Bond movie ranking (Simple list, no details)

1175176178180181242

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I’m not nitpicking at all, it’s my personal opinion.if it wasn’t then TLD would be back to bottom spot and I don’t think @Mathis1 wants me to do that

    Haha. I am delighted to see it finally come off the bottom of your list. We've a long way to go to get it to where it should be though!!

    I bet you are haha .
    It may well climb again but it has to get past FYEO (seriously needs a watch,havent seen it for years,so may rise up the table or drop),MR and YOLT .

    Love at least two of them but recent watches of YOLT have not been good for me. Really struggled to enjoy any of it! MR is a guilty pleasure. FYEO really good debut for Glen ( but I would have loved to see Dalton in it!!)

    If i can tolerate HER then maybe TLD can move another place,but i will have to torture watch it again first.
  • Posts: 7,616
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I’m not nitpicking at all, it’s my personal opinion.if it wasn’t then TLD would be back to bottom spot and I don’t think @Mathis1 wants me to do that

    Haha. I am delighted to see it finally come off the bottom of your list. We've a long way to go to get it to where it should be though!!

    I bet you are haha .
    It may well climb again but it has to get past FYEO (seriously needs a watch,havent seen it for years,so may rise up the table or drop),MR and YOLT .

    Love at least two of them but recent watches of YOLT have not been good for me. Really struggled to enjoy any of it! MR is a guilty pleasure. FYEO really good debut for Glen ( but I would have loved to see Dalton in it!!)

    If i can tolerate HER then maybe TLD can move another place,but i will have to torture watch it again first.

    Go easy on her barry. I hear she really likes you!!
    (And we all know you have that Playboy pic of her on your wall, or is that for dart practice?)
  • Posts: 19,339
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I’m not nitpicking at all, it’s my personal opinion.if it wasn’t then TLD would be back to bottom spot and I don’t think @Mathis1 wants me to do that

    Haha. I am delighted to see it finally come off the bottom of your list. We've a long way to go to get it to where it should be though!!

    I bet you are haha .
    It may well climb again but it has to get past FYEO (seriously needs a watch,havent seen it for years,so may rise up the table or drop),MR and YOLT .

    Love at least two of them but recent watches of YOLT have not been good for me. Really struggled to enjoy any of it! MR is a guilty pleasure. FYEO really good debut for Glen ( but I would have loved to see Dalton in it!!)

    If i can tolerate HER then maybe TLD can move another place,but i will have to torture watch it again first.

    Go easy on her barry. I hear she really likes you!!
    (And we all know you have that Playboy pic of her on your wall, or is that for dart practice?)

    I can multi-task if need be he he ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,057
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    That’s great news! And now we agree about what’s the worst Bond film as well ;)

    Who would have thought it would take Bond's arse to make me realise TLD isn't the worst Bond film ?! (which it never was to me,it was just.......her).

    The arrogance of that arse lit up a lightbulb in my head hahaha



    I never understood that shot of him shaking his booty. Was that meant to be funny? Very odd. To this day I'm still not sure how I feel about the PTS of SPECTRE.

    I like Bond walking across the rooftops and where he falls onto the old sofa,with a wryy smile.

    But I find the helicopter fight boring as hell.



    I must be one of the few people who love the helicopter fight. It's really well edited and the action is top notch.

    SP's PTS is the best thing in the film and is up there with the best PTS's.

    I am with you.
    SP PTS one of the best? Well, I'm surprised to read this. Truly.

    I think it peaks just before the couch incident. Pretty much after Newman's Los Muertos Vivos Estan ends.

    I'm with you on this one, @bondjames. Also; although the opening tracking shot is interesting from a technical point of view, does it really add anything to the sequence? A well edited sequence with a few cuts wouldn't have made it any worse.

    I think it adds style, which is an important component in Bond films in general. But beyond that, I find the helicopter fight, and the helicopter acrobatics, to be really well made and most exciting. In the vein of the action sequences of the 80s films.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    1. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    2. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    3. A VIEW TO A KILL
    4. GOLDFINGER
    5. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    6. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN/ CR 54
    7. MOONRAKER
    8. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME/CR 67
    9. LICENCE TO KILL
    10. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    11. QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    12. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    13. CASINO ROYALE 06
    14. LIVE AND LET DIE
    15. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    16. DR NO
    17. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    18. THUNDERBALL
    19. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    20. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    21. OCTOPUSSY
    22. GOLDENEYE
    23. SPECTRE
    24. SKYFALL
    25. DIE ANOTHER DAY



    Damn. Even when I'm just messing around DAD still ends up last.

    Nice ranking.
  • Posts: 19,339
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.
  • Posts: 17,819
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    That’s great news! And now we agree about what’s the worst Bond film as well ;)

    Who would have thought it would take Bond's arse to make me realise TLD isn't the worst Bond film ?! (which it never was to me,it was just.......her).

    The arrogance of that arse lit up a lightbulb in my head hahaha



    I never understood that shot of him shaking his booty. Was that meant to be funny? Very odd. To this day I'm still not sure how I feel about the PTS of SPECTRE.

    I like Bond walking across the rooftops and where he falls onto the old sofa,with a wryy smile.

    But I find the helicopter fight boring as hell.



    I must be one of the few people who love the helicopter fight. It's really well edited and the action is top notch.

    SP's PTS is the best thing in the film and is up there with the best PTS's.

    I am with you.
    SP PTS one of the best? Well, I'm surprised to read this. Truly.

    I think it peaks just before the couch incident. Pretty much after Newman's Los Muertos Vivos Estan ends.

    I'm with you on this one, @bondjames. Also; although the opening tracking shot is interesting from a technical point of view, does it really add anything to the sequence? A well edited sequence with a few cuts wouldn't have made it any worse.
    Agreed @Torgeirtrap. I liked the whole tracking shot idea (although it really wasn't one after all, but rather a few shots spliced to look like one), but would have gladly given it up to get a more natural looking colour palette for the entire Mexican sequence - something more vibrant and befitting a Bond film. The first time I saw that section was in a late trailer and I honestly thought they were still working with a 'draft' due to the fake monotone colour grade. Then someone here told me that may be how it's meant to be and I was in shock.

    The best thing about the PTS imho is Sigman. She completely nails the entire sequence. I can't take my eyes off her whenever I watch the film. Shame she isn't in more of it.

    The Piss Filter really annoys me; it's unnatural and takes me out of what's going on on screen – for the entire sequence. Sigman is the only thing that makes up for it. ;-)
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    That’s great news! And now we agree about what’s the worst Bond film as well ;)

    Who would have thought it would take Bond's arse to make me realise TLD isn't the worst Bond film ?! (which it never was to me,it was just.......her).

    The arrogance of that arse lit up a lightbulb in my head hahaha



    I never understood that shot of him shaking his booty. Was that meant to be funny? Very odd. To this day I'm still not sure how I feel about the PTS of SPECTRE.

    I like Bond walking across the rooftops and where he falls onto the old sofa,with a wryy smile.

    But I find the helicopter fight boring as hell.



    I must be one of the few people who love the helicopter fight. It's really well edited and the action is top notch.

    SP's PTS is the best thing in the film and is up there with the best PTS's.

    I am with you.
    SP PTS one of the best? Well, I'm surprised to read this. Truly.

    I think it peaks just before the couch incident. Pretty much after Newman's Los Muertos Vivos Estan ends.

    I'm with you on this one, @bondjames. Also; although the opening tracking shot is interesting from a technical point of view, does it really add anything to the sequence? A well edited sequence with a few cuts wouldn't have made it any worse.

    I think it adds style, which is an important component in Bond films in general. But beyond that, I find the helicopter fight, and the helicopter acrobatics, to be really well made and most exciting. In the vein of the action sequences of the 80s films.

    In what way do you feel it adds style?
    The helicopter acrobatics looks good, but again there's that yellow filter distracting me from the fight; Had only Mendes/Hoytema managed to stay away from this, I'd probably enjoyed it a whole lot more.
  • Posts: 7,616
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.

    Or when your meds are not working, barry!!
    Don't believe I will ever say that DAD would be a go to Bond film! Chilled or not!!
    Kara says she'd kiss your foot though!!
  • Posts: 19,339
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.

    Or when your meds are not working, barry!!
    Don't believe I will ever say that DAD would be a go to Bond film! Chilled or not!!
    Kara says she'd kiss your foot though!!

    hahaha i have to admit Mathis,that i'm never sober when i watch it.
  • Posts: 7,616
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.

    Or when your meds are not working, barry!!
    Don't believe I will ever say that DAD would be a go to Bond film! Chilled or not!!
    Kara says she'd kiss your foot though!!

    hahaha i have to admit Mathis,that i'm never sober when i watch it.

    I'd want to be in a coma to watch it!!
  • Posts: 17,819
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.

    Haven't watched DAD in a long time. Always found the performance by Toby Stephens to be quite good. He is perfect as the nasty Gustav Graves.
  • Posts: 12,521
    DAD has solidified itself in my last-place for the EON Bond films my last couple of watches. It has the worst writing, effects, and villains in the series IMO. I know some people here are able to have a good time with it, but anything past the sword fight (admittedly I do love that bit) is a dud for me. I'd be surprised to see DAD climb above last place for my list anytime soon. That being said, the worst Bond film is still far better than many other bad films I've seen.
  • Posts: 7,616
    FoxRox wrote: »
    DAD has solidified itself in my last-place for the EON Bond films my last couple of watches. It has the worst writing, effects, and villains in the series IMO. I know some people here are able to have a good time with it, but anything past the sword fight (admittedly I do love that bit) is a dud for me. I'd be surprised to see DAD climb above last place for my list anytime soon. That being said, the worst Bond film is still far better than many other bad films I've seen.

    I usually give up after the opening surfing scene, which is cool and well shot! It all goes downhill from there!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DAD isnt last for me ,or even second last,not even the third(Not 'till you crawl over her and kiss my foot !! )...i like it as a go-to Bond film when i need to chill out.

    Haha!

    I wouldn't place DAD last either, and there are plenty of other films I would shuffle, but I do appreciate the unconventional ranking. Several films usually perceived to be the weakest are at the top, and some of those thought to be the best are at the middle-to-bottom. I mean, AVTAK, TWINE, TMWTGG are in the top 10, and DN, FRWL and OHMSS quite a bit below. And DAF in first place? Pretty cool.

    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    That’s great news! And now we agree about what’s the worst Bond film as well ;)

    Who would have thought it would take Bond's arse to make me realise TLD isn't the worst Bond film ?! (which it never was to me,it was just.......her).

    The arrogance of that arse lit up a lightbulb in my head hahaha



    I never understood that shot of him shaking his booty. Was that meant to be funny? Very odd. To this day I'm still not sure how I feel about the PTS of SPECTRE.

    I like Bond walking across the rooftops and where he falls onto the old sofa,with a wryy smile.

    But I find the helicopter fight boring as hell.



    I must be one of the few people who love the helicopter fight. It's really well edited and the action is top notch.

    SP's PTS is the best thing in the film and is up there with the best PTS's.

    I am with you.
    SP PTS one of the best? Well, I'm surprised to read this. Truly.

    I think it peaks just before the couch incident. Pretty much after Newman's Los Muertos Vivos Estan ends.

    I'm with you on this one, @bondjames. Also; although the opening tracking shot is interesting from a technical point of view, does it really add anything to the sequence? A well edited sequence with a few cuts wouldn't have made it any worse.

    I think it adds style, which is an important component in Bond films in general. But beyond that, I find the helicopter fight, and the helicopter acrobatics, to be really well made and most exciting. In the vein of the action sequences of the 80s films.

    In what way do you feel it adds style?
    Great question. My attempt at answering:

    First of all, I feel the tracking shot has what you might call 'swagger'. It reeks of self-confidence and of the film wanting you to know that everything you are watching in the shot has been carefully coordinated and is leading somewhere (more on this later). To a certain degree, it also creates the sense that the film is inviting you to discover what's happening in the scene. By not cutting and just moving the camera around, it feels less about showing and more about letting you see. If the film had shown you the same sequence of events in a conventional way, with numerous camera angles and cuts, all these things would have been lost, or at least, no more emphasized than in other film.

    All of this holds true, for instance, at the beginning of the sequence, when the camera slowly closes in on a crowd mostly filled with people dressed in black and walking in the same direction, until someone dressed in white and walking the opposite way appears (Sciarra, of course). By keeping things restricted to a single shot, the action feels like it's unfolding in front of your eyes, rather than being captured by cameramen. Like if one were watching a play instead of a movie.

    Then, when Sciarra walks past the couple standing in the crowd, the camera forgets about him and stays on the couple. The visual connection between Sciarra and the couple could've been established with a conventional camera shot, but by making it part of a single extended shot, it feels much more strongly like it's part of a cohesive whole.

    Once again, when Bond and Estrella ride the elevator, and when Bond ditches the skull costume, by not cutting, the sequence conveys a certain stagelike immediacy. And when he walks on the rooftops, and we see the crowds below (which just a few minutes ago we were standing with at ground level, in the same shot), the sequence "folds back on itself." It started at A. It ends at B and visually establishes the relationship between A and B. So it wasn't leading somewhere just narratively, but also visually-- it was a visual journey. This wouldn't have been conveyed as strongly if the sequence had lots of cuts.

    Last but not least, there's a dance-like grace to seeing people moving around without editing getting in the way.

    All of the above has to do with style or form, rather than content (the content of the sequence is pretty great, as well, but that's not what's being discussed here). It's distinctive; not something you see every day. It's a great way of introducing you into the world of the film in a memorable way-- of grabbing your attention. This is a staple of the Bond films. In fact, on several occasions, they sacrifice consistency of tone and plot logic for the sake of presenting you with something striking (usually a crazy stunt, but on occasion a twist in the story; for instance, a character whose intentions were not what they seemed).

    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    That’s great news! And now we agree about what’s the worst Bond film as well ;)

    Who would have thought it would take Bond's arse to make me realise TLD isn't the worst Bond film ?! (which it never was to me,it was just.......her).

    The arrogance of that arse lit up a lightbulb in my head hahaha



    I never understood that shot of him shaking his booty. Was that meant to be funny? Very odd. To this day I'm still not sure how I feel about the PTS of SPECTRE.

    I like Bond walking across the rooftops and where he falls onto the old sofa,with a wryy smile.

    But I find the helicopter fight boring as hell.



    I must be one of the few people who love the helicopter fight. It's really well edited and the action is top notch.

    SP's PTS is the best thing in the film and is up there with the best PTS's.

    I am with you.
    SP PTS one of the best? Well, I'm surprised to read this. Truly.

    I think it peaks just before the couch incident. Pretty much after Newman's Los Muertos Vivos Estan ends.

    I'm with you on this one, @bondjames. Also; although the opening tracking shot is interesting from a technical point of view, does it really add anything to the sequence? A well edited sequence with a few cuts wouldn't have made it any worse.

    I think it adds style, which is an important component in Bond films in general. But beyond that, I find the helicopter fight, and the helicopter acrobatics, to be really well made and most exciting. In the vein of the action sequences of the 80s films.
    The helicopter acrobatics looks good, but again there's that yellow filter distracting me from the fight; Had only Mendes/Hoytema managed to stay away from this, I'd probably enjoyed it a whole lot more.
    I agree about the filter. Makes the city look and feel too hot and humid, and it robs the film of color in the most colorful sequence one can think of: a parade.
  • Posts: 17,819
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.
  • Posts: 16,223
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
  • Posts: 12,521
    A few disagreements, but I mostly like the list - especially the LTK and AVTAK love.
  • Posts: 16,223
    AVTAK has risen enormously in the last few years for me. Used to be dead last, until about 16 years ago.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 12,521
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    AVTAK has risen enormously in the last few years for me. Used to be dead last, until about 16 years ago.

    I can relate. It was dead last on my list a few years back, but now manages to sneak its way past several of the other ones for me. It’s not quite as high on my list as yours, but it’s certainly among the most underrated I think. Walken is just amazing in it. The soundtrack and title song are awesome too.
  • Posts: 16,223
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    AVTAK has risen enormously in the last few years for me. Used to be dead last, until about 16 years ago.

    I can relate. It was dead last on my list a few years back, but now manages to sneak its way past several of the other ones for me. It’s not quite as high on my list, but it’s certainly among the most underrated I think. Walken is just amazing in it. The soundtrack and title song are awesome too.

    Yes. Great cast and Barry score. I've overlooked the elements I didn't like before and find it a film I tend t pop in quite often.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 12,521
    The only thing I still particularly dislike is Stacey, but the good stuff makes up for it. Moore in it, while a bit too old, is sort of underrated too. His disdain for Zorin is very intense and unlike something we saw from Moore’s Bond before. It has some great serious/dark ideas and moments to balance out the sillier stuff. It’s a pretty enjoyable Bond film and, for me, the best last Bond film for any of the long running actors (DAF/AVTAK/DAD/SP).

    EDIT: Of course I put SP just as the current final Craig one. Here is hoping Bond 25 can be the best final entry for a long-running Bond yet!
  • Posts: 17,819
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.
  • Posts: 7,616
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
  • Posts: 17,819
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)

    Good point. A late showdown with Hinx, like with Tee Hee in LALD, would have improved that ending considerably.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
    I'd be cool with all this.

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
    So the other ranking was fake. You played me like a fiddle. In fact, I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me.
  • Posts: 16,223
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
    I'd be cool with all this.

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
    So the other ranking was fake. You played me like a fiddle. In fact, I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me.

    My other ranking was in response to that article from a few days ago that listed YOLT as the number 1 Bond film of all time. I believe that article listed OHMSS and some of the other beloved Bonds around here quite low.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
    I'd be cool with all this.

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
    So the other ranking was fake. You played me like a fiddle. In fact, I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me.

    My other ranking was in response to that article from a few days ago that listed YOLT as the number 1 Bond film of all time. I believe that article listed OHMSS and some of the other beloved Bonds around here quite low.

    Ah, I see. I haven't read the article but I remember they were talking about it in another thread.

    Still, here's hoping someone actually has DAF as their number one Bond film.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited August 2018 Posts: 1,534
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
    I'd be cool with all this.

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
    So the other ranking was fake. You played me like a fiddle. In fact, I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me.

    My other ranking was in response to that article from a few days ago that listed YOLT as the number 1 Bond film of all time. I believe that article listed OHMSS and some of the other beloved Bonds around here quite low.

    Ah, I see. I haven't read the article but I remember they were talking about it in another thread.

    Still, here's hoping someone actually has DAF as their number one Bond film.

    I had a friend in high school who did, @mattjoes
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    Remington wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There are some valid points you make there, @mattjoes. I agree that it’s a "balls-y" move doing such an elaborate shot, which no doubt would have to be coordinated to a the very detail.

    In that sense I can understand it; «Hey, this is a Bond film; look what we can throw at ya!». I also enjoy the fact that we see the people in black clothes heading in the opposite direction to Sciarra. No better way to highlight a person or object; you see it all the time in comic books for example – most noticeable b/w comics, or comics with a heavy use of ink. Alex Toth was a master of this (just to mention an example). I can also enjoy the camera shifting to Bond and Estrella for the remainder of the shot.

    My issue is that they’ve made such an elaborate shot just to – putting it very simple here – establish a white clothed character in a city surrounding, which Bond might have some connection to – then follow Bond and his female companion up the stairs of a hotel, then out the window up onto the roof. It’s quite…boring. You can loose yourself in the fine attention to detail, but it’s really just a shot that transports Bond from A to B.

    With the what… four minute play time(?), that’s quite a long time to just follow Bond walking. There lays one of my other issues with SP as a film too – the very long running time.

    In a comparison, in roughly the same runtime of QoS, Bond has been through an intense car chase, with Mr. White in the boot of his car – eventually delivering him to M. CR had the fight in the toilets, and SF had a very dramatic first few minutes as well. That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a slow build-up, but again – four minutes only placing Bond at his location is a bit much.
    @Torgeirtrap, I understand your point. Personally, I very much enjoy those four minutes, as while the story doesn't progress much, I find there's a great deal to look at and hear, and since it's early in the film, it can afford to emphasize style over substance for a while (something which couldn't happen in the third act, for example). Obviously your mileage may vary (and indeed it does).

    I agree the film is too long. Analyzing things coldly, for the sake of improving the flow of the story, the business at London should've been flat out cut and several more scenes set at Blofeld's lair should've been added.

    Regarding the filters again – and i might remember this incorrectly; didn’t the Mexican government offer financial incentives for the film to portray Mexico in a favorable light? The yellow filter adds an almost pollution like effect over scenery that would surely paint the city in a better light visually without it. As it’s presented, it looks like a place you rather avoid visiting, IMO, which is unfortunate.
    Yes, I think you're right about the incentives, so the uninviting look of Mexico in the film does go against that, as well as the eye candy one would want from Bond, no matter how 'artistic' the approach of the filmmakers might be.

    I very much agree on the London scenes should've been flat cut. I think many of us that have issues with SP, have that part of the film as a prime example. If they had done that final part differently (and more exciting), I think the opinions of SP wouldn't be so divided.

    I hope we someday will hear more from Mendes and/or Hoytema regarding the cinematography, and the reasons behind the use of filters. I understand it's a "thing" for Hoytema, but it would be interesting to hear them go into detail on it, especially since it's so very noticeable.

    That really is my only beef with SP. The return to London...for Bond. The climax should have been a crosscut between Bond at Blofelds lair and M, Q outwitting Denbigh in London. And the Hinx fight should have been a final reel showdown as Bond/Madeleine return. Just like the old days when the henchman makes a surprise entry to attack Bond (Teehee..Wint/Kidd)
    I'd be cool with all this.

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    For real this time:

    1. GOLDFINGER
    2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
    4. DR NO
    5. THUNDERBALL
    6. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
    7. CASINO ROYALE 06
    8. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
    9. OCTOPUSSY/NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
    10. LICENCE TO KILL
    11. LIVE AND LET DIE
    12. A VIEW TO A KILL
    13. SKYFALL
    14. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
    15. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
    16. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
    17. GOLDENEYE
    18. MOONRAKER
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
    20. QUANTUM OF SOLACE/ CR 54
    21. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
    22. SPECTRE
    23. TOMORROW NEVER DIES
    24. DIE ANOTHER DAY/ CR 67
    So the other ranking was fake. You played me like a fiddle. In fact, I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me.

    My other ranking was in response to that article from a few days ago that listed YOLT as the number 1 Bond film of all time. I believe that article listed OHMSS and some of the other beloved Bonds around here quite low.

    Ah, I see. I haven't read the article but I remember they were talking about it in another thread.

    Still, here's hoping someone actually has DAF as their number one Bond film.

    I had a friend in high school who did, @mattjoes

    Good! Now I can go see St. Peter in peace.
Sign In or Register to comment.