I saw the new Bond movie today, I wasn't impressed *spoilers*

[Hippo_Tron]

I'd heard rave reviews from both critics and my friends who but it disappointed me. It certainly wasn't the worst bond movie but it had some serious issues.

I'll start with what I liked...

I liked the development of Bond's character that hasn't really been done in previous movies. Making the story more personal was a good twist and I hope they continue to do this in the future movies. Also, I thought the actors gave good performances particularly Judy Dench who I've always liked as M.

What I didn't like...

The movie was not faithful to the Bond franchise in so many ways. There villain didn't have a super weapon with the intent to blow something up, there was no car chase scene with Bond's car shooting missiles. There was no Q in the movie and there were really no gadgets at all. If this were any other Bond movie, Q would've given Bond X-ray sunglasses so that he could see the cards of the other players' cards.

Which brings me to the poker game. People don't play Texas Hold 'Em for $150 million. People with that much money play more exotic games like Baccarat. The Texas Hold 'Em game was obviously put in the movie because everybody knows how it is played except that it missed the poker craze by about two years.

Finally, I didn't dislike Daniel Craig's performance but I don't like the way they've portrayed him as Bond. Pierce Brosnan and all of the Bond actors before him that I can remember had a hairy chest and a gut. Bond isn't supposed to have rock hard abs and chizzled arms. If he did, he'd be spending 5 hours in the gym every day instead of saving the world. They took every opportunity they could to take shots of Bond with his shirt off.

Now I realize that this could be perceived as hypocritical considering that the women in these movies have always been sex objects and the bond girls generally are unrealistically portrayed. But I'd much rather make the women more realistic than turn Bond into a sex object as well.

What did everyone else who has seen it think?

[Hugin]

1. Bottom line...

I'll wait for the DVD.

Next stop... The Hitcher, did it really really need to be re-made?

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Good call, I only went to see it in theaters because my friend and I are huge Bond fans

Plus we're Jews and it was Christmas Eve so we've got nothing better to do.

[Hugin]

4. I am also a huge Bond fan...

But, from what I've heard of it so far a misconceived decision was made
somewhere along the line to focus on drama and 'redefining Bond' in this film.

Well, I can tell you... Bond fans are not about the drama. Bond fans are about
escapism and please go light on the drama.

Bond is a form of superhero and trying to humanize him is exactly the wrong
idea.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. I like that they dug into his character but I agree that he shouldn't be humanized

I think that digging a bit deeper into his character was a good approach. They've attempted this before with subtle references that never get resolved. In License to Kill Felix mentions that Bond was married once. In Goldeneye, Natalya calls him a cold hearted killer but after that scene she just kinda forgets it and everything is all fine at the end of the movie. I'm glad that they showed that Bond had a human side to him. The problem is that they spent the entire damn movie showing that he was human and it lost its fantasy appeal.

He shouldn't have lost the poker game at first because he should've rigged it so that he can't lose. The fact that M gave him the assignment because he's the best poker player in the agency was so lame. Bond doesn't play games of chance, he finds ways to make sure that he can't lose.

Since you haven't seen it I realized I've provided a few spoilers here but they're not really big ones.

[Hugin]

9. "Bond was married once."

Now that you mention it, I recall that he was married.

My memory of which titles it was is a little fuzzy. (Maybe you can help)

He met a woman in a mountain top tram station (it was Sean Connery as Bond)
in the beginning of the next movie he was driving with her on their honeymoon
and she's shot dead. Which launches the events of the next movie as Bond goes
after the perpetrators of her demise. I haven't seen that scene in awhile.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Hrmm I can't remember either

I'm always bad at remembering what happens in the opening scenes.

[Hugin]

12. It was at the very beginning of the second movie after the tram station battle...

and now that I think about it the scene may have been edited out in later releases.

It was quite shocking. I saw it on it's first release in the theaters.

"You Only Live Twice", maybe.

[Hugin]

13. Ah, HA!

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
(Bond married Tracy de Vincenzo but she was killed at the end of the film)

Oh, they say it was at the *end* of the film. Somehow, I remember it at the start
of the next film.

[Hugin]

14. Boy, could I have been more incorrect?

It was at the end of the movie and Bond was George Lazenby. :shrug:

Oh, well... I was nine at the time. I guess I can't expect a perfect memory.

[InvisibleTouch]

21. The wife was killed at the end of "Her Majesty's..."

I definitely remember that. Then at the beginning of the next film (I forget the title), he's visiting the grave (different actor - Connery?), just a brief scene as a tribute to the last movie's events.

Haven't seen the new movie. I'm mostly a Moore and Brosnan fan when it comes to Bond, but I'll probably see the new one at some point. Just in no particular hurry.

[Hugin]

22. I do remember that now...

I was wrong about my age too... I was six.

There were a number of Bond films coming out one right after the other at the time.

The 'trivia' section of imdb goes into some detail. The character Bond married was
played by Diana Riggs!

[wildhorses]

3. i liked it but, then again

i'm a girl:P

i will agree with some of your critiques, the lack of gadgets and no Q :cry:

a buff bond ...oh hell yeah ;)

[Hugin]

5. and... Oh, yeah...

Keep the eye candy for the ladies!

Right wildhorses?

[wildhorses]

31. ubeccha

;)

[Hippo_Tron]

6. That was my minor complaint, Bond's physique would've been a footnote if that were my only problem

But with all of the other things that disappointed me it became another fault I could find with the movie.

Throw in the car chases, gadgets, make the villain's plans more destructive and sinister, and turn poker into baccarat and I'd be a happy camper.

[Hugin]

7. So, you were underwhelmed by the experience?

There really seems to be a consensus of opinion on this from what I've heard others say.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. There was plenty of action, but it felt like any other action movie

The action scenes in the Bond movies are unique because of the gadgets, the cars that do amazing things, and the bad guys with weapons of mass destruction. There was none of that in this movie.

[Little Wing]

18. And thankfully so

The Brosnan crap-fests were ridiculous. Romulan cloaking devices on cars, with ejector seat hatches powerful enough to flip a car over? Stupid. Every 'gadget' ever introduced after A View to a Kill was stupid.

I'm hoping your OP is satire.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I admit the Romulan cloaking device was absurd

But the gadgets that are slightly unrealistic are part of the effect. A watch with the laser, the ring that shatters glass, those are good at bridging the gap between reality and fantasy.

Q should've built him a pair of sunglasses that allow you to see other players' cards.

[Little Wing]

33. Yes, but sunglasses which could see through cards would eliminate

the suspense.

Bond signs up
Bond wins.
Everyone's happy.

Bond then quits MI-6 and moves to Vegas and dies a very rich man.

[Deja Q]

15. Hmmm

I agree with what you like.

May I also suggest On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, and Licence to Kill (whose Felix Leiter is the same actor seen in "Live and Let Die" and it's easy to see why he was re-cast, given his charismatic personality...)

I'm glad there was no super-weapon. That nonsense got tiring a long time ago and not all Bond movies need such a gimmick. (And Q wasn't in Dr No either... if I recall correctly...)

We needed a Bond who could rely on wits; not gadgets. That's why there's no X-ray specs or other gimmicks. :)

I agree on Texas Hold'Em; a game like Baccarat would be more relevant, even if not as universally accessible.

I also agree that Bond was a little too buff. (on the plus side, the rumor of doing a nude scene wasn't done; and nobody saw his swim suit from a close-up angle. Nice to see (or not see).)

I will admit it seemed like the end of the movie when Bond and Vesper were vacationing, and after 10 minutes something happens to re-start it. Bad timing on the part of the director, and the real ending wasn't as satisfying as I'd had hoped (knowing this is the beginning of a story arc doesn't help much either), but seeing Bond learn his way through things was gratifying. He reminded me of Kerr Avon in some ways...

Personally, I love the return to realism and having a Bond that has to rely on brainpower than stupid gadgets and sub-cornball jokes. It's Dalton on steroids.

[genie_weenie]

16. I think you wanted more of a Brosnan Bond film

this one had a more visceral and real fell to me. I liked that the gadgets were not completely unbelievable (like the orbiting space laser station in the last film) and that the fight scenes were less idealized and the horrible impact of violence was not minimized.

And anyway the capture of Mr. White sets up the next film with SPECTRE and doomsday sceniros...

A built Bond wasn't a bad idea.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. I liked Brosnan as Bond but I admit 3 out of 4 of his movies were bad

Goldeneye was one of my all time favorites but Die Another Day was damn near unwatchable with the exception of the first 10 minutes.

But even before Brosnan, Bond has generally relied on Q Branch to get him out of tough situations. I agree that the cloaking car was absurd as were a lot of the recent gadgets but the fact that there was no Q scene at all annoyed me. Part of the fun is the scene in every movie where Q shows Bond the gadgets and he screws around with them.

[Auggie]

17. I thought it was a nice change of pace in the franchise

and applaud the producers for taking the risk. It was fun to watch.

[Deja Q]

19. And a successful one,

meaning this trend will continue... :woohoo: :party:

[seemunkee]

20. Been a long time since I read it but it was far more faithful to the book

I liked it except for him playing Texas Hole'Em instead of Baccarat. The chair torture scene was right out of the book and his character seemed more in line with what Fleming wrote. I would take Casino Royale over any of the Roger Moore movies.

[Deja Q]

23. Even 'For Your Eyes Only'?

It's a diamond in the rough...

[seemunkee]

27. Sorry

I never liked Roger Moore as Bond.

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. I read somewhere that the director wanted to be truer to Ian Fleming's book.

Not a bad idea, given how over the top I have found the more recent Bond movies I've seen. I finally stopped seeing them because they had become cartoonish.

[Deja Q]

28. Agreed

Even Moore's worst spots (Moonraker, Man with the golden gun) are comparatively watchable (and they're not...)

[bagimin]

24. It was different but good.

Three stars.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. I look forward to seeing this new Bond movie

after all the varied and interesting things everybody said.

[SanCristobal]

32. I thought most of the same things the first time I saw it.

I watched it a second time and liked it much better. Although the plot was a little less dramatic and the villains death was very out of character for a Bond film, it was very fun to watch. Supposedly it followed the plot of the book very well (though in the book they do play baccarat). It was a different style movie, but after that last piece of trash Die Another Day it was a welcome change. The opening music video was amazing. It also had the best fight scenes out of any Bond film. It was nice to see some grappling go down, particularly when Bond chokes out the warlord.

As for Bonds body, I gladly accept anything that helps move Americas beaches towards the socially acceptable speedo.:smoke: