IC Forum Archive

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Yeah, they're alike in that they both have spies in them.

Maztorre · Posts: 1175

sethsez wrote:

Yeah, they're alike in that they both have spies in them.

Sold!!

extralife · Posts: 3316

There's more to it than that, to be fair. The Vesper/Eva comparision isn't a bad one, and both are clearly origin stories that explain the decadent behaviour of their leads.

George · Posts: 1656

And really, if you've got to condense that down into a movie that must contain plenty of action, the origin story and love story is more essential than The Boss and the historical stuff (well in MGS 3 Big Boss/The Boss was the strongest love, so I guess you could say Vespa is a combination of Eva and The Boss). There's also a nice twist involving a CIA agent in both. And a third act torture scene that establishes what a badass the hero is.

However, crying blood is NOT as cool as fists of lightning. Especially since Le Chiffre doesn't keep Raiden around as a gay lover.

internisus · Posts: 961

Bond has never been simultaneously believably epic and absurdly bizarre as MGS. Also, I've never felt anything strongly about a Bond movie. Though I think once an Aston Martin made my penis move.

I rented Goldeneye last night and watched it, haven't seen it since like '96. It's really awesome! There's a non-stop set-to-set-to-set chase aspect to it that gets almost tiresome, and some scene cuts are incredibly abrupt like in really old movies, but mostly everything about it is far, far better than the movies that came after it. That's what I had vaguely remembered, but I wanted to confirm it. I've never watched much Bond before that era, excepting occassional TV presentations whose names I never knew.

The opening sequence especially surprised me as being teriffic, because every one since then has made me cringe. Right from the start, it's excellent. That moment when the small-size Bond figure fires his gun and the giant woman head breathes flames from her mouth back at him in the same moment really kicks it off. Also, I have this DVD for like a week, so maybe I'll watch some features and stuff.

The Soviet Onion · Posts: 6

Similar to a lot of American cultural output these days, Casino Royale seemed very feminised to me (no women in the opening theme sequence, re-iteration of information, the focus on Craig as an object of desire etc.). It was a James Bond movie that didn't trust it's audience to have the tinest understanding of James Bond. Given that James Bond is the most immediately recognizable film franchise I can think of I find that worrying.

I understand that because of the bad run they've been having lately there must have been considerable demand for change. However in this case I think they've destroyed the village in order to save it. There have been many, many terrible James Bond movies in the past, but they've all been terrible James Bond movies. Casino Royale felt entirely in keeping with the current plague of remakes, as if the source material were some fleeting 60's television show.

Given that's the path we're now headed down, in a way I would like them to follow it to it's logical conclusion. Totally burn down James Bond, in order that it might rise again from it's own ashes. Have Bond have sex with a man, have him defect to the enemy, have him die.

As for GoldenEye, I don't know. It was made in a similar circumstance - following a string of bad Bond films - by the same director, and yet was arguably the best of the James Bond films. I'm tempted to attribute it to the golden age of SF effect. It had this strange balance between reverence and ridicule; clearly self-mocking, but self-mocking from a position of confidence. It updated James Bond whilst making clear why James Bond never needed to be updated.

extralife · Posts: 3316

The Soviet Onion I must say you are making a strong initial impression and I would like to see you post more. Also, I want to have sex with your user name.

internisus · Posts: 961

I was kind of thinking both of those things as well, except with less stroniness and more sex.

extralife · Posts: 3316

Internisus lets make out.

internisus · Posts: 961

Suck me off first.

extralife · Posts: 3316

We were supposed to start slow in order to entice The Soviet Onion to join. Good job :(

internisus · Posts: 961

I have no problem making out gently with The Onion while you get busy. I just feel that you and I are well past that stage at this point. Frankly, I'm tired of fencing with you.

SP_86 · Posts: 31

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Mods, please ban oral sex okaythanks.

Maztorre · Posts: 1175

So this is a pretty amazing film, guys. I was at an utterly packed showing last night, and it was the first time I've experienced an audience laughing at a Bond joke instead of groaning.

Daniel Craig is a wonderful actor, and the script is very tight as a character piece rather than the superfluous nonsense they wrapped Brosnan in over the years. His presence, in particular his face, is far more interesting than any other Bond before him (cringe-worthy Roger Moore arched eyebrows have disappeared, thankfully). The man looks like a killer. Whenever Craig is being pushed towards his physical limit his eyes seem to glow even bluer on the screen. They honestly do, I'm still wondering if they were highlighted in post-production in some scenes! He is also far less smarmy-sounding than previous actors when delivering comedy.

I especially like how they broke Bond out of the formulaic setups the previous movies have been throwing up by making Bond far more proactive on gathering intelligence. Bond now uses his wits beyond "now would be a good time to use this handy gadget Q gave me for this exact situation!". Kudos to the rest of the cast, too! This Bond girl has actual smarts. I don't mean in a "I'm a computer programmer but here are my tits anyway" fashion. She is actually real-world clever! The villain, for once, is both feasible and interesting!

The film only stutters at the end, which is nearly always the case with films the studio want to leave somewhat open-ended. It drags it's feet a little there, and by this point I felt that the final showdown was almost contrived for the character Craig had created so skillfully during the first 2/3 of the film. The payoff in the final 10 minutes was worthwhile, though.

Please remain as reserved with the next one, MGM. No more ridiculousness!

internisus · Posts: 961

I saw a shot on TV of Miss Green/Greene galloping across the beach on horseback with the obvious aim of having her boobies bounce about. That was disappointing!

Maztorre · Posts: 1175

That was a different girl.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

The Soviet Onion wrote:

Similar to a lot of American cultural output these days, Casino Royale seemed very feminised to me (no women in the opening theme sequence, re-iteration of information, the focus on Craig as an object of desire etc.). It was a James Bond movie that didn't trust it's audience to have the tinest understanding of James Bond. Given that James Bond is the most immediately recognizable film franchise I can think of I find that worrying.

It didn't trust the audience to know James Bond because it was an adaptation of the first novel in the series. In the book, nobody knew who the fuck James Bond was.

And Bond being fallible (but intelligent, determined and frequently lucky) was a part of the character in the original books, especially Casino Royale. This is not a new invention in 2006, this was who Bond was before Connery. The "modern feminization" thing doesn't really hold up when you consider how faithful the movie is to the source. Bond didn't really become the infinitely charming one-dimensional superhero until the novel Thunderball, which was the ninth book in the series and was written with the intention of being turned into a film (which didn't happen for a few years due to legal wrangling over who owned the rights to it).

Boo · Posts: 47

James Bond is the perfect image of capitalism.

He is a free agent travelling around the world.
He speaks billions of languages.
Bond drives the latest cars.
Bond has all the coolest gadgets.
All expenses covered.
He gambles.
He gambles and he wins.
He gambles and he wins the girls. The Girls. THE GIRLS!!!

Enjoy this article from the CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.CLICK ON THE DOT