Last Bond Movie You Watched

1203204206208209332

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, that's a great line, but whenever I watch that particular scene I'm reminded of how cheap the film looks at that specific point in that office. Like a tv movie. A big step down from the lavish & unusual Adam sets of MR or TSWLM.

    I've never been a big fan of the sets in it, solely because they do look cheap at times and don't manage to inspire grand amounts of awe or breathtaking beauty in the way Adam did.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, that's a great line, but whenever I watch that particular scene I'm reminded of how cheap the film looks at that specific point in that office. Like a tv movie. A big step down from the lavish & unusual Adam sets of MR or TSWLM.

    I've never been a big fan of the sets in it, solely because they do look cheap at times and don't manage to inspire grand amounts of awe or breathtaking beauty in the way Adam did.
    I think it's very much a function of Glen and his team. He was a great action director but showed time and time again (apart from in FYEO) that he didn't know how to enhance a scene visually.

    Take the opening office CR Prague scene as a contrast. Campbell made that whole pretitles seem more lavish than it was in reality. It was in the shot framing, lighting, use of black and white, and the industrial/suspenseful feel to everything. It was cool, even though it wasn't expensive.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, that's a great line, but whenever I watch that particular scene I'm reminded of how cheap the film looks at that specific point in that office. Like a tv movie. A big step down from the lavish & unusual Adam sets of MR or TSWLM.

    I've never been a big fan of the sets in it, solely because they do look cheap at times and don't manage to inspire grand amounts of awe or breathtaking beauty in the way Adam did.
    I think it's very much a function of Glen and his team. He was a great action director but showed time and time again (apart from in FYEO) that he didn't know how to enhance a scene visually.

    Take the opening office CR Prague scene as a contrast. Campbell made that whole pretitles seem more lavish than it was in reality. It was in the shot framing, lighting, use of black and white, and the industrial/suspenseful feel to everything. It was cool, even though it wasn't expensive.

    Is this positive or negative?

    Well I am certainly controversial but I only like part of the CR PTS. Yes the cinematography is good but it also looks a bit too stylish in places.

    I also disagree that Glen is not able to enhance a scene visually. Just take the sniper scene or the trade fair scene in TLD or the first clown scene in OP. These are among the most suspensefull scenes in the whole series, mainly because of how these scenes directed. But I agree that the great Ken Adam film sets are missed in that era, even though I like some of the sets (the KGB headquarter in OP is great as is the mine and the GG bridge set in AVTAK).
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I watched Octopussy yesterday. It will always be a film I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand it has a very interesting cold war plot that was very crucial at the time this film was produced. The villains are great and I like Octopussy as one of the more interesting female character in the franchise. Vijay is a decent henchman and the Barry score is fantastic once again. The film has some great scenes. My favourite is the one where 009 is killed by the knife throwing twins. Othere great scenes are the sotheby's auction and the whole train sequence.

    What are the negatives: Unfortunately much of the humor is not really good. The jungle chase could be so much more intense and suspensefull but is completely ruined by some corny jokes. I also don't really like the tuctuc chase as well as the final inside and outside the Monson Palace and on top the air plane.

    However, this is still a very enjoyable film that I watch quite often. This time I finally understood what they were actually doing in that tunnel at the station of Karl-Marx-Stadt. Until yesterday, I never really cared about that scene and always thought OK they simply exchanged the jewels by the bomb. I never really noticed that they exchanged the whole wagon. But this raises a few questions:

    1. How did the one knife throwing twin know that his brother was killed by Bond? How did he even know that his brother was dead when he was inside the train all the time and his brother was in the wagon that left the tunnel on the other side.

    2. What was actually Khan's part in the game? I always thought that he intended to get the jewels while Orlov's plan was to make the bomb explode in the military base. But why does Orlov then take the jewels out of the wagon instead of Khan? The whole time Khan does not seem to care about th jewels at all. There is no conversation with eg. Gobinda about that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GBF wrote: »
    What are the negatives: Unfortunately much of the humor is not really good. The jungle chase could be so much more intense and suspensefull but is completely ruined by some corny jokes. I also don't really like the tuctuc chase as well as the final inside and outside the Monson Palace and on top the air plane.

    The plane sequence is great, but completely agree about all those others.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    Dr No
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 11,189
    I have noticed that several of the very popular Bond films (Goldfinger, TSWLM, GE and now SF) have a very vocal group of people who consider them to be overrated.

    I have a soft spot for GoldenEye as it was my first Bond film and its by far the one I've seen most so I'm probably a little biased towards it. Loved it then and still love it now though I agree its aged and doesn't seem as perfect as I felt it was when I was younger.

    However, Judi Dench, Gottfried John, Isabella Scorrupco, Famke Janssen are all great. Love the "sexist dinosaur" scene with M. I don't see how it falls flat at all . There's a lot of good in the film which makes up for some of the clunkier aspects (the dodgy visual effects, Brosnan's hit-and-miss, performance and some of the corny dialogue).

    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I do think its a nostalgia thing! After the long gap, fans were so delighted to see Bond back on screen, and GE will always have that mantle, The Movie where 007 returned to Cinema! But really, if you look at the film today, its not very good at all!

    I think it was the right Bond film for when it was released.

    It balanced all the familiar elements nicely and didn't stray too far from the format as the misjudged LTK had done several years earlier.

    I like the film, but it hasn't aged well. And with Craig excelling in the Bond role, Brosnan just seems so lightweight now.

    This seems like a fair comment.
  • Posts: 6,432
    Goldfinger Thoroughly enjoying the film and then Bond gets to Kentucky and the film just grinds to a halt, I am often hard on GF though there is at least half a great film there.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Goldfinger Thoroughly enjoying the film and then Bond gets to Kentucky and the film just grinds to a halt, I am often hard on GF though there is at least half a great film there.
    I fully agree. Half a great film for me too.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Yes, that's a great moment.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    T
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    1. How did the one knife throwing twin know that his brother was killed by Bond? How did he even know that his brother was dead when he was inside the train all the time and his brother was in the wagon that left the tunnel on the other side.

    I always l liked the way this is conveyed. He sees Bond in his brother's clothes and knows immediately the only way that Bond could have gotten them would be if his brother was now dead (logically concluding, given the circumstances, killed by Bond).


    That sounds pretty fasible. So one certainly has to acknowledge his anticipation skills.. I guess a more realisitc statement would have been: "What have you done to my brother?"
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    1. How did the one knife throwing twin know that his brother was killed by Bond? How did he even know that his brother was dead when he was inside the train all the time and his brother was in the wagon that left the tunnel on the other side.

    I always liked the way this is conveyed. He sees Bond in his brother's clothes and knows immediately the only way that Bond could have gotten them would be if his brother was now dead (logically concluding, given the circumstances, killed by Bond).

    That's how I always saw it, too - he greets him atop the train by name, until Bond turns around, which is when he realizes that Mischka is dead since he's wearing his brother's attire.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    A bit like when Craig said:

    "Are you going to be like that the whole journey"

    it didn't need M saying:

    "Oh, go on then eject me!"

    That bit was to much, wasn't needed. Just Craig's line was fine.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    @Birdleson my blood is boiling because of that line, don't mention it!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Exactly. Or, "Of course, Mr. White!"

    Yep. Craig didn't sound at all natural with that delivery. Then again, the line sounds like something Robin would say in the old Adam West Batman show.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    T
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    1. How did the one knife throwing twin know that his brother was killed by Bond? How did he even know that his brother was dead when he was inside the train all the time and his brother was in the wagon that left the tunnel on the other side.

    I always l liked the way this is conveyed. He sees Bond in his brother's clothes and knows immediately the only way that Bond could have gotten them would be if his brother was now dead (logically concluding, given the circumstances, killed by Bond).


    That sounds pretty fasible. So one certainly has to acknowledge his anticipation skills.. I guess a more realisitc statement would have been: "What have you done to my brother?"

    That would have sounded as if it was there to feed the audience. Much more real the way it played out.

    Ok but I have another question: How did Bond know that the knife throving twins killed 009? It was not even mentioned in the office scene that 009 was killed by a knife. M just said he "turned up dead in East Germany with the egg in his hand".

    I am also still looking for someone who can explain how the jewel smuggling plan really works. If I understand it correctly Orlov replaced real Russian jewels by fake ones which have been produced by Khan's men. Octopussy and Khan use of their circus to smuggle the real jewels into the west where they auction them. So how can that work? I mean how can you auction e.g. a Faberge egg which is very famous and clearly and officially owned by the Soviet Union? I mean either it is a fake one or a stolen good? How can such a good be auctioned at Sutheby's?

    I also don't understand why Orlov and not Khan takes the jewels out of the wagon. I mean what was Khan's motivation to double cross Octopussy and cooperate with Orlov? I would have understood it if he takes the real Russian jewels out of the wagon into his own car to have the jewels alone. Is it clarified somewhere in the film? Do they for example say that Orlov takes the jewels and plan to hand it over to Khan later on? However, Khan does not seem to care for the jewels at all. Anyway the jewels are still in the east. Shouldn't they be brought into the west and don't they need the circus for the jewels smuggling? Why do they not just leave them in the train and Khan takes them when he leaves the circus? For me it is really absurd since Khan actuall benefits from Octopussy's smuggling operations. What is his motivation to destroy this kind of business, especially if he is not even taking the jewels?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Exactly. Or, "Of course, Mr. White!"

    Yep. Craig didn't sound at all natural with that delivery. Then again, the line sounds like something Robin would say in the old Adam West Batman show.
    This is so true! Cue the idea bubble.

    cartoon-thought-bubble-md.png
  • Posts: 16,154
    GOLDENEYE

    In honor of the GoldenEye Appreciation thread and my recent nostalgia for the mid '90s era, I felt compelled to pop this one in. I didn't even pop in the DVD (I have yet to get the Blu of this one), but my back up copy- an old pan and scan VHS. Brought back many memories watching it in that format.
    GE holds up, although the technology has advanced -the computers, email screens, etc. The models always looked like models, and sadly Derek Meddings last Bond doesn't quite measure up to MR in some scenes. In others it looks alright.
    Considering that Bond had been away for 6 years, and LTK's departure from formula had turned away some fans, GE looks fairly slick and polished.
    GE remains my favorite Brosnan entry and when in the mood for it certainly hits the spot.
  • Posts: 9,846
    die another day

    It's is an odd film and one I never truly know how to feel about. I think much like Craig's fourth (but possibly not final) film Spectre Die another day suffers from a good film being surrounded by bad moments and odd casting choices.. I feel a good film is there the PTS is fantastic the Hong kong stuff is great the Cuba stuff is great the london stuff is great the iceland stuff is ok then they go back to north korea and... well the film nose dives from there.

    Cons
    1. Madonna's theme song
    2. Halle Berry Every scene she is in is annoying and gut wrenching
    3. excessive slo mo
    4. bad CGI
    5. Bad jokes

    Pros
    1. Brosnan in top form
    2. the hong Kong stuff is fantastic
    3. Bond on his own always a good thing
    4. the fencing scene
    5. Rosamund Pike being gorgous

    1. Quantum of Solace
    2. Licence to Kill
    3. From Russia with love
    4. For Your Eyes Only
    5. On her Majesties Secret Service
    6. Octopussy
    7. Live and let die
    8. Skyfall
    9. Goldeneye
    10. Spectre
    11. Dr. No
    12. Thunderball
    13. The Spy Who Loved Me
    14. Goldfinger
    15. Die Another Day
    16. You only live twice
    17. The man with the golden gun
    18. Diamonds are forever
    19. Moonraker
    20. James Brolin's Octopussy
    21. Casino Royale 1954
    22. Casino Royale 1967
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Risico007

    James Brolin's Octopussy :))

    What about Sam Neil's???
  • Posts: 7,415
    Is there actual footage of Neills audition? His recent comments that it a lowpoint in his career puts paid to any ideas that he was suitable material! As for Brolin, well one critic described a movie he starred in as "a speaking clock performance" and I would have to agree! One wooden Bond was enough for the series! ie. Brossa!
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 11,189


    I wonder if Sam Neil and Broz discussed Bond while filming A Long Way Down.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited October 2016 Posts: 7,314
    Licence To Kill - It's unfortunate that after such a promising start to the Dalton era in TLD, things went south quickly with this next entry, and Dalton's tenure ultimately ended with a whimper. I like the premise (and even applaud the idea of trying something different) but the execution is lacking in a big way, and LTK ends up being one of the most underwhelming entries in the series for me.

    There are many contributing factors to my disappointment (weak supporting cast, cheap look, the score, etc..) but ultimately I'm just bored with the story. I really can't get behind Bond's lust for revenge, and then it's agonizing to have to wait for ages before he finally makes a move on Sanchez. The only saving grace is that Dalton and Davi do have great chemistry in their scenes together.

    It's a unique Bond film, and as such it's going to be a polarizing entry. I can appreciate those of you who enjoy it, but it's always a bit of a struggle for me. I do wish we could have gotten a new director for this one. I think Glen's style worked well for TLD (especially as a transition from the Moore era) but it would have been interesting to get a fresh approach here.

    Moving right along (at a snail's pace!), I am confident that I will complete this Bondathon by year's end, culminating with my first rewatch of SP since last November. It's been so long now that I'm genuinely curious as to what I will think of it. Which is exactly what i wanted. I needed some time away from it.

    Glen Era Ranking
    1) FYEO
    2) TLD
    3) OP
    4) AVTAK
    5) LTK
  • Posts: 7,415
    I couldn't disagree more about your review pachazo! LTK was certainly ahead of its time (much like Dalton!). I have to defend Glen, I think he did a great job! I mentioned before, about the revenge angle. I always think it wasn't just Leiter he was avenging, but Della! The whole 'Bride being murdered on her wedding day' brings back memories of Tracy, and its this, along with his best buddy being maimed that motivates Bond! And Sanchez, brilliantly played by Robert Davi, is one of the very best villains Bond has encountered! The set pieces are sublime, and it, along with OHMSS, have the most exciting finales in the series!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more about your review pachazo! LTK was certainly ahead of its time (much like Dalton!). I have to defend Glen, I think he did a great job! I mentioned before, about the revenge angle. I always think it wasn't just Leiter he was avenging, but Della! The whole 'Bride being murdered on her wedding day' brings back memories of Tracy, and its this, along with his best buddy being maimed that motivates Bond! And Sanchez, brilliantly played by Robert Davi, is one of the very best villains Bond has encountered! The set pieces are sublime, and it, along with OHMSS, have the most exciting finales in the series!

    Yes the final is great but the overall plot is just too simple to be very interesting. Some of the rvenge dialouge is also awful. But I agree that Davi as Sanchez and the young del Toro are great. I personally think however, that Dalton's dramatic overacting is a bit too much here whereas it did not bother me in TLD. The locations are also probably the least glamorous and least interesting in the whole series. So all in all it is by far my least favourite Glen film, even though it is still not in my bottom five.
  • Posts: 7,415
    What i liked about Dalton here, that it is a much more driven performance! For TLD they ran with the tagline "Living on the edge'. For LTK, I thought Daltons Bond was on edge throughtout, unpredictable, you never knew when he was going to explode with rage. The scene where he sneaks onto the Wavecrest and is in Lupes room, and he looks out to see Sharkey strung up, dead, he turns to Lupe and says "You better find yourself a new lover!", I thought Dalton tremendous here! One critic even went so far as to say Daltons Bond in LTK was "borderline psychotic". You certainly cant say he played it safe, and thats what i loved about him. We were robbed of seeing him in a third (or fourth!) movie!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I like LTK very much, but agree that it might have benefited from a new director to give it a fresher flavour and feel. A bit more polish in the location work and style and it could have been a far more loved film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    How is Bond borderline psychotic?
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    What i liked about Dalton here, that it is a much more driven performance! For TLD they ran with the tagline "Living on the edge'. For LTK, I thought Daltons Bond was on edge throughtout, unpredictable, you never knew when he was going to explode with rage. The scene where he sneaks onto the Wavecrest and is in Lupes room, and he looks out to see Sharkey strung up, dead, he turns to Lupe and says "You better find yourself a new lover!", I thought Dalton tremendous here! One critic even went so far as to say Daltons Bond in LTK was "borderline psychotic". You certainly cant say he played it safe, and thats what i loved about him. We were robbed of seeing him in a third (or fourth!) movie!

    That is probably what I mean. I think it is just too much and I don't want Bond to be borderline psychotic. I rather prefer Bond to be the stable anker in an intriguing story.
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 11,189
    I think Dalton's performance in LTK at times feels too "acted". Like he's trying to make it his big moment and he frankly doesn't scare me all that much. If you want to see a genuinely terrifying vengeful character watch Benicio Del Toro in Sicario. THAT is an example of not knowing what someone is going to do next. Something about the way Dalton constantly seems to scowl and look round makes me think he's putting too much effort into looking tough.

    Also, I don't think the revenge aspect is particularly well set-up. Della is frankly a bit of a bland bimbo and only really there to be a sacrificial lamb. Granted she gets a good moment being shushed by one of her would-be killers but its not really enough to make her a memorable character. Also, she's forgotten about by the end of the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.