The James Bond thread

[Carol Baynes]

Ahh, I've been expecting you!

The new James Bond film "Quantum of solace" has now arrived at cinemas in the UK. The 22nd film to be released by Albert R. Broccoli's EON Productions, and the 23rd overall if you count Kevin McClory's "Never say, never again" (counting 1967's swinging spoof "Casino Royale" or the 1954 TV adaptation of the same novel would be pushing it though, I think! )

Anyway, I have seen it and I'm due Lissa a review for The Vervoid site (along with belated reviews for "Die another day" and "Casino Royale"). Considering the other reviews are from 2003-04 it's time I pulled my finger out!

All I'll say for now is I was dissapointed with elements of QOS and that I feel slightly alienated by certain aspects of the 'new direction' the series is going in. I think Timothy Dalton was far more Fleming's literary James Bond than Daniel Craig is as well, regardless as to what seems to be fashionable to say at the moment. I also view Tim as the best screen Bond alongside Sean (for different reasons), Daniel is great, don't get me wrong, but I sometime sfelt liek he wasn't James Bond, even if this is the arc of his early career.

More from me soon then, but in the meantime have you seen it and what do you think?

[Rob McCow]

Interesting - we just watched Casino Royale to get us in the mood for this, which we'll go and see some time in the next week or two.

The reviews seem to be saying that it's quite bleak and Daniel Craig isn't being humorous enough. I actually found him very funny in Casino Royale. Instead of killing a bad guy and making a quip, he just gives a look. He is the Terminator!

Still, the action sequences alone look fantastic in Quantum of Solace. So that'll carry us through.

[Si Hunt]

I'm looking forward to seeing it too, perhaps next weekend. I enjoyed "Casino Royale" simply because it was an exciting, expensively made action film. I don't really care that the franchise seems to be moving away from the "staples" of Bond. Let's face it, if you want to see an "old style" Bond film there are plenty to choose from on DVD.

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

We went to see this on Friday & it is very dark & not at all funny.
It continues on from where the last one ended & follows Bond on his traumatic journey from love through despair & out the other side. The are no gadgets to speak of mainly because Bond isn't on 'official' business & there for has no MI5 support. Making his own way to the 'villain' he actually proves himself to M better than a sanctioned job would have done.

It's a good film but it did feel a little bit disjointed at times & jumped around a bit with no real narrative to tell you how he found out where to go or how he arrived there...the final hotel scene especially.
So all in all a good film but not brilliant, no match for the Bourne films at any rate...which is the new bench mark for this sort of film for me.

7/10 Bond, not bad.

[Carol Baynes]

I'm looking forward to seeing it too, perhaps next weekend. I enjoyed "Casino Royale" simply because it was an exciting, expensively made action film. I don't really care that the franchise seems to be moving away from the "staples" of Bond. Let's face it, if you want to see an "old style" Bond film there are plenty to choose from on DVD.

Si.

Hmmm...think about how you'd feel about "Doctor Who" if the 'staples' of the series were tampered with or junked, and you might start to see how I might dislike the changes. Imagine no TARDIS or having The Doctor's origins revised for no apparantly good reason. Because Bond is also a literary character I would argue you have to remain somewhat close to that version or you may as well start a new series with a totally different character- as it is the 'Bond' connection will put bums on seats. EON are getting a lot right with this 'new' direction, in my view, but a lot wrong as well.

[Carol Baynes]

Apologies to anyone reading the new review of "Die another day" on Vervoid. It's full of typos! I shall get a fresh copy to Lissa (who maybe hasn't read it )

[Andrew Curnow]

It's a good review though, Carol, that's what counts! For reasons lost to the mists of time, I actually watched DAD at the cinema (I'm 99% certain it's the only Bond film I went to the pictures to see, rather than watch it on the TV) and I seem to recall quite enjoying it. Having said that, I can't remember how the story ends at all, and I don't recall being that blown away by Rupert Graves (or whoever) who plays the big baddie. He was a bit too sneery for my tastes.

I agree about his lady assistant though, very nice - and also, wasn't this film remarked upon at the time as being the first (only?) Bond film to actually show Bond having sex (as opposed to just before & after...)? Or is that some dream I had?

[Captain Tancredi]

I couldn't see any serious ones(and still can't), but then I suppose I'm very sensitive to my own stylistic errors such as repeating clauses within the same (or consecutive) sentences.

To be honest, the current trend for taking Bond away from the traditional style is one of the reasons why Daniel Craig's films don't appeal to me and I haven't seen them. If you don't have that knowingness and the quips and double-entendres then it just becomes another big action film and you may as well use an original character. Having read the book of Goldfinger a few years back, there are very good reasons why you wouldn't want Bond to be totally faithful to the books, not least Fleming's racial and sexual politics, but the thing is that over four decades, Bond has accumulated a set of expectations and sometimes it can be dangerous to go too far from what your audience expects.

[Jeff]

This was just released here on Friday and has had probably the best ever box office for a bond film with $70 mil total. I read the previous best was Die Another Day with $49M.

I was planning to see this on Saturday (I was even listening to the QoS soundtrack as well as my collection of Bond title themes and Prague Symphony collection of Bond music all week in preparation), but my Mother in law hurt her back this past week and couldn't watch the kids. Hopefully this weekend I will be able to see it.

So instead I watched Live and Let Die on DVD Saturday night.

Having read all of Flemings novels back to back over the past year, I have to say I was struck by just how unlike the Fleming character Moore's Bond is. Having watched all of Connery's films and OHMSS recently I could appreciate the character differences of those films as I read... I once remarked, to Wayne's amusement (if I recall correctly), that when Moore was Bond there was no need for an Austin Powers because Moore's films were taking the piss out of the genre enough as it was. I've always though tof LALD as one of Moore's better Bond efforts, so it was especially striking comparing Sheriff Pepper's "Seeeecret Ageeeent? On Whooooo's SIDE?!" with anything of recent times... Especially Casino Royale.

Still, although I know Moore's era takes a lot of flak, I prefer to enjoy his Bond for what it is rather than what it isn't, and what it is is fun. I especially enjoyed the chase scenes, and although the humor doesn't fit my idea of a Bond film, it at least didn't fall flat.

[WhiteCrow]

I think Timothy Dalton was far more Fleming's literary James Bond than Daniel Craig is as well, regardless as to what seems to be fashionable to say at the moment. I also view Tim as the best screen Bond

Timothy Dalton was superb on screen. The direction of his Bond was a real different direction from the way Roger Moore's series had sunk to. Dalton is probably one of the best actors to have played him so far. But a lot of the more iconic moments belong to Sean Connery.

It was really good in Looney Tunes Back In Action to see Timothy back in a Bond-esque role. He was one of the best things in a superb, fan-pleasing movie. [Hello - Daleks on screen!]

[Kaybee Bailey]

I do like these new Bond films, but I kind of look at them separately from the rest. It's just about plausible that the other five actors who have played Bond could be representing the same person in some way, although obviously the chronology issues are infinite. But Craig's Bond is a different person for me, and that's not something I was keen on. But anyway, looking at Quantum of Solace as a movie rather than a Bond movie...

I enjoyed it more than Casino Royale, I think. The action was satisfying, even if the various chase sequences did saturate the narrative somewhat. I liked Camille as a character and though that the actress who played her did a good job, and that the emotional parallels between her and Bond were pretty powerful in some ways. My only disappointment was that the story barely moved on from the end of Casino Royale - at least not for the audience. I don't think we know a hell of a lot more about the bad guys, except perhaps that the writers are going for something along the lines of Spectrum. Maybe.

I guess the thing which will make this film successful is the fact it can stand on its own as an action movie. But I'm not sure it always feels as close to Bond as I'd like.

[Jeff]

I've read that they don't intend for the current Bond to be fully realized as a character until the end of the third movie in this 'trilogy', due out in 2011. Perhaps Craig will be a bit more like the old Bond in his 4th and 5th movies.

[Alex]

Still, although I know Moore's era takes a lot of flak, I prefer to enjoy his Bond for what it is rather than what it isn't, and what it is is fun. I especially enjoyed the chase scenes, and although the humor doesn't fit my idea of a Bond film, it at least didn't fall flat.

Moore's Bond has always been my favourite, I suppose like Who it's because he was the actor I grew up with in the role, but like you I enjoy the classic chases, and the humour. There a million and one grumpy arsed action heroes out there, so it made for a change to see a more cheeky take on the genre. That said, I can understand those who've read the books / grew up with a more serious Bond in Connery and don't like Moore's take on it.

As for the new films, well I thought Casino Royale was okay but nothing that special, and I can't be arsed to pay London cinema prices and see this new one, especially after the mixed reviews, so will probably wait until it's on dvd or tv.

[Lissa]

Apologies to anyone reading the new review of "Die another day" on Vervoid. It's full of typos! I shall get a fresh copy to Lissa (who maybe hasn't read it )

To be fair to me, the problems affecting certain punctuation marks on the main forums also affect PMs so I had a lot of ?s to correct. Would that the rest of DAD was so easily fixed.

Today I saw a Bond film at the cinema for the first time in TWENTY ONE YEARS~!

[Martin Penny]

I liked 'Quantum of Solice', and I'm enjoying the reboot of the series. There are things I wish it had kept though, mainly Q or Moneypenny - but I like how Bond is developing over the course of the films, rather than being the slightly ridiculous pun cracking killer he was sometimes portrayed as in previous installments.

I think the biggest fault with the film was that it felt very much like the middle part of a trilogy, and didn't seem to progress the story very far; feeling much more like an epilogue to 'Casino Royale'.

[Lissa]

Q of S was half a dozen huge, high spot packed, explosive, insanely fast action sequences. After the last one everyone just went home. Are we really happy to have Bond tell someone to destroy the dams later? Shouldn't the finale have been Bond destroying the dam and billions of gallons of CGI water flooding back into the thirsty lives of the good folk of Bolivia?

It felt like they made a 135 minute film and someone from upstairs came along and said "No - take out 30 minutes" and they removed just about everything which didn't move at a hundred miles an hour.

Maybe it just seemed worse because I'm not used to watching films like this on the big screen.

It says a lot (about whom I don't know) that my favourite scene was the one where the chap was explaining the tagged money to M. That touch sensitive coffee table was just gorgeous. I want one. It's like furniture bred with an iPhone and made an iHome. Mine mine mine.

[Ralph]

The level of enjoyment on this Bond I think depends on what you look for in a Bond movie. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Bond movies on their ITV premiers from the mid 70s through to the 80s. It truly was a major TV event which never failed to impress me Sure there were diminishing returns towards the end of the Moore years from Moonraker onwards but overall until Timothy Dalton the 007 mark was most certainly there on all of these movies.

Dalton brought it back to a more serious note from the latter light hearted Moore Bonds but with Licence to Kill I thought it started to move away from all that I loved in Bond. I think Licence to Kill was the turning point where the sparkle and fun gave way to a more heavy handed Bond style It was an enjoyable action movie but while still with many of the Bond Trade marks I felt the cheesy touches that made me smile with admiration throughout the series were starting to give way to the need to appease the needs of modern audiences who appeared to desire serious action rather than simply fun action.

Out in these changing times is Bond unzipping his wetsuit to unveil a immaculate tux , driving out of the Ocean on to the Beach in a sports car casually dropping a fish out the window, racing across the desert in a moon buggy, or how about walking across to the top of the external lift in his smoking jacket in Las Vegas cooly sniffing the flower in his lapel. Then there was Q who added to the fun with all those amazing gadgets, those classic Bond throwaway quips, Money Penny swooning over Bond and of course fabulous iconic incidental music which was the hallmark that 007 was on full throttle. Not to forget all those fantastic title tracks!

Well I guess by the time it got to Licence to Kill the old magical formula had probably been milked dry a bit and so I accepted the change to serious Bond and the franchise starting to look like action films generally of the era. Indeed this Bond was given an 18 certificate such was the violence, no longer a family event.

Since Dalton, Brosnan returned I think with a return to more classic Bond with Goldeneye but sadly I started to get bored after that when it seemed to be an exercise in marketing products as much as making a movie

So with this background I watched Daniel Craig's second outing which is a good action film but that's what it is, not a Bond movie in the tradition of the franchise. OK I accept to repeat the old formula is probably not the way forward to keep the franchise fresh.

The action sequences in QOS move so fast that you can't really seeing whats going on and if this keeps up in another 10 years we will simply be presented with a blur and lots of noise On a few occasions when the action was slowed I enjoyed the movie more. It's clearly no longer about set pieces and colourful villains but now complex plots (perhaps incorporated for the DVD era and repeated viewings) with some serious drama between breakneck action sequences. Where is the fun? Where is the humour? not much I'm afraid? it would appear the Mick Myers piss take has put paid to the more light hearted style? pity but I suppose it was inevitable

How about the incidental music? bland as can be! John Barry's scores are greatly missed as far as I'm concerned. For me the score in an action movie is a really integral part and part of the magic which is 007. Can you remember the title track? Yes I thought not! Bond himself is no longer immaculate, we can't have that! - now he's got to look dangerous and grimy in these darker times Craig may look more dangerous than previous Bonds but he's certainly not in my mind the smooth gentlemanly charmer with a dangerous edge when required of past.

OK so you'll probably tell me stick to the old movies and yes I agree they'll always retain their special magic for me and it's a delight to see them all lovingly restored for the DVD era. I grudgingly accept current audiences appear to need break neck speed action sequences but I don't? I like action but speeding up the action doesn't impress me much. Less is more. And of course we don't need colourful villains anymore, dull realistic ones will do nicely - this is serious Bond you know....

So yes this movie is doing well at the box office but it doesn't mean it's great Bond.

As a Bond Movie I give it 5/10 as an action movie I give it 7/10.

[Dirk Gently]

Q of S was half a dozen huge, high spot packed, explosive, insanely fast action sequences. After the last one everyone just went home. Are we really happy to have Bond tell someone to destroy the dams later? Shouldn't the finale have been Bond destroying the dam and billions of gallons of CGI water flooding back into the thirsty lives of the good folk of Bolivia?

It felt like they made a 135 minute film and someone from upstairs came along and said "No - take out 30 minutes" and they removed just about everything which didn't move at a hundred miles an hour.

Maybe it just seemed worse because I'm not used to watching films like this on the big screen.

It says a lot (about whom I don't know) that my favourite scene was the one where the chap was explaining the tagged money to M. That touch sensitive coffee table was just gorgeous. I want one. It's like furniture bred with an iPhone and made an iHome. Mine mine mine.

I must admit that I agree with you, Lissa. The film just didn't flow in any way. It just lurched from one event to another & there was just no storyline to take us to the last 'confrontation'. It was entertaining but at the expense of any coherent story.

[Jeff]

That's a problem with trilogies though, isn't it? The Matrix 2 for instance; it didn't really end, it just stopped until the next one. I seem to recall the same feeling with the first LotR movie...

[Dirk Gently]

But the difference here is that there is no narrative where as in LotR you know why people are where they are. I followed the story from the first film fine but near the end of QoS the narrative breaks down a far as I can see.

[Jeff]

I haven't seen it yet, so I'll have to take your word on it until I'm better informed.

[Carol Baynes]

To be fair to me, the problems affecting certain punctuation marks on the main forums also affect PMs so I had a lot of ?s to correct. Would that the rest of DAD was so easily fixed.

I hope you mean the film and not my review!

Today I saw a Bond film at the cinema for the first time in TWENTY ONE YEARS~!

You saw "The Living Daylights" at the cinema perhaps? Good choice!

[Carol Baynes]

I'd just like to add to Jeff's comments about Roger Moore and saw that I love Roger's interpretation (and I'm generally very positive about him in the Vervoid reviews). I am a fan of the literary Bond, and while Moore isn't particularly much like it, he's perhaps not always as far from it as people like to bleat on.
His long tenure in the role unfortunatly had the time to go through both great highs and great lows. His best film is arguably "The spy who loved me", with "Live and let die" an over-rated contender, and "Moonraker" and "For your eyes only" as under-rated contenders. The latter a welcome attempt to towards a grittier Fleming-friendly Moore film. Interestingly the graveyard scene at the beginning of the film (and the date on Tracy's grave) have Roger actually playing a man far closer to his own age than had previously been explicit. However with parts of "Octopussy" and "A view to a kill", the silliness returned for one last bow.
Incase you wonder why I've left out "The man with the golden gun"...er...read my review! There are far worse Bond films to be fair, it's got Chris Lee in it for starters!

[Wayne]

Interesting comments from everyone, including one of Ralph's biggest ever posts ever!
I'm a Connery man myself, but i've recently acquired all the Bond films up to & including 'Casino Royale', so i'll be watching 'em all in order sometime soon. Including many post Moonraker films which i've either not seen before, or not seen for aeons.

[Ralph]

Thanks Wayne - it's a subject I enjoy talking about

I'm going to enjoy reading your thoughts on the classic Bonds and how it's evolved over the years