Spectre (Bond 24)

astrofool wrote: »

Quantum of Solace basically had no villain, scream loudly and axe my own foot guy doesn't really count.

(and no, it didn't really work)

I enjoyed this film but there was no villain as such. Or plot. Bond was fighting an organisation like Irish Water rather than ISIS!

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

Possibly more to basics with FRWL like?!?!?

Every time a new Bond film comes along, comparisons to older ones are inevitable. True, From Russia with Love was the second in the series and still one of its very best entries. Full of action, believable storylines and with Connery at his best, this set in motion for what was to come. Goldfinger came next and was another excellent entry. Dr No was a solid beginning but pales compared to FRWL and Goldfinger.

Already even by Thunderball, comparisons were being made and it is not perceived to be as good as its two predecessors. Although I don't see why this is the perception as it continues the excellence. You only live twice perhaps was the first to stray from Ian Fleming's original book a bit but both the film (more lighthearted than the revenge based book) and the book (a film of Bond focused on revenge for the killing of his wife like the YOLT book did was not made and was badly needed) were both excellent. On her majesty's secret service was almost identical to the book and is underrated mainly for 2 reasons: Connery is replaced and Bond does not win this time: he loses his wife in a hitman attack by his enemies at the film's end which was more of a Love/Hate ending than a Bond ending in style.

After this, the series kind of lost its way a little. Diamonds are forever had its moments but was too lighthearted as a follow up to its darker predecessor. As said, a revenge focused film was needed here and DAF was more a lighthearted action meets comedy film. Either was, it was Connery's last for a long time. Live and let die was Roger Moore's first and arguably best film. A non-nonsense thriller, it contrasted starkly with his next entries. The man with the golden gun was perhaps the weakest entry of the earlier Bonds. Not much action, not much of a plot (Scaramanga just seems to want to use solar power!) and copies of everything from Smokie and the Bandit to Bruce Lee, it was a long way from Ian Fleming's excellent last full book of the same name.

Then, the remakes kind of started. The spy who loved me was a good action film but it was Blofeld and SPECTRE revamped. Thunderball, YOLT and OHMSS rolled into one? Yes. Moonraker was TSWLM meets Star Trek/Star Wars complete with a SPECTRE-type enemy set in space. Again, a good action film but formulaic.

After this, attempts were made to bring the series back to basics. For your eyes only seemed to be an attempt to capture the feel of FRWL and it was a good entry. Octopussy was a good action film and worked well to combine Moore's two styles of film: TSWLM and FYEO. Obviously, the cold war was thawing by these films and the West and USSR helped each other out: Bond kills the bad Afghan exile but the good Russians take out the bad Russian general. A view to a kill sees Moore's Bond tired and largely out of the action. A good film but it was the villain Max Zorin who stole the show. Zorin shooting his own men with a machine gun went further than before in terms of violence. Never say never again meanwhile saw a remake of Thunderball and albeit good, it seemed that remakes seemed to be too common in this era.

Timothy Dalton took over next in The Living Daylights, an excellent film which again focused on bad v good struggles within Russia's establishment. The Afghan civil war features of course and the film had a Fleming feel to it. Licence to kill came next. A great film albeit one with more Miami Vice than Bond.

Pierce Brosnan's Goldeneye perhaps was the first ever not to have some Fleming basis. LTK was not a Fleming title but was based on a few Fleming short stories. Bond at last goes to Russia and the feel is part Roger Moore and part regular 1990s action film overall. Overall, I like. Tomorrow never dies was perhaps the best Brosnan Bond entry and overall had the feel of YOLT. The next 2 entries were poor: The world is not enough seemed to lack something and bordered on a silliness not seen in years. Much worse was Die another day with its invisible cars and North Koreans turning into English noblemen in disguise. Definitely, the worst entry.

Casino Royale then changed things. Daniel Craig's Bond was refreshing and revamped things after Brosnan had lost his way from 2 strong to 2 poor entries. Excellent action and updated but loyal to Fleming's original book, one can't help but wonder why it took so long to have this entry? A silly 1960s comedy version of CR does not count. Quantam of solace was a good action entry and a sure favourite of anti-Irish Water people! The enemy seemed to be only intent on accumulating water. John Tierney v 007 anyone!! It lacked a real plot but with all the explosive action, it kind of got away scot free with its poor storyline. Did not see Skyfall yet.

conorhal wrote: »

Quantam of Solace gets a bad wrap but it's really 'part 2' of Casino Royale. I like to think of it as a film that really needs to be watched directly after it's predecessor rather then a film in it's own right.

I have to say that I liked the 'Bourne-ing' of the series, while not quite breath of fresh air, it dispensed with the baggage and most of the really improbable and downright silly guff that had jut become cliche by that point of the series, which is why I really could not stand Skyfall, yes it was an anniversary Bond so of course there were going to be nods the rest of the series, but it's stupid villians with their overly elaborate and ill concieved plots, over the top stunt work and indestructible Bond felt like a step backwards rather then forwards.

I agree with this. Quantom of Solace is a sequel and needs to be viewed with a knowledge of Casino Royale. It is overall a great action film and has the distinction of being one of the shortest in the series too.

Before CR, the series had lost its way. There had been poor entries in the series (The man with the golden gun, The world is not enough) but nothing prepared us for Die another day. Not even the comedy CR from 1967. Die another day with invisible cars, North Korean English villains, a silly fencing sword fight and cliches from Dr No and other films, it really did feel like a bad ending to a great series back in 2002. While other entries were poor (meaning they were not the best but had some redeeming feature: a good chase, a good fight, a standout shootout, a good pretitle, a good villain or something), this thing had nothing to offer and is the only Bond film that is totally bad imo. Thankfully CR came along and rescued the series.

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

The Brosnan films, apart from Goldeneye, are the worst in the series. From such a promising start they nosedived horribly.

I like Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies. Then, The World is not enough was very poor but Die another day took bad Bond film to a whole new dimension. I think the series was brave in 1987 when Timothy Dalton brought a new feel to things. But after License to kill, they got cold feet and went back to a film with the feel of Octopussy or The Spy Who loved me with Goldeneye (a good entry but very different to its more gritty 2 predecessors). While Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies had the feel of one of Roger Moore's better films, The world is not enough had the feel of a poor 1990s formulaic action movie. And Die another day took things to a new level entirely. But why? How did the series nosedive so quickly back then?? But it takes a bad Bond film to have a good one. Everyone knew that Die another day was a misfire and the decision was either to end the series or reinvent.

No excuses can be made either for Brosnan's 2 last films: the actor was not getting old, he was not jaded out by Bond (he only made 4 films, the last 2 of which were the worst in the entire series) and he could not blame them as a product of the times (which can be used for The golden gun or for anyone who does not care for Moonraker).

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Die Another Die is the only movie that made me walk out of a cinema. It was that bad.

It is an awful film. I watched it several times and tried to like it or see something good in it (The world is not enough is my second least favourite but even here, there's not much good but it has a few ok moments whereas Die another day has nothing). At the start, we have a poor homage to POW and Rambo type films with a deshevelled Bond locked in a prison camp. Then he gets out in a prisoner swap and we get repeats of the plots of Moonraker, Diamonds are forever, Goldfinger and others as well as direct copies of scenes from Dr No and others. Then, its invisible cars, silly sword fights and silly chameleon villains. The climax is also boring and an anticlimax (as was the case with The world is not enough) plus the film is overlong. Brosnan seemed not all that pushed about his role either. Poor, poor Bond film (in direct comparison, The man with the golden gun is a classic) and one of the worst films of its era and type.

new bond movie called spectre

fantastic cast also announced christoph waltz, andrew scott and of course wwe wrestler dave batista