Last Bond Movie You Watched? 2.0

Vesper wrote:

Glad that drinking a bottle of tequila and five pints before swimming in a university campus creek littered both with shopping trolleys, broken glass, blue green algae and sewage run-off could bring me here.

By rights you should emerge with Super powers though......

lachesis wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Glad that drinking a bottle of tequila and five pints before swimming in a university campus creek littered both with shopping trolleys, broken glass, blue green algae and sewage run-off could bring me here.

By rights you should emerge with Super powers though......

Nope. Just cellulitis, enough cuts to make it look like I self-flagellate and a $1000 award for distinguished leadership from my university college.

Vesper wrote:

How does SPECTRE compare?

Not well. It suffers from a combination of Quantum of Helga's ADD and DAD's mirror masturbation.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Vesper wrote:

How does SPECTRE compare?

Not well. It suffers from a combination of Quantum of Helga's ADD and DAD's mirror masturbation.

Eugh. I'm not sure I can afford what it would take me to sit through it then.

Casino Royale

it troubles really. On one hand it felt like a blast of fresh air after Die Another Day, it was relatively true to the book but on the other hand, it felt like the biggest advert on film (I know Bond films tend to plug stuff but in CR, and QOS, it felt quite too obvious. The Rolex/Omega line, the Ford, Virgin Atlantic...) and just a bit long. Running length in Bond films never can be a problem, OHMSS is just about right but then so were the 'shorter' earlier films. QOS could've been five hours long and not been as better.
I know the book was a bit stilted for 2006, keeping it rooted in Royale-les-Eaux would've been tricky (the game as it was hard enough to make 'sexy' to keep modern audiences hooked) but Madagascar and Venice feel needless. The former an excuse to have some plonker haring about with this free-running/jumping nonsense (and showing the most incompetent, idiotic SIS agent ever) and the latter to have a house collapse.
Even then having Royale removed to Montenegro. Casino Montenegro.
As then I am ambivalent towards Craig here. It's a decent start but feels off in parts. His one-liners come and ago and being bulked up. Trivial I suppose but Bond could have the look of a killer without necessary being bulky, Connery and Lazenby in particular.
The Vesper/Bond relationship is all right it feels until Bond recovers and all this icky dialogue and Arnold's Paris & Bond romantic music gets going. But Hilly, Tracy and Bond?...it didn't...it wasn't...

I know they have to show Bond falling hook and sinker for her, the OHMSS type bit of them messing about is enough and a couple more beside would have done. Eva Green is a knockout though.

Mathis, a delight. Shame when he returns he's disposed off.

And M. Jars to have Judi Dench back. Having her M talk about making Bond a Double-Oh relatively so soon after DAD.

Musically, nothing special. Not by the whole. No real presence of the Bond theme was annoying back in the day but I see what was trying to be done here. Back in 2006 Casino Royale energised my faith in Bond enough to walk into the cinema in 2008 enthused and that went down just as quick.

Anyway.

6.5/10

Rebootrankingpalooza

On Her Majesty's Secret Service
From Russia With Love
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Dr No
Thunderball
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Goldfinger
Diamonds Are Forever
Moonraker
You Only Live Twice
Live and Let Die
Goldeneye
Casino Royale (last scored 6.5/10, placing 17th)
The Spy Who Loved Me
A View To A Kill
Die Another Day
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
The Man With The Golden Gun

Erica Ambler wrote:

Vesper wrote:

How does SPECTRE compare?

Not well. It suffers from a combination of Quantum of Helga's ADD and DAD's mirror masturbation.

Sounds disappointing and not at all arousing.

Just over two weeks left until those of us in the Antipodes can experience a fresh serving of deep grittiness.

Selected Hoyts cinemas are screening it on the 11th CJB.

Fair enough. I'll probably be seeing it at an Events cinema as I've got a Gold Class gift card to use up.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Casino Royale

it troubles really. On one hand it felt like a blast of fresh air after Die Another Day, it was relatively true to the book but on the other hand, it felt like the biggest advert on film (I know Bond films tend to plug stuff but in CR, and QOS, it felt quite too obvious. The Rolex/Omega line, the Ford, Virgin Atlantic...) and just a bit long. Running length in Bond films never can be a problem, OHMSS is just about right but then so were the 'shorter' earlier films. QOS could've been five hours long and not been as better.
I know the book was a bit stilted for 2006, keeping it rooted in Royale-les-Eaux would've been tricky (the game as it was hard enough to make 'sexy' to keep modern audiences hooked) but Madagascar and Venice feel needless. The former an excuse to have some plonker haring about with this free-running/jumping nonsense (and showing the most incompetent, idiotic SIS agent ever) and the latter to have a house collapse.
Even then having Royale removed to Montenegro. Casino Montenegro.
As then I am ambivalent towards Craig here. It's a decent start but feels off in parts. His one-liners come and ago and being bulked up. Trivial I suppose but Bond could have the look of a killer without necessary being bulky, Connery and Lazenby in particular.
The Vesper/Bond relationship is all right it feels until Bond recovers and all this icky dialogue and Arnold's Paris & Bond romantic music gets going. But Hilly, Tracy and Bond?...it didn't...it wasn't.
.................

I may have to force myself to watch this again but this a biblically over-long Bond imo, the last third painfully turgid and forced to brian numbing effect. However despite the lethargic pace I think a core problem of CR, for me at least, is that it never seems to convey a sense of time flow within the context of the story, the Bond Vesper relationship (an oddly generic/vapid pair of 'non' individuals by Bond standards) it is all but conjured out of nowhere ...it's a stark contrast to the evolving closeness of Bond-Tracy, two well defined and interesting individuals that don't overtly intend to errrr bond. And don't get me started on the other relationship (Bond and M)...... grrr Like you it seemed such a breath of fresh air after the excesses of DAD, but tbh today I think I'd rather watch that in all its excruciating cgi-ness than sit through CR again!

Quite agree Lachesis. Bond bemoans Vesper's betrayal but there's no real sense of closeness. Bond and M. Maybe for a new Double-O the Bond/M dynamic change a little but annoying all the same. Which funnily brings me onto.

Quantum of Solace

Unlike recent endeavours, I nailed QOS in one sitting. At least I think I did. I've likely given the impression of hating it beyond compare on a TMWTGG level but it just passed me by. Bond's after closure, his quantum of solace (this film could've been called Risico or Hildebrand Rarity and be none the wiser), Greene water, no oil, oil, no water. The action scenes sometimes bewildering blurs. It all tries too hard to my amateur sense of film-making. I found myself imagining we could bring Messrs Young, Hunt and Barry from 1963 to re-make this and thence let them return to the time they came from.
It didn't feel like a Bond film back in the day, more like some Bourne tribute. As someone here noted in the detailed rankings thread it just sort of clicks from scene to scene, people come and go, Bond does stuff, people die and at the end he nicks someone for SIS.

Aston Martin whilst glad for publicity must surely tear their hair out when they see what happens to their cars. I'm sure AMC were okay with theirs doing a somersault and BMW seeing theirs spin off a rooftop or cut in half but Aston, bespoke car-makers -

Usually I skip the song when watching on DVD with a couple of exceptions but I couldn't hit the button quick enough. What an ungodly mess. Not helped by appearing on every damn Coca Cola advert at one stage. The music overall forgettable. Much is made of the Opera scene in general, it's not bad but that's about it. Nice try Forster. Indeed, what was the point of Fields other than a Goldfinger tribute? With respect to you, FieldsMan, I don't see the point of her being in it or at least used as she was beyond serving to have M say: "What about her, Bond?" Brosnan would have a good face at this point, that purse of lips and pained expression.

Almaric is wasted, a decent actor I believe but like Walken, mis-used or under-used. Eliminate Medrano and Olga (I'm not a fan entirely).

Hilly, enough, enough. But for this. Mathis.

Fantastic to see him back and played with style but I actually grimaced when Bond tossed the body in the dumpster. I have seen QOS so sparingly that I guess I forgot just how it was done. Bond says Mathis wouldn't have cared but I think he would have. Would've been all right to have the option for him to return. Even if he never did.

And what about Felix? Destined to stay in South America forever.

4/10

Sponsored by Apple-athon
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
From Russia With Love
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Dr No
Thunderball
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Goldfinger
Diamonds Are Forever
Moonraker
You Only Live Twice
Live and Let Die
Goldeneye
Casino Royale
The Spy Who Loved Me
A View To A Kill
Die Another Day
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Quantum of Solace (last scored 5/10, placing 22nd)
The Man With The Golden Gun

Enjoying death

Skyfall

little to be added really. After QOS it's a refreshing change. It looks good, has a decent soundtrack and an incredibly good looking woman in Bernice Marlohe. One of the better Bond girls in a while. In her brief time in the film you get a feel for her character more than you would have say Christmas Jones in all of TWINE.
Here the one-liners have that old at-ease feel.
The enquiry scene remains a top one in the film if not recent Bonds. Bond powering up Whitehall to the music and the recital of Tennyson. (A note to say liked how Mallory clicked into action during the shootout)
Sure it has faults but for now, what three years on, it remains high in my estimation unlike Casino Royale for example that started high and slipped a bit.

A moment I do like is Bond's face after the DB5 is blown skyhigh. Bastards.

An observation is that during the Underground scene from when Bond gets off the Tube to just before he jumps the escalator, there seems to be two people who hold back the crowd. But Hilly, surely passers-by concerned at their fellow human beings? Maybe. Just the way they do it. On the platform a white haired chap sort of splays himself against people as Bond takes off -he looks more like a bystander sort of pressed back by Bond's explosion of energy but as Bond sights Silva leaping onto the escaltor you see a blonde in navy blue suddenly pull/push people at the way in a distinctive way.

Probably looking too much into it but struck me a little unusual. It's the Underground, I've never seen people act like that and I've seen some sights. Though I've been tempted to jump the escalators at Bond Street to get down past the crush.

A return to form. Alas, our next movie...is untested.

8/10

Hold your breath and count to ten
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
From Russia With Love
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Dr No
Thunderball
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Skyfall (last scored 8/10, placing 6th)
Goldfinger
Diamonds Are Forever
Moonraker
You Only Live Twice
Live and Let Die
Goldeneye
Casino Royale
The Spy Who Loved Me
A View To A Kill
Die Another Day
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Quantum of Solace
The Man With The Golden Gun

looks worse than it is but it's one of four films on 8/10. Hope to break it down a bit in one of the rankings threads. I'd do the detailed one but as I've done Biblical entries for each film, it'll be quite pointless to rehash it for a thread but we'll see.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Indeed, what was the point of Fields other than a Goldfinger tribute? With respect to you, FieldsMan, I don't see the point of her being in it or at least used as she was beyond serving to have M say: "What about her, Bond?"

None taken. The reason why I like her in it is because she's there for eye candy. And she adds a bit of cheekiness to QOS. Helps make it feel a little more Bond.

I guess if there was an excuse it's to show the impact Vesper had on Bond - he can't get too close to women, so uses them as time killers, but not to pursue a meaningful relationship with. But that doesn't really register…

She's there, and I like Arterton… But I prefer quite a few other Bond girls over her. Hence why I wanted a username change…

I do disagree about what you say about some things in QOS. On my last viewing I still feel as though it reminds me more of a 60s Bond film than CR does. There is lots of local colour as well as literally being colourful, the editing reminds me a little of OHMSS and TB and the music is one of Arnold's better efforts. Of course, SF feels much more like a Bond film - and of course an Ian FLeming novel - but QOS was a step in the right direction after the thug Bond, blander affair of CR.

I'm sure there are ways to get an username change. Well, there is a way but we're kind of rudderless at the moment with that sort of thing.

I see your point on QOS but I fear I'm rather stuck in the mud as far it's concerned. Maybe in a few years time when I next come back to it. Just feels unpalatable.

As I say, see what Spectre does to things after tomorrow. Some light in the murk.

I think Fields was intended to have a much bigger impact than the film actually portrayed, while also being a criticism of Bond and how he usually gets the sacrificial lamb Bond girls in trouble. Along comes Fields who Bond enjoys his time with and gets her involved in his activities in investigating Greene, which she wasn't sent for. Because he gets her involved, she gets killed along the way which upsets M, as we see when she chastises him. It was also likely supposed to further motivate Bond into finishing the job not only for himself but so her life was not in vein. Hence the comeuppance at the end with Bond giving Greene a can of petrol.

However, so much of it is so rushed that the impact never really comes. What also hurts it is that Mathis' death was supposed to serve the same exact purpose: Motivate Bond, and even that one was rushed. It just looks to me the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways but in end short changed both. One of them had to be cut while the other expanded in order to work.

FieldsMan wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Indeed, what was the point of Fields other than a Goldfinger tribute? With respect to you, FieldsMan, I don't see the point of her being in it or at least used as she was beyond serving to have M say: "What about her, Bond?"

None taken. The reason why I like her in it is because she's there for eye candy. And she adds a bit of cheekiness to QOS. Helps make it feel a little more Bond.

I guess if there was an excuse it's to show the impact Vesper had on Bond - he can't get too close to women, so uses them as time killers, but not to pursue a meaningful relationship with. But that doesn't really register…

She's there, and I like Arterton… But I prefer quite a few other Bond girls over her. Hence why I wanted a username change…

I do disagree about what you say about some things in QOS. On my last viewing I still feel as though it reminds me more of a 60s Bond film than CR does. There is lots of local colour as well as literally being colourful, the editing reminds me a little of OHMSS and TB and the music is one of Arnold's better efforts. Of course, SF feels much more like a Bond film - and of course an Ian FLeming novel - but QOS was a step in the right direction after the thug Bond, blander affair of CR.

I tend to agree with this, the film is somewhat compromised by it opening triple salvo - a frenetic car chase (which might have been be ok in isolation) but leads straight into a truly excruciating title song and then the wildly inept Mitchell footchase because after this it settles down into a more palatable beast imo (well except the disgraceful scene around Mathis' death). It is a lower tier Bond for me but far more tolerable, and far more Bond oddly than CR (which really is guilty of the Bourne-esque criticisms imo).

That Everything Or Nothing Bond story (or as ITV re-branded it, Untold Stories of 007).

I know not strictly a Bond film but it's the story of it so why not? The highpoints personally was Lazenby, being frank though aside from some words not all that different to past interviews. A case of being young and stupid.
But the best bit was Dalton. After I initially thought they skipped him as Brosnan was waffling about his first chance initially in 1986, there is Dalton talking about how he'd play Bond when he starts and the conviction in his voice. Davi quoting Broccoli about how it takes three films to be a good Bond and Timothy only got to do two. Just makes you wish that Dalton got to do that third film at least.

And a fourth ... God knows those were 6 long years from '89 - '95.

Everything Or Nothing is worth seeing, but the next story to be told is how Harry Saltzman has been airbrushed from Bond history.

It is odd how Saltzman has all but gone from it all, maybe it's Babs and MGW. History is written by the victors, so to speak. Or they've carried the baton all the way from 1962 (the family from Cubby to those two) whereas poor Harry had to drop out in the 70s.

And yes, Blunty, a fourth or heck, fifth. '91, '93, '95 if they kept to the two year gaps. A Bond film in 1991 just around the time the Cold War ends. Brosnan who?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Everything Or Nothing is worth seeing, but the next story to be told is how Harry Saltzman has been airbrushed from Bond history.

I don't really consume these documentaries anymore. Do they still mention Saltzman when they explain the origin of the name 'Danjaq' or do they wipe that out of the picture too?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Everything Or Nothing is worth seeing, but the next story to be told is how Harry Saltzman has been airbrushed from Bond history.

I don't really consume these documentaries anymore. Do they still mention Saltzman when they explain the origin of the name 'Danjaq' or do they wipe that out of the picture too?

From Russia With Love

The pinnacle of cinematic Bond. It's been a few years since I'd last seen it. One thing I'd forgotten was that the case that explodes in Grant's face was Captain Nash's and not Bond's, presumably meaning that Nash was also a Double O agent.

The level that the fight on the train reaches is something I don't think we've seen matched until CASINO ROYALE (perhaps the elevator fight in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER) - where we can believe that both participants could truly kill each other. The fight in SPECTRE was refreshingly brutal, albeit a bit one-sided for the most part. I like the fights that are evenly contested.

Istanbul here is my favourite Bond location -  as atmospheric as The Third Man's Vienna but dangerous and mysterious too, aided by Barry's tremendous score (his best in my opinion).

And Armendáriz turns in a wonderfully warm performance as Kerim Bey (not Darko Kerim?) - brave and of good humour, much like the actor himself I imagine.

G section wrote:

From Russia With Love

The level that the fight on the train reaches is something I don't think we've seen matched until CASINO ROYALE (perhaps the elevator fight in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER) - where we can believe that both participants could truly kill each other. The fight in SPECTRE was refreshingly brutal, albeit a bit one-sided for the most part. I like the fights that are evenly contested.

007 vs 006?

Thought I'd view the Cregg films in anticipation of seeing SPECTRE this weekend. Casino Royale today and will try to squeeze in Skyfall tomorrow (skipping QOS because such human rights abuses are prohibited under international law).

So CASINO ROYALE (2006)...

I know for a lot of people this hasn't withstood repeat viewings. Has the gloss worn off after 9 (holy fuck) years? Sure, a little, but wind back the sands of time to 2006 when there hadn't been a Bond film in four years and the last one was positively retarded. To see a Bond film that was based on a Fleming story, lacked outlandish CGI or a plot about space lasers, featured a Bond who bled and felt vaguely human and you can start to understand why Casino Royale felt like a revelation to those of us who grew up in the Age of Brosnan. So while the flaws in the movie are more evident as time goes on, as is inevitable with most cinematic offerings, it still remains one of the standout entries in the series and one that can certainly be labelled a turning point.

Craig lacks Connery's charm and Moore's wit, but nevertheless gives the strongest performance we've seen in the role since 1989. Craig's smarmy prick of a Bond is also less irritating than Brosnan's Bond when he displayed comparable schoolboy hubris. Maybe it's because Craig doesn't look like a male model. Casting aside the Energizer bunny sequences, Craig's Bond is decidedly less cartoonish than his predecessor's and that's a plus.

Although, he seems to have lost his eyebrows in that scene on the beach with Vesper. Also, how many white dinner shirts did he go through?

Anyway, I still think Casino Royale is firmly in top 10 territory. Carry on.

Watched The Living Daylights tonight. After 28 years it's still one of the best in my book.