So you liked the movie? I thought the dialouge dragged in most parts. I didn't like the pro-American tilt to the movie that we didn't see in Tomorrow Never Dies where M goes "Unlike the CIA/FBI, we don't get our news from CNN." Instead we have an all-American looking agent instructing M that if "you can't control your agent, WE WILL." Once again, we have the stereotypes that the goodguys are white, the bad guys are Asian, and the woman is the deceitful one.
I rank the Pierce films like this:
1. Golden Eye (#2 all time I would think, behind Goldfinger)
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. Die Another Day
4. The World is not Enough
Don't kid yourself though. The latter three movies all had substandard scripts. Nothing like GoldenEye.
<strong>why did they choose Halle berry </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can think of two reasons:
The dialogue in Die Another Day is just awful. Bond and Jinx's innuendo is childish and makes you cringe. In most Bond movies, it makes you groan and slap your head, but not cringe.
And what kind of a name is "Jinx"? Or "Miranda Frost"? Sigh.
And the tag line! "He's Never Been Cooler." Jeez. And the surfing scene. Bleh. He's not Vin Diesel.
[Edit: I noticed in Berry's close-ups, she had very bad skin. Not that I'm being bitchy, or anything.]
Halle Barre happens to be a great actress- just not in this one. She's too over-the-top American with that last line, "BITCH!" I thought the innuendo was the movie's higher point. Oh, Bond Girls have always had OTT names. This is nothing new.
Halle Barre happens to be a great actress- just not in this one. She's too over-the-top American with that last line, "BITCH!" I thought the innuendo was the movie's higher point. Oh, Bond Girls have always had OTT names. This is nothing new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, I think "Pussy Galore" from Goldfinger tops them all. As for the dialogue, well...I haven't even seen it yet and already it looks trashy. I cringed when they had that clip of her saying "Yo' Mama!" . <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
On a related vein, I read a funny joke about how there's so much product placement in this Bond film that industry wags are calling it "*Buy* Another Day".
I think that's the whole purpose of the Bond films. People go to see them knowing they'll be full of action, cheesy one liners and innuendo. It's all part and parcel of the James Bond 'institution'. It has become very dated though. The Bond / Austin Powers thing has come full cycle.
<strong>I think that's the whole purpose of the Bond films. People go to see them knowing they'll be full of action, cheesy one liners and innuendo. It's all part and parcel of the James Bond 'institution'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. I think that's what it has become in the last 7 years but did you see GoldenEye? That movie was great! It shows that modern Bond films can indeed be good... Though both Dalton films are better than the last three Pierce films.
I was thinking about seeing it today, but I'll probably just maintain my relaxing, "do nothing" Saturday and catch it next weekend (or one night this week?) and let the crowds die down a bit.
I like Brosnan's take on Bond. Best one since Connery (although, I guess that's not saying a lot, is it?).
There have been several white guy villians over the years: Jonathan Pryce, Goldfinger, Christopher Walken, Donald Pleasance, Christopher Lee, the white haired-guy with the underwater base, Sean Bean, Robert Davi, Richard Kiel (Jaws), the head villian in "Moonraker" (see his face, just don't know his name), etc.
If every Bond movie had an Asian or whatever as the villian, then I'd totally agree that the franchise might be stereotyping a bit. But it's been a pretty healthy mix over the years.
And there are usually two women: a good one and a vixen-ish, "bad" one (who usually ends up getting what's coming to her). In the end, the sweet, smart girl wins out and ends up with Bond.
In any case, these movies are what they are. Pretty much on auto-pilot at this point and we go just for the thrill and the cool swagger and gadgetry.
At least I do.
Trying to nitpick or elevate a Bond film to Merchant Ivory heights just isn't going to fly.
Yeah, extremely cheesy at time, for sure. The worst parts about all Bond films has been the dialogue. Someone should re-mix the DVDs with the audio taken out and replaced with music and forest sounds.
But we all dig the stunts, the sexual playfulness, the action, etc.
Totally one of those "leave your common sense and critical eye in the lobby" kind of movies. And as long as you accept that, going in, they're pretty fun to watch.
I always see every Bond film, no matter what. A tradition, I guess.
The guy is a wimp. When you're such a wimp, no matter how hard you try it's not going to work well when you have to play a very hardened individual. And yes, I agree that Roger Moore was pretty wimpy, but at least he had an innate sense of humor. Pierce has neither.
I also think the scripting could use some work. Right now I get tired of seeing so many explosions. I'd rather see some degree of mystery. Another thing I like about Bond films are the locations. In the older Bond films, there is some fabulous footage of interesting places in Europe and Asia, and I think it adds a lot.
As for cliches, Bond films have always had them. Before, the enemies were mostly some sort of Communists, or Spectre, the comic-bookish crime syndicate. In the last 4 films, it seems as though there hasn't been nearly the same adherence to formula & cliche.
<strong>II like Brosnan's take on Bond. Best one since Connery</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually liked Roger Moore nearly as much as Connery. Always thought he had real class without flaunting it. Still does, BTW.
I think Brosnan is a bit more of a Mr. Handsome who works on his looks and his general 'way' a little too much (for my liking). But hey, he does a good enough job. Not like that 'under her majesty's secret service' lackluster citygent.
How can people compare Bond to regular movies? It is in a class by itself. The terrible diologue makes it great! The whole point seems to be missed by you guys. I don't get why people can't just go see a movie anymore and just enjoy it. Everyone has to act all intellectual and sophisticated by trashing the movie and over analyzing it. I don't get it <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I know, trashing the Brosnan Bond is a bit like pretending Connery or Moore were Cinema D'arte. It is what it is, non of them have ever been great cinema, but they're fun, celluloid comic strips. (or whatever film is printed on these days.)
<strong>How can people compare Bond to regular movies? It is in a class by itself. The terrible diologue makes it great! The whole point seems to be missed by you guys. I don't get why people can't just go see a movie anymore and just enjoy it. Everyone has to act all intellectual and sophisticated by trashing the movie and over analyzing it. I don't get it </strong><hr></blockquote>
No...the point is to be a good movie. "Terrible" dialouge is certainly not a virtue for a good movie.
Comments
Thanks.
I rank the Pierce films like this:
1. Golden Eye (#2 all time I would think, behind Goldfinger)
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. Die Another Day
4. The World is not Enough
Don't kid yourself though. The latter three movies all had substandard scripts. Nothing like GoldenEye.
<strong>why did they choose Halle berry
I can think of two reasons:
The dialogue in Die Another Day is just awful. Bond and Jinx's innuendo is childish and makes you cringe. In most Bond movies, it makes you groan and slap your head, but not cringe.
And what kind of a name is "Jinx"? Or "Miranda Frost"? Sigh.
And the tag line! "He's Never Been Cooler." Jeez. And the surfing scene. Bleh. He's not Vin Diesel.
[Edit: I noticed in Berry's close-ups, she had very bad skin. Not that I'm being bitchy, or anything.]
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Halle Barre happens to be a great actress- just not in this one. She's too over-the-top American with that last line, "BITCH!" I thought the innuendo was the movie's higher point. Oh, Bond Girls have always had OTT names. This is nothing new.
<strong>Well....
Halle Barre happens to be a great actress- just not in this one. She's too over-the-top American with that last line, "BITCH!" I thought the innuendo was the movie's higher point. Oh, Bond Girls have always had OTT names. This is nothing new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, I think "Pussy Galore" from Goldfinger tops them all. As for the dialogue, well...I haven't even seen it yet and already it looks trashy. I cringed when they had that clip of her saying "Yo' Mama!" . <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
On a related vein, I read a funny joke about how there's so much product placement in this Bond film that industry wags are calling it "*Buy* Another Day".
<strong>Oh, Bond Girls have always had OTT names. This is nothing new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was my point. The names in Die Another Day are pathetic!
Apparently Halle Berry wanted "Cinnamon Buns".
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
I thought the torture scene opening and the fencing scene was cool.
<strong>I think that's the whole purpose of the Bond films. People go to see them knowing they'll be full of action, cheesy one liners and innuendo. It's all part and parcel of the James Bond 'institution'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. I think that's what it has become in the last 7 years but did you see GoldenEye? That movie was great! It shows that modern Bond films can indeed be good... Though both Dalton films are better than the last three Pierce films.
<strong>I thought the torture scene opening and the fencing scene was cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, the fencing was pretty good, especially because it seemed that the two actors were doing a lot of it themselves, rather than stand-ins.
I like Brosnan's take on Bond. Best one since Connery (although, I guess that's not saying a lot, is it?).
There have been several white guy villians over the years: Jonathan Pryce, Goldfinger, Christopher Walken, Donald Pleasance, Christopher Lee, the white haired-guy with the underwater base, Sean Bean, Robert Davi, Richard Kiel (Jaws), the head villian in "Moonraker" (see his face, just don't know his name), etc.
If every Bond movie had an Asian or whatever as the villian, then I'd totally agree that the franchise might be stereotyping a bit. But it's been a pretty healthy mix over the years.
And there are usually two women: a good one and a vixen-ish, "bad" one (who usually ends up getting what's coming to her). In the end, the sweet, smart girl wins out and ends up with Bond.
In any case, these movies are what they are. Pretty much on auto-pilot at this point and we go just for the thrill and the cool swagger and gadgetry.
At least I do.
Trying to nitpick or elevate a Bond film to Merchant Ivory heights just isn't going to fly.
Yeah, extremely cheesy at time, for sure. The worst parts about all Bond films has been the dialogue. Someone should re-mix the DVDs with the audio taken out and replaced with music and forest sounds.
But we all dig the stunts, the sexual playfulness, the action, etc.
Totally one of those "leave your common sense and critical eye in the lobby" kind of movies. And as long as you accept that, going in, they're pretty fun to watch.
I always see every Bond film, no matter what. A tradition, I guess.
The guy is a wimp. When you're such a wimp, no matter how hard you try it's not going to work well when you have to play a very hardened individual. And yes, I agree that Roger Moore was pretty wimpy, but at least he had an innate sense of humor. Pierce has neither.
I also think the scripting could use some work. Right now I get tired of seeing so many explosions. I'd rather see some degree of mystery. Another thing I like about Bond films are the locations. In the older Bond films, there is some fabulous footage of interesting places in Europe and Asia, and I think it adds a lot.
As for cliches, Bond films have always had them. Before, the enemies were mostly some sort of Communists, or Spectre, the comic-bookish crime syndicate. In the last 4 films, it seems as though there hasn't been nearly the same adherence to formula & cliche.
<strong>II like Brosnan's take on Bond. Best one since Connery</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually liked Roger Moore nearly as much as Connery. Always thought he had real class without flaunting it. Still does, BTW.
I think Brosnan is a bit more of a Mr. Handsome who works on his looks and his general 'way' a little too much (for my liking). But hey, he does a good enough job. Not like that 'under her majesty's secret service' lackluster citygent.
<strong>
Steele, Remington Steele... HAHAHHA!!!
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I LOVED that show, and Banacek too. I wonder if you can get them on DVD.
<strong>How can people compare Bond to regular movies? It is in a class by itself. The terrible diologue makes it great! The whole point seems to be missed by you guys. I don't get why people can't just go see a movie anymore and just enjoy it. Everyone has to act all intellectual and sophisticated by trashing the movie and over analyzing it. I don't get it
No...the point is to be a good movie. "Terrible" dialouge is certainly not a virtue for a good movie.