Last Bond Movie You Watched? 2.0

I'm going to say pacing is an issue because of the emptiness in scenes? As in, lack of fluidity, connection and organic tension.

CR seems to have fallen in estimation in the last decade. Some of it is perhaps the result of the microanalysis which naturally kicks in when you view a film multiple times. Another factor might be that, with the passage of time, it becomes less pertinent that the film was a biblical step up from the mediocrity that was DAD.

CJB wrote:

CR seems to have fallen in estimation in the last decade. Some of it is perhaps the result of the microanalysis which naturally kicks in when you view a film multiple times. Another factor might be that, with the passage of time, it becomes less pertinent that the film was a biblical step up from the mediocrity that was DAD.

Perhaps on this forum. Others still hold CR very highly.

But I'm willing to bet that the DAD seems to have risen in estimation for Bond fans while CR has slipped a little, presumably thanks to SF. Though there are the Bond fans who hate SF for showing up their beloved CR.

There's definitely been a softening on DAD. When it came out, it did really seem like the bottom of the barrel. Since then we've had, in my opinion, two Bond films which were so dull and joyless that they made the colourful stupidity of DAD seems like harmless fun.

CJB wrote:

There's definitely been a softening on DAD. When it came out, it did really seem like the bottom of the barrel. Since then we've had, in my opinion, three Bond films which were so dull and joyless that they made the colourful stupidity of DAD seems like harmless fun.

Fixed.

SF is the only one that works. Feels like a natural successor to DAD. Make Naomie Harris a Bond girl as opposed to Moneypenny, and rework Q as a familiar face, and it would be fine. I would have loved to have seen Brosnan grow with the character how he was in DAD, but with the better script and supporting cast that is SF. Though maybe two attacks on MI6 is too much within the span of three films. He was 58 when he made All You Need Is Love (2012), and he still looked youthful. Perhaps Brosnan in Skyfall would have worked just as well in 2012 as it would in 2004.The rest of this scene is great. He gives a monologue about his wife and his performance is perfectly pitched. Not sure why it's cut short in the clip:

Hmm ... don't agree with SPECTRE'S inclusion in a list of 'joyless' Bonds, but each to their own.

Given all the references to ageing, I suppose Old-Broz in a Skyfall type film would've made more sense than Cregg who, two films prior, was a reckless yoof who rode a skateboard and wore his cap backwards.

CJB wrote:

Given all the references to ageing, I suppose Old-Broz in a Skyfall type film would've made more sense than Cregg who, two films prior, was a reckless yoof who rode a skateboard and wore his cap backwards.

And now partnering up with the disenfranchised geeky kid who rebels by putting stickers on his laptop.

Without sounding like a broken record, Brosnan should have had a fifth Bond film and ended on a high. I despise how it ended with that phone call with Babs, and then to be handed down the trash that was CR makes it all the more worse.

I remember reading Brozzer wanted to match Connery's 6. He so could have.

Our only hope now is for Prune Juice to stand aside for Fassbender before it's too late.

CJB wrote:

Our only hope now is for Prune Juice to stand aside for Fassbender before it's too late.

Yep... Fassbender will be 40 this year. Brosnan was 42 I believe when he did GE, so we could get a decent run out of Fassbender. Like Brosnan, Fassbender has good genes and looks youthful, so we could probably get four out of him.

If Bond 25 doesn't come out by 2018, I think it will be safe to say Craig is done. Whether that's by choice (Babs producing other things, Craig shooting other projects), or production/distribution companies struggling to strike a deal (I'm thinking this is going to be the case - we're entering another drought), Fassbender could come in anywhere between now and 2021 and still have a fruitful era.

FieldsMan wrote:

CJB wrote:

CR seems to have fallen in estimation in the last decade. Some of it is perhaps the result of the microanalysis which naturally kicks in when you view a film multiple times. Another factor might be that, with the passage of time, it becomes less pertinent that the film was a biblical step up from the mediocrity that was DAD.

Perhaps on this forum. Others still hold CR very highly.

But I'm willing to bet that the DAD seems to have risen in estimation for Bond fans while CR has slipped a little, presumably thanks to SF.  Though there are the Bond fans who hate SF for showing up their beloved CR.

I'm personally in that camp somewhat. Casino Royale honestly gets worse every time I revisit it. A lot of what you mentioned earlier being my main reasons. The romance felt even more out of nowhere than what was in the original book, Bond is way too amateur to the point if he was under the original M he probably would have gotten fired pretty early on maybe even for the job he did in Madagascar, the stupid psychoanalysis which came across as an obvious attempt into making the audience think they were watching something far more intellectual than what they really were, plus Mathis is totally wasted here especially the stupid part where he's made out to be a traitor.

Die Another Day I still have my doubts about mainly the overuse of CGI which was a bit too cartoony even for a Moonraker fan like me especially as this was following The World is Not Enough which had a darker, gloomier feel to it which I've grown to really like over the years. Brosnan himself as Bond I think I've also warmed up to more than I used to. Maybe I'm tired of the whole reboot thing but while I like to see a bit more depth to Bond himself I still want to see a competent, focused agent completing his mission in spectacular fashion and Brosnan's Bond was very much classic Bond.

I think with the Skyfall vs. CR thing it's mainly because a lot of people who didn't like the previous twenty Bond movies took to Casino Royale especially Jason Bourne fans and weren't that happy that EON started to try and make the Bond movies more like Bond movies again.

Strangways&Quarrel wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

CJB wrote:

CR seems to have fallen in estimation in the last decade. Some of it is perhaps the result of the microanalysis which naturally kicks in when you view a film multiple times. Another factor might be that, with the passage of time, it becomes less pertinent that the film was a biblical step up from the mediocrity that was DAD.

Perhaps on this forum. Others still hold CR very highly.

But I'm willing to bet that the DAD seems to have risen in estimation for Bond fans while CR has slipped a little, presumably thanks to SF.  Though there are the Bond fans who hate SF for showing up their beloved CR.

I'm personally in that camp somewhat. Casino Royale honestly gets worse every time I revisit it. A lot of what you mentioned earlier being my main reasons. The romance felt even more out of nowhere than what was in the original book, Bond is way too amateur to the point if he was under the original M he probably would have gotten fired pretty early on maybe even for the job he did in Madagascar, the stupid psychoanalysis which came across as an obvious attempt into making the audience think they were watching something far more intellectual than what they really were, plus Mathis is totally wasted here especially the stupid part where he's made out to be a traitor.

Die Another Day I still have my doubts about mainly the overuse of CGI which was a bit too cartoony even for a Moonraker fan like me especially as this was following The World is Not Enough which had a darker, gloomier feel to it which I've grown to really like over the years. Brosnan himself as Bond I think I've also warmed up to more than I used to. Maybe I'm tired of the whole reboot thing but while I like to see a bit more depth to Bond himself I still want to see a competent, focused agent completing his mission in spectacular fashion and Brosnan's Bond was very much classic Bond.

I think with the Skyfall vs. CR thing it's mainly because a lot of people who didn't like the previous twenty Bond movies took to Casino Royale especially Jason Bourne fans and weren't that happy that EON started to try and make the Bond movies more like Bond movies again.

Spot on Strangways! Wish you visited here more often!

Why Mathis was portrayed as an MI6 traitor is beyond comprehension.

Great to see TWINE getting a little more love, too! Where does it sit in your ranking?

FieldsMan wrote:

Spot on Strangways! Wish you visited here more often!

Why Mathis was portrayed as an MI6 traitor is beyond comprehension.

Great to see TWINE getting a little more love, too! Where does it sit in your ranking?

Thanks!

I'd probably rank TWINE in the five star category nowadays. Actually I'd rank all of the first nineteen movies in the five star category and probably couldn't really list them from best to worst as I find Bond movies to be more about what mood I'm in on a current day. I would also throw in Skyfall in the five star category as it feels like the most fully realized of the Craig films. Spectre I'd follow with a four and half because it did improve more on revisits and if they didn't go with the quasi-Austin Powers route with the Blofeld subplot and focused a bit more on making him a menace closer to the book version it'd be up in the five star category. Die Another Day, Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace are in the problematic three star range for me as the last two there keep dropping a notch each time I watch them but Die Another Day I can see does improve a little bit due to Brosnan's performance and Toby Stephens is actually a pretty fun villain to watch.

Great! Yeah, it seems the 00s is the weakest decade of Bond by far. Good to see the underdogs in the first 19 films get more recognition too...

I've yet to completely warm to Gustav Graves... He's fun, sure, but I don't feel he is completely connected in his performance - more playing an idea of a pompous billionaire. Which I suppose is the point, considering he is really Col. Moon.

It is odd but with Moonraker you can easily see a great film marred by a few too many excesses....with DAD you can see the some nuggets of gold marred by a careless and sloppy approach....with CR the problem is the film as a whole, a joyless chore from start to finish that never earns any of the concessions, empathy or engagement that the plot relies upon.

Exactly, though I'd elevate DAD to the same status as MR. I feel that there is a great film marred by the excesses in DAD too. Take away the parasurfing and it would lead straight to the car chase. Likewise, you take away the Bondola in MR and it leads straight to the discovery of Drax's lab. The otherwise interesting plot lines of both films still engages underneath the cosmetics.

Thunderball and SPECTRE (If you've seen https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t3175-watching-the-bond-films, you'll know why I picked these two to do a double bill).

Thunderball is pure class, and it just breezes by. Domino continues to fight for a spot in my top 10 Bond girls. Auger plays her with such charm that it's a shame she doesn't get as much light shone over like Pussy, Honey and Elektra. It still amazes me that Octopussy and especially Solitaire and Vesper are seen in such high regard for the general public. But I digress. Thunderball boasts beautiful cinematography, excellent sets and locations, great music, one of the wittiest scripts in the series and a simple storyline that still engages fifty two years on. Largo's introduction is great on the Parisian street, but even before he enters the SPECTRE meeting, the office workers interrupts a consultation with clients to stand to greet Largo. A nice little touch that Young added. Reminds me of Bond's attempt to light M's pipe in Dr. No. Also refreshing to see M support Bond on two occasions against a superior. Almost unheard of nowadays. The last time I remember this happening is in DAD: "Well you make your own decision - I'm sending in 007". Still in my top 4, whereas...

...SPECTRE is in my bottom 3 still. I have to admit I still get a kick out of the PTS. I can understand why some can criticise it: the parade continuing despite the explosion, the recklessness of Bond forcing the helicopter over a crowd of people, but I can see the filmmakers trying to explain it. For example, there is a crowd looking back at the building once it explodes as Bond chases Sciarra through the parade, however it is easily missed since there's a bit of shaky cam. Likewise, Bond hops into the helicopter because he can hear it taking off, and he immediately tries to get control of it. No, it's not perfect, but it's certainly not the worst action sequence in SP, or in Craig's era. I also don't like how we pretty much learn that C and Oberhauser are in cahoots as early as Rome. Not that they explicitly tell us, but it's pretty damn obvious. Had MI6 and Bond communicated they could have known pretty early on what was happening. The story is all over the place, but you can go along with it until Morocco. I do appreciate the car chase - yes it could have been more hazardous, but I love the photography above all else. Madeleine reminds me of the rather weak chain of Bond girls Craig has had - Severine being the only true highlight. Solange, Fields, Camille and Lucia are all fine, but nothing special. Everything else has been discussed ad nauseam, but it has to be said again: the revisionist Blofeld is tragic, the central "love" story is void of development, and the final act in London is a disgrace.

Given some of the things that get given a 'pass' in the Bond universe (Drax being able to build a huge space-station seemingly entirely undetected, for instance ... oh, and let's not even start on the laser weaponry) I feel that saying that there's not enough crowd reaction to the collapsing building in the SPECTRE PTS is probably nit-picking.

All SPRECTUM needed to do to be a middling to lower-third Bond film was to ditch the Brother Blofeld atrocity and expand the Tunisia/SPECTRE HQ component to make it the final act. Naked imbecility on the part of the filmmakers won out.

Indeed ... Craig's 2 flicks that have the 'bad guy's base goes up in flames' series trope have them go up in no time at all (that said, I think that the hotel in Solace actually takes longer to be destroyed than the SPECTRE base).

Evidently, the evil genius who almost managed to seize the world's intelligence apparatus was unable to adhere to basic fire safety regulations in his own office.

CJB wrote:

All SPRECTUM needed to do to be a middling to lower-third Bond film was to ditch the Brother Blofeld atrocity and expand the Tunisia/SPECTRE HQ component to make it the final act. Naked imbecility on the part of the filmmakers won out.

Pretty much... Easy fixes that would have made the world of difference.

BI wrote:

Indeed ... Craig's 2 flicks that have the 'bad guy's base goes up in flames' series trope have them go up in no time at all (that said, I think that the hotel in Solace actually takes longer to be destroyed than the SPECTRE base).

Good point. And Craig's era is apparently the best thing since sliced bread.

Although I will say when they put a spin on it by having Bond's childhood home go kaboom in Skyfall, it was bloody marvellous.

The Spy Who Loved Me. Which I watched with my bro and his wife. It's always interesting watching a film with someone who hasn't seen it before. It's like watching a film for the first time. But then, all the flaws pop out more than ever before.

TSWLM is an excellent, old school adventure flick, and it's a far cry from what Daniel Craig's era of Bond, which now a lot of people seem to associate with being James Bond. Which is not good. One of the biggest things that stood out this time were the one liners. They are terrible (but good in a way), except for the two in the car chase ("All those feathers..." and "Ever get the feeling...") and 'What a helpful chap". Moore isn't that good an actor either, especially in his first four films. He has a great presence, and you enjoy watching him, but he markedly improves in the John Glen films. It's interesting that Brosnan gets a lot of flak for having the corny dialogue and gives mediocre performances when it's the Moore era that retains a lot of that. Brosnan is Marlon Brando compared to Moore in this. It's not to say I don't like it, because it's not meant to be taken seriously (something I had to keep reminding my bro about), but a quick edit of some of the puns wouldn't have gone astray. I wonder what Mendes or Young would have done with TSWLM. I feel they would have gotten a better performance out of Moore. Barbara Bach's even better. Less is mo(o)re.

But every penny is on screen. The sets are outstanding and the cinematography is gorgeous. It's literally colourful, but metaphorically as well. Great locations - even the Egypt section. The light show felt positively Fleming.

Quantum of Solace

I wanted to see how I felt watching this, having just seen SP, TB and TSLWM and the biggest thing I noticed was the colour. It looks like a Young/Gilbert Bond film. It is stunning, and all of the colours pop. As I've said a number of times, I feel that the writing of Bond is much better here than in CR, which just feels like Bond-lite in every department. Here, Bond feels more grounded and more focused, despite playing the angst too much. I think that's the problem with Craig in my opinion. He wears his heart on his sleeve too much, and this renders him too sentimental and petulant. But then again, he mocks Vesper for being the 'sentimental type' as if he opposes it. It's a little confused in parts, but that's a half baked script for you. Still, a much tighter film that CR and SP, in my opinion. Bottom 3 though. Camille is a much more interesting lead than Madeleine. Greene is better than Waltz's Blofeld. We get to spend a bit of time at Perla De Las Dunas, and I've always like that set. Judi Dench popping up in every god damn location is frustrating though. Why is she interrogating White in Siena (which by the way is a stunning location)? And Bolivia? And calling him? What if he had been somewhere incognito? She would have exposed him. Why is she at Mitchell's apartment? Would her agents/forensics be investigating? No wonder why the 00 program has been brought into question recently. I wouldn't think it's relevant either if the head of the section investigates everything personally.

I wasn't all that enthused about watching another Bond film again, either. SP seems to subconsciously force me into not liking Bond anymore. QOS doesn't quite do that, so for that, I have to rank it a little higher.

QOS in your bottom three, Fields? I thought you were one of its biggest proponents. Not even, whatshername, Jemma Artery salvages it?

I get what you mean by the shitshow that was SP murdering one's passion for the series. Turn to Fleming's written word in these dark times. Literary Bond's incessant cravings for bacon and eggs is more flesh-and-blood than any deep n' gritty character arc the current crop of films serve up.