SpideySenses
Member
.
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?
skyfall is the only good craig bond film. fight me.
skyfall is the only good craig bond film. fight me.
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?
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.
Living Daylights is the best classical Bond film since Thunderball, which I would only put behind it and From Russia with Love.
License to Kill did what Casino Royale did 20 years earlier. Definition of too soon.
Someone explain to me how Eon can cast a quintessential Bond in Pierce Brosnan and then give him movies that rank with Roger Moore's worst.
Pam Bouvier >>>>>>>>>>>>>
![]()
Someone explain to me how Eon can cast a quintessential Bond in Pierce Brosnan and then give him movies that rank with Roger Moore's worst.
The Living Daylights also has GOAT Bond Song
Brosnan was so good. Best bond, bad films.Someone explain to me how Eon can cast a quintessential Bond in Pierce Brosnan and then give him movies that rank with Roger Moore's worst.
Quintessential in this case is not a good thing. All the Bond actors before and after him have brought their own take on Bond with them. Not Brosnan - he's a Bond cliche.
He's fine, but it was inevitable filmmakers would have little left to do with him other than increasingly absurd action setpieces.
I wish Dalton had done Goldeneye instead of Brosnan.
He deserved more flicks.
That's true too, but at least he got two decent ones.I wish Dalton had done Goldeneye instead of Brosnan.
He deserved more flicks.
Pam Bouvier >>>>>>>>>>>>>
![]()
License to Kill is a fine movie, but it's such a formula, by-the-number "deep cover" movie that it really stands out as unlike other Bond movies.
The incredible thing to me is how closely so many of these movies follow the same formula. The best of all of them is Miller's Crossing.
Quintessential in this case is not a good thing. All the Bond actors before and after him have brought their own take on Bond with them. Not Brosnan - he's a Bond cliche.
He's fine, but it was inevitable filmmakers would have little left to do with him other than increasingly absurd action setpieces.
Rewatched Licence to Kill. Solid Bond movie, easily among the better films. Pam is a stellar Bond girl. Looks amazing and is useful from start to finish.
What takes it down a notch is the first scene and the last scene. It's bookended by these really silly and tonally odd moments. The drug cartel gun fight into a wedding drop-in just doesn't work for me. And the ending is a mad rush to give Felix a happy ending even though his wife is dead and he's been mutilated, in addition to resolving the love triangle.
Dalton still hit it out of the park both times.
Also, the lack of an Elon Musk inspired villain is just ridiculous at this point. It may be obvious, but it is so right. How do you take down somebody who is loved by the public or at least in the public eye. I think that is a relevant starting point for a new villain.
I feel like the first Bond movie a Bond actor does is usually their best. I would say FRWL was better than Doctor No and maybe TLD>AV2AK but otherwise this holds true IMO.
Damn, now I want a Coen-directed Bond movie.
Wasn't that meant to be Rupert Murdoch?Didn't stop them with Steve Jobs
![]()
Wasn't that meant to be Rupert Murdoch?
This is pretty much it, I think.
He feels more like a stereotype of Bond than "real" Bond, if you know what I mean.
James Bond will likely next grace cinema screens towards the end of 2018.
Whether he will inhabit a filmic world in which the UK is no longer a member of the European Union and Donald Trump is the US president is yet to be seen but if so, what a different world it will be. Bonds mission is likely to involve the navigation of an increasingly porous Europe, vulnerable to malign influences from a resurgent Russia. The UKs cyber-security defences face further challenges as industrial espionage and military and intelligence hacking intensifies. Bond is going to have his work cut out for him.
Since Bond is British, Brexit and the contemporary backlash against globalisation seem the most obvious things to consider. The ramifications of the UKs withdrawal from the EU and the disillusionment with neo-liberal globalisation will certainly alter the way in which he is able to move and execute his secret missions in both subtle and not so subtle ways.
This sense of unease with the UK-US relationship is sure to only increase with Trump as president. He may prime his administration to insulate and isolate the United States from forms of globalisation that are antithetical Americas recovery to greatness. America (as represented through the CIA) may well not want to work with Bond/M16 and share its resources and intelligence as part of a new directive to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain. Leiter could be told in the future not to share intelligence with Bond because America needs to protect its interests first and foremost.
So in a world without the security of an Anglo-American connection in addition to the degradation of European partnerships, Bonds role is likely to look very different. Will Bond still fight for global security or be repositioned more and more as a lone hero who fights for Britain and its safety in a post-globalised world? It might be too much to think that Bond could make Britain great again but he could help to stop a further slide down the international pecking order.
I feel like the first Bond movie a Bond actor does is usually their best. I would say FRWL was better than Doctor No and maybe TLD>AV2AK but otherwise this holds true IMO.
I dunno where I came across this article, but someone wrote an interesting piece about where the next Bond would be in terms of world events:
The Independent: How Donald Trump and Brexit will affect James Bond
I hope they just say fuck it and make the main enemy of the next film the American government spearheaded by an increasingly unhinged President Trump.
I'm going to be generous and say the first 30 minutes of Die Another Day is tolerable.
Sure, it looks like shit (like the rest of the film), the action is cut to shit and poorly staged, and the Madonna song is FUCK AWFUL, but it's passable.
The rest? Holy shit what a nadir for the franchise. It's James Bond by way of Asylum films. A (not-so) shining monument that maybe the collective intelligence of the human race has been on the upswing, because I refuse to believe something like this could be green-lighted now. I haven't seen such shoddy big budget franchise film-making since Batman and Robin.
I need an injection of Casino Royale immediately.
How would you guys fix some Jimbo movies?
OHMSS
1. Remove the "this never happened to the other guy" line
2. Remove the scene of him taking all the shit out of his desk with the music from each previous movie playing.
3. Remove the fried chicken garbage.
4. Change it so that the Bond theme doesn't immediately start blaring during the credits, that is a massive tonal shift from the end of the film and makes no sense.