- Media Center
(https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
- - The next 007 movie
(https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=252071)
durtyrute
08-02-2012 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaVirus
(Post 8786082)
Bond films were around long before Bourne was even created.
They're also pretty different character with different plots. The feel of the movies is just similar.
To me, they are the same now with the new muscle bound, Bruce Lee Bond.
vailpass
08-02-2012 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durtyrute
(Post 8783216)
I might have to give him another chance, but I don't like a beefed up karate kid bond.
Yep. Bond is all about the suave debonair character carried off so perfectly by Connery. Craig is like a little guy trying hard. He isn't bad, he just isn't Bond.
durtyrute
08-02-2012 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vailpass
(Post 8786094)
Yep. Bond is all about the suave debonair character carried off so perfectly by Connery. Craig is like a little guy trying hard. He isn't bad, he just isn't Bond.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly.
ThaVirus
08-02-2012 02:22 PM
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I love him as Bond. I think Brosnan was the most Bond-y in terms of looks, voice and debonair-ness, but his movies sucked. Connery was probably the second most Bond-y and he had the best movies before the Craig films.
The way I look at it: they basically rebooted Bond with Casino Royale. He received his 00 title in that film and he's basically still a rookie. For that fact he's still a bit rough around the edges in character.
vailpass
08-02-2012 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaVirus
(Post 8786131)
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I love him as Bond. I think Brosnan was the most Bond-y in terms of looks, voice and debonair-ness, but his movies sucked. Connery was probably the second most Bond-y and he had the best movies before the Craig films.
The way I look at it: they basically rebooted Bond with Casino Royale. He received his 00 title in that film and he's basically still a rookie. For that fact he's still a bit rough around the edges in character.
:spock:Wow.
Molitoth
08-02-2012 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker
(Post 8783309)
I went back and rewatched Quantum of Solace a little while ago, and it really was damn good. That mountainside car chase at the beginning was gripping.
I re-watched it last night for the second time. I didn't think it was bad by any means, but the rewatchability is just not there for me.
Casino Royal I've seen about 5 times and could still watch it again.
Fire Me Boy!
08-02-2012 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vailpass
(Post 8786139)
:spock:Wow.
Connery as Bond is only slightly better than Timothy Dalton.
LAZENBY RULEZ!!!1!!
Frankie
08-02-2012 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaVirus
(Post 8786082)
Bond films were around long before Bourne was even created.
They're also pretty different character with different plots. The feel of the movies is just similar.
Yes they were. But with the Bourne success they tried to emulate Bourne by casting a short blonde Bond with a chip on his shoulder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 8781951)
Ive heard for awhile now that On Her Magesty's Secret Service was one of the best Bond movies ever and ive never seen it completely. My guess is, if it would have starred Connery it would be more revered.
It was a good Bond movie. George Lazenby actually wasn't too bad in it, but he had the misfortune of being the replacement to a legend.
Frankie
08-02-2012 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vailpass
(Post 8786094)
Yep. Bond is all about the suave debonair character carried off so perfectly by Connery. Craig is like a little guy trying hard. He isn't bad, he just isn't Bond.
:facepalm:
Not because I disagree. But because there is now one, ONE, similarity of thoughts between me and this guy.
Molitoth
08-02-2012 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!
(Post 8786302)
Connery as Bond is only slightly better than Timothy Dalton.
LAZENBY RULEZ!!!1!!
See, this is all subjective to taste... I thought Dalton was the most terribly boring bond ever.
Brosnan was just subject to a shitty script with way too much over the top action and cheesy one liners.
Goldeneye was good though.
durtyrute
08-02-2012 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
(Post 8786314)
Yes they were. But with the Bourne success they tried to emulate Bourne by casting a short blonde Bond with a chip on his shoulder.
It was a good Bond movie. George Lazenby actually wasn't too bad in it, but he had the misfortune of being the replacement to a legend.
That
ThaVirus
08-02-2012 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vailpass
(Post 8786139)
:spock:Wow.
Dude, Brosnan is like the epitome of suave and debonair! That dude reeks of Bond, his movies just blew.
I liked all the Brosnan Bonds except maybe the last one where it started to cross over into Roger Moore era Bond. I dont get why there has been revisionist hate against them? They all made a ton of money and were popular.
Ive noticed theres been some re-thinking over the years about Daltons Bond to a more positive light. I liked the two movies he did, but thought he was pretty bland and didnt really resonate much with audiences.
Aries Walker
08-02-2012 09:10 PM
Dalton actually was pretty good as Bond; he certainly played him closest to the Bond of the Fleming books. His main problems were that they weren't doing very well updating Bond to the post-Cold War times, his movies were kind of iffy at times, and he looked goofy in a tux.
Connery defined the role, though. Fleming - who didn't like him at first - was so impressed by Connery's portrayal that he actually the tailored the character to him in later books, including among other things that Bond is, in fact, Scottish. (Well, half Scottish; his mother was Swiss.) Brosnan was good, but he was recreating a role, not creating one, and being kind of thin, he lacked much of the physicality of the role.
Craig, on the other hand, has that in spades. I have no problem with him.
The Moore movies i still like, but mostly for nostalgia factor from my youth. The 2 best he did IMO were Spy Who Loved me and For Your Eyes Only.
Aries Walker
08-02-2012 09:15 PM
Agreed - although Live and Let Die was pretty good, too. It had outstanding minor villains, a 19-year-old Jane Seymour, and the bayou speedboat chase scene was spectacular.
mnchiefsguy
08-03-2012 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 8787370)
I liked all the Brosnan Bonds except maybe the last one where it started to cross over into Roger Moore era Bond. I dont get why there has been revisionist hate against them? They all made a ton of money and were popular.
Ive noticed theres been some re-thinking over the years about Daltons Bond to a more positive light. I liked the two movies he did, but thought he was pretty bland and didnt really resonate much with audiences.
I liked The Living Daylights with Dalton as Bond. License to Kill was a complete trainwreck, bombed at the box office, and put Bond in hybernation for 6-7 years until they got Brosnan to take up the mantle.
Deberg_1990
08-03-2012 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
(Post 8787784)
I liked The Living Daylights with Dalton as Bond. License to Kill was a complete trainwreck, bombed at the box office, and put Bond in hybernation for 6-7 years until they got Brosnan to take up the mantle.
Yea, Living Daylights was solid and a fairly more realistic down to earth take on Bond after the Moore era.
I remember License to Kill bombing and Bond was dead for a few years like you said. License to Kill has more cheese for sure (wayne Newton? really?, that cheesy 18 wheeler truck chase at the end...LOL)
Frankie
08-03-2012 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 8787370)
Ive noticed theres been some re-thinking over the years about Daltons Bond to a more positive light. I liked the two movies he did, but thought he was pretty bland and didnt really resonate much with audiences.
The two Dalton movies were two of my favorite Bond flicks. And Dalton was the 2nd best Bond in my book (way after Connery of course). Although I have a feeling if Lazenby had continued playing Bond, Dalton would have been relegated to 3rd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 8787429)
The Moore movies i still like, but mostly for nostalgia factor from my youth. The 2 best he did IMO were Spy Who Loved me and For Your Eyes Only.
Those are actually the only 2 Moore 007 movies I like. That was because they were through backs to Connery type Bonds.
Fire Me Boy!
08-03-2012 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
(Post 8788296)
The two Dalton movies were two of my favorite Bond flicks. And Dalton was the 2nd best Bond in my book (way after Connery of course). Although I have a feeling if Lazenby had continued playing Bond, Dalton would have been relegated to 3rd.
Those are actually the only 2 Moore 007 movies I like. That was because they were through backs to Connery type Bonds.
I like the song, and Adele is perfect to sing a Bond theme. Whoever had the idea of the lyrics-on-the-screen screen-saver "video" there, though, should be fired.
Fire Me Boy!
10-04-2012 08:39 PM
Very nice. Good theme. Really, really dig it after the first chorus when the Bond theme sneaks in.
Deberg_1990
10-04-2012 09:17 PM
Cool song. Kind of a throwback to the old Connery days or early Moore era.
keg in kc
10-04-2012 11:12 PM
I really like it. It does seem to be more of a classical bond throwback sound. I don't know why, but I've had a feeling that Skyfall's going to be a great movie for a while, and this theme just feels right somehow.
DaneMcCloud
10-04-2012 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc
(Post 8978245)
I really like it. It does seem to be more of a classical bond throwback sound. I don't know why, but I've had a feeling that Skyfall's going to be a great movie for a while, and this theme just feels right somehow.
Sam Mendes is an amazing director. I thought his choice was a little odd at first, but once I saw some of the footage, I knew he was the right guy to get the franchise back on track after "Quantum".
I'm really looking forward to the film and Craig has signed on for several more, so hopefully we'll continue to see great directors and stories in the future.
Aries Walker
10-06-2012 12:08 AM
Traditionally, it's been each Bond actor's third film - when they have one - when they really get to put their own mark on the character. With that in mind, I'm looking forward to seeing how Craig does this time round.
Chiefs Pantalones
10-06-2012 03:38 AM
Please stop making these.
underEJ
10-06-2012 11:08 AM
Roger Deakins is the cinematographer so at least every frame will be gorgeous. I like the director choice too. Looking forward to it.
Heh, I noticed over the weekend that Netflix has a few Bond flicks up again. I watched parts of Living Daylights, Moonraker, Man with the Golden Gun and the “Renegade” Bond flick Never Say Never Again. Dalton was extremely underrated, Moore was overrated and pretty prissy. Connery as cool as ever.
keg in kc
10-22-2012 01:56 PM
I can't stand the Moore bond movies.
Deberg_1990
10-22-2012 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc
(Post 9039117)
I can't stand the Moore bond movies.
The only ones i truly like are Spy Who Loved me and For Your Eyes Only.
Most of them are very tongue in cheek and extremely corny. Plus, Moore was like 70 years old for the last few.
I can watch only for nostalgia purposes.
Deberg_1990
10-26-2012 11:51 AM
Its being released 1 day early in IMAX format Nov. 8th, and IMAX is claiming you get to see 25% more picture than a traditional movie screen (on top and bottom).
LMAO I can't imagine you'd miss enough in the top and bottom of the screen to justify spending so much more money.
Am I going to miss a bird fly by or something?
mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012 01:18 AM
Just got home from watching Skyfall, and I was very, very impressed. Almost as good as Casino Royale, and significantly better than Quantum. Good Dialogue, lots of action, and almost not gadgetry.
Javier Bardem was fantastic as the Bond Villian.
Won't go into detail as I don't want to spoil anything, I will just say that it is well worth seeing on the big screen. Craig has really taken hold of the Bond role and is making it his own.
keg in kc
11-08-2012 04:23 PM
Pretty damn good. Bit long in the middle, but otherwise one of the best bond movies, and one of the best movies overall I've seen this year.
Braincase
11-08-2012 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
(Post 9097706)
Just got home from watching Skyfall, and I was very, very impressed. Almost as good as Casino Royale, and significantly better than Quantum. Good Dialogue, lots of action, and almost not gadgetry.
Javier Bardem was fantastic as the Bond Villian.
Won't go into detail as I don't want to spoil anything, I will just say that it is well worth seeing on the big screen. Craig has really taken hold of the Bond role and is making it his own.
Saturday night, dinner jacket, shaken not stirred.
Best part is knowing Craig is on board for two more Bond movies.
Buehler445
11-10-2012 11:27 PM
Saw SkyFall tonight. It was really good. I had a bit of a hard time buying into the villain, but it didn't hurt the movie too much.
Really liked it overall and Craig as Bond. I'm going to have to hit up some more Craig movies. I really liked Defiance along with the Bonds.
58kcfan89
11-10-2012 11:40 PM
Saw it last night. I'll be seeing it again tomorrow night. T'was awesome. I love Craig as Bond and Bardem was a great villain.
Mosbonian
11-10-2012 11:46 PM
Saw it today....as I said in one of the other threads, it was great. It was a little dragging in the middle, but otherwise was a great movie.
Javier Bardem won't go down as one of the great Bond villains, but he didn't suck either.
DaveNull
11-11-2012 08:55 AM
I thought it was great.
I also thought Albert Finney was dead so it's nice to see that he's not.
BWillie
11-11-2012 12:53 PM
Never understood the appeal of James Bond. Not a believable type of movie, and he really has a boring personality
Fire Me Boy!
11-11-2012 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445
(Post 9105047)
Saw SkyFall tonight. It was really good. I had a bit of a hard time buying into the villain, but it didn't hurt the movie too much.
Really liked it overall and Craig as Bond. I'm going to have to hit up some more Craig movies. I really liked Defiance along with the Bonds.
Craig is pretty badass in Elizabeth, too. Also worth seeing in Layer Cake.
Fire Me Boy!
11-11-2012 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWillie007
(Post 9105925)
Never understood the appeal of James Bond. Not a believable type of movie, and he really has a boring personality
Just curious: Have you seen of them since the "reboot" with Craig?
Braincase
11-11-2012 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNull
(Post 9105470)
I thought it was great.
I also thought Albert Finney was dead so it's nice to see that he's not.
"Welcome to Scotland"
Aries Walker
11-11-2012 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!
(Post 9106778)
Craig is pretty badass in Elizabeth, too. Also worth seeing in Layer Cake.
And Munich.
Valiant
11-11-2012 10:22 PM
I thought it was too long.. My only problem is big gay villains, literally, how the hell is someone scared of one.. 6.5 out of 10
Frazod
11-11-2012 10:33 PM
Loved it. Absolutely loved it.
Spoiler!
Very surprised that they greased M. I guess Judi wanted to retire.
Frazod
11-11-2012 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNull
(Post 9105470)
I thought it was great.
I also thought Albert Finney was dead so it's nice to see that he's not.
Holy shit, I didn't even realize that's who that was.
Buehler445
11-11-2012 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod
(Post 9108107)
Loved it. Absolutely loved it.
Spoiler!
Very surprised that they greased M. I guess Judi wanted to retire.
Me too. Didn't see it coming at all.
Spoiler!
And ultimately it means the bad guy won. He set out to kill M and ultimately himself. Done and done.
Frazod
11-11-2012 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445
(Post 9108144)
Me too. Didn't see it coming at all.
Spoiler!
And ultimately it means the bad guy won. He set out to kill M and ultimately himself. Done and done.
Spoiler!
True. Also, I couldn't help but be reminded of the parallels the backstory had with Batman.
BTW, another excellent Daniel Craig movie is Road to Perdition.
Buehler445
11-11-2012 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod
(Post 9108153)
Spoiler!
True. Also, I couldn't help but be reminded of the parallels the backstory had with Batman.
BTW, another excellent Daniel Craig movie is Road to Perdition.
Did not know he was in that. That's a great, although depressing as shit movie.
Frazod
11-11-2012 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445
(Post 9108176)
Did not know he was in that. That's a great, although depressing as shit movie.
He played Connor Rooney (Paul Newman's son).
Raiderhater
11-11-2012 11:32 PM
Saw the midnight showing Thursday. I really liked the movie but, I'm not sure just how much I liked it. There are just a couple of things about it that I..... I don't know. I don't know what exactly I'm trying to say. For one, I thought the film contradicted itself in one regard -
Spoiler!
When Bond meets Q, gets the gun and transmitter and says it isn't exactly Christmas, then Q responds with his quip about exploding pens and how they don't do that any more. Then they bring the Aston Martin in with ejector seat and machine guns later on. And I have absolutely no problem with paying homage to the past but, don't say those films are obsolete first. :shrug:
Buehler445
11-11-2012 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderhader
(Post 9108200)
Saw the midnight showing Thursday. I really liked the movie but, I'm not sure just how much I liked it. There are just a couple of things about it that I..... I don't know. I don't know what exactly I'm trying to say. For one, I thought the film contradicted itself in one regard -
Spoiler!
When Bond meets Q, gets the gun and transmitter and says it isn't exactly Christmas, then Q responds with his quip about exploding pens and how they don't do that any more. Then they bring the Aston Martin in with ejector seat and machine guns later on. And I have absolutely no problem with paying homage to the past but, don't say those films are obsolete first. :shrug:
Spoiler!
i think you're reading too much into it. The car didn't come from this Q. It was bonds personal possession. They didn't have a lot to do with each other. Q's comments were merely to suggest that Q didn't really respect him and thought of him as merely a trigger.
The car was too reinforce that he was old school. No LoJack, classic Bond car.
Raiderhater
11-12-2012 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445
(Post 9108225)
Spoiler!
i think you're reading too much into it. The car didn't come from this Q. It was bonds personal possession. They didn't have a lot to do with each other. Q's comments were merely to suggest that Q didn't really respect him and thought of him as merely a trigger.
The car was too reinforce that he was old school. No LoJack, classic Bond car.
Spoiler!
I realize the car didn't come from the new Q. I was talking more about the tone the movie set with his comments and then later contradicted it. Maybe I did read too much into it. But it stuck out to me just the same.
Deberg_1990
11-12-2012 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant
(Post 9108067)
I thought it was too long.. My only problem is big gay villains, literally, how the hell is someone scared of one.. 6.5 out of 10
Nearly every Bond movie is long. At least the ones since the mid 70s.
DJ's left nut
11-12-2012 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
(Post 9097706)
Just got home from watching Skyfall, and I was very, very impressed. Almost as good as Casino Royale, and significantly better than Quantum. Good Dialogue, lots of action, and almost not gadgetry.
Javier Bardem was fantastic as the Bond Villian.
Won't go into detail as I don't want to spoil anything, I will just say that it is well worth seeing on the big screen. Craig has really taken hold of the Bond role and is making it his own.
I haven't seen it yet, but here's an extremely interesting take on the direction the series has gone:
There is a moment in the new Skyfall when Daniel Craig's James Bond rips the tarp off an old Aston Martin DB5, gestures significantly at it, and to his companion's befuddled question — "Where are we going?" — declares: "Back in time, where we have an advantage." So I am not using any of my highly specialized film critic skills when I tell you that Skyfall is a movie about the End of Empire, in the same way that Craig's first Bond film, Casino Royale, was about How Bond Learned to Never Give His Heart to a Woman, and his second, Quantum of Solace, was about How Bond Became a Remorseless Sex and Death Machine. 2012 marks the 50th year of the Bond franchise, but plotwise, we are firmly in the origin period: We've learned more about who Bond is as a person in the last three films than we have in the 20 prior.
In Skyfall, the unmistakable signs of nostalgia, decay, and obsolescence are everywhere. Bond and Q (played here by Ben Whishaw, channeling late-'90s emo in a delightful zip-up cardigan) sit quietly in London's National Gallery and contemplate J.M.W. Turner's The Fighting Temeraire, which depicts, in the words of Q, "a grand old warship being ignominiously hauled away for scrap." Alfred Tennyson's "Ulysses" is quoted, at length, by an actual Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Dame Judi Dench. Both MI6 and an old Scottish manor house on a misty, King Arthurian moor are not just symbolically but literally set on fire. When Javier Bardem's superlative villain, Raoul Silva, taunts Bond as being outmoded — "Held together by your pills and your drink," he sneers — Bond responds in kind: "Don't forget my love of country."
This Bond, incidentally, is a physical and mental wreck: Skyfall begins with Bond tumbling from a train, off a bridge, and down a waterfall to his presumed death. When he returns from the grave — dramatized by first-time Bond director Sam Mendes, taking a break from plastic-bagging the American Dream in Revolutionary Road and American Beauty to shred the enduring illusions of his native country instead — Bond arrives at MI6 in time to read his own obituary. He then proceeds to fail every agent-fitness test set for him, including the shooting trial. Picture that: a Bond so impotent he can't shoot straight.
These are all heresies against the character, of course: A more typical Bond failure, in his golden years, might've had 007 pleasuring only two women when he hoped to pleasure three. But all of Daniel Craig's Bond films have gone out of their way to normalize the character, to make him human, even fallible, to hit him where we think of him as most strong (e.g., in the balls, with a knotted rope, as in Casino Royale, which makes an actual plot point of whether or not Bond's battered apparatus will ever rise again). The Craig Bonds — very much including Skyfall, and very much excluding the writer's strike-marred and partially Craig-written Quantum of Solace — have been remarkable in part because of their subtle betrayal of their own main character's basic nature, with this newest one being the ultimate betrayal. Until they go back in time,1 where Bond has an advantage, anyway.
There is something about the crazy immorality of the old Bond that I miss. Not the movies themselves, exactly. When it comes to spectacularly motivationless characters doing cruel and tasteless things, I prefer Keeping Up With the Kardashians to Octopussy. The new Bond is a psychologically complex man; he struggles with love and loss like the rest of us. When you cut him, he bleeds; even when you honey-trap him, he tries to save you from your watery death-cage. The old Bond was a psychopath, a killer, a celebration of empire but a critique of it too: He strode from place to place taking what he wanted, leaving a bloody, multihued pile of Loyal Native Companion corpses in his easy wake.
If Bond didn't have to be right, or good, then he could pretty much do anything, and the Bond series was for a long time an exercise in inventing more and more ridiculous things for him to do. Might a plot hinge on a dead circus clown clutching a Fabergé egg? Could Bond perhaps stow away on an interstellar space shuttle populated by the genetically perfect Aryan seeds of a new master race? How about blimp-fighting? In the old Bond movies, everyone was a chess virtuoso or a former carnie or an improbably skilled backgammon player. Women were named Holly Goodhead, Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder. Watching early Bond films, you are acutely aware that they were made in an era that predated the easy availability of pornography: The women are astonishingly beautiful, sadistically underdressed, and filmed in a kind of leering, POV-gonzo style that well predates the invention of actual POV-gonzo porn.
When it comes to spectacularly motivationless characters doing cruel and tasteless things, I prefer Keeping Up With the Kardashians to Octopussy. But the new Bond is a psychologically complex man.
Bond is unfailingly described as charming, charismatic, and debonair, but in an important sense he was our longest-running and most prominent villain, and more interesting for it. To take a contemporary example almost at random, think of Flight, a movie about a fascinatingly deviant character — Denzel Washington's Whip Whitaker is an addict, a liar, a degenerate — that can't help but discipline that character in the end. After proving himself to be so charismatically demonic, Whitaker is forced to repent his sins and embrace the human bonds he's scorned throughout the rest of the movie. Even the famously pessimistic Dark Knight Rises, which supposedly embodied the trend of dark and interior blockbusters of which Skyfall is a prime example, hinges on the crucial moral redemption of one character at the expense of another.
The drama of modern movies tends to be about the struggle of flawed men to be good. But James Bond wasn't good. His by-any-means-necessary code provided screenwriters and directors and actors with an infinite field of possibility. The Bond franchise was among the very few to place competence over morals, ends over means. Bond's love of country provided a way of orienting a character in the world that didn't revolve around him being inherently good or evil. And most of the time — judging by the body count, the discarded women, the wanton and enthusiastic mistreatment of native peoples the world over — he was a lot closer to evil than he was to the other thing.
I don't want to get into an Odd Future–esque argument in defense of art that doesn't subscribe to the same codes to which we as responsible humans in the world should probably subscribe. For whatever reason I prefer my fictional characters unredeemed — probably because I come from a privileged enough place that my interest in the unredeemed world is mostly vicarious, rather than bruisingly personal. And so that was always Bond's ultimate thrill for me: not the women or the cars or exquisitely tailored suits, but the easy sense of purpose coupled with a breezy amorality when it came to achieving that purpose.
The Daniel Craig Bond movies, Skyfall in particular, have been great and fascinating precisely because they have questioned and attacked that sense of purpose and the bad behavior it once permitted. For the first time, they're asking what to make of Bond the person rather than Bond the imperial fantasy. It's made for better movies (here seems as good a time as any to admit that Casino Royale is my favorite Bond, and Skyfall is not far behind it). But that doesn't keep me from mourning the fact that Bond, like the rest of our contemporary superheroes, has become so winded and anguished and boringly responsible. To see that particular wretched creature, I need only look in the mirror.
Director Sam Mendes has described his concept for Skyfall as "taking the new, tougher Bond — the realer Bond, who has much more of an inner world — and bringing back some of the things that could reconnect me to my inner 13-year-old." So there are the now-customary winking gestures at the Bond-savvy viewer — after Whishaw's Q presents Bond with nothing more than a gun and a radio, he notes the disappointment on his agent's face. "Were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that anymore."
But there are also intimations of the earlier, more blithely sincere era of the franchise. Bardem's Silva, for one, looks to be wearing a shaggy blond Nic Cage weave and casually propositions Bond, in the old Bill Haydon way, when they first meet. Silva has his lair on a foggy deserted island, maintains an army of henchmen there, and seems blissfully unaware of the existence of No Limit Texas Hold'em — he's a throwback, in other words, despite the fact that he's a freelancer who hacks computers for a living. In Bardem's overqualified hands, Silva is the most vivid and idiosyncratic Bond villain in decades.
There is also a komodo dragon pit, and Ralph Fiennes in suspenders, and a Straw Dogs–reminiscent finale that ranks with the best and most exquisitely shot sequences in the series. Mendes, not exactly known for his light touch, somehow finds one here. His Bond seems wryly entertained by the flaming collapse of all the moribund organizations and pieties that once sustained him — liberated, even, like a man who doesn't totally mind watching the world burn. Here's hoping that in the next one he goes full nihilist, more Joker than Batman.
Not a spoiler at all, just a long article.
Ultimately I see some truth to the review - are we at risk of making Bond just another Jason Bourne? I know these movies are more 'gritty' and 'real', but wasn't that what made Bond, Bond? Moore was too campy, agreed, as was Dalton and the later Brosnan (not the early ones, though).
I just worry that we aren't making 'Bond' movies these days as much as we are action movies with Bond as a character. The character could be named Steve and the movie would be substantially unchanged.
We have enough tortured super-assassins, do we not? It seems like we're making Bond a less and less unique character at this point.
keg in kc
11-12-2012 11:39 AM
Although this is not same world as the 60s, in any way, shape or form, this Bond felt very much to me like a modern take on Bond inspired by Dr, No/From Russia With Love/Goldfinger/On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I think it would be difficult to sit through this one and think "this is James Bourne".
The_Doctor10
11-12-2012 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant
(Post 9108067)
I thought it was too long.. My only problem is big gay villains, literally, how the hell is someone scared of one.. 6.5 out of 10
Given the reactions of most of the south, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to be frightened of gay people...
I think it's pretty obvious how Javier Bardem's character is scary, but that's just me.
durtyrute
11-12-2012 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
(Post 9108728)
I haven't seen it yet, but here's an extremely interesting take on the direction the series has gone:
There is a moment in the new Skyfall when Daniel Craig's James Bond rips the tarp off an old Aston Martin DB5, gestures significantly at it, and to his companion's befuddled question — "Where are we going?" — declares: "Back in time, where we have an advantage." So I am not using any of my highly specialized film critic skills when I tell you that Skyfall is a movie about the End of Empire, in the same way that Craig's first Bond film, Casino Royale, was about How Bond Learned to Never Give His Heart to a Woman, and his second, Quantum of Solace, was about How Bond Became a Remorseless Sex and Death Machine. 2012 marks the 50th year of the Bond franchise, but plotwise, we are firmly in the origin period: We've learned more about who Bond is as a person in the last three films than we have in the 20 prior.
In Skyfall, the unmistakable signs of nostalgia, decay, and obsolescence are everywhere. Bond and Q (played here by Ben Whishaw, channeling late-'90s emo in a delightful zip-up cardigan) sit quietly in London's National Gallery and contemplate J.M.W. Turner's The Fighting Temeraire, which depicts, in the words of Q, "a grand old warship being ignominiously hauled away for scrap." Alfred Tennyson's "Ulysses" is quoted, at length, by an actual Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Dame Judi Dench. Both MI6 and an old Scottish manor house on a misty, King Arthurian moor are not just symbolically but literally set on fire. When Javier Bardem's superlative villain, Raoul Silva, taunts Bond as being outmoded — "Held together by your pills and your drink," he sneers — Bond responds in kind: "Don't forget my love of country."
This Bond, incidentally, is a physical and mental wreck: Skyfall begins with Bond tumbling from a train, off a bridge, and down a waterfall to his presumed death. When he returns from the grave — dramatized by first-time Bond director Sam Mendes, taking a break from plastic-bagging the American Dream in Revolutionary Road and American Beauty to shred the enduring illusions of his native country instead — Bond arrives at MI6 in time to read his own obituary. He then proceeds to fail every agent-fitness test set for him, including the shooting trial. Picture that: a Bond so impotent he can't shoot straight.
These are all heresies against the character, of course: A more typical Bond failure, in his golden years, might've had 007 pleasuring only two women when he hoped to pleasure three. But all of Daniel Craig's Bond films have gone out of their way to normalize the character, to make him human, even fallible, to hit him where we think of him as most strong (e.g., in the balls, with a knotted rope, as in Casino Royale, which makes an actual plot point of whether or not Bond's battered apparatus will ever rise again). The Craig Bonds — very much including Skyfall, and very much excluding the writer's strike-marred and partially Craig-written Quantum of Solace — have been remarkable in part because of their subtle betrayal of their own main character's basic nature, with this newest one being the ultimate betrayal. Until they go back in time,1 where Bond has an advantage, anyway.
There is something about the crazy immorality of the old Bond that I miss. Not the movies themselves, exactly. When it comes to spectacularly motivationless characters doing cruel and tasteless things, I prefer Keeping Up With the Kardashians to Octopussy. The new Bond is a psychologically complex man; he struggles with love and loss like the rest of us. When you cut him, he bleeds; even when you honey-trap him, he tries to save you from your watery death-cage. The old Bond was a psychopath, a killer, a celebration of empire but a critique of it too: He strode from place to place taking what he wanted, leaving a bloody, multihued pile of Loyal Native Companion corpses in his easy wake.
If Bond didn't have to be right, or good, then he could pretty much do anything, and the Bond series was for a long time an exercise in inventing more and more ridiculous things for him to do. Might a plot hinge on a dead circus clown clutching a Fabergé egg? Could Bond perhaps stow away on an interstellar space shuttle populated by the genetically perfect Aryan seeds of a new master race? How about blimp-fighting? In the old Bond movies, everyone was a chess virtuoso or a former carnie or an improbably skilled backgammon player. Women were named Holly Goodhead, Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder. Watching early Bond films, you are acutely aware that they were made in an era that predated the easy availability of pornography: The women are astonishingly beautiful, sadistically underdressed, and filmed in a kind of leering, POV-gonzo style that well predates the invention of actual POV-gonzo porn.
When it comes to spectacularly motivationless characters doing cruel and tasteless things, I prefer Keeping Up With the Kardashians to Octopussy. But the new Bond is a psychologically complex man.
Bond is unfailingly described as charming, charismatic, and debonair, but in an important sense he was our longest-running and most prominent villain, and more interesting for it. To take a contemporary example almost at random, think of Flight, a movie about a fascinatingly deviant character — Denzel Washington's Whip Whitaker is an addict, a liar, a degenerate — that can't help but discipline that character in the end. After proving himself to be so charismatically demonic, Whitaker is forced to repent his sins and embrace the human bonds he's scorned throughout the rest of the movie. Even the famously pessimistic Dark Knight Rises, which supposedly embodied the trend of dark and interior blockbusters of which Skyfall is a prime example, hinges on the crucial moral redemption of one character at the expense of another.
The drama of modern movies tends to be about the struggle of flawed men to be good. But James Bond wasn't good. His by-any-means-necessary code provided screenwriters and directors and actors with an infinite field of possibility. The Bond franchise was among the very few to place competence over morals, ends over means. Bond's love of country provided a way of orienting a character in the world that didn't revolve around him being inherently good or evil. And most of the time — judging by the body count, the discarded women, the wanton and enthusiastic mistreatment of native peoples the world over — he was a lot closer to evil than he was to the other thing.
I don't want to get into an Odd Future–esque argument in defense of art that doesn't subscribe to the same codes to which we as responsible humans in the world should probably subscribe. For whatever reason I prefer my fictional characters unredeemed — probably because I come from a privileged enough place that my interest in the unredeemed world is mostly vicarious, rather than bruisingly personal. And so that was always Bond's ultimate thrill for me: not the women or the cars or exquisitely tailored suits, but the easy sense of purpose coupled with a breezy amorality when it came to achieving that purpose.
The Daniel Craig Bond movies, Skyfall in particular, have been great and fascinating precisely because they have questioned and attacked that sense of purpose and the bad behavior it once permitted. For the first time, they're asking what to make of Bond the person rather than Bond the imperial fantasy. It's made for better movies (here seems as good a time as any to admit that Casino Royale is my favorite Bond, and Skyfall is not far behind it). But that doesn't keep me from mourning the fact that Bond, like the rest of our contemporary superheroes, has become so winded and anguished and boringly responsible. To see that particular wretched creature, I need only look in the mirror.
Director Sam Mendes has described his concept for Skyfall as "taking the new, tougher Bond — the realer Bond, who has much more of an inner world — and bringing back some of the things that could reconnect me to my inner 13-year-old." So there are the now-customary winking gestures at the Bond-savvy viewer — after Whishaw's Q presents Bond with nothing more than a gun and a radio, he notes the disappointment on his agent's face. "Were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that anymore."
But there are also intimations of the earlier, more blithely sincere era of the franchise. Bardem's Silva, for one, looks to be wearing a shaggy blond Nic Cage weave and casually propositions Bond, in the old Bill Haydon way, when they first meet. Silva has his lair on a foggy deserted island, maintains an army of henchmen there, and seems blissfully unaware of the existence of No Limit Texas Hold'em — he's a throwback, in other words, despite the fact that he's a freelancer who hacks computers for a living. In Bardem's overqualified hands, Silva is the most vivid and idiosyncratic Bond villain in decades.
There is also a komodo dragon pit, and Ralph Fiennes in suspenders, and a Straw Dogs–reminiscent finale that ranks with the best and most exquisitely shot sequences in the series. Mendes, not exactly known for his light touch, somehow finds one here. His Bond seems wryly entertained by the flaming collapse of all the moribund organizations and pieties that once sustained him — liberated, even, like a man who doesn't totally mind watching the world burn. Here's hoping that in the next one he goes full nihilist, more Joker than Batman.
Not a spoiler at all, just a long article.
Ultimately I see some truth to the review - are we at risk of making Bond just another Jason Bourne? I know these movies are more 'gritty' and 'real', but wasn't that what made Bond, Bond? Moore was too campy, agreed, as was Dalton and the later Brosnan (not the early ones, though).
I just worry that we aren't making 'Bond' movies these days as much as we are action movies with Bond as a character. The character could be named Steve and the movie would be substantially unchanged.
We have enough tortured super-assassins, do we not? It seems like we're making Bond a less and less unique character at this point.
I said that same thing a few months back. I can't get into the new Bond movies because they have a Bourne feel to them.
Aries Walker
11-12-2012 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durtyrute
(Post 9109717)
I said that same thing a few months back. I can't get into the new Bond movies because they have a Bourne feel to them.
Yes, but Bond hasn't been a trendsetter since Connery. After that, they adapted to whatever movement was going on at the time in order to stay relevant. Blaxploitation leads to Live and Let Die; the Bruce Lee Kung Fu fad gives us The Spy Who Loved Me; Star Wars leads (directly) to Moonraker; Raiders of the Lost Ark led to Octopussy; and the resurgence of Hong Kong chopsocky led to Tomorrow Never Dies. It's how the movies stayed on top of things.
So, sure, they'll have a Bourne feel to them, but that doesn't mean they'll be Bourne clones. As stated before, I don't see any danger of confusing the two characters, or the overarching storylines.
Mosbonian
11-12-2012 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod
(Post 9108107)
Loved it. Absolutely loved it.
Spoiler!
Very surprised that they greased M. I guess Judi wanted to retire.
I've got this marked down as a buy when it comes out on DVD.....
siberian khatru
11-12-2012 07:35 PM
Saw it yesterday. Agree with those who say it's way better than Quantum (an admittedly low bar), not quite as good as Casino Royale.
I really like Craig's Bond.
Deberg_1990
11-12-2012 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker
(Post 9110258)
Yes, but Bond hasn't been a trendsetter since Connery. After that, they adapted to whatever movement was going on at the time in order to stay relevant. Blaxploitation leads to Live and Let Die; the Bruce Lee Kung Fu fad gives us The Spy Who Loved Me; Star Wars leads (directly) to Moonraker; Raiders of the Lost Ark led to Octopussy; and the resurgence of Hong Kong chopsocky led to Tomorrow Never Dies. It's how the movies stayed on top of things.
So, sure, they'll have a Bourne feel to them, but that doesn't mean they'll be Bourne clones. As stated before, I don't see any danger of confusing the two characters, or the overarching storylines.
Your exactly right. Bond films have adapted to nearly every fad at different time periods.
It was Man with the Golden Gun though, that had the early 70s Kung Fu vibe.
Aries Walker
11-12-2012 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 9110415)
Your exactly right. Bond films have adapted to nearly every fad at different time periods.
It was Man with the Golden Gun though, that had the early 70s Kung Fu vibe.
Yep, you're right. My mistake.
mnchiefsguy
11-13-2012 04:48 PM
Great weekend for Bond in the US: including Thursday shows, a 90 million dollar weekend.
In addition, Skyfall has already earned more than 400 million overseas.
Not only is it the best Bond movie ever, it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. PERIOD.
The symbolism of M as Bond's mother in this movie is just incredible.
I cried.
The ending ****ING KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK. Holy **** the James Bond fanboy in me was going wild.
There was not a wasted frame in this work of art...and if the Academy does not vote it best picture I will personally kidnap all of the members and tie them up to chairs, strip them naked and re-enact the testicle torture scene from Casino Royale.
I'm going to go see this again in IMAX because holy **** it was beautiful.
Hammock Parties
11-14-2012 02:48 AM
Also, KOMODO ****ING DRAGONS. LMAO
Hammock Parties
11-14-2012 03:11 AM
He's still Bond, you guys.
He ****ed at least two women in the movie and possibly ****ed a third. He tried, anyway.
He also utterly ridiculous things that would get mortal men killed, and made it look easy.
Still Bond, and now that he's had his heart broken and
Spoiler!
mommy is dead
, he's going to be an even bigger dick going forward.
This is the best shot ever, BTW. It's screaming "BOND IS BRITAIN'S BATMAN!!!"
One of my companions was a bit irate at the way the female cast was treated, however. She pointed out that the strongest female character in the film was constantly undermined, then killed, then replaced by a man. The second strongest was played up as incompetent and demoted to a secretary where she is apparently far happier. The third female character was pointed out as a weak-willed and fearful former prostitute and was murdered almost immediately after she had sex with the main character.
Hammock Parties
11-14-2012 04:17 AM
I would have enjoyed seeing the trail of breadcrumbs Q left for Silva, however. My only nitpick.
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning
(Post 9117642)
STILL BOND
Spoiler!
One of my companions was a bit irate at the way the female cast was treated, however. She pointed out that the strongest female character in the film was constantly undermined, then killed, then replaced by a man. The second strongest was played up as incompetent and demoted to a secretary where she is apparently far happier. The third female character was pointed out as a weak-willed and fearful former prostitute and was murdered almost immediately after she had sex with the main character.
Because James Bond has always screamed anti-sexism and total respect for women. Don't go see a Bond film and bitch about feminist bs, what about the many a men that Bond has met then killed, you think they were built up to anything but weak corpses for Bond to have his way with?
nstygma
11-15-2012 01:45 AM
maybe the next time i see the movie, i will like it more. too long, and the end was just so predictable and boring.
there are a lot of negative reviews, some have an interesting take.
...............At a bloated running time of 2 hours and 23 minutes, Skyfall is a tedious, uninspired, sluggish and vapid bore that can only be enjoyed by very shallow, unctuous philistines.............
Yes, the title “Skyfall” is explained, and it’s more of a shrug than a revelation, kicking off a segment that plays more like The A-Team than Bond and features an unusually useless Albert Finney. Some have made the case that, like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Bond is a singularly ineffective hero here, such that everything would have happened more or less the way it does without him being in the picture.
keg in kc
11-15-2012 02:16 AM
Anybody who uses the words "shallow, unctuous philistines............. " in a movie review needs to be taken out back and put out of my misery.
nstygma
11-15-2012 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc
(Post 9120251)
Anybody who uses the words "shallow, unctuous philistines............. " in a movie review needs to be taken out back and put out of my misery.
well, that person is from NYC. probably a hipster. so, yeah.
Hammock Parties
11-15-2012 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravedigger
(Post 9120232)
Because James Bond has always screamed anti-sexism and total respect for women. Don't go see a Bond film and bitch about feminist bs, what about the many a men that Bond has met then killed, you think they were built up to anything but weak corpses for Bond to have his way with?