[BJRuttenberg]

I just wanted to rant because I have been looking forward to this new installment in the Bond franchise and it just so happens that It was a terrible disappointment.

1) Not a bond movie - more akin to a Bourne Identity flick. Too much fast cutting and too much action for Bond. Bond is not an action hero, he is James Bond: womanizer (yes), sneak (he is a secret agent), deft (yes), but not a blood-n-guts, in-your-face, guns-a-blazin Rambo type.

2) No Cool Names for bond girls or cheesy sexual innuendo

3) Crappy plot

I could go on but Im making myself more angry so im going to stop there. If you really want to know how I feel, I think it is summed up by these two articles:

Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe

Rodger Ebert - He actually got it right this time!

 

[Robert Hudson]

You see I have the complete opposite reaction, this is why I think he is the best bond ever and is taking the movies in a completely new direction that is absolutelty wonderful. Finally, Bond is no longer a cartoon comic book farse, but a gritty, tough, bloody and violent character that is part of our modern society and times. It is a movie an adult can appreciate. He still has the sex appeal, trust me. He is cut more than the last two bonds. Cheesy one liners, I can do without. I totally love it. 8)

This shouldn't surpise you. His first bond movie clearly showed the direction he was taking the character, it brought new life to the franchise and made it the biggest box office bond movie in a long time.

 

[Raul-7]

From what I saw, it was too much action and not enough story.

 

[mcsinny99]

Haven't gone yet, but if it is any bit as good as the last one then thank god. Die another day was awful. It's about time they made bond like the books instead of a skysurfer.

 

[rich815]

Stupid name for a movie too. I wonder what committee came up with that "cool" name.

 

[BJRuttenberg]

See, we just fundamentally differ because it saddens me that a movie character must be "gritty, tough, bloody and violent" to be "part of our modern society and times" and to make this a "movie an adult can appreciate." The best bonds were the ones that worked on two levels where you could also be a kid and "appreciate" the movie. The kind of film that didn't overload you with cheap thrills like unnecessary blood or explosions. The best part of bond was his slick banter and ability to talk his way out of almost anything, and only when talking didn't work did he resort to a quick shot from the hip from a well hidden gun.

My beef is not with Daniel Craig, he did a fantastic job...it's with the movie. And to address the new direction comment - bond doesn't need to take a new direction - we don't need another action Hero!!! If you doubt me, please make note of the ever expanding universe of comic book heroes (spiderman, superman, x-men, et al.). We need a return to basics (read Connery Bond). They are incredibly well scripted/written. Granted there are fewer explosions and fewer adrenaline inducing balls-to-the-wall action scenes, but this is not a failing on the part of the old guard, it is because Bond is discrete - he is a SPY, a SECRET AGENT. How many secret agents go around blowing stuff up unnecessarily? Or rescuing girls unnecessarily after first meeting them and there's a faint possibility that keeping her around will somehow further the plot?

Sure, you can give bond a makeover, make him more appealing to modern audiences, but you don't totally reconstruct the man, not after 22 movies.

My Biggest Beef Though: How many Bonds are actual sequels? The greatest part of any bond movie is that you take nothing in and you leave with nothing. I missed half the driving force of this movie because I had not seen the first one since it came out in theaters. Bond's only motivation through the whole movie is revenge, and that, no matter what you care to say, makes for a flat, boring character.

Bond is so GREAT because he is a caricature because he is ripped from the pages of Flemming's serial pulp novels. If they wanted to make a Tom Clancy movie, they should not have released it under the guise of being "Bond." It's as though the movie is thumbing its nose in the face of fans in favor of creating a more marketable, Lowest Common Denominator, Bond - we'll call it Vista Bond - it looks nice but down to the core it is still replete with system crashing glitches.

And for the record, the last Bond (Casino Royal) was brilliant. I'm now stepping down off my soap box.

 

[DarioDario]

First one put me to sleep so I would only go to see the sequel if I get another case of insomnia

 

[rich815]

See, we just fundamentally differ because it saddens me that a movie character must be "gritty, tough, bloody and violent" to be "part of our modern society and times" and to make this a "movie an adult can appreciate." The best bonds were the ones that worked on two levels where you could also be a kid and "appreciate" the movie. The kind of film that didn't overload you with cheap thrills like unnecessary blood or explosions. The best part of bond was his slick banter and ability to talk his way out of almost anything, and only when talking didn't work did he resort to a quick shot from the hip from a well hidden gun.

My beef is not with Daniel Craig, he did a fantastic job...it's with the movie. And to address the new direction comment - bond doesn't need to take a new direction - we don't need another action Hero!!! If you doubt me, please make note of the ever expanding universe of comic book heroes (spiderman, superman, x-men, et al.). We need a return to basics (read Connery Bond). They are incredibly well scripted/written. Granted there are fewer explosions and fewer adrenaline inducing balls-to-the-wall action scenes, but this is not a failing on the part of the old guard, it is because Bond is discrete - he is a SPY, a SECRET AGENT. How many secret agents go around blowing stuff up unnecessarily? Or rescuing girls unnecessarily after first meeting them and there's a faint possibility that keeping her around will somehow further the plot?

Sure, you can give bond a makeover, make him more appealing to modern audiences, but you don't totally reconstruct the man, not after 22 movies.

My Biggest Beef Though: How many Bonds are actual sequels? The greatest part of any bond movie is that you take nothing in and you leave with nothing. I missed half the driving force of this movie because I had not seen the first one since it came out in theaters. Bond's only motivation through the whole movie is revenge, and that, no matter what you care to say, makes for a flat, boring character.

Bond is so GREAT because he is a caricature because he is ripped from the pages of Flemming's serial pulp novels. If they wanted to make a Tom Clancy movie, they should not have released it under the guise of being "Bond." It's as though the movie is thumbing its nose in the face of fans in favor of creating a more marketable, Lowest Common Denominator, Bond - we'll call it Vista Bond - it looks nice but down to the core it is still replete with system crashing glitches.

And for the record, the last Bond (Casino Royal) was brilliant. I'm now stepping down off my soap box.

+1 in a BIG way.

The reason they do not make them like that anymore if because they are too hard to do right---the ones done today are easy to do with a big budget---but like you say they are just like all te other stupid-hero flicks. Ever since the Duran Duran/Grace Jones catastrophe I've been disappointed....

 

[Seattle_Aquarist]

Lots of action and special effects, minimum plot and character development.

 

[Robert Hudson]

They have tried to take Bond movies in different directions before. Some of the worst Bond movies were some of the ones with Moore. The Jaws character was ridiculous, the one with Jackie Gleason was just plain idiotic. Dalton was the absolute worst Bond because he was a total woos. They purposefully toned down the womanizer image with Dalton and made him a complete wimp. They killed off and did away with the villan characters finally in an effort to go with more intrigue and less comic book farse. That was the best thing they ever did.

Broslin, bronsin, whatever, was OK, but Craig by far is the most believable and realistic. Bond movies, particularly the early ones, were so predictable. You always knew exactly what was going to happen and there was always someone who was going to take over the world. Talk about boring. In my view, there is not a whole lot of difference between the Austin Powers movies and some of the Bond movies, except Austin Powers is meant to be a joke!

Bond's only motivation through the whole movie is revenge, and that, no matter what you care to say, makes for a flat, boring character.

Yes, he is on a revenge trip because it is a continuation of casino royale where his heart was broken and then turned into a stone cold killer. The original version of casino royale was actaully the same way except bond was married and his wife got killed. Thats reality!

Its the number 1 movie right now around the world.

 

[freydo]

2) No Cool Names for bond girls or cheesy sexual innuendo

you would definitely never get a bond girl's name similar to Ms Galore's in this day and age. there are more interests groups and people get offended easier these days.

i liked the bond movies during sean connery's reign, and truth be told, he was just as ruthless as daniel craig is. it's just the way they're showing now is different. all the other bond actors sucked, bond is a double "oh" agent... licensed to kill. what's the point in giving him this designation if all he does is womanize?. story line aside (because the actors have no real say in it), daniel craig is a good fit in how he presents bond.

 

[Cavan Allen]

I thought it was pretty good. Daniel Craig takes some getting used to, but I like him. I really don't have a problem with any of the actors, just the movies. Some just seem to have a good story and a good 'feel'. Others don't.

Die Another Day was horrible.

I love You Only Live Twice. Secret volcano base? How cool is that?