Avoid This Movie: A Review of "Water Bandit"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movie Review
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a negative critique of a recent James Bond film, which is described as poorly executed and lacking the traditional elements that define the franchise. The plot, involving a villain attempting to steal water in Bolivia, is deemed simplistic and unengaging. Critics highlight the absence of iconic gadgets, humor, and character development, leading to confusion among viewers about character identities and motivations. The film is compared unfavorably to earlier Bond movies, particularly "Casino Royale" and "Goldeneye," with many participants expressing disappointment in the direction of the franchise. The new portrayal of Bond, characterized as gritty and realistic, is seen as a departure from the charm and sophistication typically associated with the character. Overall, the consensus is that the film fails to deliver the excitement and intrigue expected from a Bond movie, prompting recommendations to avoid it or watch it for free.
  • #61
TheStatutoryApe said:
A: The new Batman franchise is based on one of the most acclaimed interpretations of Batman by one of the most acclaimed names in comicbook writing. Relating the new Bond to the "new" batman is ridiculous.

How is it "ridiculous?" All I said was that new Bond was intended to be more realistic and less fantastical, just as new Batman was. That was the ONLY point of comparison. I NEVER said that new Bond was supposed to be more authentic** or to "go back to the roots" like the way new Batman was. I NEVER said that new Bond was as good a reimagining of Bond as new Batman was of Batman.

**That having been said, I should point out that *Daniel Craig* seems to think that that's exactly what new Bond does. He *claims* his portrayal is closer to the Bond of Ian Fleming's books.

TheStatutoryApe said:
B: James Bond is supposed to be fantastic. That's the whole point.

You have quoted my post, but you don't seem to have read it. You are *agreeing* with me here. I spent a paragraph pointing out the flaws of an ostensibly more realistic Bond and why it doesn't work:

cepheid said:
The problem with their new definition of a James Bond film is quite simply that it doesn't work. You can either have a James Bond movie, or you can have a "realistic" spy movie. These things are mutually exclusive...We accepted the outlandish elements and gadgets in previous Bond films because they were part and parcel of the Bond experience. It's much harder to accept them here.
Then you said this:

TheStatutoryApe said:
And he's not supposed to be a dark brooding batman-like character. He's supposed to have flair and class and be able to make the odd dry remark over a martini at a moments notice.

Again, how is this different from what I said?

cepheid said:
Yet he seems to lack any of the charm and sophistication that the filmmakers would have us believe are still inherent to Bond. People around him act as though he's well-known (edit: by reputation) to be this suave character with fine, expensive tastes, but he really doesn't portray himself that way...

I was trying to point out that the script was still trying to make us believe that this was the James Bond we know (in terms of womanizing, dry humour, being cool, calm, collected etc) in spite of the fact that this was completely at odds with what we saw on the screen.

Overall my post was critical of the new Bond films, not because they don't have a great deal of merit, but because they aren't Bond films. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I was saying. I don't recall saying anywhere in my post that the new, dark, brooding Bond was necessarily a good thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Daniel Craig has obviously never read Ian Fleming's books and is perhaps confusing them with Robert Ludlum's.
 
  • #63
TheStatutoryApe said:
I noticed this in The Kingdom. It annoyed me so much I didn't even watch more than the first twenty minutes.

Man, you got it all wrong. THAT was a good movie.
 
  • #64
Cyrus said:
Dont watch it. It was horrible. I mean HOR-RI-BLE.

This bad guy is trying to steal all the water in bolivia. Yep, that's the plot. It's that stupid. He just wants to steal some water and sell it back for profit. Plus there is random action (I mean random) and characters just come in leaving me asking who the hell is that?

Oh, and he has a cell phone that he uses to take pictures of peoples faces 500 feet away with 'super magic zoom that stabilizes itself perfectly'. It's total BS.

That was the only 'gadget' the whole movie. No montepenny. No Q. No funny lines.

Why don't you say that to his face? He'd have you easy.
 
  • #65
neu said:
Why don't you say that to his face? He'd have you easy.

Huh?
 
  • #66
My apologies to Cepheid. I was half drunk and in a bad mood. I think I may have mixed elements of other posts with yours or something.


Cyrus said:
Man, you got it all wrong. THAT was a good movie.
The movie premise seemed quite good. And having never seen Jaime Fox in a serious role he seemed to do a pretty good job. That shaky camera bit just annoyed me though. Fortunately I didn't have to pay to watch those twenty minutes.
 
  • #67
Cyrus said:
Huh?

Bond is well hard.

Who do you reckon would win in a fight between James Bond and Phil Michell?
 
  • #68
neu said:
Bond is well hard.

Who do you reckon would win in a fight between James Bond and Phil Michell?

Phil who?
 
  • #69
Bond has to be a huge alcoholic. There is no way anyone can slam that much brandy like that in that short amount of time like Bond does unless Bond is an alkie. I would be passed out drunk if I had 6 martinis, but apparently Bond doesn't even have slurred speech after that many.
 
  • #70
gravenewworld said:
I would be passed out drunk if I had 6 martinis, but apparently Bond doesn't even have slurred speech after that many.

That's nothing compared to drinking contest in one of Indiana Jones movies.
 
  • #71
You forget, he's on an airplane drinking at 30,000 feet. He would be blacked out.
 
  • #72
Cyrus said:
Phil who?

http://www.tvscoop.tv/phil.jpg
http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/walfordweb/hq-images/phil-060308-02.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
Prof. Demler teaches a Quantum Theory of Solids course. As I was walking down the hallway between buildings, I saw this poster stuck on the wall. It was really funny, so I took a picture of it. I'm guessing it's an advertisement for an upcoming course (or something to do with the current course).http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2308/img0010cc8.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator: