Vasquez on 14/11/2008 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Ulukai
but I really don't buy into this whole imitating bourne/shakycam critic bandwagon
Ok, it imitated
any action movie with shakycam. But anyone with functioning eyeballs can hardly say the camera wasn't shaking ;)
ignatios on 15/11/2008 at 05:01
It's not that the camera was shaking; it's that the edits were too frequent and poorly placed.
It's one thing to have shaky cam to draw you into the action sequence (the Bourne movies). It's another thing to be unable to get into the sequence because the camera work is distracting and awful.
Basically,
Quote Posted by Morte
Marc Forster simply can't do action.
With low expectations appropriately set, I enjoyed it. However, as far as Bond movies go, it's mediocre.
Vasquez on 15/11/2008 at 19:09
Well, matter of taste. I really hate the shakycam effect in anything.
Xiphos on 15/11/2008 at 19:26
Connery, the Once and Future Bond.
Volitions Advocate on 16/11/2008 at 19:06
Watched it last night, I like the direction that they're taking bond now. CR was actually my favorite bond movie to date. ousting goldeneye. but as for the shakeycam. I agree with the idea that it was just edited wrong. because yeah i noticed it was a shakeycam. and I get really annoyed by it. it really wasn't that bad. certainly nowhere near as bad as miami vice was.
BEAR on 16/11/2008 at 20:49
It was OK and had its moments, but it wasn't as cohesive as Casino Royal. Jumped around more and some things didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Like
Why did he just give the girl (the bolivian one) to the random dude as soon as he stepped off the boat, it was clear she had information about the guy he needed information about, but he just ignored it. I know why they did it (to show he isn't the old bond who is just going to bone her immediately), but it didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Also:
The scaffolding fight was way too long, seriously. And it wasn't that great. I much more enjoyed the simple brutality of the first movie.
system shocker on 16/11/2008 at 22:44
It was a really emotionless movie. The new James Bond character is pretty ruthless. He is like Keanu Reeves from teh Matrix.
Morte on 17/11/2008 at 07:44
Quote Posted by BEAR
Like
Why did he just give the girl (the bolivian one) to the random dude as soon as he stepped off the boat, it was clear she had information about the guy he needed information about, but he just ignored it. I know why they did it (to show he isn't the old bond who is just going to bone her immediately), but it didn't make a whole lot of sense.The plot as a whole depends a lot on Bond carrying the idiot ball. If only he'd pause his running to explain what the fuck is going on, a lot of the people trying to kill him would stop. There's also
the point where he fails to tell M that he didn't shoot the PM's aide's bodyguard, and he has at least two opportunities to inform MI6 and the CIA about axactly what Greene is up to, but doesn't.jtr7 on 17/11/2008 at 08:00
I guess we're supposed to go along with the idea that no one may be trusted, with enemy agents and moles "everywhere", so he completes his mission under that assumption.
BEAR on 17/11/2008 at 12:43
That I get, but ignoring a person who knows practically everything right from the beginning just broke the realism pretty bad for me, that and she was a total babe. She could have told him everything from the very beginning, so she should have a) not known everything or b) been taken away from him somehow.
Edit: @ morte: but they don't go out of their way to explain that bond is stupid or something. He might be a blunt instrument but he can put some shit together, and shows keen insight a lot of times, and something like previously mentioned is well within his capacity. Thats why I wondered why they didn't find a better way to do that, it just seemed ham handed.
