|
Post by N3B on Nov 25, 2006 13:07:06 GMT -5
Pretty good.
It had a real plot besides "This is the enemy, go get him" and it was much more down-to-earth and realistic than most of the recent ones. There weren't any gadgets besides the secret compartment of Bond's car for his weapon, communications, and medical kit -- I wish there could have been a few smaller gadgets. Nothing too grand, because in the more recent ones they were cheesy/gimmicky, and they focused more on the action of the gadgets than plot and such.
It's supposed to be an origin story, but having the same female actress for M makes the chronology/consistency kind of awkward. The new Bond actor (Daniel Craig?) reminds me a lot of Connery at times; he's a pretty good dude.
MINOR SPOILERS: Bond gets his testicles crushed in enemy torturing = ow.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Nov 25, 2006 14:18:52 GMT -5
Daniel Craig it is. Supposedly, he looks like he could crush Pierce Brosnan's head in between his thumb and forefinger.
Haven't seen it yet, but I probably will before too long (AKA: DVD).
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Nov 25, 2006 20:16:34 GMT -5
People were saying that Craig was supposed to be a "darker" Bond, but at least from this first one, it still doesn't beat Dalton in LTK.
Connery was suave and a good assassin, but he was generally nice and gentalmanly about killing people and infiltrating and such. He's the closest to the Bond character of the books, perhaps because he was the first and had nothing to establish himself off of besides the books.
Lazenby was... practically non-existant. I didn't really like him much in OHMSS as he just didn't fit the character very well.
Moore was a corny pansy. His dialogues were often lame, and after an epic, riveting fight he'd say something stupid and ruin the moment.
Dalton was arguably the darkest Bond to date, and he was much closer to portraying the character of Bond according to the book than Moore/Lazenby; not as much of a lady-killer as Connery/Moore were.
Brosnan didn't seem dark as he did heartless -- in his movies he's always seen wiping out hundreds of enemies with lots of big explosions and such. He struck me as being the killing-machine Bond, big on techno gadgets.
Craig is closer to Connery than any of the previous Bonds. He's shown remorse for killing and thus human emotion, so he's not just some heartless assassin. Surprisingly, he only banged one Bond-Chick in CR; a record low for a Bond film. Though, he falls in love with one and goes through a lot of emotional struggle with that.
I'd say in order of my personal liking of Bonds: Connery, Craig, Dalton, Brosnan, Lazenby, Moore. I like the suavey gentlemanliness of Connery, Craig's emotion and likeness of Connery's character, Dalton's bad-ass attitude, Brosnan's action sequences. Can't judge Lazenby, and I just simply didn't like Moore.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Nov 25, 2006 23:57:24 GMT -5
I think Brosnan is more a victim of the times rather than wanting to portray his character the way you say; after all, the expectations for crazy gadgets and insane special effect sequences in a Bond film have risen, and so, likewise, has the resulting body count. I have to say I only really like Goldeneye out of all of Brosnan's films (though I didn't see the last two all the way through, what I saw of them didn't really appeal to me all that much), and it's hard to say the whole 006/007 dynamic doesn't have a human element to it. Besides, the whole continuity reboot and minimalist approach to gadgetry was probably provoked by the ludicrous invisible car from the last movie... As I understand it (at least as far as the wiki entry goes, anyway), Dalton is considered to have portrayed Bond most closely to the persona in the books, as the books were "Hollywoodized" for film, and thus the stories were drawn away from their apparently much darker and grittier roots. Nonetheless, Connery is the best Bond by far (and anyone who says otherwise has no taste ), at least of the three I've seen movies for (Moore and Brosnan are the others).
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Nov 26, 2006 15:57:18 GMT -5
Brosnan wasn't a bad Bond, certainly a lot better than Moore (I'd actually put him after Connery and Craig) -- problem is, the scripting/storyboards for the movies he was in were sub-par. Not his fault, but it's hard to truly appreciate his style when you've got such lame/cheesy/unreasonable gadgets, plots, and action sequences.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Nov 26, 2006 19:40:49 GMT -5
I typically rank it Connery for bond like persona, brosnan for the bond look, moore for his subpar acting, Dalton because I really did think he was a terrible bond but that may have just been the times getting the better of him. If I had to put Craig in there I would prolly stick him between Moore and Brosnan. as for the other guy who cares.
My review of the movie is that it was a little slow paced. Not so much happening besides throwing cards around for a good portion of the movie. Lets all sit at the table trying to play poker but not really doing anything. The art display they went to was very interesting and as for the woman she was just plain stupid didn't like her from the start. The bad guy they focused on the most I enjoyed a bit. He almost felt like one of the older crazier bond villians. Better than the last few have been. They've been shooting and missing a lot on villains lately. But with the likes of Baron Samedi, Jaws, Dr. No and Auric Goldfinger its kinda hard to keep up.
|
|