If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.

James Bond 25 Countdown Marathon
#71
Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?
Reply
#72
(02-10-2020, 09:05 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?

TWINE was far worse than I remembered and DAD was better than I remembered but the latter is the worst ever Bond movie and probably always will be. I don't believe there will ever be another Bond film as bad, it would take a concerted effort.
[+] 1 user Likes TM2YC's post
Reply
#73
(02-11-2020, 03:03 AM)TM2YC Wrote:
(02-10-2020, 09:05 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?

TWINE was far worse than I remembered and DAD was better than I remembered but the latter is the worst ever Bond movie and probably always will be. I don't believe there will ever be another Bond film as bad, it would take a concerted effort.
Not even Quantum of Solace?
Reply
#74
(02-11-2020, 12:04 PM)wilhelm scream Wrote:
(02-11-2020, 03:03 AM)TM2YC Wrote:
(02-10-2020, 09:05 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?

TWINE was far worse than I remembered and DAD was better than I remembered but the latter is the worst ever Bond movie and probably always will be. I don't believe there will ever be another Bond film as bad, it would take a concerted effort.
Not even Quantum of Solace?

I'll soon be re-watching that one but I remember it being just fine. It's got it's problems but nowhere near the bottom of the pile.
Reply
#75
(02-11-2020, 05:36 PM)TM2YC Wrote:
(02-11-2020, 12:04 PM)wilhelm scream Wrote:
(02-11-2020, 03:03 AM)TM2YC Wrote:
(02-10-2020, 09:05 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?

TWINE was far worse than I remembered and DAD was better than I remembered but the latter is the worst ever Bond movie and probably always will be. I don't believe there will ever be another Bond film as bad, it would take a concerted effort.
Not even Quantum of Solace?

I'll soon be re-watching that one but I remember it being just fine. It's got it's problems but nowhere near the bottom of the pile.
Even with it's HORRIBLE camera work and editing?
Reply
#76
(02-11-2020, 12:04 PM)wilhelm scream Wrote:
(02-11-2020, 03:03 AM)TM2YC Wrote:
(02-10-2020, 09:05 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Having just revisited both, which is worse - TWINE or DAD?

TWINE was far worse than I remembered and DAD was better than I remembered but the latter is the worst ever Bond movie and probably always will be. I don't believe there will ever be another Bond film as bad, it would take a concerted effort.
Not even Quantum of Solace?

I legitimately don't understand why Quantum is so hated. The camerawork and editing suck, sure, but the story is refreshingly relevant and realistic for a Bond film.
Reply
#77
Yeah QoS is a big drop off from Casino Royale but nowhere near the bottom of the pile. I honestly have very little recollection of DAD, but I’ve always considered Moonraker to be the absolute worst Bond film.
Reply
#78
(02-11-2020, 11:24 PM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: I legitimately don't understand why Quantum is so hated. The camerawork and editing suck, sure, but the story is refreshingly relevant and realistic for a Bond film.

Yeah that sums it up perfectly.

I just watched this video from the youtube channel 'TheBondExperience' where he gets his daughter in to talk with about the franchise from a female perspective (she has done gender studies and speaks Russian). Some interesting perspectives and observations:

Reply
#79
Sorry, this review got out of hand Big Grin , I've got complicated feelings about this one...

Casino Royale (2006)
I was less keen on 'Casino Royale' when it first came out than others were but I've warmed to it over the years. It's not too difficult to ignore all the little issues in an otherwise successful entry in the franchise. Daniel Craig's interpretation of the character is the darkest and most animalistic Bond but he also has a little twinkle of boyish mischief in his eyes and he makes the romantic scenes smoulder. David Arnold's score is one of the all-time best, his themes for this movie sound like such a strong part of the Bond musical world now, that it's easy to forget they were new for this movie. I can't stand Chris Cornell's bland performance of the title vocal but I love Arnold's music for it. I know a lot of people think it's one of the best theme songs but it's always been one of my least favourite. Director Martin Campbell and Cinematographer Phil Méheux's visuals ooze class, surely a contender for the best and most expensive looking of these films. Certainly a big visual upgrade from the dated looking Brosnan movies. The supporting cast is top-drawer, maybe one of the best ensembles in the whole run and Jeffrey Wright is easily the best ever Felix Leiter. The bit where Bond restarts his heart is so good.

After the ludicrous atrocity 'Die Another Day' took the campness that has always been a part of this series to it's zenith, I totally get why the Producers wanted to do a complete 180 with the tone. But I don't get why it was necessary to screw around with the established format that people know and love: Gunbarrel->cold-open->titles->main plot etc. I don't get why they needed to do a reboot 'origin story' (and a half-arsed one at that), 21 films into this thing. Removing the origin elements from this script would take 5-minutes and a bottle of Tippex. There is the very short black & white pre-titles scene where he earns his 007 status, a few references to him being new in the dialogue but otherwise it's business as usual. I also don't think it was necessary to adopt a "no fun allowed" policy (something that has slowly relaxed over the course of Craig's reign), when just exercising some restraint was all that was needed to avoid repeating past mistakes. So there is no fun scene with Q (just a nameless mute tech dude), no fun Q gadgets, no fun repartee with Moneypenny and no Moneypenny, no fun uses of the Bond guitar theme (until after the credits roll) and no fun spectacular set-pieces are permitted, where 007 skydives into enemy territory, drives a tank through a wall, or does some feat of incredible and memorable action. It's all confined to frenetic running around, punching and shooting. Remember that bit where 007 punched a guy, or the bit where 007 ran fast, or that bit where 007 shot a guy and that other bit where 007 drove a car? No, me neither. That's not to say that the action isn't well executed, it's just lacking flare. I also disliked the dumbing-down of changing the card game from Baccarat (a Bond staple), to Poker but I can understand the reasons for it.

The plot doesn't make any sense whatsoever when you think about: Le Chiffre needs to win $150m to repay his dangerous creditors, so Bond is tasked with winning instead, thus forcing Le Chiffre to cut a deal for UK asylum and information on Spectre when they later arrest him. Except they could just have arrested him before the game, preventing him from winning the money and forcing him to seek asylum anyway. Plus let's not forget that 007 kills Le Chiffre's creditors halfway through the game (which Le Chiffre is shown to know about) but everybody carries on as if the impetus is still there. The general structure and pace of the story has always felt odd to me. The first part is your usual globe-trotting thriller, then the whole middle of the film is set in the casino interior. Those scenes are pretty sedentary but thankfully packed with a good deal of tension, drama and well written dialogue. Then the film sort of concludes 30-minutes from the end titles, it slows down for some romance scenes (that could and should have happened earlier), then the action starts up again for 10-minutes, then we get the actual ending scene in the form of an epilogue. In the scramble to get it over with, some plot elements are forgotten about and only wrapped up in the next film. The structure probably flowed just fine in the original more down-to-earth novel but after they plugged in the elements needed for a big-budget action thriller, it feels clunky.

It probably sounds like I don't like the film but I actually think it's one of the best. I just get frustrated by all the little deliberate choices they made which make the film needlessly worse. Maybe a light fanedit is what I'm looking for.





I think this was the first Bond movie to be reviewed on BBC Radio's hugely popular 'Kermode and Mayo's film review':

[+] 2 users Like TM2YC's post
Reply
#80
Quantum of Solace (2008)
I never got why this languishes near the bottom of some people's franchise rankings, it's a decent film, not without it's problems but not without it's highlights either. At 106-minutes (the shortest Bond film) at least it's got brevity on it's side. This latest re watch made me appreciate it in new ways. I don't think the relationship between 007 and M has ever been portrayed anything like as well as it is here. She's not just the usual exposition-machine that calls Bond in to her office after the title-sequence to explain the mission/plot and then turns up at the end to say well done. In 'Quantum of Solace' we are constantly cutting back to her (and her adjutant Bill Tanner) as she checks in with Bond's progress, she might be driving somewhere, digesting reports with Tanner, or at home taking her makeup off, it's like she's an actual real person, a "never off duty" spy-chief, with other priorities and other agents to manage. You get the impression that Bond is like her attack dog, who she has on a very long global leash.

I'd forgotten David Harbour was in this in an early role as a deliciously slimy CIA section chief. It makes for an interesting angle to have Felix forced to choose between his career and helping Bond. The scenes with the returning Mathis are powerful thanks to actor Giancarlo Giannini. I like the clear linear narrative, more or less a continuation of the plot from 'Casino Royale'. Mathieu Amalric is fantastic as the believably psychotic villain Dominic Greene. Him fronting an evil corporation masking their activities with green credentials and his plot to hoard access to water has aged very well. Olga Kurylenko is stunningly beautiful as the main Bond girl (not really the love interest, he's still grieving for Vesper), it's a shame they didn't give her some more action to sink her teeth in to. Daniel Craig is of course perfect in the role, haunted by loss and ready to take it out on anybody in his way.

The film does have it's problems. The action is edited in an exhaustingly fast, barely coherent way, which is a shame because it's well choreographed and well shot stuff. I personally find the editing just about tolerable but I can understand it being unbearable for some viewers. Another less hyper-active editor could've made this material really work. The action content is a step up from 'Casino Royale' with a car chase and a dog fight. Gemma Arterton is a bit rubbish as Bond girl Strawberry Fields, which is surprising in retrospect because she has gone on to be a terrific actor. The franchise formula is pointlessly mucked about with again, so we get a proper gun barrel but it's at the end... why? Like 'Licence to Kill', the nastiness goes too far for my tastes, you want the baddies to be as evil as possible but a violent rape scene isn't "fun evil". The finale is visually very weak and lackluster, it's set at some kind of empty and forgettable pre-fab hotel in the desert, inexplicably run on exploding power cells. The decision to make the Craig films a continuous narrative rarely works and it's very awkward in this movie. It's supposed to take place moments after the last film but the scenes with Mathis are played like Bond is meeting up with an old comrade from an adventure that happened decades ago. We meet him enjoying his sunny retirement in Italy when we only saw him at most a week before in the last movie. 'Quantum of Solace' is a mid-level entry in the series at worst. If you re-cut the action scenes to slow them down and re-shot the end somewhere more memorable you'd have a really solid Bond film.







^ Wow it made Kermode really angry Big Grin .
[+] 3 users Like TM2YC's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)