›

Last Bond Movie You Watched

1…260261263265266…332

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 , what you note above is the reason both Dalton and Brosnan reside at the bottom of my rankings. That and their respective emotionality.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Brosnan was genuine, and a ham; Dalton seemed to take himself too seriously. But, in the end, I can watch Dalton's two, and fail at watching Brosnan's films-- and, it's because of him, and the scripts.

    Brozzer, a lovely man, was/is not a good actor. He gave Bond his all, but his all wasn't good enough at the time.

    And no, he wouldn't shine in SP-- he couldn't take on Hinx (a dull fight, to me, as is; with Brosnan, wayyy worse, IMO); he would be sucking on Maddy's face after, with pain-face, he would have shrunk in Waltz's presence (and I thought Waltz wasn't very strong, at all).

    I appreciate people saying DAD was where he "found" his Bond, but, to be controversial (wrong thread?), he was terrible vs Dench in the sick bay (and the beard and his pot-belly made it worse for this viewer).

    I honestly think he would fared better in '87 after he did THE FOURTH PROTOCOL...
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2017 Posts: 7,021
    TWINE.

    Sorry if I ruined your night. (I just think it's unfairly maligned!)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Well, I hope you have a better time with it than before!
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    TWINE has a ton of wasted potential and is in my bottom tier. Still has several things I like, but definitely a bit disappointing.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited December 2017 Posts: 2,730
    Its just boring and dull with shit action
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    Ouch.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The action isn't one of TWINE's problems. In fact, those are the exciting bits of the film and are handled a lot better than in Craig's last two. It's the melodramatic bits I've problems with.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    I find TWINE's action scenes to be inconsistent. For instance, I love the caviar factory scene, but thought the skiing action sequence was rather bland.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    True. But, it still doesn't bother me. Inconsistent it might be, the scenes are still more solidly connected than let's say the entirety of SP.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    In 1999 I really enjoyed the action in TWINE but watching the film today makes me think that the boat chase and the pipeline escape are the only two solid action scenes in the film. The ski as well as the caviar factory scenes are pretty lame, however.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    I like the caviar one. I just like the giant saw thing I guess; it was... different for a Bond action scene. I love the one liner by Valentin at the end too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The only good action scene in TWINE is Bond escaping from the bankers office.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    I did not like the pipeline one. I like the boat chase and the caviar factory scene personally, but beyond that the action scenes of TWINE are decidedly many of the weaker ones in the series. They just have a way of feeling so bland.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I find the caviar sequence as well as the boat-chase pretty solid. It's the pipeline bit and the Azerbaijan segments that bores the hell out of me. So, adding the ski chase instead of the boring driveway around the land-based oil rigs which thankfully ended up getting deleted.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    The bank escape is a good one, too. The caviar factory really feels totally lame. It is just the typical Brosnan exaggerated 90s action scene...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That's the magic of it. That's why the caviar factory sequence is great.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I love the whole movie.
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hate the entire caviar scene. That is the low point of the film for me.

    Agree
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,534
    Introduced another friend to the series. Just finished Dr. No. He liked it and gave it an 8. Supposed to watch the rest of the films soon. I'm on a roll.
    As usual I loved it. I wouldn't even change the flaws. 10/10.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Remington wrote: »
    Introduced another friend to the series. Just finished Dr. No. He liked it and gave it an 8. Supposed to watch the rest of the films soon. I'm on a roll.
    As usual I loved it. I wouldn't even change the flaws. 10/10.

    If your friend liked Dr. No it bodes well that he'll enjoy the best of the best too, @Remington. You're doing great work here, opening another set of eyes to the franchise. I got my start when my best friend was downright offended I'd not seen a Connery Bond film, and nothing was the same after I went and saw one weeks later.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Dr. No

    I adore this film. In particular I love the story that Dr. No is telling. As the budget increased sometimes the filmmakers forgot this. I’ve been watching this for nearly 20 years. Still just as fresh and exciting as when I first saw it, back when I was a nipper - it was roughly 1997. I was convinced that I didn't like the newer Bonds, despite not having seen either GoldenEye or Tomorrow Never Dies!

    From the first time I watched Dr No, I loved it. The film had an air of seduction about it, and Sean Connery's performance was simply masterful and magnetic. I didn't have any problems with Dr No's supposed lack of pace. Nor did I find it boring – two common complaints it has faced.


    Royale’s Ranking, Bondathon October 2017

    1. Dr. No
    2. Skyfall
    3. Goldfinger
    4. Tomorrow Never Dies
    5. The World Is Not Enough
    6. GoldenEye
    7. Diamonds Are Forever
    8. Live and Let Die
    9. Die Another Day
    10. The Man With The Golden Gun


    Next up, Casino Royale. In Dr. No, Bond is sometimes brusque and aggressive. Which is similar to the traits that he has in Casino Royale. One can see Bond evolve from arrogant newbie over the course of Casino Royale and Dr. No, and by the time of From Russia With Love comes around, his “uncouthness” has virtually disappeared.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @royale65, it's not only one of my favorite films, but also one of my favorite detective films. In the old days Bond was always at its best for me when it flirted with the detective genre and some of its archetypes and styles, which is something Young and co. really injected in that first trilogy.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I think the detective side works really well in DN because there's a genuine mystery, and in FRWL it works because it's tense seeing SPECTRE's elaborate scheme play out and waiting for the Bond/Grant showdown. But in TB I don't think it works well, because we see the plan get carried out (every last boring underwater detail) at the beginning, and then it's just a case of the bad guys sitting around waiting for the ransom while the audience waits for Bond to catch up to them. To be fair it's not Young or anyone else's fault, it was that way in the book too and that's one of my favourites, I just think that story doesn't translate to film very well. Needs Fleming's detail to really carry it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    I think the detective side works really well in DN because there's a genuine mystery, and in FRWL it works because it's tense seeing SPECTRE's elaborate scheme play out and waiting for the Bond/Grant showdown. But in TB I don't think it works well, because we see the plan get carried out (every last boring underwater detail) at the beginning, and then it's just a case of the bad guys sitting around waiting for the ransom while the audience waits for Bond to catch up to them. To be fair it's not Young or anyone else's fault, it was that way in the book too and that's one of my favourites, I just think that story doesn't translate to film very well. Needs Fleming's detail to really carry it.

    I hold FRWL and TB the same on that front, if not FRWL even more (about knowing the plan and waiting for Bond to catch on). The entire first part of the novel is hearing every minute stage of SMERSH's plan and waiting for Bond to show up, which I think the movie improves on immensely (like everything else).

    In TB Bond is actually more aware than he is in FRWL (back to films), where he's made a stooge in the latter to show SPECTRE's power, so the former has that different element going for it. I like the progression from FRWL to TB because in TB we see the effect SPECTRE has had on Bond. He was duped once but he intends to never let it happen again and he uses the knowledge of the organization No and Grant spilled to him in their arrogance to really dig and prod Largo (like his clever wordplay at the card game) to let them all know he's got them on notice. He picks on the ostentatious and conspicuous octopus rings, taunts SPECTRE constantly, and really doesn't back down.

    I really enjoy the detective elements of TB, as we really see Bond acting as a detective would more than any other film I can think of. He scopes out locations, cross references information to track the bombs, crosses details or locations off the list that don't match up, catches Quist off guard using his recorder, infiltrates the enemy to learn more information and manipulate things in his favor, and uses the facts to find the final location of the bombs by concluding that the weapons must be in the part of the island where Largo's rare sharks were collected from.

    The pacing can bug some I guess (the same seems to be true with Dr. No similar detective driven plot) but I never have a problem with it as the film is always building to something quite smartly. When the finale of TB comes it's such an amazing payoff to me because I've seen Bond counteract all the plans that were there to stop him and the script allows us to know the villains, how they tick and what the cost of their plan working is so that Bond can be rooted for all the more. It's a suitably epic film for the first time Bond went widescreen and truly became cinematic.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    royale65 wrote: »
    Dr. No

    I adore this film. In particular I love the story that Dr. No is telling. As the budget increased sometimes the filmmakers forgot this. I’ve been watching this for nearly 20 years. Still just as fresh and exciting as when I first saw it, back when I was a nipper - it was roughly 1997. I was convinced that I didn't like the newer Bonds, despite not having seen either GoldenEye or Tomorrow Never Dies!

    From the first time I watched Dr No, I loved it. The film had an air of seduction about it, and Sean Connery's performance was simply masterful and magnetic. I didn't have any problems with Dr No's supposed lack of pace. Nor did I find it boring – two common complaints it has faced.


    Royale’s Ranking, Bondathon October 2017

    1. Dr. No
    2. Skyfall
    3. Goldfinger
    4. Tomorrow Never Dies
    5. The World Is Not Enough
    6. GoldenEye
    7. Diamonds Are Forever
    8. Live and Let Die
    9. Die Another Day
    10. The Man With The Golden Gun


    Next up, Casino Royale. In Dr. No, Bond is sometimes brusque and aggressive. Which is similar to the traits that he has in Casino Royale. One can see Bond evolve from arrogant newbie over the course of Casino Royale and Dr. No, and by the time of From Russia With Love comes around, his “uncouthness” has virtually disappeared.

    Great post! Sums up my sentiments for DN. I loved it it the first time I saw it as a kid, and was hooked on Bond from then on.
    A great Bond film, easily one of the best, yet overlooked these days.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I've only come along to DN recently but it is now firm top five for me, recently demoting CR a notch.

    I'll always remember my first experience of Connery as Bond. It was FRWL. My parents insisted I watch it to see who the 'real' Bond was. From the first scene I knew Connery had something special. I recall my mum murmuring in the background about how great he looked in that opening scene in Russia chased by Grant. The film however did nothing for me at that point (it's my #1 today). The next Connery one I saw was YOLT. I liked it much more of course (it had more spectacle to appeal to a young chap) but I still preferred the Moore entries. I remember always liking TB for some reason, which still holds true today (my #2). It had scale which has always been my thing (even these days).

    So despite only coming round to his films much later, I never had anything against Connery (even though I used to prefer Moore). From the first time I saw him I could tell he was magnetic, like Moore. Just different.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I could never get into DN before but I really enjoyed it last time too. I loved how simple and barebones it felt. I'd like Bond 26 to take that approach, maybe with a bit more action though.

    What also stuck out to me is how good Connery was. He's as cool as ever but in his later films he seemed a bit larger than life to me? And because those later films leave such a strong lasting impression that's who I've always thought of his Bond as. Effortlessly suave, cool, badass, the guy everyone wants to be but nobody can be. And don't get me wrong he is still the definition of cool in DN. But last time I watched it I noticed something really human about him. He felt like a real person in the same way Lazenby, Dalton and Craig do, and he reminded me a lot of Fleming's Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed on all points @thelivingroyale and that is precisely why the film has rocketed to top five in my rankings. It is indeed stripped down and bare. Connery carries it with his sheer magnetism and charisma.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Connery was at his best in DN. He felt most alive and was still that “unbreakable Superman” James Bond we always loved while being prone to physical pain. In his later appearances, he’s way too calm and less daring, whereas you could see how aggressive he gets when it comes to SPECTRE enemies.

    Had the Connery of DN been in FRWL, he would’ve put a bullet in Red Grant’s head the moment he suspected him.
Sign In or Register to comment.