Movies you've seen recently... (46 Viewers)
- Thread starter vitoria_Ally
- Start date
- Status
about the bourne discussion, i loved the books and loved the films but felt they missed a great opportunity. however, they completely changed the genre of spy movies and bond has a lot to thank bourne for in ressurecting what was a pretty much a dead genre.
and to ask about if it will stand the test of time??how many folk remember the harry palmer films including the ipcress files and funeral in berlin.great movies for their time but arther dated now
agreed, one of pacino's finest films but a rather average film
thank you, was rather confused at the "thriller" title it was given. fine performance by both feinnes and weiss but a bloody long going film.
and to ask about if it will stand the test of time??how many folk remember the harry palmer films including the ipcress files and funeral in berlin.great movies for their time but arther dated now
agreed, one of pacino's finest films but a rather average film
thank you, was rather confused at the "thriller" title it was given. fine performance by both feinnes and weiss but a bloody long going film.
Well, Bond isn't exactly a spy movie. It's a bit like a hybrid of a little bit of spying, a trade show of gadgets and a semi-superhero that never gets hurt, plus the mandatory demolition of at least one giant structure every time. I mean a spy is generally a person who trades in information, not demolition. It also has no depth of character, he's always confident and strong, never doubts himself, never struggles with his past. Bond just isn't very authentic a character, something that Bourne is much more of.
oh i agree but taht is why,for me, connery was the UNLTIMATE bond, when sir sean played the "super spy" he played it edgy,dangerous. a man who would kill to survive, but he was also a flawed character and that is why bond was so popular, moore played it sillya nd teh elss said about dalton the better. the whole thing got lost up its own,suave,ladykilliing arse. i am actually exctied with the way the series is going now as they seem to ahve taken it back to basics, a spy who has no problem doling out death but is not invinsible and has his own complex issues
like i said they ahve a lot to thank the bourne series for, but,again, i feel the bourne series missed a real treat for the viewer by dimissing the whole carlos the jackal fued from the books
like i said they ahve a lot to thank the bourne series for, but,again, i feel the bourne series missed a real treat for the viewer by dimissing the whole carlos the jackal fued from the books
Actually I can't stand Connery. I've watched the old movies a few times over the last few years and while it's true as you say the character is flawed it's only in the sense that he's a rude, pretentious jackass. Whom I don't like at all. Beyond that he's just as invulnerable as any Bond. I liked Roger Moore for his elegance and class. I realize Bond is basically a fantasy, but I enjoy that story, so I don't mind the flaws I mentioned in the last post.
Haven't read the Bourne books. Maybe I will someday.
Haven't read the Bourne books. Maybe I will someday.
fair enough, i always believe that connery's bond is truer to flemmings view on what bond is, forget his return to the "franchise" watch the early film for a true feeling on this
and definately read the books on bourne, NOTHING like the films ab=nd hugely enjoyable, but then again i am a huge fan of robert ludlum
and definately read the books on bourne, NOTHING like the films ab=nd hugely enjoyable, but then again i am a huge fan of robert ludlum
- Status