Yes, and those reasons are opinions. Not facts. They are two entirely different things, which you seem to be confusing for each other presently. The point is that you think it's a bad film, for all those reasons. It doesn't make it fact.
You want to hear all of them, then?
- Every single actor is well-cast.
- Daniel Craig gives a performance better than at least four of Sean Connery's, cementing hiself as the James Bond.
- The direction taken shows a Bond that is willing to escape the conventions he has set for himself over the past fifty years, which can only be a good thing.
- The score is David Arnold's best.
- The film is well-paced, and doesn't feel obligated to run for two hours simply because it's predecessors did.
- The action scenes are well-directed, and the Siena chase intercut with the Palio (likewise, the chase through the opera house intercut with Tosca) was brilliant.
- Most importantly, the film assumes you're smart enough to keep track of it. Unlike films such as DIE ANOTHER DAY, it doesn't need to stop every fifteen minutes and spell the plot out for you.
I could go on all night, but I have a 9am class.
Translation: you're out of arguments and/or can't think of a decent or suitably witty retort which, while not actually win the argument for you, will serve to lick your wounds. I've already made my case as to why nothing you say has any relevance to anything, and until you learn to tell the difference between fact and opinion, it's pretty clear that nothing you say will continue to have any relevance to anything. So you liked WATCHMEN? Big deal. I thought it was shit. I don't hero-worship the ground Alan Moore walks on, nor do I think Snyder is capable of conveying any kind of social commentary. You seem to be of the opinion that some of the dialogue is on par with Orson Wells' speech aboard the ferris wheel in THE THIRD MAN. And if you have no idea what that is, it's pretty clear that you'll never have the right to call yourself a man with good taste in film.
I do better sarcasm than you do.
if by well-cast you mean forgettable, then yeah.
daniel craig? don't make me laugh. he has none of the charisma and charm that has marked all bonds to date and frankly looks like he's in some horrible hackneyed version of james bond.
escape bond conventions? if by that you mean throw away the key aspects of bond (some of which is craig's fault) as depicted by ian fleming.
and lets face it, bond's never going to be anything more than an action hero, however iconic, and any attempts to deviate from thus is quite the miserable failure.
can't say i paid any great attention to the score, possibly because the movie is so dull, so i'll take your word on it.
well-paced film? this has got to be one of your worst. the film's plot is horrendously shit even by action film standards. there's nothing that couldn't have been expected 2 hours beforehand, and consequently, "well-paced" in actuality means that this film moves from action scene to action scene at an alarming pace in order to mask the plot deficiencies.
no argument re; action scenes.
oh you're quite the funny. ur comments about the non-spoon feeding nature of quantum as a sign of filmic sophistication?
hilarity; i could say the exact same thing about watchmen.
and you were right to some degree hey, i really had no arguments to your previous post because it has exactly zero content.
but at least we're getting somewhere here.
neither do i worship alan moore. as i've already stated, i prefered the film to the novel and i do think watchmen is nowhere near the pinnacle of graphic novels in the last few decades.
oh and there we have it; objectsinspacee goes for the psuedo-intellectual reference to some film made 60 years.
newsflash; i dont give a shit.
just because i was born in the 90s, and i assume you too are (or the late 80s) doesn't mean I feel the need to indulge myself in a pretentious exploration of ancient and invariably in film elitists like yourself's opinion, better movies just because they're in black and white.
you're the one here whose arguing that the quality of a film is subjective.
which as a side note i find quite ironic considering you're the one delving into history, people of whom invariably love to deal in objectivism when it comes to popular culture.
