In Reply to: No offense, but you were apparently watching a different movie than I. posted by Audiophilander on November 21, 2006 at 09:03:37:
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."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Not "apparently" but definitely. I read all the Bond novels when they came out in the sixties. - tinear 13:58:45 11/21/06 (16)
- LOL! Well, I guess that you were shaken, but not stirred by the new Bond film. - Audiophilander 17:16:59 11/21/06 (11)
- A good example of this film's poor writing: in two key sequences, - tinear 05:01:46 11/22/06 (10)
- Like I said, we saw different movies. - Audiophilander 07:38:46 11/22/06 (9)
- Proctologist? Going into the gutter here, Auph: won't follow you there. - tinear 15:20:42 11/22/06 (8)
- Re: But - rico 07:58:32 11/23/06 (2)
- Don't forget, he read the book when it came out in the 60's.nt - jamesgarvin 08:54:53 11/24/06 (0)
- Yes, the focal point. But not 1/2 the number of pages! You think - tinear 08:09:57 11/23/06 (0)
- Hey, I'm just speculating based on the crankiness of your mood. - Audiophilander 23:13:57 11/22/06 (4)
- Quite honestly, you're hallucinating. I am attacking the Bond film, - tinear 05:08:18 11/23/06 (3)
- The "foul" comment was just a gentle gibe; for someone vigorously attacking folk's opinions you seem oddly sensitive... - Audiophilander 11:11:55 11/24/06 (2)
- I pointed out the RIDICULOUS plot elements and the more I did, the more - tinear 16:20:03 11/24/06 (1)
- "I don't mind, it's the loser's way of waving the internet white flag." - LOL! Really? - Audiophilander 23:29:48 11/25/06 (0)
- Re: Umm. Casino Royale was published in 1953. His first seven bond novels were written in the 50's.nt - jamesgarvin 14:34:07 11/21/06 (3)
- Okay, I READ them in the 60s, after JFK said he liked them. Thanks for - tinear 04:54:01 11/22/06 (1)
- Well, we would not need fact checkers if.... - jamesgarvin 07:41:29 11/22/06 (1)
- Quite right. However: William F. Buckley Jr.'s spy novels are several cuts above Fleming's. Plus... - clarkjohnsen 20:01:43 11/21/06 (0)