• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

James Bond 007 | OT | The name's Bond, James Bond

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mattenth

Member
I'm hoping that Bond gets away from Bond'Street relationships as a central and complex focal point.

The best Bond films were ones where Bond was more of a detective uncovering some terrible plot, and while that element is still there, it's been overshadowed by weird elements like James' past, avenging a lover, relationship with M, etc.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Anyone been reading the 007: Hammerhead comic from Dynamite? I'm majorly behind on my comic pull list but I'm looking forward to it. I still need to catch up with Warren Ellis' last couple of issues too. I really enjoyed the VARGR arc.

JamesBondHammerhead001CSala.jpg
 

Bandit1

Member
I watched Spectre a while back and I enjoyed it for the most part and didn't hate it like a lot of people seem to
but the reveal of Bond living in a foster home with Blofeld was soooo contrived and unnecessary. Seriously what were they thinking? The ending was a little strange too because it seemed like such a nice way to end the franchise. Bond spares Blofeld's life on the middle of a bridge with MI6 on one side and the girl on the other, Bond chooses the girl and they drive off into the sunrise in a DB5.

It will be interesting to see if Craig comes back, I'd be down for more Craig.
 

Rainy

Banned
I kind of thought we'd have heard about the next movie by now but with them not sure who is playing Bond at this point I suppose that is a ways off.
 
I'm less interested in who comes after Craig than I am seeing how they handle continuity when they recast. I think it was a mistake to go down this road in the first place, and I'm wondering if they'll try to dig themselves back out and return to movies that stand alone better or continue on the current path.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I'm less interested in who comes after Craig than I am seeing how they handle continuity when they recast. I think it was a mistake to go down this road in the first place, and I'm wondering if they'll try to dig themselves back out and return to movies that stand alone better or continue on the current path.

I liked the continuity between the Craig films until Spectre. Quantum is a lower branch of Spectre. So a secret society within another secret society...yeah, no fucking thanks.
 

jrDev

Member
I kind of thought we'd have heard about the next movie by now but with them not sure who is playing Bond at this point I suppose that is a ways off.
I thought the new Bond was already confirmed to be the actor from Kingsman...
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
This is the time of year I get that itch to rewatch. Man, the Brosnan films just get worse as you go along.

As a child of the 90s, I never really picked up on how bad Denise Richards was in The World is Not Enough. Watched it today and Yikes! I'm not even bothered by the idea of her playing a nuclear scientist. Her line reading is just dreadful.

Die Another Day still sucks, and yet the sword fight is pretty badass. It's ridiculous but the whole sequence works. Just two alpha males trying to get the best of each other. The rest of it is a dog's breakfast. There are some decidedly early 2000s direction decisions which aren't going to age the movie well.

It's weird but it's almost as if the Dalton films have aged better than the Brosnan ones (sans Goldeneye). That's probably to do with Dalton being a move towards a more serious Bond and then Brosnan getting more gadgets and goofier as they went along.
 
It's weird but it's almost as if the Dalton films have aged better than the Brosnan ones (sans Goldeneye). That's probably to do with Dalton being a move towards a more serious Bond and then Brosnan getting more gadgets and goofier as they went along.

Dalton to me comes off as an experienced Craig-Bond,like I can see Craig evolving into that after decades on the job. And Dalton's more grounded portrayal fits with todays more jaded audience than it did 30 years ago. My biggest issue with Brosnan( outside the silly and sillier gadgets as time went on) was that like Moore, he really wasnt that convincing in a fight. Connery, Lazenby,Craig and to a lesser extent Dalton are the only Bonds who look like they can clear a room of thugs while wearing a tux.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Dalton to me comes off as an experienced Craig-Bond,like I can see Craig evolving into that after decades on the job. And Dalton's more grounded portrayal fits with todays more jaded audience than it did 30 years ago. My biggest issue with Brosnan( outside the silly and sillier gadgets as time went on) was that like Moore, he really wasnt that convincing in a fight. Connery, Lazenby,Craig and to a lesser extent Dalton are the only Bonds who look like they clear a room of thugs while wearing a tux.

Yeah, the fight scenes in Tomorrow Never Dies are terrible. The entire film is Brosnan sucker punching people. It's really bizarre gag to use over and over again.
 
Dalton to me comes off as an experienced Craig-Bond,like I can see Craig evolving into that after decades on the job. And Dalton's more grounded portrayal fits with todays more jaded audience than it did 30 years ago. My biggest issue with Brosnan( outside the silly and sillier gadgets as time went on) was that like Moore, he really wasnt that convincing in a fight. Connery, Lazenby,Craig and to a lesser extent Dalton are the only Bonds who look like they clear a room of thugs while wearing a tux.

Do you mean the fight scenes in general or the parts where you can see Brosnan doing the fighting?

I thought the fight between Bond and 006 in the radio antenna room in Goldeneye was fantastic, possibly only a tad over-choreographed. But I thought it was inventive and well-shot.
 
Do you mean the fight scenes in general or the parts where you can see Brosnan doing the fighting?

I thought the fight between Bond and 006 in the radio antenna room in Goldeneye was fantastic, possibly only a tad over-choreographed. But I thought it was inventive and well-shot.

Moreso his physicality/movements, not the actual scenes themselves. Like, imagine Craig in the DAD sword fight scene instead of Brosnan. Or for that matter, imagine Brosnan in the opening ocean battle sequence in OHMSS. As I said above, I had the same issue for the most part with Moore.
 
Hasn't he said he doesn't want to go as old as Moore did?
He's coming up on it.

Craig is 48, Moore was 57 in his last Bond, and IMO was visually past the point of being a convincing globetrotting ladies-man spy after FYEO. Craig looked worn in Spectre, which would my biggest reason for moving on from him. The purpose of rebooting was to have a Bond at the beginning of his career, but Craig already looks like he's had about 15 years of spy wear and tear on him.
 
Craig is 48, Moore was 57 in his last Bond, and IMO was visually past the point of being a convincing globetrotting ladies-man spy after FYEO. Craig looked worn in Spectre, which would my biggest reason for moving on from him. The purpose of rebooting was to have a Bond at the beginning of his career, but Craig already looks like he's had about 15 years of spy wear and tear on him.

I found that to be one of the strangest things about Craig's run of films. You've got him starting out his 007 career in his first two films, then the last two have him jaded and washed-out at the end of his career.

Where were the good bits in the middle? That's what I wanted to see from a Bond film.
 
I found that to be one of the strangest things about Craig's run of films. You've got him starting out his 007 career in his first two films, then the last two have him jaded and washed-out at the end of his career.

Where were the good bits in the middle? That's what I wanted to see from a Bond film.

Yep, as much as I like Craig in the role( and especially CR) he always looked too old IMO for what he was supposed to be portraying. And in terms of the jaded part, exactly. Remember Dalton at the beginning of TLD after successfully helping that guy defect( forget his name now)? During the car discussion with his coworker he says something to the fact of hoping he gets fired and being thankful for it. THAT'S the mentality of a guy thats been in the field too long and hoping that retirement comes as fast as possible, and as you said Craig seemed like he was already at that point in the last few movies.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I watched Spectre a while back and I enjoyed it for the most part and didn't hate it like a lot of people seem to
but the reveal of Bond living in a foster home with Blofeld was soooo contrived and unnecessary. Seriously what were they thinking? The ending was a little strange too because it seemed like such a nice way to end the franchise. Bond spares Blofeld's life on the middle of a bridge with MI6 on one side and the girl on the other, Bond chooses the girl and they drive off into the sunrise in a DB5.

It will be interesting to see if Craig comes back, I'd be down for more Craig.

Yup, I absolutely loved the ending of Spectre and the symbolic of the bridge. Which is why I don't want Craig to return to the franchise, as it would ruin that ending.
 

xandaca

Member
Watched Licence To Kill again a few days ago. Fantastic film, I semi-reviewed it in a comment on an AV Club article which mentioned it, so I'll just repost that as it sums up my thoughts.

Licence To Kill isn't my favourite Bond, but is in my top five. Many criticise it for not being 'Bond' enough, but that's a misnomer. True, the tone is less sparing and humourous than previous iterations, but that simply places it more in line with the Bond from the books than most of the movies. In fact, the movie draws on both film and book canon in several small but effective ways, despite being the first to adopt a non-Fleming title. Bond's anger at the attack on the Leiters is framed in reference to the death of his wife, Tracy, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The central conceit of the plot could be described as a loose adaptation of The Man With The Golden Gun novel, with both involving an emotionally compromised Bond infiltrating a smuggling ring in order to kill its head. The secondary villain, Milton Krest, is named for a character from short story The Hildebrand Rarity, and the weird whip Sanchez uses on his girlfriend, Lupe, is probably another reference to that same story, where Krest whips his missus with a stingray tail.

What gets forgotten these days is that Licence marked the first time Bond had gone 'rogue'. He'd been off-book a few times before, but usually with some sort of acknowledgment from M. Nowadays, Bond goes off on his own at least once per movie, diluting the power of the idea into irrelevance. It's to Licence's credit that Bond's anger throughout the movie remains surprisingly potent, while still allowing him the calculating professionalism that Quantum Of Solace neglected in favour of messy emotional directionlessness. Here, Bond focuses his anger into devising a plan of action and executing it flawlessly - the movie's debt to Yojimbo is clear and officially acknowledged. He plays a slow game, needling Sanchez's insecurities and disrupting his operation from the inside. As in Living Daylights, a major part of the film's success is Timothy Dalton, whose Bond retains an aura of underlying PTSD - witness the moment he steels himself against the pain upon finding a body bag in Leiter's home, or his sigh of resignation upon finally killing Sanchez and realising it hasn't made anything better - dragged to the surface by fresh trauma. It's a powerfully credible performance of how a man like Bond would react to his cool facade being cracked, allowing the anger within to bleed out.

Beyond Bond, Pam Bouvier is one of the few 'Bond equal' women to live up to the tag. She's her own character - stubborn, tough, hyper-competent - and Cary Lowell gives a performance just natural enough to keep her likeable without losing her edge. Her jealous streak is unfortunate, not necessarily out of character but diminishing her strength in an annoying way (as is Bond constantly insisting that everyone supporting him go home) that comes to nothing. Q's expanded role is to the movie's huge credit, finally giving Desmond Llewellyn a bit of a showcase, imbuing humour into the sometimes intractable tone and offering the movie's biggest laugh when he discards a piece of equipment with the same insouciance he historically chastised Bond for. Lupe Lamora, Bond's secondary lay, isn't as charismatic or memorable as Bouvier, but does line up nicely with the Andrea Anders model of a woman using Bond to escape an abusive lover. It's to the movie's credit that she survives to the end.

Of the villains, Robert Davi's Sanchez is an effective foil for this particular Bond. He's cunning and composed, extravagently violent in punishing those who defy him and able to cover his tracks at every step using a vast network to keep him safe. That Bond identifies and uses Sanchez's obsession with loyalty against him is strong character writing and Davi's serpentine charm (and ease with pre-death quips) makes him mirror Bond just enough to sell the theme without slapping viewers in the face. Anthony Zerbe's Milton Krest is rather one-note, but the receipient of one of the series' most memorably gruesome deaths, while Benicio Del Toro's Dario, who has a twisted father-son relationship with Sanchez, is fabulously depraved and a terrific match of actor to character. Wayne Newton (yes, that Wayne Newton) as Professor Joe Butcher draws a lot of criticism, but the idea of a corrupt televangelist using his platform to communicate drug prices is tremendously Flemingian and Newton's cheesy Vegas smarm, again, fits the character perfectly.

Despite the grittier tone, the movie doesn't skimp on visually astonishing set-pieces. The opening pulls off the Dark Knight Rises plane stunt almost a quarter of a century earlier, and Bond and Felix parachuting to a wedding is a fantastic cap. Bond's escape from Krest's boat - waterskiing behind a sea plane using a harpoon gun - is brilliantly set up, laying out the pieces of a seemingly impossible situation before showing Bond putting them together to his advantage, delivering plenty of flair without compromising stakes or excitement and keeping Bond imperiled but quick-witted enough to find a way out. Even better is how, for once, the real-world ludicrousness of Bond's escape becomes an essential plot point later on. The climactic Kenworth tanker chase is similarly inventive and visually astounding, keeping its many pieces in constant, conflicting motion. While John Glen's direction is, as ever, artistically lacking, especially without the vibrant locations of movies past, his straightforward framing keeps the action clean and geographically clear, allowing the actors and stuntwork to sell the excitement rather than directorial embellishment, a welcome relief from today's shakycam addiction.

It's not surprising that the movie is the series' most divisive consider how starkly its tone diverges from that of its more lighthearted predecessors. It's a brave move finally receiving credit for being well ahead of its time, doing to even more powerful effect what Craig's interpretation of the character would be lauded for seventeen years later. In some respects, that so many are turned off by it shows how effectively it sells the impact of its central idea, an angry Bond going rogue on a mission of vengeance, even if it perhaps fails to recognise that what mainstream moviegoers wanted from a Bond movie was not quite so challenging and aggressive, no matter how essentially true to the book character. Its struggle to hit the expected standards of box office success is mainly attributable to confused marketing and its release in the midst of a packed summer, though claims of it being a financial failure are wide of the mark.

Nevertheless, it's a powerhouse of a swansong for Dalton, easily the most dramatically nuanced actor to play the role, and a movie which even its most ardent detractors have to admit contains some fantastic individual elements, even if there's disagreement on whether they cohere effectively. For a series often criticised for repeating the same old formula, it's a bold change of pace which retains the core of what works about the character and his movies, built around a superb leading man and supporting cast of strong character actors. It won't win over everyone and there are certainly legitimate criticisms to be made, but is certainly not an entry which can be dismissed out of hand. Also, the arrangement of the Bond theme for the gunbarrel is FANTASTIC.
 
I watched Spectre a while back and I enjoyed it for the most part and didn't hate it like a lot of people seem to
but the reveal of Bond living in a foster home with Blofeld was soooo contrived and unnecessary. Seriously what were they thinking? The ending was a little strange too because it seemed like such a nice way to end the franchise. Bond spares Blofeld's life on the middle of a bridge with MI6 on one side and the girl on the other, Bond chooses the girl and they drive off into the sunrise in a DB5.

It will be interesting to see if Craig comes back, I'd be down for more Craig.

We still need spoilers for the movie?
 

Loxley

Member
I found that to be one of the strangest things about Craig's run of films. You've got him starting out his 007 career in his first two films, then the last two have him jaded and washed-out at the end of his career.

Where were the good bits in the middle? That's what I wanted to see from a Bond film.

That's the part that always never made sense regarding Craig's tenure as Bond. With Skyfall, I think they jumped the gun with the "Bond is getting old" thing. They should have saved that (and perhaps M's death) for Craig's last film. But now, they kind have to awkwardly shuffle Craig - who was supposed to represent a more modern, fresh take on Bond - into a world that has now become uncharacteristically reverent of the Connery-era with Spectre. I get that with Skyfall they wanted it to be a celebration of the franchise's entire history considering it was the 50th anniversary, so I can give them some leeway there. But they ended up kind of painting themselves into a corner with the future Craig films as a result.

The one thing I hope to God the franchise moves on from is the whole "What is the point of the 007 program in the 21st century? Do we really need James Bond anymore?". Like, we answered that question in Goldeneye and yet it keeps coming up. Stop moping around like a depressed teenager and just give me some awesome spy shit please.
 

eot

Banned
Those things are only a problem if they play up the continuity between the films. Which they have, to some extent, but there's no reason they have to do that going forward. It doesn't make much sense for this franchise anyway.
 
Watched Octopussy the other night. Awful. I can't remember if my 17-year-old self enjoyed it in the theaters, but I don't see how any discerning adult could watch it. Boring, cheesy, cheap.
 
Another weird thing about Skyfall is that even though Bond is supposed to be old and washed out, the ending definitely acts like he's 'finally' Bond, what with the debut of a Q, a Moneypenny, and a brand new M.
 

Peru

Member
Watched Octopussy the other night. Awful. I can't remember if my 17-year-old self enjoyed it in the theaters, but I don't see how any discerning adult could watch it. Boring, cheesy, cheap.


There's some silly entertaining stuff in this film.. Bond on an all-female island.. Bond as a clown.. airplane at the gas station.. Moore's ridiculous flirting
 

xandaca

Member
Watched Octopussy the other night. Awful. I can't remember if my 17-year-old self enjoyed it in the theaters, but I don't see how any discerning adult could watch it. Boring, cheesy, cheap.

I like Octopussy. It's either my equal or outright favourite of the Moores (with TSWLM). The Indian locations look gorgeous, the villains and women are all cool, there are some great stunts and a plot which, though ridiculous, is at least more complex and a scooch more anchored in the real world than the formulaic 'villain wants to destroy mankind from his elaborately located lair'. There's a lot of stupid humour, but it's relatively restrained compared to the likes of DAF, LALD, MWTGG, MR and AVTAK. Its biggest problem is being too long and having too much going on, moving from set-piece to set-piece to set-piece with little breathing room inbetween, leading to exhaustion by the time the movie reaches West Germany. No-one's going to call it a great or flawless film, but it's perfect Sunday afternoon viewing, which is pretty much the only standard to judge the Moores by.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
The Man With the Golden Gun for having such a famous villain and sidekick is probably the worst Bond of all otherwise.

It's definitely the most boring. The film is a complete miss and probably one of the few they should do over eventually. Repurpose into a new title.

Theoretically, it should be a cat and mouse game between the world's greatest spy and the world's greatest assassin. Personal and professional. Yet, everything about it was cheap and dull.

Octopussy - Is another film that flames out midway through and you're not left with much to discuss.
 
The Man With the Golden Gun for having such a famous villain and sidekick is probably the worst Bond of all otherwise.

Mmm you have a point since 'golden gun' wastes such a cool title and villain. Plus the Bond Girl suckkkkkssss.

I don't think I dislike any Moore film as much as I dislike 'Diamonds are Forever' though. I loathe that one.
 

xandaca

Member
Mmm you have a point since 'golden gun' wastes such a cool title and villain. Plus the Bond Girl suckkkkkssss.

I don't think I dislike any Moore film as much as I dislike 'Diamonds are Forever' though. I loathe that one.

Diamonds Are Forever and Die Another Day, possibly adding MWTGG and AVTAK depending on how tolerant I'm feeling while watching them, are the Bond films I genuinely dislike. Most bad Bonds are just flat and feel like they're going through the motions. DAF and DAD are confrontationally obnoxious.
 
I should add that I'm currently marathoning every Bond film (thanks Amazon) and I've just finished suffering through the Moore era and everything's just a big jumble.

I'll probably make a thread when I'm done and all my thoughts are in order.
 

xandaca

Member
I should add that I'm currently marathoning every Bond film (thanks Amazon) and I've just finished suffering through the Moore era and everything's just a big jumble.

I'll probably make a thread when I'm done and all my thoughts are in order.

Fortunately Dalton is a cool oasis of greatness after the long trek through the arduous Moore hinterlands.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
If we're ranking the worst.

It is between The Man with the Golden Gun and Diamonds are forever. Diamonds are Forever is the bond with the least amount of effort ever put into it. Not a single cast member or Connery gave two shits about the flick. Worst is, it shitting all over On Her Majesty Secret Service.

Man with the Golden Gun is still Moore trying to find what works for him, on top of it being a mess of a film with the cardinal sin for it just being flat out boring.

Next step up would be Octopussy, A View to a Kill, Spectre, Die Another Day, and Moonraker.

On a side note, It's funny how Connery looks worse in Diamonds are Forever than he does in Never Say Never.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
A View to a Kill has to be the winner for Best Bond theme paired with Worst Bond film.
 

Lamel

Banned
I have seen all of the Daniel Craig films but recently wanted to watch some more Bond. Started with From Russia With Love and then Goldfinger - both which I really enjoyed.

Question for you guys, should I watch them all in order? Or is there another good way to go about them?
 

Neff

Member
Am I weird for liking License to Kill more than The Living Daylights? Usually I see the opposite.

License to Kill is way, way better than Living Daylights.

Embrace your contrarian Bondism. The Bond movies most frequently derided are some of the best imo, while some of the more lauded titles have me scratching my head wondering if I saw the same film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom