I was the only person in the theater at showing of new 007
Oct 21, 2021 3:02:51 GMT
theravenking and petrolino like this
Post by drystyx on Oct 21, 2021 3:02:51 GMT
I spent 9 dollars to see it on the big screen. I thought since there were only about ten cars parked outside, it would be easy to social distance, with ten cars for eight theater rooms.
Everyone else was too scared to go to the theater, and I only went in because there were so few cars.
My brother said he'd wait till it goes to TV, and he was right. Not that it was bad. Just that the big screen didn't really matter for this.
There was some pretty good scenery, but the cinematography was poor. Even the rocky cliffs looked drab. And there were too many "high rise" and "street" and "bar" and "office" and "home" and "motor vehicle" shots, the six most boring and least cinematographic sceneries possible.
And the actors were horrible. Not so much in acting as in communicating. Not one could enunciate half his or her words. This needs to be seen on TV with subtitles, because there is no way to possibly understand more than a third of the lines being spoken. Yes, that's true.
But you do catch the gist of it.
It was the best of the Craig movies at 7/10, which is nothing to brag about, but at least it wasn't as depressing and full of "hate the audience" as Casino Royale, the movie made for the "haters" who love to torture their friends and families.
Looks like the new director managed to tone down the usual Nazi ideology of Purvis and Wade, whose worship of Hitler has been too preachy in the previous 007 movies. They kill some hot brunettes again here, but not as many as they usually do. That got toned down, which helps the movie a lot. They've been trying to raise Adolf from the grave, and I guess they finally gave up.
What really saved this movie was the little girl. I don't recall a 007 film where the "damsel in distress" is instead a child. I'm sure he's saved children, but this time the child takes center stage, and it saves the movie from its terrible camera work and terrible cinematography.
There are some things to like. One weird thing is the woman who has second billing on imdb has about a ten minute stretch of nice action in the film, and then goes on her way. She's a Brazilian spy who becomes the eye candy of the film, and gives us a great leg show. The other women are mostly "nice looking".
Bond's love interest, in fact, has a girl next door look, or looks like your cousin. It gives the sentiment that Bond isn't superficial, but down to Earth in family life.
The new 007 girl is very good, and should make a good future 007 IMO, but it all depends on the script and the scenery.
This one had a decent enough script, I guess, except who knows since you can't hear 2/3 of the lines. Sometimes, the actors and actresses speak them too fast. There's no excuse for that. Was the director rushing them through lines? No one can possibly interpret lines that fast. The action scenes are filmed too fast as well.
What saves the film is the little girl. Saving the little girl makes it a breath of fresh air. But does he save her? Does he fail? You know better than that. 007 movies haven't gone that far to please the haters.
Everyone else was too scared to go to the theater, and I only went in because there were so few cars.
My brother said he'd wait till it goes to TV, and he was right. Not that it was bad. Just that the big screen didn't really matter for this.
There was some pretty good scenery, but the cinematography was poor. Even the rocky cliffs looked drab. And there were too many "high rise" and "street" and "bar" and "office" and "home" and "motor vehicle" shots, the six most boring and least cinematographic sceneries possible.
And the actors were horrible. Not so much in acting as in communicating. Not one could enunciate half his or her words. This needs to be seen on TV with subtitles, because there is no way to possibly understand more than a third of the lines being spoken. Yes, that's true.
But you do catch the gist of it.
It was the best of the Craig movies at 7/10, which is nothing to brag about, but at least it wasn't as depressing and full of "hate the audience" as Casino Royale, the movie made for the "haters" who love to torture their friends and families.
Looks like the new director managed to tone down the usual Nazi ideology of Purvis and Wade, whose worship of Hitler has been too preachy in the previous 007 movies. They kill some hot brunettes again here, but not as many as they usually do. That got toned down, which helps the movie a lot. They've been trying to raise Adolf from the grave, and I guess they finally gave up.
What really saved this movie was the little girl. I don't recall a 007 film where the "damsel in distress" is instead a child. I'm sure he's saved children, but this time the child takes center stage, and it saves the movie from its terrible camera work and terrible cinematography.
There are some things to like. One weird thing is the woman who has second billing on imdb has about a ten minute stretch of nice action in the film, and then goes on her way. She's a Brazilian spy who becomes the eye candy of the film, and gives us a great leg show. The other women are mostly "nice looking".
Bond's love interest, in fact, has a girl next door look, or looks like your cousin. It gives the sentiment that Bond isn't superficial, but down to Earth in family life.
The new 007 girl is very good, and should make a good future 007 IMO, but it all depends on the script and the scenery.
This one had a decent enough script, I guess, except who knows since you can't hear 2/3 of the lines. Sometimes, the actors and actresses speak them too fast. There's no excuse for that. Was the director rushing them through lines? No one can possibly interpret lines that fast. The action scenes are filmed too fast as well.
What saves the film is the little girl. Saving the little girl makes it a breath of fresh air. But does he save her? Does he fail? You know better than that. 007 movies haven't gone that far to please the haters.
