The Watch
8/10
Funny shit. Kinda reminded me of Hot Tub Time Machine in a way.
8/10
Funny shit. Kinda reminded me of Hot Tub Time Machine in a way.
noice 

I doubt this very much... but will reserve final judgement for now.CapnNismo wrote:
Skyfall - 10/10
I cannot recommend this movie enough. Best. Bond. Ever.
And rightfully so. I'd rate it a 7.5/10. It's a good Bond movie, but as with all Bond movies, you either hate it or love it. I liked this one, but it wasn't as good as Casino Royale (imo), but way way better than Quantum of Solace (who would've thought?). My low-ish score (considering the reviews it got) might be because I don''t like Daniel Craig as Bond, but all in all it was a decent Bond flick, that might've got a bit too hyped because it predecessor was so bad.DrunkFace wrote:
I doubt this very much...CapnNismo wrote:
Skyfall - 10/10
I cannot recommend this movie enough. Best. Bond. Ever.
Kampframmer wrote:
...you either hate it or love it. I liked this one....
I love Daniel Craig as Bond - he has the perfect mix of ultimate badass and suave gentleman. Jason Bourne is, in my opinion, one of the best secret agent characters in film and Daniel Craig is just like Bourne but adds that Bond polish to it and the result is simply brilliant. Brosnan tried to pull it off but failed - he was great in the gentleman parts but the gritty stuff not so much. The current Bond is, for the current film industry and audiences, simply perfect.DrunkFace wrote:
I doubt this very much... but will reserve final judgement for now.CapnNismo wrote:
Skyfall - 10/10
I cannot recommend this movie enough. Best. Bond. Ever.
If you watch the originals as well, it becomes clear Bond is a pretty terrible fighter and a terrible shot. The more recent films actually make him a force to be reckoned with, while at the same time giving him vulnerabilities. The fighting is brutal and realistic, and the situations far more believable. OHMSS was, for the time, a pretty brutal Bond film, and one of the closest in theme to the newer entries.DrunkFace wrote:
Bond is not an action hero... watch any of the first, idk 15 odd movies. There is very limited fighting or over the top action. Comparing him to Bourne just shows you have no idea what Bond is about.
The thing, is Bond-movies are over-top-macho. These recent ones are more gritty. They don't have comical villains living in skull-islands with plots to take over the world any more, now it's arms dealers commiting genocide and hackers trying to change 'the system'. And of course Craig is the new Bond that should fit in all this. Now, he does so quite well, he makes for a good gritty Bond, but the simple fact of the matter is: There is no need for a gritty Bond. They need to stop taking themselves so seriously and move back into the realm of ridiculous.DrunkFace wrote:
Considering Casino Royale is (imo) in the worst 5 Bonds, I wont be expecting much from this one. They haven't made a good Bond since Goldeneye and with mediocrity now the new money spinner I doubt much will change.
It can work out quite well, like with batman. It just didn't with Bond imo, or at least, not as well as I had hoped. It went ok in Casino Royale, but they try too hard to be real and gritty, yet still try to implement some of Bond's cheesy one-liners and the villains still have maybe 1 or 2 unbelievable features, but just not enough to make them comical or actually call them villains rather than criminals.Winston_Churchill wrote:
i like this realistic bond more than the old ones. same with the new batman over the old ones. its more interesting and less campy
I'm sorry but the comparison stands - as the Bond series progresses, so does the action with it. Action movies have done this all the time - as time goes on and audiences get more comfortable with violence, there is more violence in movies. Bond was no different and if we had a 1950s Bourne then we likely would have seen a similar progression. If you showed "The Bourne Identity" to a 1950s audience, they would think you were slightly mad.DrunkFace wrote:
Bond is not an action hero... watch any of the first, idk 15 odd movies. There is very limited fighting or over the top action. Comparing him to Bourne just shows you have no idea what Bond is about.
Which guy was that?FEOS wrote:
.
The dude from Breaking Bad steals every scene he's in.
Spearhead wrote:
Which guy was that?FEOS wrote:
.
The dude from Breaking Bad steals every scene he's in.
I would think a better comparison would be between current and past Bond movies and the original books. Which movies are closest to the books?CapnNismo wrote:
I'm sorry but the comparison stands - as the Bond series progresses, so does the action with it. Action movies have done this all the time - as time goes on and audiences get more comfortable with violence, there is more violence in movies. Bond was no different and if we had a 1950s Bourne then we likely would have seen a similar progression. If you showed "The Bourne Identity" to a 1950s audience, they would think you were slightly mad.DrunkFace wrote:
Bond is not an action hero... watch any of the first, idk 15 odd movies. There is very limited fighting or over the top action. Comparing him to Bourne just shows you have no idea what Bond is about.
The same goes for sex - just look at what was appropriate during Sean Connery as Bond versus what is perfectly OK today. Hell, Brosnan actually had the most explicit (and I use this term lightly) sex out of all the Bonds that I have in memory.
While I have not seen every single Bond film, I have seen a number and I know what Bond is.