Last Bond Movie You Watched

1168169171173174332

Comments

  • Posts: 6,432
    TMWTGG Very mixed in this watch some of the location shoots are good, set design for this film looks very cheap. J.W. Seems more ignorant and offensive than ever, I don't mind Moore in this and Lee subtlety works well. For the most part despite its wafer thin contrived plot I do generally enjoy the film despite its short comings. Its a film I watched countless times as a kid, so no doubt nostalgia plays a part. In the early 80s I watched The Saint and The Persuaders to death, love Moore for being Moore.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Birdleson wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    How is the 4k vs your previous tv?

    I'm no technology wiz, but the image is far better and more crisp. I noticed when watching the car chase in SPECTRE that the image moves much more "smoothly", as if there is an increased frame rate. The TV also benefits greatly from a sound bar, so films get proper cinematic treatment.

    Costco has a 55" Samsung 4 K on sale for under a grand. I'm debating. So, it's worth it?
    For ME, 4K is severe overkill. But if it sends you, groovy.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited April 2016 Posts: 17,789
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't know if it does. That's why I'm asking.
    I used to sell high end video & audio equipment. The rule of thumb is: don't shell out money for an upgrade in quality you won't notice. If you have AMAZING (pilot-level) vision it's worth it to get 4K. I have very good vision so 1080 is the limit of visual perception for me. And even then my set is 720 because I don't need anything more detailed under 32". At 55" I'd suggest 1080 for most.
    FWIW.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I know that, though I need reading glasses, in terms of distance my vision (even at this age) is well above average. But your point is taken. My 48 " is 1080 and it seems fine.

    It depends on the age of your TV. If it is older than 2009 then you'll notice a difference in a new TV set, overall picture quality has improved quite a bit.
    But don't forget it is also important to own a good quality Blu-ray player, otherwise upgrading the TV is kind of useless.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    How is the 4k vs your previous tv?

    I'm no technology wiz, but the image is far better and more crisp. I noticed when watching the car chase in SPECTRE that the image moves much more "smoothly", as if there is an increased frame rate. The TV also benefits greatly from a sound bar, so films get proper cinematic treatment.

    Costco has a 55" Samsung 4 K on sale for under a grand. I'm debating. So, it's worth it?

    Get a projector, per screen inch they're lot cheaper than TVs and give you a huge picture.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Watched Live and Let Die, albeit with Tom Mankiewicz's commentary. I have to say I'm struck by how average it is. And I really loved LALD as a kid. Moore's performance, in contrast to Dalton's and Craig's of recent Bonds, seems very flat and 2-dimensional here. There isn't much to write home about his performance here. It's not bad, just very average like the film as whole. I was nodding off by the end. It was interesting hearing Mankiewicz talk about the different ways he would write for Connery and Moore. Of particular note was how he was saying the scene when Bond gets the spin in the booth wouldn't work with Connery, you'd expect there to be danger with him, that he'd stick a knife in someone or something.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 6,432
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I know that, though I need reading glasses, in terms of distance my vision (even at this age) is well above average. But your point is taken. My 48 " is 1080 and it seems fine.

    It depends on the age of your TV. If it is older than 2009 then you'll notice a difference in a new TV set, overall picture quality has improved quite a bit.
    But don't forget it is also important to own a good quality Blu-ray player, otherwise upgrading the TV is kind of useless.
    Agree my TV is 1080p and thought it looked decent with my Panasonic Bluray player, recently bought a Sony Bluray player and it upscaled it even more as does my Xbox One BD player which I tend not to use. Certain movies on BD need a picture settings tweak dependent on how the HD transfer turned out.
  • Posts: 4,325
    1080p is absolutely fine. Also make sure your colour temperature is always set to 'warm'.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    The final Bond in my random Bondathon...

    The Man With The Golden Gun

    I like the score of TMWTGG, it's some of Barry's best. But without question, the best thing about TMWTGG is Christopher lee as Scaramanga. He has now become my favourite Bond villain. Having played enough villainous types on screen, Lee didn't need prosthetics or theatrics to be sinister/evil he could exude it. When Hai Fat is trying to give Scaramanga a dressing down, there's a shot where Scaramanga looks at Fat, and it's all about the look in his eyes.


    ^ Skip to 52 seconds in.

    Random Bond Viewing 2016 (in order of viewing):
    January:
    1. You Only Live Twice
    2. For Your Eyes Only
    3. Tomorrow Never Dies
    4. The Living Daylights
    February:
    5. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    6. From Russia With Love
    7. Spectre
    8. Octopussy
    9. Diamonds Are Forever
    March:
    10. Quantum Of Solace
    11. Goldfinger
    12. Moonraker
    13. Goldenye
    14. The Spy Who Loved Me
    15. Die Another Day
    16. Dr No
    17. A View To A Kill
    April:
    18. Skyfall
    19. Thunderball
    20. Live And Let Die
    21. Casino Royale
    22. The World Is Not Enough
    23. Licence To Kill
    24. The Man With The Golden Gun
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    TMWTGG is great. Lee makes it so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Great scene. You can see Lee/Scaramanga realizing as soon as Hai Fat puts the Solex on the table that this is his opportunity to act, and he immediately gets to work assembling his gun.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Not to mention the speed and ease as which Lee assembles the gun. You see his fingers working over the pieces, and suddenly it's all put together.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    TMWTGG is probably the one Bond movie that would fall completely apart without the lead actor (Lee).
    I think they were lucky to have him. Otherwise it could have gone terribly wrong.
    I even go so far to say, Lee is the best villain in the franchise if you judge by performance and character.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 11,189
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Watched Live and Let Die, albeit with Tom Mankiewicz's commentary. I have to say I'm struck by how average it is. And I really loved LALD as a kid. Moore's performance, in contrast to Dalton's and Craig's of recent Bonds, seems very flat and 2-dimensional here. There isn't much to write home about his performance here. It's not bad, just very average like the film as whole. I was nodding off by the end. It was interesting hearing Mankiewicz talk about the different ways he would write for Connery and Moore. Of particular note was how he was saying the scene when Bond gets the spin in the booth wouldn't work with Connery, you'd expect there to be danger with him, that he'd stick a knife in someone or something.

    Moore to me seems like a stand-in during his first 2 films. In MWTGG particular it feels like any actor could have played the character in a similar way. He doesn't own the role at this point. The writing team was certainly playing about a bit with Moore's Bond.

    I remember an old mi6 member saying he was playing Simon Templar in LALD rather than Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    BAIN123 wrote: »

    Moore to me seems like a stand-in during his first 2 films. In MWTGG particular it feels like any actor could have played the character in a similar way.
    I disagree; Moore was awesome. No one can do Moore better than Moore.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    TMWTGG is probably the one Bond movie that would fall completely apart without the lead actor (Lee).
    I think they were lucky to have him. Otherwise it could have gone terribly wrong.
    I even go so far to say, Lee is the best villain in the franchise if you judge by performance and character.

    Yes, yes, and yes. Lee (and Barry's score) are the glue that holds the film together.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »

    Moore to me seems like a stand-in during his first 2 films. In MWTGG particular it feels like any actor could have played the character in a similar way.
    I disagree; Moore was awesome. No one can do Moore better than Moore.

    I really like Moore but I like him better in his later films (ie. TSWLM, FYEO and OP).

    One of his strongest qualities I've noticed is that he nearly always seemed confident in the part.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    TMWTGG is probably the one Bond movie that would fall completely apart without the lead actor (Lee).
    I think they were lucky to have him. Otherwise it could have gone terribly wrong.
    I even go so far to say, Lee is the best villain in the franchise if you judge by performance and character.

    Their first choice, Jack Palance, wouldn t be any worse. And probably closer to the book.

    But I agree, Lee is awesome.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Watched Live and Let Die, albeit with Tom Mankiewicz's commentary. I have to say I'm struck by how average it is. And I really loved LALD as a kid. Moore's performance, in contrast to Dalton's and Craig's of recent Bonds, seems very flat and 2-dimensional here. There isn't much to write home about his performance here. It's not bad, just very average like the film as whole. I was nodding off by the end. It was interesting hearing Mankiewicz talk about the different ways he would write for Connery and Moore. Of particular note was how he was saying the scene when Bond gets the spin in the booth wouldn't work with Connery, you'd expect there to be danger with him, that he'd stick a knife in someone or something.

    Moore to me seems like a stand-in during his first 2 films. In MWTGG particular it feels like any actor could have played the character in a similar way. He doesn't own the role at this point. The writing team was certainly playing about a bit with Moore's Bond.

    I remember an old mi6 member saying he was playing Simon Templar in LALD rather than Bond.

    It seems like in the first two Moore was kept because Cubby had hope in him and its with the third film where he finally found his way in the Bond franchise.

    I guess to all the actors who have played Bond in more than two films they found his style with the third except Connery who found his style right from the beginning.
    Terrence Young definitely got the best from him.

    Now that i think so Connery and Moore were extremely lucky to get a director who loved them and understood their style completely.

    Moore had Glenn that even though im not a big fan of him and his Bond films he made Roget Moore popular and so did Terrence Young with Connery.
    Apart from Goldfinger all the best performances by Connery were with Terrence Young.


  • Posts: 4,044
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »

    Moore to me seems like a stand-in during his first 2 films. In MWTGG particular it feels like any actor could have played the character in a similar way.
    I disagree; Moore was awesome. No one can do Moore better than Moore.

    I really like Moore but I like him better in his later films (ie. TSWLM, FYEO and OP).

    One of his strongest qualities I've noticed is that he nearly always seemed confident in the part.

    They really seemed to be testing out Roger as Bond in the first two. Sometimes light and comedic, sometimes really dark - darker than Connery even. It makes his performances interesting but uneven.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2016 Posts: 15,715
    As someone once said on these forums - Guy Hamilton made Connery act like Moore twice, and Moore act like Connery twice.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    As someone once said on these forums - Guy Hamilton made Connery act like Moore twice, and Moore act like Connery twice.
    I've never seen it put so well. That is exactly my view.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    YOLT

    I need a new copy. Totally skipped from the bath scene straight to Helgas cabin on the Ning Po. I'll just upgrade them all to bluray here soob
  • I thought the score of TMWTGG was generally considered to be one of Barry's weakest.

    Nevertheless, I still enjoy TMWTGG. But over the years, I've started to get the feeling where I don't know if it's really that great or if it's just a guilty pleasure of mine.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Both. :))
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Spectre

    My 2nd viewing (my first viewing was the week of the dvd release). So it's been a few weeks, have my feelings changed? Not really. It's a flawed, but enjoyable Bond film. The PTS, featuring Bond walking across the rooftops with purpose and a swagger, and the Bond theme, is still my favourite sequence. I'd also like to say that the MI6 regulars fit into place nicely in Spectre. It'd be a shame we don't see Craig, Fiennes, Harris, Wishaw and Kinnear one more time.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 2,483
    QOS

    Technically--and excepting the editing in some of the action sequences--this is a pretty good film. But there are two problems, one relatively minor, the other huge. The first is the title track. Every time I hear AWTD I shake my head in disbelieve that an entity as professional and well-funded as Eon could allow dreck such as this to be attached to a Bond film. It is to Bond music what DAD is to Bond films. This song ruins the rather interesting title credits.

    Second, the tone is wrong for a Bond film. QOS simply becomes more and more depressing the longer it runs. Nobody says Bond films must be all sunshine and smiles--there is room for heaviness--but they should not be Bergmanesque downers either. QOS is just that.

    The highlights, of course, are the Tosca sequence--and Arnold's scoring here--and the Kazan coda. Both are perfection.
  • Posts: 9,846
    Quick question with the Night manager starting Tuesday can I post my reviews of each episode here discussing Actor Hiddleston and Director Barr and how they could make or could not make a good bond 25?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Going back to the discussion from a page or two ago, I have a 32" 1080p Samsung TV that I got in late 2010. Having grown up with those little tube sets, 32" inches is fine for me at the moment, but I'll probably upgrade to something bigger in the next couple of years. When I got the Spectre Bluray I realised I would have to stand quite close to pick out some of the details in the crowds during the day of the dead scenes. Spectre is the most cinematic Bond film since TSWLM, so it'll be worth the upgrade. My set still looks very modern, I'll upgrade once 4K becomes more affordable. Anyway, I wanted to ask, what makes you buy a new TV? Do you wait for yours to break, do you jump on the bandwagon when a new technology becomes available, or are you a crazy videophile who is buying a new TV every 3 years. Also, how often would you say you upgraded? Every 8 years? 10 years? 12 maybe?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Going back to the discussion from a page or two ago, I have a 32" 1080p Samsung TV that I got in late 2010. Having grown up with those little tube sets, 32" inches is fine for me at the moment, but I'll probably upgrade to something bigger in the next couple of years. When I got the Spectre Bluray I realised I would have to stand quite close to pick out some of the details in the crowds during the day of the dead scenes. Spectre is the most cinematic Bond film since TSWLM, so it'll be worth the upgrade. My set still looks very modern, I'll upgrade once 4K becomes more affordable. Anyway, I wanted to ask, what makes you buy a new TV? Do you wait for yours to break, do you jump on the bandwagon when a new technology becomes available, or are you a crazy videophile who is buying a new TV every 3 years. Also, how often would you say you upgraded? Every 8 years? 10 years? 12 maybe?

    I don't think there is a rule to it.
    2010 is old enough in my opinion to upgrade. But it is a Samsung model which usually have very good picture quality. If your TV is LED technology I would keep it, if it is Plasma or LCD I'd throw it away :))

    If you decide to buy a new TV (imho buy Samsung again) then go for big which means 55", you can go even bigger 65" IF you want to spend a certain amount of money AND you can sit at a distance of at least 4 meters from the TV.

    Personally I'd buy a 55" LED (or OLED) technology Samsung TV set. It can be a curved model or not, that doesn't make a difference. Nowadays most TVs are 4K anyway, but keep an eye on it nonetheless.
    Netflix streams more and more content in 4K, most good new Blu-ray player can at least upconvert to 4K or can play 4K Blu-ray discs which in a couple of years will be available on a wide basis.
    3D is an option as well. If the TV you like has 3D capability the better but it's not a must in my opinion.
    Last year I bought a new Samsung model. Since it can show 3D I bought some 3D Blu-rays. It is fun, but nothing I would want every day. My daughter on the other hand really likes to see Hotel Transylvania, Minions, Frozen etc. in 3D!

    Anyway, first set the amount of money you are willing to spend, then go for the best TV you can get for that money.
Sign In or Register to comment.