Last Bond Movie You Watched.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

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.

If no Bond is serious--a point with which I disagree--then let's dispense with criticizing SP's frivolities and alleged tonal inconsistency.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

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.

And yet DAD's script makes SP's look like Hamlet and TWINE's makes CR's look like Anna Karenina and yet you're perfectly fine with those Brosnan efforts. I suspect some sort of conflict of interest here...

Blunt Instrument wrote:

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'.

Yes. Mea culpa. Those are the last two Bonds I watched and I conflated them. But, as you say, the point still stands: FYEO is generally rated one of the grittier Bond films--certainly Roger's grittiest--and then you get "We can do a deeeal! A delicatessen in stainless steeeeel!", not to mention Bibi Dahl.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

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.

And yet DAD's script makes SP's look like Hamlet and TWINE's makes CR's look like Anna Karenina and yet you're perfectly fine with those Brosnan efforts. I suspect some sort of conflict of interest here...

I always suspected his affinity for Brosnan makes him critically softer on those films' imperfections, but because of his intense dislike of Craig he's become predisposed to be more critically harsher on Craig's films to the degree that he calls CR, a well renowned Bond film, one of the worst entries. Even critical of SF, which he claims to like. I've noticed that with certain die hard Dalton fans back when Brosnan still held the role, that they'd be incredibly harsh on Brosnan's run at every opportunity. Not that they go in with malcontent, but rather it's a more subconscious thing.

It's made me suspect part of that harshness comes from the perception of both actors having their runs cut short to some extent and being replaced by someone else who they feel is not suited for the role. They feel their runs should have gone as long as Connery and Moore's. In Brosnan's case it's much worse, because while he got to do two more than Dalton, he was cut off right when he was still arguably in his prime, whereas Dalton turned down the offer on his own accord. Brosnan might have done two more to make a total of six towards the end of the decade. Made worse that his last film was DAD, a polarizing Bond film among fans that it's typically regarded as the worst installment of the franchise.

Of course, that's just my observation. Take it or leave it.

I'll take it.

I like KKBB. Wouldn't want to see this place without him. But the animus against DC, which colors his interpretation of DC's films, is plain for all to see.

And just for the record, I intensely dislike DC. Wouldn't want to have dinner with him. Even still, I regard CR and SF as classics, SP as a mid-pack Bond, and QoS as slightly sub-par.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

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.

If no Bond is serious--a point with which I disagree--then let's dispense with criticizing SP's frivolities and alleged tonal inconsistency.

How can it be serious when you have hat throwing henchmen, girls named Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, cars with ejector seats and skis, villains with metal hands or hooks... Much of this is carried over from the books, when deranged villains dress up in armour in a Garden of Death, a villain serving up a cat to his servant as a reward, death by gold paint-- even bankrupting a villain at the tables as the agent's mission is an outrageously fun concept and that's from the very first book.

In the case of FRWL, I'd say it's a focused film, but not serious. The whole idea of a honeytrap is about as Hollywood as the real life spy game gets so the premise is less serious than what most spies would do in the real world. You have a cat stroking villain using Siamese fighting fish as a metaphor for their organisation, real life targets for SPECTRE to train with, the colourful nature of Rosa Klebb (tamed somewhat from the book, too!) and Kerim Bey, Anita Ekberg's mouth... These elements are so amusing that wouldn't be seen in the likes of a Bourne film. more importantly, it's what makes a Bond film part of its own genre. Where FRWL succeeds is that these elements are cleverly interwoven into a narrative and never deviates from it. So it always stays focused. Whereas in the case of Octopussy (side note: a Fleming title. How can this be "serious"?) it moves away from exciting Cold War thriller to slapstick comedy in India, labouring on humorous elements which diverges from the focus it sets up in the opening few sequences, before returning to it again once we touch down in Berlin. Personally, I think the German section really pulls the film together, and despite Bond being in a clown outfit, defusing the bomb is brilliantly executed because it's so focused, as opposed to the Tuk Tuk Chase where so many Indian customs are played for laughs. It loses its focus and the tension.

Maybe there's confusion between tension and a serious tone.

PK wrote:

And yet DAD's script makes SP's look like Hamlet and TWINE's makes CR's look like Anna Karenina and yet you're perfectly fine with those Brosnan efforts. I suspect some sort of conflict of interest here...

I have no real issue with TWINE's script beyond them dropping Bond's line in the torture scene: "That daddy's little girl is insane". I think it perfectly marries the outrageous with the focus and strikes a great Bondian balance. As for DAD, the difference again is in tone. It never asks you to take it seriously. It invites you along for the ride. SPECTRE doesn't. Neither does CR. There's no sense of joie de vivre, especially so in CR, which is so inherent in Bond's DNA, but you wouldn't know it from the 06 film.

MP wrote:

I always suspected his affinity for Brosnan makes him critically softer on those films' imperfections, but because of his intense dislike of Craig he's become predisposed to be more critically harsher on Craig's films to the degree that he calls CR, a well renowned Bond film, one of the worst entries. Even critical of SF, which he claims to like. I've noticed that with certain die hard Dalton fans back when Brosnan still held the role, that they'd be incredibly harsh on Brosnan's run at every opportunity. Not that they go in with malcontent, but rather it's a more subconscious thing.

Why would I "claim" to like SF if I didn't? If I didn't like it I'd say it. Like I do with CR06, QOS and SP.

SF is fantastic and as I've said many times, only Craig and Newman prevent it from overtaking other films. Every clicks together like FRWL or GE, just without a good lead actor and good music.

But Craig also isn't the only thing wrong with CR, QOS and SP. Either, or all, of the following I don't like, find generic, or unsuitable for Bond in those films: tone, music, cinematography, travelogue component, sense of bizarre, politics... It's not only because of Craig. Because then I'd hate Skyfall. Especially in the case of QOS and SP, shoot me for not liking a film with half a script.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

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.

And yet DAD's script makes SP's look like Hamlet and TWINE's makes CR's look like Anna Karenina and yet you're perfectly fine with those Brosnan efforts. I suspect some sort of conflict of interest here...

now you are walkin' on the fightin' side of me

"How can it be serious when you have hat throwing henchmen, girls named Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, cars with ejector seats and skis, villains with metal hands or hooks... Much of this is carried over from the books, when deranged villains dress up in armour in a Garden of Death, a villain serving up a cat to his servant as a reward, death by gold paint-- even bankrupting a villain at the tables as the agent's mission is an outrageously fun concept and that's from the very first book."

this world is so strange esp among the elites and their power games I can believe just about anything
the Dr No and FRWL basic plots don't seem far fetched to me even if the details are a little colorful

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

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'.

Yes. Mea culpa. Those are the last two Bonds I watched and I conflated them. But, as you say, the point still stands: FYEO is generally rated one of the grittier Bond films--certainly Roger's grittiest--and then you get "We can do a deeeal! A delicatessen in stainless steeeeel!", not to mention Bibi Dahl.

Yep ... said it before and I'll say it again, the deli line is one of the series' strangest.

Whistles quietly....don't mind me...I've been dead inside since 2006...

I will admit to any of the agonizingly few good bits of the modern films but what I can't stand is how they are not only bad (each for different reasons) but completely without regard to the original character. That has always been my issue-not just that I think DC is the single worst miscast actor in the history of time....because he's so completely wrong for the role as originally intended but perfect for the soulless automation they seem to prefer. Again as I always state very clearly he seems like a very nice chap and is very good IN OTHER THINGS!

I love sparring with you guys as this is about the only place I can do so online. Mostly I just do a wistful Dalton withering inside quietly. Here I can muse and explore all facets and even production quibbles.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

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'.

Yes. Mea culpa. Those are the last two Bonds I watched and I conflated them. But, as you say, the point still stands: FYEO is generally rated one of the grittier Bond films--certainly Roger's grittiest--and then you get "We can do a deeeal! A delicatessen in stainless steeeeel!", not to mention Bibi Dahl.

Yep ... said it before and I'll say it again, the deli line is one of the series' strangest.

I guess when Blofeld faces death in the face, he goes to a past life experience where he ran a stainless steel factory.

Sarai wrote:

"How can it be serious when you have hat throwing henchmen, girls named Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, cars with ejector seats and skis, villains with metal hands or hooks... Much of this is carried over from the books, when deranged villains dress up in armour in a Garden of Death, a villain serving up a cat to his servant as a reward, death by gold paint-- even bankrupting a villain at the tables as the agent's mission is an outrageously fun concept and that's from the very first book."

this world is so strange esp among the elites and their power games I can believe just about anything
the Dr No and FRWL basic plots don't seem far fetched to me even if the details are a little colorful

Agreed. Truth these days is stranger than fiction. And certainly stranger than DN, FRWL, TB, LALD, Gun, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE, CR, and QoS. By the standards of today's headlines, those films are indeed "serious."

You could have edited Moonraker a little bit told people it was real and most would have believed it.

Octopussy had an all girl island and Jeffrey Epstein had his. sure they were a little younger on his but it all ties in

Sarai wrote:

Octopussy had an all girl island and Jeffrey Epstein had his. sure they were a little younger on his but it all ties in  

Ha. He must have got the idea from OP. The Bond series has much to account for.

Hey were did our Aussie friend go? You know what probably happened you hurt his feelings with your vicious unprovoked attack on Pierce and his films. And I warned you about this Khan...Aussies are very, very sensitive people man, you can't just start going off on them in your John Wayne shoot first style and not expect this to happen.

they are just very sensitive

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sarai wrote:

Octopussy had an all girl island and Jeffrey Epstein had his. sure they were a little younger on his but it all ties in  

Ha. He must have got the idea from OP. The Bond series has much to account for.

I read that Ian Fleming was the one who helped Hitler and Eva escape Germany at the end of the war during and it was called "Operation James Bond"

true or not I don't care I am running with it and it was on the internet
I have decided to just go with whatever belief I happen to stumble across randomly by the day. I think it will make life more fun.

Operation James Bond to rescue Adolf and Eva from Berlin
The super-secret operation to rescue Adolf, Eva, and Martin Bormann from Berlin was called Operation James Bond by secret service agent Ian Fleming. Hitler's dog Blondi also escaped to Argentina.

Even despicable spies take care of their own. Hitler and Eva Braun were rescued from Berlin by commandos led by Ian Fleming, and Hitler spend the last 17 years of his life at the Argentinean Berghof.

Druid drunk Winston Churchill gave his approval for Operation James Bond.

His liaison with MI6 chief Sir Stewart Menzies was super-secretive Desmond Morton.

Ian Fleming was in charge of the overall operation.

http://www.reformation.org/adolf-hitler-unmasked.html

Sarai wrote:

Hey were did our Aussie friend go?  You know what probably happened you hurt his feelings with your vicious unprovoked attack on Pierce and his films. And I warned you about this Khan...Aussies are very, very sensitive people man, you can't just start going off on them in your John Wayne shoot first style and not expect this to happen.

they are just very sensitive

Haha I'm here. And no offence taken.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sarai wrote:

"How can it be serious when you have hat throwing henchmen, girls named Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, cars with ejector seats and skis, villains with metal hands or hooks... Much of this is carried over from the books, when deranged villains dress up in armour in a Garden of Death, a villain serving up a cat to his servant as a reward, death by gold paint-- even bankrupting a villain at the tables as the agent's mission is an outrageously fun concept and that's from the very first book."

this world is so strange esp among the elites and their power games I can believe just about anything
the Dr No and FRWL basic plots don't seem far fetched to me even if the details are a little colorful

Agreed. Truth these days is stranger than fiction. And certainly stranger than DN, FRWL, TB, LALD, Gun, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE, CR, and QoS. By the standards of today's headlines, those films are indeed "serious."

Certainly not arguing CR/QOS are serious. They ensure we know that they are. And that's part of the problem.

Sarai wrote:

Hey were did our Aussie friend go?  You know what probably happened you hurt his feelings with your vicious unprovoked attack on Pierce and his films. And I warned you about this Khan...Aussies are very, very sensitive people man, you can't just start going off on them in your John Wayne shoot first style and not expect this to happen.

they are just very sensitive

I happen to know Crocodile Dundee was based upon the figure of KKBB. It would be an epic battle between him and The Duke.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Sarai wrote:

Hey were did our Aussie friend go?  You know what probably happened you hurt his feelings with your vicious unprovoked attack on Pierce and his films. And I warned you about this Khan...Aussies are very, very sensitive people man, you can't just start going off on them in your John Wayne shoot first style and not expect this to happen.

they are just very sensitive

Haha I'm here. And no offence taken.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sarai wrote:

"How can it be serious when you have hat throwing henchmen, girls named Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, cars with ejector seats and skis, villains with metal hands or hooks... Much of this is carried over from the books, when deranged villains dress up in armour in a Garden of Death, a villain serving up a cat to his servant as a reward, death by gold paint-- even bankrupting a villain at the tables as the agent's mission is an outrageously fun concept and that's from the very first book."

this world is so strange esp among the elites and their power games I can believe just about anything
the Dr No and FRWL basic plots don't seem far fetched to me even if the details are a little colorful

Agreed. Truth these days is stranger than fiction. And certainly stranger than DN, FRWL, TB, LALD, Gun, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE, CR, and QoS. By the standards of today's headlines, those films are indeed "serious."

Certainly not arguing CR/QOS are serious. They ensure we know that they are. And that's part of the problem.

I do agree that QoS is unnecessarily dour. Leaden, even. Outside of Beam, there is no significant comic relief, although there are attempts with Fields and the Bolivian taxi driver.

I have no problems with CR's tone. After all, CR the novel is a tragedy. Still, I don't think the film is depressing, although I was a bit disturbed by the graphic depiction of Vesper drowning. CR does end on an upbeat, almost jaunty note.

I am going to have to google this Crocodile Dundee character but if it's an Aussie version of the Duke count me in.

QoS just never seems to get any love but I thought it was the best of the Craig series. It is the one that really feels, dark, gritty, dirty even. The direction and action is great minus the shakey cam moments and it's very claustrophobic feeling in just about all the scenes. The whole movie feels like it's
shot down a dark alley and narrow roads. Camille I really did care about and what a horrible past she had. That ending where she is surrounded by the flames.
The CIA hit squad coming after Bond.
Opera scene.
Strawberry Fields is so hot and just too cute for words.
Then that final line when M say's I need you back and Bond reply's he never left was one of my favorite moments in the series. He's not the rogue, never was and knew what he was doing all along.
I don't think there is anything in that movie I don't like.
I wouldn't want all Bond to be that dark but it worked here even down to the water plot line.

Dundee is quite the legend. To the point they had the internet in a flap last year when the Australian tourist board did an advert that was covered up as a fresh 'reboot' of Dundee. Clever of them.

Paul Hogan is a legend unto himself.