Hey,

Truth be told, I paid to see Dr No in first run. Since I had loved the books, it didn't take any convincing to see it. Loved From Russia With Love as well. Thunderball tossed me out of the franchise and Roger Moore never interested me in anything he was
in so all those Bonds I caught parts of on TV. Frankly, I found the Bourne franchise -- especially the first two -- way better than any of the modern Bonds.

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit anything -- car chases, sex scenes -- but not random strangers -- and buckets and buckets of maudlin sentimentality.
This is not the wise-cracking Bond of the Sean Connery era where no one took the films too seriously. It's a violent weepy, too sensitive to stand up straight. You'll probably love it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 21:05:09 -0800 (PST), william ahearn wrote:

Hey,

Truth be told, I paid to see Dr No in first run. Since I had loved the
books, it didn't take any convincing to see it. Loved From Russia With
Love as well. Thunderball tossed me out of the franchise and Roger Moore never interested me in anything he was in so all those Bonds I caught
parts of on TV. Frankly, I found the Bourne franchise -- especially the
first two -- way better than any of the modern Bonds.

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit
anything

Not true. They must have scored over 100 hits on the Aston. Admittedly it was stationary,
and one could suggest that the baddies were lucky not to suffer losses in friendly fire
in this scene. Standing in a circle around the Aston and letting fly doesn't seem a good
idea. (And why didn't Lead Bad Guy get hit by richochets when he was firing from
point blank?)

Anyway, even though there were two fabulous sets of norks on display (That black dress!),
I managed to fall asleep in the middle hour.

Oh, and Billie Eilish continues to make me wonder what happened to music? The most insipid
Bond opening number ever.


alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:35:07 AM UTC-5, alvey wrote:

Oh, and Billie Eilish continues to make me wonder what happened to music? The most insipid
Bond opening number ever.

Thanks, I forgot to mention how forgettable that song is. Or, maybe I didn't have to.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/9/2021 11:05 PM, william ahearn wrote:

Hey,

Truth be told, I paid to see Dr No in first run. Since I had loved the books, it didn't take any convincing to see it. Loved From Russia With Love as well. Thunderball tossed me out of the franchise and Roger Moore never interested me in anything he

was in so all those Bonds I caught parts of on TV. Frankly, I found the Bourne franchise -- especially the first two -- way better than any of the modern Bonds.

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit anything -- car chases, sex scenes -- but not random strangers -- and buckets and buckets of maudlin sentimentality.

This is not the wise-cracking Bond of the Sean Connery era where no one took the films too seriously. It's a violent weepy, too sensitive to stand up straight. You'll probably love it.


I think Daniel Craig is the only worthy successor to Sean Connery. All
the others, every single one, were just pretenders. I had always thought Connery could never be approached, and then I saw Craig in Casino
Royale. He changed my mind.

On the other hand, while I have admired the new movies with Craig, they
never dazzled me like the first three Connery movies did. Well, I was a teenager.

As you indicated, Thunderball was a huge disappointment. Even with the
later Connery Bonds there was a vast empty James Bond desert until
Craig's Casino Royale. I thought the Craig movies successfully brought
James Bond into the 21st century. The old chain-smoking heavy drinking chauvinist James Bond is now an antique, someone to be admired but not
of this day. I like what the producers did with the Bond mythos. They
gave him a backstory and even at the end an actual family. Nice, even necessary, I guess. What were they supposed to do, keep making the same
stupid movie over and over again?

I admired or at least tolerated No Time To Die. It was fine. I think
people who prefer the antique James Bond just may be antiques
themselves. Like me.

--

Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/14/2021 11:09 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:

On 11/9/2021 11:05 PM, william ahearn wrote:

Hey,

Truth be told, I paid to see Dr No in first run. Since I had loved the
books, it didn't take any convincing to see it. Loved From Russia With
Love as well. Thunderball tossed me out of the franchise and Roger
Moore never interested me in anything he was in so all those Bonds I
caught parts of on TV. Frankly, I found the Bourne franchise --
especially the first two -- way better than any of the modern Bonds.

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a
million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit
anything -- car chases, sex scenes -- but not random strangers -- and
buckets and buckets of maudlin sentimentality. This is not the
wise-cracking Bond of the Sean Connery era where no one took the films
too seriously. It's a violent weepy, too sensitive to stand up
straight. You'll probably love it.

I think Daniel Craig is the only worthy successor to Sean Connery. All
the others, every single one, were just pretenders. I had always thought Connery could never be approached, and then I saw Craig in Casino
Royale. He changed my mind.

On the other hand, while I have admired the new movies with Craig, they
never dazzled me like the first three Connery movies did. Well, I was a teenager.

As you indicated, Thunderball was a huge disappointment. Even with the
later Connery Bonds there was a vast empty James Bond desert until
Craig's Casino Royale.  I thought the Craig movies successfully brought James Bond into the 21st century. The old chain-smoking heavy drinking chauvinist James Bond is now an antique, someone to be admired but not
of this day. I like what the producers did with the Bond mythos. They
gave him a backstory and even at the end an actual family. Nice, even necessary, I guess. What were they supposed to do, keep making the same stupid movie over and over again?

I admired or at least tolerated No Time To Die. It was fine. I think
people who prefer the antique James Bond just may be antiques
themselves. Like me.

I remember a couple of dozen scenes from those first 3 Connerys, while,
from the entire Moore oeuvre it's maybe 1 ("Butterhook"). As you
suggest, age (mine and Bond's) may have much to do with it, but still...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/10/2021 10:48 AM, william ahearn wrote:

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:35:07 AM UTC-5, alvey wrote:

Oh, and Billie Eilish continues to make me wonder what happened to music? The most insipid
Bond opening number ever.

Thanks, I forgot to mention how forgettable that song is. Or, maybe I didn't have to.

Perhaps you never heard the Adele song.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <6dfcfd41-28c4-46d3-b6ca-a3278a212900n@googlegroups.com>,
william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com> wrote:

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit anything -- car chases, sex scenes -- but not random strangers -- and buckets and buckets of maudlin sentimentality. This is not the wise-cracking Bond of the Sean Connery era where no one took the films too seriously. It's a violent weepy, too sensitive to stand up straight. You'll probably love it.

Isn't this one 2 hrs. and 45 minutes or close? That must be a record
length for Bond films. Think I'll wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 00:05:10 UTC-5, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

Hey,

Truth be told, I paid to see Dr No in first run. Since I had loved the books, it didn't take any convincing to see it. Loved From Russia With Love as well. Thunderball tossed me out of the franchise and Roger Moore never interested me in anything he

was in so all those Bonds I caught parts of on TV. Frankly, I found the Bourne franchise -- especially the first two -- way better than any of the modern Bonds.

This Bond movie has plenty of action, an Aston Martin, shoot-outs -- a million bad guys with a million automatic weapons still can't hit anything -- car chases, sex scenes -- but not random strangers -- and buckets and buckets of maudlin sentimentality.

This is not the wise-cracking Bond of the Sean Connery era where no one took the films too seriously. It's a violent weepy, too sensitive to stand up straight. You'll probably love it.

To quote the kid from that A.S. movie, "Last Action Hero" "-you turned him into a wimp!'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)