|
Movie was alright, not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale, but pretty solid. Just felt a little lifeless and the plot was way too messy for its own good (love that Mission Impossible Rogue Nation had almost the exact same premise). I also didn't like the ending, but I have a theory there. So, the surgery scene. Blofeld explicitly stated that it would affect his vision and his memory. The incisions happened, and that was that, it was never brought up again. Obviously it didn't have any consequences in this film, but could it be an out for the next film if they decide to switch out Craig? To set up a soft reset? Everything just seemed to wrap up a little too nicely and why the gently caress was that scene there otherwise if absolutely nothing came of it? Would make sense if the next movie started with a bunch of mind fuckery
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
It does seem really weird to have Bond go through that and then not have it affect him in any way. It doesn't even really make sense for Blofeld to do it - if he wants to torture Bond then surely killing Madeleine in front of him is much more torturous than making him essentially not know who she is any more, especially since Bond is presumably going to get shot shortly afterwards too. That kind of psychological torture would only have maximum effect if Bond survives and escapes (he does, but presumably that's not Blofeld's intention) and if it actually works, rather than it just being totally ineffective. I was expecting a twist at the end where it actually had worked but Bond was just pretending that it hadn't (he knows who Madeleine is while at the facility so the fact that he can't recognise her face doesn't make any difference) which would point towards a much darker, self-hating, devil may care (pun intended) Bond for the next film because he's finally lost what's essentially the last fraction of his humanity. I can see why they didn't want to go down that route though, Bond is morally questionable enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Sorry if this has been brought up before, but what do people consider the WORST Bond film? Die Another Day is objectively awful but it's so awful that it kind of wraps around and becomes bizarrely entertaining. I loved Moonraker as a kid but it has not aged well at all, and speaking of not aging well..... Roger Moore in A View to a Kill is just kind of depressing to watch. I think that would probably be my pick for worst Bond film, which is especially depressing because it's got Christopher Walken as the villain which should have been amazing. You know, as bad as the late Brosnan's are, at least there's things exploding and occasionally fun action. Even Die Another Day has a good hover-boat chase, car-chase, extended sword-fight. Whereas Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die, and View to a Kill are liable to put you to sleep with how boring they are in their badness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:You know, as bad as the late Brosnan's are, at least there's things exploding and occasionally fun action. Even Die Another Day has a good hover-boat chase, car-chase, extended sword-fight. Live and Let Die had a killer theme tune.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:It does seem really weird to have Bond go through that and then not have it affect him in any way. It doesn't even really make sense for Blofeld to do it - if he wants to torture Bond then surely killing Madeleine in front of him is much more torturous than making him essentially not know who she is any more, especially since Bond is presumably going to get shot shortly afterwards too. That kind of psychological torture would only have maximum effect if Bond survives and escapes (he does, but presumably that's not Blofeld's intention) and if it actually works, rather than it just being totally ineffective. It fits with Blofeld's stated motivation. As he (claims he) sees it, Bond got into the Oberhauser family and forced him out. So, in revenge, he wants to displace Bond from Bond. Thus his shpiel about the guy who had his eyes gouged out. e: This ties with the shot towards the end with Bond and Blofeld on either side of the bulletproof glass. A reflection of Blofeld's face is superimposed over Bond's, but not vice versa. Blofeld, in a way that makes sense to himself, is trying to play the cuckoo with Bond's mind. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:Live and Let Die had a killer theme tune. As does A View to a Kill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Watched it. Didn't like it much, except for the visuals and Craig's version of the character as pretty much always. The whole tone of the movie just felt weird. I'm not sure I got the villain's motivation because the movie spent like ten seconds explaining it but as far as I can understand: Bonds parents die > he gets adopted (?) by some German dude > German dude's son gets jealous over his dad spending time with Bond so he kills his father and fakes his own death (?!???) > and then spends the rest of his adult life building some secret organization so he can ruin Bond's life. Because if that is it, it is a really loving stupid plot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I would argue that For Your Eyes Only is Moore's best. Spy Who Loved Me is great, and pretty much the defining Moore film... but For Your Eyes Only is so reserved and Moore is just great in it. I'm a big fan. Yes this was always my favorite Moore film, as well as probably the best James Bond script. I have to agree with previous poster about the worst Bond films. Live and let Die, Diamonds and View to a Kill are either terrible, boring or both depending on the film. Die Another Day is just too entertaining to be the worst, despite having a horrible story. It is Bond playing a comic book character, which fits in perfectly with the contemporary action films of the time. Skyfall was a good watch but also a poorly written mission impossible movie with a dumb plot. Bottom line is, script writers in Hollywood need a reboot! Please god i hope they can convince more authors to switch to script writing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I don't understand why SPECTRE completely rehashes the idea of 'Is Bond needed in the modern world?' since SKYFALL already answers that. I still think it has a good first half, but man...I dislike more aspets of it the more I think of it, to the point where I'm just purposefully looking for things I actually enjoyed now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
chilihead posted:Bottom line is, script writers in Hollywood need a reboot! Please god i hope they can convince more authors to switch to script writing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
I too was surprised the writers didn't choose to give the protagonist of a long running movie franchise irreversible prosopagnosia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I don't understand why SPECTRE completely rehashes the idea of 'Is Bond needed in the modern world?' since SKYFALL already answers that. I still think it has a good first half, but man...I dislike more aspets of it the more I think of it, to the point where I'm just purposefully looking for things I actually enjoyed now. While looking for strict continuity in the Bond films is a fool's errand, one thing that's clear is that Skyfall is not a part of the reboot. There are certainly plot points, like the introduction of Moneypenny, the replacement of Dame Judi Dench with a new M, and so-on. But these are token gestures for the people who care about that sort of thing. Skyfall is, thematically, a continuation of the earliest and least-crummy Bond films. It works best as a direct sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but we should take seriously the reappearance of the DB5 Aston Martin. What we have in Skyfall is the Bond of Goldfinger who has fallen into a depression and spent decades 'going through the motions'. It's all about the closure and finality, as if the spirit of Connery's Bond had briefly commandeered Craig's body, in order to complete some unfinished business. With that out of the way, Spectre returns us to the overarching 'Mr. White' subplot, with a neophyte Bond encountering Blofeld for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
You don't think too highly of the Bond films do you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:You don't think too highly of the Bond films do you? On the contrary; I think highly of quite a few. SMG-Canon for 007 films is as follows: -Dr. No -From Russia With Love -Goldfinger -On Her Majesty's Secret Service -Skyfall That's not only a list of the best Bond films, but a recommended viewing order that provides a fully self-contained narrative that's thematically coherent and without dangling plot threads. The reappearance of Moneypenny and M actually introduces a nice bit of circularity to the narrative, leading everything back into Dr. No. While I've yet to see Spectre, every indication that this - not Casino Royale - is the point where the series actually starts over (where there had previously been these two series sort-of coexisting in a weird, indeterminate way). This is because, after Casino Royale's flashback prologue, there's little that actually precludes it from being a sequel to Die Another Day. That 'soft rebooting' is a common narrative tactic, as it creates an entry-point for new viewers without alienating fans of the previous films - but what it means is that the Bond reboot was not a sudden leap, as was advertised, but a very gradual transition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I don't understand why SPECTRE completely rehashes the idea of 'Is Bond needed in the modern world?' since SKYFALL already answers that. I still think it has a good first half, but man...I dislike more aspets of it the more I think of it, to the point where I'm just purposefully looking for things I actually enjoyed now. They're two halves of the same project. Skyfall is a sort of final statement on the previously existing Bond, whereas Spectre starts the project of what [new] Bond should be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:You know, as bad as the late Brosnan's are, at least there's things exploding and occasionally fun action. Even Die Another Day has a good hover-boat chase, car-chase, extended sword-fight. I think it was Mark Gatiss said on a documentary about the best Bond the BBC did the other day that View to a Kill is brilliant if you think of it as a comedy about a slightly senile old man who thinks he's a spy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:I think it was Mark Gatiss said on a documentary about the best Bond the BBC did the other day that View to a Kill is brilliant if you think of it as a comedy about a slightly senile old man who thinks he's a spy. I didn't know there was any other way to view the film, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:While looking for strict continuity in the Bond films is a fool's errand, one thing that's clear is that Skyfall is not a part of the reboot. There are certainly plot points, like the introduction of Moneypenny, the replacement of Dame Judi Dench with a new M, and so-on. But these are token gestures for the people who care about that sort of thing. While I definitely agree that Skyfall, barring some minor exceptions like reintroducing Moneypenny, makes far more sense as a sequel to prereboot Bond I think to call it a sequel to OHMSS would be culling a large part of his era that really bridges the thematic gap between the two films. Skyfall makes far more sense as a sequel to GoldenEye. We get follow up on ideas like M's remark about having no problem with sending an Agent to their death and we see just how ruthless she really is. GoldenEye is also the first film to really raise the relevance of Bond post-Cold War which is something Skyfall runs wild with. And the remark about exploding pens doesn't really make as much sense as a sequel to OHMSS as, other than the DB5, I don't think Connery or especially Lazenby used many gimmicky, fancy gadgets (There's a jetpack in Thunderball I suppose). I also think that by cutting out everything in between it would leave out the Dalton era which did a lot to be a proper thematic follow-up to the ending of OHMSS. Dalton is probably the first one to really follow that up by playing a Bond who is very frustrated and cynical and emotionally numb about his job to the point of being overly defiant as he doesn't care about the consequences. And License to Kill is the film that really offers any sort of closure to the impact of the trauma of the ending to OHMSS on Bond's psyche. Dalton's very much doing the 'going through the motions' aspect of the character whereas Skyfall is instead about a Bond coming out of retirement to find nobody wants or needs him anymore which is something only GoldenEye establishes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Pennant posted:I too was surprised the writers didn't choose to give the protagonist of a long running movie franchise irreversible prosopagnosia. If you're not going to do anything with it and completely ignore it ever happened without rhyme or reason then don't add it. There are other ways to make your villain seem menacing and deranged. DrVenkman posted:I don't understand why SPECTRE completely rehashes the idea of 'Is Bond needed in the modern world?' since SKYFALL already answers that. I still think it has a good first half, but man...I dislike more aspets of it the more I think of it, to the point where I'm just purposefully looking for things I actually enjoyed now. Not quite the same. But when I describe my enjoyment of the movie I keep coming back to the bad parts of the flick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Payndz posted:A big difference between the past and the present in Hollywood (both film and TV) is that screenwriters used to have done stuff in their lives that they could draw upon when they turned to writing (whether something as everyday as starting a family or as extreme as fighting in a war), whereas now twentysomething guys are being handed the keys to major franchises after reading Save The Cat! and watching a Robert McKee seminar on YouTube. Officially the most "get off my lawn" post ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Officially the most "get off my lawn" post ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:I also think that by cutting out everything in between it would leave out the Dalton era which did a lot to be a proper thematic follow-up to the ending of OHMSS. Dalton is probably the first one to really follow that up by playing a Bond who is very frustrated and cynical and emotionally numb about his job to the point of being overly defiant as he doesn't care about the consequences. And License to Kill is the film that really offers any sort of closure to the impact of the trauma of the ending to OHMSS on Bond's psyche. Dalton's very much doing the 'going through the motions' aspect of the character whereas Skyfall is instead about a Bond coming out of retirement to find nobody wants or needs him anymore which is something only GoldenEye establishes. I was going to post something similar, but you said it probably better than I did. Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are basically the direct sequels to OHMSS with Dalton's approach to Bond in those movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:While I definitely agree that Skyfall, barring some minor exceptions like reintroducing Moneypenny, makes far more sense as a sequel to prereboot Bond I think to call it a sequel to OHMSS would be culling a large part of his era that really bridges the thematic gap between the two films. Culling most of the films is the whole point! I'll admit that I haven't watched either License To Kill or Goldeneye in quite a while, but I remember at least being really annoyed at all the postmodernism stuff in the latter. 'Bond in the 90s' is as much a gimmick as 'Bond in Space' and 'Bond in the Hood' - and there's nothing interesting or innovative about pointing out that Bond drinks a lot and kills people. Or pointing out that the Russians aren't the real baddies. In OHMSS, you already have Bond robotically repeating pickup lines. I did try rewatching Living Daylights, and man does the goofy romance storyline not gel with Dalton's performance. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Culling most of the films is the whole point! It kind of works only because it's not really a romance. She was an unfortunate woman that was used by Koskov and set up to be killed, and Bond continued to use her until almost the end of the movie where she finally got a little bit of agency. The romance, at least on Bond's end, was faked until Afghanistan, which is why he turned on her in an instant and his real, actual emotions peaked out a couple of times when fellow agents were assassinated. The early romance was really just a further extension of showing what a cold dick Bond was. Licence is just a direct followup to OHMSS, and you should watch it again because it builds directly on it. The whole revenge plot is predicated on Felix going through the exact same thing James did with Tracy, and James getting his own revenge via proxy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Haven't seen Spectre yet but with all the talk about where Bond's place is in modern times and the old films and stuff I figured I'd post Film Crit Hulk's massive (almost book length) writeup of all the Bond films. Suuuper interesting read. Here's the first one, there's 4 all together: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2014/07/14/hulk-vs.-james-bond-staring-into-the-id-of-a-boner-incarnate Also if you can't stand the all caps, here's a boomarklet to fix them: http://simonganz.com/2013/04/the-dehulkifier/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
I think he did end up releasing it as a book, at least I'm sure I saw it on Kindle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Considering going to see this largely based on the cinematography, as I love me some Hoytema. I wouldn't say I dislike Skyfall, but I think it failed at a lot of what it tried to do and that each act was significantly worse than the previous one, although the action was mostly great and them Deakins visuals were sublime. I hear this is kinda more traditional Bond in places? How does it hold up as far as AAA globe-trotting action fare goes compared to Rogue Nation, which I had a ton of fun with but then almost completely forgot about?
Escobarbarian fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
It's much more similar to Rogue Nation than you'd expect, especially in the last thirty minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:Considering going to see this largely based on the cinematography, as I love me some Hoytema. I wouldn't say I dislike Skyfall, but I think it failed at a lot of what it tried to do and that each act was significantly worse than the previous one, although the action was mostly great and them Deakins visuals were sublime. I hear this is kinda more traditional Bond in places? How does it hold up as far as AAA globe-trotting action fare goes compared to Rogue Nation, which I had a ton of fun with but then almost completely forgot about? It is indeed a very traditional Bond; as someone remarked earlier in the thread it has stuff that you thought Austin Powers had laid to rest. It's certainly globe-trotting, almost jarringly so (Mexico! Rome! Snow! Desert!) and is so similar to Rouge Nation that it makes complete sense now why that film was brought forward to the summer (Rouge Nation is more fun overall for me though). The cinematography is good for a Bond film, but disappointing after Skyfall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
I think Rogue Nation and The Man from Uncle ended up being more enjoyable movies than Spectre this year. Spectre ended up relying on London too much for me. The final set piece there seemed tacked on and as mentioned before all too similar to Rogue Nation. I would have rather they expanded the local before that. Junkenstein posted:(Mexico! Rome! Snow! Desert!) The transitions were really awful. Also the time spent in some locations was disappointingly short. Particular Tangiers. Individual set pieces were great but the movie did a poor job tying everything together. Some scenes would have been great in other movies but didn't make sense in the same movie. It's almost as if they were filming two movies back to back but were then forced to mash them together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I did try rewatching Living Daylights, and man does the goofy romance storyline not gel with Dalton's performance. It's really, really bad and mars what is otherwise one of the top five Bond movies. It feels like it's out of a Dolly Parton movie or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think Rogue Nation and The Man from Uncle ended up being more enjoyable movies than Spectre this year. I think the fight on the train was fantastic, and that's because Bautista really sells the physicality of it. I just read in a review that arguably he's a better villain than Waltz, because at least he has clear motivation. There's so many things about the movie that confounded me that it's making want to watch QUANTUM OF SOLACE and figure out which I liked more. SKYFALL seemed to be an end to Bond, a sort of mission statement on where and who Bond is now, and SPECTRE seems determined to rush back to the Brosnan era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I'm not a big bond fan. I've only seen Man with the Golden Gun, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. The first two weren't all that interesting but I really enjoyed Skyfall. I felt Spectre fell completely flat. Like a few others have said it's not a bad film but it just never gets interesting at any point. I'm not going to go into spoilery plot details because they've been rehashed a lot but the villain didn't work out too well. It doesn't help that they go back to previous villains who I don't particularly remember - I know that's my fault and not the film. It was just so disjointed. Like lots of set pieces that individually were visually exciting but didn't really fit together with the other things that had happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I think the fight on the train was fantastic, and that's because Bautista really sells the physicality of it. I just read in a review that arguably he's a better villain than Waltz, because at least he has clear motivation. There's so many things about the movie that confounded me that it's making want to watch QUANTUM OF SOLACE and figure out which I liked more. SKYFALL seemed to be an end to Bond, a sort of mission statement on where and who Bond is now, and SPECTRE seems determined to rush back to the Brosnan era. Agreed. The train fight was great and Bautista was brilliant. The logic behind the train fight happening there and then however was a bit puzzling. Spectre seemed confused as to if it was a movie about personal revenge or about the grand villainous plan to take over the world. If we get a final Craig movie it's going to dig itself out of a really weird hole of having been preceded by two movies that could be taken to be a final/resetting Craig movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Man, RT is hammering this movie. Is it that bad or just critics being critics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Fat_Cow posted:Man, RT is hammering this movie. Is it that bad or just critics being critics? I came out thinking 'Well the ending was poo poo but it wasn't bad', and now I've changed that to 'Well those two scenes were good'. It just feels like a big step back after SKYFALL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Taear posted:I'm not a big bond fan. I've only seen Man with the Golden Gun, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. The first two weren't all that interesting but I really enjoyed Skyfall. That is a super interesting selection of movies. I guess you joined in when Quantum came out, but I'm curious how Man with the Golden Gun ended up being the one classic you've seen. Do yourself a favor and watch Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace, while already not great, probably makes no sense at all without having seen Casino Royale. It's also my favorite Bond. If you want to watch another classic (to see if they might be for you), try From Russia With Love. It's a slower movie, to be sure, but a fantastic 60's spy movie, while never getting too crazy or over the top. Oh, and it has this guy as the villain.  A svelte version of Robert Shaw I never knew existed before watching it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:That is a super interesting selection of movies. I guess you joined in when Quantum came out, but I'm curious how Man with the Golden Gun ended up being the one classic you've seen. I always thought it was cool that you could place Shaw alongside Necro in the Living Daylights and see the progression of the idealised male form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:
Jesus, he looks like Rutger Hauer circa Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Fat_Cow posted:Man, RT is hammering this movie. Is it that bad or just critics being critics? It's not bad, it's just not great. Much, much better than Solace though
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:07
|
|