|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:48 am
Marc_Spector ...bodywax? I was under the impression it was olive oil.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:54 am
Rex Mason WHAT?!?
Where were we when this happened?!?!
1. WORST. FAKE FIGHTING. EVER.
2. Cap would drop dead of a heart attack before the end of the first round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:11 am
Lucifer Morningstar Marc_Spector ...bodywax? I was under the impression it was olive oil. According to Time, the buff bods of the Spartans was a ploy to get more than just men to see the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:45 am
I didn't see the movie for the buff Greeks though. Now quite the type I'm looking for.
...not that I didn't appreciate those thighs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:48 am
Y'know, I appreciate female nudity as much as the next guy, but I thought that sex scene was really unnecessary. Kind of like the random sex scene in Underworld 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:57 am
I don't think it was so much unnecessary as it was one sided. It was, I believe, supposed to show just how passionate and in love he was with his wife. We don't get a lot of relationship developement while they're together because they seperate very early in the movie. Were it handled better, I could see it working well.
But it was totally focused on her. It wasn't about showing love, it was "watch annonymous non-gendered hands grope this incredibly beautiful woman." It felt like I was watching soft-core porn.
As it was, yes, you could have just taken it out of the movie without much loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:27 pm
Rex Mason WHAT?!?
Where were we when this happened?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:20 pm
OK....I'm a huge Bond fan and I just watched Casino Royale. I didn't see in the theater because I was irritated at the choice of Bond. Daniel Craig just
doesn't have the looks or the suave of Bond.
I was very torn by the film. The action was great and Craig did a servicible job. I think my main issues were with story. In this film, Bond is newly promoted to 00 status. This presents continuity issue because M is played by Judi Dench and in Goldeneye a newly promoted M has to deal with the veteran Bond. I suppose this can be explained in two ways. One, this a reboot of the Bond franchise. Or, the name "James Bond" is a code name like M or Q
and is inherited by a new agent when the last one dies or retires. The other things that disappointed me were lack of gadgets and the love story part of the film(the situation towards the end between Bond and Vesper).
I'll end my rambling now. Just wanted to see what others thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:16 pm
I think it was a re-boot of the series, actually.
At the very least, it was based on the original novel, so yes, there were going to be some continuity issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:20 pm
Yeah, I thought it was a prequel...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:29 pm
Yes it was reboot, and thank god for that because the Bond movies of late have been an absolute joke. The villains were laughably idiotic and Brosnen, while a good actor, was the absolute distilled charicature of the 007 personna. In other words, also a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
Meh....reboot...
I liked my idea of Bond being a code name with multiple agents being Bond better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:33 pm
You'd never get it past the Ian Flemming estate.
But then, that's why they're supposed to refer to agents by number rather than name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
