Last Bond Movie You Watched? 2.0

Die Another Day (2002, dir. Lee Tamahori)

The PTS is a promising start for the film, but it very soon descends into unwatchable trash. It would take me at least a day to go through the film again, scene for scene, shot for shot, in order to pin down all the abominations of this. The sword fight I can live with, and a few other bits, but the vast majority of this is appalling. I'll never watch it again (same goes for TND).

Diamonds Are Forever (1971, dir. Guy Hamilton)

There is a huge difference between the dubbed version I've had to endure for decades and the original English one. DAF has a carefully developed screenplay, and even though it is unabashedly camp, most of the story seems to make sense if you don't think about it too hard (since LALD and MR and YOLT do not make much sense, I dare to attribute this to Maibaum). A lot of the curious incidents in the film as well as the constantly sparkling witty dialogue are most likely Mankiewicz's contribution. My only gripes with DAF are several little things that do not marr the film a lot (I don't like Thumper and the girls' decision to kick Bond in the pool is stupid, since there they don't have a chance against him; others must have eluded my mind overnight). My biggest problem may be that Barry (or the sound editor? More likely...) starts the Wint & Kidd signature tune too early when the camera is moving along the ship, what feels like ten seconds before their ugly faces appear in the ship window. Annoys me really.
The sets are mostly very fine (Ken Adam!), the score is rich and varied and lends to all the scenes the perfectly suitable mood, and there's quite a variance of moods. Some of the quips are a bit lame, but in general, the humour works. When I was a kid, I preferred DAF to all of the Moore films. What it does it does fairly well. But the following entries to the series show that a Bond film mostly reliant on campy humour needs good scripts, dialogue and an imaginative writer, but Mank seems to have been out of steam by LALD already. MR lacks some of the vital elements that make DAF entertaining.
I'm also speechless as to the brilliance of the pic, it makes for a infinitely superior viewing experience as compared to the Special Edition (and convinced me that buying the Blus would be superfluous; I'll probably leave it at DN and FRWL).

Good review of DAF. Manhunter. You've caught much of the vibe of the film. And yes good camp/danger is hard to do. It takes skill. Farcical camp is far easier which is what the Bond imitators tend to do. Tom Mank and John Barry's contributions to DAF cannot be overstated either.

A VIEW TO A KILL
Finally got around to watching this on blu-ray. I'm not sure there was any significant improvement with the blu-ray; it probably made things worse, because with hi-def Roger looks a bit older than I remembered, and his hair seeming to thin a bit in some places. But anyway...what can be said about AVTAK that hasn't been said before?

AVTAK is a quintessential 80's movie, and by that I mean it looks like it could have been plucked out of any season of DYNASTY, FALCON CREST, or DALLAS. It's about rich people with big schemes...the hair styles are over the top, the fashions are over the top, and the plot is over-the-top. And I love every minute of it. Or most of it, at least.

Moore is too old for this film. It was a bad idea to not recast after Octopussy. What's worse than Moore's age is his performance: it's off in this film. There's a couple of scenes where his voice is raised in a way I've never heard before; as if someone was dubbing him. He almost comes across perturbed and tired in many scenes, and I think some of that attitude may have had to do with not getting along with Grace Jones, and probably having no respect for Tanya Roberts.

Whatever Grace Jones may have done to Moore, all I can say is that she should be forgiven, because she and Walken are probably the two best things in this movie. She brings an energy and a dynamism to the film that is sorely lacking from Moore and Roberts. In fact, the Jones/Walken pairing elicits more chemistry than Moore/Roberts.

For many years I struggled to figure out which character/actress was the worst: Mary Goodnight/Britte Ekland versus Stacy Sutton/Tanya Roberts. I think my struggles are over: it's Stacy Sutton. And here's why: while Mary Goodnight is a bimbo and is fairly useless herself, the aim with that character was clearly to portray her as a bimbo...as a simpering side-kick for Moore's Bond. Guy Hamilton aimed low and hit the mark with Goodnight. There's a difference between playing a bimbo to perfection and trying to play a serious character but coming off as a bimbo; Tanya Roberts was the latter.

In most scenes Roberts' mouth is wide open. I don't have any empirical data, only anecdotal evidence, but it's been my experience that when a person does not have much intelligence, they usually are one of those people who leaves their mouth open and breathes in and out through it instead of their nose. Seriously, watch the movie again and count the amount of times her mouth is hanging open.

Miss Roberts is unable to portray any sort of emotion convincingly. Quite often she over-acts even the most modest of scenes. She overacts her introduction to the audience at the French estate when Zorin greets her; she overacts when Bond introduces himself. Just the mere task of emoting relief that has James has survived the mine blast seems to be too much for Miss Roberts; she can't tell Bond that an earthquake near Zorin's oil wells is dangerous without coming off wooden and unbelievable. Basically, Miss Roberts took a modestly written role and crapped all over it. In a legacy of roles that didn't require much more than to simply look good, Miss Roberts managed to lower the bar even further. She's simply awful beyond words. At almost no time does she say or do anything smart or intelligently.

QoS is on TV. Chubby little Bolivian police officer that pulls over Bond is a little POS. Also the more I watch the dumpster bit, the more I'm okay with it. Still a mid-tier bond flick.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

A VIEW TO A KILL
Finally got around to watching this on blu-ray. I'm not sure there was any significant improvement with the blu-ray; it probably made things worse, because with hi-def Roger looks a bit older than I remembered, and his hair seeming to thin a bit in some places. But anyway...what can be said about AVTAK that hasn't been said before?

AVTAK is a quintessential 80's movie, and by that I mean it looks like it could have been plucked out of any season of DYNASTY, FALCON CREST, or DALLAS. It's about rich people with big schemes...the hair styles are over the top, the fashions are over the top, and the plot is over-the-top. And I love every minute of it. Or most of it, at least.

Moore is too old for this film. It was a bad idea to not recast after Octopussy. What's worse than Moore's age is his performance: it's off in this film. There's a couple of scenes where his voice is raised in a way I've never heard before; as if someone was dubbing him. He almost comes across perturbed and tired in many scenes, and I think some of that attitude may have had to do with not getting along with Grace Jones, and probably having no respect for Tanya Roberts.

Whatever Grace Jones may have done to Moore, all I can say is that she should be forgiven, because she and Walken are probably the two best things in this movie. She brings an energy and a dynamism to the film that is sorely lacking from Moore and Roberts. In fact, the Jones/Walken pairing elicits more chemistry than Moore/Roberts.

For many years I struggled to figure out which character/actress was the worst: Mary Goodnight/Britte Ekland versus Stacy Sutton/Tanya Roberts. I think my struggles are over: it's Stacy Sutton. And here's why: while Mary Goodnight is a bimbo and is fairly useless herself, the aim with that character was clearly to portray her as a bimbo...as a simpering side-kick for Moore's Bond. Guy Hamilton aimed low and hit the mark with Goodnight. There's a difference between playing a bimbo to perfection and trying to play a serious character but coming off as a bimbo; Tanya Roberts was the latter.

In most scenes Roberts' mouth is wide open. I don't have any empirical data, only anecdotal evidence, but it's been my experience that when a person does not have much intelligence, they usually are one of those people who leaves their mouth open and breathes in and out through it instead of their nose. Seriously, watch the movie again and count the amount of times her mouth is hanging open.

Miss Roberts is unable to portray any sort of emotion convincingly. Quite often she over-acts even the most modest of scenes. She overacts her introduction to the audience at the French estate when Zorin greets her; she overacts when Bond introduces himself. Just the mere task of emoting relief that has James has survived the mine blast seems to be too much for Miss Roberts; she can't tell Bond that an earthquake near Zorin's oil wells is dangerous without coming off wooden and unbelievable. Basically, Miss Roberts took a modestly written role and crapped all over it. In a legacy of roles that didn't require much more than to simply look good, Miss Roberts managed to lower the bar even further. She's simply awful beyond words. At almost no time does she say or do anything smart or intelligently.

There can't be many people who would need to be told that they were being snuck up on by an airship.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

There can't be many people who would need to be told that they were being snuck up on by an airship.

Miss Roberts can't act in this film (though she showed some good comedic instincts on THAT 70's SHOW), and it's hard to explain to someone the acting process since I'm not an actor either. But she manages to have difficulty conveying any sort of emotion in scenes that even the most inexperienced actress would otherwise find manageable. Every scene of hers involves her looking starting blankly ahead; her most challenging piece of acting was to explain to the audience how Zorin's plot will kill millions, but she was woefully unprepared.

I wonder if having her as a co-star actually wore Roger down in this film, because he's not on his A-game, and I don't mean that he looks too old; I mean he doesn't sound or act like the Bond from the previous six, and it's only when he gets away from Roberts and is in scenes with Zorin, May Day, or on his own that he reverts back to normal. He doesn't get much credit for his performance in this film (deservedly so), but there are some good moments: you really believe he is struggling for air and feels trapped inside Zorin's oil well at the pumping station; his banter with Zorin such as "Then why don't you illuminate me" and "Dr. Mortner will be proud of his creation" is quite good.

As much as I like AVTAK, it feels like it would have been better off with a new actor....a younger actor, a younger office cast, bringing a fresher energy to the series. Too many old people in a movie that was action/youth-oriented to begin with.

Manhunter wrote:

Die Another Day (2002, dir. Lee Tamahori)

The PTS is a promising start for the film, but it very soon descends into unwatchable trash. It would take me at least a day to go through the film again, scene for scene, shot for shot, in order to pin down all the abominations of this. The sword fight I can live with, and a few other bits, but the vast majority of this is appalling. I'll never watch it again (same goes for TND).

Couldn't agree more. Every now and then I'm tempted to watch DAD again, but then I come to my senses.

Watched GE last night. It's just a rock-solid Bond film. Especially post-sexist, misogynist dinosaur. Of all the Bond films, I think GE "builds" the best. It just gets stronger and stronger, frame by frame. Some Bond films peter out. GE does just the opposite.

Licence to Kill (1989, dir. John Glen)

I enjoyed it more than the last time, but it's a tough one for me. On the one hand, I'm mostly content with Glen's direction. It is one of the few Bond films that does many of the serious scenes well. Helps that Glen had the opportunity to work with two great leads. It is also a better thought-out film than I had given it credit for. It is much more carefully conceived and developed than the Craig films. I can really feel for the characters, even Lupé, but most of all Bond. The writers do a lot to make every action and motivation plausible and understandable for the viewer. A negative consequence of that is that the film feels a bit too long, but not much, but on the other hand, I like the eye for details. There are several things that needed to be handled differently, most of all the awful exploding head. Had they alluded to this happening, shown Krest plead to Sanchez for his life, and then stayed on Sanchez doing his trick, with the explosion just hearable, without being shown, it would have been more effective and much less tasteless.
I'm also not happy with the ending feeling rushed, particularly that no-one mentions Della anymore. Same goes for Bond's last confrontation with Sanchez, but an elaborate chat between them would not have suited the urgency of the chase before it (and the urgency for Sanchez to kill Bond). The tanker chase is pretty excellent. I also don't mind Pam being jealous of Lupé, because apparently on the boat with which they escaped from the Barrelhead Bar, the magic penis was at work...
What makes this film so watchable is Dalton's performance - he is magnificent throughout. He gets every fucking bit of Bond's mood etc. across perfectly. He is indeed as close to Fleming's Bond as the script allows him to be. Regarding acting skills, no other Bond actor is a match for him, certainly not Craig in his first two films (though he gets too much praise for SF, one has to admit...).
It's very hard for me to rate LICENCE TO KILL. A lot of the script and much of the direction work well, Davi is a great realistic villain with an own personality. And Dalton is simply terrific. There are things about the film that don't sit well with me, but it's hard to pinpoint all of them. Ranking it will be next to impossible.

Manhunter wrote:

There are several things that needed to be handled differently, most of all the awful exploding head. Had they alluded to this happening, shown Krest plead to Sanchez for his life, and then stayed on Sanchez doing his trick, with the explosion just hearable, without being shown, it would have been more effective and much less tasteless.

Ah, the theatrical cut actually pulls away from that with a shot of Sanchez's henchman reacting to the explosion. The effect was originally cut out because it would have landed an R rating for LTK, so they snipped bits like that out to get PG-13. But now with the standards being different in America they were finally able to show LTK as it was originally cut before the snips. I agree they should have not shown the head explosion. Not only does it look utterly cheap, it's just not right for Bond.

Manhunter wrote:

Licence to Kill (1989, dir. John Glen)

I enjoyed it more than the last time, but it's a tough one for me. On the one hand, I'm mostly content with Glen's direction. It is one of the few Bond films that does many of the serious scenes well. Helps that Glen had the opportunity to work with two great leads. It is also a better thought-out film than I had given it credit for. It is much more carefully conceived and developed than the Craig films. I can really feel for the characters, even Lupé, but most of all Bond. The writers do a lot to make every action and motivation plausible and understandable for the viewer. A negative consequence of that is that the film feels a bit too long, but not much, but on the other hand, I like the eye for details. There are several things that needed to be handled differently, most of all the awful exploding head. Had they alluded to this happening, shown Krest plead to Sanchez for his life, and then stayed on Sanchez doing his trick, with the explosion just hearable, without being shown, it would have been more effective and much less tasteless.
I'm also not happy with the ending feeling rushed, particularly that no-one mentions Della anymore. Same goes for Bond's last confrontation with Sanchez, but an elaborate chat between them would not have suited the urgency of the chase before it (and the urgency for Sanchez to kill Bond). The tanker chase is pretty excellent. I also don't mind Pam being jealous of Lupé, because apparently on the boat with which they escaped from the Barrelhead Bar, the magic penis was at work...
What makes this film so watchable is Dalton's performance - he is magnificent throughout. He gets every fucking bit of Bond's mood etc. across perfectly. He is indeed as close to Fleming's Bond as the script allows him to be. Regarding acting skills, no other Bond actor is a match for him, certainly not Craig in his first two films (though he gets too much praise for SF, one has to admit...).
It's very hard for me to rate LICENCE TO KILL. A lot of the script and much of the direction work well, Davi is a great realistic villain with an own personality. And Dalton is simply terrific. There are things about the film that don't sit well with me, but it's hard to pinpoint all of them. Ranking it will be next to impossible.

It's bloody obvious to me that you should rank it highly.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

Licence to Kill (1989, dir. John Glen)

I enjoyed it more than the last time, but it's a tough one for me. On the one hand, I'm mostly content with Glen's direction. It is one of the few Bond films that does many of the serious scenes well. Helps that Glen had the opportunity to work with two great leads. It is also a better thought-out film than I had given it credit for. It is much more carefully conceived and developed than the Craig films. I can really feel for the characters, even Lupé, but most of all Bond. The writers do a lot to make every action and motivation plausible and understandable for the viewer. A negative consequence of that is that the film feels a bit too long, but not much, but on the other hand, I like the eye for details. There are several things that needed to be handled differently, most of all the awful exploding head. Had they alluded to this happening, shown Krest plead to Sanchez for his life, and then stayed on Sanchez doing his trick, with the explosion just hearable, without being shown, it would have been more effective and much less tasteless.
I'm also not happy with the ending feeling rushed, particularly that no-one mentions Della anymore. Same goes for Bond's last confrontation with Sanchez, but an elaborate chat between them would not have suited the urgency of the chase before it (and the urgency for Sanchez to kill Bond). The tanker chase is pretty excellent. I also don't mind Pam being jealous of Lupé, because apparently on the boat with which they escaped from the Barrelhead Bar, the magic penis was at work...
What makes this film so watchable is Dalton's performance - he is magnificent throughout. He gets every fucking bit of Bond's mood etc. across perfectly. He is indeed as close to Fleming's Bond as the script allows him to be. Regarding acting skills, no other Bond actor is a match for him, certainly not Craig in his first two films (though he gets too much praise for SF, one has to admit...).
It's very hard for me to rate LICENCE TO KILL. A lot of the script and much of the direction work well, Davi is a great realistic villain with an own personality. And Dalton is simply terrific. There are things about the film that don't sit well with me, but it's hard to pinpoint all of them. Ranking it will be next to impossible.

It's bloody obvious to me that you should rank it highly.

Indeed. Do it. Do it now. :*sm*:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

There can't be many people who would need to be told that they were being snuck up on by an airship.

Miss Roberts can't act in this film (though she showed some good comedic instincts on THAT 70's SHOW), and it's hard to explain to someone the acting process since I'm not an actor either. But she manages to have difficulty conveying any sort of emotion in scenes that even the most inexperienced actress would otherwise find manageable. Every scene of hers involves her looking starting blankly ahead; her most challenging piece of acting was to explain to the audience how Zorin's plot will kill millions, but she was woefully unprepared.

I wonder if having her as a co-star actually wore Roger down in this film, because he's not on his A-game, and I don't mean that he looks too old; I mean he doesn't sound or act like the Bond from the previous six, and it's only when he gets away from Roberts and is in scenes with Zorin, May Day, or on his own that he reverts back to normal. He doesn't get much credit for his performance in this film (deservedly so), but there are some good moments: you really believe he is struggling for air and feels trapped inside Zorin's oil well at the pumping station; his banter with Zorin such as "Then why don't you illuminate me" and "Dr. Mortner will be proud of his creation" is quite good.

As much as I like AVTAK, it feels like it would have been better off with a new actor....a younger actor, a younger office cast, bringing a fresher energy to the series. Too many old people in a movie that was action/youth-oriented to begin with.

I think the 'tiredness' sadly permeates through the whole thing ... Barry's score, the Duran Duran theme song, Walken, Jones and the finale atop the Golden Gate bridge lift it a bit. But elsewhere, the likes of Rog's frequently extremely obvious stunt doubles drag it right down again.

I actually think old Rog gives a fine performance - much better than TSWLM, MR, LALD and parts of OP. And everybody knows I love Stacy Sutton, so you know, AVTAK is an enjoyable flick for me.

Tanya Roberts usually gets a thumbs up on this end too.

Tanya Roberts is one of the great American Bond girls.

Her plaintive "James, James" elevator-shaft screams. Nobody does it better!

Her flouncing about in her next-to-nothings, the morning after James had spent the night with her cat on his lap, was inspired sauciness.

No doubt an homage to Bond's first meeting with Tiffany Case in DAF.

Watched TLD and LTK right after SKYF___ and re-loved them, then just this week watched OHMSS.

My reactions to OHMSS were exactly the same as usual -- love M in this, he is really 'on' ... but all my responses were more emotionally amplified. I was more irked by the stuff that didn't look or feel right, but was totally entranced and moved by Lazenby in the ending and the Moneypenny hat-catch.

Goldfinger (1964, dir. Guy Hamilton)

Same as usual - I like a couple of scenes (Golden Girl with the Hotel scene leading up to it, cards game okay too; the last bit of the car chase after that stupid "granny wielding machine gun" crap gimmick, and the following laser beam scene; Auric's speech to the gangsters (minus the "what's that a merry-go-round" shit); Knox from the start of the shooting up until the plane crashes into the water; Auric revealing the true nature of Op Grand Slam to Bond (I slept during that bit because of the boredom before that scene)). Has some of the best dialogue and oneliners of the series (that remark about the horses and their breeding, Bond's comment to GF on the plane about coming to dinner at the White House too (or words to that effect). But, the whole thing, not only, but especially the second half, lack momentum and danger. The film is too leisurely and untense. Not hot on the PTS, either. Nonsense already overweighs in this third film. Could have been much better.
I am pretty sure about my Top 5, and my Bottom 2, maybe 4, as well. Everything between spots no. 6 and 20, however, is undecided on yet.
(Watched it on Saturday already).

Ah, somebody else who understands how overrated GF is.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Ah, somebody else who understands how overrated GF is.

I'm sticking my fingers in my ears. No film in the series keeps me coming back more than this one!!!!

Man I love this movie and the book is awesome too. Bond is at his smartass best in both the book and film.

Beauty of the book and the film enjoyed together is that in the book, we get to enjoy the ape-bastard Oddjob being sucked out a plane window and then in the film we get to savour the sight of fat-bastard GF getting sucked out a plane window. Double the fun. This pair of OJ and GF are two of the most vile villains in the series so their death scenes in both book and film are quite satisfying.

Although GF in the book especially, really seems to like having Bond around. The movie caught this trait fairly well I thought too.

Never Say Never Again (1983, dir. Irvin Kershner)

I've liked it most of the time, but this time I was pretty excited. (Needless to say, I watched the English version). The plot makes sense, the film is very carefully written and edited. It moves along smoothly and never fails to entertain me. It is full of neat little ideas and touches, has surprisingly good dialogue and many good one-liners (more quality one-liners than in GF). The cinematography is very good, that includes nice scenery as well as interesting and well-working camera moves and angles.
Connery is on top of his game. Not only is he very fit for a 53 year old man, he also delivers the quips well and gives enough depth in the couple of scenes that are of a more serious tone. Yesterday, in a GF review on Amazon, I read that Connery was giving his most sophisticated performance in NSNA (OWTTE), and indeed, he is both a joy to watch and convincing in the serious scenes as well (I may only prefer him in DR. NO and maybe FRWL).
Even Kim Basinger is very fine in her role as Domino. Nothing but excellent is Carrera as the female killer Fatima Blush. Restrainedly flamboyant in the beginning, she reveals more and more of her genuinely mental state of mind in the course of the film. She's a pleasure to watch and infinitely superior in her role to the cheap rip-off that is Onatopp. The way the script/Bond (and Largo) deal with her insane narcissim and sexual craving is excellent.
Brandauer is Top 3 villain material - he does his take on Largo's insanity in his very own, not too exalted, no less than ingenious manner. I cannot possibly describe all the little touches and layers with which he invests this rather small entertainment film character. You will have to see it for yourself. He's gigantic! His jealousy is perfectly used by Bond, very good writing indeed.
Though the score is mostly bland, at least the tango, the chanson (d'amour, no less), the title song and the instrumental variations on it within the film are very fine. All in all, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is splendid entertainment and a repeat pleasure.























Quantum of Solace (2008, dir. Marc Forster)

I do not like that Camille has her own "demons" to fight; her whole back story feels like hack writing. It also takes away from Bond's issues with Vesper's alleged betrayal and his revenge on QUANTUM/Greene. The plot feels like an alibi for the bunch of horrible action scenes. The boat and plane chases are pretty by-the-numbers, and they are ultimately ruined by the horrible editing. The car chase in the beginning, as well as the rooftop and scaffolding chases are well filmed, but they too are rendered nigh on unwatchable by the editing. I also hate the dumping of Mathis's dead body, it is genuinely disgusting. Similarly, the jokes concerning Fields' death (they named her so just because of the "oil fields" association, and to reveal her name in the end titles - Strawberry Fields - must be fun to joke about deceased persons... :roll: ). Having a set-up for an atmospheric thriller scene in Russia at the end, and then leaving out the vital information and what could have been at least one good scene reminding of a real thriller, was another stupid and inexcusable decision.
There is still a lot to like about the direction. The actors are lead better than in many other Bond films, some shots/scenes elicit a truly great atmosphere, and some of the artful directorial ideas actually work splendidly - I am particualrly thinking of the opening shots - one of the best bits in any Bond film.
The sets are really delicious, and the cinematography, when the editing allows longer glimpses, is very astonishing, better than in SKYFOUL. In fact, I wish Marc returned, and I hope he'd bring Roberto with him. QOS' biggest problems lie within the script and the editing (though I've also pointed out some bad choices by Forster, but they could be avoided in a second film of his). The script (or was it Forster improvising?) has some ideas that actually work well. For example, I've warmed up to the motor oil off-screen death by Greene. It's a welcome departure from the standard stale "Bond-has-to-kill-the-baddie-in-a-most-cruelsome-way" routine. Having M tell Bond that he was found with two bullets in his head (QUANTUM did the dirty job for the matured Bond) and motor oil in his stomach was way more effective than showing Greene drink it with probably accompanying grimacing by Amalric (who delivers a really fine performance in his little role).
I could say more, but I leave it at that. The film had potential and is better thought-out, and better directed than many people give it credit for. It's still far from being a pleasing Bondian spy thriller (and has very little to do with Fleming).

I agree about Greene's death but I have the exact same problem with it as you do with the scene with Yusef. "Everything you want to know about my organisation" is given off screen. We actually learn nothing.

NSNA is a good atmospheric Bond film. It could haved done with a better soundtrack though, to really up the tension and excitement to the level of the Eon films.

My quibble with Connery's performance is that it is too restrained. He seems a little pleased with himself. A more DAF-like performance was needed here -- an older relaxed Bond, but one that's still deadly serious and focused when need be.

Connery though is surrounded by such an eccentric cast of characters, from villains to allies, that he seems to be continually playing straight-man to them all. He seems very bemused at times. He seems to find his old assertive self best, in the scenes with Domino and Leiter -- the two characters who aren't quite so flamboyant or dramatic.

Good movie though. Connery did look awesome as Bond at 52 years old. He got himself in good shape. Toupee looked great and he did have some memorable Bond moments. Nice to get him back, and looking so good, one last time.

Almaric's Domenic Greene btw plays like almost a direct lift of Brandauer's Largo.

Manhunter wrote:

and the cinematography, when the editing allows longer glimpses, is very astonishing, better than in SKYFOUL.

Was zum Teufel?!