Rate the last movie you saw - Page 137

05-11-2008, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

I haven't seen it yet, but I have to say that I'm 1 of the people who actually likes the gadgets.

Does not need them in this film, well worth seeing though.

Mal · 05-11-2008, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

I haven't seen it yet, but I have to say that I'm 1 of the people who actually likes the gadgets.

The last straw for me was the invisible car in Die Another Day.

It's not a typical Bond movie, so don't go to watch it, expecting that. The style of this film does appear to be similar to the Bourne series, which I did like and do prefer.

05-11-2008, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

The last straw for me was the invisible car in Die Another Day.

It's not a typical Bond movie, so don't go to watch it, expecting that. The style of this film does appear to be similar to the Bourne series, which I did like and do prefer.

Second time today I have come across someone saying that about the invisible Aston Martin.

etccarmageddon · 05-11-2008, 23:26

I suspected Quantum of Solace was going to be a let down because it was rushed out and cut to 1 hour 45mins.

Mal · 05-11-2008, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I suspected Quantum of Solace was going to be a let down because it was rushed out and cut to 1 hour 45mins.

So you didn't like it?

---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:27 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by whydoIneedatech

Second time today I have come across someone saying that about the invisible Aston Martin.

To me, it was just so bloody daft, even for a Bond movie.

05-11-2008, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I suspected Quantum of Solace was going to be a let down because it was rushed out and cut to 1 hour 45mins.

It just seems like a follow on sequel as it is set an hour after Casino Royale.

Alien · 06-11-2008, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by whydoIneedatech

Does not need them in this film, well worth seeing though.

That's your opinion, & of course are entitled to it, but for me a Bond film just isn't the same without the gadgets. [or Desmond Llewelyn's portrayal of Q]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

The last straw for me was the invisible car in Die Another Day.

I admit that bit was a little OTT, but not enough to put me off adding it to my collection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

It's not a typical Bond movie, so don't go to watch it, expecting that. The style of this film does appear to be similar to the Bourne series, which I did like and do prefer.

I've seen Bourne 1 & 2, & they were enjoyable enough in their own right, but to me Bond should stay "Bond", if you see what I mean.

I wasn't a huge fan of Casino Royale either.

etccarmageddon · 06-11-2008, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

So you didn't like it?

not seen it yet - waiting for Blu Ray so I can watch both back to back and I'm hoping by the time it reaches DVD there will be a directors cut which fixes it.

from what I've seen so far I'm disappointed - spoilers released to the press re the death/demise of characters and what the final showdown would be etc - all smacks of desperation to hype up the film.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------

The invisible Aston Martin concept is based on an actual concept - but obviously I can't tell you any more as you aren't cleared for this.

Alien · 06-11-2008, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

the invisible aston martin concept is based on an actual concept - but obviously i can't tell you any more as you aren't cleared for this.

etccarmageddon · 06-11-2008, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ible'.html

I hope you realise I'm breaking the official secrets act here (unless I whisper it to you).

Mal · 06-11-2008, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

That's your opinion, & of course are entitled to it, but for me a Bond film just isn't the same without the gadgets. [or Desmond Llewelyn's portrayal of Q]

I admit that bit was a little OTT, but not enough to put me off adding it to my collection.

I've seen Bourne 1 & 2, & they were enjoyable enough in their own right, but to me Bond should stay "Bond", if you see what I mean.

I wasn't a huge fan of Casino Royale either.

I am the opposite. I could watch them to waste a few hours, but they were never anywhere near a "must see" film for me. Now this Bond was a "must see" after seeing the last one. I really enjoyed the new one as well.

It would be interesting to see what people's reactions would be to the two new films, if Casino Royale was the very first Bond film made and it didn't have all the expectations that it had. What I mean is that Bond has a set checklist of what to expect and fans may feel let down because certain things were not done, whereas if the list were not there because, they may have loved the film. The film in itself, taken on it's own may be good, but because it didn't follow the franchise rules...

Who knows? That is just my opinion.

Alien · 06-11-2008, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ible'.html

I hope you realise I'm breaking the official secrets act here (unless I whisper it to you).

If the Telegraph knew about it last year it's not much of a secret is it?

As for my previous comment, the

was in response to your comment about clearance, not the "based on an actual concept" part; I already knew stuff like that was being worked on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

The film in itself, taken on it's own may be good, but because it didn't follow the franchise rules...

Who knows? That is just my opinion.

Exactly. There are certain things that make a Bond film, & CR seemed to be missing a few too many of them.

Another issue I have with it is that the version of Bond played by whatshisface seems more like a slightly more refined/polished "Vinnie Jones" than a "James Bond". Bond's supposed to be classy, & to me whatshisface just didn't really manage it.

etccarmageddon · 06-11-2008, 14:14

what destroyed Diet Another Day was the awful CGI and very averageness of the film in terms of production quality.

it was so obvious whenever there was a 'stunt' that it was done on green screen etc.

Mal · 06-11-2008, 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

Exactly. There are certain things that make a Bond film, & CR seemed to be missing a few too many of them.

My point is that it in my opinion it should be taken as a separate film. To me, it's a good film in it's own right. Forget the past. Casino Royale took the character back to the start, when he first got his license. Rebirth, so to speak.

My point is if you get too preoccupied with rules, you might miss a good film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

Another issue I have with it is that the version of Bond played by whatshisface seems more like a slightly more refined/polished "Vinnie Jones" than a "James Bond". Bond's supposed to be classy, & to me whatshisface just didn't really manage it.

For me, Craig is the best Bond yet.

sir_drinks_alot · 07-11-2008, 17:40

W.

could have gose to see the new 007 movie but given what's gone on
This week i picked.while good in part like the whole straggling to get
The approval of his father overcomeing his alcoholic side stuff like that
It painted too much of a sympathetic view of the man for my likeing,
This could and should have been done even more in the style of oliver
Stone's other movie Nixon witch to a point it was but after that point
The movie just turned in to hearts and flowers look at the bush years.