Last Bond Movie You Watched

1153154156158159332

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    FoxRox wrote: »
    LALD Moore is pretty darn cool. Love that film and performance.
    It's like following a cue ball.

  • Yeah, it gets increasingly unimpressive/cliche as you progress through the film.

    Our evil plot is coming to fruition!
  • Posts: 9,843
    Birdleson wrote: »
    QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It surprises me that this film still continues to rise with each viewing. I wish more Bond films had been cut to this length. It's compact and terse. I don't get the criticism that the editing receives. I'm hardly a novice; I've studied film, I've edited film, I am familiar with techniques. The quick cuts and erratic nature of the final assemblage works. I have no problem in following the action in the PTS; the cuts are logical and add a welcome kinetic energy. Quick cuts are hardly a modern innovation. Go back and watch Eisnstien's THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925), universally praised by critics and academics as one of the greatest pieces of film every created. No single shot in the entire film is held for longer than five seconds. I'm certainly not putting QOS on that pedestal, not even close, but I am saying that much of the criticisms I find to be perplexing. In the 83 years between these two films our ability to perceive and deseminate images and information has evolved with technology and technique.

    It is in my top 10 (it's a tough battle between Quantum and From Russia with love for second place honestly)
    Quantum of solace is such a strong bond film light compact and has so many cool underrated touches. For example Craig doesn't say Vesper till the very end of the film he doesn't even mention the name of the drink...

    again I am nervous when I get to craig era as Quantum of Solace has this promise of finding out more about the secret organization in the next film and sadly Spectre answers those questions with "Yeah no secret it's just Spectre and Blofeld"...


    One wonders if they got the rights to spectre and Blofeld in say 1993 if Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies wouldn't of been vastly different films. (though Hopkins as Blofeld .... yeah it would of been really cool even if Brosnan is still 007)

    I did watch a bit of the Josh Brolin as 007 a few days agoe and since I saw Royale 54 I am wondering how extensive should my bond journey be?

    Should I watch Royale 67? Never Say Never Again? Diamonds Aren't Forever? A play through of James Bond the Duel so I can get my third Dalton fix (which in retrospect as cool as From Russia with the love the video game was wouldn't of been cooler to have say the living daylights and play as Dalton's bond? or heck if EA had real balls and did A view to a Kill or Octopussy with Dalton's Bond the way we kind of got with Activision?)

    Questions I am pondering as I really have never seen all of Royale 67 (and don't really want to) and I haven't seen Never say Never again in ages (and again don't really want to) but I am going to watch the official films I don't like (Goldfinger Diamonds are forever the man with the golden gun Moonraker A View to a Kill Die another day Skyfall and Spectre so maybe I should bite the bullet and see Royale 67 etc any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated)
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,596
    Birdleson wrote: »
    QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It surprises me that this film still continues to rise with each viewing. I wish more Bond films had been cut to this length. It's compact and terse. I don't get the criticism that the editing receives. I'm hardly a novice; I've studied film, I've edited film, I am familiar with techniques. The quick cuts and erratic nature of the final assemblage works. I have no problem in following the action in the PTS; the cuts are logical and add a welcome kinetic energy. Quick cuts are hardly a modern innovation. Go back and watch Eisnstien's THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925), universally praised by critics and academics as one of the greatest pieces of film every created. No single shot in the entire film is held for longer than five seconds. I'm certainly not putting QOS on that pedestal, not even close, but I am saying that much of the criticisms I find to be perplexing. In the 83 years between these two films our ability to perceive and deseminate images and information has evolved with technology and technique.

    The PTS is edited really well. Really well. I love that chase. Fast but mostly coherent. There are other parts though (namely White's escape down in that bunker thingy) that, if you take out individuals frames/moments, you can tell that the film crew is literally pointing the camera at NOTHING of interest to telling the story of the action.

    I don't have any issue with quick cutting, hand held camera, or any of that so long as it's done by professionals. There are moments in QoS that are edited well, but often times the action is edited and photographed within an inch of its life to the point where it becomes incoherent.

    I'm not saying you don't know film editing or techniques etc etc, I'm just saying that I find the editing in the action scenes (most, not all) to be really, really poor. Not saying you're wrong, just that I definitely don't like the way it's edited, and I feel that I can argue (with some clarity and intelligence) that they are of poor quality - just as you argue that they are not.If you pause/take out bits and pieces it becomes clearer. If it's supposed to be disorienting (the only excuse they could make) fine. I don't like that, but fine. But if it's not it's just bad filmmaking.

    I find that those techniques - handheld camera and quick cutting - are utilized often by novice filmmakers who don't really know how to film compelling and thrilling action and instead use those techniques to give the appearance of "thrill" and movement where there isn't any to be had. They try to mask the flaws of the action scene and staging, but they don't know how to execute it properly.

    For an example of these techniques being utilized by someone who is in total command and uses it as a pure stylistic choice to accentuate their personal brand of how they want the action to feel - The Bourne Ultimatum.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Spectre, watched it twice today ! :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    just 3 more days and I will get my mitts on the SPECTRE Bluray!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I like the PTS personally. I didn't like it on first watch, but have really enjoyed it on every further watch.

    I think QoS is a unique film, because it combines that gritty, contact, fast cut type of editing with the larger than life Bond universe. I appreciate that.

    CR did it too, but it veered more to the longer range edits, while QoS took it a step further to the close cuts.

    In terms of the actual style of the fights and action sequences though, I personally can't tell any difference between Bourne and QoS. They are the same to my eye.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    This is the one that it reminded me of. Bourne vs. Desh


    Here's a combo of the best of them
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    @Birdleson I am a big Bourne fan, but that Bond vs Slate fight trumps every fight in the Bourne trilogy. The fight caught me by surprise, it was absolutely visceral and even if it was over very quickly, I felt like I was in the same state as Slate - that the movie punched me in the stomach repeatidly for those 40 or so seconds.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I know a lot of people cite Supremacy and Ultimatum, but it's that first fight at Bourne's apt. in Paris in Identity (2002) that really blew me away.

    That was the new benchmark. Everything from then on was just a refinement, but that film and that fight was incredible.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    bondjames wrote: »
    I know a lot of people cite Supremacy and Ultimatum, but it's that first fight at Bourne's apt. in Paris in Identity (2002) that really blew me away.

    That was the new benchmark. Everything from then on was just a refinement, but that film and that fight was incredible.
    If you're referring to the one where he uses a pen, yeah that was pretty amazing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I know a lot of people cite Supremacy and Ultimatum, but it's that first fight at Bourne's apt. in Paris in Identity (2002) that really blew me away.

    That was the new benchmark. Everything from then on was just a refinement, but that film and that fight was incredible.
    If you're referring to the one where he uses a pen, yeah that was pretty amazing.
    That's the one. That was the start of something....and everyone else was playing catch up after that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    bondjames wrote: »
    I like the PTS personally. I didn't like it on first watch, but have really enjoyed it on every further watch.

    I think QoS is a unique film, because it combines that gritty, contact, fast cut type of editing with the larger than life Bond universe. I appreciate that.

    CR did it too, but it veered more to the longer range edits, while QoS took it a step further to the close cuts.

    In terms of the actual style of the fights and action sequences though, I personally can't tell any difference between Bourne and QoS. They are the same to my eye.

    I agree. And you definatetly have to be a fan of it. Otherwise it feels a little bit unconfortable to watch it. For me it was still OK in CR but a little too much in QoS. I mean there had been great fight sequences already in the Connery Era for instance. They shouldn't have gone beyond that. But I'm not a big fan of the Bourne films either.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    Very good fight @bondjames, but I have to be biased towards 'Ultimatum' because it was the first Bourne I saw on the big screen. Just thinking of that fight in Tangier where Bourne grabs the book and uses it to punch the bad guy in the face before grabing a wet towel to finish him off was just off the charts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @GBF you're absolutely right. Until Bourne, one of the most visceral fights I had ever seen was actually from a film made in 1963. Namely FRWL. In fact, Bourne probably took a page out of that book. I remember thinking just that when I saw Identity in 2002 (that Bourne was taking from the FRWL playbook). A pity that Bond seemed to have lost the plot until then (a brief reminder in the GE finale notwithstanding).

    @DaltonCraig007, I love the Ultimatum fight, but the Identity one and the other one in Supremacy (with the Treadstone Agent in Munich) were also great. QoS definitely took a page out of all 3 of those Bourne fights. I love them all much more than any of the more recent ones in SP/SF (although the Hinx fight is up there).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited February 2016 Posts: 15,713
    @bondjames I discovered Bourne after CR was released (caught 'Supremacy' on a paying tv channel in 2007), so I decided to buy the DVD of 'Identity' and 'Supremacy'. One scene that really stood out to me (besides the fantastic fist fights) was the car chase in Moscow. Everything from when Bourne walks in the supermarket and casually grabs a bottle of vodka to the very end of the chase was out of this world.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @DaltonCraig007. I saw them as they came out in the theatre, so I know that Bourne definitely influenced Bond when it came to that QoS car chase as well. Supremacy was the first film to do it like that, and QoS took it further with more glamour (and a far more beautiful car, with a suaver agent behind the wheel).

    What I'd really like to see again one day is a Ronin style chase in a Bond film. So not the close cut Bourne style chase, but a more longer range, expansive one, which still remains energetic and visceral. Similar to TSWLM with the Lotus.
  • I've watched SP a few times this week since buying it on Blu.
  • YOLT<br />
    <br />
    Meh.

    The early stuff is strong, so is the assault on the volcano, but perhaps too much was made about the wedding. Perhaps more intrigue in Tokyo instead.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,596
    @Birdleson

    You don't see White escape. That's fine. But what I meant was the visual storytelling that tells us what actually happens is really bad. As you mentioned - it's all gesture. Except it's less than gesture, the camera is often looking at nothing.

    Another example, I think, of a poorly edited action sequence is the QoS boat chase. Some parts are good, but more often than not I just can't keep up, in a bad way.

    The Bourne Ultimatum fight between Bourne and Desh is the one I was specifically referring to. I think it's filmed quite well. Especially the book-as-a-weapon stuff. In that fight you see everything happen. Gesture is involved also, but you feel the scene much better, as well as seeing (mostly) the impact/stuntwork.

    In a few sequences in QoS it feels like the handheld camera and quick cutting editing style is not utilized in order to create any sort of mood or experience, but to mask the weakness of the sequence and the weakness of the filmmaking team. It's been used as a crutch ever since the Bourne films (in American cinema) and I don't like that trend. But, as I mentioned, when it's used properly I don't have a problem with it (although more often than not I prefer good ole fashioned action sequences).

    Films like John Wick are beginning to reintroduce some more classically filmed action sequences, which I really enjoy seeing. Also, obviously, Skyfall.

    Bond vs. Slate is a great fight also I should add. In fact, it is edited less quickly than the Desh fight I think. That said, someone did some research and QoS has the shortest time per shot of any action film of the last X-amount of years I believe when it's all said and done. Ultimatum came pretty close. Just an interesting fact. The research was done awhile back though, and didn't compare all action films, just those with similar shooting and editing styles.

    There are sequences that are shot and edited very well. But some of them I just pause it and I'm like "the camera is literally looking at nothing there. This isn't advancing the story of the action sequence whatsoever."

    Another thing that slightly bums me out about QoS is just how damn much it takes from that Bourne series. Way more than CR ever did. I just wish Bond was the one inspiring imitators and not the other way around.

    People on this forum, who I think have just been blinded by their Bond fandom, claim that they see "no Bourne" here at all, which I find absolutely preposterous and leads me to pretty much disregard their opinion entirely. I'm not trying to be mean at all. I respect everyone's opinion, but this is less opinion and more just "look at the two movies side by side" type thing. It's right there. From the shooting style to the wardrobe to the way both heroes "get dirty and bloody' etc. Forster was shooting for that pseudo-realism feel (many of the Bond trappings are gone). From the parkour chases etc etc etc. Bourne is everywhere.

    The final scene where he confronts Yusef has moments that are shot for shot stolen from one of the final scenes from 2004's Bourne Supremacy. So when people say they don't see it I think they must not have ever seen the Bourne films or they're being wilfully ignorant.

    ALL OF THIS SAID, I CAN'T WAIT TO REWATCH QUANTUM VERY SOON. *breathes heavily* man what is with my long ass posts lately.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I have no problem in following the action in the PTS; the cuts are logical and add a welcome kinetic energy. Quick cuts are hardly a modern innovation. Go back and watch Eisnstien's THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925), universally praised by critics and academics as one of the greatest pieces of film every created. No single shot in the entire film is held for longer than five seconds.

    This is a personal matter: I had to watch the PTS multiple times to figure out what happened, and it took even more views to figure out how exactly Bond killed Slate and what the hell he was doing with the anchor. I've watched The Battleship Potemkin, and at no point did I think to myself, "What the hell just happened?"
  • Octopussy... ugh.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139

    Yhis thread exploring the fighting merits of the Bourne films only serves to depress me and fuel my issues and utter disappointment with SP. Bourne had set a new benchmark for Bond to be playing catch up to and thankfully, for the sake of Bond 25 history looks set to repeat itself.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Birdleson wrote: »
    With all of my problems with SPECTRE, and there are many, so many, and many many more, I will take it over any Bourne film.

    Even as a diehard Bond fan that's just something I myself can't and won't do. Bourne has been better and impressed me more than the last 3 Bond films and by a significant margin.

    I love the Bond series too much to be so forgiving and accept their disappointing work, sending them the message that their lacklustre work is ok.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    It depends on the mindset you enter when you watch Bond (which for some, is different to when they watch anything else). Purely as action movies, however, I'd take Bourne over the last three Craig movies indeed.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Which is fine. Bourne isn't your cup of tea. The way you feel about Bond, there are people who feel the exact same way about Bond. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've written this before, somewhere. After seeing the first Bourne film, I left the theatre and soon had no recollection of what I had just seen. I don't remember liking it or disliking it, but do recall thinking that nothing stuck with me. Not a normal occurrence. I wasn't going to bother with the sequel, but a friend wanted to go: I had the same experience. For whatever reason, these Bourne films leave no impression on me.

    That is exactly how I feel about those films. So dull and uninteresting, the mind just wanders off.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    With all of my problems with SPECTRE, and there are many, so many, and many many more, I will take it over any Bourne film.

    I think I respect one or two of the Bourne films more, and think they are perhaps greater achievements, but I'd probably pop Spectre in over them as well.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    All 3 Jason Bourne films are far more intense & exciting than SP to me.

    Having said, that, I'm going to pop SP in my blu ray player now (2nd time in a week) just for fun before I lend it to dad. I'm curious about his view, because he is a lifelong Bond fan (books and films) and thinks quite highly of DC.
Sign In or Register to comment.