Just out of curiosity- what IS a good Bond film?

Because I can't see any difference between the Brosnan movies and say, "Thunderball" or any of the later Connery or Roger Moore movies. They're all dumb, good fun. None of them are as dark or intense as "Casino Royale" and yet we still call them Bond movies.

What could they have done to improve the Brosnan movies and why don't we apply the same standards to the earlier Bonds?

Maybe when "you are" viewing them, not me. To me they are some of the best, I could not stand Roger Moore, they can take all of those out, IF you really want to see bad acting rewatch them. They made the franchise look ridiculous... IMHO of course. Like Bronsnan or not most really wanted to see him as Bond; without him Bond would be straight to video by now.

I personally think that yes, Brosnan got the short end of the shitty script stick, but the franchise revival was not necessarily his doing - I think he happened to be Bond at a point where the interest in the character hit a renaissance. I had grown up half-watching the late Moore Bond films but once I hit a certain age, I committed myself to the character.

People were looking for the franchise to be big and what better time than with a new Bond?

I personally think that the Brosnan films made the franchise look just as ridiculous as the Moore films. Die Another Day ranks up there with Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever as one of my absolute least favorite Bond films. I can't even bring myself to watch it again, it's so bad.

I also think Casino Royale has reset the bar very high for me. It will be hard for me to watch the older Bonds again, even the later Connery Bonds, knowing that I prefer this new one to pretty much every other one.

Before Die Another Day was released, I rewatched every EON Bond film chronologically. It was a heavy undertaking and I don't think I could do it again.

Anyway, I think Brosnan could've been much better as Bond if the scripts had been as good as Casino Royale's, IMO.

-ringding-

Ringding, I share your sentiment.

One other thing that made Brosnan such a very popular Bond was that almost everyone (including Brosnan himself) wanted him to be James Bond...even at the latter years of Remington Steele. It was certainly hyped that here was the actor that everyone agreed typifies the character and when Dalton left at a time when no one cared for 007 movies anymore, Brosnan enters to revitalize the franchise.

I do really think that if the Bond films after GoldenEye avoided the almost-ridiculous gadgets and comic book scenarios, then Brosnan's and/or the moviegoers' interest would still continue. Even Brosnan admitted that the franchise needed a different direction.

one thing is for certain. the success of the current bond movie is very much attributable to pierce brosnan bond films. after timothy dalton films, not that he was a bad bond, the box office of the bond films was down the drain. they were bombing hard. brosnan raised the bar and brought new audience members into the bond fan club. his films were far from perfect due to terrible scripts but he reengerized the franchise finnacially. it's funny brosnan wanted to move the character away from the silliness and gadgets but the producers wouldn't allow it. then they get rid of brosnan and take his ideas of a more serious bond and doing casino royale (along with quentin t). I love bond even though he is no longer the top spy i would give that honor to jason bourne. I find the producers, eon, rather unlikeable.

Well, the truth is the Dalton films didn't do all that badly. The Living Daylights actually took in $1.5 Million more than A View To A Kill in the U.S. and the worldwide box office totals for Licence To Kill were more than respectable and the movie turned a nice profit. Licence To Kill didn't go great in the U.S. - but there were so many factors involved in that that it can really be viewed as a bit of a fluke. The series really just needed a break (after all, 16 movies in 27 years was an awful lot of Bond for the average moviegoer to take).

Casino Royale is a serious restarting of the series, and the tone and style of the movie really is just an extension of things we've seen in movies like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, and Licence To Kill - with a few updates (like the construction site chase) to make sure the movie doesn't look at all dated.

What is going to be REALLY interesting is to see where they take it from here. Supposedly Craig's Bond will slowly morph a little closer to becoming the Bond we've all known (and whom many of us have loved) - kind of a hybrid of Connery and Dalton's Bonds with a slightly more sarcastic, cynical sense of humor. I can't wait for the next one to come out!

very true. I was suprised by Dalton, and ended up liking his portrayal very much before Eon ran into problems and the franchise was put on hold for a couple years. I was disappointed when he wasn't asked back, but Brosnan always seemed like a solid choice and at least a good replacment.
Odd then, when I saw Goldeneye and found I disliked Pierce in the role...greatly.
I tired watching TWINE last night, and I started to realize where my problems with Pierce come from
1) he tries to hard. Just watch him in the opening minutes. He is trying so hard to be a tough guy, all squints and grimmaces, and (to me) he just looks like a poser. They made a big deal at the time that TWINE was going to make him 'more real' and they give him a hurt shoulder so that occasionally he can rub it and grimmace in pain for a second. Compared to CR, the attempt at making the superman Bond more human sized is laughable.
2) another huge area of weakness with the Brosnan films is in the relationship between M and Bond. Honestly, going back to watch TWINE it looks as if Dench is 10 years older and slower when she is actually 7 years younger than in CR. In CR M finally has a pair of balls again, and talks to Bond as the superior she is. In the Brosnan films this relationship is totally neutered, and M is remarkably weak and clueless. Bond as superman is nothing new, but it reached its nadir with the Brosnan movies. Especially with him outrunning fireballs at the end of every act and never getting his hair messed up.

This is true. As one of the biggest Bond fans out there, Goldfinger is not only my pick for the best Bond film, but it's in my top 10 favorite movies of all time. Casino Royale disappointed me by not being much fun (and for the record, I didn't enjoy Die Another Day for a different reason: it was too stupid). Licence to Kill was one of the worst Bond films because it sapped away all the enjoyment out of the franchise, while Die Another Day, Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker are terrible due to their over-reliance on ridiculous plots and characters.

Generally, the ultra-serious Bond films and any installment that has outer space lasers attacking the Earth get a from me.

If I could only have one 007 movie to be stuck with on a desserted island, it would also be Goldfinger.

Mmmm... desserted island... Preferrably something with chocolate sauce...

Mmmm....


(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
-ringding-

Totally agree.

Saw Casino Royale yesterday - loved it!

Casino Royale 4.5/5 (maybe 5/5)

Absolutely brilliant. Loved this film. Daniel Craig is fantastic, he is not just a good Bond, he IS Bond, closer in tone to Dalton or Connery (ie a cold badass) than Pierce or Roger Moore, and has little in the way of quips. Some great action, an early fight on top of a crane reminded me of the climatic fight of 1995's excellent Goldeneye - perhaps the best Pierce outing of all, no coincidence that film was also directed by Martin Campbell.

I think the film is a wee bit long (145 minutes is quite long for an action film), and couldn't believe it was a 12a as some stuff was definitely not for kids.
I also noticed some comments by M that place the film in 2006 ("I miss the Cold War" etc) - still overall a cracking film with some very funny moments.
I loved the part when Bond said "Do I look like a give a damn!" when asked if he was shaken or stirred.
An unexpected moment in the had me and most of the cinema laughing out loud, that was great.
I liked how Bond could be vulnerable though (something hinted at in Die Another Day).

The ending

I loved the humour in the film, like in the scene where Bond is ordering his drink and 3 guys are like "Can I have one of those too?" and Le Chiffre is like "Does anyone want to play poker?!"

The part where Bond drove in a circle back to his "home" with the woman was a crack up.

I disagree about License to Kill. Outside of FYEO, I think it was the best Bond movie since Thunderball.

I really enjoyed CR. They took a Bourne approach in the reboot and there is nothing wrong with that. The opening scene when they were on top of that crane gave me vertigo. My only complaint is that it was very apparant that there was more going on with Vesper early on.

So can I assume that the organization behind it all is SMERSH?

Yeah - at first I was disappointed that there was no 007 theme at the beginning but then I realized that he wasn't 007 yet (although no naked chick silhouettes). But then the ending had it and it fit perfectly.

The 007 theme played at the end.
Yeah The ending showed that

I think they'll come up with a new name. I believe SMERSH was a Soviet organization. Wasn't the notes with "death to spies" written on them in russian, left on the dead british agents in Living Daylights, a ruse to make the british believe the russians were behind it and that SMERSH had been resurrected?

True.

Maybe SPECTRE then.

I've heard from commanderbond.net that apparently EON now has the Thunderball story and its characters after winning the legal cases in 2000 (don't know if it's true). If so, the revealing of SPECTRE in the next film will be phenominal.

I respect your taste in the more serious Bond installments, but I don't agree with it. I enjoy the films with grandiose supervillains that have giant bases and a moderate dose of the trademark Bond humor/puns (Sean Connery: "I think he got the point"). Sean Connery is my favorite actor to take on the role and I guess I'm one of the only Bond fans left who thinks the old formula could still produce quality movies if they would just get some better screenwriters. A few of my favorites include From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye and, yes, Tomorrow Never Dies (but not as much as the others).

grim_tales,


This entry is going to be looked at as a Godsend for the continued health of the franchise in years to come, because it finally gives the character some soul and motivation. Its just not enough anymore to bust out the same slick moves in film after film. It was fun when the material was new and exciting (in the 60's) but afterwards its just a conditioned response. For this character to become engaging again, he absolutely needed some grounding as to motivation and drive, and this film served that up beautifully.

I agree completely. If Craig's Bond is slightly less refined and rough around the edges, it's because he's just starting out, and its a "reboot", which is why there is no Moneypenny, no Q (yet) and in this universe, the previous 20 entries haven't happened (thus I don't know why I heard complaints about Judi Dench as "M").. In 2 films or so, I'm sure it will be more "classic Bond" like we know, this film was superb IMO, a sort of "Batman Begins" of Bond.

Thanks for the explanation BTW, apart from Vesper does he really "love" any other women in the franchise (back to the previous films now?) - his wife in OHMSS obviously, and maybe Paris in TND.

I really enjoyed GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies as well

As much as I love GOLDFINGER, it doesn't rank as one of my top Bond's only because he spends half the movie as a freakin' hostage. Feh.

I'll watch Thunderball, From Russia With Love, The Spy Who Loved Me, or even Casino Royale over Goldfinger any day. But I'd take almost any Bond over The World Is Not Enough... that was one of the few Bond films I came out of positively *angry*.

The one thing that is suck-o is the opening credit titles of CASINO ROYALE.
And the stunts are wire-fu/ c.g.i. stuff and not death defing like past Bonds.
But good movie .

Eh? There was no CGI at all???
The opening credits were unusual in the sense they weren't Maurice Binder-lite with requisite women, but focused on the espionage/violence aspects of the film, around the theme of the Casino. I really liked them.