526

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

ajb007/lol  well they looked very similar to me.  ajb007/wink

527

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

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.

528

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Hardyboy wrote:

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?  ajb007/wink

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.

529

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:
Hardyboy wrote:

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?  ajb007/wink

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.

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

530

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

+1

531

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:
Hardyboy wrote:

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?  ajb007/wink

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.

Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:
Hardyboy wrote:

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?  ajb007/wink

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.

532

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

PROS

+ 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

533

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

PROS

+ 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

+1 - a very good Bond movie, but not the greatest by any stretch. ajb007/martini

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."