Last Bond Movie You Watched.

I haven't been following the updates on the new Bond but just saw that Lea Seydoux will be in it. Not happy.

That good news is that the Bond A Thon with Chan starts tonight. I'm just not sure where to start and I know normally at the beginning with Dr. No but I am not sure that's the way to go with her. I want to get her into the character and fun of it all before we hit something like From Russia With Love which is one of my favs but good chance it puts her to sleep.
I was thinking of starting with Roger Moore, then go to Brosnan before circling back to Sean Connery. Or I could start with Brosnan and GoldenEye. It's not easy to pick the most 'fun' exciting ones to draw in a new viewer.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Actually, there's a thing re the eye-gouging... if you're going to show us that Hinx has titanium thumbnails, then have him at least attempt to use them on Bond later. It's like Jaws biting/attempting to bite everybody APART from Bond.  

I thought the gouging scene and the drill torture were overly grotesque for a Bond film. Bond films should not be slashers.

it just made me think of the dentist but less fun

Sarai wrote:

I haven't been following the updates on the new Bond but just saw that Lea Seydoux will be in it. Not happy.

Ah, but look at it this way ... consider how Bond's previous attempts at domestic bliss panned out (Tracy and Vesper).

It ain't looking good for Doctor Swann.

You are right and how typical of me to miss the obvious by dwelling on the negative.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Aside from Brofeld, it's the paper thin story, hilariously undercooked love story, padding to justify Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw's presence in the film, sterile score, uncharismatic and bored lead actor, action that is not thrilling and worse, characterises Bond as stupid... all culminating in the worst final act of any Bond film. I shouldn't want Bond films to end and I'm done with SPECTRE after Rome, if that.

Honestly, outside of the anodyne score and the underwhelming London coda, I don't see any of that. Certainly those alleged flaws are no worse than they are in many other Bond films. The problem with SP is that it simply doesn't have enough plot to sustain a full-length picture, so the creators shameless mined previously used Bond material. In other words, the film is derivative rather than original.  

So the bold certainly encapsulates what I mention above - paper thin story and undercooked love story. Perhaps they aren't worse than other Bond films, but when they're trying to sell Madeleine as a new great love of Bond, and Bond's previous flings with the likes of Kara, Natalya and even Tanya feel more developed and believable as more serious loves, something certainly is wrong with this dynamic. And the villain's plot simply has no element of danger. At least in YOLT, we see someone float off into space at the very beginning. Even MR shows the scientists' asphyxia in the Venice lab and that, in something tonally lighter, maintains that danger level.

Sarai wrote:

I have watched other films with the same problems and still managed to like them or at least parts, but the difference was they compensated in some other way. The love story for example was brutal and no idea why I should care about her, him or what happens to them. Why does he fall so hard for her? To some degree the same criticism can be applied to OHMSS but I had no problem buying it due to the presence of Diana Rigg. Of course he loves her, so do I as a viewer and I can fill in the blanks with my imagination again due to it being Diana. Spectre never gave me that opportunity with it's dull cast.

Exactly right re: Madeleine, though I'm not sure it's Lea's fault. I think she's stunning but bad direction coupled with poor scripting made me not care about her character at all. The love story between Bond and Tracy is so much tighter. She's with us from the beginning of the film and there's a natural progression through their falling in love and throughout the film. There's absolutely no character development in SP. She's cold to Bond for most part, then for absolutely no reason they shag on the train and even as Bond is supposed to protect her, and after she vows her love to Bond, she leaves Bond in the middle of the night, and he's totally fine with it? Huh??

Quote :

Then you have this huge plot potential if it being an Orwellian world coming into play but the movie and Bond himself always appear to be nowhere near that plot. Instead it just feels like Bond off doing things in random scenes. I just watched it and am already having trouble remembering what happens. I would call the opening very mediocre, it's fine but it's hardly TWINE. Message from M, whatever. Monica Bellucci...wonderful, amazing, beautiful but it was all downhill after her for me. The car chase was a huge yawn that went nowhere. The Illuminati meeting before that was worse and I found the eye gouging a lame attempt at shock and the henchman a bore. Then what? I forget something, something then off to see Mr. White and I felt the same boredom and didn't care about him one way or another and the same with his daughter. The search for the american or whatever turned out to be a big nothing. I still don't know why the car picked them up when they got off the train. I am sure there is a simple explanation that won't improve anything. Blofeld was a joke and not the least bit menacing ...more annoying than anything. and after that it just felt like it went on and on forever ...man, it felt like one long movie.
"padding to justify Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw's presence in the film"
Yep, spot on.

Boom. I'm less impressed with Bellucci's performance but that shot of her on the bed in her lingerie is decent.

Sarai wrote:

I haven't been following the updates on the new Bond but just saw that Lea Seydoux will be in it. Not happy.

That good news is that the Bond A Thon with Chan starts tonight. I'm just not sure where to start and I know normally at the beginning with Dr. No but I am not sure that's the way to go with her. I want to get her into the character and fun of it all before we hit something like From Russia With Love which is one of my favs but good chance it puts her to sleep.  
I was thinking of starting with Roger Moore, then go to Brosnan before circling back to Sean Connery. Or I could start with Brosnan and GoldenEye. It's not easy to pick the most 'fun' exciting ones to draw in a new viewer.

Seydoux has the nicest bum in all of Bond. It's one of SP's undoubted strengths and may be enough to lure me into actually viewing NTtD.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Aside from Brofeld, it's the paper thin story, hilariously undercooked love story, padding to justify Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw's presence in the film, sterile score, uncharismatic and bored lead actor, action that is not thrilling and worse, characterises Bond as stupid... all culminating in the worst final act of any Bond film. I shouldn't want Bond films to end and I'm done with SPECTRE after Rome, if that.

Honestly, outside of the anodyne score and the underwhelming London coda, I don't see any of that. Certainly those alleged flaws are no worse than they are in many other Bond films. The problem with SP is that it simply doesn't have enough plot to sustain a full-length picture, so the creators shameless mined previously used Bond material. In other words, the film is derivative rather than original.  

So the bold certainly encapsulates what I mention above - paper thin story and undercooked love story. Perhaps they aren't worse than other Bond films, but when they're trying to sell Madeleine as a new great love of Bond, and Bond's previous flings with the likes of Kara, Natalya and even Tanya feel more developed and believable as more serious loves, something certainly is wrong with this dynamic. And the villain's plot simply has no element of danger. At least in YOLT, we see someone float off into space at the very beginning. Even MR shows the scientists' asphyxia in the Venice lab and that, in something tonally lighter, maintains that danger level.

Sarai wrote:

I have watched other films with the same problems and still managed to like them or at least parts, but the difference was they compensated in some other way. The love story for example was brutal and no idea why I should care about her, him or what happens to them. Why does he fall so hard for her? To some degree the same criticism can be applied to OHMSS but I had no problem buying it due to the presence of Diana Rigg. Of course he loves her, so do I as a viewer and I can fill in the blanks with my imagination again due to it being Diana. Spectre never gave me that opportunity with it's dull cast.

Exactly right re: Madeleine, though I'm not sure it's Lea's fault. I think she's stunning but bad direction coupled with poor scripting made me not care about her character at all. The love story between Bond and Tracy is so much tighter. She's with us from the beginning of the film and there's a natural progression through their falling in love and throughout the film. There's absolutely no character development in SP. She's cold to Bond for most part, then for absolutely no reason they shag on the train and even as Bond is supposed to protect her, and after she vows her love to Bond, she leaves Bond in the middle of the night, and he's totally fine with it? Huh??  

Quote :

Then you have this huge plot potential if it being an Orwellian world coming into play but the movie and Bond himself always appear to be nowhere near that plot. Instead it just feels like Bond off doing things in random scenes.  I just watched it and am already having trouble remembering what happens. I would call the opening very mediocre, it's fine but it's hardly TWINE. Message from M, whatever.  Monica Bellucci...wonderful, amazing, beautiful but it was all downhill after her for me. The car chase was a huge yawn that went nowhere. The Illuminati meeting before that was worse and I found the eye gouging a lame attempt at shock and the henchman a bore. Then what? I forget something, something then off to see Mr. White and I felt the same boredom and didn't care about him one way or another and the same with his daughter. The search for the american or whatever turned out to be a big nothing. I still don't know why the car picked them up when they got off the train. I am sure there is a simple explanation that won't improve anything. Blofeld was a joke and not the least bit menacing ...more annoying than anything. and after that it just felt like it went on and on forever ...man, it felt like one long movie.  
"padding to justify Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw's presence in the film"
Yep, spot on.

Boom. I'm less impressed with Bellucci's performance but that shot of her on the bed in her lingerie is decent.

Meh. I think SP's plot is actually just fine, but that the creators simply didn't have enough original ideas to fully flesh it out. Does that make the story "thin"? Perhaps. But in that respect it is no different from TND, which substituted bullets and explosions for actual, substantive material. And I like TND just fine.

As for Madeleine as the love interest, no, she's not up there with Tracy or Kara or Vesper, or maybe even Tatiana, but I think she's comparable to most of the rest of the lot. Compelling, serious romantic relationships between Bond and his amours have not been the strength of the series.

As for Brofeld's McGuffin, I think there is more than enough menace. He is essentially terrorizing countries to compel them to join Nine Eyes, which itself is a pretty frightening organization. Then there is the SPECTRE meeting and the malevolent Hinx, which are two of the more menacing features in all of Bond. If there's one thing SP doesn't lack, it's menace.

The real problem with that movie is they had the suck knob cranked up to eleven when they filmed it.

"Seydoux has the nicest bum in all of Bond."


fair enough 2/10

The plan was to watch TSWLM tonight but I got home and the two girls I live with are missing and in their place is about a 200 lb Mastiff that I have never seen in my life.

so, you know...

I hope your roommates are not INSIDE the mastiff...

PK wrote:

Meh. I think SP's plot is actually just fine, but that the creators simply didn't have enough original ideas to fully flesh it out. Does that make the story "thin"? Perhaps. But in that respect it is no different from TND, which substituted bullets and explosions for actual, substantive material. And I like TND just fine....

As for Brofeld's McGuffin, I think there is more than enough menace. He is essentially terrorizing countries to compel them to join Nine Eyes, which itself is a pretty frightening organization. Then there is the SPECTRE meeting and the malevolent Hinx, which are two of the more menacing features in all of Bond. If there's one thing SP doesn't lack, it's menace.

Difference is tone, for one. TND embraces it's a Bond adventure just like the best of them - DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS... SP is too embarrassed to fully identify with the genre that has made these films so enduring, forcing it to oscillate between "classic Bond" and the faux-gritty, cliched tropes of spy cinema today. Had SP had the same somewhat lighter tone as TND, or even OHMSS and TLD, I'd more forgiving of its story shortcomings, just like I am with YOLT and MR.

Secondly we actually see the threat of media manipulation manifest in the sinking of the Devonshire as soon as we enter the movie proper. We see the news report announcing Bond's death before it happens while he discovers a dead Paris. We see the impulsivity of Carver's power when he decides to manipulate the president. In SPECTRE, we get an ordinary news report of an attack. And MI6 closes down. Again. Who cares? You're right in that the idea of global surveillance is a terrific plot idea for a Bond film. Nothing is done with it, so we never fully see the dangers of such a current topic.

Quote :

As for Madeleine as the love interest, no, she's not up there with Tracy or Kara or Vesper, or maybe even Tatiana, but I think she's comparable to most of the rest of the lot. Compelling, serious romantic relationships between Bond and his amours have not been the strength of the series.

She's definitely up there with CR06's Vesper in terms of contrivance and lack of chemistry with the lead actor!

But again, Madeleine is supposed to be a great love. Kara isn't. Yet Kara's relationship with Bond is more believable, with character development and a natural progression to their growing affection for each other.

Whether the other Bond girls - your Dominos and Melinas, Wai Lins and Goodheads, Tanyas and Natalyas, Kissys and Staceys work or not, it's easier to buy because they're meant to be passing shags, not someone Bond is supposed to be in love with and quit the service for. There's a big distinction between the two types of Bond girls, and the the irony I'm trying to point out is that some of these flings (all Bond girls except Tracy, Vesper and Madeleine) are more believable as Bond's great loves than Madeleine (and Vesper06, if we're going there!).

I agree with every word of that and you sum up my thoughts and feelings better than I do. It does make me wonder though why I see such a huge gap between CR and Spectre. I know numbers are rather arbitrary but to keep it brief I would give CR a 7/10 and Spectre a 1/10.  do you see a big difference between the two or dislike them equally?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I hope your roommates are not INSIDE the mastiff...

It might come to that and I still don't know what's going on. wish I had a cell phone now lol

Sarai wrote:

I would give CR a 7/10 and Spectre a 1/10.  do you see a big difference between the two or dislike them equally?

I give Spectre a 1/10 and CR a .5/10.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

PK wrote:

Meh. I think SP's plot is actually just fine, but that the creators simply didn't have enough original ideas to fully flesh it out. Does that make the story "thin"? Perhaps. But in that respect it is no different from TND, which substituted bullets and explosions for actual, substantive material. And I like TND just fine....

As for Brofeld's McGuffin, I think there is more than enough menace. He is essentially terrorizing countries to compel them to join Nine Eyes, which itself is a pretty frightening organization. Then there is the SPECTRE meeting and the malevolent Hinx, which are two of the more menacing features in all of Bond. If there's one thing SP doesn't lack, it's menace.

Difference is tone, for one. TND embraces it's a Bond adventure just like the best of them - DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS... SP is too embarrassed to fully identify with the genre that has made these films so enduring, forcing it to oscillate between "classic Bond" and the faux-gritty, cliched tropes of spy cinema today. Had SP had the same somewhat lighter tone as TND, or even OHMSS and TLD, I'd more forgiving of its story shortcomings, just like I am with YOLT and MR.

Secondly we actually see the threat of media manipulation manifest in the sinking of the Devonshire as soon as we enter the movie proper. We see the news report announcing Bond's death before it happens while he discovers a dead Paris. We see the impulsivity of Carver's power when he decides to manipulate the president. In SPECTRE, we get an ordinary news report of an attack. And MI6 closes down. Again. Who cares? You're right in that the idea of global surveillance is a terrific plot idea for a Bond film. Nothing is done with it, so we never fully see the dangers of such a current topic.

Quote :

As for Madeleine as the love interest, no, she's not up there with Tracy or Kara or Vesper, or maybe even Tatiana, but I think she's comparable to most of the rest of the lot. Compelling, serious romantic relationships between Bond and his amours have not been the strength of the series.

She's definitely up there with CR06's Vesper in terms of contrivance and lack of chemistry with the lead actor!

But again, Madeleine is supposed to be a great love. Kara isn't. Yet Kara's relationship with Bond is more believable, with character development and a natural progression to their growing affection for each other.

Whether the other Bond girls - your Dominos and Melinas, Wai Lins and Goodheads, Tanyas and Natalyas, Kissys and Staceys work or not, it's easier to buy because they're meant to be passing shags, not someone Bond is supposed to be in love with and quit the service for. There's a big distinction between the two types of Bond girls, and the the irony I'm trying to point out is that some of these flings (all Bond girls except Tracy, Vesper and Madeleine) are more believable as Bond's great loves than Madeleine (and Vesper06, if we're going there!).

Regarding tone, that is merely a matter of personal preference and perception. The "light tone" you claim is missing from SP is the very thing many bash it for, viz the Rome car chase and the gadget malfunction as an example. I personally don't consider SP's tone light at all. In fact, if anything, I think it may be a bit too dark. Having said that, SP's tone has nothing to do with its story. Tone is tone; story is story. I'm not about to pan the story because I don't like the tone.

As for the "threat" in SP, I'll grant that it is presented more subtlely than in TND, but there's nothing wrong with that. For instance, one of SP's very effective tropes for generating threat is the use of fire. We see video screens of cities in flame, Bond cooking Hinx's car in Rome and attempting to burn him with a candle in the train fight, among other scenes. The conversation with the sick Mr. White in a creepy setting and his subsequent suicide also create dread. I don't need to see a ship go under to detect an undercurrent of menace, which is all the more effective for oblique rather than direct.

" Having said that, SP's tone has nothing to do with its story. Tone is tone; story is story. "


It does though and you can get away with a lot more with a light, playful tone. The Craig films are trying to have it both ways by presenting a gritty realism based more in real life but the writing isn't good enough for that. When women fall into Bonds arms in a Moore film for example suspension of disbelief is much easier and the answer can be borderline, 'cause it's Bond.' And those movies are so over the top with that concept. He is the coolest, sexiest, most seductive spy who ever lived that all women will fall in love with and that formula has been established for many years and even played as a joke.
 But when you go to this serious tone with a reboot in the Craig era it doesn't really make any sense or work. The love story really doesn't click at all from his or Madeleine's point of view and it really doesn't explain or even show why they like each other much less the love of his life.  Twilight does a better job at that, it really does.
 It's the same with the actions scenes which are completely ridiculous and over the top in say Moonraker but the tone is so different it even changes the genre. That's an over the top action/adventure/comedy with tongue planted firmly in cheek the whole time. Moneypenny laughs and doesn't believe him when he said he fell out of a plane without a parachute.  Now in the Craig era we have stunts that are just as impossible but they are trying to sell it as a gritty real life spy series with no sense of humor about it. So for that reason I see the writing and tone as tied together and dependent on each other. That's what makes the Brosnan era so much better for me. They played it as the same action/adventure type Bond film so suspension of disbelief came easy for me and the darker moments actually worked better and had considerably more impact. 

I still like the first three Craig films too but I do see that as a problem.

Whether or not SP's "love story" works is not determined by its somber tone. Love stories can work in every tonal mode. Now SP's may not work, but if not, it's not because of the tone.

And I must chuckle a bit at the criticism that SP "tries to have it both ways" or that it is inconsistent. One can say that about EVERY Bond film. MR, arguably the most cartoonish of Bond films, has the exceedingly dark sequence where Corinne is killed by Dobermans and the genuinely harrowing centrifuge scene, not to mention the fact that the entire film begins with Bond standing at Tracy's grave! And FRWL, perhaps the most serious entry, has M, Moneypenny and company listening to Tatiana asking Bond, "Am I as pretty as those English girls? Will you make love to me every day?" Hell, there's not much difference between that and Q stating in MR, "I think he's attempting reentry, sir!"

"Whether or not SP's "love story" works is not determined by its somber tone. Love stories can work in every tonal mode. Now SP's may not work, but if not, it's not because of the tone."

True I am just saying you can get away with it easier in a lighter toned film due to the 'cause Bond' and that formula has been established. But if they are going to reboot it in more serious style they need to sell it better.


"I must chuckle a bit at the criticism that SP "tries to have it both ways" or that it is inconsistent. One can say that about EVERY Bond film. MR, arguably the most cartoonish of Bond films, has the exceedingly dark sequence where Corinne is killed by Dobermans and the genuinely harrowing centrifuge scene, not to mention the fact that the entire film begins with Bond standing at Tracy's grave! And FRWL, perhaps the most serious entry, has M, Moneypenny and company listening to Tatiana asking Bond, "Am I as pretty as those English girls? Will you make love to me every day?" Hell, there's not much difference between that and Q stating in MR, "I think he's attempting reentry, sir!"

I see what you are saying and while I do consider the Moore films the comic book fantasy version of Bond it works for me as comics often have very dark moments while not trying to be grounded in reality. Batman Returns would be a good example of that and these types of films can have it both ways or many ways due to it being a comic.

and as I said I don't dislike the Craig films, I would give CR a 7/10, QoS I love and tend to probably overrate ..I can watch it over and over
I just find I can't really argue with Kiss Kiss points regarding this issue

and as for why I like the first 3 Craig films and hate Spectre I am still not sure

If comic book films can get away with moments of darkness, why cannot dark films get away with outrageous stunts and comic relief? I'm sorry, but much of the criticism of SP--and not yours especially, Sarai--strikes me as a case of special pleading borne of a stubborn and comprehensive hatred of Craig and his Bond films. Personally, I judge each film based upon its own merits rather than pegging my assessment to who's playing 007.

""If comic book films can get away with moments of darkness, why cannot dark films get away with outrageous stunts and comic relief?"

 Yes you are right and I take that one back as it is still Bond after all and would be a real drag without the stunts. 

" Personally, I judge each film based upon its own merits rather than pegging my assessment to who's playing 007."
 I can go with that up to a point as I can imagine some really bad casting decisions in the future potentially happening. I do like Craig though, think he brings a lot to the role and overall have enjoyed the series.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Whether or not SP's "love story" works is not determined by its somber tone. Love stories can work in every tonal mode. Now SP's may not work, but if not, it's not because of the tone.

You're mixing my points. I never said SP's love story doesn't work because of tone.

SP's narrative shortcomings would be easier to stomach if it had a lighter tone.

SP's love story is underbaked, especially considering Madeleine is supposed to be a great love of Bond, and further, that Bond's flings (Karas, Natalyas) are much more rounded, developed and believable.

Two separate points I'm making.

PK wrote:

And I must chuckle a bit at the criticism that SP "tries to have it both ways" or that it is inconsistent. One can say that about EVERY Bond film. MR, arguably the most cartoonish of Bond films, has the exceedingly dark sequence where Corinne is killed by Dobermans and the genuinely harrowing centrifuge scene, not to mention the fact that the entire film begins with Bond standing at Tracy's grave! And FRWL, perhaps the most serious entry, has M, Moneypenny and company listening to Tatiana asking Bond, "Am I as pretty as those English girls? Will you make love to me every day?" Hell, there's not much difference between that and Q stating in MR, "I think he's attempting reentry, sir!"

I wouldn't point to MR as a good example.

I don't view FRWL as a serious film. Focused, yes, but not serious. None of the best Bond films should be seen as serious (DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS...). But that's another discussion once the other one is cleared up.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'm sorry, but much of the criticism of SP--and not yours especially, Sarai--strikes me as a case of special pleading borne of a stubborn and comprehensive hatred of Craig and his Bond films. Personally, I judge each film based upon its own merits rather than pegging my assessment to who's playing 007.

As do I. It simply happens that there's a correlation between a Daniel Craig-led film and 3/4 of his films being terribly written. In the case of SP, the script is a mess -- even identified by Sony/MGM execs during its development as noted from the Sony leaks -- but nothing was done about it. You can have, as you say, a Kubrickian feel to some scenes in the film, but who cares when what's happening on screen is self-indulgent, nonsensical and shameful to the series. I think Ambler posted something along these lines:

If the director is bad but the script is good, there can still be a good film.
If the director is good but the script is bad, the film will be bad.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Whether or not SP's "love story" works is not determined by its somber tone. Love stories can work in every tonal mode. Now SP's may not work, but if not, it's not because of the tone.

And I must chuckle a bit at the criticism that SP "tries to have it both ways" or that it is inconsistent. One can say that about EVERY Bond film. MR, arguably the most cartoonish of Bond films, has the exceedingly dark sequence where Corinne is killed by Dobermans and the genuinely harrowing centrifuge scene, not to mention the fact that the entire film begins with Bond standing at Tracy's grave! And FRWL, perhaps the most serious entry, has M, Moneypenny and company listening to Tatiana asking Bond, "Am I as pretty as those English girls? Will you make love to me every day?" Hell, there's not much difference between that and Q stating in MR, "I think he's attempting reentry, sir!"

Bond by Tracy's grave is actually at the start of FYEO, Khanners. Then of course that fairly sombre and reflective start becomes the played-for-laughs 'death of Blofeld'.