Last Bond Movie You Watched

QsAssistant · October 2011

A View to a Kill... alright Bond movie for me it's the second worst Moore Bond film, For Your Eyes Only being the first.

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back-to-back. I had only seen these movies once before (QoS I saw at the theaters), and my bondathon that I started in August is finally complete.

Casino Royale: This is just as great as when I first saw it. The pacing was great, the characters were interesting and the locations were beautiful. It really looked like a sophisticated film, full of glamor. It's a very beautiful to look at. I love Daniel Craig, I think he does a fine job. I've been reading the novels simultanously while watching the films and for me, the Bond of the novels seems like a very serious, to himself, and at times, caring type of person. I can really see these qualities in Craig. The other bit I loved was the scene when Bond refuses to go under the cover name Beach, instead uses his own name which harkens to the novel "Diamonds are Forever" where Bond decides to use his own name rather than go by Peter Franks (correct me if I'm wrong about this :D). Love Vesper, Mathis, Felix, Le Chiffre, everyone was great. Although I wasn't sure if I liked that the series was being rebooted, I guess it was needed and this was a great start. I give it 5 out of 5.

Quantum of Solace: After leaving the theater, I remember feeling like the film was incomplete, like there should have been more (sort of like the feeling I got when I watched Harry Potter part 2). I didn't like the quick editing (which I hated in Batman Begins and the Bourne series as well) and that there were way too many action sequences - on foot, car, water, air, what more could they possibly add?! Aside from that, I really enjoyed the film overall. On the other hand, when watching it again, especially watching it after Casino Royale, I didn't get that feeling of incompleteness anymore. It's like QoS needs to be watched back to back w/CR. It does feel like a Bourne film like everyone has mentioned. However, the thing that bothers me the most is that some things are not explained well. For example:

1. Mitchell's connection with Slate, I didn't really get the explanation that the gave with the money.
2. Why Slate wanted to kill Camille.
3. Was that Slate in the water when Greene was talking to Camille at the docks?
4. Why was Fields' killed? (I kinda get it, sort of)
5. Why was Mathis taken and beaten?
6. Why does Bond need Greene to get to the bottom of Vesper's death?

There's probably other things that I can't think of right now, but aside from that, I still enjoyed watching this film - it was still entertaining and kept me watching the whole time. It's not as beautifully shot as CR, but I liked the use of the locations. I like the ending when Bond confronts Yusef, his conversation with M, and putting Vesper behind him. I just wished they explained some things better. 3.5 out of 5.

Nice post Artemis. I can really relate to your initial feelings after watching QOS opening weekend in the theater, and I made a point of watching CR first before going. When I left, while satisfied that they closed the Vesper story properly and established QUANTUM as the "new" SPECTRE, I noticed that they were plot holes that I later confirmed in my second viewing. QOS is definitely best viewed as a companion to CR.

Anyway, I thought you might appreciate my thoughts on the 6 things you thought needed explaining in QOS. Some of these holes were definitely attributable to the incomplete/unfinished script. My answers in bold font.

1. Mitchell's connection with Slate, I didn't really get the explanation that the gave with the money.

MI6 had substituted a series of bills into LeChiffre's money laundering operation. Think of it as bills with the serial numbers 4000-5000. Some of Mitchell's money had these serial numbers. Slate's money was mostly made up of bills with these serial numbers and MI6 was alerted to this. Since they then knew Mitchell was a member of QUANTUM, they made a connection to Slate and sent Bond to investigate.

2. Why Slate wanted to kill Camille.

Greene had probably ordered him to do it. As Greene explained, he figured out Camille was using him to get to General Medrano, so she was expendable and not someone he could trust.

3. Was that Slate in the water when Greene was talking to Camille at the docks?

I tried to pick up on that but couldn't. At that point though, Greene was still planning to have her killed, and was trying to fish for any useful information before he handed her over to Medrano.

4. Why was Fields' killed? (I kinda get it, sort of)

Greene may or may not have seen her come in with Bond, but he certainly saw her trip Elvis when he sent Elvis to presumably do Bond and Camille some harm, and knew she was with them. The absence of the capture and murder of Fields is frustrating and likely due to the incomplete script.

5. Why was Mathis taken and beaten?

Again, a very frustrating omission from the script. Did Greene already know from QUANTUM sources that Mathis was assisting Bond in Montenegro, or did he see Mathis with Bond like he may have with Fields? If they had even shown a shot of Elvis or the other guy watching the three of them walking in, it would have helped answer the latter. You just have to guess as best as you can, there's no right or wrong guess, this scene also should have been shot.

6. Why does Bond need Greene to get to the bottom of Vesper's death?

I sort of felt that Bond interrogated Greene to find out more about QUANTUM in general. Where Vesper's death and any questions he may have had about the whole affair, and the level of her involvement came into play when he located and interrogated Yusef Kabira, and I believe he got his location and what his assignment was from Greene. Between Greene, Kabira, and his allies, Bond got his eventual "Quantum Of Solace" in the end and was able to move forward both personally and professionally, so in this sense, the movie succeeded.

Jazz007 · October 2011

Brought out FRWL yesterday....

I've always thought that the first 15 minutes or so are completely ridiculous (the guy wearing the Bond mask (why?), the bizarre look on Kronsteen's face as he plays chess, the hilarious training scene and the scene where Klebb punches Grant with the brass knuckles, which is so lame I can't even describe it).

Once Connery comes onto the scene however, the film doesn't quit - still one of the best Bond films.

Artemis81 · October 2011

Thank you Sir Henry for you answers.

1. Mitchell's connection with Slate, I didn't really get the explanation that the gave with the money.

MI6 had substituted a series of bills into LeChiffre's money laundering operation. Think of it as bills with the serial numbers 4000-5000. Some of Mitchell's money had these serial numbers. Slate's money was mostly made up of bills with these serial numbers and MI6 was alerted to this. Since they then knew Mitchell was a member of QUANTUM, they made a connection to Slate and sent Bond to investigate.

Ok, I understand, but did Mitchell give Slate that money or vice versa in order to make the connection between the two?

3. Was that Slate in the water when Greene was talking to Camille at the docks?

I tried to pick up on that but couldn't. At that point though, Greene was still planning to have her killed, and was trying to fish for any useful information before he handed her over to Medrano.

I just wasn't sure if Greene had found Slate dead in the hotel and threw his body in the water (but why?) or was that somebody else and he was trying to scare Camille?

4. Why was Fields' killed? (I kinda get it, sort of)

Greene may or may not have seen her come in with Bond, but he certainly saw her trip Elvis when he sent Elvis to presumably do Bond and Camille some harm, and knew she was with them. The absence of the capture and murder of Fields is frustrating and likely due to the incomplete script.

It's funny, because at first I thought the note the hotel clerk gave to Bond (the "run?" one) was from M. Kinda like, "get away! the Americans are trying to get you!", but then I noticed Bond said "so this is what 'she' meant" - like referring to Fields. Like you said, some extra scenes should have been made to clarify all this.

5. Why was Mathis taken and beaten?

Again, a very frustrating omission from the script. Did Greene already know from QUANTUM sources that Mathis was assisting Bond in Montenegro, or did he see Mathis with Bond like he may have with Fields? If they had even shown a shot of Elvis or the other guy watching the three of them walking in, it would have helped answer the latter. You just have to guess as best as you can, there's no right or wrong guess, this scene also should have been shot.

Yeah, I never got the impression that Greene and Elvis ever saw Bond with Fields or Mathis. The head of police saw them together, but at that point, he didn't seem suspicious.

6. Why does Bond need Greene to get to the bottom of Vesper's death?

Between Greene, Kabira, and his allies, Bond got his eventual "Quantum Of Solace" in the end and was able to move forward both personally and professionally, so in this sense, the movie succeeded.

Ok, I can see that. It's just really frustrating that they couldn't clarify these things cause otherwise it would have been a better movie. That and if they had fixed the editing. :D Thanks again.

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

@ Artemis-

1. Mitchell and Slate received their money from QUANTUM funds, that's all we are led to believe. Other than both being QUANTUM members, there's no evidence that they even knew each other, let alone exchanged money.

4. I understand the confusion completely, the first and even second times I saw the film it was not clear to me whether M or Fields was the Englishwoman who left the note. It makes you think Greene probably grabbed Fields at the hotel and not at the party, again it's all very unclear because they never showed her capture and death.

5. Your guess is as good as anyone's! The only thing that is clear is that Carlos was acting on Medrano's behalf in order to consummate QUANTUM's deal and to get the money he later received at the desert hotel. He lured Mathis into a beating so his police could set up Bond.

It is a very frustrating film because you are right, it would have been better with about 5 minutes more of scenes. I am definitely not a fan of the editing either. Still, the movie succeeds in the most important ways it needed to, and I prefer it to most of the Moore and Brosnan entries because I prefer realism to slapstick, excessive CGI, and too many cheesy one liners.

Baltimore_007 · October 2011

I've got to try and watch this again at some stage, maybe I'll have a change of opinion, heh, probably be the week before Bond XXIII opens and I'll get a copy and watch it then so I'll be fresh for the next feature

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

@ Baltimore- There are plenty of opinions I disagree with and cannot understand, but there is no denying that everyone is entitled to have one. What drives me crazy is people whose opinions are excessively negative and refuse to acknowledge anything good about a film. Every Bond film has it's good points, if I can find them in MR and DAD then they can be found in every other Bond film too. Like for example, this "hulk Bond" bit about Craig. One of the most stupid criticisms I have ever heard. Why is that a big deal? If you were M, would you expect a top MI6 field operative like Bond to be in that kind of shape with the characters he'd have to physically challenge and beat, or some out of shape slob too preoccupied with excessive drinking and smoking? I respect the effort Craig puts forth to be in that kind of shape, not just for the rigors of doing his own stunts but for the sake of realism. Maybe some of these people are jealous they don't look like that, who knows? I'd surely rather meet Dalton or Brosnan in a dark alley first, those guys I'd have a much better shot against :-))

I am psyched well in advance for BOND 23. If it all comes together like it seems to be shaping up to be so far, Craig will do his part. The man is one of the great actors of his time and can pull off anything they give him. I honestly believe that the people who don't see him as Bond because of the different, and necessary characterization required to make CR and QOS work, will be eating lots and lots of crow when he unleashes the familiar portrayal they are looking for.

Artemis81 · October 2011

@ Artemis-

1. Mitchell and Slate received their money from QUANTUM funds, that's all we are led to believe. Other than both being QUANTUM members, there's no evidence that they even knew each other, let alone exchanged money.

Oh ok. For some reason I got the impression that there was a direct connection between Mitchell and Slate. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is a very frustrating film because you are right, it would have been better with about 5 minutes more of scenes. I am definitely not a fan of the editing either. Still, the movie succeeds in the most important ways it needed to, and I prefer it to most of the Moore and Brosnan entries because I prefer realism to slapstick, excessive CGI, and too many cheesy one liners.

I still find this film enjoyable despite it's flaws. That's why I have trouble understanding why some people would consider it to be the worst when it's really not that bad. Well, at least for me it wasn't. I mean, people consider MR and DAD to be the worst because of the things you mentioned, but does QoS really fit into their catergory?

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

I agree with you Artemis. I can't understand the people who consider QOS the worst Bond film either, except to say those same people are obviously Craig haters. They don't like the more serious tone of the recent movies and want something a little lighter and more familiar. I get that, I just don't get all the pessimism regarding the next film before it's even been shot and viewed. What I find most amusing is that Craig wants that too but they just won't cut the guy a break. They just want to hate the guy. Anyway, QOS is easily better than the rampant stupidity that runs through MR and DAD, but then again it's plenty flawed too and everyone knows it. QOS is basically a middle of the pack entry for me at #11 out of 22, not great but not awful either. What I was looking for the movie to do was (1) to close the Vesper story, (2) establish QUANTUM as a serious organization to be reckoned with, and (3) see Bond move on to the more normal character. In the end, I felt the first two goals were accomplished, so I wasn't overly disappointed. As to the third, this was the meaning of the gunbarrel at the end, which I think may have been lost on some people who were complaining about it's placement. I felt it signified the end of the reboot phase and now I expect we will see it in it's normal position at the beginning along with Craig doing a more normal Bond characterization as well.

QsAssistant · October 2011

Just finished watching "The Living Daylights". Great film and after watching it, it makes me wish Dalton would of been able to make at least a third film.

Artemis81 · October 2011

As to the third, this was the meaning of the gunbarrel at the end, which I think may have been lost on some people who were complaining about it's placement. I felt it signified the end of the reboot phase and now I expect we will see it in it's normal position at the beginning along with Craig doing a more normal Bond characterization as well.

I guess I never saw it like that before - good interpretation.

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

Just finished watching "The Living Daylights". Great film and after watching it, it makes me wish Dalton would of been able to make at least a third film.

Seconded. I wish he had started at AVTAK. His showdown with Zorin would have been awesome, and then had got at least one more film in before GE. Although I must say he would have made GE even better too :-D

Thanks Artemis.

Baltimore_007 · October 2011

I think Dalton, at 49, may have been a little past it to play Bond in Goldeneye, sure we had Moore doing outrageous scenes at older than that in his later tenure but maybe in hindsight a Bond release if it were possible in 1991/92 with Dalton may well have worked but there's half of me thinking Tim may have been unsuitable by Goldeneye release date, the thing is though, it's water under the bridge now and we can only ask 'what if ' etc

Obviously if you reverse it, Dalton would of been very interesting in Octopussy or A View To A Kill especially as Moore was evidently past it by this stage, but I wonder if he would of acknowledged participating in a gorilla suit caper or crocodile contraption or some ridiculous sequence over San Francisco where Bond's privates are very nearly violated by some tall building aerials

I guess Moore was content to go out in his swansong and not pay too much attention to genuine absurdities

barryt007 · October 2011

I could see Dalton in AVTAK but Moore was outstanding in OP and that's definately HIS film.

ChrisGelderd · October 2011

Last Bond I watched was...'Diamonds Are Forever' back here in the UK on TV.

Classic.

Master_Dahark · October 2011

I could see Dalton in AVTAK but Moore was outstanding in OP and that's definately HIS film.

You know it's funny you mention that- on Netflix I checked out Jane Eyre, (don't judge me- I only wanted to see Dalton, lol)
It was from 1983 and I was surprised to see that he did not look any different from TLD in 1987! I was really expecting him to look way younger.
As much of a Moore fan I am, after seeing that, I actually long to have seen him take over as early as FYEO!
No exaggeration, he looked identical to the way he did in TLD. We TOTALLY should have had more Dalton!

MajorDSmythe · October 2011

If given the choice, I would rather have seen Dalton carry the role into the 1990's, than him start much earlier than 1987.

QsAssistant · October 2011

You know it's funny you mention that- on Netflix I checked out Jane Eyre, (don't judge me- I only wanted to see Dalton, lol)

lol I almost checked that out myself, because I wanted to see Dalton as well, but it wasn't enough for me to watch it. I didn't want to watch a boring movie based off a boring book I had to read in High School.

If given the choice, I would rather have seen Dalton carry the role into the 1990's, than him start much earlier than 1987.

That's where I have to disagree with you. I think he would have been much better in AVTAK, and yes I am a Brosnan fan, so I wouldn't want my Goldeneye movie with anyone but him.

Shoreline · October 2011

For Your Eyes Only...
This film has now become my favourite of Moores, (Spy is a close second)
He is simply awesome.
I can`t put my finger on it, but certain Bond films have a magic to them that isn`t seen enough, and this one has it in spades. As much as I like recent Bonds, they don`t hold the same "unattainable exoticness" as entries like this one. Like I said, dunno what it is, maybe it`s just nostalgia...?
Anyway, I think Moore pulls of Fleming Bond very well here, and it`s a big movie, but never strays into pantomime territory. (ala MR, DAD). Mrs Brosnan is very glamourous here too. Well suited to Moore.
I recommend you guys just pop it in, and watch it now, and you`ll soon agree with me!
Next up, OP.

00Beast · October 2011

@Shoreline: Indeed! I've always thought that FYEO had something to it that was magical. Definitely a great Moore Bond movie, in his performance and the movie all together.

SirHenryLeeChaChing · October 2011

Agreed, FYEO remains my favorite Moore outing, with LALD a close second. FYEO was such a breath of needed fresh air in the series, Bond should never be an astronaut or participate in slapstick and cornball [-X

QsAssistant · October 2011

I need to go back and watch FYEO. The two times that I did see it I wasn't a fan and at times I rate it, or AVTAK, one of the worst Bond movies.

00Beast · October 2011

@QsAssistant: I used to be a fan of AVTAK, but my views have changed somewhat over time; it's definitely lower on my list, and one that has begun to bore me greatly.

SJK91 · October 2011

GoldenEye

Watched it at 6AM during long bus ride back using my laptop; for sure made the ride seem quicker! Brosnan's best for sure; and even though Brosnan doesn't make for a great Bond (his performances get better in his later, not as good films), I was a little less hostile towards his performance as I used to be; although Sean Bean still upstages Brosnan in all of their shared scenes. A highly enjoyable Bond film. I could for sure see it as becoming a a half-classic later down the line. And this time around I was really digging Eric Serra's score. Bizarre it may be, but the uniqueness of the score is something I can truly appreciate. 'The GoldenEye Overture' is one of the best Bond tracks in the series.

8.5/10

Whitaker1987 · October 2011

For Your Eyes Only

My only wish for an improved version would include a better role for Locque and with speech. So underused.

Charles Dance also could have had a better role.

Shoreline · October 2011

Raiders of the lost OCTOPUSSY!
Really enjoyed watching this again, even if our Rog is starting to creak a little.
Maud Adams is a delight, again!
Actually, I like the fact Bond is a little old, and wiser. Doubt we will get to see this again in this day and age.The last act really moves, and Moor wears clown very well!

SaintMark · October 2011

Live and let die - an absolute excellent first movie by Roger Moore with th equally stunning Jane Seymour. I always love that boat pursuit with the funny J.W. Pepper. Still a lot of fun.

The Man with the Golden Gun - my least favorite RM outing but there is still a lot of entertainment to be had. Still no slapstick 007 so many "serious" 007 fans complain about. Peppers cameo is fun but was not necessary. Christopher Lee is the excellent villain. The first two RM vehicles had pretty impressive actors playing the bad guy.

SJK91 · October 2011

Tomorrow Never Dies

Just about as good as I remembered it; TND is a loud, popcorn munching fun type film. It is not particularly deep or thought provoking but I think when you sit back and just 'tune out' (just like Bond on the Stealth Boat!) Tomorrow Never Dies is a fun romp. Brosnan's performance is better here than he was in GoldenEye; he plays the role a little lighter and it mostly works for me. Some of his one liners work ('They'll print anything these days') and others really don't ('...we've developed a certain ATTACHMENT to each other') but the overall script is serviceable. I've always really liked Pryce as the baddie; he overplays everything but does it splendidly. Both Bond girls, Hatcher and Yeoh, get the job done, they are not great, but they don't hurt the film. Something I noticed for the first time also is how much I really like the cinematography. A lot of upward angles and fluid camera motions are used to great results. Tomorrow Never Dies' first half is considerably better than it's second, and could have been a better film, but hey I enjoyed it.

7/10

12. License to Kill (1989) - 7.5/10
13. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - 7/10
14. The World Is Not Enough (1999) - 7/10

NorwegianBond · October 2011

Live And Let Die

First time for a long time..
It was actually a bit better since the last time. (But only a bit. It remains as one of the worst in the franchise)

QsAssistant · October 2011

12. License to Kill (1989) - 7.5/10
13. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - 7/10
14. The World Is Not Enough (1999) - 7/10

You know, I've never made a list of what order I like the Bond films. Maybe I should do this.

Reporting For Duty

Categories

In this Discussion

Last Bond Movie You Watched

Comments

Reporting For Duty

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Last Bond Movie You Watched

Comments