I thought that "Goldeneye" was everything you could want from a James Bond movie, nicely made contemporary. The Daniel Craig movies are superior modern action movies, and very enjoyable as such, but if his character had amnesia they could be Bourne sequels. Now that the reboot appears to be complete, I hope that Mr. Craig is allowed to show us more of the James Bond who needs to shoot his cuffs before carrying on with getting the bad guys.davidHartzog said:
I love "GoldenEye" - it still holds up for me with the best of the series. I was disappointed with every subsequent Brosnan movie - I don't think any of them gave him a chance to play a good Bond, with the scripts becoming more and more ludicrous with every turn. It seemed like with "GoldenEye" they were letting him play a mostly serious, gentleman Bond, and afterwards they had him playing Roger Moore Lite. I would have liked to have seen more of Brosnan in films closer to GoldenEye than Tomorrow Never Dies, World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.davidmatychuk said:
Totally agree with that. They go from Bond earning his stripes (so to speak) as a double-oh to him being this washed-up dinosaur in the space of three films (or just two stories, if you count Casino and Quantum as two parts of one tale). I know what they were trying to do, which is close the book on the reboot and return to the Bond tropes of old, but it's a very jarring transition. And the irony of them hewing closer to all those 007 traditions is that it doesn't feel very Bondy at all to me.Josh Steinberg said:
Quantum of Solace starts immediately after Casino Royale ends. Skyfall takes place several years later. This is not a continuity error. It's explained right there in the movie.Josh Steinberg said:
You give the series too much credit. Bond stopped being an innovator and started being an imitator long before Licence to Kill. Live and Let Die was made to cash in on the Blaxploitation fad. Moonraker was rushed into production on the heels of Star Wars.bluelaughaminute said:
I'm not saying it's a continuity error - I'm saying that in my opinion, it was a very poor artistic choice. Not that it didn't take place right after Quantum, but that they decided to skip past the period in Bond's life when he was neither too young nor too old to be 007. To me, it was a baffling artistic choice to go directly from two movies of "You're too young, too inexperienced, mistake in promoting you, not ready" right into "lost a step, no shame in stepping away, past your prime".JoshZ said:
Silva's plan is not just impractical...it relies on dumb luck every step of the way. The fact that it more or less WORKS at every turn despite this fact is simply impossible to swallow. But worse than that is, again, the film's greatest betrayal of its own logic...the fact that Bond "proves he still has it" by failing at everything he sets out to accomplish. The one goal he actually achieves is catching Silva...which he was only able to do because Silva WANTED to be caught (even though it would have been so much easier, and more plausible, for him to simply come to England unannounced and shoot M)...and yet, after proving himself to be completely useless in the field, MI6 welcomes him back into the fold with open arms. Well, not quite open, as Mallory has that sling on his arm...from getting shot...by the guy that Bond brought to England, allowed to hack into the MI6 computer system, and let escape, so that he could shoot Mallory. But Mallory, in his role as the new M, seems incredibly confident when he reinstates the man who not only got him shot, but also got his predecessor KILLED. How does any of this make sense again?I don't hold Skyfall to a different standard. I hold it to the same standard by which OHMSS and Casino Royale are great Bond films...the standard of good storytelling. Nor do I hate Skyfall...I just see it as a missed opportunity. A great director and arguably the best cinematographer alive today got the chance to team up for a Bond film, and they delivered brilliantly. It's just sad that they didn't have a good script to work from.JoshZ said:
They should have either cast an actor in his early-twenties, or dropped the whole notion of Bond being too inexperienced when they cast 37 year-old Craig in the part.Josh Steinberg said:
Right, as if OHMSS and Casino Royale (both movies I like, by the way) don't have their share of idiocy. What's Blofeld's diabolical scheme in OHMSS again? To spread a poison plant that will make all the men in the world infertile. Seriously, that's the plot of this, "hard-edged" and "down to earth" Bond entry? And what exactly will it gain him to make all the men in the world infertile anyway? Is that even explained?Oblivion138 said:
Are you thinking of Moonraker, perhaps? Or the spoofy Casino Royale? Blofeld's plot in OHMSS is to wipe out crops and livestock if he isn't given amnesty for past crimes and recognition of his alleged arisocratic lineage. Which is far more logical than the plot of the previous entry, You Only Live Twice, in which Spectre attempts to start a war between the US and Russia on behalf of, presumably, China, despite the fact that everyone - Chinese and Spectre operatives included - would be killed by the nuclear fallout from such a war.JoshZ said:
Wow, what hefty discussion has arisen since my last post here ...Reggie W said:
). Starting with Moore the "magic" was gone - but it was gone not only in the Bonds during the late 70's and 80's.
Your English is excellent. If only we spoke German equally well!alter filmnarr said:
Please direct me to the place where I called OHMSS "hard-edged" and "down to earth." You might have a bit of trouble, as I never said any such thing. What OHMSS and Casino Royale do, which Skyfall does not, is follow their own logic, and present narratives which are cohesive. Whether you find some things in these films silly is irrelevant...OHMSS makes sense...Casino Royale makes sense. Skyfall's script makes no sense. At all. And yes, Blofeld's motive in OHMSS is made completely clear, and makes sense, even if you feel his scheme to achieve those ends is bizarre. And in Casino Royale, Bond induces vomiting as soon as he feels the first effects of the poison. The poison that remains in his system causes cardiac arrest. You seem to forget that he takes an injection to counteract the toxin itself. The defibrilation is simply to bring him out of cardiac arrest. So those are pretty terrible examples of bad plotting...especially compared to, say, Bond proving his merit as an agent by failing at every turn throughout the course of an entire film, and MI6 rewarding him for it, their faith in him completely restored by his consistent bungling.Skyfall is an awful script saved by brilliant filmmaking.JoshZ said:
As a boy I too was just totally enthralled with the Bond films and I even loved Diamonds are Forever as it featured the return of Connery, which seemed a big deal at the time. Still love all those Connery Bonds and had fun watching Diamonds are Forever again but as an adult and after seeing the Austin Powers films it seemed very apparent that Diamonds is the blueprint for Austin Powers. Mike Meyers obviously used this film as his main inspiration.alter filmnarr said:
Yes, I agree. I have never seen the Bond films as "serious" but rather as pure escapism fun. The items you list are the same items that draw me into the Bond films...atmosphere and feeling, the music, the stunningly beautiful way in which everything is photographed, the exotic locales, and of course the women...it all adds up to, as you said, pure entertainment.alter filmnarr said:Big part of my love for Bond movies was the "certain" atmosphere and feeling of that movies, the wonderful Barry scores, beautiful pictures, places and, yes, wonderful women. I could not care less, if the stories were logical or not. It was simply pure entertainment and escapism (from school
It's funny, my wife who also was not much of a Bond fan, was stunned at what a gorgeous looking film Skyfall was and was completely taken with it. She even invited a group of her girlfriends over when I picked up the film on blu-ray to watch it. I was a little stunned to walk in one night to a house full of women watching a Bond film. I agree with you that Skyfall feels like classic Bond and took me back to those days too. I really felt like Mendes and company captured all the things I love about 007 in a single film and Deakins photographed it all in such a way that made it one of the most gorgeous looking Bond films in the history of the series.alter filmnarr said:
Nothing to apologize for, your English is wonderful. I was in Austria a few years ago and spent time in Vienna...I loved it. I was not thinking about Bond as I wandered the city though...I was thinking about The Third Man...ha!alter filmnarr said:
Skyfall's script makes sense so long as you don't actively attempt to mischaracterize everything that happens in it, as you have done.Oblivion138 said:
Diamonds Are Forever was actually the first Bond film I saw. My parents did not allow me to see any of the earlier films (I was only 6 or 7 when Dr. No was released). I was in my mid- teens by the time Diamonds was released. At the time, I loved it. Up to that time, the only spy movies I had seen were on TV and were merely Bond imitators, like The Liquidator, Man From UNCLE, et al.
