun. How many times did Dirty Harry quit the force? It's not exactly groundbreaking. And the assassination -- that's what Bond does. I'm just surprised it's taken 40 years to see a similar slaying. It's kind of like what they say about themes in literature. There are no new ones, just new treatments.
Surprise - Frankly, Craig's wit (though I saw someone else mentioned that). I do love that while deadly serious most of the time, he drops some of the most memorable lines of the series (without them seeming out of context like a few of Dalton's in TLD, which you can see are leftovers from when Moore was still the planned Bond). That was great icing on several scenes for me.
Disappointment - One word... Mathis...
Seriously, this has been bumming me today. I mean, Mathis was such a great guy in the books, if I recall correctly, and here, as great as he seems at first they ruin his character just for a "traitor" plot twist? I would not even be so mad if he wasn't played well... but he was... I think he truly had the air of a classic Bond character - the acting, the look, etc. (Is it me, by the way, or does the actor look a bit like Topol's Colombo. I dunno, something seemed to catch my eye) And then they just give him an unsatisfying end. They left some doubt to his being a traitor in the end, so maybe they'll restore him in the next movie, though even then the character is tainted now. Pity, I was really hoping for a fun long-term ally.
I think that with a franchise that's 40-years old, you're going to have uncalculated crossover, even if you are trying to re-imagine some aspects. Some things are really just unavoidable. I certainly wouldn't feel as good about Bond showing up unexpectedly at M's favorite coffee shop to get a brutal tongue-lashing.
Disappointment: Now this is very minor but I missed seeing Bond walk across the screen for the gunbarrel, but they did do a good job with it (I mean we did see the same gunbarrel for 20 movies), the other thing I missed was the silloette girls dance during the theme song (btw the song was awsome). I didn't even miss Moneypenny or Q!
Disappointment: I have a few, but one that springs to mind is that not enough time was spent on developing either the relationship or the poker game. (I am probably the only person who thought that the poker sequences were too short.
I also missed seeing Bond walk across the screen, but I did like the new version where Bond has his back to the gunbarrel and turns round quickly. What I didn't like was the blood, it was awful. For some reason it was changed after the teaser trailer, it looked better and more realistic in that.
I took my parents to see it when I got home for Christmas. Just a run down, my father is a die-hard no-one else but Connery fan. (Not James Bond die hard but does like them) My mother does not like violence or movies like that. By the end of the movie, my mother was crying and my father was extremely impressed with Craigs Bond. My mother made a comment which pretty much is the message the movie is try to send. "No wonder he is so cold, he lost the only woman he's ever loved in such an awful heart breaking way."
To me if the movie could portray those events, Bond meeting V, Falling for V, and Losing V, in a way that prevocted some sort of emotion out of you, then I think it has done its job. Hell I see myself (along with me friends) as a "cold hearted *******" and even I felt that sicking heart hits the bottom of your stomach feeling during the death scene. I knew she would die, but the whole time I kept thinking he'll save her, or she come around and everything will be fine. The movie did a great job of portraying a tragedy, which to me is exactly what it should have been like.
Disappointments: Well I am disappointed that Felix once again missed the mark. Don't honestly care wether he's white or black, just as long as he's the charactor he's meant to be. Bond only true friend.
Honestly, I always thought the whole Felix thing in the books was a bit hammish and forced, barely believable in the 50s the way Fleming went about it. But then again, so much of what he wrote was uberfantastic
Biggest surprise No. 2 Craig- OMG he is so damm good...
Biggest surprise No. 3- The torture scene, i was laughing on that one, not because Bond was funny (well partially), but all my men friends were shocked and sympathising with him (ah the pain)
Disappointment No. 1- Valenka had only one line in the movie...
Disappointment No. 2- the car was destroyed (sad)
Disappointment No. 3- Mathis uh i can´t stand him
And so on.... I could do on and on all day
The death of Vesper was pretty good and disturbing, watching her deliberatly gulp in water to drown herself; how did they film that?
Action was great, though not really a surprise with Campbell at the helm. The Miami airport scene posssibly the best action of the entire series. You really fear for Bond, though one niggle is that it's less escapist. I sort of want to BE Bond in the action scenes, here I didn't envy him a bit, getting thrown around.
When the plane is about to land and crash into Bond, pulling away at the last minute... stunning stuff. Though you do have to ask who the real hero of this scene is, Bond who is causing the problem or the airline pilot, who has just saved the 100 or so lives that Bond is endangering... all Bond is protecting is shareholders' investments at this point...
So even this scene has lots of holes in it and this is just one of the main disappointments, the number of plot holes in this film couldn't just fill the Albert Hall, but Wembley Stadium.
There's dispute over whether this action happens the same night as Bond seducing Solange, if so in why are they unveiling a plane to the world's press (who are oddly absent) at 3am in the morning... or is it 11am? ?:)
Of course, here we have I believe highhopes explanation that this is not a plot hole, but a plot vacuum, or 'sin of omission'!
This goes something like "Huh, stupid! Can't you see that this didn't have to happen the same evening, but could be the next day! What's to say otherwise!"
On this basis, Bond's tailing of Goldfinger in the Swiss Alps might have taken two months, Bond could have staked out GF as he hung out in his Swiss villa for the summer, watching with binoculars from his pension, nothing to say otherwise, you know.
In the CR DVD we could have a deleted scene where Bond checks into Miami Hotel after his flight and raids the mini bar and lounges on the bed watching the porn channel while idly awaiting that evening's exciting events at the airport!
Even with Solange, the previous scene, plot holes abound. I mean, it's one thing for a silly, sexist Roger Moore film, but in this day and age can we really believe a bloke can get info by seducing a guy's wife? One law of adultery is that neither one mentions the spouse... so a woman like Solange, on being quizzed about hubby while she's out for a bit on the side, would in the real world pull back and say "If you're so interested, go sleep with him instead!" Then go off in a strop.
As for Bond's 'do you mind if I ask a personal question?" is that a reference to contraception? Otherwise her response "now would be the right time!" sounds a bit odd. I mean, it's like if you unclip a girl's bra and she says "Have you ever thought about God?" It would sort of put you off your stroke, like, where's this going?
Some fans query even whether they even have sex, though I took it they did. Maybe another sin of omission - in the DVD we'll get the deleted scene where Solange rides Bond reverse cowgirl while necking lustily on a bottle of vodka, wearing a sombero, well, I'd buy it... {[]
Anyway, other plot holes at Miami include:
how does Bond get thru airport security? (sin of omission cited, they just didn't show him getting frisked)
why didn't the alarm that's set off delay the plane's launch?
isn't it a coincidence Bond can get in by guessing the ellipsis passworld?
Bond thrown off the truck at high speed and after landing on concrete just picks himself up...
Reattaching the bomb or something to the villain, though said villain could still win fisticuffs and realise what's happened, surely not a wise thing to do, plus is he a suicide bomber or not, some confusion here... not very surreptious if he's not a suicide bomber by this stage. How would he get away?
Bond allows the guy to blow himself up but with all that fuel around surely that would ignite and blow the nearby plane to kingdom come anyway...
I swear it's a king of genius to come up with this number of plot holes in just one scene...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Flattering yourself with that last line, NP? :v
I was really depressed when I started reading your post. Then, for a second -- but just for a second -- I thought the fog was lifting and you were starting to actually get it. Because you are 100% correct about Bond's tailing of Goldfinger. It might have taken two months. And if it was important for the audience to know in that it took two months, Hamilton no doubt would have shown us. As it happens, we don't know and it doesn't really matter. But maybe they can put out an "Napoleon Plural-Only Edition" that will illustrate these crucial plot points for you. Perhaps we'll see Bond going to the bathroom. I mean, he does go some times, doesn't he? Yet, we never see it. Talk about a plothole. You must be so disappointed.
But let's see if I can't fill in some of CR's gaps for you. It won't improve your opinion of the script, but as a fan of the film, I feel it's my duty to help those who are feeling frustrated because they can't figure out the action (Memo to Purvis and Wade -- you guys owe me, BIG TIME):
-- I've already explained elsewhere that the airport sequence does happen on a different night, given the date on the bomber's cell phone. But then again, maybe the filmmakers, boobs that they are, just happened to set the phone on the wrong date, when in fact they meant the Bahamas and Miami action to be on the same night. But if it clears things up for you to have a scene of Bond waiting in a hotel room, feel free to add one in your mind's eye.
By the way -- we don't see Bond in an airplane or on a boat on the trip between the Bahamas and Miami, either, so you might want to imagine such a sequence. Otherwise, what's to prevent a viewer from thinking Bond did the backstroke all the way to Miami Beach?
-- As for the unveiling, it's unlikely they would wait until the appointed time to meet the press to remove the plane from the hangar. You don't back the world's largest plane out the garage like a toyota. Early in the morning seems about right to bring it out to the reviewing area.
-- We do see Bond starting to take off his jacket at the security checkpoint. We do not see him buy a ticket, however, without which he could not have gone into the gate area (how could you miss that one? Positively shocking). But since he did get in there, we must assume he bought one. I was kind of hoping Campbell would examine that purchase. Imagine the high drama as Bond reaches into his back pocket for his credit card.
-- You assumed Bond and Solange had sex -- well, some of us are not as quick to jump to their conclusion as others (if you know what I mean
-- What would adulterers say or not say to each other? I guess it depends on the adulterer.
-- As for heroes falling to the ground and never getting hurt and making the correct guess on passwords, all I can say is: think of your favorite action film, NP. Then say to yourself: "That whole situation is presposterous, too." That will be true every time, if you examine it close enough. Ever notice how guys get hit over the head with whiskey bottles and it never does more than render them unconscious? And usually for the exact amount of time it takes the hero to escape unscathed. Those kinds of complaints, as well as the one concerning the attaching of the bomb to the bomber with the fuel all around is an attack not on "plot holes" but on conventions that are common to all movies (you have seen movies before, right? I thought so). Why are you making such a special effort to paint CR as a dud, when it's faults are no more egregious than those of any other action film?
I think it's because your complaints really aren't about plot holes at all. Why can't you just be an honest critic and say plainly that you're unhappy with the whole concept of the reboot, Craig as Bond, Purvis and Wade writing and Campbell directing since Day One, and it wouldn't matter if they turned in "Citizen Kane": you simply would not like it? That would be understandable. Sometimes I just don't like something for no other reason than it doesn't appeal to me. The "Star Wars" films are the perfect example. I don't care for them. I don't have a particular reason. But I don't feel I have to make a special effort to pick them apart to justify my dislike.
But I am glad you enjoyed the cinematography. I was a little disappointed in it myself ...
It's all the other stuff that bugged me.
Guess there's no agreement here at all, and I concede that you're in the majority here. I feel like a Doubting Thomas in the midst of a load of Born Agains... it's like hand over ears la-la-la-la don't want to hear it...
I guess I'm the same with Moonraker up to a point. I like the film, cos I'm taken with it, love the cinematography, soundtrack and overall feel. I can't deny that it has slapstick in it mind, and that the finale is outlandish. Personally it doesn't bug me because I am charmed enough to suspend my disbelief. I know it's not realistic. CR didn't charm me, it charmed you.
I think the implication is that the whole event with Solange and Miami airport occured the same evening, and that's how the audience took it.
Maybe it was scripted so it would occur the following morning, but they couldn't film it in daylight and make it look like the real thing...
Anyhow, the somersaults some people go to to explain away or discount these plot holes (and the genius bit referred to Martin Campbell, not me) I find a bit disturbing.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As for Bond and Solonge having sex, I didn't think that they did. Hence the "caviar for one" line.
Btw highhopes I must confess you've raised all sorts of interesting questions that can't be blithely dismissed about what is and what isn't credible in a movie, what is acceptable and what is not... I may address them in more detail in future if you promise not to get annoyed...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Of course not, Nape. I'm not annoyed now. (By the way, I knew your genius remark referred to Campbell rather than yourself. I was just teasing you).
I think this is an interesting discussion, because the same issues appear in all movies, really, if they take place over a period of time. I believe, for example that there are some real timeline issues with Godfather and Godfather II that I have been unable to resolve, although they do not really harm my enjoyment of them (that may be where the charm you speak of comes in to save the day).
Which time elements need to be included or disposed of in a script is an interesting question. To me, as a viewer, I think it's up to me to some degree to use my imagination to free the scriptwriter from mundane exposition so that he can get to the meat of the story. All I ask is that the scriptwriter not insult my intelligence. Which is why my "rule," for lack of a better term, is that if an event isn't shown but you really need an explanation, go with the most reasonable one. I think my explanation for the CR's scenes is the most reasonable -- they happened over two days. I think that if the bomber's cellphone time had been July 8 at 2 a.m., then I would call that a screw up, because Bond simply couldn't have made it from the Bahamas to the Miami musuem and the airport late at night on July 7. It just doesn't compute (It was just that suggestion in someone's post that caused me to look into it -- I'd always assumed the airport stuff occurred the next day). The fact that the time was 2 a.m. on the 9th gave the scenario the wiggle room that plausibility required.
And don't get me wrong -- this is a Bond film. NONE of it is "real." But it doesn't have to be. Only plausible. My reality benchmark for CR is somewhat lower than it would be for the Godfather movies.
But enough about my opinion, tell me what you think of my opinion.
Yeah -- if these Web sites only listed original thoughts, they'd last about 10 minutes.
But no need to butt out, Blue. Jump right in. What else is there to do until November 2008 but go over the same stuff over and over?
Fortunately, I have no such frustrations, and am happy to simply let it flow over me as the cracking good escapist spy fare it is...
Otherwise, I'd have stood up---in outrage---during DN and shouted: "What's the big f*****g deal? Even if the tarantula bites him, he's not going to die! A tarantula bite is rarely, if ever, fatal! What ridiculousness! What a plot hole! You could drive a stolen moon buggy through it! That's it! I'm off!"
[somersaults out of cinema]
:v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Likewise it turns out, I've read, that you can't kill someone by painting them all gold (See the bod you love light up with Terry's... never mind, that's for UK fans
Now, with regards to The Bourne Identity's opening scene, which highhopes mentioned on another thread, I have to concede that an unconcious bloke floating in the ocean is very unlikely indeed. Personally I don't know whether you can only float if you're two stone overweight or more (I'm overweight myself - bet highhopes would like to test that theory on me!
I'd contend, however, that when a film opens with such an unlikely scene, it's more forgiveable than it dropped in half way through. We read about someone surviving a failed parachute jump from a thousand feet up and it does happen. If a film openend with such an event, I could buy it. But if it happened to Bond or any hero or villain half way through the movie, I'd think wtf?
So the opening of Bourne I can just about buy. But I can't prove it for anyone else: they might think, well, this film is ruined for me because I can't get past such a ludicrous pretext..
Now, with regards to Bond getting his airline ticket. I'll just briefly say that the fact the date shows the next day on the phone may be factually right, I can't really imagine anyone is gonna pick up on the date when they watch the flick. I didn't (obviously). That it all happens the following evening isn't obvious to all, except for that fact, and even so that would mean that the plane wouldn't be wheeled out at 3am necessarily - or would it? Is there any proof of what time it is then? I forget. This one could run and run.
Back on topic (sort of
A scene of Bond buying a ticket might well look ludicrous and boring... But imo it needs to be shown all the same. Otherwise I'm thinking, hang on, how did he get in there? Did he pull some stunt like he did to get in the country club, or when he surfed M's personal data base or something? Did they film it but not show it in case it gave people ideas how to dodge barriers?
I'd show Bond tailing the guy, then frustrated as he watches him be waved through customs with ticket. Bond turns to see a long queue, another long queue to buy tickets... then a free desk for a rubbish destination. Next shot: Bond approaches desk "I'd like a ticket to such and such" "Certainly sir, smoking or non-smoking?" Bond is in a hurry here and is impatent "I don't mind..." watching his man get away... "Do you have any luggage...?" etc like she's a bit of a condescending type. gonna eke it out like the jobsworth she is... Just a bit of tension there.
Then cut to Bond going thru with ticket, looking around hurriedly.
To my mind, that not only shows what happens (without showing all of it, very tedious) AND imo generates some Hitchcockian tension like the race to get to the airbase in Octopussy... That extra scene might take only about 50 secs...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Bourne wouldn't have actually had to sink to for his nose and mouth to go underwater, but it doesn't really matter, I never held it against Bourne anyway. With these types of movies, you have to make allowances. Again I would point to old chestnut of the bottle or karate chop to the head -- the victim becomes unconscious each and every time. In real life, they'd likely be killed by a bottle.
I like your waiting in line for the ticket scene -- it certainly could make for some additional suspense. In fact there's probably any number of things they could have done at the airport that could have been done in a suspensful way. But sometimes you have to suck it up and make an edit. Not everything, no matter how brilliant it all may be, is going to get in a movie that is already 2 hours and 20 minutes long (although I wouldn't have minded)
I like the visuals for the opening credits but I absolutely hated the opening theme song. It had no hook or melody or anything to remember it by. It was just noise. Really awful. I also didn't think Vesper was hot at all. I thought she was a bad cast.
I liked Daniel Craig in layer Cake and I think he pulls off the action hero role well but they made him into too much a beef-cake instead of a cool, suave tough guy.
They also made his game Texas Hold-'Em (probably because it's the hot game on TV these days) which also didn't seem very Bond-like to me.
I don't know. Maybe I should see it again because I did enjoy it it just didn't feel like a Bond film.