2000 AD Online Forum

Matt Damon has been rubbishing the Bond movies, saying that they are 'rooted in the 60s' and that his Bourne character is more complex because he's a serial monogamist who feels bad about killing people.
  I haven't seen the Bourne movies, but that makes Damon's character sound like a bit of a drip as far as action heroes go.

What do you think? Is Damon right? If the Bond movies are rooted in the sixties (which is better than being simply rooted*) does that mean they're no good and I'm wrong to enjoy them? Are the Bourne movies any good?

over to you

Link: essence and truth, not frippery

From what I remember, I enjoyed the first half hour of The Bourne Identity then found the remainder of the movie pretty dull until, towards the end, Clive Plywood adds some belated intrigue. As much as I enjoy the exploits of 007, Casino Royale is more fun when it's pretending to be Identity. It almost self-destructs halfway through only when Martin Campbell remembers he's supposed to be directing a Bond film.

Anyone any idea how the Damon version compares with the Richard Chamberlain mini-series?

 
  Here we go again :    A lot of the bond films were actually made in the sixties and seventies so therefore if you watch them thats what you will get.How surprising.


   The Bourne character is a serial monogamist. James bond isnt. So what ?  James bond has been upset plenty of times over women or exgirlfriends etc in the films. Does "Jason Bourne " or whatever his name is get upset about killing every time he kills someone ?

   The two characters are totally different. Why make a pointless comparison ? Anyway Bond and the film franchise have had a image overhaul recently that was very successful.I didnt mind the old bond films either for that matter.

   It seems a bit of a poor show that Matt Damon has to talk rubbish like that just because The Bourne ultimatum has just come out and they are trying to hype it up by comparing his films to the bond films and character.

   I dont agree with Matt Damon and i have seen both Bourne films and didnt think they were anything that amazing quite honestly.Just by the numbers espionage thrillers.I dont rate Matt Damon as an actor much as i find him a bit boring.

I thoughtâ??despite its  many flawsâ??that the new Bond film pissed all over the Bourne ones, and especially the wobbly camera sequel.

I'll have to agree with Mr Damon on this.

The last Bond movie I remember really enjoying was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Since then, they just come across as little more than a bunch of action sequences loosely tied together with slight variations on the old "evil guy taking over the world" plot. Bond himself is cocky, invulnerable and unflappable, completely devoid of humanity. It's like they've been remaking the same movie over and over for the past forty years...

"Now pay attention, Bond. Here's an unlikely device that you're going to need later on in the movie: It's a Pez dispenser that doubles as a helicopter. And here's your standard list of smug quips, one for every every murder you commit. This is a photo of your target, the beautiful woman you'll fall in love with before she betrays you. But don't worry, you'll get to shag her at the end of the movie."

>> The two characters are totally different.

From the brief interview clip I saw, Damon acknowledges this. The Bond comment seemed merely observational, not a criticism.

Through all his incarnations, Bond still remains the suave and increasingly outmoded bastard he has always been. GoldenEye was the first Bond movie to acknowledge this, Casino Royale the first to show the brutal reality of it.

  I think thats why it was successful [ Casino Royale ] as it does show the reality of it . To a certain extent Matt Damon is right to make that obsevation. He just made it well after the bond franchise realised it themselves . I was a bit sad to see Pierce brosnan leave the character as although he was playing the suave sophisticate he could easily have managed  a "more complex" bond in future films .  

How can anyone dscribe Bourbe (movie version) as a serial monogamist?  He's a straihtforward monogamist.  He cops off with the only girl he knows, and travels the world with her for a few years until the bad guys kill her...   I'm assuming some new (second) love interest surfaces in the third movie, but If he's a serial monogamist, it's hardly by choice.

  That term does contradict itself a bit.  "Serial monogamist! "

Well, there is a very slight difference between the Bond and Borne franchises: I saw one Bourne movie and will never, ever, see another. I have seen a few Bond movies and may see some more.

Recently saw the new one with that awful plank of wood Craig David in it. Not, hang on, it was Daniel Craig wasn't it! Haha. It was utter bollocks. When I was a kid, Bond had a) a great song at the start, b) loads of gadgets and c) a mad villain. The new Bond had a song, possibly, but I can't remember it, no gadgets that I can remember and... no, hang on, it DID have an evil poker-genius whose eye bled every time he bluffed, or something. One wonders just how he got to be a poker genius if he had that as a give-away, but anyway. It was also way too homoerotic for me. Especially a naked Daniel Craig getting his balls smacked by said poker-genius.

years ago, I gave up with Bond. Just after Goldeneye and the casting of hairy skinny fatman Pierce Brosnan. However, the other night, Mrs. Cat and myself were thoroughly entertained by Die Another Day, which adequately fulfilled all my Bond-expectations and was extremely silly into the bargain. As a result I went out and bought The World is Not Enough for a fiver- and it was so-so. Where does this leave me? Still no closer to ever watching a Bourne movie, I'm afraid...

Steev

:: When I was a kid, Bond had a) a great song at the start, b)
:: loads of gadgets and c) a mad villain.

Mm. The 'pantomime Bond' that had naff-all to do with the original novels. Frankly, I was glad to see Casino Royale move in a totally different direction.

  I can say that i enjoyed what is now the old bond as averse to the new. I was also very sceptical of daniel Craig as the lead however in the end i just thought sod it ,go and see it anyway and i thought it was good but not perfect but nothing is perfect anyway ,well ,almost nothing .

I dont know if daniel Craig is in the next bond film as there was talk of an other lead actor taking over  .  Theres that guy who i dont know his name but he has appeared in other James Bond films .He is tall and looks to be of mixed race ,good looking,and sounds well spoken. I think he is another 00 agent but i am not sure which.He was also in Aliens versus predator as one of the Weyland team.

  Maybe someone knows who i mean.There was talk of this actor taking the lead of James Bond a while ago.

His name is Colin Salmon (I think). Thought they rejected him when they were looking for somebody for Casino Royale. He seems to specialise in being the really compotent guy who dies first in SF movies.

  Its a shame that.  I like him myself . I think he is underrated and deserves a lead role. He is a far better actor than daniel Craig who isnt very versatile as an actor.

   theres no accounting for film companies at all.

i'm old school,ive got most of the fleming novels and "from russia with love"is in my mind the best of the lot the closest to the books at any rate. They are all enjoyable in their own right as bank holiday filler (well,not O.H.M.S.S,that was crap)
best spy film?True Lies!

I don't think this is really the fairest of comparasions. Yes,both are spy movies and while I like them both,Bourne is VERY(at sometimes overly so)serious while the Bond movies are more fun,for lack of a better word. And Matt Damon,you're a great actor,I'll give ya that,but don't put your monocle and top-hat on just yet. "Bourne's character is so much more complex,don't you think? Mm..Yes splendid,wouldn't you say? I'm afraid I must now hurry on to my meeting with Roger Ebert.",That was my impression of him,and it was horrible,but I think you get the point. He thinks he's all "sophis-ta-ma-cated" now. Oh,and I really liked Casino Royale,at first I was leary of blond-Bond,but he's actually pretty good. I think the Bond series was in dire need of an overhaul at that point,I mean INVISIBLE CAR? Save it for Back To The Future Part V for god's sake. I mean,granted the Bond movies had as many impossible stunts as any action movie should have,but the freakin' Invisi-Car was downright Sci-Fi. Oh,and it was boring. I've never watched it all the way through(Die Another Day).

I quite enjoyed the first Bourne film but Matt Damon is about as interesting as... as... well, as Daniel Craig. Craig's Bond may as well have been a Bourne sequel, as it had nothing of what has become expected of Bond films - gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, etc.
The Richard Chamberlain TV version of Bourne was completely different - a lot less action, he is after all, about 40 years older than Matt Damon. But it does make the sex scenes uncomfortable viewing - like watching your grandparents get it on on a fur rug in front of a log fire

Watched BOURNE ULTIMATUM last night and quite enjoyed it but it actually seems to have less characterisation and plot than a Bond movie.

It also suffers from a bit of been there done that.  There's only so many times you can see him outwit his pursuers in a breathless footrace/car chase.  I think Bond has the element of upping the ante that helps.

"Well, we've done a car chase and a ski chase and a scuba chase and a helicopter chase. What will do next?"  "How about a chase in tanks?"

I'm not doing the BOURNE FILMS a disservice here; without them I doubt we'd have had the scrumptious CASINO ROYALE.

And I think BOND FANS may be easily broken down into DIE ANOTHER DAY or CASINO ROYALE camps. Fortunately theres' plenty of room in this world for both.

I wouldn't have broken Bond fans down into those two camps - I don't know anyone who thinks Die Another Day wasn't rubbish.  

I love Bond films, me. They're a harmless diversion, kind of like a pantomime for post-adolescents, so to an extent it's irrelevant to slag them off for being out of date, not up with current fashions in relationships, feminism or whatnot. They aren't documentaries.

So do I take it that everyone recommends the Bourne movies?

Floyd, I personally love the Bourne films. Matt Damon (You know I can only say it in a Team america voice) isn't a great actor, but he does this well, and the script is tight throughout. A few niggles, but they are only a few.

The final scenes of the third film are superb.

Bolt-01

I'm not doing the BOURNE FILMS a disservice here; without them I doubt we'd have had the scrumptious CASINO ROYALE.

  That was one of my points as well. I wouldnt not recommend a Bourne film nor would i not recommend a Bond film.

  They are different films so i just accept them both for what they are by being impartial .I am not the worlds best film critic as i just tend to watch them without anylysing too much .As long as i enjoy it then thats enough.



   Isn t Team America supposed to be a good film from the point of view that it is satirical and makes fun of America ?  Has anyone ever seen it ?

Enjoyed the Bourne films to different degrees, not really a Bond fan (Casino Royale was okay) and Matt Damon is a nob.

The Bourne films would have to be a lot better to start getting snooty about them, sorry!

I was very pleasantly surprised by both Bourne movies, which trotted along nicely and left me wanting more, despite the usually-odious Damon.

Casino Royale was doing very, very well AFAIC, until the daft sinking Venetian building gubbins, last seen in the unutterably shite LXG.  Which was probably the closest thing to old skool Bond movies in it.

The torture scene was unpleasant (I personally can't watch that sort of stuff at all), but it was a straight translation from the book, so fair's fair - if it was homoerotic, well so are the novels, in an unconsidered Public School sort of way.  It was also almost unique in movies, in that it showed Bond needing a long period of recuperation after torture.  (Aside: visted Villa Carlotta where said convalesecnce was filmed this spring - nice spot, highly recommended if you're up Lake Como way).

I loved the Bond books as a kid (still do, reall), and was intrigued to see how well Casino Royale played out in the 21st century.  There's things I'd change, but I doubt anyone could have made a better movie of it.  Put it this way: I haven't seen a Bond movie in the cinema since Goldeneye, but I'll definitely be seeing the next one if takes the same tack as Casino Royale.  

For me Casino Royale was a reaction to two other film series: the Bourne films and Austin Powers.
They went so far towards de-Austinising it that they took away all the charm of what a Bond film should be.
 I thought it was canny good, but in a lot of ways they missed the point and it felt as bloated and cheesy as the Brosnan era Bonds, only less jokes. I turned Die Another Day off when it was on telly last week, I was cringing with embarrassment its so shit.
For me the Bourne movies are really exciting, and Austin powers is really funny. Bond movies used to manage both at the same time, but Casino Royale managed neither.

I think what Floyd means here that Bond was better ROOTED in the Sixties and the Bourne films are really for today.

Bond was in the sixties and really in his hey day all through the seventies and early eighties.

I think when Sean Connery and Roger Moore stopped portraying this character. This sixties style of playboy/spy genre went with them as well.

Sure, I went and saw the second Bourne film a few years ago and wasn't all that hyped about it. Though it was innovative, it just wasn't my type of film.

Though I would have to admit that even Matt Damon's Bourne character is had pressed to replace the famous Bond character.

But, he is atleast the hero of our time. ( I guess.)

I have just seen 'Casino Royal' last weekend on the Box Office cable. One thing that I wasn't prepared for was the use of some modern contrivances that I would normally think out of place in origin Bond film that to knowledge should be set in the sixties. I guess.

Though, I also guess it's not hard to imagine Bond being the first person in existance to be using a mobile phone and it's probably true he would be one of the few first people to be using one of these things or something like it.

For all this speical Bond film was worth. I think it was ruined by making it modern. What are they really trying to prove by not making it in the period it was supposed to be set in?

I don't know!!

If the movie failed, then that is good reason for that happening.

Apart from that, the film wasn't very inspiring. It seemed very flat nearly all of the way through.

This decision to change the Bond formula. Very bad idea.

Hmmm. The first Bourne has one great fight scene and that's about it really.

Not massive Bond fan. I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale, but my favourite is (and will alywas be) Live And Let Die.

"Names is for tombstones, baby!"

To paraphrase James Coburns spook character in Hudson Hawk:
"God I miss the Cold War. The red threat, people were frightened, and I got laid every damn night!"

Damon was the one who said the series was rooted in the sixties.  I didn't mean that every movie should be set in that faraway mythical decade, just that he may be right about the feel of the movies coming from then.  What I was questioning was the assumption that Bond movies have to be topical/relevant/realistic about modern relationships to be worth watching.

after writing that, I'm just rooted

Favorite Bond Films.

Dr. No (1962)
From Russia With Love (1963)
Goldfinger (1964)
Thunderball (1965)
You Only Live Twice (1967)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Live and Let Die (1973)
The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Moonraker (1979)
For Your Eyes Only (1981)
Octopussy (1983)
Never Say Never again (????)
The Living Daylights (1987)

In which book did Bond go to the races? 'cos that's what he's doing in the next film:

Link: Five hundred quid, on the nose, on Sad Ken if you

Bond is a series of films that are essentially a sequel to the first one, so there's bound to be a certain continuation of themes throughout.  Now and again they update themselves for their time, with the Moore-era stuff being entertaining pantos for a more bomabstic era of summer blockbusters and movies that stood as entertainment as much as - if not more than - they were stories.  The Bourne movies are more or less the same thing, coming along when grim, nihilistic angst is as much a part of the onscreen panto as Moore's raised eyebrow and AIDS-defying shag-marathons.  You could speculate that the Bourne movies might have been different beasts had they been made in the 1980s and starred  - I don't know - Paul Hogan or something.
Casino Royale was a good step in updating Bond again, but it already happened with the Moore stuff, and with Dalton, and then again with Brosnan - and look how that turned out.

(Bond-nerd mode ON) He went to the races in Goldfinger. Are they re-making that?

It seems not:

The first photo of Daniel Craig on the set of Bond 22 has been revealed. The Casino Royale star filmed scenes for the anticipated follow-up in Siena, Italy, in a balcony window overlooking the "Madonna dell'Assunta Palio di Siena" traditional horse race. A big tourist draw, the race pits 10 neighborhoods against each other, with horses and their jockeys often tumbling during the action.