May 5, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Some Bond geek trivia for D-Po re: the most closely resembling a sequel since “Moonraker” bit:
Actually, “Diamonds Are Forever” picks up– like this one apparently– with Bond out for revenge against the previous film’s bad guy, also for murdering his Bond girl at the very end of the last one (OHMSS.)
That’s probably more consecutive/sequelish than the recurrence of Jaws (assuming that’s what you meant with the Moonraker reference.)
Altho in DAF his wife is not mentioned. And when Bond later confronts Blofeld, it’s like they’re ex-club pals. DAF does have my favorite Connery quip of all time:
“Right idea, Mr. Bond.”
“But wrong pussy.”
K-STEW FOR BOND GIRL NEXT TIME OUT.
THE HYPE STARTS HERE.
They should set the next Bond in Canada. Unless anyone tell me of a Bond movie that was already set in Canada?
Odd you’d say that, a_loco, as this is the first time I can recall seeing a Canadian secret agent in any film, much less a Bond film. They have spies in Canada? Who knew?
WHY HAVEN’T THEY JUST GOTTEN ROBBIE WILLIAMS to do the opening song? Considering MILENNIUM is the GREATEST THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD?????
I’m one of the biggest Bond aficionados imaginable, and let me make the point that D-PO’s review has me thinking of TOMORROW NEVER DIES, and the way it took the previous film’s classicist, leisurely reboot and stripped all the “Bond” out of it. TND has some great action and a great theme song, but it also had the short running time, Americanized action vibe, and lack of Bondian details. Should I expect something like that?
OLGA FUCKING OWNS.
I always thought Marc Foster was an odd choice for a Bond movie. As good as some of his movies may have been, nothing screams big-budget-action-film. But, you got to admit, it takes a lot of guts to step out of your comfort zone on such a large scale.
Is this the first 007 film where the name of the song is different from the title?
Nope. Casino Royale’s theme was “You Know My Name” and Octopussy theme was “All Time High.” Of course, before they had the format sorted out, Dr. No had the James Bond theme before they had themes and From Russia With Love’s theme was in the movie instead of during the credit sequence.
And yes, I am a James Bond dork.
For what it’s worth, i thoroughly enjoyed QoS. It’s no Casino Royale but then that set the bar so high i never expected it to be anywhere near as good. As a companion piece though it’s great. I think it will be at it’s best back-to-back with CR.
Oh, and do re-watch CR before viewing QoS if you haven’t seen it for a while.
James Bond skis off of Mount Asgard at the beginning of “The Spy Who Loved Me”, but I don’t think the setting was actually supposed to be Canada.
And the negative reviews start to trickle in for “Defiance.”
Sucks for Daniel Craig!
I hear they leave the gun barrel shot out of the opening and place it at the end for no reason. Apparently Bond is too cool now to be Bond.
The last time was circumstance, this time is happenstance… but doing it next time will be enemy action.
for the bond experts:
is this the first ‘bond’ movie in which he doesn’t say, ‘bond, james bond’?
Why not just change his name?
I for one am hoping it’s less of a saving the world story and more of a personal vendetta like License Renewed (which should have been called License Revoked).
It’d be nice if they coulda worked in a bit of Fleming’s actual short story, it’s one of the most interesting literary Bond moments. Oh, but the title hurts my mouth! I don’t get it! Wahhh!
I bought my ticket for opening night a long while ago…majorly looking forward to this no matter what the reviews are. I’ve loved Bond ever since I was eleven and my grandfather and I watched “Goldfinger” together…even been mocked by some friends who can’t understand how a movie-lover like me can enjoy “garbage.” (Their words.)
That being said…I can understand David’s comments about Forster. Bond is many things, but it is NOT a director’s franchise. There’s a reason the major Bond directors were Guy Hamilton and John Glen…workmanlike figures who delivered the goods. Every time a more unique talent has made a Bond movie, they get subsumed by the style and either fully give in (Michael Apted) or get lost and mess it up (Lee Tamahori). Marc Forster makes intimate, close-to-the-edge tales of humanity. His other films have been beautiful. Either he was going to rise to the occasion here or miss the boat…no pun intended.
Oddly enough, my favorite Bond director of all time apart from Campbell is Lewis Gilbert, who did “Moonraker” among others, and also made “Alfie” and “Educating Rita.” He handled Connery and Moore very well and mixed a whimsy and wryness with the action…”The Spy Who Loved Me” is SUPERB.
And funnily enough, I agree that a) Canada would be a great locale for a Bond movie (something involving the CN Tower?) and b) Kristen Stewart would make a DAMN FINE Bond girl in a few years…
I actually disagree. I had a ball at “Quantum of Solace.” This might be because I kept hearing how bad it was, but I really enjoyed it – including all the action beats.
I even liked the song once it was against the titles.
The thing about the natural “Bourne” comparisons end with the jokes about “teachers on sabbatical who won the lottery” and the fact that Bourne would neither ever wear a tux or blend in at a performance of “Tosca.”
If anything, it kind of feels like an A-list “Transporter” film. And I mean that as a compliment. Kind of felt this one was like “For Your Eyes Only,” lean, slightly Roger Moore-y and darker than what you might expect.
I actually felt the opening sequence – the titles – were one of the best in a long while… the song didn’t get in the way and wasn’t memorable… but the imagery was quite beautiful, I thought.
I disagree Mr. Rostan about the directors. You left out Terence Young, who directed two of the best Bond films and certainly got Conery’s best 007 performances on film. His direction is subtle but stylish.
Honestly, nobody has ever seen a “major” director let loose on a Bond film so we don’t know what they’d be like — but my sense is if Spielberg had been given a shot, his Bond film would be a classic.
I loved how in the first movie they used the gun barrel as part of the plot. But now that it’s been established, they need to do it at the beginning of the movie, not the end if that’s true. Hope they use the theme more in this one too.
Am I the only one who liked Die Another Day? The ice fortress gets a lot of shit but is it that much dumber than half the stuff that happened in the Roger Moore series?
And is it wrong that my favorite Bond is Live and Let Die? James Bond vs voodoo…that’s a fucking movie.
Big Perm, yes, you are objectively wrong about DAD and LALD. DAD is terrible – a fucking invisible car? It’s like the worst of the Moores.
As fer LALD, the theme song rocks and it has probably the best last image of a Bond film along with OHMSS…but your favorite? Methinks you’ve only seen a few…
Seen them all, baby. I didn’t say Live and Let Die was the most well made or the best story or the best actual film…but it’s the one I like the most.
I guess an invisible car doesn’t bother me that much in a series that has gone from serious to silly and all of that. At least it wasn’t totally boring like the last few had been…and then Casino Royale came along and finally made the series interesting again. If they used an invisible car NOW, I wouldn’t like it.
“Odd you’d say that, a_loco, as this is the first time I can recall seeing a Canadian secret agent in any film, much less a Bond film. They have spies in Canada? Who knew?”
What!? There’s a Canadian secret agent in this film??? Quantum of Solace is now set to be my favourite film evar.
And yes, we have secret agents. Or at least we have an intelligence service.
At least we were spared a “Jinx” franchise…
Anyone know why Martin Campbell didn’t direct this one? Continuity would have been nice.
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
Opinions Section, B2
November 9, 2008
Guest Columnist: Renford Reese, Ph.D.
The Meaning of Obama
Zorro 3?
Live and Let Die is my personal least-favorite Bond movie – isn’t it kind of terribly racist? And in most circumstances I would love the terrible effects at the end where Yaphet Kotto inflates and explodes, but not Bond circumstances.
I’ll throw in my support of Live and Let Die. What I like about it is that it’s memorable. I often get the bad guys/evil plots/settings mixed up with the other films, but this was a lot different than the others.
Not only does it have a great final shot, but Yaphet Kotto’s demise has to be one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in my life. Amazing.
I think The Spy Who Loved Me is the best of the Moore films, though, and probably my favorite Bond overall. And it IS well made, as Mr. Rostan said above, as well as having the best pre-credit sequence of the entire series. Union Jack parachute over the piano opening of “Nobody Does It Better”? Nobody did.
Sorry, jeff, was writing already before you posted…
No, it is very, very funny. I just don’t know if it’s quite as intentional. And the way it’s shot and edited are pretty bad.
Perm, DP liked Die Another Day quite a bit. But then, so did I back when it hit theaters. Then I watched it again on DVD right before Casino Royale came out and said to myself “Wow, I liked this? This is fucking TERRIBLE.”
GOLDFINGER has the best pre-titles scene.
No debate.
I think even Godard likes the Goldfinger pre-titles scene. Or maybe I’m thinking of Zizek.
Christian, you are SUBjectively wrong. Best Bond opening credits sequence is indeed The Spy Who Loved Me.
Jeff, I’d say the charge of racism would apply to any movie that involves voodoo, as invariably they involve a bunch of wide-eyed superstitious black people. But Yaphet Koto was no dummy, and neither was his awesome claw henchman (my favorite of the Bond henchmen), and when the six foot tall voodoo guy rises from the grave I think “Oh shit, James Bod can take down spies and drug dealers, but how can he defeat VOODOO???”
Unfortunately, then Bond just punches the guy and he falls in a coffin filled with snakes and dies instantly. But the thought was nice.
Doesn’t LaLD also suggest that Black People in general are tied in with Kotto’s crime conspiracy, as in the New Orleans funeral scene where dozens of locals are accomplices?
I’m not trying to pick a fight, just remembering.
I was good with Die Another Die… except for the ice and the remote control car… it was very BOND, for better or for worse. I kind of felt the attacks on the film were actively avoiding the reality of the franchise.
And then, the franchise changed.
Regarding Campbell, I heard that he just wanted to go off and make a small movie next (“Villain,” which then didn’t get made) and wanted to get away from franchises. I’m not saying “Edge of Darkness” is a better project than “Quantum of Solace,” but if you’re looking for something new and want to ride the success of a great pic like “Casino Royale,” returning to the franchise almost – ALMOST – feels as if you couldn’t get something better.
go martin campbell! (sorry, there are so few of us kiwis kicking directorial butt out there i couldn’t help an off topic shout out)
my fave bond by far is ‘from russia with love’
I LOVE Live & Let Die… but it also is completely racist… way over the top, old school, cartoon stuff.
It could not be made today.
But in its context, it is glorious and right in there between the good and bad Moore. Kotto is great… Holder is great… Clifton James is always a great cracker… the Moneypenny stuff is still sexist… and Jane Seymour was etherial sexuality embodied.
I am still waiting for Disney to let Song of the South loose. Art carries its context with it. And so does the word, “nigger.” And so does anti-Semetic art.
I would certainly want to be there with a kid seeing it the first time and explaining that context. But it is a great, wild ride. And it is also an ethical thicket, if you care to make it so.
Oh yeah, I forgot “Nobody Does It Better” was also a a Bond title song that didn’t share the title with the movie it was in (Though it did have “The Spy Who Loved Me” in the lyrics).
As for the question of whether Quantum of Solace is the first Bond movie where he doesn’t do the “Bond, James Bond” line, I’m not sure. I don’t remember it in License to Kill, but that’s probably because it’s one of my least watched Bond movies. It’s not that it’s that bad or anything, but it doesn’t feel like a Bond movie. It feels like an American action flick that got tagged with the 007 brand.
The Brosnan ones had it, I’m trying to think if A View to a Kill had it beyond Bond introducing himself as his cover name. Yet another one I don’t watch too much. All the elements were there for a good one, but they all missed (It didn’t help that the pre-title sequence was capped off with the Beach Boys, scraping away the last piece of dignity the Bond franchise had managed to hold onto during the Moore era). Not as bad as my least-liked Bond, though. I’ll get crap from people, but The Man With the Golden Gun was the one Bond I absolutely hated. The lighting was consistently terrible, action sequence after action sequence flailed about until they withered and died, and Christopher Lee’s much ballyhooed assassin was wasted due to mounds and mounds of cheesyness. It wasn’t like Moonraker where it got so bad, it was amusing. It was simply awful. Oh, and people who were there and experienced the whole thing as it happened, was the racist sheriff REALLY that much of a beloved character that they had to bring him back for a second film?
I’m being random here, but in the case of Die Another Day, I understand the whole thing was a send up to all of the James Bond films, including the most outrageous, so the invisible car fit in its own absolutely-outlandish-parts-of-the-Moore-era kind of way. The villain’s getup in the final action sequence was absolutely stupid, though. I enjoyed it. A lot more than The World is Not Enough, at least. Now that I have to take back my thoughts from my initial experience, because I must’ve been in a very VERY good mood when I said nice things about it.
Favorites: From Russia With Love (It should’ve been called “From Hitchcock With Love,” but it’s damned entertaining in its own right), Goldfinger of course, sometimes You Only Live Twice (It’s the damndest thing. Sometimes I’m absolutely caught up in it, and sometimes, I’m absolutely bored by the somewhat slow pacing), On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Never was much of a fan of Lazenby. The one movie he happened to land himself in was simply the right one. Everything else about it is top notch), The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye (Awesome characters, awesome set pieces), and Casino Royale despite its need for an editor. A typical list, really.
I’m there for Quantum of Solace on Friday. Hope it’s a good one.
Jeff, I wouldn’t say the opening of Live and Let Die means black people in general are helping the bad guys. The voodoo guys controlled all of those people on the island, I assumed they shipped them in to stage the parade in order to bump off their enemies.
See, DP has my back as well on Die Another Day…sure it wasn’t as gritty and realistic as Connery Bonds, like the one when he was dodging a killer bowler hat that apparently weighs fifty pounds but can still be thrown or worn easily…but you takes what you can gets.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn’t bland, per se … it moves a little too quickly for its own good sometimes, but it seemed to leave a lot of people relatively breathless. I sensed quite a bit of the film was cut, but have only read a few indications thereof (i.e. a discarded ending). Would have loved to have seen more of Dominic Greene, though.
Any fellow 007 geeks see the beautiful 007 Villains Collection designed by Swatch for the QUANTUM OF SOLACE tie-in? Some of them are magnificent … others, not so much.
Big fan of both LIVE AND LET DIE and MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Always liked Guy Hamilton’s colorful, slightly smaller-scale Bond flicks. Also, as has been stated, cool how those first two Moores are so very much of their time, taking cues from blacksploitation (LALD) and the kung fu craze (MWGG). Most people single out SPY– one of my top three Bonds ever– as where the Moore stretch hit its stride, but those first two still rock.
GOLDEN GUN is usually, along with MOONRAKER, one of the most maligned, but what’s not to like? BRITT EKLAND = THE HOTNESS, awesome cars, the return of J.W., Christopher Lee being completely awesome, great Barry score, epically dated Lulu theme song, and Moore in some really awful fucking suits. Yeah, it gets dissed left and right, but it still goes down pretty easy and provides a nice ’70s time capsule, not just with the aforementioned Bruce Lee movie shenanigans, but also the energy-crisis plot.
Golden Gun is one of the disappointments for me. They send Christopher Lee out to assassinate James Bond and that’s all they could do with it? I don’t know, I wish that one had been better, especilly since it had a great opportunity to not be the same old plot.
No, no, no. GOLDFINGER has Connery at his coolest and the pre-titles WALLOP YOU into the greatest Bond theme – which sorry, a Carly Simon elevator song does not match. I like the opening to TSWLM, but outside the ski jump, there ain’t much there.
GOLDFINGER has Connery, Barry, Bassey and Ken Adams. Boom.
Since we’re all so keen on discussing Moore this time around, can we get some love for For Your Eyes Only? That was seen as somewhat “back to normal” after the ridiculousness of Moonraker, and I think it’s one of the better efforts. Some great ski/bobsled stunts, that mountain climb at the end is amazing too. And Carole Bouquet.
Also, what I like about The Man With the Golden Gun is that structurally it’s different from the others. It’s not about some evil maniac trying to take over the world. Just one guy, with a grudge. And it was a nice break from the “secret armies fighting in secret fortress” formula. The execution wasn’t perfect, but again, it’s about standing out from the others to me.
Also, no one ever talks about Octopussy, which I think is a little underrated. It’s a shame Moore didn’t go out with that one instead of A View to a Kill, which has to be among the three worst.
GOLDFINGER is of course completely iconic, and so many people’s all-time fave, and you can’t really argue with that, but personally I’ve always been such a huge fan of the series, top to bottom, that I think the first three tend to get just slightly overrated. I mean, in Goldfinger, isn’t he solving most of his big case… in KENTUCKY? That doesn’t seem very exotic or Bondian.
Those first three are lean and more faithful to the plot particulars of Fleming, but I always kinda liked the relatively unsung and elaborate “Thunderball” and “You Only Live Twice,” and where they went from there. Of course, the real purists think that’s where it went off the rails. Being growing up on the Moore era and the lavish ’70s films, it’s kind of hard not to like a little bit of that overkill, and the fourth and fifth Connerys have a lot of that AND the original, best Bond.
Don’t get me wrong, “Dr. No” and “From Russia” are complerely great, but they have a little bit of that vibe of the early episodes of a long-running TV show where some of the players don’t quite have their character or accent down yet, and the calling cards of the show aren’t in place yet.
Back to “Golden Gun,” I think maybe there’s a point to be made that the hitman stuff– the golden bullet, Maud Adams, the wax museum, the classic duels– should have been the main event in a lean and mean “Assassins”-type Bond, and instead they kind of balk halfway through and throw in the usual world-domination shit, and it’s kind of half-assed. I still think there’s enough fun stuff in that movie to put it over the top… especially J.W.
I’m with you on You Only Live Twice (I actually LIKE the pacing, considering how mindless the later ones would become), and don’t know why it gets a bad rap. To me, it represents the best of what Bond has to offer compared to stuff like Bourne–there’s an exoticism missing from other action films, even if you have to put up with the “turning Bond Japanese” element. Those ninja guys coming down into the enemy base at the end on those cords is pretty damned awesome, too. Plus, Roald Dahl screenplay and Nancy Sinata on the title tune? No-brainer.
Not sure about Thunderball, though. Yeah, Tom Jones and the jet pack and some cool underwater stuff, but it just doesn’t pack the punch of the pre-sabbatical Connery films.
Domino in THUNDERBALL = TOTAL. OWNAGE.
Lazarus, I agree with you on these. I love YOLT aside from the pointless interlude where they Jap up Bond (and here I think Dahl’s lack of screenwriting experience is obvious – it’s a clear holdover from the novel that doesn’t work in the movie).
Whereas Thunderball, jetpack aside, just puts me to sleep.
Lex, I’d be interested to know what you think qualifies as a “purist.” Poland clearly has some idea, as do you, of what a BOND film is and should be. But nobody has mentioned that there has always been a disconnect between the BOND franchise and the Ian Fleming stories and novels — my wife loved Casino Royale because it seemed to do justice to Fleming’s vision of Bond in a way that hadn’t been attempted since the early Connery movies.
For what it’s worth, I second leah’s nod to From Russia with Love as the best of the Connery Bonds, and after watching Diamonds are Forever again, I thought that’s when series went off the rails — it totally prepared the way for Moore. Both Lazenby and OHMSS are criminally underrated, IMHO. I remember liking the Living Daylights as a teenager, but found it ridiculous as an adult, and when I caught up to Licence to Kill, Timothy Dalton reminded me of how Peter Cushing might have played Bond — a total queen. I thought Goldeneye was fun, but Pierce Brosnan made a better Bond in both Thomas Crowne and Tailor of Panama (or, indeed, in the Matador). As far as themes go, the combination of John Barry and Tom Jones on Thunderball is just balls out, and I’d like to know how the visuals of the current film’s credit sequence can top those of Casino Royale, which are kind of astonishing, if you ask me.
Looking forward to Quantum of Solace. I have a feeling that Poland and I don’t share the same opinion of what makes the franchise worth returning to.
Yeah, Thunderball is a total bore. That’s a James Bond I just don’t watch.
Speaking of which, what was Johnny Cash thinking when he submitted a theme song for James Bond? I actually love this song but it IN NO WAY fits a James Bond picture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3rqS98seNA
I guess I’m a rube because GOLDEN GUN is my favorite Moore. It’s an odd film with a disappointing climax, but I really love Barry’s score and Moore is at his wittiest. Plus, it has kung fu. And Herve…
I’m a Fleming fan so I think TLD comes damn close to the spirit of the book Bond.
Well, I like TLD better than its sequel.
I think John Barry’s music is consistently the best thing about the franchise, hands down. Has anyone ever seen Deadfall, a minor Michael Caine film? There’s a fascinating Hitchcockian sequence in which a heist takes place in real time during a concert in which John Barry is conducting an orchestra playing his film score. It’s amazing.
There’s an interview somewhere with Robert Bresson (the L’Argent DVD maybe?) in which he extols the cinematographic virtues of “For Your Eyes Only.” That’s good enough for me.
I recently rewatched Goldfinger, and it certainly does provide a lot of nostalgic fun, even if I still prefer the comparatively less silly installments that preceded it (did anyone else have the Oddjob action figure with the spring loaded arm that could fling the hat?).
lazarus: I’m with you on Octopussy. Good dumb fun.
BP: Don’t have sound on my work comp, so I can’t wait to get home and hear that Cash Thunderball theme.
I personally thought Quantum of Solace fucking rocked. I respectfully disagree with DPs opinion on the action, as I thought it was really well staged and unexpected beats kept popping up. The locations, the pace, the music, the setpieces, the cinematography and the direction all clicked really well as far as I’m concerned.
To be fair, it’s not really its own thing, but plays a lot like just the second part of Casino Royale, which is far from a bad thing in my book (CR being up there with From Russia With Love, Licence to Kill and Goldfinger as my favorite Bonds). It’s short, sweet and wraps up the story begun in CR pretty damn well in my opinion.
I’m really down with the new direction of the franchise, as I pretty much HATED all the Brosnan films, especially the totally wretched and pathetic Die Another Day, easily the worst Bond film in the entire franchise along with Moonraker.
YOLT would be a great Bond if it wasn’t Connery’s laziest 007 performance (and his “turning Japanese” scene). What a fantastic style. And ninjas! It’s still a favorite for the score and scope.
And OCTOPUSSY is a fairly fun Moore. They tended to get lazy and silly by the end. But I still love the Golden Gate battle between Walken and Moore in AVTAK, especially Walken’s final laugh before he falls.
The worst thing to do to a Bond film is duplicate Bourne. Bond has so many more levels to play with.
‘Cash Thunderball’ will be the name of my fifth child, male or female.
Great thread, here, as I am a Bond fanatic. Very much looking forward to Quantum, despite Dave’s review – sorry, I have been in disagreement with him, this year, about so many big mainstream films, it’s hard to worry too much…..loved Casino Royale and if this film is shorter and tighther, that might not be a bad thing.
All of the Brosnan films missed the mark in some way or the other, which is not his fault – they all had elements that really worked (Goldeneye – casting, action sequences; Die Another Day – Halle Berry & Madonna, who was made to be in Bond films; The World is Not Enough – Shirley Manson song, opening sequence; Tomorrow Never Dies – Teri Hatcher, Michelle Yeoh) and elements that really did not work (Goldeneye – worst score of the series; Die Another Day – excessive CGI; The World is Not Enough – Denise Richards, lame action sequences; Tomorrow Never Dies – Sheryl Crow theme, love her, but probably the worst possible choice to do a Bond theme). Brosnan’s best Bond performance was undoubtedly The Thomas Crown Affair.
I think the most underrated one is License to Kill – that film got such a bum rap, because of the timing of its release. It got crushed by the first Batman and Lethal Weapon 2, but was a very strong film. Dalton made it work, despite the receeding hairline – the film was just really well cast. Robert Davi was great, Benicio Del Toro was memorable, Carey Lowell was cool, the Gladys Knight theme is very strong and wow, that truck climax still holds up – just fantastic stunt work.
With regards to the Moore films, The Spy Who Loved Me is the only one that truly got the formula right, though For Your Eyes Only came close – he just did about three too many, Moore was way too old by the time of A View to Kill.
Connery ones are all strong, except for Thunderball which I think really drags – I can see how impressive that underwater battle sequence might have seemed at the time, but it just did not dazzle me. LOVE the climax of You Only Live Twice – amazing how they pulled that off 40 years ago.
Wait, has Marc Forster ever made a good movie? Or even a merely mediocre one?
You think all of his movies are terrible? I think “medicore to good” pretty much defines his output.
I loved Forster’s Finding Neverland and Stranger than Fiction.
As for Bond, I have been rewatching many of them in the last year in anticipation of QOS. Haven’t seen most of them for twenty odd years. Majesty is currently my favorite but thought Diamonds and Man with the Golden Gun to be the least of the series.
They need to get Bond on skies in the next installment, those are always riviting scenes, even the opening of View to a Kill if they jettisoned the beach boys song.
Geoff: I love Gladys Knight, and the “License to Kill” theme song is good, musically speaking, but the lyrics — hoooo boy. It’s like the crazy stalker chick national anthem:
“Got a license to kill
Anyone who tries to tear us apart”
I just read Noah’s article on Bond, and I wanted to mention a couple things in response. My opinion about the relationships in The Bourne Identity and Casino Royale are actually the reverse. I think the relationship in Casino Royale is a lot better than you give it credit for and certainly better than the one in Bourne Identity. My problem with Bourne and Marie is they feel stilted and unconvincing. It doesn’t feel like they’re falling in love, but more that it’s scripted to happen. Bourne’s only cue that he feels something for her is when she does the babbling that comes off as unnatural and Bourne finds it soothing. Then after the action settles down, they have a quiet scene with washing the hair that never quite emotionally connects. I never bought it, honestly, and that’s why I prefer the sequels much more than the first one.
In Casino Royale, the first conversation between Bond and Vespa has them seeing through each other. If you’ve ever had someone see through how you present yourself and see you, it’s slightly irritating, but it brings about some connection and a level of admiration. So I’m not so bewildered as to why they fall in love and it makes it more than an excuse to shovel in a tragic love for motivation.
Also, the personality of Bond is still there in Casino Royale, but it’s more in-between the lines. The crane chase is something that could conceivably be in a Bourne movie (I highly doubt it’d be a Greengrass Bourne movie, though), but the flare for the more dramatic stunts over some believability and Bond’s reactions to all the actions (Like taking the gun thrown at him and throwing it back) fit within the franchise. Craig’s just not standing in front of a shot for five seconds and winding up for a groan-inducing one-liner, which is a good thing. Yeah, I’d be lying if I said Bourne didn’t play a factor, but Bond’s always evolved to somewhat fit the era even if the movies are the “same” thing over and over, and the more serialized, leaner, meaner, more centered on the main character’s psychology action entertainment is in. Like 24, as you mentioned. So this is just Bond’s adaptation to that. Sometimes I think the Bond franchise is a little too anxious to grab onto fads (Moonraker, for example), but I think this one’s working out okay so far.
Big Perm, pretty much. Stranger than Fiction would’ve been better if they worked out the kinks in the system more, but I remember finding so many flaws with it’s logic and failing in the end. Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland are just woeful, really. Mind you, I haven’t seen Stay.
Don’t forget that LICENCE TO KILL has that *closing* song of IF I ASKED YOU TO that made no impression at the time, yet somehow got turned into one of Celine Dion’s biggest hits like half a decade or so later.
Benecio completely OWNS in that movie; So does Davi. And Talisa Soto and Carey Lowell were both super-hot; I don’t know, I kind of like that one more than LIVING DAYLIGHTS. DAYLIGHTS seems to be seventeen hours long and goes on some endless tangent in the desert– one of the least efficient Bond movies around; And while Jerome Krabbe more than qualifies as an awesome villain, Joe Don Baker is just kind of goofy with his toy soldiers and whatnot. Good score, though (of course.)
Lex: “If You Asked Me To” is the actual title. And it’s Jeroen Krabbe, not Jerome. I won’t charge you this time, Lex, but I get $40 an hour from here on out.
I work with a woman whose husband is a cousin of Narada Michael Walden, who co-wrote the Licence to Kill theme song.
Kami, Stay is pretty dire, basically a very, VERY long and tedious Twilight Zone episode. It’s well-shot though.
On the other hand, I enjoyed Finding Neverland.
I should’ve caught my “Jeroen” mistake, being a big fan of his work in the early Verhoevens.
I liked “Stay” better than “Monster’s Ball.” MB is positively “Crashesque” to me.
Lex: Agreed on Monster’s Ball. One of the biggest frustrations of trying to build a screenwriting career on the margins of this business is watching such nonsense get made, get praised and get nominations from the Academy and the WGA. I know in my heart that if I’d written those scenes in which Billy Bob dips his white spoon in chocolate ice cream, everyone whose opinion I value would have said to me, “Um, seriously? You’re proud of that metaphor?” Great acting and all, but sheesh.
Maybe it’s a slow news day, but I see Yahoo’s front page is a puff-piece article about Bond Girls and the relative lack of a distinctive role for the Bond Girl this time out.
Only bringing this up because the article quotes Olga Kurylenko, giving the time-honored blurb about how THIS Bond Girl is DIFFERENT.
For anyone who follows Bond, hasn’t EVERY actress for at least the last twenty, thirty years given this EXACT same interview? Obviously Halle Berry was probably the most aggressive at running this shtick, but I can recall Carey Lowell sounding off about how HER Bond Girl was more aggressive and more Bond’s equal… we got it in regards to Eva Green on the last movie.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Bond Girls and Olga K. is the HOTNESS; Just amusing that each successive Bond girl seems to give the EXACT same interview about how much more progressive HER character is, when basically they’ve all served the exact identical function since ’62.
Caught a midnight screening tonight. I have to agree with David’s criticism of the action scenes. They are totally incoherent. It’s as though they were having a contest to see how short a shot they could put on screen. The story takes a long time to get going; Bond isn’t on the run until there’s only 20 minutes to go. Greene’s organization is a complete let down after being built up for two years since Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is watchable, which gives them hope for the next one. But this one is a misfire. To paraphrase one of my buddies who I saw it with, it’s one of the shortest Bonds but it felt like one of the longest. And not in a good way.
Didn’t TOMORROW NEVER DIES kind of serve a similar purpose?
GOLDENEYE was a classicist, leisurely reboot that seemed to take its time with the series’ expected staples and ground Bond and set up two complex Bond girls…
Then TND came along and went for a shorter running time, pumped up action (instead of competing with Bourne, TND seemed to take its cues from Woo and Jan De Bont), less time spent on romance, and just-the-facts plotting.
How could Tomorrow Never Dies compete with Bourne? It was released five years prior.
“How could Tomorrow Never Dies compete with Bourne? It was released five years prior.”
Kami, yeah, when I reread my post later it didn’t make 100% sense to me either, but basically I was saying TND was the 10-years-ago equivalent of SOLACE, where they stripped out all the Bond (ladies, gambling, travelogue, briefings) from the previous, leisurely reboot and went with a straight, contemporary action movie of the type that was being made at the time.
Now we have Bond trying to be like Bourne, etc. In 1997, it seemed Bond was trying to be like and compete with its contemporaries in SPEED and McTiernan and Simon West/Michael Bay and the John Woo and some of the HK movies that were starting to catch on.
Just saw this tonight, was quite pleasantly surprised given the generally weak reviews it’s gotten. It’s not as good as Casino Royale, but then I don’t think any Bond in thirty+ years has been. The action struck me as coherent as it needed to be, I was never as lost or as distracted as others were, apparently.
My one big question: are there a lot of highly flammable luxury hotels in the middle of nowhere, Bolivia?
Jeff, the plot doesn’t make any sense up to that point, what makes you think it’s gonna start making sense then?
I thought it made sufficient sense up to then, I was just confused as to what that place was supposed to be.
I nominate Guillaume Canet to direct Bond 23. Maybe we can start a petition.
Oh, and Dominic Greene’s bodyguard (that skinny goof with the bowl haircut) get my vote for worst. henchman. EVER.
SPOILERS.
I kept thinking he had to be a badass because he looked so silly, that he’d suddenly surprise us and get all Crispin-Glover-in Charlie’s-Angels. Nope. He falls down a flight of stairs, wears a neckbrace and gets blown up. The end. His only apparent ability is looking like Dario Argento.
Compare to the German organ grinder in Tell No One. That chick gives me nightmares.
On the other hand, Roman Po- I mean, Mathieu Amalric was a pretty solid victim, looking super-creepy with just a few simple facial gestures.
Victim? I mean villain.
“Victim? I mean villain.”
You must have still been thinking about Polanski when you made that slip.
Yes, Almaric gives good glare. But we should have seen him commit at least one dastardly deed, instead of just seething with evil.
Physically he’s just not much of a threat, however deranged he might look. When he’s threatening to throw a Olga Kurlenko over a railing, I had to laugh; she looked like she could pick him up and drop him on his head. And his fight with Bond was a compete joke, the inverse of the “Jason Rule,” which states that the invulnerable superhuman killer must become slow and clumsy when confronting the Final Girl. In this case, it’s the hero who suddenly forgets how to fight. We’ve seen him take out four or five fellow agents like that! (I’m snapping my fingers), but he has to struggle to beat a five-foot tall opponent with no advantage other than scary googly-eyes.
They were pretty scary, though. And pretty googly.