Amph What was the last movie you saw?

It indeed is.

 

Horrible Bosses
This didn't give me any laughing out loud moments, but I still found it worthwhile. It had me smiling throughout, and that has to count for something.

3 out of 5.

 

Yeah, but at least the terrible Moore Bonds are fun to laugh at and enjoy the cheese. The bad Brosnan Bonds are just . . . joyless festivals of idiocy that don't even rise to entertainingly bad.

 

Suprising amount of hate for Brosnan around here, I thought he was much liked in his run. Prior to Daniel Craig he was often regarded as the 2nd-best Bond after Connery, and frankly I thought that apart from DAD & TND he mad the best Bond movies outside Connery's era (before Craig came along, and QoS isn't exactly great either) excluding perhaps The Spy Who Loved Me which is really the only decent Bond that Moore did.
The Man With the Golden Gun is watchable because Christopher Lee is in it, otherwise meh.

 

By whom? Who regarded Moore this way? He's been mocked stupid for being a terrible Bond and rightly so too. Serious Bond fans put Dalton at the top and Moore was more tolerated than anything else. If you are instead suggesting Joe Public put Moore there, well - these are the same people that made Die Another Day a hugely successful film, right? Well, to hell with them then.

Yes, I just watched Licence to Kill which is roughly a billion times better than the best Moore film (which you've incorrectly labelled as TSWLM and not FYEO)

 

Most Bond lists I've ever seen, voted by public or otherwise are almost always - Connery, Craig, Brosnan, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby

I get Fleming fans like Dalton more for being true to the books and that's fine, but his movies are not generally popular and he is not always favourably viewed by the public. Although, with Craig's interpretation of the character as it is I think Dalton's Bond may find a new life and following in future. He was such a big change after the Moore years that I think it put off many people who didn't give him a fair chance to show what he could do.

Also you really shouldn't take adaptations of literary material so seriously, most movie adaptations deviate significantly from the books they are based on, that doesn't make them bad movies just because they did things differently. I like all the Harry Potter movies, they did a couple of things better than the books but overall I didn't think they were as good.
Same with all this hate for graphic novel movies. So the Watchmen film didn't have a giant squid in it, big deal it was still well done. V for Vendetta is a fine movie too despite the alterations from the graphic novel.

 

Forget the books; Dalton was a better actor and made Bond a more interesting character than Moore or Brosnan. He was also in better movies in general. The public can like what it likes. Moore was a buffoon and Brosnan was just filling a suit. Dalton gave Bond depth and menace.

 

This. The reason I stick to the books as a guideline is I suspect the same reason why actors, directors, and the producers keep coming back to the source. The guy wrote a tightly crafted world with a well developed, tarnished character. Anytime they have mined the Fleming reserves and put it on screen, the results have been joyous to watch. It's that simple; why else do you think Casino Royale was such a hit?

 

OHMSS was a good movie, but it was let down by Lazenby. One can't help but think had Connery stayed on to do it then it may well be hailed as the best Bond movie by audiences and critics alike and not just the hardcore fanbase.

Craig is a thug in a suit, but he works well enough for the films he has done & I'm happy to see him in more.

 

I've never considered James Bond to be supposed to have depth and menace. Isn't James Bond about the suave Brit carelessly and elegantly outwitting all the "bad guys" in the world while simultaneously partaking in luxury and women and looking good doing it? Capitalism wins. I've always seen 007 as feel-good films about our Western way of life and superiority. There was never any depth there.

 

He's also meant to be cold & ruthless, something Moore never seemed to bring out when he did the films. Connery looked good in a suit but you knew he could also kick your ass, Moore just looked like some posh guy with a gun who you couldn't take seriously as a threat. Dalton & Brosnan both had sufficient steel to be seen as tough guys, but Brosnan IMO had more of the suavity required of Bond.

Craig as I said above, due to his unfortunate looks, doesn't quite bring off the high-society guy. He looks like a bouncer dressed in a tuxedo.

 

That's the Moore distortion. But look at Connery's early films. Bond is hard, dangerous, sometimes cruel. He enjoys the high life, and he has exciting adventures, but he's a lethal weapon for Her Majesty. Connery embodied that. Dalton embodied that. Craig embodies that. But Brosnan was just some guy cruising casually through an action movie; he was never dangerous in the way a double-oh killer is supposed to be. And Moore . . . Moore was just your drunken uncle goofing through wacky hijinks.

 

Craig brings some realism to it. He's a trained assassin. Realistically, he would be a bouncer in a tuxedo.

 

Yes, but Connery looked good at the same time. Craig looks like he's been punched in the face too much. He's not got the look of sophistication and class, he looks like a hired goon that dressed up to try and blend in at a party.

 

I'll probably watch Die Another Day today, Eru help me.

The World is Not Enough was pretty dire. Just a bland action movie with the sole bright spot being seeing John Cleese, though he wasn't all that great, and Judi Dench.

Otherwise, yeah, continues the downward trend that is Brosnan's Bonds.

And yeah my current ranking for Bonds is

Connery
Dalton
Brosnan
Lazenby
Moore

I only put Lazenby after Brosnan because he was only in one movie he wasn't particularly good in. If he had done more, and had improved, I would definitely put him before Brosnan. Brosnan looks the part, speaks the part, and is an....adequate Bond, which puts him in the middle. And Moore...what more can be said? He's just way too jokey, too old, and though he does have some shining moments, it's a real turd polished shine.

Note: This is the first time I'm ever watching these movies, because I wanted to get into the franchise for a while, and the release of Skyfall was the perfect time. I'm really looking forward to the Craig movies, as I've heard things about them that seem sure to make me like them. So Craig will probably go before Dalton, not sure about whether he'll upstart Connery. I'm thinking not.

 

^Die Another Day has a great sword-fight in it, so if you like cinematic sword-fights, that is a redeeming feature.

 

DAD had two nice Bond girls too, and a well-played villain.

The problem was it went all sci-fi with invisible cars and laser beams and a Death Ray satellite. Bond is meant to tread between being a believable real-world spy and having some slightly outrageous but cool gadgets, DAD was fun but it was way too far in the wrong direction and ended up being silly like Moore's stuff.


TWINE has a great boat sequence at the start (Brosnan straightening his tie underwater is still one of the most replayed scenes from any of the movies), and it was funny that Q said it was for his retirement.

 

No Country for Old Men.

5 out of 5.

 

Perks of Being a Wallflower. Quite good.

 

Contagion
I saw a review that complained that the film was too matter-of-fact with its narrative, and not engaging and sentimental enough for you to care about the characters. But for me, it was a breath of fresh air to for once see a disaster movie that is not as sentimental as they usually are. Especially as this movie deals with a viral outbreak, which is an intangible danger that you can not see, and you will not know that you've been infected until you start showing symptoms. So I think the fact that the film is sort of clinical and cold in its narrative suits the subject matter, and actually serves to enhance that sense of uncertainty and paranoia, which makes it more effective in my opinion. Obviously, for this approach to work for you, you have to find the premise itself interesting, and not expect the film to be a character study, because it is not, and you will be disappointed if you watch it with that frame of mind. The event itself is the focus here; the characters are just lenses to view it through.

I liked it. A lot, in fact. I'm giving it a full 5 out of 5. And the performances are good too.

 

If you like a billion incredibly lazy "point" puns, though, it'll be even better.

 

There Will Be Blood
Apparently, the films of Paul Thomas Anderson are an acquired taste. That is what I take away from this film. It's very long, for one. For the other, I don't understand what was supposed to be so compelling about this story, although the acting performances are suberb. I toiled through it, but ultimately felt nothing. Also, the two main characters truly deserved each other. I was a bit sleepy as well, and I've been watching some slow contemplative films as of late, so maybe I was just not in the mood for another one. Make of this what you will.

 

What is the deal with this? It gives me an error notice, telling me that my message could not be posted, but when I refresh the page, I find out that it has been posted twice. This has happened to me twice lately. Oh well.