Post: #126

Walked out of the cinema.

Christopher Waltz, Lea Seydoux.

Both amazing actors, both reduced to shallow cliches.

The 007 brand name is the only thing enabling the hype.

Under any other name, it wouldn't stand a (critical) chance.

Post: #127

(10-29-2015 06:08 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I didn't think Judi Dench was all that terrible in everything prior to Skyfall. I think she did a pretty good job of showing the seriousness of M (Bernard Lee wasn't the happiest guy either).

It's not about the character or the actress or the performance, but the deliberate-subversion.

Who gains by gender-swapping the character? Why does it need to happen at all? Why are there no calls to gender swap female aspirational heroines, like Alice, Katniss, Buffy or Bella Swan?

A decade or so later, by Craig's first performance, who is the objectified body? I have no idea who the Bond Girl even was in that film because there was no focus on her at all, but I saw variations on this picture everywhere all through the media.



Now, of course, we're only hearing about the Bond Girl because she's post-menopausal. Media Hags are masculinised, repulsive women so end up left on the shelf, which is why they're constantly trying to sell older women as 'sexy'.

Bond now fits the Narrative, and, most likely, is only still sold to men as a opportunity to train them for consumption: Here's your aspirational male lifestyle figure: wear what he wears, drink what he drinks, drive what he drives.

Post: #128

I agree with the Roger Moore thing. If Bond can be anyone than he isn't anyone. It follows the trend of nothing having meaning anymore and words, definitions being fluid. I'll make a deal, they can make Bond whoever they like so long as this is the next person to play Joan of Arc:

Post: #129

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but at this rate it wouldn't surprise me if they stuck a freakin gay lover on a future Bond not too far from now.

Edit: sure enough it was covered...

Post: #130

(10-29-2015 06:41 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 06:08 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I didn't think Judi Dench was all that terrible in everything prior to Skyfall. I think she did a pretty good job of showing the seriousness of M (Bernard Lee wasn't the happiest guy either).

It's not about the character or the actress or the performance, but the deliberate-subversion.

Who gains by gender-swapping the character? Why does it need to happen at all? Why are there no calls to gender swap female aspirational heroines, like Alice, Katniss, Buffy or Bella Swan?

A decade or so later, by Craig's first performance, who is the objectified body? I have no idea who the Bond Girl even was in that film because there was no focus on her at all, but I saw variations on this picture everywhere all through the media.

Now, of course, we're only hearing about the Bond Girl because she's post-menopausal. Media Hags are masculinised, repulsive women so end up left on the shelf, which is why they're constantly trying to sell older women as 'sexy'.

Bond now fits the Narrative, and, most likely, is only still sold to men as a opportunity to train them for consumption: Here's your aspirational male lifestyle figure: wear what he wears, drink what he drinks, drive what he drives.

That's an absolutely spot-on assessment of what happened in Bond. They gender-swapped him. While him being in great shape is fine, they obviously reduced him to good looks, being attractive and feeling somehow ashamed about his inherent male sexuality. Also they redid him as a broken man who cries and simply masks his utterly destroyed fragile mental psyche with a veneer of coldness.

The truth of the matter is that this is not how a strong man thinks. It is how a "strong" woman behaves, a 40 year old childless business woman who is all cold and professional in her job, but then at home consumes a bottle of wine each night crying herself to sleep.

Did not realize that the Craig Bond has been gender-swapped.

The magic and attraction of Bond is of course the fact that they created an impossibly masculine super-attractive hero, almost a parody of masculinity, but one that did not take itself seriously. Women loved him and men enjoyed watching the spectacle. The Sean Connery movies had many feminine, deceitful, cute, strong, smart women in it. They were seldom portrayed in a masculine manner trying out-man men themselves. Also the entire movie series was of course to be seen with a twinkle in the eye.

Now you see the Bond redo the sexy beach scenes from Bond girls, see him cry on the beach and say how unhappy he is, see him have a drab childhood and weak mentality, have him crave monopausal women.

The propaganda has utterly destroyed Bond some years ago. There is only a walking shadow of the 1950s man left.

Post: #131

The fact that so many Bond girls have been whingeing about the term 'Bond girl' has put me right off, even off Naomie Harris, who I would have previously given a seeing-to of Biblical proportions.

The fact that such irrelevancies are even being taken seriously, never mind discussed, are a sad barometer of how society has got its collective panties in a bunch and are the death throes of a series once meant for masculine men.

As for the film itself - I'm a fan of Craig's Bond, but can't get excited for it.

Post: #132

Making Bond female is too much, too fast. He will first become black.

Post: #133

(10-29-2015 06:23 PM)Frostbite Wrote:  Walked out of the cinema.

Christopher Waltz, Lea Seydoux.

Both amazing actors, both reduced to shallow cliches.

The 007 brand name is the only thing enabling the hype.

Under any other name, it wouldn't stand a (critical) chance.

Christoph Waltz really was criminally underutilized. Given almost nothing interesting to do, and the big 'reveal' of his character utterly failed to convince. Not to mention that the way they shoehorned in that he was from Bond's past...what was that about? It meant nothing to the audience and changed nothing in the plot or character motivation.

As for Lea Seydoux, no complaints from me. Standard fare Bond girl stuff, but very easy on the eyes.

Post: #134

----------------------------------------

Post: #135

SPOILERS





I saw it at the weekend. Monica Belluci is barely in the movie, she’s literally in the film for 5 minutes, and the seduction scene is laughable. Bond bangs her after turning up at her husband’s funeral. Monica’s skin looked old. She should have kept her clothes on – I hate to say that about Monica but I’m keeping it real.

I also thought it was lame that they made Blofeld and Bond “step-brothers”. I just don’t find Naomi Harris attractive, I think they need to get somebody more bangable in the Moneypenny role. They also fucked up the dynamic between her and Bond (she lusts after Bond, but Bond has never reciprocated) by showing that she’s with a guy.

Overall it was OK, but would I watch it again? Probably not.

Post: #136

SPOILER





I watched the movie on the weekend. What a waste of time.

I really enjoy the old Bond movies, but this one....

There was just no atmosphere, at no point did the movie drag me in. The car chase was just boring. They weren't racing through the city. It looked like they drove through the city on the brakes.

Sure, there were some nice elements in it. The fight in the train was an homage to an old Bond movie and there were some other elements in it. But the atmosphere was not there.

It was a jumping around between London, Austria, Rom and the desert. But there was no real story. There was no grand final.

I am clearly disappointed with this Bond movie.

Post: #137

IMO, Daniel Craig is the most talented actor to portray Bond. Yet at the same time, he is my least favorite Bond. I haven't watched SPECTRE, but Skyfall just left me in a bad mood. I mean, it ends with James Bond CRYING? Give me a break.

Bring back the impossible action sequences, witty wine liners and meaningless sex. I liked it better as a fire in the hole flick rather than a Bourne Series ripoff. However, with that said the opening scenes of the Craig Bonds are phenomenal. I'll often just watch those then turn it off.

And whats up with painting Bond as a raging alcoholic? No way a guy in that position can be a rabid booze hound. After a bender I can barely put up weight in a gym nevermind be a secret agent.

Post: #138

Saw it, and was not impressed. There is not a single emotion in the movie. It's like everyone is going through the motions. No chemistry between any of the characters. Aston Martin badly underused. I almost fell asleep. Save your money.

Post: #139

They could've made a better use of the mass surveillance vs cloak-and-dagger espionage theme. Instead, it was just a footnote to Bond's relationship with Blofeld. There was so much talent in the cast and so many salient points that could've been made. So much potential wasted.

Post: #140

Bangable Moneypenny? Clearly not a Bond fan.

Bad story all around. Hopefully this is the last Craig vehicle. Mendes is gone too.

Waltz, criminally underused.
The love interests were boring.

Bautista killed it

Aston Martin chase was boring

Best badass of 2015 has been Benecio Del Toro in Sicario.

Post: #141

I think the movie was good, what i didn't like was that the trailer showed the best bits.

Monica Bellucci in her lingerie did it for me, I would bang without a question.

The French actress is also damn sexy.

Bautista was great in it, although he didn't really say much.

I think the movie died after the car chase, how can you not like a bad guy in a Jaguar chasing Bond in a Aston. Sure beats that cheesy Z3 Brosnan drove in Goldeneye.

Post: #142

Is the new movie any good or is it a typical Craig-era film sprinkled with some SJWism?

So far opinion seems to be pointing in that direction.

Post: #143

I read that Daniel Craig has said he is done with the franchise for good. Judging from the comments here, WNP (would not pay to see this movie in theatre), if I were Craig I might be done as well.

Post: #144

My girlfriend is a big Bond fan and she actually fell asleep during the movie it was that bad.

I don't really remember much of it either.

Drab rubbish.

Very disappointed.

Post: #145

(11-09-2015 05:15 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Is the new movie any good or is it a typical Craig-era film sprinkled with some SJWism?

So far opinion seems to be pointing in that direction.

A girl shoots a gun. But not before she takes a big punch to the face that knocks her down and possibly out.

But if anything, it's typical Hollywood in that the guy has to give in a little bit to get the girl.

The problem with the this movie is that it basically rewinds to a smarmy era of Bond.


WIA

Post: #146

opening scene in mexico was great. lea seydoux is sexy.

rest of the movie was bland. bringing back blofelt just to have him arrested in the end? should've let him escape to bring back waltz in future movies.

Post: #147

(11-09-2015 05:31 PM)odesseus Wrote:  I read that Daniel Craig has said he is done with the franchise for good. Judging from the comments here, WNP (would not pay to see this movie in theatre), if I were Craig I might be done as well.

I'm really against these franchises dragging out too long with the same actor. They need someone younger in the Bond role preferable in his 30's. Daniel Craig shouldn't have been in this one in the first place. Michael Fassbender would have been interesting.

Post: #148

I thought it was good. It wasn't great, but it was better than Skyfall. Hopefully Blofeld comes back at some point because it seems a waste to only use the series' most iconic villain in one movie.

People massively overreacted to the news that the Bond girl was 50 years old. Monica Bellucci is in the movie for about five minutes and plays a role that she's perfect for. The main girl is way younger and more attractive.

Post: #149

Saw it last night. Better than skyfail, but that isn't saying much.

Waltz's worst movie ever and Craig's most insipid performance ever.

Post: #150

(11-15-2015 07:19 PM)fareast Wrote:  I thought it was good. It wasn't great, but it was better than Skyfall. Hopefully Blofeld comes back at some point because it seems a waste to only use the series' most iconic villain in one movie.

People massively overreacted to the news that the Bond girl was 50 years old. Monica Bellucci is in the movie for about five minutes and plays a role that she's perfect for. The main girl is way younger and more attractive.

Yup, lots of people believed in the gossip in this thread.

Turns out it was the total opposite. Him going out with a 20 something year old eastern European girl is something that most guys on the forum want.