Movies We've Just Watched discussion

94 views
Mystery and Suspense > The New Bond, James Bond....

Comments Showing 1-37 of 37 (37 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Faith (new)

Faith Quick (faithbquick) | 81 comments anyone else super excited about the new bond coming out?

Question:do you like the new course the bond's have taken? do you still feel that there is a connection to the old/new bonds?

i for one love the new direction the bond movies have taken. i really enjoyed the beginning chase scene! that was so intense. i did not like that bond drove a ford but i must say when he said ...."i got a little itch right there would you mind....no......to the right...yes....when you die...everyone will know that you scratched my balls...." i thought DAMN this is the essence of bond! he is bad#*%! he is amazing! my husband really hated that part! but i felt it really immortalized the new bond to me! he seemed so much more powerful then i had seen him be before!


message 2: by Anna (new)

Anna (lilfox) | 465 comments Yeah me. I'm going to see it on Monday with my friends. Is it worth watching??


message 3: by Gail (new)

Gail D.C. | 228 comments I have always loved BOND! I have watched them for years and I continue to enjoy them.


message 4: by Phillip (new)

Phillip | 10781 comments i thought the new version of casino royale was a step in the right direction. it approached the bond narrative with a more adult sensibility, and focused less on the sophomoric aspect of the humor and bond's over-ripe libido. i thought daniel craig did a nice job of bringing some depth to the character.

i just watched doctor no the other night, because i knew i was going to see suzuki's "branded to kill" (a japanese spoof on the early bond films) last night on the big screen (i reviewed it in another thread). unfortunately, despite the iconic performance by sean connery, the film doesn't hold up so well. oh, i forgot, it does have ursula andress in it...OMG...women shouldn't be allowed to be that beautiful.

i was also watching hitchcock's notorious earlier this week and on the special features, i discovered that originally alfred hitchcock was approached to direct Doctor No (the first bond film). the directors of the documentary focused on how hitchcock probably wasn't right for the job. he tends to focus more on characters (which is admirable) and the bond films create bond as a sort of construct, not a fully developed character. the bond films also tend to focus more on settings and interiors, they implied that this wasn't hitchcock's forte (an opinion i disagree with).

still, i wonder what it would have been like if hitchcock would have directed a few of those early bond films....i'm sure he would have produced something good.


message 5: by George (new)

George | 951 comments Hitch certainly would have done a far better job with the various villains at the very least.


message 6: by Phillip (new)

Phillip | 10781 comments right?

that's where i think they're wrong when they say he was overly concerned with characters....apparently ian flemming kept rooting for hitchcock. i think doctor no and goldfinger and all of those would have been greatly improved if hitch was on board.


message 7: by Tom (last edited Nov 10, 2008 06:59AM) (new)

Tom | 5484 comments I can't imagine Hitchcock doing a Bond film. Hitchcock's films are always more serious than they initally appear, unlike the Bond films.

Hitchcock's star was kind of fading in the 60s anyway. After THE BIRDS he had some major bombs in MARNIE, TORN CURTAIN and TOPAZ. TORN CURTAIN even contains a scene that was apparently intended as a rebuke to the kind of James Bond killing with no conscience stuff, the really agonizing murder at the farm scene that just takes forever, in contrast with the easy "bang you're dead" stuff that supposedly characterizes Bond-type films.

Don't get me wrong. Love me some James Bond, there's a lot of good mean fun in them.


message 8: by Phillip (new)

Phillip | 10781 comments But I hear what you're saying. It's hard to imagine what a bond film directed by Hitchcock would be like. I think this most recent film, Casino Royale (not the original) could be something akin to what I would expect. A more "serious" tone, good acting, a higly stylized film technique driving the narrative. That's what you get from those Universal classics from the 50's. But I have to agree with Tom, a lot of the films from the 60's (notwithstanding Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy) are flawed. Hitchcock's health was up and down a lot. He probably should have retired, but he kept on. I applaud that, even if I don't applaud the films.


message 9: by Anna (new)

Anna (lilfox) | 465 comments I love the movie. This one and Casino Royale are totally different than those movies with Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. In last two movies there's not much gadgets. Bond has to show strength of his muscles and mind. In movies with Brosnan there's too much gadgets - they are more important than Bond himself. Brosnan's Bond is flirting with women, drinking martini and avoiding bullets flying around like Shaolin monk. Gadgets are to help him, not doing nearly everything for him.

I love the Quantum Of Solace , cause Bond is a tough guy and agent of Her Royal Majesty. He depends on his own skills and witt.


message 10: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5484 comments There's always Hitchcock's SECRET AGENT, which comes rather close to being a James Bond film, in a way. John Gielgud plays a secret agent sent to dispatch a certain bad man at a Swiss resort, and complications ensue. There's some solid guilt and soul-searching going on in the film, which is kind of the opposite of what James Bond really is about, at least until Daniel Craig's incarnation.

I very much enjoyed the Craig CASINO ROYALE, even if I did feel there was just way too much time spent watching people playing cards. On the whole, I'd say that the current Bond reboot is far more successful and entertaining than the current Batman reboot.


message 11: by George (new)

George | 951 comments Well, various Hitchcock films have secret agent type themes, but I would agree that thinking of him doing a Bond film is a bit of a stretch. Just saw the latest one today. I rather liked it. It's something of a sequel to Casino Royale. The new Bond is the pick of the litter in my opinion, although I've always liked Sean as well.


message 12: by Phillip (last edited Nov 11, 2008 08:09AM) (new)

Phillip | 10781 comments I didn't realize the new Bond film was actually out and in the theaters. Where have I been? The theater where I saw Happy Go Lucky said it wouldn't be there for another week or so.


message 13: by Faith (new)

Faith Quick (faithbquick) | 81 comments i felt the same way about the card playing! it was so long! i felt it stopped the overall flow of the film. it was almost like a film within the film. i love to see bond play cards and i generally liked the overall story with the cards but i felt they lingered too long on small details.


message 14: by Faith (new)

Faith Quick (faithbquick) | 81 comments the new film doesn't come out until friday. in my opening comment i was quoting bond during the infamous torture scene. i was stating that, that was when the new bond truelly won me over! he was so in control of his emotions and yet you could see the utmost torure he was under at the same time! it was an amazing scene!


message 15: by Anna (new)

Anna (lilfox) | 465 comments It came out in Poland this Friday. World premiere was over a week ago.


message 16: by George (last edited Nov 11, 2008 02:06PM) (new)

George | 951 comments Sorry, to tell you but it's already out in Asia as well. It's been showing since Friday here in Korea. I guess I'll have to be careful what I say about it for now. I just assumed it must be out in the US.


message 17: by Anna (new)

Anna (lilfox) | 465 comments Yeah American premiere is on this Friday.


message 18: by Angie (new)

Angie I love Daniel Craig as Bond. I was really unsure about him but I thought he did a really good job. I am looking forward to this movie!


message 19: by Faith (new)

Faith Quick (faithbquick) | 81 comments anyone seen the movie yet....now everyone no matter what continent you are on can comment....my husband and i are going tomorrow! anyone who has seen the new movie what did you think?


message 20: by Phillip (last edited Nov 23, 2008 12:13PM) (new)

Phillip | 10781 comments i'm a little confused by all the hype around these last two films. i saw quantum of solace last night, and it was fine. a good, well-paced action film.

but what's the big deal? they are still making the same film over and over again - a bond film starts out with some sort of chase scene or general mayhem, and that's usually how we learn the MO. then there is the usual hot female that leads bond to either the evil mastermind, or becomes an accomplist....sometimes both. then, we are led like lambs to the slaughter: bond confronts meglamaniac who is trying to obtain obscene levels of power. this evil mastermind usually lives in some enormous opulent dwelling that houses some turgid machinery that usually explodes in the final scenes.

the new film doesn't stray from this formula, but it follows the formula really well and of course is extremely well-executed.

and yet people are raving about the "new bond"...even though every ten years or so we toss out the old bond and get a radical new facelift.

in the 60's it was connery, giving the role both a masculine self-assuredness and a tiny bit of comic relief.

in the 70's we ushered connery out of the films and that other guy entered for one film - on her majesty's secret service. i can't remember his name, but he brought a quiet, more serious tone to the role, and that was one of my favorite bond films.

in the 80's, that lost decade that derailed more than a few artistic directions, we were introduced to roger moore, who gave the role a bit more of a bloated self-assurance and heaped up the one-liners to increase the humor....yawn.

in the 90's we were introduced to pierce bronsnan, who gave the role a bit more sleek appeal, and the action scenes, thanks to cgi and all sorts of other filmic tricks, got a lot more interesting. we also were bored with one too many laborious conversations in the lab on bond's tricked-out gadgetry. these films also started to dwell on honor and trust, and elements of interior security became a common thematic ploy.

now it's a new century, and audiences are tired of all the artifice. the "new" bond is stripped of the one-liners. daniel craig does a good job of taking the role seriously, and keeps his eyes on the action and of course, a bit of booty. the action sequences are filmed in flash-images: things pass by so quickly you're not sure what happened exactly, which suits our sega3 society so nicely...

but, as i said above, despite the re-imagining of style and character, it's the same old game, played out on the same old playing field with the same carbon-copy villans and exotic settings.

don't get me wrong, the fillm is entertaining as a night at the circus, i enjoyed the ride. but if you're like me, and grew up on this stuff, and have aged, along with bond himself, it's getting to be an all-too-familiar ride.


message 21: by Ceci (new)

Ceci (cecialbiceleste) | 529 comments Phillip, I think thre Bond films with Craig are more like any other movies... the Bondness is gone. I find the old "funny" and sexist Bond pretty annoying and boring too... These ones are different even though they have kept some of the key elements and characters on board. These movies have more in common with the Bourne movies than the old, campy, gimmicky Bonds.

I posted my review on the other thread (Movies we've just watched) as I missed this thread... So here goes, again:

I watched Mark Forster's Quantum of Solace at the cinema yesterday... and while I did enjoy it, my overall feelings are mixed. First things first: Daniel Craig was awesome -- he carried the movie. He was cool, composed, bitter, angry, hurting -- simply all there. A magnificent presence. It's difficult to imagine any other person playing Bond, or actually having the license to kill. He is a legal assassin. The action sequences were fast and astounding, clever and filled with threat. Also, Judi Dench was perfect as M -- she and Craig acted brilliantly together and their relationship was real and believable, unlike that between Bond and the "Bond girls," Camille and agent Fields.

Mathieu Amalric as the villain, Dominic Greene, was deadly like a snake. He said in the interviews that he'd combined the smile of Tony Blair and the craziness of Nicolas Sarkozy -- and the performance is indeed chilling. He is a believable, corporate villain. Charming and throughly greedy and evil. Still, there are echoes in his role from an earlier one -- that of the mysterious Louis in Spielberg's Munich, where he also acted with Daniel Craig.

Then the problems... The movie simply does not stand alone. You must have seen Casino Royale, too. The plot is a bit of a tangled web, and while you can follow what's going on, it's clearly poorer than the inevitable, highly effective and yet surprising intrigue of CR. The Bond girls are not very good actresses at all, thoroughly lacking in charisma. There's no chemistry between them and Craig.

The ending of the movie is also a bit of a letdown... I just hope the next Bond film will have a different director and a better screenplay. Still, I will go and see these films as long as Daniel Craig plays Bond.



message 22: by Ceci (new)

Ceci (cecialbiceleste) | 529 comments Who's Roger Ebert? (Sorry, I'm Finnish... lol) I far prefer Daniel Craig's Bond to the previous ones (hell, Connery only ever plays Connery, he's the same, with the same Scottish accent, in every movie), he's more true to Fleming's books. Did you read Casino Royale? That IS Craig as Bond.

Re: funny names, there was Strawberry Fields...


message 23: by George (last edited Nov 26, 2008 03:39AM) (new)

George | 951 comments grounded in reality? hmmm, even with the qualifier "slightly" that's a bit difficult to grasp. however, I accept you prefer Connery. I was rather fond of him myself. Still am. Everyone since has been "less" somehow, except for our current Mr. Craig. His interpretation is so different that he doesn't really beg comparison. He is his own Bond. Neither shaken nor stirred. At the very least he doesn't grin into the camera, which I find quite acceptible compared to Roger Moore at the very least. And you can feel his pain, both physical and mental. He feels more complicated, you're never quite sure where he's coming from.

The previous formula was very tired. the current one will do for now. let's see where they take it next. Craig will have to do more than two rounds to stand toe to toe with Sean.


message 24: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5484 comments Ebert's status, for me, has been severely tarnished of late by some really bizarro antics, like naming CRASH as best film of the year, referring to MILLION DOLLAR BABY as a "masterpiece" and claiming that Zemeckis' film of BEOWULF was a Monty Pythonesque comedy.


message 25: by George (last edited Nov 26, 2008 04:56PM) (new)

George | 951 comments couldn't get anywhere with the link above. ah well.

Ok, worked when I pasted it in though.


message 26: by George (new)

George | 951 comments Rob,

Well, don't feel any obligation on my part. But, I think the two new ones are worth watching. However, the newest one won't have as much impact if you haven't seen the first.


message 27: by Carrie (new)

Carrie (slayerfan1975) We watched QUANTUM yesterday and it was enjoyable, but I think one of the problems with the movie was the fact it had 3 writers and a director who really hadn't made an action movie (but has some wonderful films nonetheless under his belt) During the movie it just felt like the movie was going in multiple directions and it was hard to focus. Sadly, I even fell asleep for a little bit (which rarely happens unless I'm exhausted or feeling sick, neither which was the case yesterday) Craig still does a good job with the character and you start seeing the side of Bond we expect, but I feel CASINO ROYALE was thus far the better of Craig's installment of James Bond.


message 28: by Tom (last edited Dec 07, 2008 05:34PM) (new)

Tom | 5484 comments I finally saw QUANTUM yesterday, and enjoyed it mainly. I don't think it is as good as CASINO ROYALE, it seems to have completely jettisoned the polish of CASINO in favor of a supposedly grittier feel, I guess in a bid for something like relevance. I wish the plot had been a bit easier to follow, there were times when I felt like the parade of heavily-accented actors were making things difficult for me to follow. And the filmmaking left a good deal to be desired: this film has some of the worst Cuisinart Editing outside of CHICAGO. I still have no idea what went on in one particular boat sequence, it just made no bloody sense at all.

But I did get to sit there and look at Daniel Craig for a couple of hours, my oh my. I do love to watch Daniel Craig, there's something very oddly amusing about him in action scenes, I find. That odd gravity he brings to the increasingly outlandish stunts reminds me of Buster Keaton somehow, there's an absolute conviction to what he does that is borderline comic. I just remember thinking, in CASINO ROYALE, that when Daniel Craig runs, Daniel Craig bloody RUNS, there's just no doubt that he's going to catch whatever he's chasing.

I'll keep going to the films as long as he's associated with him.


message 29: by Anna (new)

Anna (lilfox) | 465 comments Yeah I also can't wait for Defiance. I'm going to see it next Monday (Polish premiere is this Friday, January 23 and in small cinema near the Main Market Square in Cracow tickets on Mondays cost around two and a half pounds.


message 30: by SLIM SHADY (new)

SLIM SHADY Gontier (heroesfreak) | 254 comments OMG CAN YOU BELIEVE I STILL HAVENT SEEN THE NEW JAMES BOND MOVIES?! SO ANGRY HOW WERE THEY?



message 31: by SLIM SHADY (new)

SLIM SHADY Gontier (heroesfreak) | 254 comments Awesome


message 32: by SLIM SHADY (new)

SLIM SHADY Gontier (heroesfreak) | 254 comments Daniel Craig is a good actor for the James Bond Movies.


Stormi (BMReviewsohmy) (bmreviewsohmy) | 96 comments All I can say is I hate the new bond..give me Conner, Moore, Bronsan..anything but Craig...I liked the old way of doing bond...I hate the new bond..will never watch a bond movie again and is sad because I love all the old ones. :(


message 34: by Myra (new)

Myra | 123 comments Stormi wrote: "All I can say is I hate the new bond..give me Conner, Moore, Bronsan..anything but Craig...I liked the old way of doing bond...I hate the new bond..will never watch a bond movie again and is sad be..."
As a long-time fan of Connery's Bond, I have to say that I really like Daniel Craig's take on the character. To me, he's showing me how James became the man he was when Connery started out as James Bond. And he's definitely not hard on the eyes.



Stormi (BMReviewsohmy) (bmreviewsohmy) | 96 comments And he's definitely not hard on the eyes"

Myra,

That is a matter of opinion...lol...When I look at Craig I seem to see Gilligan of of Gilligan Island..if they remade that into a movie he would be perfect..He just doesn't appeal to me.








message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

i think the reason there arent any gadgets and stuff is that its a prequel... Q isnt at MI6 yet, i guess...


message 37: by SLIM SHADY (new)

SLIM SHADY Gontier (heroesfreak) | 254 comments O my gosh! theres this guy on my vactation who looks just like Daniel Craig it was AWESOME!!! I didn't tell him that though ha ha


back to top