Discussion in 'Community' started by DarthLowBudget, Apr 19, 2010.
Live and Let Die was the racest bond
The book was even worse.
Christopher Lee was great as Scaramanga, and the golden gun itself is iconic, but those were the only two saving graces of that movie. Literally. Enter the Bond: please.
I seem to recall something being said during their banter in the casino alluding to the fact that they'd just had sex.
AVTAK has sentimental value for me, I'm not going to argue that it's a good film; it isn't. I still get a kick out of it, despite kinda wishing that I didn't.
I loathe TMWTGG, but it at least has the Fleming-style idiosyncrasies and exotic vistas that Brozzer's trilogy of generic blandness lacks.
Acronyms I have to sit and think about to get the topic? Phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!
Here's something that might interest you Bond fans:
Which Bond villains' plans would have worked or failed, answered by a real economist
Yes, but when will we get a writeup on the subtle genius of the M. Bison plan for economic prosperity? You see, every Bison dollar will be worth five British pounds, for that is the rate England will set when he kidnaps their queen!
I love how quickly they dismiss Casino Royale's plot about shorting stocks, which caused Le Chiffre to lose all that money. CR, like "Dark Knight Rises", suffers from hinging a plot piece of not understanding how the stock market works (what, you can't research it, Mr Script-writer?).
Still a great film but silly.
The screenwriter will know. They just don't care.
Nobody who knows would make such a rookie error, sorry. Like, if you know what a Short position is, you can't just be "ok, well, let's use that to wipe out $120mil".
If 99% of the moviegoing public cared about realistic depictions of how things actually work, sci-fi would have died as a genre long ago.
Sure if you know it seems like a glaring error, but most of the people watching the film wouldn't notice or care much so long as it's good.
Dramatic License is a frequently abused thing.
Look at the Bond Gun, why go back to the 6 shot PPK when Brosnan's run introduced the much more modern and efficient P99 with up to 14 shots?
Practicality and efficiency are not what matter in film plots, dramatic license and nostalgia are far better tools.
the more i think back to this movie, the less enthused i am about it. sam menses.
DN - Dr. No (1962)
FRWL - From Russia with Love (1963)
GF - Goldfinger (1964)
TB - Thunderball (1965)
YOLT - You Only Live Twice (1967)
OHMSS - On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
DAF - Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
LALD - Live and Let Die (1973)
TMWTGG - The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
TSWLM - The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
MR - Moonraker (1979)
FYEO - For Your Eyes Only (1981)
OP - Octopussy (1983)
NSNA - Never Say Never Again (1983)
AVTAK - A View to a Kill (1985)
TLD - The Living Daylights (1987)
LTK - Licenc(s)e to Kill (1989)
GE - Goldeneye (1995)
TND - Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
TWINE - The World Is Not Enough (1999)
DAD - Die Another Day (2002)
CR - Casino Royale (2006)
QOS - Quantum of Solace (2008)
SF - Skyfall (2012)
(Created entirely from memory except TND, which year I had to look up. )
PPK is 6+1 in .380, and has the advantage of being concealable. Ever tried carrying a P99 under a suit jacket?
Bond could upgrade to a Walther PPS, which is ugly as sin but the same number of shots in 9mmP or .40S&W. But then, since 1 shot kills in these films, why bother? The PPS is concealable and iconic.
EDIT: And I want to correct an earlier post; Le Chiffre doesn't short Skyfleet stock, he has a put option expire on it. An option gives the seller/buyer a right but not obligation to trade on a stock at a certain price. The option's cost is fractional, so Le Chiffre never could have lost money.
I believe Bruce Wayne's funds were "depleted" by shorting stocks.
I don't recall Brosnan having any problems carrying a P99 around.
Another example of Bond plot failings was given on the recent Top Gear Bond Car Special, where Richard Hammond criticised the car chase in Goldeneye between the iconic Aston Martin DB5 & a Ferrari F355 GTS. He very quickly dismissed the idea that a DB5 (a car that at that time would have been at least 30 years old) would have any chance in keeping up with that car, let alone overtake it.
But such things don't really matter if the scene entertains, and you have a car known and loved by fans of Bond movies featuring which also helps.
Because Brosnan wasn't concealing it on set. The one time I can recall he does is the casino scene in Baku in TWINE, where he goes to see Zukovski and puts the P99 away. It's a huge bulk under the jacket.
Craig never had the P99 anywhere but his waistband, for example.
I loved when Bond threw the PPK/S away in Skyfall. Fleming's Bond rarely had shootouts; that's the Bond in this film. I know you like explosions and COD style action; it might be worth not expecting that from Bond.
This is exactly why I prefer From Russia With Love over Goldfinger because FRWL is a classic detective and espionage story with some noir elements which is very much what Skyfall was going for by having 007 individually get to each character just so he could get to the next one. Goldfinger is great because its obviously the most iconic 007 film because of the characters, quotes, settings and overall style, but when you compare the story and writing to FRWL, the earlier film is far more cohesive and involving than the latter.
But, I also have to stress that FRWL at best was an inspiration for Skyfall, not a formula to work to because even when comparing it to FRWL, Skyfall was still a pretty modern, ballsy 007 film despite being the most "tame" of the Daniel Craig era. Again, although I do like action films, Skyfall was a much better film for eschewing the abrasive violence of the last couple of films because it made the Silva confrontation in the end rather than the drowsy showdown in Quantum Of Solace through its excessive use of noise, explosions, CGI and flash cutting. Best of all, the Silva fight in the end wasn't even the biggest or the busiest because the characters were written so brilliantly that the confrontation ended up being the most personal which is relative to some of the themes running throughout the film; loss, hope, scarred childhood, abandonment, loneliness, and redemption.
FRWL + TWINE = Skyfall
(in terms of tone and plot, though SF's style is certainly unique)
Oh, come on. Greene's deranged, strangled-monkey yodeling throughout the fight totally made it worthwhile.
I just saw it again. I have to say, there's a few plot holes which would drive Wocky nuts (like Silva timing the train falling through the gap?) but it still is a thoroughly satisfying film. I can't say my opinion of the score has changed - it's still rubbish, IMO.
But, I will buy this the day it's released on DVD/Blu-Ray.
I don't know why folks hate QOS so much. It is lesser than Casino Royale but still good.
I think I still cling to For Your Eyes Only as my favorite Bond film, it most certainly has the best theme.
A good theme is helpful, that's another problem with QoS. Should have used the Shirley Bassey theme instead of the one that ended up in the film.
Skyfall had a great theme song, as did Casino Royale.
Totally agreed. I like QOS as a stand alone Bond film but as a film that was intended as a direct sequel to Casino Royale, it was poorly written and directed. Just look at the opening sequence where 007's suit is completely different to the suit he was wearing at the end of Casino Royale when he shoots Mr. White in the leg.
I'm guessing that the chase sequence that initiates QOS is meant to take place minutes after the leg shooting scene. QOS just didn't seem to connect to Casino that well. But, in setting aside the flaws in terms of sequel writing, QOS had some great scenes, some good character moments and an interesting mood to it. The trouble is that the story, much like the action, was too fast paced for its own good because there were times you didn't realise why things were happening or their relevance to the story which is a shame because this was the film I really wanted to follow. I have it on blu-ray and there's still some moments that make me go "wait...what?"
I need to really sit down and have a good think about ordering all of the Bond films from favourite to least favourite. The best I can do for now is pick the best of each era (omitting Lazenby).
Connery - From Russia With Love: more than Goldfinger, this truly was the definitive spy film of the 1960s because this is what they were about. Here, Bond is surreptitious, dangerous, cynical but also smooth and charming. The film has the audience questioning the motives of the characters along the way and we're just expecting a double cross at any moment. Goldfinger isn't a bad film but when compared to FRWL, the characters in this film just have so much more depth than Austin Powers style cardboard cutout villains.
Moore - The Man With The Golden Gun: yep, the one that many consider to be the black sheep. I'll even admit it goes against why I loved FRWL so much, but this film is so much fun that you cannot resist it. To me this combines noir, espionage and spaghetti western wrapped within a tight, concise story. Christopher Lee just absolutely owns the role while Moore is at his most stoic. I must say that as a notable runner up, The Spy Who Loved Me is also a Moore classic. I have to admit I also have a very slight soft spot for A View To A Kill because although it was a very uneven film in terms of pacing and style, there is a good 007 film somewhere in there that addresses an aging Bond. Truthfully, had they removed some of the more "Bond" moments such as chase and stunt sequences that Moore clearly wasn't fit to perform anymore, I think we would have seen a very solemn, heartfelt swan song for this era of Bond.
Dalton - The Living Daylights: i'm afraid i'm with the mob on this one. You just cannot go past it. It may not be the Bond film that takes many risks, but it did for the Dalton era what Goldeneye did for the Brosnan era when the franchise was in decline. That is, take a classic formula and bring it before a set of modern spectacles. There's some great action scenes with this and I do love the story to it.
Brosnan - Tomorrow Never Dies: again, much like TMWGG, i'm most likely in a minority here. I love Goldeneye but i've got to admit that when I look back at it, it's the film of Brosnan's that has aged the worst. It's nothing to do with the fact that it's the oldest of that era, but I think it just relied too heavily on a classic formula. TMD on the other hand takes a more unabashedly power hungry and twisted that you wanted to see more of him. The fight and chase sequences are well handled along with some delightfully far-fetched car chase and motorbike sequences. It also happens to have Michelle Yeoh, my favourite Bond girl.
Craig - Skyfall: i've already provided a review on this so I won't spend too much time. After doing some more thinking, it's certainly the most bittersweet of the Craig era because we see his Bond go through the biggest transition of any Bond portrayal yet. We begin with Bond at the peak of his performance in finding the hard drive, to seeing him fall to his absolute lowest to then seeing him try and build himself back up again only to lose M as a Mother figure and become an orphan again inside a new MI6. The direction of the next film in 2014 will be very intriguing, i've never been more excited for 007.