Fark those hipster Philistines: This movie was-and still is-one of the best Bond flicks ever. Rosa Klebb. Grant Shaw. Karim Bey. The fiesty belly dancers. Kilenko. And of course,the absolutely luscious Tatiana. All these characters greatly enriched my viewing experience in ways I can't even verbalize.


Pity that that sense of escapism was lost on the crowd.

Mentat: Sorry, but watching 60's Bond movies is like watching Mad Men. The culture has changed so much that it's hard not to giggle at a lot of the things that go on. And this is from someone who thinks Goldfinger is the best Bond movie ever made.

Hell, one of my friends has a Goldfinger drinking game that features a rule compelling you to drink every time Bond sexually harasses someone.

As for the article, this stuck out to me: movies aren't art or experience, they're product.

What the fark is he talking about? The product IS the theater experience. Do you think they would be getting this kick out of the movie watching it alone at home? No. They share it with everyone else. It's the same reason The Room is one of the worst movies ever made and still packs midnight screenings everywhere. It's an experience.

You can laugh and mock just about any movie. What's the point?

The Avengers is sooooo unrealistic. See?

/Itor, Doctor Jan Itor.

Young people grow up in a bubble of their own lack of understanding. Everything is very simplified and uniform for the digital generation. That's why they're boring, generic and end up missing 90% of the information set before them. Their vectors of information digestion are few and thin.

But to the point, who gives a shiat? It's a Bond film.

This is a whole new level of whining. He's not complaining that the audience didn't like the movie, or didn't value it, or didn't understand it -- he's arguing that they didn't like it the right way, that they didn't value it for the right reasons, and that their understanding was tempered by the difference in culture between today and when the film was created.

It's so far beyond pretentious that it's in danger of looping back around and becoming sensible.

Bond is SUCH a pussy now.

Goldeneye was probably the last good Bond movie. And even then, it was starting to bend over for current culture.

Connery for the win, modern whiny biatches.

One thing that technology has screwed up: The need to get out a message in an action movie.

Everyone has a cell phone. Don't have one? Kill a bad guy, he's got one. It has really ruined some classic action scenes, like Arnold having to keep Sally from dialing a phone in Commando.

And as people are saying, it's a Bond movie. Serious movie? Maybe more than Our Man Flint, but no, it's not Harry Palmer unsexyness or The 39 Steps. Have you ever seen DR. FARKING NO? The bad man has cybernetic hands and we're not even close to that in reality, let alone 1950s tech.

Doctor Jan Itor: You can laugh and mock just about any movie. What's the point?


You got me wanting The Ten Commandments: Rifftrax Edition.

robohobo: Bond is SUCH a pussy now.

Goldeneye was probably the last good Bond movie. And even then, it was starting to bend over for current culture.

Connery for the win, modern whiny biatches.

Hm, your reaction if Idris Elba did become the next Bond?

Practical_Draconian: Hm, your reaction if Idris Elba did become the next Bond?

"That's good. That's like a 40-degree day. Ain't nobody got nothing to say about a 40-degree day. Fifty. Bring a smile to your face. Sixty, sh*t, n*ggas is damn near barbecuing on that motherfarker. Go down to 20, n*ggas get their b*tch on. Get their blood complaining. But forty? Nobody give a fark about 40. Nobody remember 40, and y'all n*ggas is giving me way too many 40-degree days! What the f*ck?"

This is completely unrelated

I don't know if Bond films really can stand up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny. It lapsed into a cookie-cutter formula pretty quick and this guy's argument seems to be "LOOKIT ALL THESE AWESOME TITTIES! THIS DUDE IS SO COOL SO UNLIKE WRITING ABOUT MOVIES" It's like watching a 12 year old who just discovered the 60s drone on and on about how they don't make music like Hendrix or the Doors any more. Ok, Mr. Film School Guy, come at us when you watch any movies that aren't boring escapist claptrap for white people.

Practical_Draconian: One thing that technology has screwed up: The need to get out a message in an action movie.

Everyone has a cell phone. Don't have one? Kill a bad guy, he's got one. It has really ruined some classic action scenes, like Arnold having to keep Sally from dialing a phone in Commando.

And as people are saying, it's a Bond movie. Serious movie? Maybe more than Our Man Flint, but no, it's not Harry Palmer unsexyness or The 39 Steps. Have you ever seen DR. FARKING NO? The bad man has cybernetic hands and we're not even close to that in reality, let alone 1950s tech.

Doctor Jan Itor: You can laugh and mock just about any movie. What's the point?


You got me wanting The Ten Commandments: Rifftrax Edition.

+1 for the Commando reference, that movie is a classic on so many different levels....

profplump: This is a whole new level of whining. He's not complaining that the audience didn't like the movie, or didn't value it, or didn't understand it -- he's arguing that they didn't like it the right way, that they didn't value it for the right reasons, and that their understanding was tempered by the difference in culture between today and when the film was created.

It's so far beyond pretentious that it's in danger of looping back around and becoming sensible.

Yeah, I don't understand this attitude. A friend got all huffy with me because I wasn't laughing at the "right" moments in Irma La Douce, which was made at around the same time as the Connery Bond films but has dated far, far more.

And having seen Singing in the Rain, I can completely understand why modern freshmen college students would laugh at it, and the idea of a professor ranting at a room full of them for being so "unsophisticated" is idiotic - these are 18 year old kids. If you're trying to instill in them a love of classic cinema, show them something that hasn't dated so badly; The Thin Man or Casablanca or an Errol Flynn swashbuckler or something. What the fark is there in Singing in the Rain for them to relate to? How could you possibly expect them to understand jokes made about the transition from silent movies to talkies?

I blame human resources technocrats for allowing these people to have jobs to be able to pay for a movie. HR culture is the new biggest threat to national well-being.

swahnhennessy: Practical_Draconian: Hm, your reaction if Idris Elba did become the next Bond?

"That's good. That's like a 40-degree day. Ain't nobody got nothing to say about a 40-degree day. Fifty. Bring a smile to your face. Sixty, sh*t, n*ggas is damn near barbecuing on that motherfarker. Go down to 20, n*ggas get their b*tch on. Get their blood complaining. But forty? Nobody give a fark about 40. Nobody remember 40, and y'all n*ggas is giving me way too many 40-degree days! What the f*ck?"

You takin' notes ....?

Just another reason I tend to avoid theaters.

FTFA: "I hate to be the guy who says "You're watching it wrong," but these people definitely were."

And why do you hate that? Because those guys are assholes. So what does that make you?

So, Mr Art School went to a theater and found himself surrounded by annoying people?

You and your buddy paid 24$ to appreciate and "experience" (Jesus, I can't express hom much I want to scream 'Go fark yourself' just for that expression) a movie?
Who in their right mind pays that amount of money for oldies when you can get them on dvd with commentaries, bonuses and all?

You took a big risk and you lost, no need to weep on society between two sips of Blue Ribbon.

The only thing that saddens me is that for 24$ and the time it took you to write that teenagy-abortion of a pretentious article, you and your buddy could have bought this: From Russia With Love on Amazon,
ordered a pizza and have a smashing evening. 

Your local theater isn't a classroom, get over yourself.

Okoboji: Just another reason I tend to avoid theaters.

I love going to theaters to watch movies

but the movie theater chains and the movie companies have made the experience farking painful

Gunther: profplump: This is a whole new level of whining. He's not complaining that the audience didn't like the movie, or didn't value it, or didn't understand it -- he's arguing that they didn't like it the right way, that they didn't value it for the right reasons, and that their understanding was tempered by the difference in culture between today and when the film was created.

It's so far beyond pretentious that it's in danger of looping back around and becoming sensible.

Yeah, I don't understand this attitude. A friend got all huffy with me because I wasn't laughing at the "right" moments in Irma La Douce, which was made at around the same time as the Connery Bond films but has dated far, far more.

- these are 18 year old kids. If you're trying to instill in them a love of classic cinema, show them something that hasn't dated so badly; The Thin Man or Casablanca or an Errol Flynn swashbuckler or something. What the fark is there in Singing in the Rain for them to relate to? How could you possibly expect them to understand jokes made about the transition from silent movies to talkies?

Really? The Thin Man and Errol Flyn are your examples of aging well?

A few weeks ago I saw Jaws with a packed crowd and an awful lot of the crowd looked to be in their late teens or early twenties. Aside from a little initial snickering at the wardrobe (understandable) that was over within seconds, it was taken very seriously. Last weekend I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark with the same type of crowd. Again, it was taken as seriously now as the day it came out. About a year ago or so ago, Goldfinger was playing with that same type of crowd. You'd think it was Austin Powers 4. The difference? Those Sean Connery 007s do. Not. Hold. Up. You'll like them for the nostalgia, but when you look at it apart from all the warm fuzzies and let the movie stand on its own, it falls the fark over. And this is coming from someone who farking loves the Sean Connery Bonds.

Gunther: profplump: This is a whole new level of whining. He's not complaining that the audience didn't like the movie, or didn't value it, or didn't understand it -- he's arguing that they didn't like it the right way, that they didn't value it for the right reasons, and that their understanding was tempered by the difference in culture between today and when the film was created.

It's so far beyond pretentious that it's in danger of looping back around and becoming sensible.

Yeah, I don't understand this attitude. A friend got all huffy with me because I wasn't laughing at the "right" moments in Irma La Douce, which was made at around the same time as the Connery Bond films but has dated far, far more.

And having seen Singing in the Rain, I can completely understand why modern freshmen college students would laugh at it, and the idea of a professor ranting at a room full of them for being so "unsophisticated" is idiotic - these are 18 year old kids. If you're trying to instill in them a love of classic cinema, show them something that hasn't dated so badly; The Thin Man or Casablanca or an Errol Flynn swashbuckler or something. What the fark is there in Singing in the Rain for them to relate to? How could you possibly expect them to understand jokes made about the transition from silent movies to talkies?

Pretty much this. It takes balls for someone to chastise a genuine reaction to a film and not seem to explain it. The students for 'Singing in the Rain' were engaging with the film, and it's absurdity. Musical comedies are absurd because they're so unreal. To put this in terms of sophistication is dishonest: the students were being honest, and it explains why musical comedies no longer exist in any real terms. If they did, Cop Rock would be a much bigger sensation than it was and for a wholly different reason.

But the real source of butthurt here isn't that the audience didn't react in the appropriate way, it's that the authors (and professor, really) felt threatened because they feel bad about liking the film now. Nobody is going to like what you like in exactly the same way you like it. I'm sure there might have been some people there who liked the film on its own merit. But to start going into defensive geek mode and threatening to slap some people upside the head is just childish. Lighten up, Francis: just because people see something you like in another way doesn't mean you have to stop liking it. Get over yourselves.

And as for that professor who got his panties in a twist over a farking musical comedy....why the fark are you starting off a film history course with a farking musical? I thought they used silents, German Expressionism, and Eisenstein to weed out those who are in it just to watch films made twenty years ago. You know, the actual roots of cinema. But farking Gene Kelly? Give me a break.

Guntram Shatterhand: And as for that professor who got his panties in a twist over a farking musical comedy....why the fark are you starting off a film history course with a farking musical? I thought they used silents, German Expressionism, and Eisenstein to weed out those who are in it just to watch films made twenty years ago. You know, the actual roots of cinema. But farking Gene Kelly? Give me a break..

Not sure about Gene Kelly, but if I was running a 101 on film history, there would absolutely be a 2 week unit on Ernst Lubitsch's musical comedies. Our film 101 was early documentary for the whole semester, and you know what, nobody cared. There's a shiatload you can pull from them for that era, on writing, pacing, directing, acting - but probably most importantly, they are one of the best encapsulations of what a "pre-code movie" was versus a "post-code movie".

The author is right. Anyone going to see a movie or any kind of performance should be able to open themselves up to it. If you have trouble relating, try harder. If you still can't then leave, but it's not the films fault.

Anyone who says that "it's too challenging" is implying that viewing should always be effortless and nobody should ever make an effort to understand or relate to an artistic vision. If that's your attitude, enjoy your Nickelback dumbass.

Bhags: Really? The Thin Man and Errol Flyn are your examples of aging well?

Absolutely. I re-watched The Thin Man last year and was astonished at how well it holds up. You could shoot that tomorrow using the exact same script and apart from a little outdated slang and the hokey "Gee golly, this X-Ray technology sure is neat!" scene, people wouldn't even realize it was set in the past, let alone written nearly 80 years ago. 

As for the Errol Flynn movies, they're fast paced, there's lots of action and the women in them are uniformly smoking hot. You'll hold the attention of the most ADD college freshman.

Practical_Draconian

Hm, your reaction if Idris Elba did become the next Bond?


My 2 cents: I've only seen him in 'The Losers' but he can obviously handle the action sequences. The accent would need to be resolved: Elba is from London, can't have him sound too posh. :-)

YouBWrong: The author is right. Anyone going to see a movie or any kind of performance should be able to open themselves up to it. If you have trouble relating, try harder. If you still can't then leave, but it's not the films fault.

Anyone who says that "it's too challenging" is implying that viewing should always be effortless and nobody should ever make an effort to understand or relate to an artistic vision. If that's your attitude, enjoy your Nickelback dumbass.

Sorry but no. If I paid money to watch something that was supposed to be taken seriously, and I find that its very entertaining to laugh at it then guess what I'm going to do. I have the same right to be there as you do. Artistic vision is a bs excuse.

Dancis_Frake: So, Mr Art School ...
[FTW, redacted]...Your local theater isn't a classroom, get over yourself.

I make my neighbor's 7 year old watch what he calls "Grey movies" - the old black and whites.
Harvey.
Arsenic and Old Lace.
Captain Blood.

He's actually finally coming around to westerns, too.

He's going to be pretty well watched by the time he becomes a cash paying consumer.

What he's learning from me now is how a story is told. The structure.

His only questions so far are, if that's how you tell a story, "Then What The *** is Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Shreck? They just keep on going an going".

My answer: Well, you can take a good story, like the one you learned about the goose that laid the golden egg. But, it's just like that story. You can tell the same story over and over, but when you try to stretch a story out, you can lose your audience shares.

His reply: And that's money.

Gunther: How could you possibly expect them to understand jokes made about the transition from silent movies to talkies?

Are not the issues related to that kind of obvious (other than maybe some of the names)? If they can't understand that a silent star might have voice-related problems when talking movies came along then they are idiots. I certainly had no trouble understanding and enjoying that film and the transition happened well before my parents were born. And if you miss a reference, so what? People miss references in current film too.

born_yesterday: Jizz Master Zero: A few weeks ago I saw Jaws with a packed crowd and an awful lot of the crowd looked to be in their late teens or early twenties. Aside from a little initial snickering at the wardrobe (understandable) that was over within seconds, it was taken very seriously. Last weekend I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark with the same type of crowd. Again, it was taken as seriously now as the day it came out. About a year ago or so ago, Goldfinger was playing with that same type of crowd. You'd think it was Austin Powers 4. The difference? Those Sean Connery 007s do. Not. Hold. Up. You'll like them for the nostalgia, but when you look at it apart from all the warm fuzzies and let the movie stand on its own, it falls the fark over. And this is coming from someone who farking loves the Sean Connery Bonds.

"Go away. Man talk."

How the hell can you tell me dialog like that doesn't hold up.

*Slaps Jizz Master Zero*

*Makes love to him until he sees the error of his ways and repents*

/timeless

*milkfromnose.jpg*

gameshowhost: I love Connery's Bond films *because* they're so out-of-touch.

Critic sounds like a weepy vaginanachronism.

That's why I love Moore's Bond films: they're completely out of touch with everything, including reality.

I think that the author has a point about appreciating the film in terms of its era and such.

Somewhat related: I was backpacking in the UK in 1990 and spent a night in Stratford, where I saw a production of King Lear. As I was sitting through the (excellent) production, I was becoming increasingly incensed at the audience - a mixture of young and old - which was outright laughing at certain moments of Lear's descent into madness. I couldn't understand why, for the actor's performance was in no way foppish or clownish, and the character of Lear is certainly not a source of amusement. Yet, here were some people having a laugh over him - the central character in Shakespeare's greatest tragedy and arguably the greatest play ever written. I left the theatre fuming and shaking my head at those fools in the audience.

I_Love_Cheesecake: I left the theatre fuming and shaking my head at those fools in the audience.

But you were as entertained as they were. That's the point of theater. Not everyone responds to art the same way. That's probably part of the bard's appeal.

I_Love_Cheesecake: I left the theatre fuming and shaking my head at those fools in the audience.

How can you not laugh at all the politicians and the soldiers with their penises getting bigger throughout the play after the women voted to stop having sex until the war is over?

profplump: This is a whole new level of whining. He's not complaining that the audience didn't like the movie, or didn't value it, or didn't understand it -- he's arguing that they didn't like it the right way, that they didn't value it for the right reasons, and that their understanding was tempered by the difference in culture between today and when the film was created.

It's so far beyond pretentious that it's in danger of looping back around and becoming sensible.

Matt Zoller Seitz is actually a pretty good critic, everyone has their little neuroses. Evidently Connery-era Bond is one of his.

I wonder what he thinks of Zardoz.

Apos: Fark those hipster Philistines: This movie was-and still is-one of the best Bond flicks ever. Rosa Klebb. Grant Shaw. Karim Bey. The fiesty belly dancers. Kilenko. And of course,the absolutely luscious Tatiana. All these characters greatly enriched my viewing experience in ways I can't even verbalize.


Pity that that sense of escapism was lost on the crowd.

Um, you realize that most of what the audience was laughing at was supposed to be funny, right? The Bond series has never been about being a srs bzns spy thriller, ever. The books either.

From Russia With Love is interesting because it's almost a perfect translation to the big screen of what Ian Fleming imagined himself to be. That includes all the blatant sexism, etc.

Two things stand out to me from that movie:

1. The whole plot centered on blackmailing Bond by secretly filming him having sex with the Russian girl. To today's audiences the entire idea is laughable, as nowadays celebrities start their careers by 'accidentally' releasing a sex tape.

2. The fight scene at the end in the train is one of the best fight scenes in cinematic history. It's not come choreographed art form like you see in Asian movies, nor is it the 'I hit you, you hit me, we take turns until the bad guy falls down' kind of fight that has always been the standard in Western movies. The fight is totally raw, in a tight enclosed space, they both use anything at hand to get an advantage. You really get the sense that Bond is just fighting for his life, not trying to be 'cool' or anything.