Re: Seamaster and Iago's endless rehashing Bond thread

[Iago]

I cannot really say after only one viewing. Right now it would be ahead of the first but behind the second, but that could easily change after another viewing. (I know that my opinion of the second one actually went UP after the second viewing.) On a first glance, this one may have more flaws, especially in the first act, but I may (or may not) be willing to forgive those the second time around now that I know just where things are headed. But overall I was expecting to be more critical on a first viewing, and the first act fit those expectations but they were blown out by the the momentum that the film has once things get going. And yes, there are still flaws in that section, especially of a logical or technical nature, but on a first viewing they were forgiveable. I was even surprised that I did not have a problem accepting The Bat, despite it being the most fantastical piece of hardware yet in the Nolan movies. Frankly, I though it was pretty kick-ass, especially in a street-level chase that happens late in the movie. And interestingly, it ends up serving a narrative purpose that neither the Tumbler nor the Batpod could have.

[Seamaster]

Interesting. I will have to get out and see it (easier said than done). Like the previous movies, I suspect this third installment is not kid friendly?

[Iago]

Definitely not!


Thinking about it, one of the things that I liked about it was how everything served the narrative. Like I said, The Bat was not just a gimmick, but had a critical story purpose, but even other things that had me worried prior to seeing it still served the story better than I was thinking they would. Catwoman, for instance. (Or rather, Selina Kyle, since it is not particularly a spoiler that they never refer to her by her other name.) I was worried that she was going to be tacked on, but she integrated into the story in a fashion not too dissimilar to Scarecrow/Jonathon Crane in Batman Begins. Even elements and characters that seem superfluous at first ultimately pay off. It is also interesting how Nolan and his brother (plus David Goyer still gets a story credit) troll through Batman lore for their story. They draw from many different runs, some obvious (Knightfall) and some perhaps less obvious (No Man's Land.) They even draw from a more obscure Bane story that I will leave for you to discover. And somehow they get a fairly coherent story out of it, especially as it ties to the previous films.

And, in case you were wondering, Tom Hardy -- holy cow. Wait until you see his first appearance. He literally blew most of his definition out the window in favor of pure mass; the first shot in which he appears has him shirtless from behind, and his lats, traps and delts all form a nearly indistinguishable wall of muscle.

[Iago]

Interestingly, I read some speculation that they used CGI to enhance Hardy's physique, but I am doubtful about that. What they clearly DID do is use CGI to erase his tattoos. There are production stills showing him on set and in costume with his tattoos visible, but they are gone in the finished film. Makeup can be used to cover tattoos, but I doubt that would hold up too well at Imax resolutions. There is also a ton of speculation about him using steroids, based on some photos of him during training with acne breakouts on his back, and looking bloated. But regardless, we know that he CAN pack the muscle on, and his appearance in the film is not out of line with what he has done before.

Regardless, by the way, he is very very good at the part. And Hathaway was no slouch as Selina Kyle, either.

[Seamaster]

I thought they were going to leave the tattoos. I guess not!

I have no idea if Hardy resorted to steroids. He has packed on muscle before and I still contend that for a professional Hollywood actor, it is easier to dedicate the time necessary, plus have access to trainers and nutritional experts that will allow for such a quick transformation. Not so easy to do when you are holding down a day job, but that is not the case for most of these guys, where working out becomes part of their job. That said, Arny, Sly and others have been caught juicing, so who knows.

At any rate, it'll be a better representation than the crap pulled in Batman and Robin.

[Iago]

Not a Jeep Swenson fan?


I read some quick comments from Hardy that he put on too much fat with the muscle due to the diet he was using, and that certainly could have affected his lesser definition, but it certainly looks like the mass is there. Regardless, he was a spectacular Bane. Sure, we both would have liked to see what Vin Diesel could have done with the role, but Hardy was great. The much-maligned voice was largely comprehensible, though I can see where some people have complained that they raised the level of his dialogue to compensate; his voice is LOUD.

Looking forward to a second viewing. I am curious if it will improve or lessen on the second round. I am curious to hear what you think. Just keep in mind, it has plenty of flaws, but none of the Nolan films have been perfect. They might be less interesting if they were.

[Iago]

Oh, and, Imax. Drive if you have to. 'Nuff said.

[Seamaster]

The Imax near me really is quite near (15 to 20 minute drive). The problem is that parking around that theatre is an absolute nightmare (add another 15 to 20 minutes looking for a spot) and the crowds are atrocious. I sometimes suck it up, drink coffee and go for the late show just to avoid the mess.

[Iago]

Well, I drove 70 minutes -- one way -- and admittedly had less parking problems, but I daresay you will still come out ahead! Get 'er done. By the way, I think that I missed if you answered the question, have you seen Warrior?

[Seamaster]

Well I have cause to celebrate. I somehow pulled off my course and I actually did quite well. Couldn't be more pleased, although I am curious to see the breakdown of marks. I'm still convinced I threw away the last case study.

Warrior -- Was actually in the line up for tonight or this weekend, but you convinced me that I should rewatch Nolan's Batman movies.

[PhotoOtaku]

Congrats, now go!!!

[Iago]

Yes, now go! And I am convinced that you very likely did better with that case study than you think that you did.

[Seamaster]

I watched Warrior and have The Dark Knight to watch tonight. Then, I will hit the theatre.

I really enjoyed Warrior, although it suffers the same problem that I feel all fight movies suffer, which is predictability. O' Connor does a good job of building tension, but it is obvious where the story is going, so the fights lose a little bit of steam. Thankfully, the fight lengths are well edited and O' Connor moves us through the competition at a steady pace so the action does not get boring. That said, I did find the the fight sequences a little choppy at times. Some of the takedowns Brendan (Edgerton) pulls off are complicated and it would have been nice to see those in more detail. I wonder if the editing was to compensate for less-than-ideal technique or for impact (e.g., the speed at which Edgerton could pull off a reversal)? I couldn't make up my mind, although I know Edgerton does have a martial art's background. I think he could have pulled off the moves clean. Regardless, as for impact, we need only look at Tommy (Hardy). Tommy was all-out brutal, and in a good, scary way. The only confused aspect of that was Koba. Tommy and Koba both had a head-on, brutal approach to fighting and it didn't seem necessary to have two characters like that in the film. It also created an odd tension because it would have been great to see Tommy and Koba fight, but it was obvious that Tommy would have a rematch with Mad Dog and Brendan would be left to battle Koba.

Hardy did a fine job and I can now see how he is just as good a pick as Diesel for Bane. In the scene where Tommy and Brendan argue on the beach, Hardy's acting reminded me of Diesel, especially in his delivery. That said, overall, a nod must be given to Edgerton. His acting was also strong (despite being cast in the underdog, good-kid role). And while Hardy's build was impressive, Edgerton deserves points for his toned, refined physique. Speaking of acting, Nolte, too, played the despondent father spot on. And I could actually understand Nolte in this film. Lately, I find I almost need subtitles to figure out what the guy is saying.

All in all, it was a good film and a fairly honest look at MMA. It was no-doubt given the Hollywood treatment, but only in a subtle way. I found it maintained the atmosphere and overall tone of Rocky rather than, say, many of the overly dramatized and forgettable fight movies that have come out in the past two decades.

Incidentally, I know it is old news, but that is sad about Sly's son.

[Iago]

Well, pretty much any sports movie suffers from the predictability problem; some may consider it a feature of the genre, rather than a bug. That said, there were several different ways that they could have taken the story, and I think that Koba was a deliberate red herring in that regard. One possiblity was that one of the brothers would have been taken out of the tournament (paralyzed in a brutal fight with Koba, for instance) and the other brother would have to fight for revenge. There have been other movies that have gone that route (think Apollo Creed's death in Rocky IV.) The finale with the brothers fighting each other was likely, but not a forgone conclusion. The interesting angle was having both brothers be sympathetic, if in different ways, and having each of them fight for a sympathetic cause. That made the final fight interesting, because the viewer really does not want either one to lose.

Like I said previously, the movie did add a wrinkle to the formula by making it a sort of a triple redemption story, for both brothers and the father. (Even the father's ultimate fall provides a way to break through the chinks in Hardy's emotional armor.)

Edgerton was indeed in very good shape. My nod goes to Hardy just for the fact that I prefer the mass, and I prefer the brutal, "bruiser" style of fighting. (Always preferred Hagler to Robinson, for instance.) But Edgerton definitely gave his best performance to date in the film.

And yes, very sad news about Sly's son.


We should probably start a new thread labelled as a spoiler thread for Rises. I am itching to discuss it with you. I have read a lot of interesting debates about its relative merits. You may well like it less than I did, and even I may like it less on a second viewing, but from what I am reading I suspect that one's enjoyment of it may be increased with one's familiarity with the comics that it borrows from. It really does a great job of combining Knightfall, No Man's Land and the other story that I cannot reveal, since even its title would be a giveaway for certain twists in the film.


In the meantime, have you seen the new international trailer for Skyfall? Unlike the teaser, this is a full trailer. It does give away something that could be considered a minor spoiler, but only because they have said so little about the plot. I have watched it twice now, and I have to say, it really has my hopes up. Even the bit with Q looks like he will indeed serve as armorer, rather than general gadget master:

[Seamaster]

You make a good point that the movie could have gone in a number of directions. I guess it didn't help that I had saw the trailer and that the trailer clearly mentioned Tommy and Brendan fighting for the prize purse. I chalk that up to a bad trailer that gives away too much! Indeed, for me, it ruined the whole suspense around Koba. It didn't matter which brother he fought -- I knew that brother would be victorious.

I am having trouble viewing the trailer. I'll check it out a bit later. If scheduling permits, I'm on for Dark Knight Rises this weekend. Agree that a new thread would be a good idea.

[Iago]

That is interesting about the trailer for Warrior; I do not know that I ever saw it. Probably gave me more reason to question what path that the film would take. I am glad that I missed it. Yet another trailer that gives away too much.

Speaking of that, the semi-spoiler in the Skyfall trailer is a slightly different case in that it is clearly something that happens early in the film (maybe even in the pre-credit sequence? Who knows.) So it is not much of a spoiler. (On the other hand, one of the wonderful things about Cabin in the Woods is that it gives away its central plot twist in the pre-credit sequence, which really puts the viewer on uncertain footing as you really wonder where it can go from there.)

Other than that, the clips with Q look fine, and in the brief glimpses of Bardeem he seems like a appropriately charismatic villain. That is something that the series has lacked for quite some time -- maybe the last one was Jonathon Pryce? Mind you, I liked Mads Mikkelson in Casino Royale, but his character was less flamboyant. In the brief glimpses in this trailer, he gives off a bit of a Klaus Maria Brandaur vibe (still one of my overall favorite villains in Bond filmdom.)

By the way, here is the domestic version of the previous international trailer. It is cut a bit differently, and has a few different shots:

[Seamaster]

Although I wouldn't put her at the top of the list, Luciana Paluzzi deserves some mention. That, however, is going back a ways.

Will debate more when I have some time. I must run . . .

[Iago]

You do not have to go back to Thunderball; there have been many since then. I was thinking more of the last decade or two. (And, for that matter, I prefer Barbara Carrera's Fatima Blush to Volpe, but that is another discussion!) Plus, we are talking about henchmen/women here, not primary villians like I was thinking. On the henchperson front, the last really memorable one was probably Famke Janssen in Goldeneye. In that case, I thought that Sean Bean made a helluva villain, but not a particularly flamboyant one.

[Seamaster]

Fair point.

Regarding main antagonists, what did you think of Robert Davi as Franz Sanchez? I mention him only because there is some cross-comparison to be drawn between Sanchez and Kananga (at least Kananga as portrayed in Fleming's novel Live and Let Die.

[Iago]

I liked Sanchez (and I like Robert Davi in general.) Once again, though, I was referring to the flamboyant quality of some of the classic villains; not just how they rank as villains in general. From a pure ranking standpoint, Davi and Bean are two of the best villains from the last couple (well, two or three) decades, though Mikkleson was also quite good. Gottfried John was also excellent as the general in Goldeneye. In fact, I would rank them ahead of Jonathon Pryce in absolute terms; however, he is still probably the only villain in that period who posseses the flamboyant quality that made Brandauer and Frobe so much fun. (Though to be fair, Goldeneye had its cake and ate it too by adding the most flamboyant henchperson in three decades.)

Did you watch the trailer(s)?

[Seamaster]

I did and I'm not sure what to make of them. Something is rubbing me the wrong way and I cannot quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's little things like the way Craig adjusts his tie after jumping on the train. Reminds me too much of Bronson when he adjusts his tie underwater, i.e., it looks silly.

Also, while it is not fair to judge a story by the trailer, I'm concerned that the story is going to be too thin. Again, no evidence for saying that; just a gut feeling.

[Iago]

Well, trailers are not designed to give a complete precis of the story, and if they do, it is a bad trailer! But I had the exact opposite reaction; even the cufflinks bit brought a smile to my face (and yes, I winced at the Bronson tie bit!) But it could certainly well be a return to all of the "bad" Bond form. Only time will tell. Interesting how two people who share many common opinions about the Bond series can have opposite reactions to the same trailer.

[PhotoOtaku]

My favorite trailer of the week, however I think it fails Iago's Good trailer/ bad trailer theory:

[Iago]

Since when did John hack into your acount?

[PhotoOtaku]

What, is something spelled wrong...?

Everybody loves a good trailer, ...& boobies.

[Sponsored content]