In a way, yes, and yet he was more lively, spontaneous and textured than the run-of-the-mill villain. I found he was really memorable.Originally Posted by Thomas
In a way, yes, and yet he was more lively, spontaneous and textured than the run-of-the-mill villain. I found he was really memorable.
Well, I liked him but I found him clearly to be the weakest link of a film that mostly tried to steer on the right side of realism.
Well after that first sequence I just thought to myself, "to hell with realism".
Fílmicas.com
Film blogging en español
Well, of course, LOL.
But considering they are making a lot of fuzz about backstory and realistic characters, Bardem's villain is a cartoon.
Can we talk about how awesome the credits were? And how Deakins really should win an Oscar for this movie?
This is the best I've ever seen Whishaw, and I kind of hate him.
Was he more cartoony than a guy who cries blood?
Wait until you see it.
The script is doing a lot of work to make all characters relatable, believable, and then comes Bardem with a terrible hairdo and a disfigurement, and it is just a bit off. Effective, fun, entertaining, well done, but a bit off.
The character owes so much to The Joker that it kinda takes you out of the movie for a minute but Bardem sold it for me. Not awards worthy though, at all.
Oh, and the opening credits were one of the coolest.
almost everything about it is straightforward and economical. i don't see anything spectacularly new or groundbreaking
still i enjoyed the hell out of it. it's perhaps the most well-put together Bond film that i've seen.
and yeah i love the way this film looked. the entire Shanghai/Macau(?) scenes were especially eye-delicious
Um, I kinda liked it. The screenplay was a mess. Plotholes, rushed explanations, random stuff, lots of cliches. Well, what did I expect? But I was disappointed and turned off by such moments in the film.
It's still a very fun Bond film, grand, fast-paced and entertaining. I liked that they focused on the characters a bit more, though it's not a character drama like some say, lol. It's still very superficial.
The visuals were quite good, and I loved the art direction. The Shanghai/Macao/Scotland scenes were brilliantly photographed. Stunning work. The action scenes were well-directed and intense. I hated the score, it was so generic, annoying and off-putting. Meh. The performances were fine. Fiennes was terribly boring, unfortunately, McCrory had an indifferent cameo, and Whishaw was cute playing this caricature. Harris was pretty fun, and Dench gave a very accurate and balanced performance. Nothing special, though. Bardem was, um, a caricature. I saw the Dark Knight influences: Silva similar to Joker, Q similar to Freeman's character, the supposed twists/manipulation by the bad guy throughout the majority of the film, etc. Anyway, Bardem was fine. He had a couple of very memorable scenes, but his role is so terribly underwritten and comical, that he can't really elevate the material. Craig is good. A mature and nice performance.
All in all, I don't get the fuss. It's an entertaining flick with some wonderful visuals. And that's it. Fine acting and a darker/more serious story, but the cliches, plotholes and ridiculous moments are all there.
I didn't see Silva as a caricature. If anything, he was a well blended mix of two of my favorite Bond antagonists: Alec Trevelyan from "GoldenEye" (mutilated rogue agent out to avenge their perceived betrayal) and Max Zorin from "A View to a Kill (a man who uses theatrics as a way to highlight the depths of his psychopathy).
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION - INOCA 2012
Javier Bardem was sublime. He took his character from being a simple villain and made him sort of relatable. I mean, you could understand his motives. And Daniel Craig, uff, he looked amazing in (and out) of that suit. Lol.
You guys are no fun.
Definitely the most fun I've had at the theater all year. Loved the script, the acting, the cinematography, the music, you name it. Just amazing!
Last edited by Elessar; 11-09-2012 at 12:27 AM.
Is this the best-made Bond film? Pretty much. There's never been a surer or more expressive director behind the camera, and obviously the same with the cinematography.
This isn't, however, the kind of Bond film that turned the character into a pop culture phenomenon. Does it stand out as much as something iconic like Goldfinger? No. Does it have the freshness of From Russia With Love? Not really. As cool as the rooftop motorcycle chase was (anyone notice that this film managed to have that, a car chase, a train fight, and a helicopter attack? talk about checking off all the boxes), Istanbul came off rather anonymous, and the market carts being turned over were ridiculously generic and the only attempt at local flavor. Having said that, Shanghai was celebrated in a very unique way, the Macau scene was beautifully designed, and Scotland was a nice change of pace for this series, managing to impress with atmosphere in both the day and night scenes.
Bardem was great but he certainly wasn't asked to do much. Aside from a great first scene it was a bit of diminishing returns after that, and the weird makeup FX seemed really out of place. Dench was Dench, cracks in the armor but not enough to suggest enough depth.
What this film was missing for me, and why I imagine a lot of people are still going to prefer Casino Royale, is the emotional heft that Eva Green's character provided. , but it came nowhere near the effect of the earlier film (on Bond as well as the audience).
So yeah, amazing stuff, and near the top of the series regardless of my nitpicking.
T E A M R I V E T T E
I loved this. It was so goddamn pretty, and I liked the thematic duality between Silva and Bond, and their weird, mother-replacement relationship with M. For all Silva's bluster and villainy, he was still a scared, angry, broken child, and that's how he went out. Whereas Bond lost that childhood in the orphanage. I also liked how it started out big and expansive, and thundered along, and then it all ends with four people in a chapel on a Scottish moor.
Also, yay, Bond has a team now! It's an awesomely retro throwback while at the same time modernizing. Hopefully we get at least two more Craig films with Harris, Fiennes, and Whishaw in support.
This. All this.You guys are no fun.
Definitely the most fun I've had at the theater all year. Loved the script, the acting, the cinematography, the music, you name it. Just amazing!
Utterly overhyped...
I thought the sets were good and loved the use of silhouetting but really thats about it....all fell apart for me when the film turned into Home Alone.
The bond girls were terrible, hated the ending and just oddly found the whole thing gimmicky.
I felt they tried too hard with the old references and the product placement set a new OTT record for sony.
It was an enjoyable film though, good to catch on the TV.....but not where near as good as casino royale
Legend Mara - lighting up our screens since 2009
"Catch on the TV"? Lol, get real. This is worth seeing in the theatre for Deakins' work alone.
T E A M R I V E T T E
HA, I imagined Home Alone as well.
I really enjoyed it. I'd say it surpassed Casino Royale. I took Bardem for what he was, someone who's gone insane, and thought he did a good job. I really liked his appearance. The dialogue and scene. I lost track of what he was saying because I was impressed that it kept going and going.
I thought the Macau and Shanghai scenes were beautiful. The lights in the skyscraper, and the above shot of the boats and candles/lanterns floating were pretty fantastic.
People really haven't been a fan of Naomie Harris, but I liked her a lot in the role. Maybe I couldn't differentiate between her in real life and as Eve. The other one, whose name I can't even remember, was meh.
I wasn't a fan of Q, but I never have been.
Helen McCory was kind of a waste, I thought. Too much was going on and cutting back to her that it really didn't give her the justice she deserved. It took me a minute or two to even confirm that it was her.
Daniel Craig really embodies Bond for me. I was really skeptical of him when he was cast, but he continually amazes me. People talk about it being too Bourne-esque, but Bond needs to change with time in order to stay relevant and above a sea of crappy "action," popcorn flicks (not implying Bourne is crappy, I'm actually saying the opposite). Craig is great as Bond, and I can't wait to see him again.
Overall, I liked it. I really liked the homages to past Bond films. The gun, the car, the exploding pen comment. I can't wait for the next one, and I hope it isn't 4 years in the making.
Sometimes, I guess there just aren't enough rocks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
