Figured we'd discuss the most recent Bond movie. What did you guys like/dislike?


+
Visuals
Music
Performances: I really thought the cast was excellent all around
The action sequences were stellar.

-
A few of the plot points, most notably the ending.

Two 007's.

I only care about the opening theme. Two things I look forward to: Who is singing the opening Bond theme and who is playing Super Bowl Halftime? Billie Eilish sang the theme and released it last year. I love it. Her sultry vocals are fantastic. I don't know about the movie or plot but Billie Eilish singing the opening theme is right up there with Sheena Easton and Carly Simon. Not Louis Armstrong or Tom Jones but Eilish is still very Bond.

seb146 wrote:

I only care about the opening theme. Two things I look forward to: Who is singing the opening Bond theme and who is playing Super Bowl Halftime? Billie Eilish sang the theme and released it last year. I love it. Her sultry vocals are fantastic. I don't know about the movie or plot but Billie Eilish singing the opening theme is right up there with Sheena Easton and Carly Simon. Not Louis Armstrong or Tom Jones but Eilish is still very Bond.

No love for Tina Turner in 'Goldeneye'??

Loved the movie until the very end. The character I didn't see the point of is Naomi, the movie could have worked without her being in it at all, I was surprised they killed Blofeld, they'd spent ages securing the character and SPECTRE for the Bond films then they kill them off. The villain wasn't villainous enough, Rami wasn't the right actor for the role. The best scene in the film was in Cuba, Ana de Armas is amazing, I hope they bring her back for whatever comes next, the witty repartee between her and Bond was old school Bond.

The ending wasn't expected, it opens up the universe to all sorts of stupidity, Bond is Bond he doesn't need to be gender switched or blackwashed.

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007? Would be a controversial choice in my opinion, but she was ligned up for the role during this movie it seems. Also, the whole movie was a bit "cartoonish" to me. I think that the previous Daniel Craig movies were more aligned with reality than the last one.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007?

I think that's what's called a clue.

It's been rumoured for a while that the next Bond would be a black woman. She already had some of the characteristics. Great stuff, despite what a grumpy Kiwi might think. We don't live in the 1960s anymore.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007? Would be a controversial choice in my opinion, but she was ligned up for the role during this movie it seems. Also, the whole movie was a bit "cartoonish" to me. I think that the previous Daniel Craig movies were more aligned with reality than the last one.

If you watched the film she relinquished her 007 license and it was given back to Bond. She's now 00X.

007 and James Bond are linked, they are one and the same character, messing with the formula would bomb like the all female Ghostbusters, or a female Dr Who, or now Indiana Jones being played by a female, you know it will fail even before the movie has been shot and released.

scbriml wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007?

I think that's what's called a clue.

It's been rumoured for a while that the next Bond would be a black woman. She already had some of the characteristics. Great stuff, despite what a grumpy Kiwi might think. We don't live in the 1960s anymore.

Of course we don't live in the 1960's but the character is well defined, there is no need to change a highly successful formula for the big screen, where changes to the formula can be made and new characters introduced is the future Bond TV series spinoffs which Amazon will make.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007? Would be a controversial choice in my opinion, but she was ligned up for the role during this movie it seems. Also, the whole movie was a bit "cartoonish" to me. I think that the previous Daniel Craig movies were more aligned with reality than the last one.

According to producer Barbara Broccoli, no.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51133194

I haven't watched the movie yet as the goddamned distributor chose to delay the showing in Malaysia to the end of next month. But having read the plotline, I'll definitely be entertained when I get to see it at the cinema.

Kiwirob wrote:

If you watched the film she relinquished her 007 license and it was given back to Bond. She's now 00X.

007 and James Bond are linked, they are one and the same character, messing with the formula would bomb like the all female Ghostbusters, or a female Dr Who, or now Indiana Jones being played by a female, you know it will fail even before the movie has been shot and released.

Of course we don't live in the 1960's but the character is well defined, there is no need to change a highly successful formula for the big screen, where changes to the formula can be made and new characters introduced is the future Bond TV series spinoffs which Amazon will make.

It's rare we agree, but we are here.

You have a certain expectation when you hear "James Bond." And a black woman is not it. I think it was Daniel Craig who said something to the effect of, "Why try to fit a diverse actor into the mold that is James Bond when you can create an entirely new character or even franchise?"

James Bond is who *he* is. I even struggle a bit with a non-Caucasian, non-UK actor. Changing who he is is not a recipe for success with this franchise. Change is not always good.

cjg225 wrote:

You have a certain expectation when you hear "James Bond."

That alone is a good enough explanation.

James Bond, aka 007 is an aspirational character who drinks his way through impossible situations with gorgeous, beautiful, brilliant women helping him.

None of my friends who saw the movie enjoyed it. No one wants to see there aspirational hero die; for then they are mortal and the movie magic is gone.

This is from someone who, when my female friends didn't have a Halloween date, they would make me dress up as bond and they would go as bond girls and we all had a great time in my younger years.

As two female friends noted, there wasn't a bond girl they wanted to be this Halloween in this movie (yes, middle aged people play dress-up). Oh, these female friends all earned the title doctor and god help you if you don't realize they are brilliant and one used to compete every year for the California state Karate championship (we met in grad school), so don't confuse playing with reality). I'll pass seeing it.

Lightsaber

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

scbriml wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Will the second 007 become the next actual 007?

I think that's what's called a clue.

It's been rumoured for a while that the next Bond would be a black woman. She already had some of the characteristics. Great stuff, despite what a grumpy Kiwi might think. We don't live in the 1960s anymore.

I haven't seen the movie yet but as I understand those numbers in Bond were originally meant to be irreplaceable so then new agent should get the next number available.

stratable wrote:

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

Based on the Bond movies Blofeld has died decades ago. I can understand that Bond doesn't age as otherwise these films won't be made but a dead returns? I know that Blofeld was several persons and it worked in the 1980s but now? Just get a new person as the bad one.

I really liked Paloma (Ana de Armas), I could see her picking up where Felix Leitner left of.

But 007.1 (Lashana Lynch) did not do much for me. I've seen the movie a few days ago, and already kind a forgot just what she did except for sabotaging Bond's car, constantly asking if she's still 007 and a bit of flirting. Obviously it's only logical she would take second place to Daniel, it's his film after all, but either give her more to do or make her a proper background figure.

As for the movie itself, I liked it. A bit over the top perhaps, but it's Bond so that's to be expected. The ending I can live with. It would not have worked for most Bonds, but for Craig Bond it makes some sense.

THS214 wrote:

stratable wrote:

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

Based on the Bond movies Blofeld has died decades ago. I can understand that Bond doesn't age as otherwise these films won't be made but a dead returns? I know that Blofeld was several persons and it worked in the 1980s but now? Just get a new person as the bad one.

Sure or just use Safin as the head of Spectre in Spectre and carry it through. Just focusing on one would have led to a more fleshed out villain

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I only care about the opening theme. Two things I look forward to: Who is singing the opening Bond theme and who is playing Super Bowl Halftime? Billie Eilish sang the theme and released it last year. I love it. Her sultry vocals are fantastic. I don't know about the movie or plot but Billie Eilish singing the opening theme is right up there with Sheena Easton and Carly Simon. Not Louis Armstrong or Tom Jones but Eilish is still very Bond.

No love for Tina Turner in 'Goldeneye'??

Or Sir Paul in "Live And Let Die" because they are icons. No other songs in the Bond Song universe even come close.

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I only care about the opening theme. Two things I look forward to: Who is singing the opening Bond theme and who is playing Super Bowl Halftime? Billie Eilish sang the theme and released it last year. I love it. Her sultry vocals are fantastic. I don't know about the movie or plot but Billie Eilish singing the opening theme is right up there with Sheena Easton and Carly Simon. Not Louis Armstrong or Tom Jones but Eilish is still very Bond.

No love for Tina Turner in 'Goldeneye'??

Or Sir Paul in "Live And Let Die" because they are icons. No other songs in the Bond Song universe even come close.

Sure, let's overlook that the theme for Goldfinger was chosen to represent Bond 50 at the Oscars.

So as a lifelong die hard 007ite... I will say besides the fact i predicted the ending 30 seconds in thanks to the bars of We Have All the Time in the World...

It was ok... i give it a 5/10... to compare to other Bonds:

10/10: From Russia With Love, Thunderball
9/10: Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die
8/10: You Only Live Twice, Man with the Golden Gun, Goldeneye
7/10: Dr. No, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, The World is not Enough, Skyfall
6/10: Diamonds are Forever, View to A Kill, Casino Royale
5/10: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Tomorrow Never Dies, No Time To Die, *Never Say Never Again
4/10: Die Another Day
3/10: License to Kill, SPECTRE
2/10: Quantum of Solstice, *Casino Royale (1967)
1/10: Moonraker

I don't really care if you agree with my order

THS214 wrote:

stratable wrote:

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

Based on the Bond movies Blofeld has died decades ago. I can understand that Bond doesn't age as otherwise these films won't be made but a dead returns? I know that Blofeld was several persons and it worked in the 1980s but now? Just get a new person as the bad one.

There is limited continuity in Bond movies, some characters come back here and there such as henchmen (Jaws is an example), assistants (Felix, who IIRC was also killed in License to Kill) and even villains such as Blofeld.

The 5 Craig movies are unique as they could be considered a series in many respects. You would never have been able to understand this movie without seeing Spectre and would have no ideas of the Italy scenes fit without seeing Casino Royale.

lightsaber wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

You have a certain expectation when you hear "James Bond."

That alone is a good enough explanation.

James Bond, aka 007 is an aspirational character who drinks his way through impossible situations with gorgeous, beautiful, brilliant women helping him.

None of my friends who saw the movie enjoyed it. No one wants to see there aspirational hero die; for then they are mortal and the movie magic is gone.

This is from someone who, when my female friends didn't have a Halloween date, they would make me dress up as bond and they would go as bond girls and we all had a great time in my younger years.

As two female friends noted, there wasn't a bond girl they wanted to be this Halloween in this movie (yes, middle aged people play dress-up). Oh, these female friends all earned the title doctor and god help you if you don't realize they are brilliant and one used to compete every year for the California state Karate championship (we met in grad school), so don't confuse playing with reality). I'll pass seeing it.

Lightsaber

In the films from Dr. No to Die another Day Bond is portrayed as suave charismatic individual with some different characteristics depending on the actor playing him. Yes he can kick ass but there are limited moments of vulnerability from James Bond.

However what I have learned about the original literature from Ian Fleming (I will make a point to read some of the books) is that Bond is a dark and tortured soul which is how Craig portrayed him. No suave one-liners and limited gimmicky gadgets.

I would suggest watching "Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007" This came out in 2012 in preparation for the 50th anniversary special and it really gets into the history of Ian Fleming and the progression of Bond with each actor that played him.

It will be interesting who they cast as the next 007 (that can live on but perhaps Bond doesn't) and where they take the series.

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I only care about the opening theme. Two things I look forward to: Who is singing the opening Bond theme and who is playing Super Bowl Halftime? Billie Eilish sang the theme and released it last year. I love it. Her sultry vocals are fantastic. I don't know about the movie or plot but Billie Eilish singing the opening theme is right up there with Sheena Easton and Carly Simon. Not Louis Armstrong or Tom Jones but Eilish is still very Bond.

No love for Tina Turner in 'Goldeneye'??

Or Sir Paul in "Live And Let Die" because they are icons. No other songs in the Bond Song universe even come close.

Does Duran Duran get no love for "A View to A Kill"

I personally really liked Sam Smith's Writing on the wall from Spectre.

I saw it last night. Wasn't a fan of the opening song but I think she's wildly over-rated like many singers these days.

It felt like it was two films squashed into one. The first half was really good, especially the part in Cuba. Safin was hardly in the the film and you got no real feeling why he was so angry or how he got all the money to fund his operation. His long drawn out speeches were rather tedious. Spectre was supposed to be "everywhere" so it's amusing to think a few dozen being killed off meant the end of it. It's like they felt they had to spend half the film closing off things left open from Spectre and then get into this next baddy.

007's replacement basically did nothing and when she was needed most she wasn't there - in the forest scene. And at the end she went on the boat along with Madeline and daughter just to leave James Bond all on his own to open the doors and fight off dozens of enemies.Was silly.

It really felt just over the top for me, and I would go so far as to say I didn't like the killing off of Bond nor the way the daughter was put in the place she was - I don't think the plot or film needed it.

It did however look amazing, was incredibly well filmed and the hand to hand combat was excellent. Bond going up the stairs towards the end was brutal and very well done.

Ana de Armas - agreed she was great. It needed more of her.

StarAC17 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

You have a certain expectation when you hear "James Bond."

That alone is a good enough explanation.

James Bond, aka 007 is an aspirational character who drinks his way through impossible situations with gorgeous, beautiful, brilliant women helping him.

None of my friends who saw the movie enjoyed it. No one wants to see there aspirational hero die; for then they are mortal and the movie magic is gone.

This is from someone who, when my female friends didn't have a Halloween date, they would make me dress up as bond and they would go as bond girls and we all had a great time in my younger years.

As two female friends noted, there wasn't a bond girl they wanted to be this Halloween in this movie (yes, middle aged people play dress-up). Oh, these female friends all earned the title doctor and god help you if you don't realize they are brilliant and one used to compete every year for the California state Karate championship (we met in grad school), so don't confuse playing with reality). I'll pass seeing it.

Lightsaber

In the films from Dr. No to Die another Day Bond is portrayed as suave charismatic individual with some different characteristics depending on the actor playing him. Yes he can kick ass but there are limited moments of vulnerability from James Bond.

However what I have learned about the original literature from Ian Fleming (I will make a point to read some of the books) is that Bond is a dark and tortured soul which is how Craig portrayed him. No suave one-liners and limited gimmicky gadgets.

I would suggest watching "Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007" This came out in 2012 in preparation for the 50th anniversary special and it really gets into the history of Ian Fleming and the progression of Bond with each actor that played him.

It will be interesting who they cast as the next 007 (that can live on but perhaps Bond doesn't) and where they take the series.

I'll watch everything or nothing. My friends enjoyed the latest bond actor, not the latest bond movie. I am just of the opinion you do not kill off aspirational characters and you keep them aspirational. Ok, Yoda as a force ghost is different. If Bond is dead, c'est la vie.

Lightsaber

Reinhardt wrote:

I saw it last night. Wasn't a fan of the opening song but I think she's wildly over-rated like many singers these days.

I feel very attacked right now

StarAC17 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

No love for Tina Turner in 'Goldeneye'??

Or Sir Paul in "Live And Let Die" because they are icons. No other songs in the Bond Song universe even come close.

Does Duran Duran get no love for "A View to A Kill"

I personally really liked Sam Smith's Writing on the wall from Spectre.

While a commercial success, I don't feel Duran Duran's song really lives up to the Bond legacy. The music video was fun and the song itself is classic Duran Duran, but I just don't think it holds up to "Goldeneye" by Tina Turner or "Live And Let Die" by Paul McCartney.

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke. As a person who has read Ian Fleming's books and been a hardcore fan since I was a kid, PCness and a post #me2 environment ruined it. Despite the fact that Die another day was the worst Bond movie I've ever seen, this was the first time I found myself checking my watch with its bloated runtime. Too little action and too much disjointed exposition. Not only that, the movie suffered from tonal dissonance with too many silly one liners, silly dialogue, a moronic plot, weak villain, and yet they tried to make a serious affecting ending "connecting everything". The problem is I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig. He's the worst Bond after dear old George Lazenby who's one movie they tried to evoke quite obviously in this one. Just so you know where I stand, Timothy Dalton was IMHO the best James Bond and Sean Connery is a very close second. Unlike Craig who is a steroid freak who can't express any emotion other than irritated, watch Dalton go through a gamut of emotions in "Licence to Kill" which is one of my favorite Bond movies along with "From Russia with Love". Also, I just have to say the problem with all of Craig's Bond movies is that I never have fun at them. Bond is escapist entertainment and it can be affecting but Crag's movies are so bland because of his acting I never come out excited. To be honest, the last Bond movie I had fun watching was "Tomorrow Never Dies" which although inferior to "Goldeneye" which I loved, was still a fun flick. Brosnan was a decent Bond comparable to a Roger Moore era where it was just pure escapist fare.No time to die just left me totally underwhelmed. As others of said, Paloma was the standout and I can't understand why didn't put more of her and less of the bland Nomi which was utterly forgettable. Also, from my hetero perspective, Craig is far too ugly and old looking with less than zero chemistry with Lea Seydoux for me to have been invested their relationship since Spectre. She looks young enough to be his daughter. At least in Casino Royale which was the only decent Craig Bond movie Vesper and he had a chemistry and a believable relationship

phugoid1982 wrote:

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke. As a person who has read Ian Fleming's books and been a hardcore fan since I was a kid, PCness and a post #me2 environment ruined it. Despite the fact that Die another day was the worst Bond movie I've ever seen, this was the first time I found myself checking my watch with its bloated runtime. Too little action and too much disjointed exposition. Not only that, the movie suffered from tonal dissonance with too many silly one liners, silly dialogue, a moronic plot, weak villain, and yet they tried to make a serious affecting ending "connecting everything". The problem is I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig. He's the worst Bond after dear old George Lazenby who's one movie they tried to evoke quite obviously in this one. Just so you know where I stand, Timothy Dalton was IMHO the best James Bond and Sean Connery is a very close second. Unlike Craig who is a steroid freak who can't express any emotion other than irritated, watch Dalton go through a gamut of emotions in "Licence to Kill" which is one of my favorite Bond movies along with "From Russia with Love". Also, I just have to say the problem with all of Craig's Bond movies is that I never have fun at them. Bond is escapist entertainment and it can be affecting but Crag's movies are so bland because of his acting I never come out excited. To be honest, the last Bond movie I had fun watching was "Tomorrow Never Dies" which although inferior to "Goldeneye" which I loved, was still a fun flick. Brosnan was a decent Bond comparable to a Roger Moore era where it was just pure escapist fare.No time to die just left me totally underwhelmed. As others of said, Paloma was the standout and I can't understand why didn't put more of her and less of the bland Nomi which was utterly forgettable

So you actually care about a well past it’s sell by date franchise, sourced from early 1950’s hack spy novels written by an embittered minor intelligence officer in WW2, as he drank himself to death in his Jamaica tax avoidance bolt hole?
‘Woke’ indeed, not a Bond fan, most of them are poor, the last half decent one was Skyfall, 50th anniversary of the first film, should have ended there, however it’s another franchise. Craig is a good actor and he did in 2006 revitalise it as the Bourne series had made Bond look even more out of date. But many Bond fans objected at first to Craig due to his hair colour FFS!
So maybe the next one to play the role, as it is not going away, should be someone to maximise the anger for anyone who uses that stupid, meaningless term ‘woke’.

I am surprised the running time being an issue for you, Bond films are far from the only ones that are long.

Me, I will have a look out of curiosity when it soon finds it home here in the UK, on the lower rent terrestrial channel ITV where the whole series seems on permanent rotation, right place for them. Pay to see it? No way. The previous one to this, I cannot remember a thing about it. Craig had a good start but the next one apparently did not have a script when filming began!
Last time I saw a Bond film at the cinema was ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, I would have been 11 so enjoyed it, same year I saw the only Star Wars film, in any format, by the time of the next one I was in my teens and past that sort of film, another franchise of course.
Maybe Moore playing it for laughs was the best way to do it?

I just think it’s hilarious that these are taken seriously. The late, unlamented Rush Limbaugh got in a state when Idris Elba was briefly mooted as a future Bond, wonder why?
Against this you have LeCarre, an actual Cold War intelligence officer turned author, he never hid his contempt for Fleming and his Bond fantasies.

GDB wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke. As a person who has read Ian Fleming's books and been a hardcore fan since I was a kid, PCness and a post #me2 environment ruined it. Despite the fact that Die another day was the worst Bond movie I've ever seen, this was the first time I found myself checking my watch with its bloated runtime. Too little action and too much disjointed exposition. Not only that, the movie suffered from tonal dissonance with too many silly one liners, silly dialogue, a moronic plot, weak villain, and yet they tried to make a serious affecting ending "connecting everything". The problem is I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig. He's the worst Bond after dear old George Lazenby who's one movie they tried to evoke quite obviously in this one. Just so you know where I stand, Timothy Dalton was IMHO the best James Bond and Sean Connery is a very close second. Unlike Craig who is a steroid freak who can't express any emotion other than irritated, watch Dalton go through a gamut of emotions in "Licence to Kill" which is one of my favorite Bond movies along with "From Russia with Love". Also, I just have to say the problem with all of Craig's Bond movies is that I never have fun at them. Bond is escapist entertainment and it can be affecting but Crag's movies are so bland because of his acting I never come out excited. To be honest, the last Bond movie I had fun watching was "Tomorrow Never Dies" which although inferior to "Goldeneye" which I loved, was still a fun flick. Brosnan was a decent Bond comparable to a Roger Moore era where it was just pure escapist fare.No time to die just left me totally underwhelmed. As others of said, Paloma was the standout and I can't understand why didn't put more of her and less of the bland Nomi which was utterly forgettable

So you actually care about a well past it’s sell by date franchise, sourced from early 1950’s hack spy novels written by an embittered minor intelligence officer in WW2, as he drank himself to death in his Jamaica tax avoidance bolt hole?
‘Woke’ indeed, not a Bond fan, most of them are poor, the last half decent one was Skyfall, 50th anniversary of the first film, should have ended there, however it’s another franchise. Craig is a good actor and he did in 2006 revitalise it as the Bourne series had made Bond look even more out of date. But many Bond fans objected at first to Craig due to his hair colour FFS!
So maybe the next one to play the role, as it is not going away, should be someone to maximise the anger for anyone who uses that stupid, meaningless term ‘woke’.

I am surprised the running time being an issue for you, Bond films are far from the only ones that are long.

Me, I will have a look out of curiosity when it soon finds it home here in the UK, on the lower rent terrestrial channel ITV where the whole series seems on permanent rotation, right place for them. Pay to see it? No way. The previous one to this, I cannot remember a thing about it. Craig had a good start but the next one apparently did not have a script when filming began!
Last time I saw a Bond film at the cinema was ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, I would have been 11 so enjoyed it, same year I saw the only Star Wars film, in any format, by the time of the next one I was in my teens and past that sort of film, another franchise of course.
Maybe Moore playing it for laughs was the best way to do it?

I just think it’s hilarious that these are taken seriously. The late, unlamented Rush Limbaugh got in a state when Idris Elba was briefly mooted as a future Bond, wonder why?
Against this you have LeCarre, an actual Cold War intelligence officer turned author, he never hid his contempt for Fleming and his Bond fantasies.

To be fair, I've never read LeCarre novels. I've only seen "The Russia House" with former bond Sean Connery which was a decent movie. Also, I was born in 82' and grew up on the old Connery and Mooore Bonds. Incidentally "The spy who loved me" was one of my favorites but again this can attributed to Roger Moore's affable demeanor and his movies being consistent with their silly tone which offset the plot holes. Also, in the interest of full disclose I'm of Asian Indian descent so I'm not some right wing red neck but I believe based on the original incarnation of the character Bond should be played by a white individual. If we "brown" , "black" or whatever people decided to have strong characters it should be written into an original screen play. And when it comes to "woke", I refer to people being ridiculously sensitive over any perceived slight. I grew up in Puerto Rico and was subjected to incessant ridicule for not looking like anyone else and initially not speaking accent free Spanish. Now I speak it better than most people. The point is I became thick skinned and even in college, I had diverse group of friends who could take a joke and we would usually refer to each other by an appropriate ethnic slur without it leading to anger

phugoid1982 wrote:

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke. As a person who has read Ian Fleming's books and been a hardcore fan since I was a kid, PCness and a post #me2 environment ruined it. Despite the fact that Die another day was the worst Bond movie I've ever seen, this was the first time I found myself checking my watch with its bloated runtime. Too little action and too much disjointed exposition. Not only that, the movie suffered from tonal dissonance with too many silly one liners, silly dialogue, a moronic plot, weak villain, and yet they tried to make a serious affecting ending "connecting everything". The problem is I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig. He's the worst Bond after dear old George Lazenby who's one movie they tried to evoke quite obviously in this one. Just so you know where I stand, Timothy Dalton was IMHO the best James Bond and Sean Connery is a very close second. Unlike Craig who is a steroid freak who can't express any emotion other than irritated, watch Dalton go through a gamut of emotions in "Licence to Kill" which is one of my favorite Bond movies along with "From Russia with Love". Also, I just have to say the problem with all of Craig's Bond movies is that I never have fun at them. Bond is escapist entertainment and it can be affecting but Crag's movies are so bland because of his acting I never come out excited. To be honest, the last Bond movie I had fun watching was "Tomorrow Never Dies" which although inferior to "Goldeneye" which I loved, was still a fun flick. Brosnan was a decent Bond comparable to a Roger Moore era where it was just pure escapist fare.No time to die just left me totally underwhelmed. As others of said, Paloma was the standout and I can't understand why didn't put more of her and less of the bland Nomi which was utterly forgettable. Also, from my hetero perspective, Craig is far too ugly and old looking with less than zero chemistry with Lea Seydoux for me to have been invested their relationship since Spectre. She looks young enough to be his daughter. At least in Casino Royale which was the only decent Craig Bond movie Vesper and he had a chemistry and a believable relationship

I agree with many of your points but what was exactly woke about it?

I tend to agree that the villain while played decently by Rami Malek the villain plot was just nonsensical and not totally original. I have seen the use of biological agents to wipe out people in a Bond movie already, in a Mission Impossible movie and countless others. World Takeover plots have literally all been used up in 2021 so originality I don't expect

Although you mention Tomorrow Never Dies which I think is very underrated and that one holds its age today very well.

This seemed more about Bond than the plot of the villain and Craig's movies are not those kind of movies that have that escapism mentality and while I have found them decent I have struggled to re-watch them. I can pop in a Brosnan or Moore movie and escape and be entertained easily, not so a Craig movie.

Another point a kind of agree is that yeah the Bond girls are too young relative to Craig. The other ones in previous movies were a lot older and while younger than Bond they weren't as you said young enough to be Bond's daughter. I like Bond to be a middle aged actor which a new actor will be and I think Henry Cavil or Tom Hardy are the frontrunners. Hardy is 44 and Cavill is 38. That is a decent age for a Bond actor but make the Bond Girls 35 and not 21.

Reinhardt wrote:

Ana de Armas - agreed she was great. It needed more of her.

I just made the connection that she starred in Knives Out with Craig.

I agree she should have gone on the missions with him and not Lashana Lynch.

northstardc4m wrote:

So as a lifelong die hard 007ite... I will say besides the fact i predicted the ending 30 seconds in thanks to the bars of We Have All the Time in the World...

It was ok... i give it a 5/10... to compare to other Bonds:

10/10: From Russia With Love, Thunderball
9/10: Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die
8/10: You Only Live Twice, Man with the Golden Gun, Goldeneye
7/10: Dr. No, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, The World is not Enough, Skyfall
6/10: Diamonds are Forever, View to A Kill, Casino Royale
5/10: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Tomorrow Never Dies, No Time To Die, *Never Say Never Again
4/10: Die Another Day
3/10: License to Kill, SPECTRE
2/10: Quantum of Solstice, *Casino Royale (1967)
1/10: Moonraker

I don't really care if you agree with my order

Moonraker has Concorde in it, could you really put it at the bottom?

Yes, James Bond in space is a step too far... Concorde, 747, LAX and Electra's not withstanding.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

northstardc4m wrote:

Yes, James Bond in space is a step too far... Concorde, 747, LAX and Electra's not withstanding.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Add in the Space Shuttle 2 years before it actually went on missions.

Arion640 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

So as a lifelong die hard 007ite... I will say besides the fact i predicted the ending 30 seconds in thanks to the bars of We Have All the Time in the World...

It was ok... i give it a 5/10... to compare to other Bonds:

10/10: From Russia With Love, Thunderball
9/10: Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die
8/10: You Only Live Twice, Man with the Golden Gun, Goldeneye
7/10: Dr. No, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, The World is not Enough, Skyfall
6/10: Diamonds are Forever, View to A Kill, Casino Royale
5/10: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Tomorrow Never Dies, No Time To Die, *Never Say Never Again
4/10: Die Another Day
3/10: License to Kill, SPECTRE
2/10: Quantum of Solstice, *Casino Royale (1967)
1/10: Moonraker

I don't really care if you agree with my order

Moonraker has Concorde in it, could you really put it at the bottom?

So? It was still a half baked attempt to latch on to the Star Wars bandwagon.
The aircraft was the ‘star’ of Airport 80, as being ex Concorde Engineering, that was a film of great unintentional hilarity, (on one shift in the late 90’s by chance on TV, it was playing and during breaks you could hear the laughter in the crewroom).
A BA one had a very brief cameo in the bold, brilliant, ahead of it’s time 1979 British gangster film ‘The Long Good Friday’, delivering underworld figure Harold Shand, played by the late, great Bob Hoskins, back to LHR after doing some business in NY.
This was also the film debut of a young Pierce Brosnan.
Take it away G-BOAC, took that one to NY in Sept 02;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCFwYbzZII

Brosnan on his role, WARNING, if you haven’t seen it and want to, spoilers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfg0iHqcbWc

Back to Bond, Danny Boyle left this latest one after clashing with the ‘keepers of the Bond’ legacy, in other words he likely did want to take it in another direction. Terence Young another Bond director, ended up doing a PR film for Saddam Hussain, depicting the young Saddam as a sort of revolutionary Bond like figure, with about as much reality to real events as Bond has with the civil servants who are the real MI6.

Tom Hardy? Yes but only if he plays it like Alfie Solomons from Peaky Blinders, you’d have to raise the rating to at least 15 but hell yes, I’d go and see that!
I note that for this latest Bond, they got a number of writers in to work on the script, (they had one this time at least), including Phoebe Waller-Bridge, best known for her transgressive comedy ‘Fleabag’, a friend who likes Bond, well more than me at least, and that comedy wondered ‘does that mean Bond gets to call someone a c**t?’
Apparently not though it might account for the stronger female roles?

Kiwirob wrote:

007 and James Bond are linked, they are one and the same character, messing with the formula would bomb like the all female Ghostbusters, or a female Dr Who, or now Indiana Jones being played by a female, you know it will fail even before the movie has been shot and released.

I have no idea why this current trend to feminise existing action heroes exists when we’ve had well established female action heroes for decades.

Ellen Ripley in Aliens, Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, Sarah Connor in the Terminator, Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider, Carrie Fisher as Leia, most of them in leading roles too. Well established characters in scripts that made them the hero and not have it obviously forced like the female Ghostbusters or Lashana Lynch in NTTD.

Even Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies kicked ass, in my opinion she was a bigger action star and better in that movie than Brosnan.

Moviegoers love a good female action hero, but I don’t think they appreciate a beloved franchise being rebooted with female characters replacing the lead. It’s patronising to audiences as all it will do is remind them of them precious superior version with male leads and give the Incels more things to complain about.

Why can’t Hollywood write an original script nowadays with a good female lead? I personally think it’s a travesty the planned standalone Wai Lin movie (Michelle Yeoh’s character in Tomorrow Never Dies) never came to fruition, that would’ve been an awesome flick, and easily a better successor to the series than Lashana Lynch as a possible new 007.

It’s also interesting that in the supposed age of “wokeness” and “strong women”, the Daniel Craig Bond Girls have been entirely unremarkable and forgettable. It’s the women of the previous “misogynist era Bonds” that have been the stand out characters with knowledge, skills, determination, courage and personality. Wai Lin, Pussy Galore, Melinda Havelock in For Your Eyes Only, Pam Bouvier in Licence to Kill, Octopussy (in Octopussy), Natalya and Xenia in Goldeneye are the standouts for me. None of them are just pieces of eye candy that are just written into the plot the give Bond a partner to hop into bed with. They’re decent characters of substance.

Ah come on, there was a black woman playing a 00 and Q made one short remark about being gay. And that's toooo woke for you? Most of modern Britain is incredibly diverse and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having either in a Bond film. What you should be complaining about is how useless a character she was.

The body count in this was certainly huge. Not sure if there wasn't enough action, there certainly were enough gun fights and killing.. maybe too much. Found it amusing the chaps in the Discovery's chasing bond in his old 4x4 didn't fire a single shot at the car..and all somehow managed to get wiped out.

For me Craig has played the perfect Bond. When he needs to go all out he does, and you get the real view his a pure killing machine. Yet you've also seen his softer side. I don't care if he doesn't fit the exact look that is portrayed in the books, we're well past that. Timothy Dalton I certainly agree was an under-rated Bond.

lightsaber wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

You have a certain expectation when you hear "James Bond."

That alone is a good enough explanation.

James Bond, aka 007 is an aspirational character who drinks his way through impossible situations with gorgeous, beautiful, brilliant women helping him.

lightsaber wrote:

None of my friends who saw the movie enjoyed it. No one wants to see there aspirational hero die; for then they are mortal and the movie magic is gone.

I enjoyed it right up to a few moments before I realised he was going to die.

This is from someone who, when my female friends didn't have a Halloween date, they would make me dress up as bond and they would go as bond girls and we all had a great time in my younger years.

lightsaber wrote:

As two female friends noted, there wasn't a bond girl they wanted to be this Halloween in this movie (yes, middle aged people play dress-up). Oh, these female friends all earned the title doctor and god help you if you don't realize they are brilliant and one used to compete every year for the California state Karate championship (we met in grad school), so don't confuse playing with reality). I'll pass seeing it.

Lightsaber

Polana played by Ana De Armas was a proper old school Bond girl. Your lady friends would have to look a certain way to dress up as her, not many women could pull it off.



image curtesy of https://www.007.com/no-time-to-die/nttd-b25_09602_rc2/

StarAC17 wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke. As a person who has read Ian Fleming's books and been a hardcore fan since I was a kid, PCness and a post #me2 environment ruined it. Despite the fact that Die another day was the worst Bond movie I've ever seen, this was the first time I found myself checking my watch with its bloated runtime. Too little action and too much disjointed exposition. Not only that, the movie suffered from tonal dissonance with too many silly one liners, silly dialogue, a moronic plot, weak villain, and yet they tried to make a serious affecting ending "connecting everything". The problem is I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig. He's the worst Bond after dear old George Lazenby who's one movie they tried to evoke quite obviously in this one. Just so you know where I stand, Timothy Dalton was IMHO the best James Bond and Sean Connery is a very close second. Unlike Craig who is a steroid freak who can't express any emotion other than irritated, watch Dalton go through a gamut of emotions in "Licence to Kill" which is one of my favorite Bond movies along with "From Russia with Love". Also, I just have to say the problem with all of Craig's Bond movies is that I never have fun at them. Bond is escapist entertainment and it can be affecting but Crag's movies are so bland because of his acting I never come out excited. To be honest, the last Bond movie I had fun watching was "Tomorrow Never Dies" which although inferior to "Goldeneye" which I loved, was still a fun flick. Brosnan was a decent Bond comparable to a Roger Moore era where it was just pure escapist fare.No time to die just left me totally underwhelmed. As others of said, Paloma was the standout and I can't understand why didn't put more of her and less of the bland Nomi which was utterly forgettable. Also, from my hetero perspective, Craig is far too ugly and old looking with less than zero chemistry with Lea Seydoux for me to have been invested their relationship since Spectre. She looks young enough to be his daughter. At least in Casino Royale which was the only decent Craig Bond movie Vesper and he had a chemistry and a believable relationship

I agree with many of your points but what was exactly woke about it?

I tend to agree that the villain while played decently by Rami Malek the villain plot was just nonsensical and not totally original. I have seen the use of biological agents to wipe out people in a Bond movie already, in a Mission Impossible movie and countless others. World Takeover plots have literally all been used up in 2021 so originality I don't expect

Although you mention Tomorrow Never Dies which I think is very underrated and that one holds its age today very well.

This seemed more about Bond than the plot of the villain and Craig's movies are not those kind of movies that have that escapism mentality and while I have found them decent I have struggled to re-watch them. I can pop in a Brosnan or Moore movie and escape and be entertained easily, not so a Craig movie.

Another point a kind of agree is that yeah the Bond girls are too young relative to Craig. The other ones in previous movies were a lot older and while younger than Bond they weren't as you said young enough to be Bond's daughter. I like Bond to be a middle aged actor which a new actor will be and I think Henry Cavil or Tom Hardy are the frontrunners. Hardy is 44 and Cavill is 38. That is a decent age for a Bond actor but make the Bond Girls 35 and not 21.

Reinhardt wrote:

Ana de Armas - agreed she was great. It needed more of her.

I just made the connection that she starred in Knives Out with Craig.

I agree she should have gone on the missions with him and not Lashana Lynch.

Yeah, I just meant Bond was totally outshone and emasculated by his female colleagues like Nomi who wasn't particularly good or bad and the lovely Paloma who really should have been a sidekick, and meant to feel relegated to the past. Also, he was far too sentimental in this movie and I absolutely loathed the scenes with the his daughter and he making her breakfast. My main beef is the movie was essentially a drama and not an action movie. I just think the Bond formula can be tweaked but there's a fine balance that should be maintained and here they crossed the line by veering too to the left to "get with the times" This is the same way Die Another Day veered way too much into self parody. Another issue I have with the "newer" Bonds is that "hacking" and other high tech has made screenwriters lazy. Q just hacks into something and sans explanation info is obtained and major plot point is resolved. If I had my way, I'd go back to a retro Bond and make it period piece set during the Cold War without cell phones and computers and even too many gadgets so Bond can rely on his wits. I think Cavill would be spectacular as he proved himself during "man from U.N.C.L.E" and the Misison Impossible movie. He's got the the looks and physique down and is good actor in his own right. Tom Hardy, while a good actor, just looks too thuggish for me and is reminiscent of Craig. After Brosnan was fired, I think they should've gone with Christian Bale who if I remember correctly loathed the character and refused to even want to play it. He could've easily shaken things up.

plus 1 for Henry Cavill, if the Man from U.N.C.L.E wasn't the best audition for Bond I don't know what else could be. This image just screams Bond.



image from https://www.timeout.com/news/dua-lipa-j ... ler-070921

Kiwirob wrote:

plus 1 for Henry Cavill, if the Man from U.N.C.L.E wasn't the best audition for Bond I don't know what else could be. This image just screams Bond.



image from https://www.timeout.com/news/dua-lipa-j ... ler-070921

Well that application path worked for Roger Moore...

Cavill wouldn't be my first choice but would work. I'd prefer Ben Barnes... Or Tom Hardy

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Only an occasional poster here but a long time Bond fan, and have seen all the films multiple times and read all the books.

I just saw the film Monday afternoon. I have to note I was already in a grumpy mood by the time the film started. It was posted as a 2:00 p.m. showtime but it didn’t start rolling until 2:26 after 25 minutes of preview after preview after preview. I heard some other patrons in the theater grumbling also and I suggest that theater owners be aware that they are annoying customers by going overboard with the previews.

My initial reaction is that this is not a great outing for the Bond team. The action scenes were spectacular, as always, but the overall story, or I should say stories, just didn’t make sense. (Not that Bond movies are supposed to make sense but for most if you can accept the premise at least the story hangs together.)

A few observations:

M - the head of MI6 seems helpless and passive with Q and Moneypenny being the ones who make things happen. Until the end when M orders the missiles be launched. Since when does the head of intelligence order military action? Ralph Fiennes has played M very effectively before so I fault the script not the actor.

Q - I like Ben Whishaw’s depiction of Q but in this film he spends far too much time simply sitting in front of computer monitors. We watch Bond films for action, great stunts, beautiful women, not for cyber-sleuthing. Also, when Bond asks for a big airplane, isn’t that beyond the brief of the equipment officer?

Nomi - I have no issue with a black woman having the 007 number. But the character simply doesn’t do very much double-0 stuff. And the script does absolutely nothing to develop the character. The early back and forth between her and Bond could have been entertaining but it was over with almost before it began.

Moneypenny - played well once again by Naomie Harris but mostly relegated to a background role, rather than being an integral part of the plot as in the last couple of movies.

Blofeld - played with appropriate creepiness but we never get an adequate explanation of how he manages to run SPECTRE from prison.

Safin - as the poster above mentioned it just didn’t quite work having two villains in the same movie. And the scene where he talks about the murder of his family was a bit overdrawn and unnecessary. Bond villains are just evil, no need to explain why. Also it made no sense to me why he suddenly lost interest in the little girl and let her go. I guess the script needed a way to reunite her with her mother but they should have found another way.

Madeleine - played in exactly the same way as in the previous film, i.e., a bit too vulnerable and sensitive to be the kind of kicka** Bond girl, or woman, we’ve gotten used to earlier in the franchise. She’s supposed to be a psychoanalyst and it would have been interesting to see her mentally eviscerate Blofeld in some way but instead she loses her nerve and can’t face him.

Paloma - now here’s the kind of kicka** woman the movie needed. Other than that dress. I mean sure she looked good in it but if you’re going into a situation where you may have to engage in martial arts combat and a gun battle is that really what you’d wear?

Leiter - the only reason I could tell for having him in the script at all was so he could be killed off. Nothing against Jeffrey Wright - I’ve always liked his depiction of Leiter.

Logan Ash - this character added nothing to the film that I could tell.

Bond - Daniel Craig played the part with his usual grit and hard edge. IMHO he’s been a good Bond but he’s getting a bit old for the part. I feel that over his movies the filmmakers have focused too much on exploring the character’s past and digging into his psyche, which may have made him a more complicated and perhaps interesting character, but it also detracted from just letting Bond be Bond.

Overall I would rate the movie 6 or 7 out of 10. Lots of points for the locations, the action sequences, the special effects. I think the acting was good throughout, given the script the actors had to work with. In short, a pretty good Bond film but not one of the greatest.

Having watched it today i can't say i see the need for any more fuss about who should be the next Bond or what a new Bond should look like. James Bond is dead & with him the named franchise is essentially finished too. Sure the producers can launch a new character but the book on James Bond is closed.

The movie could have been a good way to introduce a new 007 for the future but the producers blew it. Nomi really wasn't given much & as a result it's been a superficial acquaintance. If we ever see a new movie, which would be years away, that acquantance will have long faded away. If they would have put the parts of Nomi & Paloma together with some more time in the script then perhaps it would have gone some way to laying the foundations for a new 007.

MI6 - Seems a bit dulled & weak until a retired 00 returns to the office, a bit too easy if you ask me. Then having worked on Heracles for 10 years but not having any kind of way to counter it at all ? For something that could wipe out your entire organisation (like it did Spectre) that seems a bit naive.

Safin - As a villain i think there was much more potential with Rami Malek then the writers tapped into & so the character seems a bit bland & rushed. Same for the plot behind his actions. Wanting the world to evolve, fine. But there's nothing much on why & how to achieve that goal except seemingly just killing part of the planet's population. I guess he maybe had an issue with global overpopulation ?

The movie is another great showcase of locations, cars & action but in the end i'm just left feeling it's a rushed job to permanently get rid of James Bond. Having watched all of the James Bond movies with both my grandfathers (now passed) & father throughout the years it feels like the end of an era. I'll give it a 6 out of 10 and that feels a bit generous. The actors did great but the writers wasted their resources. I really wanted it to have been better.

I've watched NTTD twice. The first time around I was very sleepy... suffered from insomnia the entire night before.

Good:

- visuals
- camera work
- the long intro sequence
- the title, picking up details from a few previous films
- those reprises of Louis Armstrong's last song

Bad:

- No, that nanobot idea isn't going to work. At all. (Biologist here. Can't turn my mind off.)
- No, not again a villain that is hell-bent on killing most of humanity. Creating a credible genocidal maniac is very difficult.
- No, James Bond is not a special forces operative. James Bond does not enter a villain's lair with deadly force.

I have to say that I'm kinda satisfied that the movie is underperforming at the box office ,although mostly due COVID. I read that it has to make $900 million just to break even. It's projected to make far less than that and less than SPECTRE. It might be the first Bond film not to turn a profit. Even "Licence to Kill", which underperformed, grossed three times its budget. Maybe this will force the writers to go back to the basics rather than over bloated melodrama

phugoid1982 wrote:

I have to say that I'm kinda satisfied that the movie is underperforming at the box office ,although mostly due COVID.

I haven't really seen anything about the performance so far but that would just be more saddening. So much potential & writers and producers have let it go to waste. I would have always said that a Bond movie is one that has to be seen on the big screen, a guaranteed money maker, because it delivers a 2+ hours worth of adventure that takes you into an extravagant other world of intrige, action & adventure.

Barbara Broccoli & Michael Wilson should just be upfront and call this Bond's finale.

phugoid1982 wrote:

I have to say that I'm kinda satisfied that the movie is underperforming at the box office ,although mostly due COVID. I read that it has to make $900 million just to break even. It's projected to make far less than that and less than SPECTRE. It might be the first Bond film not to turn a profit. Even "Licence to Kill", which underperformed, grossed three times its budget. Maybe this will force the writers to go back to the basics rather than over bloated melodrama

Stealing nuclear weapons from a Vulcan is a pretty bloated melodrama, as is a group of brainwashed young women who will spread a disease across Britain. Or trying to start world war by stealing nuke submarines and firing their weapons against major cities, or the two excursions into space (You Only Live Twice and Moonraker).

cpd wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

I have to say that I'm kinda satisfied that the movie is underperforming at the box office ,although mostly due COVID. I read that it has to make $900 million just to break even. It's projected to make far less than that and less than SPECTRE. It might be the first Bond film not to turn a profit. Even "Licence to Kill", which underperformed, grossed three times its budget. Maybe this will force the writers to go back to the basics rather than over bloated melodrama

Stealing nuclear weapons from a Vulcan is a pretty bloated melodrama, as is a group of brainwashed young women who will spread a disease across Britain. Or trying to start world war by stealing nuke submarines and firing their weapons against major cities, or the two excursions into space (You Only Live Twice and Moonraker).

So, "Thunderball" was my favorite Bond movie as a kid and I especially loved the scenes with the Vulcan as a plane nut. As for OHMSS, Lazenby and the gorgeously talented Diana Rigg, despite whatever animosity may have existed, shared far more chemistry than Craig and Seydoux as I stated earlier and thus romance from OHMSS was far more plausible. Roger Moore also had chemistry with Barbara Bach and Lois Chiles which mitigated the sillier aspects of the "They Spy Who loved me" and "Moonraker". Incidentally, I find the soundtrack for Moonraker to be one of John Barry's best, especially the "Pyramid" sequence.

I had an opportunity to watch the film last night, and all things considered, not a bad effort. Though I wasn't a big fan of the daisy-chain storyline for the Craig Bond films. I tend to prefer more of the individual stories like Goldfinger and the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond film series.

Though this was a film designed for the die-hard fans who have watched all of the films since Dr. No. Lots of references and tropes to the past movies, and they even brought in old-school puns post-kill which were really not a feature in the Craig Bond films.

I will say there were several points during the movie which had my head scratching:
-Plot holes with the cyclops henchman: In the beginning of the movie, he was working for Spectre, but somehow ended up working for Safin?
-Also the MiGs that were attacking the RAF C-17 with Q inside it at the climax of the film all of a sudden disappeared? Same with the unidentified boats closing in on Safin's island
-Nomi/New 007 and Paloma's character were underdeveloped, and we didn't get to see more of Paloma after the Cuba scenes. IMO both characters were overshadowed by Madeleine Swann and her child. Nomi and Paloma probably should have been in a different Bond movie.
-I also would have liked to have seen more character development with the lab technician villain who was the driving force behind by the nanbots, which is more of a character we would have seen in the Brosnan Bond films. I recognize the man is not a physically imposing, but could have put up some fight against Nomi rather than being unceremoniously dumped into that poison pool.

phugoid1982 wrote:

So, I watched the movie last night and ended up coming home and punching a wall. I hated it. It was insanely woke.

The producers managed to go through the entire Craig Bond films with no female villain/henchwoman, so you have that going for inequality .

flyingturtle wrote:

- No, James Bond is not a special forces operative. James Bond does not enter a villain's lair with deadly force.

..... by himself. He has done before of course.

Yes it's just a bond film but you're right. There is no way he would go there by himself with only Nomi. What's worse (and again about her character), when it's clear it would need her most was when he was to go back in to open the roof doors, she went off on the boat with Madeleine. You had Royal Navy ships about to launch a strike (by the way what was the monumental hurry?) , they could have destroyed the small ships which just vanished. And all they did was send in two 00's, which ended up being 1? What about all the other 00's if you don't want to send in a whole special forces unit.

You've got to at least make it a bit more believable, especially as it was setup to kill him off.

stratable wrote:

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

Funny, Casino Royal was my first Bond, Niven was great as the original Bond. Jacqueline Bisset and Ursula Andress, great.

Reinhardt wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

- No, James Bond is not a special forces operative. James Bond does not enter a villain's lair with deadly force.

..... by himself. He has done before of course.

Yes it's just a bond film but you're right. There is no way he would go there by himself with only Nomi. What's worse (and again about her character), when it's clear it would need her most was when he was to go back in to open the roof doors, she went off on the boat with Madeleine. You had Royal Navy ships about to launch a strike (by the way what was the monumental hurry?) , they could have destroyed the small ships which just vanished. And all they did was send in two 00's, which ended up being 1? What about all the other 00's if you don't want to send in a whole special forces unit.

You've got to at least make it a bit more believable, especially as it was setup to kill him off.

Since when is James Bond about realism, this is why we all love Bond.

He's a spy, he is capable of flying a plane both props and jets, a helicopter, a tank, knows how to ski at a professional level etc.
The raid at the end is really no different that things he has done in other films.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

stratable wrote:

I thought it fit nicely into the Craig saga. I am a bit younger so Casino Royale was the first Bond I saw in theatres.
Having seen all the older movies I can understand why this film in particular might be too "human".
That being said, I enjoyed it but would have hoped for a happy ending.

What I didn't understand is why they even introduced Safin. Blofeld could have been used for that. Now both Blofeld and Safin felt underutilized.
Even though I find Blofeld a bit too over the top in terms of dialogue.

Funny, Casino Royal was my first Bond, Niven was great as the original Bond. Jacqueline Bisset and Ursula Andress, great.

Hah nice! You got me there!
I tried watching the 1967 version but I don't have the patience for it. Coming off the 2006 film and then going back is rough.
Had the same thing with Nightmare on Elm Street. Watched the remake before the original. Oh well, my mistake.

From what it seems like production for the 1967 film was a mess, and I gotta say that films generally don't tend to age well.
Wonder what people will say about the Daniel Craig films in 20 or 30 years..