See, here's the thing ... it's a good movie, not a brilliant one, but not bad. But there's two things seriously wrong with it;
1] It's not actually all that different from any other action/spy movie. [seriously, imagine if the lead hero hadn't been called James Bond. See what I mean?]
2] as a subset of (1)... It's not a Bond movie!
Bond movies had a distinctive style, they were a genre unto themselves and had a commonality regardless of plot or actor playing Bond. Now, gut that out completely, change just about everything else ... and what's left isn't a Bond movie.
It's the "Oliver Cromwell's Sword" problem. If you've changed the blade twice, and the hilt three times, and lost the scabbard...is it really still the same sword? So, if you've changed the movie's style to the point where there's very little left of the original, is it still the same thing?
Yes, it's a movie about a hero called James Bond. But he's a completely different character as well as actor. It has a couple of common plot elements, Q, M and so on although even those are different to a degree... but it's 'DNA' so to speak is not the same.
When all's said and done. It's an ok-ish movie...but it's not a Bond movie and it's insufficiently different to distinguish itself from other similar movies without that. It's just a generic action movie with a few bits cannibalised from the Bond franchise. It's an attempt to pass off a cheaper rip-off movie as the real thing.
I kind of gave up on it being a Bond movie Bond movie. I wasn't expecting it to be, from what I had heard. I'm going with a "valid interpretation" thing.
Part of getting over my pissoff was being able to go into it knowing it wasn't going to be like the movies I started watching Bond in. I'm probably a heretic anyway, because I only started watching them with Dalton. I haven't watched the "classics" because they just don't appeal to me visually. And I feel bad about that, because, you know, I loved the later ones, I feel like I should at least WANT to watch the earlier ones, and I just . . . don't.
I found that without the stuff that makes a Bond movie a Bond movie, I was . . . a lot more interested, actually. Which is a weird reaction to have, but there you go. Maybe it's a delayed reaction to the last Brosnan movie, which, his involvement aside (I would watch him do anything), was a pretty awful movie in my book, because it just tried too hard with all the silly goofy stuff.
I liked Moore and Dalton and Brosnan, but oddly every time I saw Connery, I just kept thinking how I'd rather be watching the Rock or Highlander. I officially have no taste.
Yes, but the earliest Sean Connery Bond movies were a bit more hardcore (relative to the time they came out). Bond was more of a swaggering psycho, not a suave charmer laden with gadgets.
And from what little I know of the actual books, it's a heck of a lot closer.
I mean, I don't think Gritty Realism should be in everything... I like my swashbuckling and such. But I think it certainly worked in the Daniel Craig movies.
I remember when the big controversy was just that he was blonde...
Oddly enough, your Point 1 reminds me of another movie... I've always said that "Constantine" with Keanu would be an OK (not great, but ok) movie if it was called "Devlin Chase: Demon Hunter." But as an adaptation of DC Vertigo's Hellblazer, it sucks dead goat dick.
Yeah, I've resisted seeing Constantine. I am sort of AAAAAAUGH about the character thing, and also very AAAAAAUGH about it being Keanu, whom I don't much care for anymore. I look at him, and I get fucking pissed about the Matrix movies, it's like a Pavlovian thing.
Funny thing, it was halfway through the movie before I went "Hey, Daniel Craig is . . . sort of . . . a little bit . . . blonde, isn't he?"
I keep wanting to see it, just because I've been TOLD that, and I am able to divorce book from movie sufficiently to enjoy a movie whose franchise I'm not emotionally married to. However, there's still the matter of Keanu. That's hard for me to get over.
1] It's not actually all that different from any other action/spy movie. [seriously, imagine if the lead hero hadn't been called James Bond. See what I mean?]
2] as a subset of (1)... It's not a Bond movie!
Bond movies had a distinctive style, they were a genre unto themselves and had a commonality regardless of plot or actor playing Bond. Now, gut that out completely, change just about everything else ... and what's left isn't a Bond movie.
It's the "Oliver Cromwell's Sword" problem. If you've changed the blade twice, and the hilt three times, and lost the scabbard...is it really still the same sword? So, if you've changed the movie's style to the point where there's very little left of the original, is it still the same thing?
Yes, it's a movie about a hero called James Bond. But he's a completely different character as well as actor. It has a couple of common plot elements, Q, M and so on although even those are different to a degree... but it's 'DNA' so to speak is not the same.
When all's said and done. It's an ok-ish movie...but it's not a Bond movie and it's insufficiently different to distinguish itself from other similar movies without that. It's just a generic action movie with a few bits cannibalised from the Bond franchise. It's an attempt to pass off a cheaper rip-off movie as the real thing.
Reply
Part of getting over my pissoff was being able to go into it knowing it wasn't going to be like the movies I started watching Bond in. I'm probably a heretic anyway, because I only started watching them with Dalton. I haven't watched the "classics" because they just don't appeal to me visually. And I feel bad about that, because, you know, I loved the later ones, I feel like I should at least WANT to watch the earlier ones, and I just . . . don't.
I found that without the stuff that makes a Bond movie a Bond movie, I was . . . a lot more interested, actually. Which is a weird reaction to have, but there you go. Maybe it's a delayed reaction to the last Brosnan movie, which, his involvement aside (I would watch him do anything), was a pretty awful movie in my book, because it just tried too hard with all the silly goofy stuff.
Reply
Reply
And from what little I know of the actual books, it's a heck of a lot closer.
I mean, I don't think Gritty Realism should be in everything... I like my swashbuckling and such. But I think it certainly worked in the Daniel Craig movies.
I remember when the big controversy was just that he was blonde...
Oddly enough, your Point 1 reminds me of another movie... I've always said that "Constantine" with Keanu would be an OK (not great, but ok) movie if it was called "Devlin Chase: Demon Hunter." But as an adaptation of DC Vertigo's Hellblazer, it sucks dead goat dick.
Reply
Funny thing, it was halfway through the movie before I went "Hey, Daniel Craig is . . . sort of . . . a little bit . . . blonde, isn't he?"
Reply
As a movie that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Hellblazer, it's an OK movie.
Reply
I used to really like him, too.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That whole "life/death/evil" thing.
*shuddering with delicious terror, is shirtlifterbear*
Reply
Reply
(And thanks for understanding what I meant... I was worried about being rude!)
Reply
Constantine pisses me off because it could have been so damn good... instead, it got stuck with a really excellent supporting cast and Mr. Woah.
Reply
Thank you. I needed a name that summed it up that succiinctly.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment