VIDEO: The Green Hornet (2011)

We’re sorry...

This video is no longer available due to the shutdown of Blip.tv.

The ongoing trend of big budget comic book movies has had its ups and downs, and one major down for many fans has been the 2011 reboot of the ’30s-era pulp crimefighter the Green Hornet, starring comedic actor Seth Rogen as a much goofier Green Hornet than we’ve ever seen before. Alongside him is Taiwanese musical superstar Jay Chou as his highly-skilled sidekick Kato. These nearly 80-year-old characters have seen their own fair share of reinterpretations; most famously, a 1966 TV series that only lasted one season and starred Van Williams and martial arts master Bruce Lee. In this episode of The DVD Shelf Movie Reviews, David looks at the Green Hornet’s illustrious history, then puts Seth Rogen’s controversial turn as the masked vigilante to the test and see if the film truly deserves the hate it gets. Also included is a short bonus review of 2013’s reboot of another legendary hero, the Lone Ranger, who’s actually considered to be an ancestor of the Green Hornet.

Scroll down to comment on this video...

You may also like...

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    Oh, I liked the movie. It was no masterpiece, but – at least to me – it was a great diversion from this grim, gritty, “Take me seriously”-comic-movie-crap. ^^

  • DavidWilmotLow

    its a bit hard to defend this film, when even seth rogen and michel gondry have admitted its garbage.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      Well, fortunately all of us are allowed to have different opinions, even opinions differing from those, who made the movie.

      For example: Michael Shanks.
      He was starring in flicks called “Swarmed” and “Sumuru” – and allegedly even he hated them.
      Does that change something for me?
      Not at all.
      I watch those movies and think “Hey, nice entertainment.”
      Same with this movie.
      The complete cast could say “Yeah, this movie is a train wreck.” – honestly: I don’t care.
      I make up my own opinions – thank you very much.

      Same with Daniel Craig portraying James Bond – or in this case “James B(l)ond”. Allegedly even Roger Moore said “that’s a good actor for James Bond” – which caused people at TGWTG to say “You should listen to Roger Moore, he’s saying that Craigs Bond is good.”

      to which I say: “That can be his opinion – sure. It might also be, that he didn’t want to come off as a guy, who is harping at one of his successors. ” And again – honestly – I don’t care.
      To me, Craig was not a good Bond-actor.

      That’s called “singular opinion” – and I can defend a movie, which even the creators didn’t like, because – again – personal opinion.

      Green Hornet to me – it was a fine, decent flick. Not a masterpiece by any stretch of imagination, but since I like the idea of the heroes being the bumbling fools and the XO or sidekick being the “real hero” – that was my kind of movie.

    • Muthsarah

      Woody Allen thinks most of his films were failures. He famously tried to prevent “Manhattan” from being released, because he thought it was terrible. A lot of people disagree with him, and I think they’re right to do so.

      • DavidWilmotLow

        in this case, though, the critics, and the general public agree with seth that the movie sucks, lol.

      • DavidWilmotLow

        yes, but in THIS CASE, the critics and the general public both agree with seth and Michael that the movie sucks…because, yknow, it DOES, lol.

        also, comparing seth to woody allen is too stupid for words, lol.

  • DavidWilmotLow

    Seth insisted the reason this movie failed was “the budget.” he essentially said “im not popular enough to carry a movie with a budget this big, so the budget is clearly the problem.” silly me, here I was thinking that some fat, ugly, untalented, jackass, who had no love, no understanding, and no respect for the property, went out of his way to take a big steaming dump all over the property and it’s history, and turn the character into the most grating, unlikable “superhero” since….ummm….well EVER, was the problem. no clearly THE BUDGET was the problem.

    • I agree with Rogen. They added a lot of needless budget inflating effects instead of just making it a straight up superhero comedy. I thought the movie was fine, but not worth what it cost to make. A smaller budget comedy would have made its money back faster and been a relative success.

      • DavidWilmotLow

        …OR they could have put someone people actually LIKE in the lead role, and had a GOOD writer write the script, who wouldnt go out of his way to turn the property into a joke. If they did that, it may have actually been a hit with the budget it had. that ALSO could have worked, lol.

        i love how easily you’ve brought into rogen’s backwards logic. the problem wasn’t a big budget, the problem is seth the fat, slimy, untalented, junkie, idiot isn’t liked by anywhere nearly enough people to carry a big budget film.

        • Muthsarah

          You’ve twice here condemned the film for having a “fat” star whom no-one likes, when the star wasn’t even fat in this movie, and who has been doing pretty well for himself with the fans over the last few years, all things considered. Think, maybe, you’re projecting something onto these masses? The film was hardly a bomb, just not a big success, a minor disappointment; no sequels, but no calling for anyone’s heads either. In the age of the instant blockbuster, not everything can make $150 million or more in its first weekend, unless it’s a sterling example of cinematic gold like The Transformers. I’ve gotten pretty comfortable with reading box office numbers, and this film clearly turned a small profit, so it had a decent amount of public support – thus indicating that Rogan has a fanbase, or at least is moderately appealing as an action lead. But its success was clearly qualified enough to make other comic book adaptations a safer bet, so people who coulda invested in a Green Hornet 2 (which, by the odds, prolly woulda been both better and more serious), decided to put their money in another Spiderman or Thor or whatever. Wasn’t so much of a failure as you imply, just that the bar for success is set so very high in this age of the $1 billion expected gross.

          Using a star’s/writer’s/producer’s whatever’s own very humble self-criticisms as ammunition against them is a really tasteless thing to do, have to say. If he’s critical of his script, or his performance, or the general appeal of the movie, that’s something that should be respected. Not hated. Why hate someone for looking back on their own work and admitting “yeah, I don’t think this turned out as well as I hoped it would”? Hate the arrogant. Hate the oblivious and defiant. Hate the people who ruin properties and refuse to admit that their work was anything short of genius. Hate those who dismiss any criticism of themselves as the ranting of “whiners” and “losers” whose opinions aren’t relevant. If Rogan is really this humble about his shortcomings, learn to accept his contrition and try to find his humility humanizing. How often do you encounter a Hollywood star (and, yes, even if you don’t like him, he IS a star) who is willing to not only puncture his own ego, but do so in a way that INVITES others – liiiiiiiiiiike, YOU – to join in? It’s pretty rare.

          I’ve seen this movie. It was awright. I went in with, like, zero expectations. I had a basic understanding of the character, and the world, but hadn’t seen any previous works, more than in snippets. Basic pop-culture osmosis, spread over half my lifetime. I too thought that Hollywood Stoner Bro #2 (#1 is James Franco) wasn’t perhaps the best casting job for a straight-laced old-school action hero, but here, Rogan never came off as an arrogant wanna-be-Bruce-Willis-in-Die-Hard, but as a goofy, stuffy, preppy trust-fund-baby-made-good as an ersatz action hero. It was easy to place that personality type into this context, as someone born into wealth and privilege, and who, thus, doesn’t really understand the rest of the world as well as he maybe thinks he does based on his own very easy, very sheltered existence. He came off far more flawed and human than most action heroes we get, which is a nice change of pace. Yes, the comedy in this movie mostly went too far, over-stretched itself (Diaz’ character and scenes were worthless, I hate to say), but the rapport between his Hornet and Kato was fun at times, and the effects work in this film WAS pretty decent.

          The final result wasn’t comparable in any way to Batman, or Spiderman 2, or whatever, but it was a decent watch. Disappointing, given all the promise of the premise, but not a film to be detested, just a film that had a pretty good idea on how to deliver a fun take on an old property, but which ended up being bogged down with effects and scenes that went on too long. And a film that was, obviously, decades past its sell-by date, so that it got made at all, in an even vaguely-recognizable form, is more than a little bit astonishing. Not a BAD film, just an awright film, with a lot to like, but little to love, and more than a little bit to feel shoulda/coulda been done better, AND the kind of film that could have set itself up for a vastly improved follow-up, as with the incredibly-flawed but promising Spider Man 1. Nothing remotely worthy of the kind of bile you’re spewing here

          Seriously, think of what it woulda taken for someone – ANYONE – to adapt a long-forgotten (yeah it sucks, but 50 years of obsolescence is hard to argue against) property like this one, and make it relevant/popular for audiences in 2011? Go the Batman route (at the PERFECT time to be a Dark Knight rip-off), or risk going the Batman (& Robin) route AGAIN by sticking closer to the TV series, as a colorful decades-old genre flashback? It was welcome that they dared to inject ANY levity into this film, when they had all the pieces to turn it into a grim, gritty “average white guy plus Asian ninja sidekick” movie (Big Trouble in Little China, minus the humor). Compared with the state of modern comic book movies (especially pre-Avengers), dour and black and bleak and gritty was still the standard.

          All things considered, it turned out pretty well. It sucks if it turned out horribly for you, but, all the same, I wonder what exactly you were expecting from it? Something….serious? Something….identical to the 1960s TV series…from a 2010s movie? Something….what? Can’t just say “something good”? Can’t just say “something that didn’t have a ‘fat’ guy in the lead”. What do you think this film should have been, that it realistically coulda been in 2011, that it wasn’t? Something that isn’t just made to suit YOUR narrow tastes, of course?

          • Ken Zevo

            I agree with much of what you have said, and I don’t want to sound like I am chucking asparagus at your well-written and well-analyzed comments, because you make many valid points …
            [ *you practically HEAR the “but” coming up in this sentence, well before it arrives, can’t you?*]
            … but Seth was the wrong choice, for an action/dramatic role. He’s more Groucho Marx than Karl Marx, or even Karl Malden; he’s more believable in a pie fight scene than a crime fighting scene – which is why he ended up making what was, to my tastes, the Family Guy version of Green Hornet, in my highly uninformed opinion. (Fair warning: I never watched the movie, just the trailers and Yahoo movie clips … but that was MORE than enough to scare me off, permanently.)

            Seth Rogen played to his slap-stick comedy strengths, in a genre/character where they did NOT fit in well, if at all. It seems like too many of his retarded jokes fell flat, most esp. that utterly groan-inspiring “take my hand” / “I don’t want to touch you” scene. I felt like I needed a shower, after every time I heard it. The Green Hornet’s humor should be dry and biting, as befits the dignity of his traditionally moral, ethical, serious, and well-educated personality (esp. when in costume); not toilet and locker room humor, which was frankly beneath him and out-of-character for the Hornet’s previously established canon.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            I’m no big fan of toilet humor – for example, I can’t stand “fat bastard” from Austin Powers (and while we’re at it, the whole Austin Powers Franchise to begin with), I hate Jackass, I don’t like the “sperm as hair gel scene” in “there’s something about mary” (I heard that the scene existed and to me that was one of the main reasons to never watch those movies), I heard about rather “yikes”-worthy scenes in those “Scary Movie”-flicks, which was to me a reason to never watch them.

            THIS movie however – it has no toilet humour in it, except for perhaps that one scene, in which is revealed, that Kato had to put diapers on Reed.
            Except for that – the flick is pretty good.
            I don’t see “retarded jokes” in it.

          • Ken Zevo

            I should have typed “retarded humor”, my bad. The only jokes / sight gags I saw were the ones in the trailer and clips, and they just made me cringe. Your mileage may vary.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            “Retarded humour”? In this movie? Yeah, probably you should give the movie a chance.

            Like I said, I never watched “There’s something about Mary” because of that one scene with “sperm as hair gel” – but then I would not go around and say that this movie is utter garbage.

          • Ken Zevo

            Well, if there was so much good stuff in the movie, why didn’t they chose to put any of it in the trailer and clips? What I saw came off (again, to me) like a mix-mash of crude stoner humor, not action/drama, which is what I expect from the character. Your mileage may vary. If you liked it, enjoy it, and more power to ya. I disliked virtually everything I saw, in the trailer and clips, which is why I wouldn’t pay a nickel to see the rest.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Hey, that’s okay, if you disliked everything in the trailer and clips. I just watched a trailer and I thought “If I hadn’t bought the DVD already, I would buy it now.”
            I just think, there are far more cringe- and moanworthy movies.

            “Mee the spartans” might be a good example of something that in my book is “bad comedy”… And that shlock got a sequel, “Green Hornet” did not – sorry, that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            Good points, one and all. Let’s agree to disagree, since much of our disagreement comes down to personal taste and expectations. I am glad it brought you happiness, and hope you will continue to enjoy it for many years to come.

            Just as I hope I never see or hear of it again, speaking strictly for myself, except to do a comparison-and-contrast against the next re-make, hopefully a “more faithful to the source material” one.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Good, let’s agree to disagree. ^^

            By the way, I hope, there will be a season 1 Green Hornet DVD – so that I can compare and contrast.
            After all, we have Batman (68) coming on dvd, soon. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            PLZ don’t get me started on the 1960’s Batman TV series, lol, or we’ll be here ALL NIGHT !!! I think they set the pattern, with THAT one, for over-the-top, camp, and inappropriate humor a/o behavior.

            [ Remember, in the 60’s Batman movie, when he’s running up & down the wharf with that huge black spherical bomb with the smoking fuse … that had “BOMB” stenciled on the side, in big white letters !??! ]

            P.S. My bad, found a clip on YouTube of that scene, and no “BOMB” on the side … but there might as well have been. Enjoy!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsJA1C19AyE

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            OH yes…. “Sometimes you can’t get rid of a bomb”. I found that one hilarious. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            As Joey said, on the TV series Friends, “If you’re going to do something wrong … do it RIGHT!” Comedy, in an action/drama franchise, is the same way … as the compare/contrast of the two different Batman versions in the vid I provided, above, shows pretty clearly and decisively. If you’re going to break the rules, make it a quality T-bone steak, not a cheap hoagie sandwich!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIppKHtXOXE

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, I thought, they did that right. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            “Friends” is a slap-stick comedy show, so it doesn’t surprise me to see cheap laughs there – in fact, I expect such humor there, and that is what I watch Friends to see. If that silliness and absurdity wasn’t there, I’d be disappointed and upset.

            The Green Hornet, historically, has been an action/drama franchise, not a comedy franchise; so it angers and annoys me that Seth Rogen not only turned the Green Hornet into a joke (pun intended), but a pretty cheap “Family Guy”-esque one at that .. in my opinion. If it had, at least, been some quality humor, I would have been (and would be now) more forgiving. A serious character like the Green Hornet deserves better than just being played for cheap laughs, over & over again, like the butt of a fraternity prank.

            I hate getting rickrolled. Got it now?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling

            If Seth Rogen wanted to be the superhero that people laugh at, he should have found a franchise with a history of the hero being almost always in comedic trouble WAY over his head (“Greatest American Hero” comes immediately to mind – Seth Rogan would be PERFECT, for a re-make of that … and would probably make a mint off of doing it, since that is where his talents lie … I’d buy a ticket even before the 1st trailer came out), or he should have started a new hero from scratch … instead of spoiling an iconic and already-established brand, by turning it against itself, thematically.

            I’m done here. Thx for a lovely, and spirited, discussion. If you want the last word, you can have it now.

          • JD

            Id Love to see them redo Greatest American Hero.

          • MichaelANovelli

            They did. It’s called The Cinema Snob! ^_^

      • DavidWilmotLow

        and even SETH admits the movie is a piece of crap. he’s said it was a mistake to try and do a pg-13 film, and that the movie ISN’T FUNNY. give it up, you can’t defend this 120 million dollar turd. let it be forgotten on the trash heap of cinematic history where it belongs.

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          Except for the fact that people might’ve found it funny. E.g. me, the friends saw it in cinema with, other friends watched the DVD with, the guy that did this review – well I’d say that at least are some people, proving, that there were people, who found it funny.

          • Wizkamridr

            I would only watch it because of kato. I loved Jet Li’s and Donnie Yen’s versions of the character.

        • tedzey71

          Saying a movie is “a piece of crap” and “it was a mistake to try and do a pg-13 movie” can mean different things. Think about it.

    • tedzey71

      …despite the fact that this review disproves your point. Saying the writers have no respect for the source material doesn’t make sense when they reference everything from the comics, serials and even a storyline from the tv series. Judging Seth Rogen as an actor is subjective, but you should think things through before going on an opinionated Bill O’Reilly tirade.

      • Wizkamridr

        I don’t like rogen, but I don’t see the point of all the name calling.

  • Ken Zevo

    I could tell, just from the commercials, that this was a movie to avoid. Comedians should stick to comedy; Michael Keaton working out so well as Batman, was just a fluke. I liked that Kato was shown as being FAR more effective as a crime fighter (in the commercials, anyway) than his employer, but that was it. The rest just reeked. I am glad I never wasted any money on this turkey.
    I still hope, and yearn, that someone, someday, will make a respectful Green Hornet movie, or even a TV series – like they are currently doing with The Flash, another personal favorite of mine. (I can hardly wait for the pilot to air. Call me impulsive, but I have high hopes.) There is SO much potential in the Green Hornet character, still waiting to be tapped! It’s nice to see a superhero who doesn’t have any super powers, as such; just a great brain, charisma, strong moral values, and the willingness to use all of that effectively. I’ve had enough of superhero/clowns. The last two re-treads of the Spiderman franchise has pretty well poisoned the well for me, on “comic relief”-based characters. Only Tony Stark and Nick Fury get a free pass, there, in my book – and that only because they’ve done such a great job with biting satire and outrageous insults, in the past. GH comes off as just bargain-basement sugar-substitute filler comedy, esp. that “I don’t want to touch you” line. THAT one went str8 past insulting my intelligence, and insulted my stupidity as well.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      A superhero without superpowers, a great brain, charisma, strong moral values and the willingness to use all of that effectively – and that in a grim, gritty “realistic” environment?
      We have that. It’s called “Batman begins”.

      • Ken Zevo

        I am not saying we need more – or less – of that kind of character. I am saying that comedy is not what the Green Hornet is about, canon-wise, except for the occasional comic relief line. Making the movie so comedy-heavy was not the way to go, in my opinion. If you enjoyed it, good on ya! I’m glad it made SOMEONE happy, even if that person was not me. For me, it was a bad attempt at portraying an otherwise good franchise. I hope the next attempt will stick closer to the main character’s historical core strengths.

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          Okay, I give you that – I have to admit, I didn’t know that much about the “Green Hornet” and I can understand why the Hornet-Fans (Hornetians? LIke “Whovians? Hornetties? Like Trekkies? How do Hornet-Fans call themselves?) would be pissed and saw the version, that they grew up with, betrayed.

          To me, it is the same thing with James Bond, Batman and Stargate: Universe – I grew up with Roger Moore as James Bond and my very first Bond-movie, I specifically sat down and watched was “Goldeneye”, starring Pierce Brosnan. When they changed that to the more serious – and in my eyes pretty bleak and boring – tone of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I wasn’t very happy.

          My first introduction to Batman was the Adam West show of the sixties and then “Batman and Robin” – yes, the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
          And I have to say: I liked it.
          Batman begins on the other hand – that was not my kind of Superhero. Grim, gritty, dark, that stupid voice…. argh….

          I watched Stargate from the first movie onward – I liked the humour, that Jack O’Neill brought into the show, liked Stargate:Atlantis for being basically more of the same – but then they changed the tone in Stargate:Universe and I – along with a lot of other gaters, were pissed.

          So, I can see, where you come from.

          However – I learned to accept, that people just didn’t like the old ways of Bond anymore, that “Batman and Robin” was something, that nearly killed the franchise and needed a reboot, that after 15 years of “saving the galaxy and having fun” Stargate needed to do something new and fresh.

          If – and that was said in the Review, too – people could accept, that there would be other ways to portray Brad Reed, maybe this movie wouldn’t have caught as much flag, as it did.

          Plus – one reason the movie was awesome: EJO. Okay, completely underused, but that few scenes, Admiral Adama had, he was awesome in. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            I know I am going to regret this, but Roger Moore’s James Bond is one of my guilty pleasures. I like him better than Sean Connery, even though I thought/think Connery was a better Bond, overall. I didn’t care for the Pierce Brosnan versions, and haven’t seen the new guy yet, tho I do like him, in the commercials. He seems about right; but you are absolutely correct, he does come off as “bleak and gloomy”. They should lighten him up, at least a bit. “Why so SERIOUS ?!?”, as Heath Ledger’s Joker would say.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrIc1SlA7O8

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            That’s the opinion that most people have – Connery is the best Bond, and yes, he is great. But since you now know, that I like my source of entertainment being more absurd etc, it’s not that strange, that I’m all for the more funny ones of Moore and Brosnan. ^^

          • Ken Zevo

            I don’t think Brosnan was fit to tie Moore’s shoes, acting-wise, as a James Bond (atho I LOVED him in “Ms. Doubtfire”, as a foil for Robin Williams’ part); but then I am a person of strong opinions … and, as usual, your mileage may vary. That’s just how I see it. In the James Bond franchise, Brosnan and George Lazenby lift right out, with no significant damage done, they are just THAT forgettable.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            Must…resist….urge….to….argue….

          • Ken Zevo

            Two … last … word … freaks … won’t … end … well … lol …
            Ok, take it, you win. I am done. Anything further would just be repeating myself.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            The only thing I’ll say is, I’d personally rank On Her Majesty’s Secret Service as possibly the single greatest James Bond movie. And I say that as a lifelong James Bond fan.

            And amongst the James Bond fandom, there are many, many people who would agree with me.

            And I like Pierce Brosnan too.

          • Ken Zevo

            I am glad you enjoyed those movies, and sincerely hope that you get many more years of enjoyment out of them. It’s just a matter of personal taste. As with the question “what is your favorite color?”, there are no right or wrong answers, just personal opinions.

            When I think of James Bond actors, my mind automatically censors those two out as faux entries in the genre, like “simulated sapphire” ear rings, or a cubic zirconium “diamond replica”. Close, but not the “real deal”. Something about Lazenby and Brosnan breaks my willing suspension of disbelief – they don’t seem to fit quite right in the James Bond mold, for me – so it is hard for me to enjoy a James Bond movie with either one in it … no matter how good the plot, supporting cast, special effects & stunts, gadgets, and other elements, are otherwise.

            I think Brosnan would have been good as another “00x” agent, or a different spy altogether. He IS a good actor … I adored him, in “Dante’s Peak”, “Mama Mia!” (another guilty pleasure), and “The Fourth Protocol” … he was so scary-terrific in that one, that it gave me goose bumps!

            He’s just not proper James Bond material, in my mind, though. I guess it’s not THAT an actor portrays Bond occasionally as a smarmy wanker, that bothers me, but HOW he goes about doing it. Moore does it right – for me – and Brosnan leaves me underwhelmed.

            If you want to accuse me of trying to split frog hairs, I will freely cop to it; as I doubt there is any way, by now, to hide my guilt.

            P.S. I was going to give you the last word … oops! Just woke up, and saw your reply on Discus, then reacted to it automatically, cuz I thought it was from a different person. Sorry .. my bad. I am worthless, in the morning, until my 1st cuppa coffee worx it’s way through my system.

            If you want the last word, again, I will redouble my efforts to not be a turd in your punch bowl. My most abject apologies, for this mistake. Please resist any urges to call me “Loretta”, however much I may deeply deserve it, at the moment.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

          • Muthsarah

            Connery is only the best Bond if you view Bond as a fundamentally 60s character. Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and You Only Live Twice are quality movies, and Goldfinger and Thunderball are pretty good overall, but have some major problems, both with the excessive misogyny, pacing issues, and the agency of Bond in his own movie. YOLT is a ridiculous movie that only works BECAUSE it’s so ridiculous, so that makes Connery 2/5 for quality performances in quality movies. Not a sterling record, but there’s usually enough camp value in his lesser films to make them watchable and fun, if you’re into that kinda stuff.

            No Bond actor is truly successful and truly consistent. Connery lost interest pretty early on – maybe by Thunderball, hard to tell given that film’s glacial pacing, but certainly by YOLT, where he was clearly already bored – and Moore was often all over the place. Moore’s first two films were written with Connery in mind (hence how markedly different he plays Bond as compared with his next five), and were, more than any other Bond film, directed by whatever was considered trendy at the time – Blaxploitation, Kung-fu flicks, Star Wars – which meant that he was never able to nail down his character, at least as anything other than a shallow, subtle-by-today’s-standards pop-cultural commentator. Moore’s films floated by on wit and superficial silliness, but if you look deeper, you’ll see that’s really all they ever had. He had some good films, but not many.

            Dalton was a very anti-Bond Bond. By his time, the franchise had lost all of its luster, and it was trying to catch up to pop-cultural trends from years earlier, such as Miami Vice, and even the Dirty Harrys. Dalton’s films were best when they played it with the minimum of pretension, and just tried to be fun action vehicles. They didn’t either of them have any real substance. Having Wayne Newton play a villain is the kind of highlight they were happy to have, but they made it work.

            Brosnan….eeesh. the mid/late 90s were not a good time for action films, and his Bond films epitomize that. It seemed that his films tried to copy the superficial trappings of a John Woo (or a Steven Seagal) film, but combine that with the expected Bondian tropes. They usually didn’t go over well. Lots of flash, almost no substance whatsoever. And they wore out their welcome very quickly, with each movie getting shallower and stupider than the previous one.

            Craig’s Bond tried to re-launch things, in a rare example of this being done for the right reasons, and not just to lazily, contemptuously re-boot stuff for the idiots in the audience, so you can sell them a brand-new product without them feeling they have to bring any prior knowledge into it. Clearly, they were the most anti-Bondian movies yet; it’s a bit simplistic to call them Bourne clones, but they did, unfortunately, take a page from those films. Some of the action scenes are incredibly impressive – especially if you read/hear about how much of that was done by the actors themselves, and how little of it was CGI – but the real strength of the movies (EDIT: I’m basically limiting myself to Casino Royale here) is the relationship between James and Vesper. If you focus on that, the movie blossoms into something really deep. I hate to say it (as I’m such a huge fan of OHMSS), but it’s honestly quite a bit deeper and more legitimately complex than the James/Tracy relationship from OHMSS. It is. Which, to me, is a wonderful way to honor what that film tried to do, but which went over – as the film in general – so poorly that the the filmmakers backtracked immediately, and never followed-up on it. Casino Royale is probably the closest thing we old-school Bond fans are ever gonna get to a meaningful exploration of what OHMSS started to explore. In any event, anyone who likes OHMSS should see Casino Royale. It’s not too similar, but it’s as similar as Bond has ever gotten since. It treats Bond as a human being, capable of loving someone, and of paying the inevitable price for it.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            Ahem….”Anti-Bond?”

            If anything they were the closest to the LITERARY Bond the movies ever got. Dalton in particular read all the books in order to prepare himself to play the character. Connery and Moore both went on long enough that their movies ranged from gritty to camp and everything in-between.

            In truth, none of the actors ever embodied the “real” James Bond, the one from the novels, since that Bond was much more of an asshole- if a product of his-time and upbringing- than any of his on-screen depictions, one who was shameless racist, misogynist imperialistic, more so than any depiction. Dalton and Craig came closest (followed by Connery, and maybe Lazenby since his one outing was a pretty faithful adaptation), but they are more disdainful of their job than novel-Bond was. We don’t have access to their thoughts, granted, but you never get the impression that any of the movie-Bonds are running a private mental commentary on how un-civilized all these lower peoples are, how dumb and naïve women in general are, or how everything was so much better when the British Empire was around.

            All of the actors played James Bond; they just highlighted different aspects of his character at different times. None of them played anything like an “anti-Bond”; its still very recognisably the same man each time. And every movie, not just the Moore films, tried to evoke something of the style of the era they were in- that, in fact is one of the reasons the franchise has been such a success; its ability to adapt while still retaining its formula.

            And I don’t really agree with this movie or that not having substance (eg. you say the Brosnan movies had less and less substance as they went on, but The World Is Not Enough is probably the one that at least tried hardest to have some kind of depth out of any of his movies); substance is there, if you know where to look for it. For instance, starting with Licence to Kill, every single mission Bond has been on has been personal in some way.

          • Muthsarah

            You’re right. I’ve heard Dalton’s Bond described that way for years, but I’ve never read the books, so screen Bond is all I know. I just mean that he’s a huge change from both Moore (in personality) and Connery (in the films themselves). I get whiplash going from You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever to either Dalton, and A View to a Kill is the only Moore that exists on the same planet (and that’s mostly because of the aesthetics).

            The non-Craig Bonds all have a certain collective image. Dalton’s not only eschewed the crazy-named Bond girls, the gadgets, the car fetishes, and even most of the exotic locations, but License to kill jettisoned a lot of the typical story beats as well; give the character a different name, and you could put those films in a whole other franchise. Not that I’m complaining, good is good, and I’d take either of them over Moonraker or Octopussy, and probably over even Goldeneye.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “Dalton’s not only eschewed the crazy-named Bond girls, the gadgets, the car fetishes, and even most of the exotic locations”

            ….They really didn’t.

            Living Daylights saw Bond in places like Prague, Vienna and Tangier; Licence to Kill saw him in Florida (which counts as exotic, at least if you are British) and a fictional country that was principally shot in Mexico. Both films had plenty of gadgets too. As for car fetishes and girl names (unless you count the mildly punny Pam Bouvier)….plenty of Bond films lack both. Felix Leiter probably shows up as often as they do. Licence to Kill is also partly based on the novel Live and Let Die.

            You could say you could put that film in a different franchise if you just dumped the Bond name, but I think you could do the same with many Bond movies, because each of them are distinct and many of them consciously copy different movie styles (eg. LALD- Blaxploitation; TMWTGG- 70’s Hong Kong action flicks; Skyfall- Nolan movies, etc.)

            Honestly, I think most films are quite distinct, yet still have the recognisable Bond formula. Dr No is a different beast from From Russia With Love, which is different again from Goldfinger, which is itself different from Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, which is different again from Diamonds Are Forever. They are all recognisably made by the same team and from the same era, but they have plenty of differences between them, despite all being Connery movies. You Only Live Twice arguably has more in common with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker than it does with something like Russia.

            You might say that the Bonds have their own collective image, but those images are actually quite simplistic and misleading. Moore might have an image as the light-hearted cartoony Bond, but he had plenty of dark and quite serious moments as well- Dalton and Craig Bond might portray the character as quite gritty and ruthless, but they never threatened to break a woman’s arm if she didn’t give up her murderous lover either; and who else can dress up like a clown for a tension scene and actually make it work?.

          • Muthsarah

            “Living Daylights saw Bond in places like Prague, Vienna and Tangier;
            Licence to Kill saw him in Florida (which counts as exotic, at least if
            you are British) and a fictional country that was principally shot in
            Mexico. Both films had plenty of gadgets too. As for car fetishes and
            girl names (unless you count the mildly punny Pam Bouvier)….plenty of
            Bond films lack both. Felix Leiter probably shows up as often as they
            do. Licence to Kill is also partly based on the novel Live and Let Die.”

            Well, no, I wouldn’t call those terribly exotic locales. Not compared with Jamaica, India, or even Japan. It’s a matter of taste, of course, but I felt both Daltons played this particular Bond trope it a little more…down-to-earth, deliberately. License to Kill chose to spend most of its time in a fictional Panama, rather than showing off the real one (that it was filmed in Mexico for cost purposes, is another mark of what had happened to this once crazy-lucrative franchise over the years, though a smart one that didn’t hurt the end product), which woulda seemed more in keeping with the earlier films that put more emphasis on this particular kind of spectacle. Living Daylights was more typical here, yes.

            Is Kentucky considered “exotic” to you guys too? :p There’s a lot of reasons I don’t care for “Goldfinger” much, and the boringness of the locations (come to Switzerland, see the brownest, flattest mountains!) is a major part of that.

            “You could say you could put that film in a different franchise if you
            just dumped the Bond name, but I think you could do the same with many
            Bond movies, because each of them are distinct and many of them
            consciously copy different movie styles (eg. LALD- Blaxploitation;
            TMWTGG- 70’s Hong Kong action flicks; Skyfall- Nolan movies, etc.)”

            Here I can’t fully agree, not as a generality. YOLT, Live and Let Die, and The Man With the Golden Gun were just dripping with Bond elements through-and-through, regardless of what else they were emulating, and would have been obvious Bond clones had the name been taken off, but – again – License to Kill coulda been anything, aside from the extended Q cameo (again, I like this film). And the Casino Royale-Skyfall films are very conscientious attempts to re-vamp Bond, while still keeping as many callbacks as possible to legitimize the brand. The Bondian elements are written explicitly into their plots and settings, and name-dropped on-screen.

            “You might say that the Bonds have their own collective image, but those
            images are actually quite simplistic and misleading. Moore might have an
            image as the light-hearted cartoony Bond, but he had plenty of dark and
            quite serious moments as well- Dalton and Craig Bond might portray the
            character as quite gritty and ruthless, but they never threatened to
            break a woman’s arm if she didn’t give up her murderous lover either;
            and who else can dress up like a clown for a tension scene and actually
            make it work?.”

            I’m talking about the tropes common to all of the Bond films, or nearly all of them – Bond girls, gadgets, over-the-top villains, exotic locales. Dalton’s films had conspicuously less of a focus on these elements, I feel, probably because of the silly-serious, actiony-tensiony pendulum swings dictated so.

            Oh, and that scene in Octopussy DIDN’T work, actually. Nothing in the second half of that movie did. I liked the first half, though.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “Well, no, I wouldn’t call those terribly exotic locales. Not compared with Jamaica, India, or even Japan. It’s a matter of taste, of course, but I felt both Daltons played this particular Bond trope it a little more…down-to-earth, deliberately. License to Kill chose to spend most of its time in a fictional Panama, rather than showing off the real one (that it was filmed in Mexico for cost purposes, is another mark of what had happened to this once crazy-lucrative franchise over the years, though a smart one that didn’t hurt the end product), which woulda seemed more in keeping with the earlier films that put more emphasis on this particular kind of spectacle. Living Daylights was more typical here, yes.

            Is Kentucky considered “exotic” to you guys too? :p There’s a lot of reasons I don’t care for “Goldfinger” much, and the boringness of the locations (come to Switzerland, see the brownest, flattest mountains!) is a major part of that.”

            Okay, Vienna and Prague not be “exotic” per say, but Tangier? Morocco? Come on.

            “Exotic” might be the wrong word, but globetrotting- that’s what Bond is all about. Besides, there were still plenty of other Bond flicks that used less exotic locales than either Dalton movie did, such as Goldfinger (as you say), OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever (I mean come on- Vegas), A View To A Kill…

            “Here I can’t fully agree, not as a generality. YOLT, Live and Let Die, and The Man With the Golden Gun were just dripping with Bond elements through-and-through, regardless of what else they were emulating, and would have been obvious Bond clones had the name been taken off, but – again – License to Kill coulda been anything, aside from the extended Q cameo (again, I like this film). And the Casino Royale-Skyfall films are very conscientious attempts to re-vamp Bond, while still keeping as many callbacks as possible to legitimize the brand. The Bondian elements are written explicitly into their plots and settings, and name-dropped on-screen”

            “I’m talking about the tropes common to all of the Bond films, or nearly all of them – Bond girls, gadgets, over-the-top villains, exotic locales. Dalton’s films had conspicuously less of a focus on these elements, I feel, probably because of the silly-serious, actiony-tensiony pendulum swings dictated so.”

            We were watching different movies if you thought Licence to Kill or The Living Daylights were lacking for gadgetry. Like the exotic locales, they still had more than other movies- in Live and Let Die all he had was the watch; in The Man With The Golden Gun he had nothing; in OHMSS he had less than nothing….Unless you are counting the villains, but even then the armed-to-the-teeth BMW or the various gadgets Q gives him in Licence balances things out. From Russia With Love only had the briefcase and Blofeld’s poisoned-tip-shoe-of-death, as well.

            Over-The-Top villains….again, Dalton wasn’t really the first nor the last to downplay those (though, I’d argue Whitaker was MEANT to be over-the-top; he was just a bit lame; Sanchez might not have been “over-the-top”, but he makes up for it by being so evilly awesome). For Your Eyes Only comes to mind, for one.

            I agree that the Dalton movies had a grittier, down-to-earth FOCUS, but they still had all of the elements of the Bond formula on display. Moreso than some others, and definitely not enough to say he was the “anti-Bond”. Seems we differ on what “Bond-style” means, especially if you don’t like Goldfinger which, at the end of the day, is the one that brought in many of the Bondian elements, particularly the focus on gadgetry. From Russia With Love and the first two acts of Dr No as gritty spy fare as anything in the rest of the franchise. The pendulum swings from gritty to over-the-top, but it started at gritty.

            “Oh, and that scene in Octopussy DIDN’T work, actually. Nothing in the second half of that movie did. I liked the first half, though.”

            Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and that’s all this is- a difference of opinion.

            …..

            And in my MOST HUMBLE of opinions, I am right and you are WRONG!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

            (alright; Octopussy was just…..okay; I liked it more than you did, but it isn’t the best Bond by a long shot. I just felt like using Dr Cox.)

          • Muthsarah

            “I agree that the Dalton movies had a grittier, down-to-earth FOCUS, but
            they still had all of the elements of the Bond formula on display.
            Moreso than some others, and definitely not enough to say he was the
            “anti-Bond”. Seems we differ on what “Bond-style” means, especially if
            you don’t like Goldfinger which, at the end of the day, is the one that
            brought in many of the Bondian elements, particularly the focus on
            gadgetry. From Russia With Love and the first two acts of Dr No as
            gritty spy fare as anything in the rest of the franchise. The pendulum
            swings from gritty to over-the-top, but it started at gritty.”

            Ah, yes. I like Dr. No quite a bit, and From Russia With Love is my absolute favorite. However, I’ve gotten the impression – from other Bond fans – that many people don’t view the franchise as having become fully “Bondian” UNTIL Goldfinger, that the first two were a transition into the franchise from the types of espionage thrillers that came before (North by Northwest is a prime example for me, as I love that movie too). That, without all the gadgets, and the silliness, and the over-the-top villains and action scenes and such, that it wasn’t fully “Bondian” yet. That a Bond movie without the silliness, or a Q branch scene, or disposable Bond girls, is somehow less of a true Bond. I tend to generalize in my posts, I recognize that, especially when I’m setting up my opinion versus others’.

            It’s all down to how to define what makes a film “Bondian”, and probably cuts right to the core of whatever it is a Bond fan likes best in the films. Myself, I vastly prefer when the series takes itself seriously, and goes for the gritty over the cartoonish (one exception: YOLT). I HATE Diamonds are Forever. Just doesn’t work for me, at all. Like, there is NOTHING in that movie that I liked, and, to me, the failure/decision not to follow up on OHMSS and Tracy’s death is the single greatest missed opportunity in the franchise, only partly redeemed by the “meh” Quantum of Solace taking a similar route. Instead, I got Diamonds are Forever and the early Moores.

            So, yeah, I like the first two films. I like the Daltons for the most part, and dislike the Moores more than most (though I like TSWLM, FYEO, and VtaK). The franchise as a whole was probably at its strongest right at the beginning, and right now. Or, a rough timeline:

            Good, Great, Meh, Meh, Good, Great, Terrible, Meh, Terrible, Good, Terrible, Good, Bad, Good, Meh, Good, Meh, Bad, Bad, Terrible, Great, Meh, Good.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            Huh. For me, its:

            Good, Great, Great, Good, Great, GREAT, Good, Good, Good, Great, Good, Good, Good, Good, Great, Great, Great, Good, Good…..Passable…., Great, Underrated, Good.

            Of course, I am a positive and open-minded person who can find the good in anything, and haven’t hand my sense of childhood optimism and wonder poisoned by all those negative caustic critical critics. Can’t think of many or any movies that I absolutely can’t enjoy on any level whatsoever.

            Also, I grew up on James Bond, so I saw nearly all of them before learning anything about what makes a film “good” or not. When it comes to Bond, and most movies but Bond especially, I can usually take them as presented. Obviously some are better than others on a technical level, but I can generally enjoy each of them as they are.

          • Muthsarah

            …Huh….

            That is just nuts. You like EVERY Bond film? Even (sorta) Die Another Day?

            I don’t think I have much to say to that. I’m not that universally accepting of anything. I think half the reason I like stuff like Bond and Trek is that, while there’s a lot to love, there’s an equal amount of stuff to hate, so my feelings on the franchise run the full spectrum, from gushing to ranting. They are all things to all….me.

            But, just in case you can access stuff like this (over in…Scotland, was it?), I recently discovered a podcast series that might just float your boat: 45-120 minute episodes of two guys who love all the Bond films (even if they also hate a couple of them): Might be a fun thing to listen to if you have a commute or while exercising. They gush, they ramble, they do highly-questionable posh English accents, and they have a lot of behind-the-scenes knowledge of the films and the books. If you like podcasts, it might be worth a listen.

            http://www.nerdist.com/podcast_channel/james-bonding-channel/

          • Jonathan Campbell

            Oh, there will always be stuff that bugs me, that I think could or should have been done better, but I can always find something about it to like. Even the stuff that annoys me is often…intellectually stimulating, since I’m thinking of what they could or should have done.

            Plenty of times I’ve ranted, but when I’m done I’ll usually be more accepting. Die Another Day certainly annoyed me to no end the first time I saw it, but now that its come and gone I can accept it for what it is.

            As to the podcast, I’ll give it a listen.

          • Muthsarah

            In the slim odds this reaches you (thread’s dead, baby, thread’s dead), I was…influenced by your universal defense of the franchise, and persuaded to go back and re-watch a bunch of the films I had (based mostly on many-years-ago viewings) placed at the bottom of my list. And….turns out….some of them were better than I remembered.

            The Man With the Golden Gun: Goes from “Terrible” –> “Meh”. Soooooo stupid. But fun. In a slightly embarrassing way.

            The World is Not Enough: Goes from “Bad” –> “Meh”. Some really good stuff here, undercut by the absolute-worst attempts at comedy in the franchise’s history. And Christmas Jones. Of course. But still….1/2 a really interesting movie, so I can’t rate it too badly.

            Moonraker: Goes from “Terrible” –> “Good”. So sue me. I enjoyed this one quite a bit. Only knock: the MI6 scenes were worse than in any non-Brosnan film (and probably worse than in some of the Brosnans). Moneypenny was worthless, no wit, no sparkle in their scenes. Q was bored. M did nothing. But, other than that, it was a bonkers film. I like bonkers movies. Action-packed, looked great, utterly ridiculous.. And not Diamonds are Forever. What else do I need?

            These were all relative rankings. Dunno how this is gonna shake up the order. Also saw Quantum of Solace. Still thought it was mostly pretty bad. So some of my old opinions are holding fast.

            Still have Die Another Day lined up. Might still hate that one. Remember it being the worst of the bunch.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient… highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere. ”

            I just committed Inception on you.

            Awesome.

          • Muthsarah

            ……K

            I pay you a compliment, you gloat. Whatever gives you your kicks. Don’t mind obliging, indirectly.

            Outta curiousity, I just watched “Never Say Never Again” (I’ma save “Die Another Day” for later…I have memories…they ain’t good), for the very first time. Damn strange movie. ComPLETEly different from every other Bond film. Just…on the surface, so different. Got a good director. Irvin Kershner. Dude what did Empire Strikes Back. Can’t really fault him. Won’t fault him. For anything. Dude did Empire. But….nothing feels right in this movie. People don’t look right. Music doesn’t feel right. Editing….also doesn’t feel right. Which…well…maybe that’s appropriate. But….with all the directors, writers, producers, Bonds over the decades…..can it be said that there is some consistent quality to the cinematography, flow, colors, mood, whatever? Something this film doesn’t match, thus seems intrinsically….off? First time viewing (watching the Kershner commentary now, FWIW). I guess I like difference. Just came offa Moonraker, so I’m riding a (guilty) high. In an accepting mood. Just….have you ever seen it? Got any idea why this film feel so….different? Not a BAD movie. But….if I had to compare it to the Eons……it’d be almost at the bottom. Only ahead of Die Another Day (for now) and Diamonds Are Forever. Not bad, but so clearly lesser than almost every other Bond film.

            Not a fan of “Thunderball”….s’alright movie. Not wedded to the story er nuthin’. But this film…..I wouldn’t honestly believe it’s a Bond film if I didn’t already know (for years) that it kinda sorta was. Plus the Connery.

            Very curious what you think of it. I enjoyed it. Somewhat. As wrong as it felt….I dunno. Maybe this is just a happy, giddy week for me, where I can’t hate anything.

            EDIT: It’s a 1983 film. Like Octopussy. Didn’t like that one either (liked the first half, though, just the second that fell apart into stupid, the bad kind). But I liked For Your Eyes Only and A View to a Kill. My complaints ain’t either aesthetic or temporal. Don’t know what it is. Every other Bond film (even the bad ones) tend to LOOK good. Bare minimum I expected of this one. Just didn’t get it.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “……K

            I pay you a compliment, you gloat. Whatever gives you your kicks. Don’t mind obliging, indirectly.”

            One of my favourite things about the Bond movies is the villains, so…yes, I gloat.

            Few years ago I had a really bad chest infection; now it hurts to do the evil laugh. I’ve already lost one of lifes’ pleasures, but I enjoyed indulging these others.

            Yes, I’ve seen Never Say Never Again, a few times actually. Its a straight remake of Thunderball, so I wouldn’t say it was COMPLETELY different from every other Bond flick, but I do understand what you mean. It obviously has a different style and of course, living in the shadow of the Eon movies, its got a fair bit of self-referential humour and the odd potshot at staples of that series (like the gag of Bond being so badass that his own pee might be able to kill, or the stuffy British establishment Bond works for).

            One review I read of the film called it “the most Americanized of all the Bond movies”, specifically highlighting such things as its disinterest in travelogue (by which they meant that Bond goes to exotic locales, but the local culture isn’t really dwelt upon), having a “classless psychopath” as a villain (though they felt that said villain was awesome, charming and affable yet murderous and slimy all at once), and some other things. Maybe that’s what you picked up on.

            I enjoyed it. It had some good comedy, decent action, and great villains (Largo of course, but also and of course the deliciously evil Fatima Blush) and Connery was on form as always, even if neither he nor the script took themselves very seriously.

          • Muthsarah

            Just re-watched Die Another Day. Saw it a long time ago. In theatres. One of a lot of films I saw back then with friends. Almost none of them were good. This movie was one of many reasons why I stopped going to the movies for several years. Something I couldn’t separate from the film.

            This movie is made up of all the overblown action scene of the other Brosnans, plus the lazy nowhere-near-as-smart-as-it-thinks-it-is writing from Tomorrow Never Dies, and the horrible, horrible jokes of The World is Not Enough. Doubled. The dialogue scenes were hideously awkward and forced. The villains, while certainly active, loud, and colorful, nevertheless somehow felt bland and boring; they had no style. The MI6 gang felt like they had no place in the story. The technology was horrible. The editing was….well….not as bad as Quantum, but may nothing again be that bad. The music was either terrible or barely noticeable (I may have tuned it out). The SFX were the worst I’ve ever seen in a Bond film. It was every bit the embarrassment I remember it being, and have been hearing about from everyone else ever since. It never clicked. There were no memorable (in a good way) scenes. NOTHING made sense. Every part of the movie was sub-par.

            But I didn’t hate it. I had fun. Either I’m a sucker for the formula, or I’m on drugs. And I….don’t think I’m on drugs. I still liked Brosnan, even though he couldn’t keep his accent on straight. I liked the pacing (action scenes went on too long, had too much nothing, but not too bad considering most action films). A lot of the sets looked nice. The bad guy was fun and hammy. I really wanted Rosamund Pike to have been given more screentime, she was great. If it wasn’t a Bond film….I woulda liked it, straight-up. As stupid as it was. Stupid, with style.

            I still gotta give it a “Bad”, but it’s…kinda a high “Bad”. “Bad” for Bond, certainly. But not a film I’ll never see again. Dunno yet if it’ll escape the bottom of my list, but it’s WAY better than any other bottom-of-the-barrel film in any comparable franchise.

            I got an upcoming date with Diamonds are Forever. Saw that one, for the first time, only about a year ago, tops. One of the last ones I saw for the first time. But all of my other “Terrible”s improved markedly on re-watching. That’s the only one left.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, I have to say – I liked the Brosnan-Bonds more than, say, the Craig-Ones. I have no problem with “The World is not enough” (liked Christmas Jones), was watching “Die another day” in cinema and liked it so much, that I bought that DVD (which started my collection of Bond-Movies), While it has moments, which are not really scientifically sound, I have to admit, that I don’t care, since it is Bond – and the thing that seperated Bond from all the other generic Spy-Movies, was, that it didn’t take itself that super-seriously.

            Then the reboot came and…. to me, the reboot killed the franchise more, than “die another day” could’ve ever achieve. Casino Royale was not that interesting to me, Quantum of Solace was…. erm…. kinda happening – Skyfall was a tadbit better, but – I have to say, I still see the old Bonds (From Dr. No to Die another day) as Bond-Movies, the new Bond-Flicks are as generic as they can come.

          • Muthsarah

            “Well, I have to say – I liked the Brosnan-Bonds”

            That’s cool.

            “more than, say, the Craig-Ones.”

            Huh. Well….OK.

            “I have no problem with ‘The World is not enough'”

            That’s my favorite of the Brosnans, so while I’m surprised to hear this (everyone else takes Goldeneye), I’m not shocked.

            ” (liked Christmas Jones)”

            WHAT?!! :O

            “was watching “Die another day” in cinema and liked it
            so much, that I bought that DVD (which started my collection of
            Bond-Movies), While it has moments, which are not really scientifically
            sound, I have to admit, that I don’t care, since it is Bond – and the
            thing that seperated Bond from all the other generic Spy-Movies, was,
            that it didn’t take itself that super-seriously.

            Then the reboot came and…. to me, the reboot killed the franchise
            more, than “die another day” could’ve ever achieve. Casino Royale was
            not that interesting to me, Quantum of Solace was…. erm…. kinda
            happening – Skyfall was a tadbit better, but – I have to say, I still
            see the old Bonds (From Dr. No to Die another day) as Bond-Movies, the
            new Bond-Flicks are as generic as they can come.”

            QoS is almost unwatchable. I know ‘cuz I just re-watched it. The camerawork and editing are so horrible, I can’t feel comfortable enough with the whole viewing experience to figure out if there’s anything good about the rest of it.

            I don’t think the franchise is likely to return to levity anytime soon. It’s been thoroughly Nolanized, and the box office returns for Skyfall will probably guarantee one clone after another. That movie already didn’t make a lot of sense, and had one of those horribly over-complicated plots that thinks it’s genius, but it got by due to Deakins and the cast. It’s almost a parody of recent action movie conventions, but played for no laughs.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            What’s wrong with liking Dr. Christmas Jones? I have to say, I like all of the Brosnan-Bonds. Goldeneye was cool, Tomorrow never dies was awesome, TWINE was a lot of fun and I hoped, that they would do another Bond in the style of “Die another day” after watching said movie.

            And yes, to me “Nolanized” is the right word – a flick, that is supposed to be a fun, campy movie suddenly turns into dark, grim, gritty … blech – I just don’t like this grim and gritty, ultra-serious, “take me serious”-kinda movies.

          • Muthsarah

            “What’s wrong with liking Dr. Christmas Jones?”

            If you like her, you like her. I’m not saying you shouldn’t. But I’m still a lil’ surprised that ANYONE could think well of her character, regardless of how they feel about the film around her. She’s not the first Bond girl to have been written so stupidly (EDIT: well, not that the character is herself un-intelligent, just that the writing of her was done stupidly, and she comes off stupidly because of the actress chosen for her) that it’s impossible to take her seriously, but she was written at a time when characters like that SHOULDN’T have been written so. She woulda fit in in the early Moore films, but those types of characters were too badly dated by the 1990s. Kinda like if new Bond films had the really bad dubbing of the Connerys, to cover up for a slew of actors who were hired despite being unable to speak their lines in English; it was OK back then, but not now.

            To me, Christmas Jones feels like an insult, a condescension by the writers to the audience’s standards for how significant supporting roles should be written, and for how competent the actors should be. Good think TWINE had M and Elektra, though. Two outta three female characters being layed and well-performed is pretty damn good for any Bond era. I’ve seen Richards in other things, and she’s been OK. But she didn’t know what she was saying in this film, like she memorized her lines and didn’t know what they meant, didn’t know anybody else’s lines (so no context), and had no idea how a person similar to her character was supposed to talk. Combine that with an obvious cheesecake outfit, it felt like the writers were treating the audience – and the franchise – with less dignity that it deserved. I’m surprised that character – and TWINE’s action scenes – didn’t result in Die Another Day being the long-delayed “re-seriousing” that ended up having to wait for Casino Royale.

            On that note, quick questions:

            1. You Only Live Twice, or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?
            2. Moonraker, or For Your Eyes Only?

            I like Moonraker, and love You Only Live Twice, but I’d still take the other two, respectively, if not by much. So these silly –> serious bounces tend to go my way. And while I didn’t HATE Die Another Day upon re-watching it (I still need more time to process that), the bounce to Casino Royale was the biggest and best of them all.

            I like Brosnan as Bond, but it’s clear he was struggling under the weight of one terrible script after another. They were constantly trying to match the cheesiness of Moore’s era, while also trying to be legitimate, post-80s action films. They never solidly succeeded. I too miss the levity, but I’ll take good performances and set-piece action scenes over bad jokes any day.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            I’d say “You only live twice” and “Moonraker” – I have no problem with the more silly and more fantastic version of the franchise, with Spaceships being grabbed by other spaceships and with a big battle on a space-station.

            And to be perfectly honest – after Die another Day and until “Skyfall” I was never able to enjoy a Bond-Movie that much. Casino Royale was “bleh” to me, Quantum of Solace was more of the same.

          • Muthsarah

            So….you liked Skyfall? Huh….I mean, I think it’s an OK movie.

            It WAS plenty preposterous, but in a very different way from the sillier Connery and Moores, where it pretended it wasn’t silly at all (far from it), but where it makes so little sense if you stop and think about…any single part of it. What was it you liked so much? I’ve heard it said it’s just a loose remake of TWINE, actually, just Nolanized. Had never occurred to me before.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Let me put it this way – Skyfall is the only Craig-Bond-Movies I can tolerate, without starting to roll my eyes .

            Why I prefer Skyfall over the other two Craig-Flicks? I’m a sucker for humour and that movie had at least SOME enjoyable, humourous parts. Craig will never be my favourite Bond (as Tom Baker will never be my favourite Doctor), but at least this flick has SOMETHING going for it.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Just one thing I never understood, even in the TGWTG-Thread about “The World is not enough”. People are saying, that they cannot take Christmas Jones seriously – mostly because of the actress, they chose for her.

            I’m German – and I now notice, that I use that sentence that often, that it nearly could count as a trope – but as that kinda alien life-form that I pose, I am not that well versed in US-Yellow-Press-Material neither does it make me feel interested. Some of the big news come over here to Germany, yes, but all in all it is not that interesting to me.

            So, forgive me, if I just don’t get this, but: Why can’t you take Denise Richards seriously, when she is playing a physicist?

            I mean, it can’t have something to do with the fact, that she is an attractive woman, because on SG-1 Amanda Tapping is an attractive woman AND a super-smart-scientist, who blows up suns in order to kick some goa’uld butt.

            So it must’ve have something to do with some kind of an ass she is making out of herself in the news.

            Again – I’m German, I’m able to seperate those two personaes. the role and the actor / actress behind it.
            For example: I’m able to enjoy the Mission: Impossible-Movie-Franchise with Tom Cruise in the leading role and yet think, that the actor – well, if he WANTS to throw money away, I know people, who could need it more than the Sci-Fi-Church of Hubbard.

            I’m able to enjoy Knight Rider and yet notice, that the “Hoff” is not that great of a person, I’m able to enjoy Star Trek Classic and yet laugh about how egomanical Shatner is allegedly, I’m able to enjoy Stargate: SG-1 and McGyver and still roll my eyes at RDA for supporting Sea Shepard and not trying to use his fame to make Sea Shepard and the big bucks behind the whaling-industry sit down for talks.

            And to bring this full circle: I’m able to still enjoy the “Green Hornet”-movie, even if the main star / producer said “Well, naaaah, it isn’t that great of a movie.”

            We have to seperate those two parties – the role and the actor who plays it.

          • Muthsarah

            “People are saying, that they cannot take Christmas Jones seriously – mostly because of the actress, they chose for her.”

            Well…for me, that’s just the tip of the iceberg; while in this case, that tip is more than 10% of the problem, it’s certainly the most conspicuous part of why she stands out as being so horrible, and thus perhaps the part that gets talked about the most. It runs a lil’ deeper, though.

            “So it must’ve have something to do with some kind of an ass she is making out of herself in the news.”

            ….No, not entirely. There are rumors, but I don’t know if they’ve been substantiated. Don’t even care to check, there’s more than enough on-screen to gripe about.

            Bond girls are always an issue with the series. Not so much today (the Craigs are doing an OK job with them as a trope), but the further back you go, the more likely they are to come off as pure decorations or objects, if not as walking jokes that feel rather uncomfortable given that they are usually the only women in the picture. If there’s exactly one or two representatives of a certain group portrayed in a film, and they both come off as dumb, useless, and stereotypical….it’s uncomfortable for some, and it stains the series in retrospect. Even if they’re the “good” Bond girls, who are there to be beautiful, to be seduced, to be someone for Bond to fight for and “win” in the end. That’s just stuff that goes back though centuries of stories. But there are some Bond films that come off worse in this regard.

            First to pop up in my mind are Tiffany Case from Diamonds are Forever and Mary Goodnight from The Man With the Golden Gun (both early 70s films). Leaving aside that the Tiffany Case of the novel has a whole dark backstory that could conceivably have been slightly re-worked to make her a more layered and interesting character, and to bring some gravity and compassion to how Bond treats her (though “Diamonds are Forever” the movie wanted so desperately to revert to silliness after the poorly-received OHMSS, so I at least understand why they didn’t do that), the movie made her come off as especially clueless, useless, and practically a force of unintentional disaster, like the audience is supposed to laugh at her feeble attempts to help Bond. Hiding the satellite-controlling cassette so conspicuously in her bikini bottom (which was a very demeaning outfit given the circumstances, even if we choose to assume that that was Blofeld’s intention), having her switch the real cassette back for the fake one after Bond switched them out the first time, having Bond keep having to tell her everything she should do after that, culminating in her falling off the oil rig when she attempts to shoot a gun and standing by uselessly while Bond fights Mr. Wynt and Mr. Kidd. She’s a poorly-written character who stands around and mostly does nothing, only becoming an active character when the story needs someone to (unintentionally) screw something up for Bond to fix once again.

            Mary Goodnight is a similar case (no pun): she’s supposed to be an MI6 field agent, but she comes off from the start as both dumb and, by her admission, “weak”. Her stupidity gets her kidnapped, and while she and James are trying to defuse a nuclear reactor (while she’s wearing a bikini, of course), she accidentally hits a button on a panel with her butt, and makes the situation far worse. Of course, Bond has to tell her exactly how to fix it, because he can’t physically do everything at the same time, and she’s so dumb that she almost fails in that simple task.

            It doesn’t help one bit that both Jill St. John and Britt Eklund give terrible performances. Very wooden. They’re clearly only there for their looks, not for anything else they could bring to the film. Clear problem, and not something that should feel even tolerable by modern standards.

            Which brings us to the Brosnan era. There were other questionable Bond girls in the interim, but we don’t have to cover all of them here. By the 1990s, even the Bond series was acknowledging how outdated and ill-fitting a lot of its old trappings rang. M was female now, and her first speech to Bond was dressing him down as a chauvinistic dinosaur. It was a sign that the series was willing to move on and be more modern. And Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies each made a nice stride in that direction – Natalya is one of my favorite Bond girls, and Wai Lin was the first one that could actually take care of herself in a fight (for the record, May Day easily could have as well, she just didn’t get a real fight scene). They were smart, independent, and convincing in their role as a computer programmer and a secret agent, respectively, and exceptionally good ones that didn’t need Bond to always tell them what to do. Both Izabella Scorupco and Michelle Yeoh put in pretty good performances as well. It felt like the Bond series was willing to give its female characters strong roles in their movies, and not just have them be vapid window-dressing.

            Then TWINE came around. On the one hand, Elektra King. Wonderful character. One of the better Bond girls, easily, and well-performed by Sophie Marceau. Layered, surprising, able to play the love interest, while subverting the damsel-in-distress role by….going in a slightly different direction. I like her a lot, and she almost single-handedly sells that movie. But Christmas Jones….

            Scantily-clad (for no good reason), dumb (supposed to be a physicist, but doesn’t actually help Bond with diffusing the bomb, instead just stating the obvious while acting as a sex-bait distraction for Valentin), a liability (it’s her fault that Bond got exposed right before he was about to kill Renard), and passive (yes, she does help Bond to get to Renard at the end, but she needs him to tell her everything, and she only barely manages not to screw that up). She does nothing positive, other than acting as a mostly-silent assistant. For the Moore era, that might have been enough, but her character was antiquated, a throwback, by 1999.

            Also, Denise Richards couldn’t deliver a single line convincingly. Her readings were tone-deaf. Maybe you didn’t notice it, but I did. And so did a lot of other people. And, while it’s a matter of taste, obviously, she had rather obvious fake breasts, and she gave Christmas a style of walking that looked forced and faked, and really inappropriate given the type of character she was playing. Finally, the only reason her character was named so was to set up that HORRIBLE joke at the end. Only reason.

            Yeah, Bond girls have an image as eye candy. The series wants to be fun. But there are limits to these things, some of them era-dependent. Dr. Christmas Jones was a misfire of the worst kind. Her…badness really screwed up and distracted from a film that was already walking the line between good and bad. She hurt it. Not enough to make the film unwatchable or anything, but enough to make all of her scenes cringe-worthy.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Sorry, your points concerning Christmas Jones don’t work.
            She was “in the middle of a costume change”, taking of the Hazmat Suit, while she noticed Bond. That guy seemed suspicious to her (making her intelligent), then she tried to lure him out (again, intelligent), once the first suspicion was destroyed, she did a research on Mikhail Arkoff (again: intelligent) and then she did the next intelligent thing – not going down there alone, but with armed security.
            Sure, it is a burden for Bond, but he is as much to her – after all, he removed that card, and with that made it more difficult for Jones to find the stolen A-Bomb.

            Her breast were fake? Sorry, I didn’t notice it, because I was interested in the character, not in her scantily-clad-ness.

          • Muthsarah

            “Sorry, your points concerning Christmas Jones don’t work.
            She was “in the middle of a costume change”, taking of the Hazmat Suit, while she noticed Bond.”

            Plot contrivance. The rest of us know why she was dressed like that. The walk really doesn’t help the first impression.

            As for the rest, it’s been a couple of months since I last saw TWINE (doesn’t seem like much time…), so I’ll make a note to check for those other points, and to see if she ever wears an appropriate outfit. I’ll admit, I could be biased against the character, based on how bad Richards’ performance is.

            In general, I start by looking at characters in a “big picture” way – what is their role in the story, what do they do that another type of character (like an MI6 agent or a different type of “Bond girl”) couldn’t also have done? To me, Christmas Jones wasn’t even necessary as a character (Bond could have gotten caught without assistance, escaped without assistance, found and diffused the bomb without assistance, contacted Valentin without assistance, and infiltrated the submarine to fight Renard without assistance). What did Christmas Jones bring? To me, she’s pure, shallow eye candy. And the series should be beyond that.

            “Her breast were fake? Sorry, I didn’t notice it, because I was interested in the character, not in her scantily-clad-ness.”

            It’s not a big deal, but it contributed a bit to the overall image of Richards not being a good choice for the role. She comes off fake enough as it is.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Surely, Bond could’ve done all this without the help of Christmas Jones – but let’s be honest, he could’ve done the rest of all his movies without the Bond girl. What does Honey Rider contribute to the story, but a girl in a sexy Bikini?

            What does Natalya Sirmonova contribute to the story? Give Bond five more minutes and he can figure out the whole damn thing about Goldeneye himself.
            What does the russian girl from “From Russia with love” do, other than being more or less a burden for Bond.

            All of those roles are plot contrivances, if you view it that way.

          • Muthsarah

            “Surely, Bond could’ve done all this without the help of Christmas Jones –
            but let’s be honest, he could’ve done the rest of all his movies
            without the Bond girl. What does Honey Rider contribute to the story,
            but a girl in a sexy Bikini?”

            Nothing. But that was 1962. There were different expectations back then regarding how much agency a female lead was supposed to have. By 1999, the standards were much higher.

            “What does the russian girl from “From Russia with love” do, other than being more or less a burden for Bond.”

            1963. She does at least provide Bond with some information on the Russian embassy in Istanbul. But her main role in the story is to be a pawn – foreshadowed by the chess game – of SPECTRE, if unwittingly. Her job is to meet up with Bond and convince him that she’s in love with him, as part of some KGB plot that she’s deliberately being kept in the dark about. She succeeds. She doesn’t really do much, but her role in the story is key. FRWL at least gives her a reason to be a damsel-in-distress. And, while Daniela Bianchi is dubbed (like many characters in the early films), she still has moments where she can be fun; nothing she does comes off as especially bad, not even by today’s standards. Even when Bond slaps her in the butt, she stands up for herself, without blowing her cover.

            “What does Natalya Sirmonova contribute to the story? Give Bond five more
            minutes and he can figure out the whole damn thing about Goldeneye
            himself.”

            Intimate knowledge of the Goldeneye project. Locating JANUS’ base in Cuba (Bond would have needed more than a few seconds to hack a system he’s not familiar with, besides, he was working on escaping from the train). Changing the target co-ordinates and encrypting the password at the complex in Cuba to prevent Boris from launching the satellite at London. Also, being a rather quick-witted survivor, eluding Xenia at Severnaya.

            Moore’s Bond may have been the Renaissance Man, who always knew everything about everything, but that was a camp era, and even those films played his brilliance for laughs sometimes. In this regard, Brosnan’s Bond was more grounded and realistic. Except for how he didn’t need Christmas Jones to tell him anything about that nuclear bomb he didn’t already know.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, I don’t know – like I said, give Bond 5 Minutes and he’ll figure that out – they found the JANUS Base in Kuba just via koinikdink, because 006 thouth it would b a good idea, to fire a missle at them.
            Don’t get me get started on the Password:
            “What other words do you have for butt?”
            I figured out, that the password was “chair” the first time, Boris brought it up and I was 13 at that time.

          • Muthsarah

            “Well, I don’t know – like I said, give Bond 5 Minutes and he’ll figure
            that out – they found the JANUS Base in Kuba just via koinikdink,
            because 006 thouth it would b a good idea, to fire a missle at them”

            It would be highly unconvincing if Bond could do everything all by himself. He’s an exceptionally talented guy, but he’s not a superman. The more invincible he seems, the less impressed we are when he manages these narrow escapes. Therefore, it’s beneficial to his character, and his films, when someone else does something that maybe he couldn’t. Christmas Jones didn’t use her talents to help Bond (well…with Valentin maybe, but it’s a lot easier to believe Bond could make contact with someone he already knew and had just met a couple days earlier than to immediately hack into a complex security system he hasn’t worked with before), whereas Natalya used her unique skills to locate JANUS, save London and destroy the Goldeneye satellite, so we don’t even have to argue whether or not Bond could have done that.

            As for the passwords (and Boris in general), that’s not one of the elements of the film I look back on fondly. Overall, Goldeneye is a good movie, but it’s not without its stupid/crude/insufficiently-classy moments.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “Christmas Jones didn’t use her talents to help Bond”
            Well, in fairness, she WAS going to disarm the bomb that she and Bond were sent to stop, but Bond told her not to. Not her fault.
            Also, she told him how Renard was going to make the submarine go “boom” and how to stop it, though I’ll admit that was more for the benefit of the audience than Bond himself (who seemed to get the idea of “kill the bad guy and don’t let him keep doing whatever it is he’s trying to do). She also saved Bond’s life at least once.

          • Muthsarah

            Hmmm…..

            Well, I’ll fast-track TWINE for another re-watch. I’m being super-detailed with the movies this time, pausing and taking notes, for rating/ranking purposes (anything that’s fun casually is more fun if you over-think it). If there’s anything in the film to change my impression of her character, I’ll probably catch it this time.

          • Muthsarah

            And what of Dalton, sir? What of Dalton? He’s the pure 80s Bond. And anything pure 80s is, at the least, totally watchable.

            FWIW, Casino Royale is a seriously good movie, populus hype aside, if you can emotionally distance yourself from Goldfinger and Thunderball and the Bond of the 60s and 70s. It wants to be taken seriously, it can only be appreciated if taken seriously. And, a few hiccups aside (mostly surface stuff, not the stuff at the core of the story), it really is damn good. Better than the other Craigs, and the Brosnans, at least.

            If you doubt my cred, I personally love From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and Casino Royale, and greatly like/esteem You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, A View to a Kill, and License to Kill. There’s good stuff all around in the Bond franchise, and, if you keep an open mind, little surprises can sneak up on you anywhere. Even when I don’t enjoy a Bond film, it’s always worth a watch; I try to give each film a chance. They’re a pop-cultural institution, and as part of my years-long drive to try to identify with you squishy humans, I do attempt to appreciate these films on their own level. Doesn’t always work, but it’s always been worth the attempt.

          • Ken Zevo

            Good god! I forgot all about Dalton. Strangely enough, when I was thinking of Brosnan, I was picturing Dalton’s face (and JB movies) in my mind. Color me “BLUSHING with EMBARRASSMENT”, lol !!! Lox like I need a LOT more coffee, or a lot more sleep.

            Would it be racist, if I said all those Brits look alike to me, over on my side of the pond? Yah, I thought it would … but my subconscious mind apparently has problems telling Dalton from Brosnan, at least in a James Bond suit, lol.

            For the record, I think Brosnan is a clearly better actor than Dalton, as far as James Bond goes. Not that I am trying to slam Dalton – I liked him in Lion in Winter, and Flash Gordon too. He REALLY shined, as Prince Barin.

          • Muthsarah

            You are forgiven, my….son, I assume. Re-watch the Daltons soon. They are really their own beasts. Played far more straight than the Moores, but with a lot less meaningless flash (and stupid dialogue) than the Brosnans. T-Dalts himself is always intense, and the movies will, if anything, remind you of the glorious B-movie action flicks of the 80s, with better budgets. The Living Daylights is a wonderful late-Cold-War film (and fun to compare/contrast with Rambo III), and License to Kill features shades of both Miami Vice and True Lies. They’re both slick, good-looking late-80s movies, with a fair amount of craziness thrown in. I adore them both….as second-tier Bond films. Along with A View to a Kill, I feel they just don’t get the kind of love they deserve, though I admit (as I did above) than I’m a total sucker for the 80s.

      • Wizkamridr

        I would argue batsy did not have a great brain in the nolanverse. I did not like how he was portrayed in the last film with bane. Just my opinion.

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          I don’t like the way, he was portrayed in any of the Nolan-movies.

    • I have no nostalgia for this obscure pop culture character, and doing the story as a farce is just as valid and respectful as anything else. Just like how Batman could work as a comedy with Adam West.

      • Ken Zevo

        I was in the early years of school, when Adam West’s Batman came on TV, and that was the only time I whole-heartedly enjoyed the 1960’s Batman … I am pretty sure that I even had a lunch box with him & Robin on it, for a while, that I was quite fond of (sort of like my pet evil sehlat) … and, even then, I could tell that something wasn’t right. The Adam West “Batman” wasn’t at all like the one I read in my older brothers’ comix – not that THAT Batman had much to do with how things worked, in the real world, mind you; but, at least in those comix, the Joker was the one who was constantly acting like a clown.

        I don’t consider the Adam West version to be a “real” Batman, just a parody, even tho watching those shows again today DOES make me smile, tug at my heart strings, and take me back down Memory Lane … the way a whiff of apple pie, when you’re walking past a bakery, can suddenly put you right back at Grandma’s kitchen table, fork in hand, salivating and waiting impatiently in polite silence for her to finish slicing the damned thing!

        I agree that re-tooling the Green Hornet as a farce (thx – “le mot juste et perfect”) is a valid choice … but just because you CAN pour ketchup all over a German chocolate cake does not mean you should, nor that it is a good idea. No matter how much ketchup you pour, the flavors will never go together well. They just aren’t compatible, and don’t work together in harmony. Gordon Ramsey would have some choice words to say, many of them Anglo-Saxon monosyllables; but, just as some people like liver, but most don’t, I’m sure you could find someone, somewhere, that likes the taste – and orders seconds. (Just not me, lol.)

        I would have been less severe about this Green Hornet farce, if it had at least been a GOOD farce, instead of a poor one. That “take my hand” / “I don’t want to touch you” bit sealed the deal, that this wasn’t going to be my cuppa tea, no matter how much ketchup Seth Rogen stirred in – there was just no way (for me) to laugh at humor THAT lame. Silk purses and sow’s ears, I guess, IMAO.

        Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go chase some children off my lawn, and give them a severe dressing-down about the way things used to be, when I was a kid, lol, if my arthritis doesn’t slow me down too much … and if I can remember where I put my glasses and hearing aid.

      • Wizkamridr

        I only watched the tv show because of Lee. His character outshined the hornet.

    • MichaelANovelli

      As someone with an intimate familiarity with the original radio show, comedy was the way to go because The Green Hornet just isn’t that good…

      • Ken Zevo

        Kewl, that was well before my time, so nice to hear from someone who was actually there. Many thx, for sharing! I only know the Hornet from the 60’s comix and TV, so that is my standard. Loox like I’ll need to revise that standard, in the face of new facts.

        • MichaelANovelli

          The Green Hornet radio show was alright if you could ignore the horrible dialogue (a problem The Lone Ranger never had, weirdly), but basically it’s biggest flaw was always taking itself just a little too seriously. That’s why the TV show was superior to the radio show, aside from Bruce Lee, obviously.

          When I said GH just isn’t that good, I was referring strictly to the radio show. I guess that came off more negative than I intended it…

      • DavidWilmotLow

        well then maybe it should have been a GOOD comedy, and not a cinematic abortion, that even seth rogen admits sucks.

  • DavidWilmotLow

    here’s a fun fact: according to imdb users, this movie is almost but not quite as good as the cinematic classic “Frankenhooker.”

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      Oh, if THAT’s the case, I immediately stop liking the Green Lantern Movie.
      ….
      Erm…. no, I don’t. ^^
      Fun fact: According to me, this movie is much better than Pulp Fiction.

      • DavidWilmotLow

        what does the Green Lantern movie have to do with anything?

        even seth rogen has admitted this movie isn’t any good, and yet you think this piece of crap is better than pulp fiction? in the words of the late, great leslie nielsen “well, that’s because you’re an idiot.”

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          Sorry, meant Green Hornet, not Green Lantern – although that movie is okay, too.

          Concerning Seth Rogen: It’s okay, that he doesn’t like the movie, which doesn’t stop me from liking it.

  • DavidWilmotLow

    in any event this movie bombed, and there won’t be a sequel. even seth rogen has said that he’d rather not work for a year than ever do another of these movies. thank you America, thank you not being as stupid as Hollywood thinks you are.

  • SithSmurf

    I didn’t hate the movie, but I was disappointed in it. I cannot think of any character in the movie who was as stupid and ineffectual as Seth Rogen’s Britt Reid character. Everyone else seems at least mostly-compentent, except Kato, who’s apparently found the time to become a Jedi.

    I think as a superhero movie it falls a little flat when the titular hero stands out in such a negative way. As a comedy, well, Britt Reid seemed to be just about the only joke in it.

    That said, I’ve rarely enjoyed Seth Rogen’s work, and I might just have been the wrong audience for this film.