Best addition to the Bond series ever.

Amazing what tremendous acting skill can do the most cookie-cutter of characters.

"You're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur."

Really set the tone for her character, and she hasn't slacked off once since then.

I love the way she can shift from icy-cold command to mild compassion with barely a shift of her eyes, and without losing the look of command. That's something the old M could have never even attempted.

We're amiably agreeing here while duking it out elsewhere. We're so complex!


Anyway, her command of the microscopic shift of tone is a rare skill indeed, and it communicates in an instant far more than ten minutes of lame dialogue or hackneyed cat-and-mouse antagonism ever could. The "old" M was always willing to spar with Bond, but it was never more than an exchange of petty zingers. What we see with Dame Dench is what happens when a real actor truly inhabits a character, rather than someone simply playing at a role.

:thumbsup:

It's a comment I make endlessly at movies. Hire great actors, and any script looks smarter.

I don't know if she can save the series from the new Bond. I've never seen a Bond movie that made me lose respect for the character like the last one did. Just awful in every way.

In the space of one film, Craig managed to own the character of Bond far more effectively than any actor who preceded him, even the (over-)vaunted Connery, IMO.

a naive, love struck fool who can't show any kind of wit or believable emotion.

The "love struck fool" will likely only persist into the current film (which, I grant, has the second worst title in the entire Bond series). I also think that Craig's Bond was sufficiently witty, such as during the torture sequence (gritty, but witty) and when he returned to the card game after his digitalis poisoning.

Believable emotion? Well, that's another matter. Pre-Craig Bonds never displayed any emotions aside from lust and anger, often both at the same time. I would also add that IMO the now-dated misogyny of the earlier portrayals (decried even by Roger Moore himself) make those previous incarnations all but unwatchable, even though I loved those films when I was younger.

It seemed to me that Flemming wanted to read a non-Bond story, but couldn't get approval, so he wrote a story that had Bond fresh off a mission speaking to the governor of some British island or other, and the governor told him a story about a failed marriage. The story was mostly about the marriage, but I kind of think the title works pretty well, considering the plot of the new film.

He has the simplistic macho action movie side down but without the same level of intelligence or subtlety that sets Bond part from other spy/action movies.

I'm not sure if I have a favorite Bond but the Brosnan films were many of my favorites. They were all timely and politically relevant in a way that the most recent one was not. Those were prophetic movies about media moguls starting wars, a world domination scheme that involved controlling gas pipelines in the middle east, weapons in space and so on. They had better acting and better plots than the last one.

Was this guy in it?
http://www.dvdtown.com/images/displayimage.php?id=2972

The little half smile when the terrorist blew himself up at the airport?

The stoic "ow" when they implanted the subdermal locater.

"Don't worry, you're not my type."
"Smart?"
"Single."

"I'm sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me."

"I've got a little itch, down there. Would you mind?"

"I'll kill her!"
"Allow me."

You did understand that it was a reboot, right? This was a glimpse of Bond before the job destroyed his soul.

He doesn't hold a candle to Brosnan's lines and delivery.

"I thought Christmas only came once a year."

I mean seriously. :shrug:

I guess you can always watch Austin Powers.

And that's Bond. Corny lines are in every movie.

And that's the old Bond.

And for God's sake! Did anyone believe for an instant that Denise Richards was a credible nuclear physicist? Even a credible cartoon nuclear physicist?

that was lacking in the last one. You'll find many more and worse corny lines in the Connery movies. Its part of the charm of the series that makes it different from every boring action movie I rent on video for $1.

And it's part of what I can't stand about them now.

:shrug: I thought she was more believable than Sophie Marceau, or Terry Hatcher in "Tomorrow Never Dies." Both of them seemed to be trying to act like they thought rich, influential women would act, whereas Denise Richards just seemed to be creating a character. Not every scientist has to fit a cliche of a scientist.

Didn't you know that?
:sarcasm:

Well, you understood my point. :)

Way to project your own issues into the discussion.

I like my nuclear physicists to be at least as smart as I am on the subject, which believe me isn't saying much. And beyond the dumbly written character (which accounts for a great deal of the unbelievability), Richards herself brought nothing to the role beyond her appearance.

I'm no great fan of Marceau or Hatcher, either, but since we were discussing Dr. Christmas, I thought I'd continue.

She figured out how to open the door when they were trapped in the silo, she instructed Bond on how to disable the bomb in the pipeline, she explained the dangers on the sub and helped Bond figure out how to diffuse everything. Seemed pretty bright to me. :shrug:

Nor do I care to watch the film again. However, when I watched it, I recall that there were more than a few groaner moments that struck me as pretty close to unendurable.

If I happen to see it again, I'll post a follow-up.

The only groaners to me were Marceau's character.

This isn't more grammar stuff, is it? Maybe it's not the attractive woman, but the southern accent?

North/south has nothing to do with it, though I agree that Marceau certainly didn't win any (good) prizes with her performance, either.

She was saddled with a lot of expository dialog that she was simply not capable of delivering.

She had the audience I saw it with in stitches with her stilted spouting of lines like:

We have to get the rod out of the reactor! Melting down. 4000 degrees, the Zirconium casings on the rods crack. 5000, the plutonium melts.

"Oh, James! I think Christmas is coming early this year." :puke:

It's even more horrifying when you realize that you've been asking yourself, "why the fuck did they call her Christmas?" for the previous ninety minutes. Yes, it really was just to set up that joke.

I for one, appreciated the more serious treatment. I found it much closer to what I remember from the books.

To be honest, Die Another Day almost ruined the franchise for me. I'm glad that I gave it another shot.

I always thought he was hampered by the scripts. The writers were out of ideas and developing more implausible and grandiose premises just to show Bond in bed with a hot daughter-age babe or killing someone with a smirk. I still liked them, but they didn't work beyond a superficial level. And the "Bond women" were terrible--Sophie Marceau made Denise Richards believable, even, and Halle Berry, who is otherwise talented, seemed pretentious and banal.

Aside from "Goldeneye," with Sean Bean," I didn't think any of the scripts were decent. And "Goldeneye" was practically a remake of other scripts, echoing "Thunderball" and "Diamonds are Forever." Oh no, another madman with a weapon to hold the world hostage! To me, that's why "Casino Royale" worked so well. It returned the Philip Marlow nature of the actual Flemming novels, and it cut away the grandiose save-the-world-with-007-seconds-left-on-the-timer plots, and made a realistic spy thriller, still with the slick 007 overtones. I don't agree that he was witless or love-struck, either. Every Bond gets maudlin over some woman or another, and Craig was no worse than, say, Brosnan over Terry Hatcher's character, or Brosnan on the beach in Goldeneye, desparately kissing the Russian babe who had just pointed out that he was always alone, or Moore bristling at the mention of Tracy. And the wit was smoother and smarter in Casino Royale, without the canned one-liner feel that Brosnan's quips had become. Especially after Connery and Moore both used the same style.

Craig keeps his intelligence and competence to himself. He doesn't lack it, he just doesn't flaunt it. He calculates the odds in poker faster than a computer, he hacks into computers no one else can crack, he solves complex puzzles on the fly, and he handles every new situation thrown at him with barely a miss. He's every bit as strong as every past Bond, every bit as smart. He just doesn't do cute as often, and his character shows his boss the proper respect, especially for a new agent. But I think you missed much of the script if you think this Bond was slower-witted or love struck.

I liked Brosnan's Bond. Playful, yet lethal. And Brosnan could turn an emotional scene, too--the scene on the beach in "Goldeneye" is one of my favorites. But even he was bored with the writing, as he implied several times. When they finally dropped him, he said something about them never giving him the chance to develop a real character, and wanting only the one-liners. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

He calculates the odds in poker faster than a computer

What does he do when he's convinced Le Chiffre's bluffing? He raises all in! :wtf: A smooth call might have had Le Chiffre bluffing all-in on the next street, especially if Bond sells it as a very reluctant call. The last thing you want a bluffer to do is fold their hand. When you know your opponent is bluffing, you let him hang himself. That's Poker 101.

They really should have hired a poker professional to at least review the script.

Oh, wait a minute...

I'm just going by how they portrayed him, as being able to calculate the odds. I know nothing about the intricacies of poker. I suspect there were flaws with the poison scene and the defribilator, too, but facts should never get in the way of dramatic fiction. :)

As you probaby know, in the book they played baccarat. I read that long before seeing the movie, and had even less idea how bacarrat was played than poker. I could barely figure out the basic point of the game, much less the intricacy. I knew only a little more about poker when I watched the movie. I had to react based on whether those around the table flinched or ahhed appreciatively. :)

I get the impression that he felt that a good player could somehow bend the laws of probability in his favor, i.e. "be more lucky."

Baccarat would be an extremely poor choice (and it was in the novel) as a method to raise money. A lot of fans howled when they changed it to poker, but it really made more sense. More so, given poker's 21st century popularity.

Given that the poker game was such a key part to the film, they could have done it right without sacrificing any on the drama.

But that's really a minor nit for me. Overall, I enjoyed the film.

I read your comments and thought "that's weird, Craig was hilarious as Bond." Not just one liners, but even just the way he held a glance, like the scene where he catches Le Chifre bluffing and Le Chifre tosses the cards on the table, or the way he laughed at the Swiss banker's overreaction to his joke about chocolates.

Then it occured to me. Craig is the first Bond, except maybe Dalton, who only jokes within the context of the story. Every other Bond tells their jokes and one-liners for the camera, for the audience, even when they say them to another character. Craig's Bond never breaks character, and only delivers his one-liners and jokes in the context of the story. They aren't scene-closers, either. Brosnan tells jokes over dead bodies, then walks away. Craig tells jokes to another character, and the scene continues. "That last hand almost killed me," "Do I look like I give a damn?" "No, a little more to the right," "Now everyone will know you died scratching my balls..." These were all classic Bond one-liners, but Craig doesn't wink at the camera when he says them, and they don't always close out the scene. One of them turns sour as Le Chifre makes him realize that they won't kill him even if he kills Bond.

Just thought that was interesting.

Given the commercial success and nearly unanimous critical acclaim, I'd say that there is no need to save the series from anything. They'll just have to do without your viewership, I suppose. I know it will shatter their hearts, but somehow, someway, they shall press on. :)

because all the critics and press tell them they're supposed to like it. I have my own opinion.

And yet most people just decide whether they like something based on whether they like it, and then when they compare notes and find that other people liked it, too, aren't surprised. That's how a movie becomes a commercial success and receives critical acclaim--thousands of independent opinions that all wind up in basic agreement.

So, which are you? Did you decide you disliked it based on your own opinions, or because everyone else liked it?

I think the franchise is in capable hands.

It only took them 40 years to make another Bond movie that was worth a damn.

"How's the lamb?"
"Skewered. One sympathizes."