ROTTEN TOMATOES: Screenwriter Paul Haggis Enticed Back to "Bond 22" Comments

Screenwriter Paul Haggis Enticed Back to "Bond 22"

by Scott Weinberg | May 24, 2007

Summary

If you liked "Casino Royale," (and who didn't?) you'll be happy to know that the screenwriting trio is now back in action for the 22nd Bond flick. Back to Article

(1-15 of 15 posts) | Reply

vader_of_vjun writes:
on May 24 2007 01:42 AM

Yes thanks.

(Reply to this)

laika86 writes:
on May 24 2007 06:33 AM

Great news. People on RT tend to trash Haggis because of Crash, but the fact is he is one of the best screenwriters working today. I mean look at what hes written. Even Crash was pretty good (though it didnt deserve Best Picture). I just hope this doesnt keep him from writing for Eastwood because they make a great combo.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on May 24 2007 07:56 AM

yeah that's probably for the best. as long as they continue to capture the feel of CR.

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on May 24 2007 09:59 AM

Since it's suppose to be a sequel I'm glad they are keeping the writing team the same. Don't want it to drastically change.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on May 24 2007 10:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#866661)
[b]Agreed[/b]
But why the new director rumors? They should just stick with Mark Campbell.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on May 24 2007 12:21 PM

Paul Haggis is one of the worst (and by far the worst known) writers of any sort that has disgraced media of any sort. He should be embarrased by his Oprah-esque cliches and tritely superficial writing (hey, but he's won an Oscar or two, so I guess he's validated, eh?).

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on May 24 2007 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#866664)
Did you see Casino Royale or Million Dollar Baby?

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on May 24 2007 01:29 PM

November 2008 release?? Hell yeah!

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on May 24 2007 01:54 PM

umm Paul haggis is a fine screenwriter who just happened to write not 1, but 2 best picture winners? how is he among the worst screenwriters? come on, he helped revive the once ailing James Bond franchise into a smash again, and he creates great ideas in a snap. he is one of the best in the biz right now, i guess someone got their mind on the wrong end today.

(Reply to this)

bribios writes:
on May 24 2007 02:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#866667)
Gonna have to agree. Those movies I would say fall into the "good" category.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on May 24 2007 03:21 PM

He was 1 of several writers in the James Bond movie (it's like saying that Jack Haley helped the Bulls win their championship rings)... Those 2 best picture winners were horrible treacle. Million Dollar Baby lacked realism and plausability. Crash just lacked plausability... Haggis is perfect Hollywood material (and why he's best in that biz -- which justifies everyone's adulation, I guess) -- he thinks he's saying quite a bit when he's not really saying anything at all.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on May 24 2007 10:50 PM

People love to hate Haggis, and you may not like his style, but it speaks to a lot of people. He's most definitely not a bad screenwriter. To say that is either moronic or exaggerating for effect. To me, he does some things well, but is weak in other areas. Guess what? All screenwriters are like that. Was Crash a great movie? I didn't think so. I liked it, but it was flawed. Brokeback Mountain was a much better film, in my opinion. Hell, Syriana was even better. I thought Million Dollar Baby was an excellent movie. Quite frankly though, those years probably won't go down in movie history as having a lot of great movies. Good ones, but not great.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on May 25 2007 10:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#866670)
I'm neither moronic nor exaggeratory, but I guess criticizing someone who gets undue adulation leads to such an easy assessment. Obviously, based on critical (if not box office) success, Haggis is an excellent Hollywood screenwriter. But Hollywood doesn't set the bar high for quality, originality, or realism (Million Dollar Baby was filled with horrendous stereotypes, poor boxing realism, and overly melodramatic acting -- of course, everyone in Hollywood thinks that everyone from the midwest is a twang-speaking, molested, fat-momma red-neck).

I will never understand the admiration, praise, and respect this man gets for his ability. I wouldn't be so critical of him if his movies weren't praised for their portrayal of the human condition.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on May 25 2007 05:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#866671)
"I will never understand the admiration, praise, and respect this man gets for his ability. I wouldn't be so critical of him if his movies weren't praised for their portrayal of the human condition. "

Hence my comment about exaggerating for effect. Your criticism of him is eggagerated because of his popularity in Hollywood. I always think it's funny when someone calls a popular director or writer `awful' or `the worst'. I have no problem with criticizing someone, but as soon as you pull out the worst or sucks card, you've pretty much lost me.

As for your criticisms of Million Dollar Baby, you actuallydidn't mention one thing about the writing. it was an adaptation, so the story is not original, and neither are the characters. The acting and boxing should be put on Clint Eastwood's shoulders. I don't understand the acting comment, as I thought the acting was first rate, but the whole realism criticism doesn't really hold water, in my opinion. First of all, it's not a boxing movie. Secondly, boxing realism tends to make bad entertainment. Rocky was great entertainment, but poor boxing realism. I'm a huge basketball fan, and I consider Hoosiers the best basketball movie of all time. Is the basketball realistic? Hell, no. Does it matter? No. If I want realism, I watch a game.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on May 25 2007 07:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#866672)
Worst is definitely a relative term... Is he worse than the Joe who wrote Scary Movie 3? Of course not. But, given the context and adulation that he receives, he, by proportion, is the worst (by analogy: is Bush the worst politician today? Many would say yes, without exaggerating, though there are definitely podunk politicians who are far worse but have far less effect).

Just b/c it's not a "boxing movie" doesn't mean you can disregard the setting you've chosen (but I guess the screenwriter's absolved of this?)

Also, are screenwriters completely innocent for the characters in a movie (the whole stereotypically bad characters)? To compare the realism of MDB to a movie like Hoosiers is ludicrous... Sure, Hoosiers is a Disney-esque movie -- it takes liberties here and there (though still based on reality)... MDB takes liberties everywhere and has a horrible ending...

But, I guess the screenwriter doesn't create the characters or the storyline (and adaptations can be quite liberal in their adaptations -- that's a specious excuse).

Oh, and both Rocky and Hoosiers didn't try to go outside of their genre (again, MDB's ending). You're comparing apples and oranges (Rocky and Hoosiers are quasi fantastical feel-good movies -- MDB is a quasi fantastical feel-bad movie that tries to pass itself off as something realistic).

So, you can blame the director (since Unforgiven, Eastwood's gone down hill a bit), but you have to blame the writer for this, too (normally, we'll give someone a pass after one -- it was hard after MDB -- but then seeing the painfully contrived Crash, my opinion was firmly cemented).

And, the acting was horrible (again, this is relative -- better than Scary Movie 3, but Scary Movie 3 didn't win oscars -- I know, this must be validation -- I guess those down to earth, in-touch with reality Hollywood people are the best judges of good acting and good writing).

So, from henceforth, every time I use a superlative, it will be with the caveat that said superlative is used in relative context and not absolute context (unless stated otherwise). Not exaggeratory, just relative. But if it makes you feel better to clarify superlatives as exaggeration, go right on ahead. You'll be doing it for awhile, though, because that's the culture we live in. Whether that's for the best, or for the worst, who knows :)

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Neal Purvis

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links