 
|
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 |
4.235.202.1
In Reply to: LOL! Well, I guess that you were shaken, but not stirred by the new Bond film. posted by Audiophilander on November 21, 2006 at 17:16:59:
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.
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
