Last Bond Movie You Watched? 1.0

That's pretty much where I stand with QOS, flawed as it is I can't really bring myself to think of it as "the worst thing ever made".

Python wrote:

That's pretty much where I stand with QOS, flawed as it is I can't really bring myself to think of it as "the worst thing ever made".

That's because it's not. This reflexive QOS bashing is totally...well I don't even want to say.

I think like LTK (which had a very similar reception, heck that's not the only similarity) the heat on this flick will mellow out in a couple of years and be seen in general as middle of the road, the sophomore effort in retrospect as Craig does a few more Bond films.

Personally, I rate LTK a good deal better than QOS, but I also rate QOS vastly superior to DAD. To my mind, rating anything below DAD is just plain bonkers.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Personally, I rate LTK a good deal better than QOS, but I also rate QOS vastly superior to DAD. To my mind, rating anything below DAD is just plain bonkers.

Even though I think GoldenEye is sorta okay, QoS is the ONLY Bond film since LTK that worked as a Bond movie is supposed to for me (I think TWINE, tried, but instead of just trying and failing, it, to quote from DUNE, "tried and died.")

That's in spite of the QoS editing, of course, but hey, LTK has horrible cinematography and hair, and I ride that one out a few times a year in spite of that.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

It's really sad that I have planned to watch them all in order this year before Skyfall. Firstly, I've only finished the 6th Bond film in the franchise, and it's already nearly September. And secondly, most of the the top ones have all nearly been watched.

Seriously, top 3 Bond film material right here with OHMSS. Fantastically acted - yes, even Lazenby who has earned my complete respect and sorrow that he wasn't allowed to really get into the movies beyond a couple of independent films. Skilfully shot action sequences, beautiful music and fantastic sets. It's a perfect Bond film.

FieldsMan wrote:

And secondly, most of the the top ones have all nearly been watched.

That is the chief problem with watching them in chronological order. Some sort of random selection process works better, IMO.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

And secondly, most of the the top ones have all nearly been watched.

That is the chief problem with watching them in chronological order. Some sort of random selection process works better, IMO.

Yes my method is to watch the first 11 films in order, as they are all gems. This was the golden era of the 60's and 70's directors, not to mention also the Bernard Lee years. One awesome Bond film after another. Sean and Laz of course are both perfection, and even Rog is very at ease and looking very Bondian in these films. Ken Adam's work permeates the proceedings. Supervillains, henchmen, girls galore. I call the '60s the classic era, while the '70s Bonds comprise the very worthy post-classic era of Bond.

The movies level off IMO, in the 80's. Thus for the lesser Bonds, I randomly draw the final 11 entries. This provides variety and eager anticipation of what might come next. The Dalton films and OP are like the little hidden gems in this grouping.

Post Craig, I am hoping we might enter another classic era. Depends on the casting and the tone of the films though, but if Craig can really stretch out the dour thing, then Eon might feel compelled to drastically switch things up, just because. Because they tend to do that. Switch up the tone with each new actor. Stay tuned.

QOS tonight.

Despite the barbaric editing processes, QOS is a watchable film. The acting is good and so are the production values.

Nevertheless, QOS is a grim, joyless and unsmiling film. There is no joie de vivre. And Bond films, even at their most serious, invariably demonstrate delight in the finer things this world has to offer. Until QOS, that is. Let's sum it up this way. Would any 12-year-old boy watching QOS as his first Bond film become an instant lifelong loyalist to the series? I don't think so. MR was my Bond baptism, and QOS bears no resemblance whatsover to Moonraker.

Not that QOS doesn't have impressive, even arresting moments amid the squalor and gloom. The revered Tosca sequence is one. The Greene Planet soiree is another. And QOS ends on a classy note in snowy Kazan.

Still, QOS is a crashingly serious film with an axe to grind. And condemning the United States as a thoughtless, greedy brute, and the United Kingdom as a feckless cypher grasping at America's coattails is the clear idee fixe of Paul Haggis and Marc Forster. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson are typical Hollywood Leftists, but it's still a bit surprising that these American producers would stand still for this sort of America-bashing in a Bond film. We've fallen far from Ian Fleming's depiction of England and the United States working hand-in-hand to combat the world's villains. Perhaps this is what the producers mean when they speak of "evolving" the series. Let us hope it evolves no further with Skyfall. If it does, James Bond may just evolve himself out of existence.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

We've fallen far from Ian Fleming's depiction of England and the United States working hand-in-hand to combat the world's villains.

Actually this is precisely in keeping with the development in the novels. Fleming actually kept abreast of real-world events, and it is clearly reflected in YOLT, where we see that the US is NOT sharing the potentially UK-eliminating info that Japan has picked up via MAGIC 44. Not, that is, till Bond gets it from Japan and passes it on. There's plenty of England-bashing in there, with the underscore being even Bond knows the truth kernels in a lot of it.

I agree that QoS is joyless, but then again, I found CR to be an utter grind as well. Difference is that QoS has a character who seems vaguely adult in his maturity, as opposed to the brat in CR. Huge dif in my opinion. Also QoS is the real transition into this guy becoming vaguely Bond-like, though I'm guessing it won't be till SKYFALL that we get a bit more in the witticism department. (Then again, we may not. "Stephanie Broadchest" -- whether it is a postmodern jab at what has gone before or not -- isn't even remotely on par with Dalton's single successful one-liner, "Salt corrosion.")

BTW, even in MR, Bond takes a dig at the CIA, one reflecting everybody's perception of them at that time in the late 70s when he says, "I have friends in low places."

MR is what almost got me to give up on Bond (as close as I ever came anyway), so I took no joy from it (outside of those provided by Barry, Adam and Meddings) ... but it does still possess some little bit of Bond charm that is utterly absent so far from the Craig era.

Working hand-in-glove doesn't mean that the US must share everything it knows with the UK, and vice versa. Indeed, IIRC, Fleming's M mentioned that he completely understood America's position. Still, although Fleming occasionally twitted America from a cultural standpoint, he never depicted it as a geopolitical villain the way Forster and the Haggfish do. And the line about Coke and communism is just plain insipid. Equivalence between the free market and communism, anyone? Forster and Haggfish must be economically as well as historically illiterate.

By coke I think he meant cocaine, not Coca-Cola/capitalism.

But yes, the thought that Ian Fleming's James Bond would be decrying the anti-communist foreign policies of the past is hilarious. Fighting communists was the character's raison d'etre.

CJB wrote:

By coke I think he meant cocaine, not Coca-Cola/capitalism.

That's the way I interpreted it initially, but now I'm not so sure. Unless we can get a gander at a copy of the original script, which will contain the dispositive orthography, I think this line remains ambiguous.

And you are absolutely correct about Fleming's Bond's raison d'etre. I wonder if Micolli ever considered the jarring irony of Haggforster's Bond railing against the original, Cold War incarnation?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

By coke I think he meant cocaine, not Coca-Cola/capitalism.

That's the way I interpreted it initially, but now I'm not so sure. Unless we can get a gander at a copy of the original script, which will contain the dispositive orthography, I think this line remains ambiguous.

You can turn on the subtitles on the DVD.

Yeah, that would do it. But the more I think about it, the more I think CJB's interpretation is correct. I mean, people don't really worry about Coke, although some do worry about coke. That said, cocaine is really a bit eighties, isn't it?

As evidenced by Licence To Kill's villain.

OK, CR and QOS throw 'grey areas' (heaven forbid) into the mix ... but I still left the cinema in no doubt that Bond was still the doing-the-right-thing hero.

CJB wrote:

By coke I think he meant cocaine, not Coca-Cola/capitalism.

But yes, the thought that Ian Fleming's James Bond would be decrying the anti-communist foreign policies of the past is hilarious. Fighting communists was the character's raison d'etre.

Don't you folks remember that 'nature of evil' chapter in CR? Bond has words to the effect that the brand of democracy they are fighting for would be perceived as communism in decades past.

That suggests he is aware these issues are subject to changes in perception that blow in like the wind, expected or not. I don't know that Bond fights communism specifically, but rather that he fights in defense of England. (his issue with SMERSH isn't politically motivated, it has to do with his loss and desire to hit back.)

Nevertheless, the character was written as a Cold War agent and practically every villain he encounters is on the payroll of the USSR.

On that matter, I've never quite understood what Bond meant when he said (I think) that Conservatism fifty years prior would be percieved as Communism in the present (i.e. the 1950's). If ever the Tories were even remotely close to being socialistic it would surely have been in Bond's day and age (post-war consensus and all that jazz), rather than the early 20th century.

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

By coke I think he meant cocaine, not Coca-Cola/capitalism.

But yes, the thought that Ian Fleming's James Bond would be decrying the anti-communist foreign policies of the past is hilarious. Fighting communists was the character's raison d'etre.

Don't you folks remember that 'nature of evil' chapter in CR? Bond has words to the effect that the brand of democracy they are fighting for would be perceived as communism in decades past.

That suggests he is aware these issues are subject to changes in perception that blow in like the wind, expected or not. I don't know that Bond fights communism specifically, but rather that he fights in defense of England. (his issue with SMERSH isn't politically motivated, it has to do with his loss and desire to hit back.)

Wasn't this in Bond's convo with Mathis late in the book? If so, Bond also makes the fatuous argument about there being no substantive difference between villains and heroes (the "playing red Indians" hypothesis), which Mathis puts paid to.

In QOS, incidentally, Haggfish has Mathis spout just the opposite, arguing that as you get older, the heroes and villains get all mixed up. Bond lamely does not respond to Mathis' statement. Tiffy is right when he says Forster et al did everything they could to make QOS a subversive film. And it is James Bond himself who is being subverted.

Coke and Communism. Love live Nu-Bond and its Thousand-Year Reich.

Another slick finger runnin' up and down the dinger of Her Majesty...

From Another Way to Die
By Alicia Keys and Jack Black

Anotha root-hugging brotha goin' down on ya motha like a wildabeast...

The trinity. :D Correct color, mono, 1.66:1. Freaking brilliant.
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/04166/ML102713/Connery-Collection-#1:-Droe-No/From-Russia-with-Love/Goldfinger

I had been aching to watch a Bond movie for a while, but held back until I had enough time to watch all of them in a row. Last night I broke down and watched the first three. So....


"That's a Smith & Wesson, and you've had your six."

DR. NO

DR. NO gets away with a lot of things through sheer charisma. The film is unwieldy and seems to take forever to get rolling in the right direction. It is also hampered by it's small budget. It's not noticeable during the more static scenes, but once the film tries to do something big, it falls apart. The biggest example is the car chase, which pales in comparison to contemporaries at the time. Combined with one of the more annoying original scores you could find and it's a miracle DR. NO is entertaining at all.

Yet, DR. NO is entertaining and you can largely attribute that to the two "S's"; Sean and sex appeal. Connery fits Bond's suits like a glove and is just so damn interesting to watch. His cool switches from casual conversation to brutal violence to flirty banter and back again. Connery projects the manner of an English gentlemen with enough sinister backing to indicate that he has no troubles killing if needed to complete his task. While I don't care for the dubbed voice, Ursula Andress still manages to light up the screen and turn boys into men. Come to think of it, all the women Bond beds have a hint of danger attached to them. Either they're trying to kill him (Miss Taro), might try to kill him if crossed (Honey), or appear to be Bond's female counterpart in appetite for vice (Trench).

Credit is also due to Ken Adam's team for managing to create extravagant sets on such a small budget. Aside from the somewhat clunky climax in the reactor chamber, all sets would easily have been mistaken to have been from one of the more expensive Bond presentations of the 60's. The supporting players all work well, though I'd wished Jack Lord had returned for more films as Leiter. Dr. No is given particular menace through not showing him until near the end of the film. The shadowy figure that troubled our hero's for so long has been given a face and metal hands. It would have been more effective if Professor Dent hadn't have been a bumbling idiot. How he managed to stay in No's employ for any significant amount of time, I haven't a clue.

In short, DR. NO is not a stand out film. Had it not been for the franchise it spawned, most wouldn't give it a second thought. Entertainment can be found, but only if you work through it's quirks first. DR. NO's significance to the franchise is more important than the actual film itself. A good thriller, but nothing spectacular.

3 out of 5


"Tell our host his hospitality overwhelms me."

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE improves on nearly everything wrong or mediocre in DR NO. Connery is even more assured as Bond, ranging from romantic to hardened killer at the drop of a hat. Connery and Pedro Armendáriz have particularly good chemistry and act as if they where friends for ages. It's easy to see how Kerim's death affects Bond so much. Robert Shaw's menace as Red Grant remains the standard bearer for lead henchmen not only in the Bond series, but in all of cinema. For most of the movie, he stalks Bond just out of his sightline, but in ours. With our knowledge of SPECTRE's true plan, it leads to incredible tension as we wait for SPECTRE's trap to snap shut on our hero's. Klebb stays out of action for most of the movie, but is effectively played by Lotte Lenya. Her menace is subdued by Blofeld's appearance in the film, which plays on the same mystery that suited Dr. No in the previous film. We fear Blofeld not by his actions, but by the terror he strikes in his subordinates.

While the main players have improved somewhat, the biggest upgrade is in the script and the settings. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE just has more things going on than DR. NO. The plot is tight and unfolds in a myriad of complex ways as each side is set against the other by SPECTRE. An assignment that seems routine to Bond and MI6 becomes a complex web of tricks and traps. The big action sequences outdo anything done in the previous films, with the gypsy camp war being the highlight. The mass chaos on display there is the blueprint to one of the classic Bond action sequences; the massed armed conflict between the two opposing armies. It's something we haven't seen in a Bond film in a while On a smaller scale, the fist fight between Grant and Bond is another highlight and quite possibly the best unarmed fight in the series.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE isn't just loaded to the brim with action, it's also dripping with sex. It's still sultry even today after 50 years. How it managed to get away with all that sex in the pre-hippie 60's is a mystery to me. The entire plot is based around seduction and in between Bond finds time to nail the two gypsy girls as well. The cat fight is the perfect analogy for FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE as a whole. Sex and violence blended together into one writhing, grunting whole that climaxes with a gunshot and is accompanied with John Barry's pulse-pounding score.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is a classic. One of the best films in the Bond canon and a top notch spy thriller. A must watch.

5 out of 5


"Shocking. Positively shocking."

GOLDFINGER

Just as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE defined the spy thriller variation of Bond, GOLDFINGER defines the escapist action variation. From the first notes where Bond embarkes on the first major pre-titles sequence, you can tell what kind of film GOLDFINGER will be. With 3 minutes, Bond knocks out a guard, blows up a heroin refinery plant, starts smooching a half naked girl, then defeats a man in hand to hand combat using his fists and an electric lamp. Title sequence. If your heart isn't racing, maybe you should reconsider the whole Bond Fan thing.

GOLDFINGER, however, isn't perfect and indeed is a step back from some of the previous films. Connery seems to be less enthusiastic and playful at the role. He hits all the notes we expect and is far from sleepwalking like one of his later outings, but he is less dynamic. The only hint is when he starts to rev the Aston to chase Tilly before reminding himself that duty comes before skirt-chasing. Maybe it's a sign of things to come, that Bond as a character will gradually become less important than the surroundings. In this case, at least they splurged for the finest surroundings money can buy.

The set pieces go without saying. GOLDFINGER spans the world and gives us some of the most memorable stages of all of cinema. The laser room, Goldfinger's den/briefing area, the vast unrealistic interior of Fort Knox. All are classics in scale and detail and are part of what makes Goldfinger so great. The raid on Fort Knox gives the Bond series it's first massive climax and remains tense to this day.

With no chance to match the sheer sexiness of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, EON wisely decided to give Bond his best villains to date. Goldfinger is untouchable as a character, a menace with legitimate fronts to his nefarious works. What starts as a matter of gold smuggling ends as a race against time and Goldfinger's unstoppable machine to prevent economic catastrophe and mass murder. Oddjob ensures that Goldfinger's plans go through smoothly and remains one of series's biggest threats. Bond, up until now, has been able to either beat down henchmen without effort or take on their leader on roughly equal terms. Against Oddjob, however, Bond is now being thrown around like a ragdoll. It's only through luck that he was able to beat him and not end up a pile of dust surrounded by irradiated gold.

GOLDFINGER is widely proclaimed as the best Bond film. There is good reason to this, as it is accessible and easy to follow as well as action packed. It has it's weaknesses, with the weak acting of the gangsters and Bond not really having a major effect on the plot. GOLDFINGER, however, remains a top flight Bond film and the high bar for the escapist style of Bond film.

4 out of 5

Current rankings:

1) FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
2) GOLDFINGER
3) DR. NO

This is will always be my Top 3 as well although I would have Dr No above Goldfinger. i

I don't think any Bond films in the future would be able to match the quality of the first three.