Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,182
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 719
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 04:44:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Is James Bond A Cunt?

Started by Maybe Im Doing It Wrong, December 10, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

biggytitbo

Whoops. I'll repost my awesome review in there...

Jemble Fred

Both Craig movies before Skyfall were just so incredibly dull, though. About as boring as James Bond could ever be and still have any claim to the name. Every time I try and remember them I'm in danger of falling asleep.

For me, the most exciting that James Bond can ever, ever possibly get is the London Underground stuff in Skyfall. That to me is the absolute apex of all Bond, something I've wanted to see all my life, and now they've done it, it's hard to give a damn about any future Bond outings. By bringing 007 right into our everyday world, it was like a syringe of adrenaline punched right into the heart. The biggest challenge he will ever face is getting through the London crowds at rush hour. I don't care about shootouts on exotic islands, gambling in Shanghai, any of that shit. James Bond on the tube is this franchise shooting its bolt – certainly, for Craig's time in the tux.

biggytitbo

You're an utter fool if you regard Quantum of Solace and especially Casino Royale as 'dull'.

Jemble Fred

You're an utter fool anyway, so never mind.

biggytitbo

You're a bigger fool for getting Bond so utterly wrong. Almost as bad as your ludicrous Doctor Who opinions if that's possible.

Jemble Fred

*Pats the fascist little monkey on the head, kicks it up the arse*

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Jemble Fred on November 17, 2012, 03:28:40 PM
Both Craig movies before Skyfall were just so incredibly dull, though. About as boring as James Bond could ever be and still have any claim to the name. Every time I try and remember them I'm in danger of falling asleep.

For me, the most exciting that James Bond can ever, ever possibly get is the London Underground stuff in Skyfall. That to me is the absolute apex of all Bond, something I've wanted to see all my life, and now they've done it, it's hard to give a damn about any future Bond outings. By bringing 007 right into our everyday world, it was like a syringe of adrenaline punched right into the heart. The biggest challenge he will ever face is getting through the London crowds at rush hour. I don't care about shootouts on exotic islands, gambling in Shanghai, any of that shit. James Bond on the tube is this franchise shooting its bolt – certainly, for Craig's time in the tux.

Agreed about the other Craig movies, disagreed about everything else.  Thought the Underground sequence was laughably poor.  It reminded me a lot of ... well, a few bog-standard action flicks.  'Die Hard 3', for one.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 17, 2012, 03:30:45 PM
You're an utter fool if you regard Quantum of Solace and especially Casino Royale as 'dull'.

I liked Casino Royale but seriously Tit, The Thingy Of Boris was donkey balls, really confusing and the only thing I can remember about it was a water treatment plant in the desert or something. Plus is was excessively fast and needlessly noisy.

biggytitbo

THere are plently of 'dull' Bond films Quantum isn't one of them whatever else it is.

Noodle Lizard

I didn't like 'Casino Royale' but I can accept that a lot of people do.

'Quantum Of Solace', though, I'm pretty sure there has to be something severely wrong with someone who thought that was anything other than ... shit.

biggytitbo

What exactly is so bad about it? For me the relationship between the two damaged lead characters is one of the most interesting in any Bond film, and its refreshingly short and to the point.


The character played by Gemma Arterton makes no sense mind.

El Unicornio, mang

QoS has problems (the mindless editing mainly) but I still think it's a better film (maybe not a better "Bond" film) than a lot of the post-1970, pre-2006 Bond films. It's a good bridge between Casino Royale and Skyfall.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: checkoutgirl on November 17, 2012, 03:59:26 PM
the only thing I can remember about it was a water treatment plant in the desert or something.

Well - water's key to the plot and the ending's set in the desert....but other than that, no.

The most needlessly noisy Bond film is Tomorrow Never Dies - the ending is a generic machine gun-fest that gets old incredibly quickly.

Revelator

Quote from: non capisco on June 21, 2012, 10:37:04 PMIs there any truth in the story that Fleming wrote the first draft of 'Casino Royale' on the advice of his psychiatrist after he'd admitted to being disturbed by violent sexual fantasies, hence the relatively lengthy bollock bashing chapter? I've read that a few times but it doesn't really ring true, although it would be quite good if one of the most enduring macho 20th century heroes had sprung to life as a direct result of such a thing.

I wonder where you heard that, because I've never encountered it before, despite having read both Fleming biographies and other Bond-bore material. Fleming wrote a hugely entertaining article called "How to Write a Thriller" (http://www.petermorwood.com/the-complete-how-to-write-a-thriller-by-ian-fleming-with-footnotes) that explained the inspiration for the torture scene in CR:

"What I described in Casino Royale was a greatly watered-down version of a French-Moroccan torture known as passer á la mandoline, which was practiced on several of our agents during the war. So you see the line between fact and fantasy is a very narrow one."

"Passer á la mandoline" involves testicles and piano wire--you can use your imagination on how it works.

QuoteI'm struggling to think where I'd read about it before now. Would Ian Fleming have even been the sort to have a psychiatrist?

In his youth Fleming attended an Austrian school run by two disciples of Alfred Adler. The Bond books have generally positive attitude toward psychiatry.

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on June 12, 2012, 08:48:25 AM
A few gadgets aside (to satisfy the more James May-a-like Bond fans), the second half of Casino Royale is as faithful a Fleming adaptation as you could hope to see.

I shall have to be a bit of a book bore (okay, a lot of a book bore) and disagree. While CR is a good Bond film on its own merits, it mishandles all three of the big set pieces from the book. The gambling scene suffers because it has been switched from baccarat (a simple game that can literally be explained in a minute) to Texas Hold'Em, which is un-Bondlike and incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't play it; the torture scene is not as serious, since Bond is still able make snappy quips, instead of fainting with pain; and Vesper's quiet end goes into action-movie hell with the collapsing house. I also miss the decay in their relationship, just when they seem to be free, along with the long conversation Bond has with Mathis about the nature of evil. Obviously that could not have made it complete into an action movie, but a few carefully chosen lines would have worked.

Mister Six

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 17, 2012, 04:15:10 PM
What exactly is so bad about it?

No plot, rubbish baddies, incoherent action, dull characters, unconvincing CGI, lazy structure, preposterous ending, general feeling of inconsequentiality, shit title.

Dead kate moss

Worst baddie ever, I'd say. And lamest evil plan ever too. Amongst other problems, but those are such key factors in a Bond film, it's like having 007 played by an albinoid potato... oh wait.

Quote from: Mister Six on November 28, 2012, 10:56:05 PM
No plot, rubbish baddies, incoherent action, dull characters, unconvincing CGI, lazy structure, preposterous ending, general feeling of inconsequentiality, shit title.

It looks fucking brilliant though.

Isnt that the point of Bond?

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Ralph Cifaretto on November 29, 2012, 06:53:56 PM
It looks fucking brilliant though.

Isnt that the point of Bond?

No, it's more about that stuff in the quote. And cool gadgets. And a James Bond that doesn't look like Alfred E Neuman.

Quote from: Dead kate moss on November 29, 2012, 07:28:13 PM
No, it's more about that stuff in the quote. And cool gadgets. And a James Bond that doesn't look like Alfred E Neuman.

Well it depends what you go to films for.

Not pretending I'm a cultured person (well not much), but have been going through the boxset and have been enjoying some of the architecture and the interiors that the various characters inhabit.

Now if I was a long-term Bond fan (which I'm not. I'm new to them) the stuff in the quote may hold some importance to my enjoyment of the film experience. But cos I'm not, it didn't. And The Quantum of Solace looked fantastic. And to my recollection held together fairly well (as a plot, as a film). Other stuff in the film, today yesterday arent that essential to my pleasure.

El Unicornio, mang

I'm a long time Bond fan and enjoyed it. It's definitely the artiest Bond film. Definitely wouldn't want another one like it but I think it stands up well on its own. If it had been longer, with less quick edits, it would have been much improved though. Also, I don't recall any bad CGI in it.

Revelator

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on November 29, 2012, 11:08:47 PM
Also, I don't recall any bad CGI in it.

The bit with the disintegrating plane had some pretty bad CGI, but that was about it. Overall, Quantum wasn't bad, just under-baked. Due to the writers' strike, filming began without a finished script--they used a half-written screenplay by Paul Haggis, itself a revision of a finished script by Purvis and Wade. Foster and Craig rewrote the script while filming--never a good sign.
The fact that Quantum is the most left-wing Bond film is probably due to Haggis, a textbook definition of a Hollywood liberal (though one of Haggis's less stellar ideas--introducing Bond's bastard love child--thankfully went unused). QoS is also the only real sequel in Bond history--a gutsy decision, and the film works best when it's closing the circle opened by Casino Royale.
Some of the setpieces--the Sienna chase and the Tosca performance--are among the most stylish in the Bond series, but the film is periodically blighted by spatially incoherent editing. Marc Foster was not an action director, and hiring one of the editors who worked on the Bourne films was a bad decision. Beyond that, the plot and the villain's scheme, while worthy of outrage in real life, didn't work onscreen and seemed dull and small-timey. Mathis--a terrific character played perfectly--was unnecessarily killed off (he appears several times in the books as well), and Strawberry Field's death was an unwelcome callback to a more enjoyable Bond film. Some have complained that QoS is not very Bondian, but it does feature one of the worst and most overused Bond cliches--the sacrificial bedmate. Fields--a useless character--is there to get fucked and killed, while Bond never gets to knock boots with the actual Bond girl. A very puritanical state of affairs.
The film also makes the mistake of never bothering to explain its title. That could have been easily done in a few lines from the short story they lifted it from. But I wouldn't rank QoS among the worst Bond films--there's plenty of competition among the lesser Moore and Brosnan entries.