I could not disagree less, delicious. Neeson seems to be making the same film over and over again, just jumping from one action scene to the next; and the Bournes have completely shot their wad. How many times can you present a poor schmuck simultaneously running from and outwitting his own government? Even Matt Damon gave up on it. The recent Bond films you decry have brought back what the series used to be--grand adventures played on a world stage, centered around a hero you care about.
Taken I is a very good film and gives recent Bond films a run for their money - I havent seen Taken 2 - I was only talking about Taken 1. Whatever else Liam Neeson may be be doing does not detract from how good Taken 1 is.
I also agree lately L Neeson is just putting out action movies, and some
not too good ones either. ) The last Bourne movie wasn't a big hit as well.
So I'm happy to see Bond , where he should be. Biggest boxoffice with others
Copying him. -{
I didnt see Bourne 4 and have no plans to do so. The first 3 Bourne films taken together are a masterpiece and overtake Bond in many respects.
Fast editing happens in most modern thrillers, can't see that changing. I can't
understand people not being able to folliw QOS.
Ive never seen action scenes too fast to follow other than in QoS - I think the action needs to be something the audience can follow and not have to examine later using the DVD slow motion controls to decipher. Casino Royale didnt have such scenes and I dont think SF did either although Im trying to forget I ever saw that movie so might be wrong.
Fast editing happens in most modern thrillers, can't see that changing. I can't
understand people not being able to folliw QOS.
Ive never seen action scenes too fast to follow other than in QoS - I think the action needs to be something the audience can follow and not have to examine later using the DVD slow motion controls to decipher. Casino Royale didnt have such scenes and I dont think SF did either although Im trying to forget I ever saw that movie so might be wrong.
I'm an old man and managed to follow the action scenes in QoS perfectly...I still don't understand why some people complain about them...
Just saw an article where Neeson said he was approached for doing Bond before Dalton. He turned it down because his wife objected. That would have been an interesting turn of events had he said yes.
I could not disagree less, delicious. Neeson seems to be making the same film over and over again, just jumping from one action scene to the next; and the Bournes have completely shot their wad. How many times can you present a poor schmuck simultaneously running from and outwitting his own government? Even Matt Damon gave up on it. The recent Bond films you decry have brought back what the series used to be--grand adventures played on a world stage, centered around a hero you care about.
You could not disagree less? So you agree with me completely?
I won't see Bourne 4 - I think the first 3 stand as a good trilogy and no more need to be made.
And what you say about Bourne is also applicable to Bond - how many times must M wonder whether she can trust Bond - its so tired as a theme.
It was never necessary to care about Bond. All of the Bond films before the reboot were centred on Bond's challenges and the defeat of the villain. I never cared about Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan - I cared about the mystery, the thrills, the plot twists, the gadgets and the locations. When they rebooted Bond and tried to show us what inner forces are driving him - e.g. his betrayal/anger/grief over Vesper - they lost me. There are plenty of action heroes with inner stories e.g. John McClane in Die Hard with his marriage problems - but Bond was always totally outwardly focussed - he rarely learns anything or changes his POV because he's pretty well perfect - his only weakness is beautiful women - when they started to show him as flawed and hurt inside they undermined what he was originally about. Theres enough deep and meaningful stuff to watch in film these days - when I watch Bond I just want to watch him do his thing - travel to far flung places, do daring things, seduce women and kill baddies. Thats all thats needed for the pure entertainment that Bond once was. Bond is not a character that we need to get inside of - he's a vehicle or a POV into a world of action, thrills and sensuality. He's brave, he's loyal, he's dangerous and that's about it. Tin Tin is similar in the comic strip of that name - Tin Tin is just the vehicle for the POV of the reader to share his adventures.
I could not disagree less, delicious. Neeson seems to be making the same film over and over again, just jumping from one action scene to the next; and the Bournes have completely shot their wad. How many times can you present a poor schmuck simultaneously running from and outwitting his own government? Even Matt Damon gave up on it. The recent Bond films you decry have brought back what the series used to be--grand adventures played on a world stage, centered around a hero you care about.
You could not disagree less? So you agree with me completely?
I won't see Bourne 4 - I think the first 3 stand as a good trilogy and no more need to be made.
And what you say about Bourne is also applicable to Bond - how many times must M wonder whether she can trust Bond - its so tired as a theme.
It was never necessary to care about Bond. All of the Bond films before the reboot were centred on Bond's challenges and the defeat of the villain. I never cared about Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan - I cared about the mystery, the thrills, the plot twists, the gadgets and the locations. When they rebooted Bond and tried to show us what inner forces are driving him - e.g. his betrayal/anger/grief over Vesper - they lost me. There are plenty of action heroes with inner stories e.g. John McClane in Die Hard with his marriage problems - but Bond was always totally outwardly focussed - he rarely learns anything or changes his POV because he's pretty well perfect - his only weakness is beautiful women - when they started to show him as flawed and hurt inside they undermined what he was originally about. Theres enough deep and meaningful stuff to watch in film these days - when I watch Bond I just want to watch him do his thing - travel to far flung places, do daring things, seduce women and kill baddies. Thats all thats needed for the pure entertainment that Bond once was. Bond is not a character that we need to get inside of - he's a vehicle or a POV into a world of action, thrills and sensuality. He's brave, he's loyal, he's dangerous and that's about it. Tin Tin is similar in the comic strip of that name - Tin Tin is just the vehicle for the POV of the reader to share his adventures.
To me, the Bond you describe - a man it's not necessary to care about, who's "pretty well perfect", who is brave, loyal, dangerous "and that's about it" - that Bond is so much less interesting than one with more facets to him. Sure, the films could go overboard if they tend to focus so much on Bond's angst and inner turmoil that the action/adventure aspects of the world of 007 get lost in the mix. But I, for one, would feel cheated if the Bond films go back to being simply action films featuring a character we have no "need to get inside of" at all. I'm not saying I wouldn't watch those films, and I'm sure I'd get some enjoyment out of them, but just not as much as I get from the movies showcasing the more nuanced Bond we have seen since the reboot.
I could not disagree less, delicious. Neeson seems to be making the same film over and over again, just jumping from one action scene to the next; and the Bournes have completely shot their wad. How many times can you present a poor schmuck simultaneously running from and outwitting his own government? Even Matt Damon gave up on it. The recent Bond films you decry have brought back what the series used to be--grand adventures played on a world stage, centered around a hero you care about.
You could not disagree less? So you agree with me completely?
I won't see Bourne 4 - I think the first 3 stand as a good trilogy and no more need to be made.
And what you say about Bourne is also applicable to Bond - how many times must M wonder whether she can trust Bond - its so tired as a theme.
It was never necessary to care about Bond. All of the Bond films before the reboot were centred on Bond's challenges and the defeat of the villain. I never cared about Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan - I cared about the mystery, the thrills, the plot twists, the gadgets and the locations. When they rebooted Bond and tried to show us what inner forces are driving him - e.g. his betrayal/anger/grief over Vesper - they lost me. There are plenty of action heroes with inner stories e.g. John McClane in Die Hard with his marriage problems - but Bond was always totally outwardly focussed - he rarely learns anything or changes his POV because he's pretty well perfect - his only weakness is beautiful women - when they started to show him as flawed and hurt inside they undermined what he was originally about. Theres enough deep and meaningful stuff to watch in film these days - when I watch Bond I just want to watch him do his thing - travel to far flung places, do daring things, seduce women and kill baddies. Thats all thats needed for the pure entertainment that Bond once was. Bond is not a character that we need to get inside of - he's a vehicle or a POV into a world of action, thrills and sensuality. He's brave, he's loyal, he's dangerous and that's about it. Tin Tin is similar in the comic strip of that name - Tin Tin is just the vehicle for the POV of the reader to share his adventures.
To me, the Bond you describe - a man it's not necessary to care about, who's "pretty well perfect", who is brave, loyal, dangerous "and that's about it" - that Bond is so much less interesting than one with more facets to him. Sure, the films could go overboard if they tend to focus so much on Bond's angst and inner turmoil that the action/adventure aspects of the world of 007 get lost in the mix. But I, for one, would feel cheated if the Bond films go back to being simply action films featuring a character we have no "need to get inside of" at all. I'm not saying I wouldn't watch those films, and I'm sure I'd get some enjoyment out of them, but just not as much as I get from the movies showcasing the more nuanced Bond we have seen since the reboot.
I could not disagree less, delicious. Neeson seems to be making the same film over and over again, just jumping from one action scene to the next; and the Bournes have completely shot their wad. How many times can you present a poor schmuck simultaneously running from and outwitting his own government? Even Matt Damon gave up on it. The recent Bond films you decry have brought back what the series used to be--grand adventures played on a world stage, centered around a hero you care about.
You could not disagree less? So you agree with me completely?
I won't see Bourne 4 - I think the first 3 stand as a good trilogy and no more need to be made.
And what you say about Bourne is also applicable to Bond - how many times must M wonder whether she can trust Bond - its so tired as a theme.
It was never necessary to care about Bond. All of the Bond films before the reboot were centred on Bond's challenges and the defeat of the villain. I never cared about Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan - I cared about the mystery, the thrills, the plot twists, the gadgets and the locations. When they rebooted Bond and tried to show us what inner forces are driving him - e.g. his betrayal/anger/grief over Vesper - they lost me. There are plenty of action heroes with inner stories e.g. John McClane in Die Hard with his marriage problems - but Bond was always totally outwardly focussed - he rarely learns anything or changes his POV because he's pretty well perfect - his only weakness is beautiful women - when they started to show him as flawed and hurt inside they undermined what he was originally about. Theres enough deep and meaningful stuff to watch in film these days - when I watch Bond I just want to watch him do his thing - travel to far flung places, do daring things, seduce women and kill baddies. Thats all thats needed for the pure entertainment that Bond once was. Bond is not a character that we need to get inside of - he's a vehicle or a POV into a world of action, thrills and sensuality. He's brave, he's loyal, he's dangerous and that's about it. Tin Tin is similar in the comic strip of that name - Tin Tin is just the vehicle for the POV of the reader to share his adventures.
To me, the Bond you describe - a man it's not necessary to care about, who's "pretty well perfect", who is brave, loyal, dangerous "and that's about it" - that Bond is so much less interesting than one with more facets to him. Sure, the films could go overboard if they tend to focus so much on Bond's angst and inner turmoil that the action/adventure aspects of the world of 007 get lost in the mix. But I, for one, would feel cheated if the Bond films go back to being simply action films featuring a character we have no "need to get inside of" at all. I'm not saying I wouldn't watch those films, and I'm sure I'd get some enjoyment out of them, but just not as much as I get from the movies showcasing the more nuanced Bond we have seen since the reboot.
I guess we just like different Bonds which is fine. I like my action films pure, simple and outwardly focussed. And Im well and truly over the laboured psychoanalysis of heroes which has been happening all over the place for the last decade or so - it was done to death with Batman and Spiderman for example - and I think too much emphasis on an inward direction gets in the way of a good popcorn flick. Bourne is an excellent mix because his inner journey to find himself is absolutely parallel to his goal to destroy the people who turned him into an assassin. In QoS Bond should have gone AWOL and tracked down the people responsible for Vesper's death in CR - this would have had the side effect of solving the problems presented by Green Planet and Quantum thus getting him back into M's good graces at the end. It would have made a cleaner and simpler film (the plot would echo LTK to an extent). Making the finding of Vesper's ex-BF at the end a caveat to the main plot was odd to me.
+ Adele
+ Opening set piece
+ Some of the series best action
+ Acting: Dench/Craig/Bardem
+ Bombastic production
+ Burning house
+ Bond & M's relationship
+ Digs into Bond's psyche
+ Shows Bond's vulnerability
+ Bond survives on his wits
CONS
- Copies Batman too much
- More plot holes than swiss cheese
- Themes like "rat survival", "cyberterrorism" and "sky-falling" were underdeveloped.
- Bond sexually pursuing a sex slave. Really?!?!
+ Adele
+ Opening set piece
+ Some of the series best action
+ Acting: Dench/Craig/Bardem
+ Bombastic production
+ Burning house
+ Bond & M's relationship
+ Digs into Bond's psyche
+ Shows Bond's vulnerability
+ Bond survives on his wits
CONS
- Copies Batman too much
- More plot holes than swiss cheese
- Themes like "rat survival", "cyberterrorism" and "sky-falling" were underdeveloped.
- Bond sexually pursuing a sex slave. Really?!?!
Comments
Would take (excuse the pun) Casino Royale over any of the Takens and Bourne films (which by the way I am also a fan of)
Hear Taken 3 is going ahead which is a bit crazy, the second one exhausted things with its same storyline
Does not make sense, welshie
There are not many movies which anybody in his right mind would prefer ti the masterpiece named Casino Royale -{
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Taken I is a very good film and gives recent Bond films a run for their money - I havent seen Taken 2 - I was only talking about Taken 1. Whatever else Liam Neeson may be be doing does not detract from how good Taken 1 is.
I didnt see Bourne 4 and have no plans to do so. The first 3 Bourne films taken together are a masterpiece and overtake Bond in many respects.
Ive never seen action scenes too fast to follow other than in QoS - I think the action needs to be something the audience can follow and not have to examine later using the DVD slow motion controls to decipher. Casino Royale didnt have such scenes and I dont think SF did either although Im trying to forget I ever saw that movie so might be wrong.
You Sir, Have made an enemy today !
I enjoyed the Bourne films, But they're really the same film done three times, at least Bond varies The story
From time to time. :007)
I'm an old man and managed to follow the action scenes in QoS perfectly...I still don't understand why some people complain about them...
I am younger but neither can't follow QoS action scenes and your logic :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Younger ? Yes...but not wiser
When you get to my age then everything slows down anyway
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
True....but it means I last longer now B-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Of course it does...I think of you :v
Actually the first 3 Bourne films are a trilogy - all part of the same story not repetitions of a plot line.
You could not disagree less? So you agree with me completely?
I won't see Bourne 4 - I think the first 3 stand as a good trilogy and no more need to be made.
And what you say about Bourne is also applicable to Bond - how many times must M wonder whether she can trust Bond - its so tired as a theme.
It was never necessary to care about Bond. All of the Bond films before the reboot were centred on Bond's challenges and the defeat of the villain. I never cared about Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan - I cared about the mystery, the thrills, the plot twists, the gadgets and the locations. When they rebooted Bond and tried to show us what inner forces are driving him - e.g. his betrayal/anger/grief over Vesper - they lost me. There are plenty of action heroes with inner stories e.g. John McClane in Die Hard with his marriage problems - but Bond was always totally outwardly focussed - he rarely learns anything or changes his POV because he's pretty well perfect - his only weakness is beautiful women - when they started to show him as flawed and hurt inside they undermined what he was originally about. Theres enough deep and meaningful stuff to watch in film these days - when I watch Bond I just want to watch him do his thing - travel to far flung places, do daring things, seduce women and kill baddies. Thats all thats needed for the pure entertainment that Bond once was. Bond is not a character that we need to get inside of - he's a vehicle or a POV into a world of action, thrills and sensuality. He's brave, he's loyal, he's dangerous and that's about it. Tin Tin is similar in the comic strip of that name - Tin Tin is just the vehicle for the POV of the reader to share his adventures.
To me, the Bond you describe - a man it's not necessary to care about, who's "pretty well perfect", who is brave, loyal, dangerous "and that's about it" - that Bond is so much less interesting than one with more facets to him. Sure, the films could go overboard if they tend to focus so much on Bond's angst and inner turmoil that the action/adventure aspects of the world of 007 get lost in the mix. But I, for one, would feel cheated if the Bond films go back to being simply action films featuring a character we have no "need to get inside of" at all. I'm not saying I wouldn't watch those films, and I'm sure I'd get some enjoyment out of them, but just not as much as I get from the movies showcasing the more nuanced Bond we have seen since the reboot.
I guess we just like different Bonds which is fine. I like my action films pure, simple and outwardly focussed. And Im well and truly over the laboured psychoanalysis of heroes which has been happening all over the place for the last decade or so - it was done to death with Batman and Spiderman for example - and I think too much emphasis on an inward direction gets in the way of a good popcorn flick. Bourne is an excellent mix because his inner journey to find himself is absolutely parallel to his goal to destroy the people who turned him into an assassin. In QoS Bond should have gone AWOL and tracked down the people responsible for Vesper's death in CR - this would have had the side effect of solving the problems presented by Green Planet and Quantum thus getting him back into M's good graces at the end. It would have made a cleaner and simpler film (the plot would echo LTK to an extent). Making the finding of Vesper's ex-BF at the end a caveat to the main plot was odd to me.
+ Adele
+ Opening set piece
+ Some of the series best action
+ Acting: Dench/Craig/Bardem
+ Bombastic production
+ Burning house
+ Bond & M's relationship
+ Digs into Bond's psyche
+ Shows Bond's vulnerability
+ Bond survives on his wits
CONS
- Copies Batman too much
- More plot holes than swiss cheese
- Themes like "rat survival", "cyberterrorism" and "sky-falling" were underdeveloped.
- Bond sexually pursuing a sex slave. Really?!?!
OVERALL
It's a very good movie. But maybe it's a teeny teeny teeny bit overrated. It's still good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHoNWwhzh3M
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
+1 - a very good Bond movie, but not the greatest by any stretch. -{