I consider GF's plot to be the greatest of all the Bond films. I think it was truly outstanding (although FRWL's plot was also great.)
Really? It's not that great a plot is it? It often doesn't even make sense (the gangster gassing etc.). Goldfinger's plan on the other hand, is one of the best and cleverest I'd say, but the plot is pretty simple stuff.
I would argue that the discussion scene with Goldfinger (when we learned Goldfinger's plan) was a brilliant examination of not just Bond's character but Goldfinger's as well.
What do we learn about Bond's character there? It's not really a big character moment, is it? He likes mint juleps.. that's about it, isn't it?
postman pat, GF is my favourite Bond film, but I don't want you to think that I'm forcing my opinion upon you. I'm all too aware that not everybody holds GF in the same regard as I do. -{[/quote]
I would say that CR is probably the most overrated Bond film. It's okay, but I think its screenplay is quite flawed, I didn't like Eva Green at all and I don't think that Craig is such an amazing Bond.
Really Dan? I never would have guessed you'd feel that way. )
For what it's worth, I agree with you (big surprise there, huh). Craig did nothing for me as Bond. I give him props for taking the role so seriously and clearly putting his heart and soul into it, but I just didn't care for his interpretation. Also, for all the talk of seeing him evolve; he changes little. He starts the movie as a surly womanizer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't trust anyone, and ends up pretty much the same way at the film's conclusion.
Likewise, Eva Green left me cold as well. Through her final act, I found her character to be one of the most pathetic, weak and downright cowardly Bond girls ever. By the time she decides to drown herself, Bond knows what she did, still tries to save her and is probably willing to forgive her. She can't protect him anymore - heck, she doesn't need to protect him as he can clearly take care of himself. So why excactly does she take her own life? I never really made that connection.
In fact, the way I saw it, Bond failed miserably at several key points during the mission. First he fails to get the bomber at the start, then he fails to get LeChiffre alive, then he loses the money as we see Mr. White walk away with the briefcase.
It's a well made film, but I guess I just don't care for Haggis' writing or his treatment of the material. Just my opinion.
Craig did nothing for me as Bond. I give him props for taking the role so seriously and clearly putting his heart and soul into it, but I just didn't care for his interpretation. Also, for all the talk of seeing him evolve; he changes little. He starts the movie as a surly womanizer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't trust anyone, and ends up pretty much the same way at the film's conclusion.
I completely agree. I loved Craig's physicality, but I too didn't really care for his interpretation. For one theing, he wasn't particularly suave IMO. Plus, I agree with you that the character didn't really evolve. Although I really blame that more on the script than on Crag's interpretation.
Likewise, Eva Green left me cold as well. Through her final act, I found her character to be one of the most pathetic, weak and downright cowardly Bond girls ever. By the time she decides to drown herself, Bond knows what she did, still tries to save her and is probably willing to forgive her. She can't protect him anymore - heck, she doesn't need to protect him as he can clearly take care of himself. So why excactly does she take her own life? I never really made that connection.
I've said this before, but I was happy to see her go. I didn't like her at all. As well as the reasons you stated, I found her to be incredibly unconvincing, not particularly good looking and quite annoying.
In fact, the way I saw it, Bond failed miserably at several key points during the mission. First he fails to get the bomber at the start, then he fails to get LeChiffre alive, then he loses the money as we see Mr. White walk away with the briefcase.
It's a well made film, but I guess I just don't care for Haggis' writing or his treatment of the material. Just my opinion.
It's also my opinion. I'm not a fan of Haggis at all and CR confirmed to me why exactly that is.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Really? It's not that great a plot is it? It often doesn't even make sense (the gangster gassing etc.). Goldfinger's plan on the other hand, is one of the best and cleverest I'd say, but the plot is pretty simple stuff.
Well the gangsters were killed because they knew too much and Goldfinger didn't want to pay them money. He told them the plan because of his vanity. Plus, why does a plot need to be be complexed in order to be good? True GF's plot isn't particularly complicated but I think that's neither here nor there; and for that matter, I can't understand DAF's plot yet I don't think it's all that great. No, I think that GF's plot was the greatest Bond plot of all time.
What do we learn about Bond's character there? It's not really a big character moment, is it? He likes mint juleps.. that's about it, isn't it?
We learn of his respect for those who are the masters in their respective fields. Bond does not like Goldfinger and is determined to put an end to him; but he nonetheless respects him. I loved this scene. Not only was the dialogue great, but the acting (such as the body language and facial expressions) were simply outstanding. IMO this was the best scene in GF.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Really? It's not that great a plot is it? It often doesn't even make sense (the gangster gassing etc.). Goldfinger's plan on the other hand, is one of the best and cleverest I'd say, but the plot is pretty simple stuff.
Well the gangsters were killed because they knew too much and Goldfinger didn't want to pay them money. He told them the plan because of his vanity.
That's more you explaining it after the event, though- that's not implicit in the writing.
Plus, why does a plot need to be be complexed in order to be good? True GF's plot isn't particularly complicated but I think that's neither here nor there; and for that matter, I can't understand DAF's plot yet I don't think it's all that great.
A good plot for me is a clever one which has been well plotted and paced. It's not particuarly clever (I actually think LTK has one of the best plots of the Bond films, although it's not a great film) and effective though it is, I don't think that it demands celebration on its own. It orks fine, although there are a few slips ups in logic, but the film is more than just the plot, luckily.
That's more you explaining it after the event, though- that's not implicit in the writing.
I disagree. Whilst it's not spelt out, I think it is implicit. Have a look at Goldfinger's face when he gives the speech, and listen to what he says. He's an egomaniac. When Bond later tells him that he enjoyed his speech, Goldfinger replies that he did as well.
A good plot for me is a clever one which has been well plotted and paced. It's not particuarly clever (I actually think LTK has one of the best plots of the Bond films, although it's not a great film) and effective though it is, I don't think that it demands celebration on its own. It orks fine, although there are a few slips ups in logic, but the film is more than just the plot, luckily.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, because, most of the reasons why I think it is such a clever and brilliant script are exactly what we disagree on. Plus, GF is also the one Bond script which, more than any other, I would love to read the actual screenplay to. That is always an indication that a film has IMO a great script.
(Regarding LTK, I think it has a terrific concept, but the plot is far too messy IMO.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
For what it's worth, I agree with you (big surprise there, huh). Craig did nothing for me as Bond. I give him props for taking the role so seriously and clearly putting his heart and soul into it, but I just didn't care for his interpretation. Also, for all the talk of seeing him evolve; he changes little. He starts the movie as a surly womanizer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't trust anyone, and ends up pretty much the same way at the film's conclusion.
Likewise, Eva Green left me cold as well. Through her final act, I found her character to be one of the most pathetic, weak and downright cowardly Bond girls ever. By the time she decides to drown herself, Bond knows what she did, still tries to save her and is probably willing to forgive her. She can't protect him anymore - heck, she doesn't need to protect him as he can clearly take care of himself. So why excactly does she take her own life? I never really made that connection.
In fact, the way I saw it, Bond failed miserably at several key points during the mission. First he fails to get the bomber at the start, then he fails to get LeChiffre alive, then he loses the money as we see Mr. White walk away with the briefcase.
It's a well made film, but I guess I just don't care for Haggis' writing or his treatment of the material. Just my opinion.
Put me down as another who feels CR is the most over-rated Bond entry, for many of the reasons that you list here, TonyDP. I find that, along with DAD, it's one of the DVDs in my collection that I visit the least.
The excess emotion that the scriptwriters shoe-horned into the story really ruined Fleming's orginal story.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
In fact, the way I saw it, Bond failed miserably at several key points during the mission. First he fails to get the bomber at the start, then he fails to get LeChiffre alive, then he loses the money as we see Mr. White walk away with the briefcase.
Interestingly, Bond's failures in the CR film mirror his failures in the novel, at least to some degree, as does his rather deus ex machina rescue from Le Chiffre's grim intentions, which actually is much better explained in the film, IMO. At least he doesn't lose the cash in the book! :007)
I'd disagree with the notion that he doesn't evolve at all in the film; as in the novel, he has a renewed purpose in going after 'the organization' in question, and I got the sense that he is genuinely affected by Vesper's loss---which he unsuccessfully attempts to ignore, via denial---also a faithful product of the source material.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ah yes, Royale was faithful to the book indeed. What I can't understand is those who argue against it. It's a movie! It's going to be somewhat transformed for the screen. If you built yout film based solely on Fleming material, sure it would be faithful, but it wouldn't hook many of the regular Bond audience. Bond films are made for full-blown entertainment, you can't get away from that fact. That said, I personally thought they did a mighty fine job on converting Fleming's word to the screen. A much heated debate I know... just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth.
An interesting topic. My first selection would be For Your Eyes Only. I like the film and I think Roger Moore delivers an excellent performance but I feel it was best suited for a new Bond actor - a Timothy Dalton most obviously. The film has a very eccentric score and lacks the grand-scale fun we've come to expect from the series. I also find chunks of the film dull, especially the underwater submersible and mountain climbing.
My second choice would be Casino Royale. A patchy (especially the first half) action film with some ponderous and overlooked melodrama and dialogue. It doesn't feel like a James Bond film to me and this is exacerbated by the lead actor bearing an uncanny resemblance to Norman Collier.
Really? It's not that great a plot is it? It often doesn't even make sense (the gangster gassing etc.). Goldfinger's plan on the other hand, is one of the best and cleverest I'd say, but the plot is pretty simple stuff.
Well the gangsters were killed because they knew too much and Goldfinger didn't want to pay them money. He told them the plan because of his vanity.
Guys, this quote may be of some interest re the above. From Adrian Turner on Goldfinger (Bloomsbury, 1998) p204:
"Realising the weaknesses of the plot, [Paul] Dehn and [Guy] Hamilton decided to have Bond imprisoned in Kentucky, enabling him to escape from his cell and overhear the briefing from inside the model. They also realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the briefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing."
Guys, this quote may be of some interest re the above. From Adrian Turner on Goldfinger (Bloomsbury, 1998) p204:
"Realising the weaknesses of the plot, [Paul] Dehn and [Guy] Hamilton decided to have Bond imprisoned in Kentucky, enabling him to escape from his cell and overhear the briefing from inside the model. They also realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the biefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing."
It is very interesting. {[] Putting aside that I pretty much agree with them, I do find it interesting how filmmakers' original intentions contrast with audience's interperpretations.
George Romero has publicly denied (although he may not have been telling the truth) that skin colour played a part in the central actor getting the gig in Night of the Living Dead, even though the film is generally seen as a commentary on American race relations. Romero has said that his being black was coincidental and he was simply the best man for the job. Who knows whether Romero was telling the truth. Regardless, Night of the Living Dead is probably more powerful in regards to its message on race than many race dramas. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
An interesting topic. My first selection would be For Your Eyes Only. I like the film and I think Roger Moore delivers an excellent performance but I feel it was best suited for a new Bond actor - a Timothy Dalton most obviously.
If Roger Moore did such an excellent job with FOR YOUR EYES . . . and I think that he did . . . I don't see why Timothy Dalton should be considered best suited for the movie.
Something about that movie does scream Timothy Dalton though. I like FYEO and I don't like FYEO. The pre-title sequence grinds on my very nerves (the only one I fast forward through) and some of the rest of the movie bugs for various reasons.
I wish TD would have got this movies, I have always like TD in TLD and somewhat in LTK, but a TD FYEO...that would have been neat.
An interesting topic. My first selection would be For Your Eyes Only. I like the film and I think Roger Moore delivers an excellent performance but I feel it was best suited for a new Bond actor - a Timothy Dalton most obviously.
If Roger Moore did such an excellent job with FOR YOUR EYES . . . and I think that he did . . . I don't see why Timothy Dalton should be considered best suited for the movie.
Probably Moore's finest hour is his performance in For Your Eyes Only. Nobody should be seeking to take that away from him... After a run of patchy performances (TMWTGG, TSWLM & [not quite as badly] MR) Sir Roger shines in For You Eyes Only.
An interesting topic. My first selection would be For Your Eyes Only. I like the film and I think Roger Moore delivers an excellent performance but I feel it was best suited for a new Bond actor - a Timothy Dalton most obviously.
If Roger Moore did such an excellent job with FOR YOUR EYES . . . and I think that he did . . . I don't see why Timothy Dalton should be considered best suited for the movie.
Probably Moore's finest hour is his performance in For Your Eyes Only. Nobody should be seeking to take that away from him... After a run of patchy performances (TMWTGG, TSWLM & [not quite as badly] MR) Sir Roger shines in For You Eyes Only.
What was wrong with TSWLM X-( ? It wasn't patchy! I thought that was Moore's best movie and it is my favorite bond film!
If Roger Moore did such an excellent job with FOR YOUR EYES . . . and I think that he did . . . I don't see why Timothy Dalton should be considered best suited for the movie.
Probably Moore's finest hour is his performance in For Your Eyes Only. Nobody should be seeking to take that away from him... After a run of patchy performances (TMWTGG, TSWLM & [not quite as badly] MR) Sir Roger shines in For You Eyes Only.
What was wrong with TSWLM X-( ? It wasn't patchy! I thought that was Moore's best movie and it is my favorite bond film!
We're allowed our differences in opinion... But I felt that this film was as if they (the powers that be) chose to, instead of testing the waters of slap-stick tongue-in-cheek Bonding, they jumped fairly and squarely off the diving board and into the pool of pun-fun! Roger is a little to relaxed for my liking and his acting bone is much more exercised in films like Live and Let Die and For Your Eyes Only.
As for the plot, its an entertaining remake of You Only Live Twice and a big bundle of fun, but for me, doesn't have that essence that I associate with Bond and the spy genre.
Sorry if I sounded mad, I'm not in a very good mood right now. But like you said, we are all entitled to our opinion and I was just wondering why you thought it was patchy. {[]
Sorry if I sounded mad, I'm not in a very good mood right now. But like you said, we are all entitled to our opinion and I was just wondering why you thought it was patchy. {[]
No worries, we're here to discuss this sort of worldly debate. B-)
GoldenEye: it looks cheap. In 1995, it was amazing just to see a Bond film again after such a long gap, but watch it on a triple bill between LTK and TND and you can see the small sets
I can agree with almost everything you said, but small sets? We had the Archangelsk dam facility, the Severnaya control room, the casino, Statue Park, the Russian base/library, Alec's huge control facility, the satellite dish... all pretty jumbo sets if you ask me.
1) Model shots: in LTK, the pad of the OMI lifts up to allow the helicopter to descend below. It's a stunning, extremely effective use of foreground miniatures; if you didn't know it was a special effect, you wouldn't have twigged. I can't think of a single model shot in GE that didn't look like a Thunderbirds outtake.
100% agreement there. The scene wherein the jet crashes into the Severnaya dish looked like it was filmed in a bathtub diorama. Die Another Day's CGI surfing was just as bad, of course...
]Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, because, most of the reasons why I think it is such a clever and brilliant script are exactly what we disagree on. Plus, GF is also the one Bond script which, more than any other, I would love to read the actual screenplay to. That is always an indication that a film has IMO a great script.
I highly suggest you go straight to the source material.
But jetset the cradle was cool looking! The final showdown on the dirt roads of Mexico was hardly better. Also LTK had a trashy feel to it, and while you may think GE looked cheap, it certainly did not look as glum and awful as LTK.
But jetset the cradle was cool looking! The final showdown on the dirt roads of Mexico was hardly better. Also LTK had a trashy feel to it, and while you may think GE looked cheap, it certainly did not look as glum and awful as LTK.
I will admit to liking A View To A Kill, but the film's look is its weakness. It is mostly grey and white, and there is nothing striking about its cinematography. It also looks cheap in places and has a t.v. movie feel to it. I hope you are not such a fanatic over it that you cannot see this fact.
But jetset the cradle was cool looking! The final showdown on the dirt roads of Mexico was hardly better. Also LTK had a trashy feel to it, and while you may think GE looked cheap, it certainly did not look as glum and awful as LTK.
I will admit to liking A View To A Kill, but the film's look is its weakness. It is mostly grey and white, and there is nothing striking about its cinematography. It also looks cheap in places and has a t.v. movie feel to it. I hope you are not such a fanatic over it that you cannot see this fact.
You've not come across JFF before then, CasinoChris 75? B-)
]Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, because, most of the reasons why I think it is such a clever and brilliant script are exactly what we disagree on. Plus, GF is also the one Bond script which, more than any other, I would love to read the actual screenplay to. That is always an indication that a film has IMO a great script.
I highly suggest you go straight to the source material.
Not right now. I do plan on reading the novels eventually, but probably not anytime soon.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
From Russia With Love is my choice for the most overrated Bond film. It is frustrating that so many people think it's great because there is not much that happens that is interesting and memorable. The scenes I like are the Bond and Grant fight, the first meeting between Bond and Tatiana which is sexy, and the helicopter part even though it reminds me of the crop duster scene in North By Northwest.
FRWL drags and is repetitive. The first half is Bond wandering around with Kerim Bey who is a complete bore because all he does is ramble on about himself, his family, and what an interesting life he has had. Then the characters make plans and run around doing things just to get them to their destination while Grant stalks them; this becomes repetitive.
The second half is worse. It is just Bond and Tatiana lounging around the Orient Express looking bored and waiting for something to happen while Grant continues to stalk Bond; this also becomes repetitive.
There just isn't much that is happening here. Just think about it.
I prefer Goldfinger.
BestBondSeanA Bavarian in CornwallPosts: 108MI6 Agent
Has to be Casino Royale ('06) for me, hence me not posting too much on here any more, simply lost interest in the 'new' Bond for the moment.
Casino Royale wasn't bad, however wouldn,t rank any higher than lower midfield in the whole Bond canon for me.
Bond films where always best when they set the trend rather than follow it, ahead of it's time rather than doing the same as everybody else at the time.
The two main examples for being 'Followers' rather than trendsetters IMHO are ' License to Kill' and 'Casino Royale'. @license to Kill' didn't fare to well in basucally being a 'Lethal Weapon' ' Die Hard' clone with a healthy dosage of ' Miami Vice' influences, thus looked cheap and out of place with the other Bond entries.
Casino Royale mimmicks all the later tendencies in hip Action Thrillers, mainly ultra realistic fight sequences with too fast paced dizzying cuts and gimmicky black and white shots, too much emphasis on the grit, which is necessary but not at the expense of pure excitement, which for my money is sorely lacking in Casino.
There is not a single action sequence in the whole film that made me go 'wow'. The refreshing start with the base running ellicits a few laughs because of Bonds more destructuve and direct approach contrasting the nimble base running pro but it's all downhill from there.
The unimaginative destruction orgy on Miami Airport left me completely cold, all seen before in certain Catastrophic thrillers and an uncomfortable (for me ) reminder of 'Die Hard II'.
There was almost no use made of the Aston Martin, when there finally was a car chase, it abruptly ended in an impossible stunt over an invisible ramp, removed by CGI. Yes the stunt man broke the record for subsequent rollovers, yet the feat remains a lot less exhilliarating as for example the Bungee jump in GE, Rick Sylvesters ski jump in
TSWLM or the fall from the rock by the same man in FYEO.
The main piece of the film, a Card game in a Casino in Monte Negro could not manage to hold my interest over the whole lenghty duration, a boring depiction of a boring game that just came into foray through making money on the internet by playing poker and the recent flood of TV channels televising Poker games....yawwwwwnnnn.
More annoying than any of these was the implausible plot ( why did Bond even have to beat Le Chiffre in a Poker game?, there would have been 100 of other possibilities to deal with him)and the absolutely non interesting leading Lady.
Why anybody ( let alone Bond ) could fall in love with a cold fish like that never became transparent to me.
The climactic shootout in Venice in the crumbling building was so illogical and confusing, that i completely lost interest in trying to figure out who was who and on which side they were.
Moreover i felt i've all seen it before in Cambell's take on 'Zorro' where the title heroe fights a bunch of adversaries on a crumbling and exploding building site, another immitation rather than innovation....
I could have accepted a brutish thug with funny hair and rugged looks in the role as Bond if the film would have lived up to previous experiences the same way i put up with a slightly too handsome and campy Roger Moore on occasions, but the immitatory qualities of Casino even more reminded me of Craigs lack of class and sophistication.
Finally i remain puzzled about all the prizes and accolades that have been showered over this decidedly mediocre product....
Cheers for that post BestBondSean. Sums up a lot for me. Craig's the saving grace of CR, not because he's so good, but because he's so different, he conceals the fact that it's mostly very formulaic. A Brosnan type wouldn't hide that it's a card game, double crossing dame, showdown with M, lacklustre villain, more auto product placement; we've seen it all before and recently.
Comments
Really? It's not that great a plot is it? It often doesn't even make sense (the gangster gassing etc.). Goldfinger's plan on the other hand, is one of the best and cleverest I'd say, but the plot is pretty simple stuff.
What do we learn about Bond's character there? It's not really a big character moment, is it? He likes mint juleps.. that's about it, isn't it?
postman pat, GF is my favourite Bond film, but I don't want you to think that I'm forcing my opinion upon you. I'm all too aware that not everybody holds GF in the same regard as I do.
Really Dan? I never would have guessed you'd feel that way.
For what it's worth, I agree with you (big surprise there, huh). Craig did nothing for me as Bond. I give him props for taking the role so seriously and clearly putting his heart and soul into it, but I just didn't care for his interpretation. Also, for all the talk of seeing him evolve; he changes little. He starts the movie as a surly womanizer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't trust anyone, and ends up pretty much the same way at the film's conclusion.
Likewise, Eva Green left me cold as well. Through her final act, I found her character to be one of the most pathetic, weak and downright cowardly Bond girls ever. By the time she decides to drown herself, Bond knows what she did, still tries to save her and is probably willing to forgive her. She can't protect him anymore - heck, she doesn't need to protect him as he can clearly take care of himself. So why excactly does she take her own life? I never really made that connection.
In fact, the way I saw it, Bond failed miserably at several key points during the mission. First he fails to get the bomber at the start, then he fails to get LeChiffre alive, then he loses the money as we see Mr. White walk away with the briefcase.
It's a well made film, but I guess I just don't care for Haggis' writing or his treatment of the material. Just my opinion.
Not really.
I completely agree. I loved Craig's physicality, but I too didn't really care for his interpretation. For one theing, he wasn't particularly suave IMO. Plus, I agree with you that the character didn't really evolve. Although I really blame that more on the script than on Crag's interpretation.
I've said this before, but I was happy to see her go. I didn't like her at all. As well as the reasons you stated, I found her to be incredibly unconvincing, not particularly good looking and quite annoying.
It's also my opinion.
We learn of his respect for those who are the masters in their respective fields. Bond does not like Goldfinger and is determined to put an end to him; but he nonetheless respects him. I loved this scene. Not only was the dialogue great, but the acting (such as the body language and facial expressions) were simply outstanding. IMO this was the best scene in GF.
That's more you explaining it after the event, though- that's not implicit in the writing.
A good plot for me is a clever one which has been well plotted and paced. It's not particuarly clever (I actually think LTK has one of the best plots of the Bond films, although it's not a great film) and effective though it is, I don't think that it demands celebration on its own. It orks fine, although there are a few slips ups in logic, but the film is more than just the plot, luckily.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, because, most of the reasons why I think it is such a clever and brilliant script are exactly what we disagree on. Plus, GF is also the one Bond script which, more than any other, I would love to read the actual screenplay to. That is always an indication that a film has IMO a great script.
(Regarding LTK, I think it has a terrific concept, but the plot is far too messy IMO.)
Put me down as another who feels CR is the most over-rated Bond entry, for many of the reasons that you list here, TonyDP. I find that, along with DAD, it's one of the DVDs in my collection that I visit the least.
The excess emotion that the scriptwriters shoe-horned into the story really ruined Fleming's orginal story.
Interestingly, Bond's failures in the CR film mirror his failures in the novel, at least to some degree, as does his rather deus ex machina rescue from Le Chiffre's grim intentions, which actually is much better explained in the film, IMO. At least he doesn't lose the cash in the book! :007)
I'd disagree with the notion that he doesn't evolve at all in the film; as in the novel, he has a renewed purpose in going after 'the organization' in question, and I got the sense that he is genuinely affected by Vesper's loss---which he unsuccessfully attempts to ignore, via denial---also a faithful product of the source material.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My second choice would be Casino Royale. A patchy (especially the first half) action film with some ponderous and overlooked melodrama and dialogue. It doesn't feel like a James Bond film to me and this is exacerbated by the lead actor bearing an uncanny resemblance to Norman Collier.
Guys, this quote may be of some interest re the above. From Adrian Turner on Goldfinger (Bloomsbury, 1998) p204:
"Realising the weaknesses of the plot, [Paul] Dehn and [Guy] Hamilton decided to have Bond imprisoned in Kentucky, enabling him to escape from his cell and overhear the briefing from inside the model. They also realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the briefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing."
George Romero has publicly denied (although he may not have been telling the truth) that skin colour played a part in the central actor getting the gig in Night of the Living Dead, even though the film is generally seen as a commentary on American race relations. Romero has said that his being black was coincidental and he was simply the best man for the job. Who knows whether Romero was telling the truth. Regardless, Night of the Living Dead is probably more powerful in regards to its message on race than many race dramas.
Something about that movie does scream Timothy Dalton though. I like FYEO and I don't like FYEO. The pre-title sequence grinds on my very nerves (the only one I fast forward through) and some of the rest of the movie bugs for various reasons.
I wish TD would have got this movies, I have always like TD in TLD and somewhat in LTK, but a TD FYEO...that would have been neat.
Probably Moore's finest hour is his performance in For Your Eyes Only. Nobody should be seeking to take that away from him... After a run of patchy performances (TMWTGG, TSWLM & [not quite as badly] MR) Sir Roger shines in For You Eyes Only.
What was wrong with TSWLM X-( ? It wasn't patchy! I thought that was Moore's best movie and it is my favorite bond film!
We're allowed our differences in opinion... But I felt that this film was as if they (the powers that be) chose to, instead of testing the waters of slap-stick tongue-in-cheek Bonding, they jumped fairly and squarely off the diving board and into the pool of pun-fun! Roger is a little to relaxed for my liking and his acting bone is much more exercised in films like Live and Let Die and For Your Eyes Only.
As for the plot, its an entertaining remake of You Only Live Twice and a big bundle of fun, but for me, doesn't have that essence that I associate with Bond and the spy genre.
No worries, we're here to discuss this sort of worldly debate. B-)
I can agree with almost everything you said, but small sets? We had the Archangelsk dam facility, the Severnaya control room, the casino, Statue Park, the Russian base/library, Alec's huge control facility, the satellite dish... all pretty jumbo sets if you ask me.
100% agreement there. The scene wherein the jet crashes into the Severnaya dish looked like it was filmed in a bathtub diorama. Die Another Day's CGI surfing was just as bad, of course...
I highly suggest you go straight to the source material.
I will admit to liking A View To A Kill, but the film's look is its weakness. It is mostly grey and white, and there is nothing striking about its cinematography. It also looks cheap in places and has a t.v. movie feel to it. I hope you are not such a fanatic over it that you cannot see this fact.
You've not come across JFF before then, CasinoChris 75? B-)
FRWL drags and is repetitive. The first half is Bond wandering around with Kerim Bey who is a complete bore because all he does is ramble on about himself, his family, and what an interesting life he has had. Then the characters make plans and run around doing things just to get them to their destination while Grant stalks them; this becomes repetitive.
The second half is worse. It is just Bond and Tatiana lounging around the Orient Express looking bored and waiting for something to happen while Grant continues to stalk Bond; this also becomes repetitive.
There just isn't much that is happening here. Just think about it.
I prefer Goldfinger.
Casino Royale wasn't bad, however wouldn,t rank any higher than lower midfield in the whole Bond canon for me.
Bond films where always best when they set the trend rather than follow it, ahead of it's time rather than doing the same as everybody else at the time.
The two main examples for being 'Followers' rather than trendsetters IMHO are ' License to Kill' and 'Casino Royale'.
@license to Kill' didn't fare to well in basucally being a 'Lethal Weapon' ' Die Hard' clone with a healthy dosage of ' Miami Vice' influences, thus looked cheap and out of place with the other Bond entries.
Casino Royale mimmicks all the later tendencies in hip Action Thrillers, mainly ultra realistic fight sequences with too fast paced dizzying cuts and gimmicky black and white shots, too much emphasis on the grit, which is necessary but not at the expense of pure excitement, which for my money is sorely lacking in Casino.
There is not a single action sequence in the whole film that made me go 'wow'. The refreshing start with the base running ellicits a few laughs because of Bonds more destructuve and direct approach contrasting the nimble base running pro but it's all downhill from there.
The unimaginative destruction orgy on Miami Airport left me completely cold, all seen before in certain Catastrophic thrillers and an uncomfortable (for me ) reminder of 'Die Hard II'.
There was almost no use made of the Aston Martin, when there finally was a car chase, it abruptly ended in an impossible stunt over an invisible ramp, removed by CGI. Yes the stunt man broke the record for subsequent rollovers, yet the feat remains a lot less exhilliarating as for example the Bungee jump in GE, Rick Sylvesters ski jump in
TSWLM or the fall from the rock by the same man in FYEO.
The main piece of the film, a Card game in a Casino in Monte Negro could not manage to hold my interest over the whole lenghty duration, a boring depiction of a boring game that just came into foray through making money on the internet by playing poker and the recent flood of TV channels televising Poker games....yawwwwwnnnn.
More annoying than any of these was the implausible plot ( why did Bond even have to beat Le Chiffre in a Poker game?, there would have been 100 of other possibilities to deal with him)and the absolutely non interesting leading Lady.
Why anybody ( let alone Bond ) could fall in love with a cold fish like that never became transparent to me.
The climactic shootout in Venice in the crumbling building was so illogical and confusing, that i completely lost interest in trying to figure out who was who and on which side they were.
Moreover i felt i've all seen it before in Cambell's take on 'Zorro' where the title heroe fights a bunch of adversaries on a crumbling and exploding building site, another immitation rather than innovation....
I could have accepted a brutish thug with funny hair and rugged looks in the role as Bond if the film would have lived up to previous experiences the same way i put up with a slightly too handsome and campy Roger Moore on occasions, but the immitatory qualities of Casino even more reminded me of Craigs lack of class and sophistication.
Finally i remain puzzled about all the prizes and accolades that have been showered over this decidedly mediocre product....
Roger Moore 1927-2017