Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » USA TODAY: Art-House Bond
USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233228] Fr, 10 März 2006 07:22
JHause  
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-03-09-bond_x.h tm

Bond reloads image
By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAY
NASSAU, Bahamas - Casino Royale could be the first art-house-style
007 movie.

Daniel Craig evolves from a ragged spy to the impeccably groomed
character fans love in Casino Royale, out Nov. 17.
Danjaq

For one thing, the man chasing a terrorist through the tropical
undergrowth on the film's set this week doesn't look much like the
ultra-smooth James Bond that fans have come to adore over the course of
four decades. He's bleeding, ragged - and nowhere near a tuxedo,
martini or gorgeous woman. (Related gallery: Meet the Casino Royale
cast)

Beyond Bond's gritty characterization are other techniques and details
associated with more low-budget productions. The opening sequence will
be in black and white. And even after the movie goes to color in the
first act, there's restless camera movement that gives this Bond an
almost documentary feel.

And while some settings in Casino Royale place the action in posh
resorts and mansions, many locations are more menacing than alluring.
The feel is more along the lines of The Constant Gardener than the
ice-palace slickness of 2002's Die Another Day.

In one scene shot in wooded land near the beach at Coral Harbour here,
for instance, the area has been deliberately strewn with trash, ravaged
automobiles and clusters of filthy tin shanties to simulate the slums
of Madagascar.

In these crystal-blue waters and tropical forests of the Bahamas, James
Bond is being reborn, withdrawing from the increasing cartoonishness of
recent 007 movies in favor of slightly more realistic action, a deeper
story line and even a streak of tragedy.

"I think there's a complexity to it, but I think audiences are
completely up for that," says Daniel Craig, 38, the actor taking over
from Pierce Brosnan. He's the sixth official Bond, following Sean
Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce
Brosnan.

British-born Daniel Craig, 38, leads an international cast in 'Casino
Royale.' Later this year, he'll play opposite Nicole Kidman in the
sci-fi thriller 'The Visiting.' He can be seen now in 'Munich,' as an
assassin sent to avenge the deaths of Israeli Olympians.


But as with any big change to a beloved franchise, Craig (who was the
drug-dealing hero of Layer Cake and Paul Newman's psychopathic son in
Road to Perdition) has already divided some Bond fans - those who
welcome the predatory presence he adds and those who dismiss him as not
sophisticated or manly enough. An accident during a fight sequence last
month became a chance for detractors to mock Craig for literally
getting his teeth knocked out. He says he just lost a cap on a tooth,
and no sign of dental trauma was evident during interviews Wednesday
night.

The 21 Bond movies have collectively earned more than $1.3 billion at
the North American box office, and international sales and home video
amount to far more. Bond is a hero who spans generations, including
fathers and sons, many of whom, well, bond over the spy movies.

It's a devotion rivaled perhaps only by Star Wars, and Casino Royale's
Nov. 17 release is among the year's most anticipated.

Craig says fans should remember that this is an origin story, so the
hero they know is now depicted as a work in progress: "Audiences are
attracted to fallible characters. Bond, in this movie, makes a few
mistakes. And they form him."

The gadgets are gone

In previous 007 movies, the high-tech mastermind Q has provided rocket
cars, laser watches, exploding toothpaste and other gadgetry. But
there's no Q in Casino Royale to help Bond.

"He is the gadget, and he has to prove himself," says cinematographer
Phil Meheux.

In one scene, he chases an ultra-speedy villain played by Sebastien
Foucan, who is known for leaping over cars and scaling walls practicing
"free-running," a fitness movement that is part sport, part dance.

Bond's quarry is almost supernaturally fast, and the spy needs to look
like he's struggling to keep up before using his wits to outsmart (and
overpower) the villain. Bond has to know his limitations and overcome
them without the help of science-fiction machinery.

There's no catching the real Foucan, so Craig rehearses with a
not-so-speedy stand-in - while director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye)
shouts at him to "Run like hell!" Afterward, Craig says to a
crewmember, "Had to slow down ... I nearly had him."

Talk to anyone on the set about the film's art-house flavor, and they
wince, pointing out that it's an action movie with chases, explosions,
sexy actresses and the signature comic irony of previous Bond movies.

French actress Green, 25, plays Vesper Lynd, a fellow agent assigned to
assist Bond who might explain his subseqent love-'em and-leave-'em
attitude toward women. She was the face of an Emporio Armani fashion
campaign.


But they do acknowledge that the experimentation is designed to make
this a thinking-moviegoers' Bond.

"What you're looking at today, what we're shooting, is a sequence at
just the beginning of the movie," says Craig. "What comes after it is
kind of mind-blowing. It's going to be Bond, but it's going to be
beyond that, as well."

How Bond drew first blood

With audiences favoring a sinister edge to action heroes (like those in
The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins), and some vulnerability in even
the most indestructible of characters (think Spider-Man and X-Men),
producers have decided to show how Bond first got blood on his hands to
earn that notorious "license to kill" and also to provide him with a
femme fatale who finds (and exploits) a weakness - instead of being
just another one-catastrophe stand.

Though the last Bond film, Die Another Day, grossed $432 million
worldwide, Michael G. Wilson, who produces the Bond films with
stepsister Barbara Broccoli, says they felt the franchise had become
too far-out.

"In the 1970s, the Bond films got bigger and bigger and bigger until we
finally got to Moonraker (1979) in outer space," Wilson says. "Then we
said these pictures are getting away from the essence of Bond, so we
made For Your Eyes Only (1981), which is a more intimate story. I think
it happened again with the last film, with us having invisible cars, an
ice palace and a heat-laser thing in outer space."

He hopes Casino Royale will reconnect Bond with his roots. "Our
perception, and I don't know if we're right or wrong, but the times
have become more sober, and people want something more realistic."

The film's overarching villain is not the Dr. Evil-style super-baddie
from more recent Bond flicks. This time Bond's nemesis is Le Chiffre,
played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen (King Arthur). Le Chiffre is a
banker for an international terrorism network, which is about to
collapse unless he can multiply his remaining funds in a high-stakes
baccarat game.

Bond tracks the terror suspect to a Montenegro casino referred to in
the title, where he must defeat Le Chiffre not in a fight, but by
claiming his remaining funds in a card game (though there's plenty of
brutality to follow).

The moneyed grounds of the One & Only Ocean Club stand in for the
casino. Though only 45 minutes from the slum set, it's a world apart,
an oasis of verdant lawns, luxury rooms and delicate gardens perched on
the banks of a white sand beach. The Bond of the jungle chase is an
outsider struggling to fit in amid the affluence.

"As the character develops within the story, we get the opportunity for
him to become this beautifully, elegantly dressed man," says costume
designer Lindy Hemming, who previously dressed Brosnan for the Bond
films. "Because we've seen the gritty, earthy, dirty undercover man
before, it's kind of a big shock and it's really nice when we see him
immaculate."

The Bond girl is Vesper Lynd, a representative from the British secret
service sent to accompany Bond on his mission. Producers chose the
French actress Eva Green, a smoky-eyed beauty from Ridley Scott's
Kingdom of Heaven. This time she's responsible for providing a
soulfulness in her relationship with Bond.

Green, who is on location in the Bahamas but has not yet started
shooting her scenes, is already worried about typecasting and takes
umbrage at being referred to as "a Bond girl."

"It sounds like a bimbo or something," says Green, 25.

It's nothing like the novel

The film strays far from the 1953 Ian Fleming novel, and despite the
flaws the movie ascribes to this young Bond, it still makes him much
more heroic than the original book. Fleming's novel lingered mainly on
the card game and contained a minimal amount of action - depicting
Bond as unusually hapless. (He is repeatedly rescued at critical
moments by other agents, including the CIA. And in one case he's
reluctantly saved by a Soviet agent who takes pity on him.) The book
was spoofed in a 1967 film starring David Niven and Woody Allen, which
is mainly viewed as a curiosity for 007 fans.

The new film's script, written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade with a
rewrite by Oscar winner Paul Haggis (fresh off best-picture wins for
Crash and last year's Million Dollar Baby), punches up the action, adds
some significant globetrotting and features two other female characters
(Caterina Murino and Ivana Milicevic) besides Vesper to tempt the
womanizing superspy.

Despite all the freedom to experiment, and the ability to work in the
lush beauty of the Bahamas, Campbell confesses that the deadline for
having Casino Royale in theaters this fall is brutal.

"You never have fun filming. It's always the perception of people -
they think it's fun. Listen, I get up at 4:30 every morning. I go out
there and work right through non-stop. I have (pressure) in terms of
delivering it on schedule. So it's no fun whatsoever," Campbell says,
before adding: "And we haven't really had any problems."
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233282 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 17:44
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141971739.506121.168850 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-03-09-bond_x.h tm
>
> Bond reloads image
> By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAY
> NASSAU, Bahamas - Casino Royale could be the first art-house-style
> 007 movie.
>
> Daniel Craig evolves from a ragged spy to the impeccably groomed
> character fans love in Casino Royale, out Nov. 17.
> Danjaq
>
> For one thing, the man chasing a terrorist through the tropical
> undergrowth on the film's set this week doesn't look much like the
> ultra-smooth James Bond that fans have come to adore over the course of
> four decades. He's bleeding, ragged - and nowhere near a tuxedo,
> martini or gorgeous woman. (Related gallery: Meet the Casino Royale
> cast)
>
> Beyond Bond's gritty characterization are other techniques and details
> associated with more low-budget productions. The opening sequence will
> be in black and white. And even after the movie goes to color in the
> first act, there's restless camera movement that gives this Bond an
> almost documentary feel.
>
> And while some settings in Casino Royale place the action in posh
> resorts and mansions, many locations are more menacing than alluring.
> The feel is more along the lines of The Constant Gardener than the
> ice-palace slickness of 2002's Die Another Day.
>
> In one scene shot in wooded land near the beach at Coral Harbour here,
> for instance, the area has been deliberately strewn with trash, ravaged
> automobiles and clusters of filthy tin shanties to simulate the slums
> of Madagascar.
>
> In these crystal-blue waters and tropical forests of the Bahamas, James
> Bond is being reborn, withdrawing from the increasing cartoonishness of
> recent 007 movies in favor of slightly more realistic action, a deeper
> story line and even a streak of tragedy.
>
> "I think there's a complexity to it, but I think audiences are
> completely up for that," says Daniel Craig, 38, the actor taking over
> from Pierce Brosnan. He's the sixth official Bond, following Sean
> Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce
> Brosnan.
>
> British-born Daniel Craig, 38, leads an international cast in 'Casino
> Royale.' Later this year, he'll play opposite Nicole Kidman in the
> sci-fi thriller 'The Visiting.' He can be seen now in 'Munich,' as an
> assassin sent to avenge the deaths of Israeli Olympians.
>
>
> But as with any big change to a beloved franchise, Craig (who was the
> drug-dealing hero of Layer Cake and Paul Newman's psychopathic son in
> Road to Perdition) has already divided some Bond fans - those who
> welcome the predatory presence he adds and those who dismiss him as not
> sophisticated or manly enough. An accident during a fight sequence last
> month became a chance for detractors to mock Craig for literally
> getting his teeth knocked out. He says he just lost a cap on a tooth,
> and no sign of dental trauma was evident during interviews Wednesday
> night.
>
> The 21 Bond movies have collectively earned more than $1.3 billion at
> the North American box office, and international sales and home video
> amount to far more. Bond is a hero who spans generations, including
> fathers and sons, many of whom, well, bond over the spy movies.
>
> It's a devotion rivaled perhaps only by Star Wars, and Casino Royale's
> Nov. 17 release is among the year's most anticipated.
>
> Craig says fans should remember that this is an origin story, so the
> hero they know is now depicted as a work in progress: "Audiences are
> attracted to fallible characters. Bond, in this movie, makes a few
> mistakes. And they form him."
>
> The gadgets are gone
>
> In previous 007 movies, the high-tech mastermind Q has provided rocket
> cars, laser watches, exploding toothpaste and other gadgetry. But
> there's no Q in Casino Royale to help Bond.
>
> "He is the gadget, and he has to prove himself," says cinematographer
> Phil Meheux.
>
> In one scene, he chases an ultra-speedy villain played by Sebastien
> Foucan, who is known for leaping over cars and scaling walls practicing
> "free-running," a fitness movement that is part sport, part dance.
>
> Bond's quarry is almost supernaturally fast, and the spy needs to look
> like he's struggling to keep up before using his wits to outsmart (and
> overpower) the villain. Bond has to know his limitations and overcome
> them without the help of science-fiction machinery.
>
> There's no catching the real Foucan, so Craig rehearses with a
> not-so-speedy stand-in - while director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye)
> shouts at him to "Run like hell!" Afterward, Craig says to a
> crewmember, "Had to slow down ... I nearly had him."
>
> Talk to anyone on the set about the film's art-house flavor, and they
> wince, pointing out that it's an action movie with chases, explosions,
> sexy actresses and the signature comic irony of previous Bond movies.
>
> French actress Green, 25, plays Vesper Lynd, a fellow agent assigned to
> assist Bond who might explain his subseqent love-'em and-leave-'em
> attitude toward women. She was the face of an Emporio Armani fashion
> campaign.
>
>
> But they do acknowledge that the experimentation is designed to make
> this a thinking-moviegoers' Bond.
>
> "What you're looking at today, what we're shooting, is a sequence at
> just the beginning of the movie," says Craig. "What comes after it is
> kind of mind-blowing. It's going to be Bond, but it's going to be
> beyond that, as well."
>
> How Bond drew first blood
>
> With audiences favoring a sinister edge to action heroes (like those in
> The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins), and some vulnerability in even
> the most indestructible of characters (think Spider-Man and X-Men),
> producers have decided to show how Bond first got blood on his hands to
> earn that notorious "license to kill" and also to provide him with a
> femme fatale who finds (and exploits) a weakness - instead of being
> just another one-catastrophe stand.
>
> Though the last Bond film, Die Another Day, grossed $432 million
> worldwide, Michael G. Wilson, who produces the Bond films with
> stepsister Barbara Broccoli, says they felt the franchise had become
> too far-out.
>
> "In the 1970s, the Bond films got bigger and bigger and bigger until we
> finally got to Moonraker (1979) in outer space," Wilson says. "Then we
> said these pictures are getting away from the essence of Bond, so we
> made For Your Eyes Only (1981), which is a more intimate story. I think
> it happened again with the last film, with us having invisible cars, an
> ice palace and a heat-laser thing in outer space."
>
> He hopes Casino Royale will reconnect Bond with his roots. "Our
> perception, and I don't know if we're right or wrong, but the times
> have become more sober, and people want something more realistic."
>
> The film's overarching villain is not the Dr. Evil-style super-baddie
> from more recent Bond flicks. This time Bond's nemesis is Le Chiffre,
> played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen (King Arthur). Le Chiffre is a
> banker for an international terrorism network, which is about to
> collapse unless he can multiply his remaining funds in a high-stakes
> baccarat game.
>
> Bond tracks the terror suspect to a Montenegro casino referred to in
> the title, where he must defeat Le Chiffre not in a fight, but by
> claiming his remaining funds in a card game (though there's plenty of
> brutality to follow).
>
> The moneyed grounds of the One & Only Ocean Club stand in for the
> casino. Though only 45 minutes from the slum set, it's a world apart,
> an oasis of verdant lawns, luxury rooms and delicate gardens perched on
> the banks of a white sand beach. The Bond of the jungle chase is an
> outsider struggling to fit in amid the affluence.
>
> "As the character develops within the story, we get the opportunity for
> him to become this beautifully, elegantly dressed man," says costume
> designer Lindy Hemming, who previously dressed Brosnan for the Bond
> films. "Because we've seen the gritty, earthy, dirty undercover man
> before, it's kind of a big shock and it's really nice when we see him
> immaculate."
>
> The Bond girl is Vesper Lynd, a representative from the British secret
> service sent to accompany Bond on his mission. Producers chose the
> French actress Eva Green, a smoky-eyed beauty from Ridley Scott's
> Kingdom of Heaven. This time she's responsible for providing a
> soulfulness in her relationship with Bond.
>
> Green, who is on location in the Bahamas but has not yet started
> shooting her scenes, is already worried about typecasting and takes
> umbrage at being referred to as "a Bond girl."
>
> "It sounds like a bimbo or something," says Green, 25.
>
> It's nothing like the novel
>
> The film strays far from the 1953 Ian Fleming novel, and despite the
> flaws the movie ascribes to this young Bond, it still makes him much
> more heroic than the original book. Fleming's novel lingered mainly on
> the card game and contained a minimal amount of action - depicting
> Bond as unusually hapless. (He is repeatedly rescued at critical
> moments by other agents, including the CIA. And in one case he's
> reluctantly saved by a Soviet agent who takes pity on him.) The book
> was spoofed in a 1967 film starring David Niven and Woody Allen, which
> is mainly viewed as a curiosity for 007 fans.
>
> The new film's script, written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade with a
> rewrite by Oscar winner Paul Haggis (fresh off best-picture wins for
> Crash and last year's Million Dollar Baby), punches up the action, adds
> some significant globetrotting and features two other female characters
> (Caterina Murino and Ivana Milicevic) besides Vesper to tempt the
> womanizing superspy.
>
> Despite all the freedom to experiment, and the ability to work in the
> lush beauty of the Bahamas, Campbell confesses that the deadline for
> having Casino Royale in theaters this fall is brutal.
>
> "You never have fun filming. It's always the perception of people -
> they think it's fun. Listen, I get up at 4:30 every morning. I go out
> there and work right through non-stop. I have (pressure) in terms of
> delivering it on schedule. So it's no fun whatsoever," Campbell says,
> before adding: "And we haven't really had any problems."
>

As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read here.
The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action sequences
and were tightly edited. While the characters are different, the movies are
in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne movies I kept asking
myself why EON couldn't produce these types of films.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233293 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 20:32
JHause  
Will wrote:
>
> As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
> Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read here.
> The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action sequences
> and were tightly edited. While the characters are different, the movies are
> in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne movies I kept asking
> myself why EON couldn't produce these types of films.

Yup. But that's where a lot of the chicken littles here get confused.
You aren't saying he should ACT like Bourne. You're saying the film
should be PRESENTED like the Bourne films.

Here's the most important line of the article to me, and answers a lot
of questions about how Craig is dressed, etc.:

"As the character develops within the story, we get the opportunity for
him to become this beautifully, elegantly dressed man," says costume
designer Lindy Hemming, who previously dressed Brosnan for the Bond
films. "Because we've seen the gritty, earthy, dirty undercover man
before, it's kind of a big shock and it's really nice when we see him
immaculate."

This movie is to show the DIFFERENCE between Bond and Bourne, in terms
of character.

November can't come soon enough.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233294 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 23:08
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142019178.750814.114500 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>>
>> As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
>> Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read
>> here.
>> The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action
>> sequences
>> and were tightly edited. While the characters are different, the movies
>> are
>> in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne movies I kept asking
>> myself why EON couldn't produce these types of films.
>
> Yup. But that's where a lot of the chicken littles here get confused.
> You aren't saying he should ACT like Bourne. You're saying the film
> should be PRESENTED like the Bourne films.
>
> Here's the most important line of the article to me, and answers a lot
> of questions about how Craig is dressed, etc.:
>
> "As the character develops within the story, we get the opportunity for
> him to become this beautifully, elegantly dressed man," says costume
> designer Lindy Hemming, who previously dressed Brosnan for the Bond
> films. "Because we've seen the gritty, earthy, dirty undercover man
> before, it's kind of a big shock and it's really nice when we see him
> immaculate."
>
> This movie is to show the DIFFERENCE between Bond and Bourne, in terms
> of character.
>
> November can't come soon enough.
>

Absolutely, the characters are like apples and oranges, but the genres are
quite similar. The Bourne movies updated the spy movies in an appropriate
way, mixing fantasy and realism without sacrificing suspense and story. The
Bond movies haven't been as successful, IMHO. But I'm pretty excited from
what I see on CR. DC looks and moves very well, and it's just a matter if
Campbell can put it all together. He did a good job in GE, so I'm excited
about it.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233307 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 02:06
ahk  
At 11:44am -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
>Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read
>here. The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action
>sequences and were tightly edited. While the characters are different,
>the movies are in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne
>movies I kept asking myself why EON couldn't produce these types of
>films.

Who needs more Bourne films?

Let's reflect on this for a moment. "Bourne Identity" was utterly
derivative, "Manchurian Candidate" light without the witty script and
great performances. Despite all that, it was an enjoyable bit of fluff.
Why? Matt Damon rose above weak material, and the action sequences were
well staged, rather old fashioned stunt work and vehicle chases in lieu of
FX blowouts. Some of the chases were even on foot; the one through the
embassy was pretty good. Didn't like the final action sequence in the
apartment building, though.

Really, there's nothing believable about Bourne's character or backstory.
Unless you can suspend disbelief and accept it (in an espionage movie
rather than a science fiction movie), it hurts the movie.

The movie was an improvement over the earlier adaptation for television.

Robert Ludlum wasn't a favorite writer.

"Bourne Supremacy" had little in common with the novel; I didn't like the
movie. There will be another sequel next year.

Let EON do something else.

No, in the espionage genre, I'd like to see other Len Deighton novels
adapted, who had been my favorite writer in the genre. I certainly like
him better than Ken Follett (yawn) and a bit better than Le Carre.

Speaking of Deighton, did he stop writing? Haven't read a new novel from
him in some time.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233308 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 02:49
Will Traynor  
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0603101851250.18925 [at] qbbshf...
> At 11:44am -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>
>>As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
>>Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read
>>here. The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action
>>sequences and were tightly edited. While the characters are different,
>>the movies are in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne
>>movies I kept asking myself why EON couldn't produce these types of
>>films.
>
> Who needs more Bourne films?
>

Me, and quite a few other spy thriller enthusiasts.

> Let's reflect on this for a moment. "Bourne Identity" was utterly
> derivative, "Manchurian Candidate" light without the witty script and
> great performances. Despite all that, it was an enjoyable bit of fluff.
> Why? Matt Damon rose above weak material, and the action sequences were
> well staged, rather old fashioned stunt work and vehicle chases in lieu of
> FX blowouts. Some of the chases were even on foot; the one through the
> embassy was pretty good. Didn't like the final action sequence in the
> apartment building, though.
>

Weak material? No great performances? I guess we have a different gauge for
judging acting. Enjoyable bit of fluff? Have you seen DAD lately? lol

> Really, there's nothing believable about Bourne's character or backstory.
> Unless you can suspend disbelief and accept it (in an espionage movie
> rather than a science fiction movie), it hurts the movie.
>

Right, and Bond is utterly believable now, with his invisible cars and
physically impossible stunts.

> The movie was an improvement over the earlier adaptation for television.
>
> Robert Ludlum wasn't a favorite writer.
>
> "Bourne Supremacy" had little in common with the novel; I didn't like the
> movie. There will be another sequel next year.
>
> Let EON do something else.
>
> No, in the espionage genre, I'd like to see other Len Deighton novels
> adapted, who had been my favorite writer in the genre. I certainly like
> him better than Ken Follett (yawn) and a bit better than Le Carre.
>
> Speaking of Deighton, did he stop writing? Haven't read a new novel from
> him in some time.

Hate to say it, but you are in the minority. Both movies were better than
the last two Bond movies, hands down. As far as spy thriller/suspense
movies, they were head and shoulders better constructed, better directed,
and contained some intense action. And they had better bad guys !!! I'm not
going to debate how faithful they were to the books, but they were good
movies in their own right. I love Bond but the last two Bourne movies were
more entertaining for me than the last two Bond movies. I can't wait for the
Bourne Ultimatum. Looks like EON is trying to get their product out first.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233314 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:40
ahk  
At 8:49pm -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>>At 11:44am -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>>>As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
>>>Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read
>>>here. The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action
>>>sequences and were tightly edited. While the characters are different,
>>>the movies are in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne
>>>movies I kept asking myself why EON couldn't produce these types of
>>>films.

>>Who needs more Bourne films?

>Me, and quite a few other spy thriller enthusiasts.

I like the espionage genre. I dislike it when it's blended with dull
science fiction plot points (including Bond movies).

>>Let's reflect on this for a moment. "Bourne Identity" was utterly
>>derivative, "Manchurian Candidate" light without the witty script and
>>great performances. Despite all that, it was an enjoyable bit of fluff.
>>Why? Matt Damon rose above weak material, and the action sequences were
>>well staged, rather old fashioned stunt work and vehicle chases in lieu
>>of FX blowouts. Some of the chases were even on foot; the one through
>>the embassy was pretty good. Didn't like the final action sequence in
>>the apartment building, though.

>Weak material?

Yes. The plotting was weak. Everyone's motives for getting Bourne were
weak. Didn't like the act when visiting her friends in the country, so the
waiting assasin was no surprise.

>No great performances? I guess we have a different gauge for judging
>acting.

I hope Chris Cooper wasn't expecting an Oscar nomination. The bad guys
seemed to be phoning it in. The good guys were ok.

>Enjoyable bit of fluff? Have you seen DAD lately? lol

No, actually.

>>Really, there's nothing believable about Bourne's character or
>>backstory. Unless you can suspend disbelief and accept it (in an
>>espionage movie rather than a science fiction movie), it hurts the
>>movie.

>Right, and Bond is utterly believable now, with his invisible cars and
>physically impossible stunts.

I don't disagree. Still don't need Bourne derivatives, when Bourne itself
is highly derivative. What we need are new ideas coupled with old
fashioned fun that Hollywood used to know how to deliver in action flicks.
I truly miss stunts with horses. What's the matter with the movies?

>Hate to say it, but you are in the minority. Both movies were better than
>the last two Bond movies, hands down.

At no point did I compare Bourne to Bond. Have you seen "Manchurian
Candidate"? That's your homework.

>As far as spy thriller/suspense movies, they were head and shoulders
>better constructed, better directed, and contained some intense action.
>And they had better bad guys !!!

Bourne, himself, is a bad guy. Unfortunately, he grew a conscience.

>I'm not going to debate how faithful they were to the books, but they
>were good movies in their own right.

Just mentioned it. I don't really care; Ludlum wasn't all that wonderful
as a writer.

Noted that you made no comment on Len Deighton movies or Le Carre movies
for that matter.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233315 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:51
Will Traynor  
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0603102227290.28123 [at] qbbshf...
> At 8:49pm -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>>>At 11:44am -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>
>>>>As I have been saying all along, EON has recognized the influence of the
>>>>Bourne movies and has moved in that direction, judging by what I read
>>>>here. The Bourne movies were more suspenseful, contained better action
>>>>sequences and were tightly edited. While the characters are different,
>>>>the movies are in the same type of genre. When I watched the Bourne
>>>>movies I kept asking myself why EON couldn't produce these types of
>>>>films.
>
>>>Who needs more Bourne films?
>
>>Me, and quite a few other spy thriller enthusiasts.
>
> I like the espionage genre. I dislike it when it's blended with dull
> science fiction plot points (including Bond movies).
>

Again, if you think the Bourne movies were dull we judge on a different
scale.

>>>Let's reflect on this for a moment. "Bourne Identity" was utterly
>>>derivative, "Manchurian Candidate" light without the witty script and
>>>great performances. Despite all that, it was an enjoyable bit of fluff.
>>>Why? Matt Damon rose above weak material, and the action sequences were
>>>well staged, rather old fashioned stunt work and vehicle chases in lieu
>>>of FX blowouts. Some of the chases were even on foot; the one through
>>>the embassy was pretty good. Didn't like the final action sequence in
>>>the apartment building, though.
>
>>Weak material?
>
> Yes. The plotting was weak. Everyone's motives for getting Bourne were
> weak. Didn't like the act when visiting her friends in the country, so the
> waiting assasin was no surprise.
>
>>No great performances? I guess we have a different gauge for judging
>>acting.
>
> I hope Chris Cooper wasn't expecting an Oscar nomination. The bad guys
> seemed to be phoning it in. The good guys were ok.
>

Chris Cooper, an Academy Award winning actor, was quite good. Again, we have
different standards, I guess. Brian Cox, an Emmy award winner, was excellent
too.

>>Enjoyable bit of fluff? Have you seen DAD lately? lol
>
> No, actually.
>

As I was comparing the entertainment value of the Bourne movies with the
last two Bond movies it might help to know where I'm coming from. That's
your homework. Watch DAD.

>>>Really, there's nothing believable about Bourne's character or
>>>backstory. Unless you can suspend disbelief and accept it (in an
>>>espionage movie rather than a science fiction movie), it hurts the
>>>movie.
>
>>Right, and Bond is utterly believable now, with his invisible cars and
>>physically impossible stunts.
>
> I don't disagree. Still don't need Bourne derivatives, when Bourne itself
> is highly derivative. What we need are new ideas coupled with old
> fashioned fun that Hollywood used to know how to deliver in action flicks.
> I truly miss stunts with horses. What's the matter with the movies?
>
>>Hate to say it, but you are in the minority. Both movies were better than
>>the last two Bond movies, hands down.
>
> At no point did I compare Bourne to Bond. Have you seen "Manchurian
> Candidate"? That's your homework.
>

And I was comparing them in the context of the genre. So you need to read
the entire post next time. I own the original version of The Manchurian
Candidate, I've seen it several times. At no point did I ever think of the
movie while watching the Bourne movies.

>>As far as spy thriller/suspense movies, they were head and shoulders
>>better constructed, better directed, and contained some intense action.
>>And they had better bad guys !!!
>
> Bourne, himself, is a bad guy. Unfortunately, he grew a conscience.
>
>>I'm not going to debate how faithful they were to the books, but they
>>were good movies in their own right.
>
> Just mentioned it. I don't really care; Ludlum wasn't all that wonderful
> as a writer.
>
> Noted that you made no comment on Len Deighton movies or Le Carre movies
> for that matter.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233319 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 06:51
ahk  
At 11:51pm -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>Again, if you think the Bourne movies were dull we judge on a different
>scale.

I was specific about what I didn't like about. The science fiction aspects
were dull. Espionage wasn't even the main story!

>>I hope Chris Cooper wasn't expecting an Oscar nomination. The bad guys
>>seemed to be phoning it in. The good guys were ok.

>Chris Cooper, an Academy Award winning actor, was quite good. Again, we
>have different standards, I guess.

You're reaching. There was nothing the least bit exciting about Cooper's
character, a part that certainly didn't require his talent.

>Brian Cox, an Emmy award winner, was excellent too.

Brian Cox was playing the same character he's played numerous times.

>>>Enjoyable bit of fluff? Have you seen DAD lately? lol

>>No, actually.

>As I was comparing the entertainment value of the Bourne movies with the
>last two Bond movies it might help to know where I'm coming from. That's
>your homework. Watch DAD.

You're rather missing the theme of my remarks. It seems that you and I
enjoyed the same elements of "Bourne Identity" (Damon, most of the stunts
and chases), although you found more to like in the rest of it. As a
whole, Bourne doesn't work for me and I certainly don't wish to see a
James Bond movie that's derivative of Bourne.

>>At no point did I compare Bourne to Bond. Have you seen "Manchurian
>>Candidate"? That's your homework.

>And I was comparing them in the context of the genre. So you need to read
>the entire post next time. I own the original version of The Manchurian
>Candidate, I've seen it several times. At no point did I ever think of the
>movie while watching the Bourne movies.

Ludlum sure as hell did. He never had an original thought in his life.

Is Bourne really all that different than "Osterman Weekend"? The action is
a bit more confined in the latter, but it's still about assassinations
gone wrong, with the remedy being more assassinations (more for revenge
than coverup, but still). Ludlum used the same story elements over and
over again.
Re: USA TODAY: Art-House Bond [message #233321 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 07:03
Will Traynor  
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0603102310370.28955 [at] qbbshf...
> At 11:51pm -0500, 03/10/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>>Adam wrote:
>
>>Again, if you think the Bourne movies were dull we judge on a different
>>scale.
>
> I was specific about what I didn't like about. The science fiction aspects
> were dull. Espionage wasn't even the main story!
>
>>>I hope Chris Cooper wasn't expecting an Oscar nomination. The bad guys
>>>seemed to be phoning it in. The good guys were ok.
>
>>Chris Cooper, an Academy Award winning actor, was quite good. Again, we
>>have different standards, I guess.
>
> You're reaching. There was nothing the least bit exciting about Cooper's
> character, a part that certainly didn't require his talent.
>
>>Brian Cox, an Emmy award winner, was excellent too.
>
> Brian Cox was playing the same character he's played numerous times.
>
>>>>Enjoyable bit of fluff? Have you seen DAD lately? lol
>
>>>No, actually.
>
>>As I was comparing the entertainment value of the Bourne movies with the
>>last two Bond movies it might help to know where I'm coming from. That's
>>your homework. Watch DAD.
>
> You're rather missing the theme of my remarks. It seems that you and I
> enjoyed the same elements of "Bourne Identity" (Damon, most of the stunts
> and chases), although you found more to like in the rest of it. As a
> whole, Bourne doesn't work for me and I certainly don't wish to see a
> James Bond movie that's derivative of Bourne.
>

You miss the point of my remarks. I do not advocate producing a James Bond
movie that is derivative of a Bourne movie. I've mentioned this several
times before in other posts. I don't think you've read them. I said the EON
producers would be smart to emulate the style of the Bourne movies, such as
stressing suspense over fantastic stunts, hand to hand combat rather than
gadgets, hand held cameras, intense action sequences, lightning fast
editing, less ridiculous one-liners, etc. I don't want Bond to be like
Bourne, but I would like to see the style of the Bond films emulate the
style of the Bourne films. I watched the Bourne movies and on many occasions
couldn't help but note that Bond would benefit from that style of
filmmaking.

>>>At no point did I compare Bourne to Bond. Have you seen "Manchurian
>>>Candidate"? That's your homework.
>
>>And I was comparing them in the context of the genre. So you need to read
>>the entire post next time. I own the original version of The Manchurian
>>Candidate, I've seen it several times. At no point did I ever think of the
>>movie while watching the Bourne movies.
>
> Ludlum sure as hell did. He never had an original thought in his life.
>
> Is Bourne really all that different than "Osterman Weekend"? The action is
> a bit more confined in the latter, but it's still about assassinations
> gone wrong, with the remedy being more assassinations (more for revenge
> than coverup, but still). Ludlum used the same story elements over and
> over again.
Vorheriges Thema:Interview with Craig and Broccoli
Nächstes Thema:Balls for Last
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 15:32:56 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02652 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered