f13.net

is apparently going to be directed by Sam Mendes (http://cinemablend.com/new/Sam-Mendes-Will-Direct-Bond-23-16399.html)

 :headscratch:

Eh, James Bond is just a Sam Fisher knock-off, anyway.

Sky, stop being retarded.

lol gotta admit that was the funniest one.

When it takes someone like 4 tries to get something funny, it's not funny anymore. He should waste his energy at open mic with a bunch of other aging hipster metal burnouts instead of trying his jokes on f13. :oh_i_see:

Not to derail (or maybe I'm setting it back on track), but I guess Mendes is like the new "it" guy (not really new, but he keeps confirming it) for character study or some shit. As for whether he has the chops for action, I don't know. The closest I think of his that might be action was Road to Perdition, but I don't remember a lot about that movie. And Jarhead was sort of the anti-action action movie.

I see this announcement as a response to "Quantum of Solace" - after a great start in "Casino Royale", things sort of fizzled.

Or is Mendes a friend of Craig?

"Road to Perdition" did have some neat action scenes, but they were very art-y. Don't know if that will work in a Craig Bond movie.

Solace was fine for the first hour or so - but that ending set piece was super stupid. I don't know that Mendes is the best guy for action, but it can't be worse than the exploding hydrogen hotel.

Solace had the worst fucking camera work for any action movie I think I've ever watched. I can handle shaky camera Bourne stuff ok but I hadn't got a fucking clue most of the time what was going on in Solace because they insisted on switching perspective every 2 seconds when anything was happening. I'd barely figured out what I was looking at by the time it had switched and it would do that for the whole fucking scene. Mendes cannot do any worse unless he decides to shoot the scenes from 4 miles away and uses shaky cam.

Solace's shaky cam was the worst shaky cam in modern action flicks, period. Even the Solace plot wasn't terrible, really. The shaky cam took a so-so flick and basically dumped into the toilet of forgettable.

Live again!

The good news: The movie is back on and due for Fall 2012 release with the title Skyfall, they started shooting today, this isn't tied to Casino or Solace, and Albert Finney is in it somewhere, and who doesn't love Albert Finney?!

The news that annoys me: James Bond can now be found on twitter. Fuck twitter.

msn link (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45149036/ns/today-entertainment/) and yahoo link (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/the-projector/james-bond-press-conference-confirms-skyfall-finally-coming-132244752.html#more-15224)

Javier Bardem could be a pretty awesome Bond villain.

I hope they can get the franchise back on track, I would love to see Idris Elba and Tom Hardy playing bond sometime.

(http://i.imgur.com/f3AE2.jpg) (http://imgur.com/f3AE2)

Still the best dressed character in pretty much any film ever.

Some more stills (http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/bond-in-action-ralph-fiennes-in-badass-new-set-of-skyfall-photos/)

I like Mr.Craig as bond.

But you know, I liked when Bond was more campy, and not over the top violent and dramatic. The new ones feel less like an adventure, and more like a super serious episode of CSI. All the humor and grandeur is gone from this series.

I do think they could use some more humor. It's more scarce now than it was originally, and I'm hoping that was more due to Casino + Solace being about Bond's first missions and the humor will be developing as Craig's playing of the Bond character develops.

That's what I had hoped, it was just his character for the time frame.

But its more than that, The ball busting scene....... Bit over the top for a Bond film.

I mean, really:

(http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss_061106_bond_/ss_061106_bond_00.grid-8x2.jpg)

Some scenes are less batman the TV show, and more Hostel or Saw at this point.

I'd take Craig's Bond over the abomination that was the fourth Brosnan movie. I do love to go back and watch Goldfinger or Octopussy or Moonraker, and they are great fun; but equally I enjoy the minimalism of the current set of films.

(http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2009/clive_owen/clive_owen_03.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/upqJm.jpg) (http://imgur.com/upqJm)

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZF7QcznZHvD4U7eJ2T9NErUWY4O3gyd2E3gCu09eBuF5mMFqoEO5DoNer)

(Played James Bond in Casino Royale, the first one)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_26QJBcCUFjg/S1yUKj6y79I/AAAAAAAAArI/JVbjJiKhwmg/s400/zardoz.jpg)

Best dressed is subjective.  :grin:

The ball busting scene was almost straight out of the novel though.

I like the fact that Craig's Bond is almost the closest to Fleming's earliest descriptions.

All the novels are quite a bit more violent than anything that made it onto screen previous to the Casino...

Yup

Yes!  Just the right combination of tough, grit, and class.  Best Bond since Connery. 

Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=24mTIE4D9JM)

It cannot be worse than Bourne. That shaky cam was so horrible it retroactively ruined the first Bourne flick for me and erased the novels from my mind. Solace's was mildly annoying but not nearly as bad.

I dunno, the shaky cam in the big finale of Solace is so so so painful.

The Skyfall trailer isn't wowing me. I think they're staying with dour, depressed Bond, or that's what it feels like. I like dangerous Bond with a darker edge, but he's also got to have class, panache, etc.

We'll agree to disagree. I didn't like the shaky cam in Solace but it was like art compared to the Bourne series which was filmed by a monkey in the midst of a seizure.

A grim, dour and angsty James Bond has been done. In fact I think Timothy Dalton does a glum JB better than Daniel Craig.  :drill:

While I appreciate the perceived need for a reboot after Brosnan's run, I think Craig's version of a permanently angry and humorless Bond to be pretty depressing.  :why_so_serious:

Lighten up the mood and yes, go easy on the shaky cam too.

  New trailer  (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw)

Aaaaahh.  :uhrr:

If you are not viewing this on a mobile device, try this link instead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=6kw1UVovByw&nomobile=1)

That fixing his cuffs move was all kinds of  :drill:

Just to chime in Craig is my favorite bond so far.

Tied with Sean Connery for me.  Really looking forward to Skyfall.

Looks really good!  I do wish Bond would lighten up though.  Just a tad.

Elder Scrolls VI: Skyfall (http://home.adele.tv/)

Linking it more for the videogame-looking font than the theme song.

P.S. The trailer is one of those that makes me feel I've seen the movie now. Glimpses of the whole plot.

Really? I think he is dangerously close or even within Timothy Dalton territory. Grim, glum and morose almost all the time - he's not enjoying his work, not in a good way at least. Everyone points to Sean Connery as the best; his Bond had Scottish steel behind it but he was really having fun swiving the girls and fighting the bad buys. Craig's Bond on the other hand seems to be thinking of M and England when he's sexing up the girls.

To me, Craig is just a decent Bond. Not the worst by far but not even close to the best (you know who).

I liked Brosnan's Bond in his first 2 outings Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies; so unless there is a quantum leap in improvement in Skyfall, I'd still place Brosnan above Craig.

I prefered the MLP version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ0BXtSKOEo).

Saw this last night. The first half of the movie (after the obligatory action filled pre credits) was boring as hell to me Its basically "Morose Bond doubts himself and everyone else doubts him too. Also depressed alcoholic Bond does not give two shits about anybody. AND WILL BOND PROVE HIMSELF???" And the disposable bond girl was one of the worst I have seen EVER. The woman could barely stand up straight without rocking back and forth, she must have been drunk for most of her shooting. The second half was pretty good though.

What?

The fundamental problem I've had with this series since TND is the same pair of screen writers they've used for all 5 films are the worst working writers in the industry.

They cannot do dialog and broken structure of each story meant no director could hope to fix the pacing while shooting.

They don't even have a plot. Prior bond films I could tell you the plot in 2 or 3 sentences.

Goldfinger: baddy tries to steal the gold in fort Knox. Bond prevents this.

OHMSS: Blofeld develops virus to destroy agriculture worldwide, attempts to extort pardon and title from UN. Bond prevents this, also marries Diana Rigg.

GoldenEye: 006 feels betrayed by British government, steals nuclear device to detonate over london. Bond prevents this.

Now try it on a Purvis/Wade story:

Tomorrow never dies : Jonathon Pryce steals a device to start a war by pretending that a ship is lost on the same day he launches a newspaper because somehow profit?

The world is not enough : French lady fucks bond and blows up a pipeline so a different oil supplier...  but now there is a submarine and a silly chair in Istanbul because... revenge?

And as for die another day or quantum of solace, I really don't have any idea what they were about to this day.

I don't know if I have enough energy to watch this film but someone tell me if the script is the same piece of shit that the last 5 were.

Casino Royale had a tight script, I thought. They just didn't know where to go from there with the more contemporary, interesting SPECTRE or how to 'grow' Craig's Bond into the more hedonistic and suave version (with a darker or more despairing undernote). So Quantum not only didn't have a good script, it got stuck in the idea that Craig's Bond has to be morose, depressed, nihilistic, etc., which is a big mistake.

Yeah, I think that's exactly it.  After Casino, Solace was just utter shit from start to finish.

And it was a shame because Craig is a fantastic Bond.

Royale had a terrible script but a passable story up to the point where the poker game was done and the writers had to invent new material from whole cloth.

The four hour long scene at the hospital and then the hijinks in Venice lost me completely.

As everyone has said, Craig plays a great bond. In fact more or less every actor involved in these films deserves a better script.

Was reading an interview a cpl of days ago where even Craig admits that the script for QoS was shite and that a lot of it had to do with shooting during or right after? the writers strike. They were basically making up or changing major plot points during shooting. Never a good idea.

Casion Royale was bloody excellent, shut up the lot of you.

Regardless of how bad the QoS script was, it had Olga Kurylenko so I can forgive pretty much anything else.

I enjoyed this as an action film but really I wouldn't rate it particularly, although I'd differ from Sir T in that I quite liked the first half of the movie but the finale just left me  :uhrr:. It had that same sort of problem Battlestar Galactica had in that they knew where they wanted the story to end up but had no idea how to write themselves there so just kind of handwave stupid stuff in.

What he said in bold!

One aspect I miss a lot are the spy gadgets. While I know it got completely out of hand in Moonraker (Bond in space, nuff' said) and Die another day (invisible car, Akira satellites oh my!) It's a much parodied part of the Bond mystique, and yes it got abused and cheesy, but I liked it as an aspect that made Bond unique.


Craig has at least 2 more Bond movies in him. Personally I think he is a passable Bond at best. Like the comments above, he is better than the material given to him.

I suppose I liked the second half because Bond seemed to come into his own skin a lot better than the first half, plus there was a mission impossible vibe to it, which made up a bit for the lack of gadgets in the thing. And I actually really enjoyed looking at the scenery.

That said, I could have been delirious as the movie theater didn't turn on the heating at all so everyone in the room was freezing their asses off, so I probably missed a lot of the dialogue through the sound of my teeth chattering.

This theory to explains a lot of things in the movies:

"James Bond" Is Not a Man, But a Code Name (http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/)

Apart from the obvious that Bond changes physically every few years; M, Q and moneypenny remaining constant through several Bonds; Judith Dench being M To both Brosnan and Craig (both playing distinctly different Bonds). Even the DB5 showing up in Skyfall makes perfect sense with this theory - he was digging up his predecessors old gadgets. It would have blown my mind if Daniel Craig had killed either Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton or even Connery in the opening sequence of Casino Royale (killing his 00 predecessor).

That one is a very common pub discussion.

But it is only cool if it never gets confirmed.

Also if you want to be fussy about it there have been 3 004s and 2 006s all of whom have had different names.

It was very clearly confirmed in the David Niven Casino Royale.

And multiple Felix Leiters.

But he was a Felix Lighter in Live and Let Die, my first and arguably favorite.   :oh_i_see:

I just watched it tonight, and it struck me that:

Saw it, loved it.  A bit odd that the third movie is the origins story.

Another installment of "The very unhappy Bond" series. Even the sex is angry sex.

Saw this and thought it was excellent.  I enjoy a grittier, less campy Bond.  Craig fits this perfectly.

Reasons:

P.S.:  This movie was -really- fun to watch with a Bond relative-newbie.  Take a friend!

I really enjoyed this reboot of the Home Alone franchise.

Finally saw this. It was frustrating as hell.

Great performances, fantastic action, beautifully shot, good concept, pretty sure bardem was the best villian there has been.

But.

Still awful scriptwriting, structure of the story was a mess.

I'm kind of a broken record on this, but Purvis and Wade shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a film script.

They have apparently now stepped away from Bond and won't work on the next script.

Should have given Finney a Thompson in a nod to Miller's Crossing.

Saw it yesterday.  Enjoyed it but I won't sit thru it again.  Better than Quantum, worse than Casino Royale. 

Saw it yesterday in Zürich. Was worth watching IMO.

I really liked this movie, but it was not really a Bond movie other than having Bond characters in it.  This infuriated my brother, but I could enjoy it nonetheless.

On shiznits second point...

oh ffs its a Bond movie not high art.

Shitty writing is shitty writing no matter the genre.

Especially when this much talent goes into the rest of the film.

Ultimately I'm not sure I agree with Eldeac's points on the 'higher' issues he has with resolutions and character arcs but yeah, this film had a lot stuff written in that genuinely doesn't make sense in the context of the 'New Bond' universe (and some which just doesn't make sense period).

This thread.

I enjoyed the movie.  For comparison, last week I watched Dracula: Dead And Loving It.

Welcome to f13, you must be new here.   :awesome_for_real:

This is a dumb argument and people who make it are dumb.

There is no binary divide between art film and everything else. A film can be good in quantifiable ways - well shot, well acted, nicely paced with an internally consistent plot and still be a fun action movie.

Saying that it's ok to make shitty, nonsensical movies cos 'lol it's just an action movie' means that you get shitty action movies instead of good ones.

I think your dumb for being so serious.   :grin:

True Lies was good.

 :Love_Letters:

On that we agree  :grin:

So, basically, he's become John McClane? :)

My dumb what?

Seriousness?  :wink:

True Lies was better than every Bond film since the Living Daylights.

Except the interrogation scene and the stupid bedroom scene.

No, it was all good.

I also remember sitting in the theatre and thinking 'Well, I guess this is the new Bond', since the recent Bond forays were utter, utter shit.  Then Bourne came along and did the same thing and then Bond came along and took the crown back.

And then Quantum of Solace came out.

Yuck.

I have softened A BIT on QoS since I re-watched it remembering that he is in full revenge mode for wassernames death.  Bourne sank the old Bond sci-fi Brosnan style; they had to reboot and now Bourne has pissed off and Bond is back as king of spy movies.  PS Daniel Craig, theres no crying in Bond movies!

Would give my left nut to have more Matt Damon Bourne movies.

Kind of liked the new one with Hawkeye in it though. Glad that they dropped shaky cam (or at least toned it down from nauseating). Matt's Bourne movies are ruined by that abominable shaky cam rubbish. Shaky cam needs to die in a car fire.

Note to Daniel Craig: Crazy depressed brooding Bond can just be annoying as aging smug lothario Bond (Moore's era). Don't start believe your own PR hype that you're the bestest Bond since sliced bread. You're still not half as good as Sir Sean at his best. 

I agree, but that's not really Craig's fault.

The actor can't really be blamed for one dimensional scripting. You need to give him some material to be suave/smart with. He managed more than the lines deserved in his scenes with Moneypenny - honestly barring a couple of exchanges with Eva Green in Casino they were the only scenes I felt Craig has been given the opportunity to play Bond, rather than generic Jason-Statham-Grumpy-Punching-Man.

Daniel Craig is a considerably better actor than Sean Connery.

This is why I can't get on board the Bourne bandwagon. Identity was pretty good. I have no idea what happened in the other movies and find the mere memory of them makes me foam at the mouth worse than Schild chained to a chair and forced to watch a Buffy marathon.

Bourne movies, for me, were well directed action against three plots I can remember literally nothing about.

The last one without Bourne started me thinking my confusion was thinking Bourne was the good guy. Pretty sure they all work better if you root for the government team trying to catch him before kills more random people.

You know, this film cured me of paying too much attention to the collective opinion here. Because I thought it was damn good--and very much not morose, depressed Bond from *beginning to end*. In fact, that's the whole point: by the end, Bond is not depressed Bond or emo-Bond or anything of the sort. The whole thing is a very smart and fun commentary on Bond's entire history as a character. It's  very good Bond, easily in the top ten of the whole series, maybe the top five.

I agree with you. If you want to know the ins and outs of just about anything and everything gaming, this is the place for you. However if it happens to be about something like movies, this place can nerd rape the fun right the fuck out of just about anything.

I thought the first half was great, but that poem onwards it wasn't a bond anymore and sucked.

Also the plot was even more absurd than any of the otherwise recent ones, which is saying something!

Much like baseball, there's no crying for Bond.  Not.  Negotiable.  The Nerd Collective (tm) can only take so much outrageous fan disservice before it explodes out of their parents basement in a burst of Doritos, Mountain Dew and neckbeard.

Saw this on the weekend and was underwhelmed. Not worth seeing this in the cinema.

Every scene that didn't contain Javier Bardem was just dull. Which was much too much of the movie.

He was a great Bond villain.  He was evil, pitiful and magnetic.

He was like all Bond villains in that he seemed to be more concerned setting up an entertaining, cunning and overly elaborate death killing super schemes rather than just simply  shooting Bond and M in the head when he had a chance to; but hey, that's the James Bond movies...

They really need to give Christoph Waltz that gig sometime soon.

Late again, just seen it, so much to respond.

Umm. As much as I like him, he isn't ketchup. You can't go 'movie sucks, let's put some waltz on it'.

Too harsh, but he was a highlight, yes.

Yes, agree. Only parts he sucked where towards the end of the movie, when they tore him down/hannibal-lecter-ised him to set up the stage for Bond as hero.


Umm no, she was great. I wish my accent was as sexy as hers. You are obviously gay.


Thinking the same, but can't come up with a better way to express it, so just quoting you here.
-----

Overall, good Bond *drool*, good villain *drool*, good new moneypenny, good 'bondgirl' *drool* (dont like that term though)

Plot sucked, new Q sucked, film overall too film-y, too "contempory", too many 'winks towards the audience', probably would have been way better if they worked with a book as template to reign them in.

In the end the little bits made it enjoyable.

It's like we all agree we finally have a Bond that doesn't suck, but can't agree on why.  I don't know if I really care to try to figure you nerds out on this one.  All I know is sans Quantum of Solace, everything about the new Bond is orders of magnitude better than anything since Roger Moore.  Maybe I'm setting the bar too low, but I don't expect every Bond film to have fantastic writing.  That's never been what they're about.  Go back and watch Dr. No.  After you get that 'underneath the mango tree' song out of your head, please come back here and tell me that's a great script.  It is however a script in which Bond is great.  And this Bond is great too.  That's what makes the film good.  We're so happy to have a Bond that doesn't suck, that we gave him a free pass on the last film.  Stop touching dicks and just enjoy it.

There was nothing wrong with Timothy Dalton.

Plenty of people in this thread (and all British film critics) seem to think Bond films should be regarded as either pure awesome or terrible, and that unlike almost every other film we discuss here discussion of them is somehow invalid.

I don't know what it is about bond films that makes people feel that the kind of nerd discussion going on *right now* in the looper and hobbit threads is out of bounds.

I thought Dalton was pretty good too. It wasn't his fault that his second film sucked, he was fine in a lousy script.

The Living Daylights is one of my favorite Bond films.  I didn't understand the Timothy Dalton hate until I saw License to Kill, but even then, as has been said, it was a good Bond in an awful movie.

Quantum of Solace vs License to Kill? Which is worse?

Personally I think Ltk was the worst Bond movie I ever saw (I enjoyed Living Daylights), QoS was bad but not THAT bad.

LTK was by far one of the worst Bond scripts ever, but I wouldn't call it THE worst.  Some of Roger Moore's scripts were far worse because they delved way in to ridiculous camp.  Bond can be campy, but when you have a recurring character that's a Southern Hick stereotype you've gone too far.

Dalton and Moore are often regarded as the worst Bonds, but I think they acted well given what they had to work with.  I certainly never thought they were terrible in and of themselves.

If you haven't already, I would suggest re-watching Quantum of Solace.  I found it to be much more enjoyable and not at all bad on subsequent viewings.  It was VERY disappointing for something immediately following Casino Royale, but seen on its own merits it gains considerably.  My one major gripe is the car chase at the beginning, which consists of nothing but non-stop cuts.  The entire sequence spends no longer than two seconds on any one shot.

I thought the plot line and the introduction of SPECTRE in QoS were fine, and there was some nice characterization continuity with Casino. It was really the shaky cam cinematography that put me off.

Question of Sport - it isn't even close. QoS goes into the same bracket as Die Another Day or Never Say Never. Picking the worst of those three is tougher (it probably isn't QoS).

License to Kill isn't actually as bad as the rap it gets. It got hit by a writers strike like QoS, but at least has a story - in common with the connery films and early moore, there is an actual thriller alongside the explosions.

On reflection, worst 5 bond films:

1) Die Another Day
2) Never say Never*
3) Quantum of Solace
4) World is Not Enough
5) Tomorrow never Dies

Honorable Mentions:

Octopussy
Licence to Kill



Top 5:

1) From Russia With Love
2) Live and Let Die
3) Goldfinger
4) Casino Royale
5) The Man with the Golden Gun
 
Honorable Mentions

Goldeneye
OHMSS
Living Daylights

Top 5 is much harder to write out than bottom 5.



*I know.

Dalton's Bond in License to Kill was much more like the Bond in the books than the "dandy" that was Moore.

Even in Living Daylights Dalton managed to give the character an edge - which is even more impressive given the writers clearly had other things in mind.

I would agree. I wish Dalton would have stuck around for more than the 2 films.

To be fair, he would have been a bit over 50 by the time Goldeneye was made.

Yeah, there was something like 6 years, a few law suits and a change of company between LTK and Goldeneye, wasn't there.

You really don't like brosnan bond movies huh?  Honestly I can't disagree though.  Still think ltk needs to be in bottom five though.  The one thing I seem to remember is that it had the production values of a bad telemovie. 

If you can explain the plot of either world is not enough or tomorrow never dies inside of two sentences you can have LtK in the bottom 5.

World is not enough:
Rich traumatized beautiful girl turns evil, teams up with former captor turned henchman; kills father and intends to blow up oil pipeline with a nuclear bomb for profit. (plan does not makes sense)
Bond teams up with hilariously miscast "wild things" actress and Hagrid to foil them.

Tomorrow Never Dies:
Rich evil media baron plots using a stealth supership to provoke a war between China and Britain so he can corner the China media market. (!!!! plan also does not make sense)
Bond teams up with China's own female superspy to foil evil baron plans.

Tomorrow Never Dies is pretty decent IMHO despite Jonathan Pryce being one of the lousiest villains in the Bond films. Michelle Yeoh more than makes up for it IMO.
I don't see where this Brosnan hate is coming from, he is clearly miles better than Moore even when Moore actually fitted the role.

Also, how did "Man with the Golden Gun" rank so high on your scale? Man with triple nipples killing people with a gun made out of a gold pen and lighter and his evil henchman Tattoo intends to corner the world solar power market (plan does not make sense). Bond teams up with red neck sheriff (who was on holiday in Thailand) to foil him.

Timothy Dalton is actually a good actor and would have actually been a great Bond if he had been given decent scripts and directing to work with.

We went over it earlier, but I have no beef with Brosnan. He's easily the least good bond but not actively bad.

The problem with his films post-Goldeneye was in hiring the worst screenwriters working today and mediocre direction.

Golden Gun I probably just like for being one of first I remember watching. But, like LaLD, OHMSS, or the Connery films, there is an actual thriller in there. Maud Adams acts genuinely scared. Bond rides a proper tightrope of using her while trying to protect her (not, for example, fucking her after a 30 second conversation which established she was deeply disturbed and throwing her life away for no reason in the next scene) . I wouldn't argue if someone wanted to put any if the honorable mentions or two or three others in 5th spot.

Tomorrow never dies was the first bond film I found myself dozing off in. It isn't a story, just a sequence of bits in which stuff just happens arbitrarily. Aside from first and last scene it might as well be another "Transporter" movie.

Underpants elves references are not the same thing as a plot.

I refuse!  Actually I didn't mind the world is not enough. Tommorrow never dies and whatever that stupid one was with Halle berry can however burn in hell.   I actually never got through the one with Halle berry is was that bad.

Man with the Golden gun was also the first bond I ever saw and is still awesome!  Bond does karate! Cars doing spins while jumping ...3 nipples!   :drill:

No one having a go at scripts can say that skyfall was decent.

Tomorrow never Dies through to Skyfall are all written by the same pair of "writers". Casino and Skyfall are far better than the other four. I presume they had more help on those two.

"Casino Royale" had the support of existing Bond material. Although probably not the Larry Niven movie.

A big issue with "Quantum of Solace" is that the villains were horribly miscast. No-one looks threatening with a bowl cut. Plus the "we'll steal all the water!" angle meant very little to a lot of audiences, even if it was a solid plan.

"Skyfall" had a much better villain, but the script was awful. "Bond / MI6 is old, old, old" was a straw man argument that the writers tried to hammer into the audience, but there never was a valid alternative provided. It was a false threat that never took.

That, and James Bond came off as a total loser in Skyfall. I think there wasn't a single objective he succeeded at and his disgregard for collateral damage was also baffling. I realized that when I saw an older Bond a few days ago where Bond actually tried not to get his bedbunnys killed if it could be helped.

Prefer this Bond vastly over Mary Sue Bond.

*nod*

Also, Moonraker is my guilty pleasure. Sure it's fucking daft beyond words, but it's daft in a fun way.

Moonraker was the first Bond movie I saw in the theater.  Snuck back for a second showing. :)  One of my top 5 Bond films; mainly for nostalgia I guess.

My Bond ranking

Connery ***** Not afraid to smack a bitch, but only if she gets in the way of his mission.
Moore **  Some great early movies followed by less great.  Penalized two stars for the clown suit alone.
Lazenby *** Only one movie.  He was good but I never fully embraced him as Bond since he was so brief.
Dalton ****  Criminally underrated.  Only two movies, but he WAS Bond.
Brosnan ****  I don't understand the hate.  Brosnan always brought the goods.  Only had one bad movie IMO.
Craig **** (before Skyfall), ** (after Skyfall)  Bond doesn't cry.  Taking an elderly woman out to a drafty manor in the winter to die was  :ye_gods:

I don't think the Brosnan hate is directed towards Brosnan himself.  The scripts were mostly ass, though.

Brosnan himself is just a blander version of Dalton or Lazenby.

He brings little, but the films (except GoldenEye) would be dire even if Laurence Olivier was resurrected to play Bond.

You've described 80% of Bond films, and 100% of Roger Moore's....(I mean shit they had George Mcdonald Fraser write Octopussy...which is secretly in my top 5 bond movies)

Brosnan brought a lot of the charm that Dalton lacked. Dalton is by far the better actor and much closer to the Bond written by Ian Fleming than most (as is Craig). It didn't help him that his movies came right after the Cold War when the very concept of Bond SUPER INTERNATIONAL SPY was being re-examined as kind of outdated. I mean, he had to fight fucking drug dealers FFS. The Brosnan movies all suffered from the scripts being complete and utter fucking assgargle. Even Goldeneye, the most sensical of the lot, had that ridiculous goddamn motorcycle chasing a plane down a ravine scene. Tomorrow Never Dies was my favorite of the Brosnan movies, but only because of Michelle Yeoh - the villain and plot were  :ye_gods:

It's sad the Bronsnan scripts were so bad.  I've loved his style since Remington Steele (thanks, mom).

I'll take the challenge from above:

Tomorrow Never Dies - Media mogul attempts to manufacture a war between the Brits and Chinese for fun and profit, foiled by Bond and his Chinese femme fatale counterpart.

Also, Teri Hatcher.  :grin:

See, was that so hard?  :oh_i_see:

As for ranking Bond films, I'm a bit under-equipped as my first Bond film was Goldeneye, though I recently purchased the complete BD collection and I'm working my way through it. Without commenting on Lazenby/Dalton:

1. Craig
2. Connery
3. Brosnan
4. Moore

Craig and Connery are honestly a toss-up for me, depending on mood - I found Dr No to be pretty tough to get through, though FRWL was awesome and I'm still working my way forward. I've liked the Craig films so far, but haven't seen Skyfall yet. I'm generally a Brosnan fan, though his films went steadily downward (not his fault). Moore is generally just too damn campy - does that damn clown suit show up in multiple films?  :uhrr:

I prefer Connery and Moore over Craig due to them having a slight humorous side while Craig is just too serious (for what I grew up thinking Bond movies should be like)

Skyfall is now the 7th highest grossing film of all time (http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/02/skyfall-overtakes-dark-knight-rises-to.html)

The people have spoken, and I'm impressed that a Bond movie managed to gross that much

Finally saw this.  Not sure why all the hate, it's a darker, less gadget filled (read: fewer product placements) Bond, but it's a Bond film.  Sure, Bond fails at every single objective, but that's because M is failing in her chess game against Silva.  The whole point is that M's older broken toy has come back to haunt her, and Bond, who has been treated just as badly, is trying to stop him and not succeeding.  Bond is trying to save M from her own mistakes, but he *is* one of her mistakes and therefore destined to fail.

--Dave

Just finished watching it. Quite enjoyed it, though I admit the setup to the last act was pretty  :uhrr:. I liked the little nods to the fanbase throughout, and thought it was appropriate that Craig not stray too far from the morose character of the last two. How he used the girl, and her very predictable fate, worked for me in establishing Bond's misogyny, and general indifference to human life. So did the scene where he waits until after the sniper takes his shot - because it was more convenient.

I hated QoS, and Skyfall confirmed why - a good Bond movie needs a really good villain.

After reading this thread I was going to jump on Eldaec for his crappy opinions, but then I saw he ranked From Russia with Love as his number one and for that I forgive all the rest. Even the Dalton love.

Just saw it, without reading any spoilers or reviews beforehand. Then browsed the thread and found that the perfect summary had already been posted. So, QFT:

I thought the first 5 minutes and the last five minutes were good.

Eager for it to start and then eager for it to end?  :oh_i_see:

Yeah, this was rather boring.