I think Dr. No and Goldfinger, for example, were masterpieces precisely because they were so clean, minimalist and just every aspect felt essential to the story. Scenes weren't added just because it would look cool. I'll also laud Quantum of Solace for being speedy having a "show - not tell" approach within it's limited dialogue.
Some movies like Casino Royale and OHMSS are justified in their longer run time because they have more of a story. Otherwise, the average Bond movie length seems to be 120-130 minutes and most could've stood a 15 minute cut.
from russia with love - curtail the catfighting scenes
thunderball - cut 1/3 of the underwater scenes
you only live twice - no need for the toy helicopter
live and let die - chase sequence was too elongated
man with the golden gun - this felt like an hour-long short film but with a bunch of random gags
spy who loved me - first half hour seems to introduce everything twice, and a chase scene could've been cut
moonraker - the entire first half just feels like it's random anyway, so cut anything from it
for your eyes only - less gags and less bibi.
a view to a kill - the horse subplot could've been cut in half
tomorrow never dies - some trimming here and there,
world is not enough - they spent 15 minutes destroying a caviar factory?
die another day - where do i begin?
Comments
Well said ..
The early connery films bar GF (which though I enjoy is not my favourite) have one location that features prominently. This allows the film to breathe a little and the location becomes a character in its own right. OHMSS is a great example of a film that where the location becomes its own character. I love it as a film despite its long runtime.
The later outings have too much jet setting in my view and are poorer for it.
lower your salt intake.
Indeed, my thoughts exactly, regardless of the length. OHMSS and CR needed more time for their particular stories to be told. Why limit everything to 2 hours or under?
I think deleted scenes should be freely available, but fat should be trimmed nonetheless, just as it was in the 60's.
Well, yes, there's m,ore than one way of looking at it. Quality, not quantity is how one might sum it up.
Answer still no...
Nice quote. :))
Indeed.
With the rate of Bond films nowadays, I kinda like the Bond pictures to be more of an event movie. It all depends on the execution, having said that.
For many of the older films, the parts I enjoy most are the lengthy exchanges as Bond visits and investigates the villain HQ/Lair/Luxurious Home/etc. Those scripts just get better with age for me and I love them more upon each viewing, so I would say cutting any of that would be sin!
The sweet spot seems to be 120-130 minutes. There needs to be a very unique story to justify 135-140 and beyond. SPECTRE didn't quite have that for me as I have a feeling a few of the chases will get a little old for me as I watch it over. Under 2 hours though almost always leaves me wanting more, as QoS seemed so short.
Now, now @M16_Cart calm down dear.
Sorry I'm supposed to lower my salt intake, I've just donated it to the @M16_Cart Trolling Masterclass Conference 2016