Annie Hall 9.5 / 10
funny and profound
The last movie you saw
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
Accepted
Meh not bad. Entertaining but not great.
Doom
It had its entertaining parts, but jesus christ it sucked.
Meh not bad. Entertaining but not great.
Doom
It had its entertaining parts, but jesus christ it sucked.
[size=75][i]I once had a glass of milk.
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
-
Tormentius
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17509
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Casino Royale.
Good god, what an enormous bag of shit this film was.
5/10 Acceptable pulp in its own right, but absolutely, categorically not a bond film. Worse than that one with Lazenby and the homicidal pram woman, srsly.
Good god, what an enormous bag of shit this film was.
5/10 Acceptable pulp in its own right, but absolutely, categorically not a bond film. Worse than that one with Lazenby and the homicidal pram woman, srsly.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
― Terry A. Davis
I'll pick up on a few points but in the end I know this is going to come down to personal taste if we really get into it:
If you're running your first film with a new Bond, do you stick to the formula for at least the first film to bed the new face in and slipstream him into the series, or do you throw just about everything out except the simplest notion of the character and fuck about with every single other thing?
Cars? Mostly gone. Gadgets? Mostly gone. Gadget cars... sort of.
What's it got? Fuck me, a secret agent diy defibrilator kit (complete with Big Red Button((tm))), syringe, and mobile phone. Secret agent, or heroin junkie who's just jacked a car? Whatever, bullshit.
Bad guys. Okay. Who exactly was the kingpin bad guy in the film? That le Chuffer guy right? And what was his crime... right... he funds terrorism. Ok, so maybe one of those terrorists might launch a diamond-encrusted satellite to take out world cities, or live in an under-sea fortress, or some shit. But not him. The man is an evil banker. But wait, he's got some character. Aside from there being something undeniably French about him that lends a sinister air to the proceedings, he also has been occasionally known to bleed out of one of his eyes. He bleeds. From his eyes. Evil Banker.
Then on to the set pieces. If you saw the trailer you saw most of the film bits that weren't full of slow dialogue, and you also inexplicably witnessed the only coherent bits of plot, too. From the crane sequence (one of the films major successes was working parkour into the first sequence IMO) to the car flip, to the airport gas tanker to the sinking building, the plot was daubed around the sequences and not the other way around, and it really really showed. They did the same thing in all of Brosnans movies, but it was done with some modicum of skill. In this is was just Action Sequence
Product Placement Mush Some slow poker segment Next Action Sequence Evil banker More Mush
Then at the end, they didn't even wrap the plot up. But it's not the same as the early bond films with the S.P.E.C.T.R.E theme running through them, they just couldn't finish this script off. Perhaps instead of squandering nearly a full hour of film on poker and mushy banter, they could instead have filled in the huge gaps in plot and maybe even stuck an ending on there. I dunno. If you're not going to wrap up the end of a film, there at least has to be a reason not to that's directly relevant to the plot itself. In this they just didn't or couldn't do it. Rubbish.
Its not all bad. I can't fault the casting because it's apparent even through the film's flaws and disregard for series that the individual actors were well selected and did the best they could with what they had to work with. Bonus points for casting Isaach De Bankole because he's a personal pick for up-and-coming success. And Daniel Craig can fit into the Bond role, I just don't think this movie was anything like an appropriate vehicle to bring him into the series.
If you're running your first film with a new Bond, do you stick to the formula for at least the first film to bed the new face in and slipstream him into the series, or do you throw just about everything out except the simplest notion of the character and fuck about with every single other thing?
Cars? Mostly gone. Gadgets? Mostly gone. Gadget cars... sort of.
What's it got? Fuck me, a secret agent diy defibrilator kit (complete with Big Red Button((tm))), syringe, and mobile phone. Secret agent, or heroin junkie who's just jacked a car? Whatever, bullshit.
Bad guys. Okay. Who exactly was the kingpin bad guy in the film? That le Chuffer guy right? And what was his crime... right... he funds terrorism. Ok, so maybe one of those terrorists might launch a diamond-encrusted satellite to take out world cities, or live in an under-sea fortress, or some shit. But not him. The man is an evil banker. But wait, he's got some character. Aside from there being something undeniably French about him that lends a sinister air to the proceedings, he also has been occasionally known to bleed out of one of his eyes. He bleeds. From his eyes. Evil Banker.
Then on to the set pieces. If you saw the trailer you saw most of the film bits that weren't full of slow dialogue, and you also inexplicably witnessed the only coherent bits of plot, too. From the crane sequence (one of the films major successes was working parkour into the first sequence IMO) to the car flip, to the airport gas tanker to the sinking building, the plot was daubed around the sequences and not the other way around, and it really really showed. They did the same thing in all of Brosnans movies, but it was done with some modicum of skill. In this is was just Action Sequence
Product Placement Mush Some slow poker segment Next Action Sequence Evil banker More MushThen at the end, they didn't even wrap the plot up. But it's not the same as the early bond films with the S.P.E.C.T.R.E theme running through them, they just couldn't finish this script off. Perhaps instead of squandering nearly a full hour of film on poker and mushy banter, they could instead have filled in the huge gaps in plot and maybe even stuck an ending on there. I dunno. If you're not going to wrap up the end of a film, there at least has to be a reason not to that's directly relevant to the plot itself. In this they just didn't or couldn't do it. Rubbish.
Its not all bad. I can't fault the casting because it's apparent even through the film's flaws and disregard for series that the individual actors were well selected and did the best they could with what they had to work with. Bonus points for casting Isaach De Bankole because he's a personal pick for up-and-coming success. And Daniel Craig can fit into the Bond role, I just don't think this movie was anything like an appropriate vehicle to bring him into the series.
To sum up:
No Moneypenny
No Q
No Gadgets
No Evil Mastermind
No smooth plot transitions
No ending
More Product Placement
More Slushy Drama
More Budget
More Chatty Dialogue
More Running after cars like a T-1000
More nonsensical action
No Moneypenny
No Q
No Gadgets
No Evil Mastermind
No smooth plot transitions
No ending
More Product Placement
More Slushy Drama
More Budget
More Chatty Dialogue
More Running after cars like a T-1000
More nonsensical action
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
― Terry A. Davis
