Last Bond Movie You Watched

1291292294296297332

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    Unwatchable is a bit strong. It certainly has its faults but 'unwatchable'????

    There are certainly some strange so called Bond fans on here. I like all the films, obviously some more than others but i wouldn't consider any of them 'unwatchable'

    Perhaps you have a personal problem with Mr Craig...?

    Nope. Craig is my 2nd favourite Bond actor and yeah, for me, SF is mostly unwatchable and SP is completely unwatchable. Doesn't make me any less of a Bond fan than you or anyone else here.

    But you havent explained why are they 'unwatchable' to you?

    I've summed up my thoughts in detail repeatedly as I've been told by some members here and encapsulated it, categorizing the film as boring, which I stated. No Bond film should ever be boring nor lacklustre and those 2 adjectives are the most apt words I can afford to describe the film right now.

    Not sure what you would find boring, but hey ho it's your opinion.

    God i miss the Wiz......
  • Posts: 17,757
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @mattjoes. I agree on your comments regarding the sound effects as well. I should have mentioned that because I picked up on it too. Everything is accentuated and it adds to the tension, complementing the action as you said - even the sound of the skis in the loneliness of the night is accented.

    One thing I picked up on is how many times EON seems to borrow elements from OHMSS in future releases. It's ironic given this entry wasn't all that successful upon its release in comparison to the Connery films. I suppose to a degree, the same can be said of LTK (another film which serves as a template of sorts for later films with the rogue & personal element) and interestingly both starred actors who made the fewest films.
    ---
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.
  • Posts: 7,434
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @mattjoes. I agree on your comments regarding the sound effects as well. I should have mentioned that because I picked up on it too. Everything is accentuated and it adds to the tension, complementing the action as you said - even the sound of the skis in the loneliness of the night is accented.

    One thing I picked up on is how many times EON seems to borrow elements from OHMSS in future releases. It's ironic given this entry wasn't all that successful upon its release in comparison to the Connery films. I suppose to a degree, the same can be said of LTK (another film which serves as a template of sorts for later films with the rogue & personal element) and interestingly both starred actors who made the fewest films.
    ---
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    Well I'll give a shout out for SP since everyone seems to be down on it! I don't find it unwatchable at all and only have issues from the torture scene onwards. The whole London set finale was ill judged. But I much prefer to watch it than SF which just drags for me and doesn't feel like a Bond movie at all apart from the pts and Silvas entrance, up to Severines death and Bond turning the tables on him!
    CR and QOS are very different beasts, but I love both of them!
    If I was to state an unwatchable Bond movie, it has to be DAD! I don't get the "It's so bad it's good" excuse. I have tried to sit through it many times and always switch it off...and not just for the cgi and invisible car, it is badly written, directed and acted so yes..it is, for me,
    unwatchable!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Only the Brosnan films are unwatchable for me.
  • Posts: 7,434
    Only the Brosnan films are unwatchable for me.

    Well I'm certainly No fan of that era, but I do like certain things like Daniel Kleinman titles and certain performances..Judi Dench, Vincent Schiavelli, Sophie Marceau, and David Arnold's music, but it's my least watched set of Bond movies, mainly for Brossa who was just never my idea of Bond!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @mattjoes. I agree on your comments regarding the sound effects as well. I should have mentioned that because I picked up on it too. Everything is accentuated and it adds to the tension, complementing the action as you said - even the sound of the skis in the loneliness of the night is accented.

    One thing I picked up on is how many times EON seems to borrow elements from OHMSS in future releases. It's ironic given this entry wasn't all that successful upon its release in comparison to the Connery films. I suppose to a degree, the same can be said of LTK (another film which serves as a template of sorts for later films with the rogue & personal element) and interestingly both starred actors who made the fewest films.
    ---
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    Well I'll give a shout out for SP since everyone seems to be down on it! I don't find it unwatchable at all and only have issues from the torture scene onwards. The whole London set finale was ill judged. But I much prefer to watch it than SF which just drags for me and doesn't feel like a Bond movie at all apart from the pts and Silvas entrance, up to Severines death and Bond turning the tables on him!
    CR and QOS are very different beasts, but I love both of them!
    If I was to state an unwatchable Bond movie, it has to be DAD! I don't get the "It's so bad it's good" excuse. I have tried to sit through it many times and always switch it off...and not just for the cgi and invisible car, it is badly written, directed and acted so yes..it is, for me,
    unwatchable!
    DAD is certainly a most loathed entry, perhaps only recently surpassed by SP in some members minds as bottom of the barrel worthy of unabashed denunciation. I can't say that either is unwatchable for me, but at least I find DAD amusing (even if we're laughing at it on occasion), whereas I find SP to be rather uninspired and even uncomfortable to get through at times.

    It's difficult to describe. I think what I mean is that if I'm going to have to endure something I don't particularly like, then I'd rather be amused than uneasy and bored.
  • Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    QoS is probably a film you just like, have grown to like, or don't like at all. The shorter runtime really helps, as it avoids being a film you tune out of/from – as you mention with CR after Le Chiffre bites it. That's usually the place in the film I lose interest as well.

    Likewise, I'm planning on a rewatch of the Craig films soon. Don't know when, but surely in good time before Bond 25. Might drop SP, and do a triple feature of CR, QoS and SF.
  • Posts: 7,434
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @mattjoes. I agree on your comments regarding the sound effects as well. I should have mentioned that because I picked up on it too. Everything is accentuated and it adds to the tension, complementing the action as you said - even the sound of the skis in the loneliness of the night is accented.

    One thing I picked up on is how many times EON seems to borrow elements from OHMSS in future releases. It's ironic given this entry wasn't all that successful upon its release in comparison to the Connery films. I suppose to a degree, the same can be said of LTK (another film which serves as a template of sorts for later films with the rogue & personal element) and interestingly both starred actors who made the fewest films.
    ---
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    Well I'll give a shout out for SP since everyone seems to be down on it! I don't find it unwatchable at all and only have issues from the torture scene onwards. The whole London set finale was ill judged. But I much prefer to watch it than SF which just drags for me and doesn't feel like a Bond movie at all apart from the pts and Silvas entrance, up to Severines death and Bond turning the tables on him!
    CR and QOS are very different beasts, but I love both of them!
    If I was to state an unwatchable Bond movie, it has to be DAD! I don't get the "It's so bad it's good" excuse. I have tried to sit through it many times and always switch it off...and not just for the cgi and invisible car, it is badly written, directed and acted so yes..it is, for me,
    unwatchable!
    DAD is certainly a most loathed entry, perhaps only recently surpassed by SP in some member's minds as bottom of the barrel worthy of unabashed denunciation. I can't say that either is unwatchable for me, but at least I find DAD amusing (even if we're laughing at it on occasion), whereas I find SP to be rather uninspired and even uncomfortable to get through at times.

    It's difficult to describe. I think what I mean is that if I'm going to have to endure something I don't particularly like, then I'd rather be amused than uneasy and bored.

    Well i'm not amused but am uneasy and bored with DAD every time...so there you go!
  • Posts: 19,339
    Diffrent' strokes fer diffrent' folks,people.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Only the Brosnan films are unwatchable for me.

    Well I'm certainly No fan of that era, but I do like certain things like Daniel Kleinman titles and certain performances..Judi Dench, Vincent Schiavelli, Sophie Marceau, and David Arnold's music, but it's my least watched set of Bond movies, mainly for Brossa who was just never my idea of Bond!
    If the issue is more than with the film but also with the actor then it must have been especially painful. Thankfully (in your case) it was a relatively short tenure. I hope you can empathize with those who may feel similarly about the longer Craig experience then.
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    QoS is probably a film you just like, have grown to like, or don't like at all. The shorter runtime really helps, as it avoids being a film you tune out of/from – as you mention with CR after Le Chiffre bites it. That's usually the place in the film I lose interest as well.

    Likewise, I'm planning on a rewatch of the Craig films soon. Don't know when, but surely in good time before Bond 25. Might drop SP, and do a triple feature of CR, QoS and SF.
    That might work better. SF's open ending leaves much to the imagination as to where the series can go. B25 may answer the question that SP tried to.

    I agree that QoS's short runtime really helps. It's definitely not a boring film because it's too short to get bored by!
  • Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Skyfall.

    I don't know why but the Craig Bond films for me are largely becoming unwatchable. There are a few great moments in SF but for the most part the film is so boring. Still, it's better than SP which is completely unwatchable.

    I can (partly) agree with this. I rarely feel the urge to watch one of the Craig era films; the dreary, moody tone you find throughout his tenure is not what I want to be watching on a Sunday afternoon, for example – in contrast to any of the other Bond films really.

    CR and QoS are films I like (although CR feels too long), SF lacklustre, and SP is just bad – and not just bad by a Bond standard.
    I like CR & SF for different reasons and can enjoy QoS too, although I'm not as big of a fan of it as some other members here. I agree with you that CR is long - I normally tune out after Le Chiffre bites it. The less said about SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm looking forward to rewatching the Craig entries later this month to see how I feel about them now.

    QoS is probably a film you just like, have grown to like, or don't like at all. The shorter runtime really helps, as it avoids being a film you tune out of/from – as you mention with CR after Le Chiffre bites it. That's usually the place in the film I lose interest as well.

    Likewise, I'm planning on a rewatch of the Craig films soon. Don't know when, but surely in good time before Bond 25. Might drop SP, and do a triple feature of CR, QoS and SF.
    That might work better. SF's open ending leaves much to the imagination as to where the series can go. B25 may answer the question that SP tried to.

    I agree that QoS's short runtime really helps. It's definitely not a boring film because it's too short to get bored by!

    Hadn't thought about the open ending really, but you're absolutely right about that!

    I wish they'll go back to a two hour runtime or so with Bond 25. They've really stretched the running time with the last two films – and it's not like they had to be that long either, IMO.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg
    Great shot there, both of a nervous Rog and your dog!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    bondjames wrote: »
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg
    Great shot there, both of a nervous Rog and your dog!

    He spends so much time jumping up at the screen i miss half of it!
  • Posts: 12,474
    TLD tonight. I think probably my best watch of it yet! Good stuff.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited September 2018 Posts: 25,149
    bondjames wrote: »
    OHMSS

    Like TSWLM, this is a film which really benefits tremendously from the upscaled 4K experience, due to the beautiful scenery and locations. The interior of Casino Estoril, the scenes in the Alpine Room and the villages of Lauterbrunnen and Grindelwald all look almost kaleidoscopic in this format, with lots of noticeable details. Additionally Piz Gloria seems to bask even more radiantly than previously atop Schilthorn.

    I really like the action sequences in this film. They are quick cut and edited very tightly, which gives everything vitality. It’s a very different energy to TSWLM, which is more relaxed in this regard. I’d say OHMSS at times feels more modern as a result, while the later film paradoxically seems more vintage. John Glen served as editor and 2nd unit director on both films, so perhaps he and Hunt were instrumental in this faster approach to action here, capitalizing on Lazenby’s youth.

    Speaking of Laz, I think he really nails his first and only appearance as Bond. He doesn’t have the raw machismo of Connery, but then again who does? What he has however is an undeniable athleticism and earnestness, both of which suit the narrative. One can readily buy that this man can fall in love and be hurt, which is something Connery regrettably never had an opportunity to show in his time as Bond. What’s most remarkable about his performance to me is that he shows vulnerability without over-emoting (I’m not sure if that’s because he wasn’t a trained actor, but whatever the reason, it works for me). As I mentioned on the Production Thread, I have a theory that films like these where Bond faces loss are best served with one-off actors such as here. Would we have as readily bought Connery in this one? I’m not so sure. Conversely, would we have readily bought Lazenby in a hypothetical future Bond film playing the icon Bond after this? Again, I’m not so sure. On a side note, it’s hard to believe that Laz was 29 when this was filmed – he honestly looks like he’s in his mid 30’s.

    The rest of the cast are excellent as well, but most notable for me is the lovely Diana Rigg. Hers is a pivotal role in the narrative and it’s a testament to her skill as an actress that it all works – her Tracy is three dimensional and believable. It’s also a credit to the screenplay in how the romance is realized. I like the Louis Armstrong montage and the barn scene as establishing elements. They both work without getting too cheesy.

    So another great viewing completed. The only bit I'm not too fond of is the whole Piz Gloria section, which I find quite slow and dull. Up to that point I’m fully engaged, and then from Bond’s escape onwards from the mountain I’m back in full swing. However, in that middle section I get a bit bored. It’s not a major knock, but I wish I enjoyed that section more. Still, this was an amazing film for EON to close out the 60’s with and in many ways it marked the end of an era. Starting with DAF, the films had a deliberately different flavour.

    I am glad you enjoyed the 4K upscale of the two films you mentioned they truly look stunning, both are an example of excellent old school film making where all the effort is up the screen.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg

    What would have made this better would be if your dog was positioned exactly where Moore is looking.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg

    What would have made this better would be if your dog was positioned exactly where Moore is looking.

    "There are two ways to disable a dog, you know."
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg

    What would have made this better would be if your dog was positioned exactly where Moore is looking.

    True. He is very unreliable when the TV's on! :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    OHMSS

    Like TSWLM, this is a film which really benefits tremendously from the upscaled 4K experience, due to the beautiful scenery and locations. The interior of Casino Estoril, the scenes in the Alpine Room and the villages of Lauterbrunnen and Grindelwald all look almost kaleidoscopic in this format, with lots of noticeable details. Additionally Piz Gloria seems to bask even more radiantly than previously atop Schilthorn.

    I really like the action sequences in this film. They are quick cut and edited very tightly, which gives everything vitality. It’s a very different energy to TSWLM, which is more relaxed in this regard. I’d say OHMSS at times feels more modern as a result, while the later film paradoxically seems more vintage. John Glen served as editor and 2nd unit director on both films, so perhaps he and Hunt were instrumental in this faster approach to action here, capitalizing on Lazenby’s youth.

    Speaking of Laz, I think he really nails his first and only appearance as Bond. He doesn’t have the raw machismo of Connery, but then again who does? What he has however is an undeniable athleticism and earnestness, both of which suit the narrative. One can readily buy that this man can fall in love and be hurt, which is something Connery regrettably never had an opportunity to show in his time as Bond. What’s most remarkable about his performance to me is that he shows vulnerability without over-emoting (I’m not sure if that’s because he wasn’t a trained actor, but whatever the reason, it works for me). As I mentioned on the Production Thread, I have a theory that films like these where Bond faces loss are best served with one-off actors such as here. Would we have as readily bought Connery in this one? I’m not so sure. Conversely, would we have readily bought Lazenby in a hypothetical future Bond film playing the icon Bond after this? Again, I’m not so sure. On a side note, it’s hard to believe that Laz was 29 when this was filmed – he honestly looks like he’s in his mid 30’s.

    The rest of the cast are excellent as well, but most notable for me is the lovely Diana Rigg. Hers is a pivotal role in the narrative and it’s a testament to her skill as an actress that it all works – her Tracy is three dimensional and believable. It’s also a credit to the screenplay in how the romance is realized. I like the Louis Armstrong montage and the barn scene as establishing elements. They both work without getting too cheesy.

    So another great viewing completed. The only bit I'm not too fond of is the whole Piz Gloria section, which I find quite slow and dull. Up to that point I’m fully engaged, and then from Bond’s escape onwards from the mountain I’m back in full swing. However, in that middle section I get a bit bored. It’s not a major knock, but I wish I enjoyed that section more. Still, this was an amazing film for EON to close out the 60’s with and in many ways it marked the end of an era. Starting with DAF, the films had a deliberately different flavour.

    I am glad you enjoyed the 4K upscale of the two films you mentioned they truly look stunning, both are an example of excellent old school film making where all the effort is up the screen.
    Yes, most definitely. They both benefit tremendously from this format.
    ----
    QoS

    I decided to skip ahead a few decades and take in Craig’s sophomore effort next in my ‘on again, off again’ Bondathon. This really went down quite well last night. It’s another film that benefits from a high resolution format, which emphasizes all the little details during the hyper quick edits. In particular I made out more squelching and bone crunches during the brutal Slate fight. All isn't perfect during the action though. The Mitchell chase at the start of the film remains one of the more disappointing sequences in this effort for me. While there is definitely a lot happening during that sequence, I find the editing to be far too schizophrenic to fully engage me (I still believe that M got shot initially). The same goes for the later boat and plane chases. The car chase on the other hand is just perfect, and I think it might be one of the most visceral chases ever put to film, despite similarities to the Moscow pursuit in The Bourne Supremacy (especially by filming the occupant in the thick of it as the car gets crumpled to bits).

    There’s lots to like visually here. In particular, the film has great ambience and boasts rich hues, particularly in Italy but also, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, in Panama & Chile (standing in for Haiti & Bolivia respectively). These Latin American locales are gritty but stylishly captured, in contrast to LTK for instance. It’s certainly an opulent looking film worthy of the Bond franchise, and that helps one to forgive that it’s tightly edited to within an inch of its life. The benefit of the editing is that the film has phenomenal pace. There’s really very little that’s superfluous and every frame is pretty much essential to provide insights into narrative and character (via the subtlest of acting cues). Blink and one is likely to miss something important, which I’m certain many did upon first viewing.

    I find all the performances to be quite good in this film. Craig is a standout of course, and pretty much owns this effort with his rugged, no holds barred, man-on-a-mission intensity. This is not a Bond one should mess with, as evidenced by the brutal kills of opponents throughout the film. What he lacks in suaveness or urbane sophistication he makes up for with youthful energy and ferocity. Kurylenko is also very good as the avenging Camille, and I find her performance improves with multiple viewings (she just paled in comparison to Eva Green upon first viewing). The same goes for Almaric, who imbues the slimy Dominic Greene with a visible insecurity that almost perversely invites sympathy from the viewer, despite his bug-eyed gaze. Gemma Artertons’s Fields is a ‘strawberry’ delight, and it’s a darn shame the film makers didn’t contemplate locking her in as a new MP in 2008. Returning Giannini & Wright are excellent as always and give the film a little heft with their formidable acting presence. Dench is also especially strong in this film. That scene where she’s calmly removing her makeup while coldly ordering Tanner to shut Bond down is wonderfully acted – one truly believes she’s the head of MI6 there.

    I really enjoyed Arnold's score this time around, almost to the point where I'm finally ready to forgive him for his contributions during the Brosnan era, which I felt were rather subpar for this storied franchise. If he was to be announced as composer for B25 I wouldn't be ecstatic, but I could accept it without losing my 's#!^'.

    So overall this went well. I still rank this as a middle of the pack film though. I just feel as though the Bourne style editing detracts from, rather than compliments, the narrative and shouldn’t be in a Bond film. Moreover, there are story arc elements here which are very similar to the 2nd film in that franchise in particular, and I’m always reminded of that when I view this. Still, all-in-all this is a decent film.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    TMWTGG

    Apart from the lame story and silly moment's I just love Moore's performance in this. He's a total arrogant bastard and I love it!

    The sea plane scenes as Bond approaches Scaramanga's island are really nicely filmed. Great scenery.

    The PTS and climax are weak unfortunately and it's pretty low on my Bond totem pole. Moore's performance deserved better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TMWTGG

    Apart from the lame story and silly moment's I just love Moore's performance in this. He's a total arrogant bastard and I love it!
    Me too. Rog at his absolute best.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg

    I simply just love this!!!! Lol!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Live And Let Die which my Dog decided to watch with me....he quite liked the Crocodile scene....
    20180912_210200_HDR-1.jpg

    I simply just love this!!!! Lol!

    Trying to watch Planet of the Apes is a nightmare. He goes mental!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    MR

    I had a great time with this one tonight. As with all my most recent viewings this film benefits tremendously from an upscale format, and in this case Jean Tournier’s cinematography has never looked better. The Art Deco details were especially noticeable in the opulent drawing room where Bond and Drax first meet and also in Holly’s Venice hotel room. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Rio Carnival look so vibrant before either and the brilliant aerial PTS rivaled the similar sequence in this years MI: Fallout, despite being filmed nearly 40 years prior. Apart from the stunning visuals, a few other things stood out as follows.

    One thing I especially appreciated tonight was the manner in which this film, like the other classic Gilbert efforts, seems rooted despite its ridiculously larger than life premise. It exists within an exaggerated but still believable reality. I think fundamentally this difficult balance is achieved because most of the amazing stunts here are done for real. The recent MI films mirror and evoke this feeling as well, allowing the viewer to readily suspend disbelief on account of the perfectly executed stuntwork. Having said that, this film has some pretty shoddy green screen in certain areas which I found distracting and a bit annoying.

    This may be controversial, but I think John Barry’s symphonic score also elevates this film while grounding it. This is a slower and more ethereal effort which is in keeping with the grandiose classical locations in the film. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to being his best, but it’s perfect for the film. When Bond and Corrine approach Drax’s residence for instance, the cue that plays is soaring and majestic, appropriately reflecting the awe Bond and the audience feel as they witness the splendor of the property for the first time. Conversely, when Holly is called away just before the centrifuge starts spinning, Barry comes up with an eerie and tension filled cue, notifying us of the impending danger to our hero. Something just as good is played after Bond escapes, appropriately reflecting our relief that he survived. Another great suspense motif accompanies the sequence when the scientists are poisoned. One of my favourites though is the lush cue which plays when Bond discovers Drax’s jungle lair, also known as Bond Lured to Pyramid. It’s quite romantic sounding, and then changes suddenly to something chilling and foreboding as the approaching snake slithers into the water. The piece de resistance for me is of course Flight into Space with its blaring organs. When I heard Han Zimmer’s score for Interstellar I immediately thought of this defining cue from MR (and also DAF's Slumber Inc.). If I have a complaint it’s that at times the film appears a little underscored, particularly for a Barry effort.

    The drop off in quality after TSWLM was noticeable to me tonight, especially given I viewed the earlier film quite recently. There are many scenes in MR which evoke and sometimes duplicate sequences in the prior effort, but I don’t feel that they have the same flair or polish, despite this film having a more lavish budget. More is a bit less in this case, at least imho. Nevertheless, I’ve always been a big fan of Roger Moore’s unflappable and relaxed demeanour in this outing, and Lois Chiles’ Holly Goodhead has grown on me over the years. If I’m not mistaken, she’s the least scantily clad Bond girl (even Natalya showed some skin in GE) ever, and her character is resourceful, educated & “a woman” to boot. Michael Lonsdale kills it (as he always does) as the inexpressive Hugo Drax and his monologue in the space station is probably the most deadpan delivery in the series. Great fun and an end of an era in so many ways.
  • Posts: 12,474
    Enjoyed GE earlier today. It's a longtime favorite of mine and I have a ton of fun with it every single time. Excited to watch CR (my favorite Bond film) next, probably Wednesday.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @Birdleson.
    --

    @FoxRox, I'm with you on GE. Love it to bits and I'll probably get to it towards the end of this revisit of Bond films. It's always a special experience for me.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    OHMSS tonight. I loved it as usual but my friend considered it the worst so far. He still liked it and gave it a 7.5 out of 10. His main criticism was that he couldn't tell what was going on until Blofeld entered the picture. He thought Lazenby was okay, but no Connery. Obviously. He wouldn't have minded seeing him in more films. Not sure when we'll get DAF done. Looking forward to seeing how he reacts to that one. GF is still his favorite.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Give NSNA a better score and climax, and you have a pretty decent film.
Sign In or Register to comment.