Bond Bites the Pillow

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:14 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 256024.stm

Paul Haggis is a really bad director and an even worse writer. He leaves nothing at all to the imagination of his spectator and takes great expense in spelling everything out. Also he likes to whack the audience over the head with his ten ton mallet of cliche symbolism. Crash was a joke and now it seems bond will be too. While the younger gadgetless Bond is a direction I saw the films going in (and see as a necessary step as the cold war bond simply holds no context in todays world) I don't think Haggis is the one to take it in that direction, or any direction at all. This is truely bad news.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:21 pm

Don't know if anyone else saw Crash but in case you haven't the best way I can characterize it is as a gorilla with two slabs of steak duct taped to it's fists punching a two foot wide button with the word "controversy" written under it. Each character represents a stereotype (they really do not extend much farther than a type, a convenient contradiction and a race) and has their own little moment of realization (each one in slow motion so overused and frivolous it is rivaled only by Battlefiend Earth). Also everything in the plot is transparent, you can see every action taking place two steps ahead of the director.

The reason why I think Bond needed revamping is because the films following Goldeneye have failed to hit the mark. The most recent one came closest to where the series needed to go in it's humanizing of Bond, especially when he's getting the hell beaten from him in the begininng. But yeah, after 9/11 the action genre kind of had to change, shit like gadgets and garote wire became far beyond trivial. The cartoon action hero of Arnold Swarzennegars day are gone now and have been replaced with a dark gritty realism. I think this is particularly visible in the Bourne films, most notably the second. This has defintiely turned into a rant and I think i'll truncate myself before I completely negelect to do my classwork.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:55 pm

I disagree a little bit. I prefer to watch commando and such over the bourne identity because it isn't even an action movie, you can't see what's happening half the time and the hero is always some dick. I remember one part from the last bourne movie, where he put some paper in the toaster. All the rest was all fucked up.

It's a little similair with James Bond, but instead of letting muhammed ali film it they just make it 2 fast 2 furious or whatever. He should be cracking jokes and shooting dudes. It's not really about being in a post-911 enviroment, it's because they're shit movies that make them bad. They should bring back Blofeld and stuff and make the action scenes interesting instead of either being totally cgi or filmed all shaky. And at the end moneypenny should be shot in the cunt and her labia flies across the room and into his mouth.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:02 pm

Only reason I tie in 9/11 is because action movies usually tie in pretty well with the political environment and stauts of the nation. The earlier Swarzeneggar films he was just kind of reckless and arrogant, in collateral damage (pre 9-11) he fucking blows up the FBI building (or something equivalent) while trying to stop TERRORISTS. To counter that arrogance in the Bourne Supremacy the protagonist is kind of beat up and confused. He's limping half the movie. Also the way it is filmed with quick shaky shots that are one frame size too close, is very disorienting. Also car chases haven't been that messy in quite some time, he really got beat to fuck all throughout the film. I'd expand on this more but i've got to get to class. Also I'm all for the Cuntpenny Moneyshot, or Moneypeeny cunt shot. I'm sure it would be better than whatever Haggis spews out and infinitely funnier than the one liners the films have exausted.

Edit: Obviously i'm referring to good action movies made by real directors, not jerk off action films like Bady Boys, AVP or most anything Bruckheimer. Also don't think i'm against oldschool Carolco action movies, they are some of the best.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:06 pm

wrote:Producers have still not decided who will play the spy in Casino Royale, which is due out next year.

They'll rush the movie and make it in only a year?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:59 pm

Aonaran wrote:he really got beat to fuck all throughout the film

That's a funny thing. A week or two ago a friend of mine said that he hates modern action movies, because the heroes just take a lot of beating, cry and emotionalize plenty and generally are just complete pussies, not like Stallone, Seagull, Schwarzenegger and other men with names beginning with 's'. They killed everything that moved and even if it didn't, their muscles were big enough to shadow a village from sunlight and most importantly they killed at least 300 people in each film.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:35 pm

I totally agree with Kashluk. Associating myself with a hero that gets beaten up and chit isn't something I'd do.

Movies like Commando, Red Heat, Raw Deal, Predator, now these movies show us heroes you can and would associate to : the guy is huge, invincible, he has no pity, he taps the girl and he kills all the bad guys alone.

Edit - Steven Seagal sucks though.

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:37 pm

Who the fuck is Seagull?

and "Licence to kill" = best Bond evar

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:52 pm

Seagull, Seagal, whatever.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:09 pm

Crash was a great movie, fool.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:30 pm

Cunting University connection.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:31 pm

S4ur0n27 wrote:I totally agree with Kashluk. Associating myself with a hero that gets beaten up and chit isn't something I'd do.

Movies like Commando, Red Heat, Raw Deal, Predator, now these movies show us heroes you can and would associate to : the guy is huge, invincible, he has no pity, he taps the girl and he kills all the bad guys alone.

Edit - Steven Seagal sucks though.

I wouldn't call Bourne a pussy, he gets knocked to shit but he's still killing alot of motherfuckers. Also what about John McClane (Die Hard)? He got the everloving fuck beaten out of him in all the movies. Also he was always trying to "make up" with his wife, and yet a total badass. I don't think a character having depth queers a movie, I think it adds to it. Also the movies with these heros you are talking about aren't bad when done by the masters. Conan, Robocop, First Blood, Predator and a hell of alot of others like them were damn good. I just think the genre ran out of gas and no longer fits in with our culture, thus it's reinvention. And crash fucking blows. I do not think a movie could be more pretentious or further underestimate it's audience's intellegence (or nail it straight on the head, ay Franz?).

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:19 pm

I don't really think it's how much of a beating they take, it's how they deal with it. When Rambo got shot he put gunpowder in the wound and set himself on fire. While Bourne would just look at it and do a little 'AYHU' cry, then there'd be a montage of him pouring mouthwash on it.

I liked 'Welcome to the Jungle' with The Rock and christopher walken in it. I think it got a different release name in the states. The Punisher wasn't bad for an action movie, though there wasn't enough action. And the main guy wasn't the punisher.

But stuff like Man on Fire, Bad Boys 2, Bourne Supremacy, I, Robot etc. All sucked a bit. They each have a few good parts, but the whole movie should be filled with good parts, not just 3 minutes out of a 100. They aren't even so bad that their good, they're just...bad.

Anyway, history of violence.

MadBill · Post by **MadBill** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:55 pm

Just don't mention the movie I, Robot in a room full of Asimov fans.
The Bicentennial Man was an accurate rendition compared to that Will Smith tripe.

I was alienated by modern Bond. They just make me want to watch the classic stuff and forget the sad.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:24 am

History of Violence was very, very good. I caught a screening on Saturday (for some reason it opened last weekend in New York, LA and Montreal instead of the usual NY, LA and Toronto). It's not an action movie, it's more an analysis of how Dirty Harry style violence would really play out and what it'd do to people and their families. Plus, it's not filled with pointless gore like many of Cronenberg's films. Definitely worth seeing.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:00 am

It has Ed Harris as a villian. I think that's enough reason to see it. Critics gave it a B+ average and while I hardly listen to reviewers on their own, when they're in unison, it's generally a good indicator.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:55 am

I think Vigo's scruff should get it's own billing in the cast

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:49 am

There's no such thing as 'pointless' gore.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:08 am

Good point.

vx trauma · Post by **vx trauma** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:05 am

Al Gore? .. EHUE