Bond 25 (2019)

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm pretty sure James Bond will be required to be celibate from here on in.

Half monk, half monk...

That still might be better than the half-hearted way he went through those scenes with Seydoux in "Spectre".

Salomé wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm pretty sure James Bond will be required to be celibate from here on in.

Half monk, half monk...

That still might be better than the half-hearted way he went through those scenes with Seydoux in "Spectre".

The man was a bloody fool. Seydoux has the loveliest bum in all of Bondom.

She can do tricks with her lollipop too.

Wish I was so skilled

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Seydoux has the loveliest bum in all of Bondom.

Something went badly wrong with Seydoux. She can do slink and we got sulk.

Can't be any worse than SPECTRE.










Right?

Control wrote:

Can't be any worse than SPECTRE.










Right?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm pretty sure James Bond will be required to be celibate from here on in.

Half monk, half monk...

That still might be better than the half-hearted way he went through those scenes with Seydoux in "Spectre".

The man was a bloody fool. Seydoux has the loveliest bum in all of Bondom.

Do we have a Best Bond Girl Arse thread? Asking for a friend...

Control wrote:

Can't be any worse than SPECTRE.

If there's a bottom to the barrel, EON will find it.

bitchcraft wrote:

She can do tricks with her lollipop too.

Wish I was so skilled

It seems you know something I don't...

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Seydoux has the loveliest bum in all of Bondom.

Something went badly wrong with Seydoux. She can do slink and we got sulk.

When a dame slinks while sulking it's sultry...

CJB wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm pretty sure James Bond will be required to be celibate from here on in.

Half monk, half monk...

That still might be better than the half-hearted way he went through those scenes with Seydoux in "Spectre".

The man was a bloody fool. Seydoux has the loveliest bum in all of Bondom.

Do we have a Best Bond Girl Arse thread? Asking for a friend...

Control wrote:

Can't be any worse than SPECTRE.

If there's a bottom to the barrel, EON will find it.

Could you be arsed to start one?

I don't know why you guys are pointing to SPECTRE as some nadir when we still have Quantum of Solace in recent memory.

Vesper wrote:

I don't know why you guys are pointing to SPECTRE as some nadir when we still have Quantum of Solace in recent memory.

For my money, both catch a bit more flack than they deserve. Both have serious flaws--QoS is too dour, SP too derivative--but are solid mid-pack Bond films, IMO.

Vesper wrote:

I don't know why you guys are pointing to SPECTRE as some nadir when we still have Quantum of Solace in recent memory.

QOS has a better score and it's shorter.

Vesper wrote:

I don't know why you guys are pointing to SPECTRE as some nadir when we still have Quantum of Solace in recent memory.

Both horrific in their own right, but I have to mark SPECTRE down harder for taking a post-vindaloo dump on an iconic character.

Vesper wrote:

I don't know why you guys are pointing to SPECTRE as some nadir when we still have Quantum of Solace in recent memory.

QoS is shorter, so it appears less horrendous?

SPECTRE is mind numbingly bad, soulless; a film that plods along so aimlessly that it can't even be bothered to care and has the absolute worst song to ever be affiliated with the series. A fancy commercial has more tension at times. The only saving grace is Seydoux who is wonderful but given very little to do.

Wheras QoS has one or two good scenes; the opera, Bond getting drunk, the dumping of Mathis. It runs short so you can get past the innumerable problems. For me it is the only one of the Craig era that I can actually think of and not immediately rant internally...which I of course do after half a second thinking about things like the opening sequence designed by an idiot or the absolutely criminal waste of Gemma Arterton etc...

If Kubrick directed a Bond film it would look much like SP. It would also be better, of course, but SP has a certain Kubrickian iciness to it that is unmistakable.

But besides Seydoux, it has its good moments. The sequence between White and Bond is fine. The PTS is one of the better in the series. Bond's punch-up on the train with Hinx is superb. The SPECTRE conclave has all of the menace one could ask for and then some. Seydoux and Bond in L'Americaine is excellent. And the film's fire trope is an interesting touch.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

If Kubrick directed a Bond film it would look much like SP. It would also be better, of course, but SP has a certain Kubrickian iciness to it that is unmistakable.

But besides Seydoux, it has its good moments. The sequence between White and Bond is fine. The PTS is one of the better in the series. Bond's punch-up on the train with Hinx is superb. The SPECTRE conclave has all of the menace one could ask for and then some. Seydoux and Bond in L'Americaine is excellent. And the film's fire trope is an interesting touch.

Now I'm not so lonely anymore.
What do you mean by "fire trope", could you elaborate, please?

That's what I wanted to add:

I am more or less the only one in here who likes SP.

I had forgotten that this stupid thread is broken.

Kath wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

If Kubrick directed a Bond film it would look much like SP. It would also be better, of course, but SP has a certain Kubrickian iciness to it that is unmistakable.

But besides Seydoux, it has its good moments. The sequence between White and Bond is fine. The PTS is one of the better in the series. Bond's punch-up on the train with Hinx is superb. The SPECTRE conclave has all of the menace one could ask for and then some. Seydoux and Bond in L'Americaine is excellent. And the film's fire trope is an interesting touch.

Now I'm not so lonely anymore.
What do you mean by "fire trope", could you elaborate, please?

If you go back and watch SP, pay attention to how often fire--as opposed to the usual action flick explosions--appears. SP has certain horror film elements, and the infernal idee fixe plays into that very well. And I don't think it's a coincidence.

Kath wrote:

That's what I wanted to add:

I am more or less the only one in here who likes SP.

I had forgotten that this stupid thread is broken.

Now I don't rate SP a Bond classic, by any means, but it has its strengths and its interesting elements. The chief problem with it is--much like TND--that it doesn't have enough original ideas to sustain itself to the finish. TND, after a superb beginning, simply collapses into gunplay and explosions. SP, willy-nilly throughout the film, mines the Bond archive for its material. Some would call this homage; I call it derivation. Still, there's enough there that I find it an enjoyable experience.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Kath wrote:

That's what I wanted to add:

I am more or less the only one in here who likes SP.

I had forgotten that this stupid thread is broken.

Now I don't rate SP a Bond classic, by any means, but it has its strengths and its interesting elements. The chief problem with it is--much like TND--that it doesn't have enough original ideas to sustain itself to the finish. TND, after a superb beginning, simply collapses into gunplay and explosions. SP, willy-nilly throughout the film, mines the Bond archive for its material. Some would call this homage; I call it derivation. Still, there's enough there that I find it an enjoyable experience.  

I'm not sure that's true.

TND sure, retreads the basic plot line of YOLT and TSWLM, but it's originality comes into play with its media motif, tilting the WWIII storyline into something far more interesting than YOLT and TSLWM. Not to mention Paris being Bond's former lover, the remote control BMW, Wai Lin being a true Bond equal, and magnificently choreographed action sequences - I think there is ample originality within the formula of the Bond film. 

SP's problem is as you say, derivation, though it insults the viewer more and more as the film plods along. Should TND not have enough original ideas to sustain it from start to finish for you, it never underestimates the viewer. It does what it says it will do. SP is masquerading as both a 70s Bond film and a Bourne film - something that doesn't gel - while also taking a piss on the former.

FieldsMan wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Kath wrote:

That's what I wanted to add:

I am more or less the only one in here who likes SP.

I had forgotten that this stupid thread is broken.

Now I don't rate SP a Bond classic, by any means, but it has its strengths and its interesting elements. The chief problem with it is--much like TND--that it doesn't have enough original ideas to sustain itself to the finish. TND, after a superb beginning, simply collapses into gunplay and explosions. SP, willy-nilly throughout the film, mines the Bond archive for its material. Some would call this homage; I call it derivation. Still, there's enough there that I find it an enjoyable experience.  

I'm not sure that's true.

TND sure, retreads the basic plot line of YOLT and TSWLM, but it's originality comes into play with its media motif, tilting the WWIII storyline into something far more interesting than YOLT and TSLWM. Not to mention Paris being Bond's former lover, the remote control BMW, Wai Lin being a true Bond equal, and magnificently choreographed action sequences - I think there is ample originality within the formula of the Bond film. 

SP's problem is as you say, derivation, though it insults the viewer more and more as the film plods along. Should TND not have enough original ideas to sustain it from start to finish for you, it never underestimates the viewer. It does what it says it will do. SP is masquerading as both a 70s Bond film and a Bourne film - something that doesn't gel - while also taking a piss on the former.

I like Carver--and Gupta--a great deal, and unlike most people, I even like the climax--so to speak--on the stealth boat. I find Wai Lin, however, like all Rambettes, laughable, even though Michelle Yeoh does a very credible acting job. But the problem with TND is not the plot premise or the characters (Lin excepted), but rather the threadbare nature of the plot. There are simply not enough plot points to advance the film naturally, so we're left with close to an hour's worth of filler. A shame, really, because the first half or so of the film is about as good as Bond gets. Such a pity the screenwriters didn't have enough material to see TND through to a great triumph.

Having never watched a Bourne, I cannot say whether SP apes them. However, I honestly see very little resemblance between SP and any 70s Bond film.

FWIW, here's my review of SP. It won't sit well with the film's more strident detractors. And the review has a touch of the grand manner about it. Still, it could be worth reading.

SPECTRE Tantalizes with Beauty and Beastliness


James Bond films are first and foremost exercises in a unique and increasingly archaic aesthetics. The visual and aural template for these films was established in the first half of the 1960s, a demi-decade in which refined formality and a belief in beauty still held sway in the Western world. This elitist aesthetic was conjoined with a peculiar sense of the bizarre to produce a sensual cocktail which intoxicated film audiences with the very first sip in 1962, and continues to do so in 2015 with the latest 007 adventure, SPECTRE.

The very longevity of the Bond series and its throwback aesthetics is a slap in the face of postmodern vulgarians who have pronounced the death of beauty and consigned good taste to an anti-egalitarian Jehannum. It is also a standing assertion of the timelessness of beauty and its centrality to what we deem a human existence worth living.

And it is along these aesthetic lines that SPECTRE makes its mark as yet another unqualified James Bond success. But of course, a film series in its 24th instantiation could not have survived by simply recapitulating the imagery and the sounds of its preceding films. Doing so would be filmic plagiarism and would terminally bore audiences. The trick is to hew to the traditional Bondian aesthetic while deviating just enough to produce novelty. It is a matter of varying a distinctive and appealing theme.

This is what SPECTRE does so well. The film, directed by Sam Mendes, reprises the beauty and tastefulness we expect from Bond films. Daniel Craig in the lead role is as natty as ever in Tom Ford couture. Craig, at aged 47, has never looked fitter, tougher and more dashing. Nor has he portrayed James Bond more convincingly. His smirk, swagger and sarcasm bespeak a spy who is supremely confident, not only in his ultimate triumph, but also the righteousness of his cause.

In addition to the handsome chap in immaculate suits and tuxedoes, SPECTRE naturally features women of astonishing beauty. The headliners are 51-year-old Monica Bellucci, the wife and then widow of an assassin dispatched by Bond in the film’s pre-title sequence, and Lea Seydoux, the daughter of yet another villainous gun-for-hire.

Bellucci infuses her tragic character with a dignified beauty that is both convincing and captivating. Seydoux, while perhaps not the most classically beautiful Bond girl of all, nevertheless possesses a strikingly unforgettable appearance, and beguiles with a spirited girlishness that contrasts well with Bellucci’s more worldly and careworn demeanor.

Then, too, there is the extravagantly cosmopolitan cinematography for which the Bond films are justly renowned. SPECTRE opens in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead, moves on to Rome, the Austrian Alps, and Morocco before finishing up in London. And cinematographer Hoyt van Hoytema has certainly lived up to his illustrious predecessors in Bond cinematography.

The aerial shots in this film are particularly spectacular. Much of the Mexico City sequence, including a harrowing punch-up in a helicopter that careens over thousands of terrified revelers, high-perspective views of the villain’s meteorite crater lair in the Sahara, and nocturnal views of London all benefit from being filmed at altitude.

But Hoytema’s work is even more telling in the frigid, remote bleakness it lends to the proceedings. This first becomes evident in the funeral scene set in Rome. The mourners, all in black, contrast starkly with the white stone of the church and mausoleum. Likewise with Bond’s black sunglasses against his pallid visage.

This aesthetic theme carries over into the snowy Austrian Alps where Bond traverses a mountain lake by boat in search of information about the SPECTRE organization that is behind a series of terrorist attacks designed to frighten the victim nations into embracing a new panoptic surveillance network that, unbeknownst to those nations, is itself a SPECTRE project.

After obtaining a crucial item of data from a terminally ill ci-devant SPECTRE agent, Bond travels to a glassy and icy clinic atop an Austrian mountain where he links up with Seydoux’s character, Madeleine Swann. The viewer fairly shivers not just at the beauty of it all, but also at the coldness that radiates from the movie screen.

Although climatologically opposed to Austria, Morocco shares the European nation’s utter austerity in this film. The vast expanses of desert, punctuated only by lonely roads and rail lines, and rimmed by distant bluffs and mountains, create a sense of profound isolation as Bond and Swann close in on SPECTRE’s heart, its secrets, and its mastermind.

Complimenting this aesthetic which disquiets via its bleakness, is a palpably ominous sense of dread that manifests itself immediately—the sentence “The dead are alive” displayed across a black screen opens the film—and only relents in the waning frames.

The opening credits are dominated by a massive black octopus whose tentacles writhe around Bond and various other people and objects as Sam Smith’s dolorous threnody keens in the background. At one point the octopus’ head becomes a skull to produce an image straight out of nightmare-land.

The element of horror, immediately and thoroughly established, remains an idee fixe. A meeting of SPECTRE agents in Rome, which serves as the introduction of both the main villain (played by Christoph Waltz), and the obligatory henchman (played by Dave Batista), is utterly chilling, and the horror is augmented by an act of shocking violence perpetrated by henchman Hinx on an unsuspecting SPECTRE agent.

Batista’s Hinx, incidentally, is easily the most frightening henchman in all of Bond cinema. He is a hulking and malign Teddy bear with an exceedingly nasty disposition. Hinx’s elemental fearsomeness comes to the fore in a fight with Bond on a train in which Bond actually shows fear and the viewer too fears that Bond cannot cope with the behemoth. The danger Hinx presents to Bond is completely convincing, and that makes all the difference.

And speaking of elements, fire, the infernal element, is a pronounced trope in SPECTRE. While being chased by Hinx in Rome, Bond’s tricked out Aston Martin disgorges gouts of flame at the pursuing car. During the train fight, Bond hurls a burning oil lamp, which explodes upon impact with Hinx, but ultimately does not deter him. And more disturbing, at various points in the film, cities in flame, victims of SPECTRE, can be seen on television monitors. The frequent use of fire—as opposed to mere explosions—adds hellishness to the film’s already disquieting aesthetic kit.

In this vein, we would be remiss not to mention a torture scene in which SPECTRE’s leader subjects a seemingly helpless Bond to the ministrations of a dental drill. Warning: this sequence is not for the squeamish.

What this all adds up to is a Bond film which possesses all of the aesthetic polish and beauty that is a series hallmark, while also descending into bizarre and grisly horror. (Ian Fleming meets Edgar Allen Poe.) The result is a Bond film whose imagery impresses itself upon the viewer’s mind, and is not easily forgotten. And at the end of the day, that is what matters the most in this genre.