Avoid This Movie: A Review of "Water Bandit"

[Borek]

To leave out the whole core of the movies and character and still call it a James Bond movie is ridiculous. Bond films are SUPPOSED to have impossible gadgets and stunts...

Exactly. No Bond stuff, no Bond movie.

 

[cepheid]

Also, I like Bond as the hired assassin with the f-ed up mind rather than the pretty boy who never seems to get hurt. I watched the Pierce Brosnan films over the summer and the worst he seemed to get out of the entire thing was a messed up (dislocated?) shoulder.

Get over it. In this latest movie, Craig's Bond falls out of a plane, barely opening his chute in time, and in the next scene his shirt is still tucked in, his cufflinks are still on, and he still has his suit jacket. Sure, they paid close attention to make sure that people were appropriately battered and bloodied in this movie, but to argue that it was completely realistic and that there no examples of "invincible Bond" is wrong. In fact, "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" was almost a theme of Bond in this movie, to the point of absurdity (no more or less so than most action movies nowadays, but there you have it). I mean, if they were being completely realistic, Bond would have been dead in the first few minutes. There are only so many glass panes that one can get smashed through. If anything they went to the opposite extreme. This Bond gets injured far too much for it to be believable. Brosnan may not have had a scratch on him, but having Craig go through what should have killed him three times over without any consequences whatsoever, and having him ACT as though he didn't have a scratch on him is not much of an improvement.

I think Brosnan did an awesome job as Bond, even if the movies he was in weren't that great, and tended to get progessively worse.

 

[chasely]

Get over it. In this latest movie, Craig's Bond falls out of a plane, barely opening his chute in time, and in the next scene his shirt is still tucked in, his cufflinks are still on, and he still has his suit jacket. Sure, they paid close attention to make sure that people were appropriately battered and bloodied in this movie, but to argue that it was completely realistic and that there no examples of "invincible Bond" is wrong. In fact, "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" was almost a theme of Bond in this movie, to the point of absurdity (no more or less so than most action movies nowadays, but there you have it). I mean, if they were being completely realistic, Bond would have been dead in the first few minutes. There are only so many glass panes that one can get smashed through. If anything they went to the opposite extreme. This Bond gets injured far too much for it to be believable. Brosnan may not have had a scratch on him, but having Craig go through what should have killed him three times over without any consequences whatsoever, and having him ACT as though he didn't have a scratch on him is not much of an improvement.

I think Brosnan did an awesome job as Bond, even if the movies he was in weren't that great, and tended to get progessively worse.

Completely agree with you, the scene you mention was one of those "oh come on moments" for me.

Of course, if movies were to get realistic, good guys would die in about two minutes. Either that or these bad guys are all blind and have really bad aim.

Still liked the movie though

 

[mgb_phys]

The realistic Bond movie
Bond spends the morning listening in on mobile phone calls.
Then just before his compulsory 'sexism in the workplace' seminar he is issued with a zone 1 travel card by Q.
Heads to the tube - and shoots a Brazilian tourist!

 

[OrbitalPower]

If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?

 

[chasely]

The realistic Bond movie
Bond spends the morning listening in on mobile phone calls.
Then just before his compulsory 'sexism in the workplace' seminar he is issued with a zone 1 travel card by Q.
Heads to the tube - and shoots a Brazilian tourist!

Roll credits, here comes the cash for the studio!

 

[chasely]

If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?

I liked both, so that's a "yes" from one person.

 

[Cyrus]

If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?

No, it sucks. And I didnt care much for bourne 2 & 3 either. I thought they sucked too. Call me crazy, I like a movie that has a good plot and shots to it. I guess its too much to ask these days.

 

[gravenewworld]

Just saw it.

2/5.

The script was all over the place, and at times barely comprehensible. I had to read the wiki plot summary after I saw the movie to make sure I caught everything.



That being said, even though this new bond wasn't one of the best, the new portrayal of Bond is much better than before. Come on, invisible Aston Martens, watches with lasers, and bad guys throwing top hats that can cut off statue heads? The old Bonds were extremely cheesy. The newer Bonds are based more in reality and are much grittier.

 

[Cyrus]

Here is a piece of advice for movie makers. If you want to make a spy movie make something people can believe. Don't make it about the character, make it about the mission. Have characters die or get captured. I don't care about the character. If you're doing a military operation its about completing your MISSION objective.

I'm really getting tired of this supermanlike bullsheet from spy movies. Its action action action, fight fight fight, run run run, fight more fight more, take out super moronic spy gadget.

Was there any point to bourne 2,3? No. None. For three movies he's trying to figure out who he is. Wow...that's some story. I'm on the edge of my seat. Oh wait, no. I wasnt. No one was. You just wanted to see mindless fight scenes.

The truth of the matter is, most spies don't do all this nonsense anyways. They recruit people to do the spying so they can cut and run if things go bad. Make a move about the interaction of a real spy trying to turn people to spy for him/her and pay them off, and the dynamic of that relationship.

Enough is enough. Spy movies suck. I'm sorry, they do. There all the sameeeeeeee olddddddd stupid plot over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

(Cue in ninjas on ropes to start fighting randomly)

 

[mgb_phys]

The point of franchises is to be exactly the same as the last one - people go because they know what to expect. It's like McDonalds.

 

[gravenewworld]

The point of franchises is to be exactly the same as the last one - people go because they know what to expect. It's like McDonalds.

That is completely up to the artist (the director).



The new Batmans are much much different than the Batmans of the 80s and 90s.

 

[mgb_phys]

The new Batmans are much much different than the Batmans of the 80s and 90s.

Batman is more like different interpretations of the same story.
When you get to Batman 27 - Batman and the wolfman against Dracula, it becomes a franchise!

 

[Holocene]

What was with that shaky camera work? It was worse than watching that garbage movie the Bourne Ultimatum...

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/superinni/ANOTHER_WAY_TO_DIE_ALECIA_KEYS_JACK_WHITE.aspx

Even the theme song sucked.


Also, he didnt even walk and shoot the bullseye like in all the other bond movies until the very END of the movie. No...no...NO. He does that FIRST. then after a few mins comes the theme song.

Now compare that asc-crap to the CLASSIC bond theme songs of the past



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSc1n8ByDiE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMvGzpUEPU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDitUVMMzE0&feature=related

Plus they always had these great animations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pka0FczsOfo&feature=related

 

[noumed]

Should've watched the movie after a few cold ones like I did... Best Bond movie ever!

 

[Borek]

Plus they always had these great animations.

My wife - when watching intro - asked where the chicks are. She was shaken.

 

[wolram]

In most of these films the bad guy is stupid, instead of putting a bullet through the good guys head when is cornered/captured, they tie him up or put him some place he can escape.

 

[mgb_phys]

The super villains haven't studied the list; http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

 

[misgfool]

In most of these films the bad guy is stupid, instead of putting a bullet through the good guys head when is cornered/captured, they tie him up or put him some place he can escape.

That's the whole point. If they were ordinary thugs, they would put a bullet trough the good guys head. But they are not. They are intelligent, eccentric and original. It's their imagination that makes them supercriminals in the first place.

 

[Borek]

For some reasons they never do. I suppose they think they are wise enough on their own.

Sounds like a thing that should be put on the list. Could be it is there already, don't know. Haven't read. But hey, I am not a super villain, I don't nood to care.

 

[noumed]

In most of these films the bad guy is stupid, instead of putting a bullet through the good guys head when is cornered/captured, they tie him up or put him some place he can escape.

Austin Power much??

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My wife and I are fans of Bond, James Bond and since my daughter works in the gigaplex, we got free tickets to see this film. We were not amused. My wife is rather conservative so she was disappointed that this film was different in any respect from Casino Royale. I think she was looking forward to a rerun. I haven't enjoyed a Bond film since the humor went out of it. They used to have fun making these films, but not any more. Bond was a playboy who moonlighted as a spy. I miss the preposterous methods of killing him that never worked and the cutesy ways of telling the girl that the enemy agent died. I deplore the revenge theme that has crept into the films. Living well used to be Bond's revenge. He used to have a foam lined case with cutouts for champagne and caviar. Now he takes everything personally.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is there any point to mentioning that my post contains SPOILERS?

For those who complain that it bore no resemblance to a James Bond film: you are right. That is because they have completely redefined the James Bond franchise. It's kind of like Nolan's version of Batman. It's meant to be "realistic." Gritty, down to earth, and visceral are also words that come to mind. Hence the relative mundanity of the plot. I'm not sure whether Cyrus' complaint was that the plot was mundane, or that it was stupid/nonsensical/pointless. Whatever you might say about it, I think that it was meant to be an example of the type of situation the intelligence agencies of the world's major powers might have to deal with in the present day, in the world's current political climate. It was certainly interesting to see the blunt depiction of the world's major powers' last ditch scramble for oil at any cost. Not to mention the not-so-subtle criticism of the U.S.'s actions on the world stage. Not the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Bond film.

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. For if Bond is meant to be simply "a really good MI6 agent doing what MI6 agents do," then we are left wondering why he's driving around in an Aston Martin in the first place. It's not as if the real MI6 can afford to provide one for each of its agents. To make this new definition work, the filmmakers would have to abandon ALL of the elements that typify a James Bond movie, as opposed to MOST of them. 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.

It doesn't help that they've also completely redefined the character. The only elements that remain the same are his efficiency as a killer, his alcoholism, his sex drive, his seeming invincibility, and his ability to ultimately get the job done, no matter how unconventional the methods employed. 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 to be this suave character with fine, expensive tastes, but he really doesn't portray himself that way (aside from the fact that's he's dressed nicely). He's described as a thug, a hired hitman, an assassin, a "blunt instrument." Those certainly seem closer to the mark when it comes to Craig's performance. This humourless Bond has a brooding intensity to him. He has issues -- emotional baggage. In light of these traits, it seems surprising that he's able to go to bed with so many women. Especially since I haven't had anything that comes even close to a remotely consistent answer from my female friends when it comes to the issue of whether Daniel Craig is, in fact, good-looking. They're all over the map.

I guess the summary of what I'm saying is that by drastically changing the Bond franchise, the filmmakers have unwittingly had us recalibrate our suspension-of-disbelief-o-meters to the point that it makes it difficult to accept the traditional James Bond elements in these films.

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.

B: James Bond is supposed to be fantastic. That's the whole point. 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.
As for realism; the character was a romanticised version of the real deal, like William Stephenson. Stephenson was well known for being rather calm and dry even under extreme circumstances and was even a millionaire who help fund his efforts with his own resources during WWII.
WWII was an era during which technology in spying became big, hence the bond gadgets. And modern times has more than its fair share of exotic and fantastic technology, so there is no reason to skimp for the sake of realism.

I agree with Moonie that a remake of the character would be far preferable to the continual reinvention of the same character. Imagining a hard "gritty" assasin type character assigned as the new 007 scoffing and wondering at all this fancy gadgetry sounds like an interesting idea to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What was with that shaky camera work? It was worse than watching that garbage movie the Bourne Ultimatum...

I noticed this in The Kingdom. It annoyed me so much I didn't even watch more than the first twenty minutes.

 

[cepheid]

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.

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:

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:

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?

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.

 

[Art]

Daniel Craig has obviously never read Ian Fleming's books and is perhaps confusing them with Robert Ludlum's.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[neu]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

Why don't you say that to his face? He'd have you easy.

Huh?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

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.

 

[neu]

Huh?

Bond is well hard.

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

 

[Cyrus]

Bond is well hard.

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

Phil who?

 

[gravenewworld]

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.

 

[Borek]

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.