cliched bond moments. Ridiculous scenes like Bardems character escape plan being based of him setting explosions ahead of time in a tunnel so at that exact moment it can go off and a train can come down the hole? LOL
Also who cares about M and why would Bond. She's a ruthless technocrat who just as easily would have let bond die and suffer horribly.
Bond was Bond. M was an unsympathetic monster. Only Bardem was interesting.
A worse review.
😉
I’ve seen far more ridiculous scenarios than the train scene in earlier Bond movies. Roger Moore is space, for starters.
It obviously wasn’t for you but I think it’s 100% entertaining from first scene to last. I have great memories of seeing the New Zealand premiere at Peter Jackson’s beautifully restored Roxy cinema in Wellington. Still one of my best cinema experiences.
What’s so ridiculous about Roger Moore in space? Moonraker wasn’t a great movie but setting it in space wasn’t the real issue. The train scene was a impossible plot twist.
shareThe train scene proved just how brilliant he was as a character. He was able plan it all out to the exact detail
shareMore and more people are realizing this as time goes on.
shareThe question is, why does it take so long for them to realize that? What causes such mass hypnotism? And why does it keep happening over and over again, every time a new Bond film is released?
shareThis problem is not only limited to Bond films. Look at the crap films that are considered to be good in this century. Audiences and critics to a lesser extent have no taste and they keep supporting awful films. They get exactly what they deserve. I mean, there are people who still think that The Dark Knight is a good movie. I don't even know how to engage with these people.
share'Audiences and critics to a lesser extent have no taste and they keep supporting awful films. They get exactly what they deserve.'
***
I agree that we get the Cinema we deserve, and that film critique is currently in poor shape.
That being said, I'm myself always somewhat loath to engage people about their 'tastes'. First, because "one has the tastes one can afford, not the tastes one chooses". Second, because I think it's perfectly all right to have a taste for 'bad movies': how everyone decides to spend their precious time is their own business after all.
However, what I find more preoccupying, is moviegoers not being able to 'recognize' bad films, or not able to articulate why they are bad (or good, for that matter). In other words, audiences being less and less cineliterate, and confusing opinion or trivia with film critique.
'I mean, there are people who still think that The Dark Knight is a good movie. I don't even know how to engage with these people'.
***
That's the other problem, I think. Cinephiles not being able to 'engage' with each other anymore, and discuss films rationally and argumentatively, based on a certain knowledge of film language and the history of the medium (instead of, say, systematically siding with a particular studio, or comparing box office gross). This is where confusing opinion with critique doesn't help.
As Boileau said, "whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease" : if you had to explain to an intelligent interlocutor demonstrating good faith, why would you say The Dark Knight is not a good film?
Of this series , only CR is good. I am scared to watch it again because the Mandela Effect might make it a bad one, also. Just kidding, it might have always been bad or the subsequent ones may stink it up.
shareI still enjoy CR because I forget that movies that follow it and still think that its cool to explore how Bond became Bond. I liked, not loved Skyfall at first. No matter how much I dislike the new Q and Moneypenny, at least they are back. Fiennes is a good M. Bardem is an entertaining villain, although his gay scene with Bond is bizarre. The movie was good up until the rip off Home Alone ending. It was way better than QOS. I bought into the hype of it being the first billion dollar Bond movie.
Years have passed and after many rewatches, its an average Bond movie. Better than Spectre, but nothing special. Most overrated Bond movie in the franchise.
I can't speak to Spectre because after three attempts I can't get past the first set piece and it is basically a remake of Austin Power Goldmember.
shareIt isn't aging very well quite honestly. I dislike it slightly more every time I watch it. Craig's acting is abysmal among many other issues. The Spectre retcon also doesn't do it any favours.
shareIndeed. I thought it was a complete exercise in mediocre spectacle, a convoluted nonsensical plot, capped off with an anti climactic & ridiculous 'Home Alone' ending.
One of the worst Bond films in general & the very worst of the Craig era. Yes worse than Quantum
It's hardly a "bad movie" LOL.....give me a break.
share"cliched Bond moments"
Most Bond films have been full of those since Goldfinger.
'Ridiculous scenes"
Welcome to a Bond film
"Also who cares about M"
A lot of people because of Judi Dench. No one really gave a toss about M until Dench played the role.
"Bond was Bond"
It's a James Bond film, I didn't expect him to be Spiderman.