 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.140.45.224
In Reply to: Killer problems with "Casino:" Craig. He acts like he posted by tinear on November 21, 2006 at 05:05:55:
I'll grant that the openning scene was a little lame, but not for the reason you proffered. My problem was believing that the bathroom brawl was just the Craig-Bond's first kill and that confering the double "0" status was dependent upon two confirmed kills. It's just a little too 'cute' an idea making the openning assignment into a successful 'job interview.' Otherwise, the film was excellent.>>> "Why not just kill the guy earlier? Oh yeah, I forgot: chase opportunity!" <<<
You must've gone out for popcorn and missed part of the scene. Bond needed to bring this target in alive if at all possible because of the information he was carrying. Killing him was not a desired option except as a last resort.
>>> "...bloody eye catarracts; some eye problem necessitating one darkened eye lens: did the American Opthomological Institute underwrite this film with an assist from plastic surgeons' guild?" <<<
Same villain, or did you miss the fact that the earlier assassination was a set-up?
>>> "The fights: it's obvious that, for all his marvelous muscles, this Bond can't fight. Every fight was a 15-rounder, yet he popped up, fresh as a daisy from each." <<<
He was fighting very determined bad guys; as for popping up 'fresh as a daisy' Craig's character did reflect the injuries, both in terms of facial lascerations and the difficult recuperation after that ball-busting 'chair torture' which for decorum's sake we won't get into. BTW, all Bonds typically pop-up fresh as a daisy; it's the nature of 007, don't you think? :o)
>>> "NO imagination. Attack a jet with a loaded fuel tanker? I suppose that's okay for a run of the mill Hollywood film but one expects more brilliance from an arch villain. I think that "action" sequence lasted longer than the entire Keanu/Bollock runaway bus film, didn't it?
I've already remarked on the collapsing building so I needn't flay that, again." <<<The idea was to manipulate the stock market through the destruction of a proto-type airliner (which BTW, actually exists, and was not concocted just for the film); the suspense was effectively achieved, IMO, and tieing it into the 9/11 conspiracy theory about global terrorism being just one pice of a larger puzzle involving a marketing sham was brilliant, IMO.
Also, I kind of liked the collapsing building in Venice effects; I think that this whole sequence was very well done even if it was a trifle artificial in the stretched out suspense department.
>>> "One last point: Bond is supposed to be a sexual animal, no?" <<<
Yes, and no. My suggestion: read Ian Fleming's novels before critiquing the new Bond character (as re-envisioned) too harshly.
>>> "He rolls around like a high-schooler with Caterina and, for all we know, never consummates: censorship? Then, he has a longish plebeian relationship with the other. C'mon. That's what regular guys go through, not a Bond..." <<<
As I stated below, this Bond is more like a killing machine, focused more on the mission than himself, and borderline psychotic at times. He approaches each assignment with dogged determination; he doesn't fool around, he's all business. It's just a different take on the character, even to the point of displaying his personal flaws, self-doubts and need for affirmation by his superiors. The Craig-Bond takes himself and his job very seriously to the point of reckless independent action in order to set things straight when he screws up and gets his ear's boxed by M.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
I found the Len Deighton books their equal but the films far superior. See The Ipcress File if you wish to see a really brilliant film with a sensational young Michael Caine showing what a REAL secret agent is like.
You found the initial chase scene wonderful, that's your prerogative: you do agree it repetitive or were you fascinated by the eight different jumps to the steel framing? Did you count how many leaps and boundings? Geesh!
All the fights poorly were staged and filmed, the chase scenes were ridiculously over-long and the entire film, because of the director's habit of dragging out EVERY DRAMATIC EVENT to the maximum, weaved and stumbled its bloated body to the finish line.
Zero suspense. Or Less Than Zero.
Bond was a gentleman and a high-ranking officer. This guy acted like a drill sergeant.
Bond was a suave womanizer. This guy mugged and leered.
Bond, in the novels, had many fights but he wasn't Rambo or a Schwartnegger character: he got hurt, spent time in hospital.
Cardiact arrest and return to the game? Gimme a break.
You liked the card game? Hell, it lasted as long in real time as film time. Boring doesn't tell the story.
The guy in Venice with the green glass lens and the other clear one was the same villain as Mr. Bloody Tears? Shock! At no time did the director show him clearly enough. Of course, by that point ennui had reduced my attention span: how many times did we see the building begin to sink, centimeter by centimeter.
Also, you thought the scene with the gas truck was exciting? How many times did he crawl back into the truck and resume the fight?
Finally, this Bond spent so much time RUNNING I thought I had walked into "The Marathon Man."
> > > "I found the Len Deighton books their equal but the films far superior. See The Ipcress File if you wish to see a really brilliant film with a sensational young Michael Caine showing what a REAL secret agent is like." < < <Seen 'em and like 'em, but we were discussing James Bond, which is a different kind of secret agent film designed around the action hero motif; I'd no more compare Len Deighton's Harry Palmer character to James Bond than compare Caine's portrayal of Palmer to James Coburn's in the Flint series.
> > > "You found the initial chase scene wonderful" < < <
Enjoyable for an action film? Yes! Wonderful is more subjective. The elevated chase and escape wasn't so over the top as to be implausible given the physical prowess of Craig's Bond abd desperation of his target although the Embessy gun battle and creative means escape using an explosion as cover did push the believeability envelope somewhat.
> > > "All the fights poorly were staged and filmed, the chase scenes were ridiculously over-long and the entire film, because of the director's habit of dragging out EVERY DRAMATIC EVENT to the maximum, weaved and stumbled its bloated body to the finish line.
Zero suspense. Or Less Than Zero." < < <Baloney. Sorry tinear but I have to disagree; I've seen better staged fights and I've seen worse staged fights, but Craig's performance in Casino Royale provided sufficient tension for me, my wife and the audience in the theater where we caught the screening.
> > > "Bond was a gentleman and a high-ranking officer. This guy acted like a drill sergeant." < < <
Ummm, different interpretation, a re-envisioning of the character; you either go with it or you don't; you obviously didn't.
> > > "Bond was a suave womanizer. This guy mugged and leered." < < <
As I stated in my earlier post and above, it's an intentional re-envisioning. This Bond is much more about getting the job done for Queen and country with as little getting in the way of it as possible. He's quite literally a killing machine who is capable of making mistakes, but isn't quite as prone to being caught with his pants down on the job due to an overactive libido.
> > > "Bond, in the novels, had many fights but he wasn't Rambo or a Schwartnegger character: he got hurt, spent time in hospital.
Cardiact arrest and return to the game? Gimme a break." < < <He was injured and spent time in the hospital recuperating, and while the cardiac arrest and rapid recovery after poisoning may seem implausible, it wasn't beyond the pale (pun intended).
> > > "You liked the card game?" < < <
Hey, it wasn't as long or boring as you make it out to be, and Bond's initial loss humanized the character somewhat as it displayed his personal weakness (vanity & arrogance) and the limits of his self-reliance.
> > > "The guy in Venice with the green glass lens and the other clear one was the same villain as Mr. Bloody Tears? Shock! At no time did the director show him clearly enough. Of course, by that point ennui had reduced my attention span: how many times did we see the building begin to sink, centimeter by centimeter." < < <
Tell you what, I won't critisize your short-attention span if you'll quit trying to put words in my mouth with rhetorical questions like those above and below:
> > > "Also, you thought the scene with the gas truck was exciting? How many times did he crawl back into the truck and resume the fight?" < < <
Exciting is a subjective assessment that varies from person to person. I thought that the scene was pretty good albeit stretched out a bit too much straining suspension of disbelief (with the leaking fuel and all the gunfire around it that jet fuel truck probably would've blown up making both Bond and the terrorist driver crispy critters much earlier). That said, what I liked best about this scene was the subtle subtext that even 9/11 could've been set-up by international terrorists, arms dealers and/or unscrupulous investors to make large sums of money off of a catastrophic event in order to pursue their agendas. This movie had a lot more going on than just a clever high-rolling arms dealer trying to cash in on a plummeting stock through an orchestrated event, but what the heck, to each his own.
AuPh
Bond shoots compressed tanks.
They (the three Hemingways) couldn't envision another scenario?
But really, no one, including me, went into the theater expecting high art. I just wanted a pulse-pounding, inventive, couple of hour entertainment.
What I got was the most prosaic of Bond films, location-wise. Not unexpectedly, since the entire budget must have gone to endless chase scenes and special effects.
Not only that, the action sequences showed no ability to BUILD tension. One example: after that ludicrously long up the crane, down the crane near opening scene, we end up at the embassy. Believable that James could tear around it so easily? Shoot it up with his pea-shooter facing several dozen guys with AUTOMATIC rifles? One word: Mogadishu. Third-world guys can shoot, too.
At some point, Connery's Bond has deteriorated into fantasy. I don't recall having completely to suspend belief in ANY of his films.
Craig is 007 Spiderman or Batman, Rambo or Schawartzie.
He ain't flesh and blood and more's the pity.
Judging from your apparently foul mood, you must've seen this Bond flick right after concluding a routine exam by your proctologist or whatever.> > > "At some point, Connery's Bond has deteriorated into fantasy. I don't recall having completely to suspend belief in ANY of his films.
Craig is 007 Spiderman or Batman, Rambo or Schawartzie." < < <I never said that I didn't like the Connery Bond films, but that's because I, like most folks, still identify Sean Connery as the first and best Bond. This new envisioning of the character is a refreshing change from recent efforts AFAIC, better than most if not all of the others save for the Connery version, but your mileage may vary.
AuPh
Another example of this crummy film: James Bond, with his hands free, can't beat up a guy steering a truck?
Go ahead, make up a million reasons.
The fact remains.
The guy beat the shit out of Bond--- how many times did he throw 00 out of the truck? One loses track with this endless scene-stuff--- with one hand figuratively tied behind his back.
I know you'll see it again and again so take a stopwatch and click it every time Bond starts to run... the guy spent a good half-hour of the film running.
Finally, anytime a Bond film relies on a 20-minute (screen time) card game for its climax, you know it's in trouble.
"OOOOhhh, he pulled two Jacks!!!!!!!!!"
Again and again and again, too.....
The entire focal point of the BOOK is the card game.
nt
it's a fascinating way to film an action/suspense/thriller, I don't.
Bond degenerated into McBond and now, he's a bit better, an Olive Garden guy. But still light years away from "cuisine."
Chase, chase, bang, bang.
Riveting.
I guess when you were booted off the Outside Board for a few days it seems to have made you a bit surly and accusatory. Some of us are merely sharing our impressions, which apparently differ greatly from your own (nothing more; nothing less). You're pretty much in the minority on this one tinear, but I certainly respect your difference of opinion with mine. Can't you do the same? I've already explained why I liked this film, as have others, and you continue to rant about it as if it will change minds, but by twisting what folks have stated you come very close to insulting the tastes of everyone who doesn't see it your way.> > > "Proctologist? Going into the gutter here, Auph: won't follow you there." < < <
LOL! Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere near that gutter! It isn't my field of expertise, although I'm pretty sure that a lengthy tour of your intestines would probably remind me less of Bond than it would Tvarsky's Solaris (grin)! OTOH, just because one gets annoyed by folks who choose to fart shamelessly in public, ignoring the anguished pleas of fair minded Bond-fans who like this film, doesn't mean that it has to escalate to the level of opinionated arseholes duking it out! ;^)
AuPh
of course, but I don't think I addressed any "foul" comments your way?
Please, don't feel bound to discuss things if you take them so personally as to see insults at you where they don't exist.
Bond sucks.
Does that imply you do?
How?
... when that criticism is directed back at you. Try to keep in mind that the "proctological" comment was merely a jest directed at your apparent tunnel vision in regard to this film. If per chance my remark struck a nerve unknowingly, I'm sorry.> > > "of course, but I don't think I addressed any "foul" comments your way?" < < <
You threw some pretty "loud" inferences out that anyone who likes this film is crazy even when they politely explain to you precisely why they like it.
> > > "Please, don't feel bound to discuss things if you take them so personally as to see insults at you where they don't exist." < < <
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
> > > "Bond sucks." < < <
Your opinion, not mine.
> > > "Does that imply you do?" < < <
Only when you start sentences with "You" followed by a rhetorical question instead of "If" followed an impression.
> > > "How? " < < <
Asked and answered.
AuPh
guys like you ignored them and mounted personal attacks. I don't mind, it's the loser's way of waving the internet white flag.
The exploding cannisters (TWICE) and a guy driving a truck beating the living shit out of Bond. No answers to these facts. I pointed out probably twenty howling problems with this film. For a gazillion dollar-blockbuster, one doesn't expect poor writing, repetitiveness, and a card game climax.
Is that why you're waving your under shorts around on a stick, or are you merely rooting for your own cause while presenting yourself as the emperor with no clothing? ;^)> > > "I pointed out the RIDICULOUS plot elements and the more I did, the more guys like you ignored them and mounted personal attacks.." < < <
They may have seemed ridiculous to you, but entertained most everyone else. That's no reason for you to continue ranting, raving and raining on folk's parades after you've made your points and a majority of other folks have provided their reasons for liking the film. But here you go, once more into the breach:
> > > "The exploding cannisters (TWICE) and a guy driving a truck beating the living shit out of Bond." < < <
Alright already, so the new James Bond isn't Superman and was having an off day with a determined terrorist. Even Indiana Jones had trouble with the guy behind the wheel in Raiders of the Lost Ark! You gotta watch out for those mudda-truckers! :o)
> > > "No answers to these facts. I pointed out probably twenty howling problems with this film." < < <
There were lots of responses, many of which were reasonable and weighed the film's quality on the whole with approval, but you still howled.
> > > "For a gazillion dollar-blockbuster, one doesn't expect poor writing, repetitiveness, and a card game climax." < < <
Lots of exaggerated hyperbole from you, but no cigar; I disagree, but lets just say that approving of this film isn't in the cards for you. :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
nt
being the forum fact checker.
You make us all better.
Now, go waste six bucks and tell us what YOU thought of this POS.
(1) posters told the truth. You clearly did not read the novels you claim to read, given that you thought they came out in the 60's, when they obviously did not. Read the Bible when it came out in 1964?(2) You blame me for checking your facts? Question is, why did you not check your facts before posting? Lazy? Or just dishonest? Either way, it demonstrates your lack of reliability and credibility. (as if that needed questioning).
I do not make everybody better, Tin. Only you. Because only you seem so cavalier about using false facts to support your arguments. And I am still waiting for your reply to Patrick's query about your belief in equality when your own lifestyle is clearly antithetical to that believe.
...they include real characters such as Kennedy, Khruschev, Beria, Truman, Acheson, Humphrey, deGaulle, Churchill, the Queen of England... besides managing to weave Beethoven quartets into the plot.clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
