I actually liked it more when I watched it the first time. Making Blofeld Bond's stepbrother was a bad idea. So is throwing him into a hurried relationship with a girl he barely met. For which he wants to throw his old life away. Seems he has forgotten Vesper after all. And since there is another Bond, and probably more to come after that, it's hardly convincing anyway.
Overall it was still entertaining but I felt like they borrowed from almost every Bond movie. Evertyhing felt like it has been done before. From the stunts to the sets.
And a note on the techical side: maybe I configured my home cinema the wrong way but the score was much to present in this movie. A car chase isn't really exciting if you can't hear the engines over the music.
I rated it a seven but it really is more of a high six.
Sadly, there are no drivers like Nigel in F1 any more.
Skyfall ranks right between the first two Craig movies. Not as good as the first but much better then the second. As I've mentioned repeatedly I can live with plot holes and logic errors in Bond movies. They are almost a trademark.
It's interesting that the pre opening credits scene for this movie ends with a failure. That's an interesting approach and sets a different tone for the movie. Although you know he isn't dead. We then get what I consider the first real Bond theme song of the new era performed by the remarkable Adele. And I think she's on the same level as Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger".
Another step up from the previous one is the cut-down on action and the much better, less hectic, editing. The stunts are still top notch and I'm always amazed when I watch the specials how much was actually done in camera as opposed to CGI. That is something I really appreciate.
As for the story itself - it's kind of a mixed bag. You have the old vs new angle which is ok. Bringing back characters like "Q" or Moneypenny in a much different form is a concession to the more modern times this franchise now lives. I'm fine with that, too. On the other hand I don't think I needed all that Bond backstory we got here. I never felt it was missing. The absolute weak point for me was the villain, Silva. Barbara Brocolli called him "probably the best Bond villain of all time" on one of the specials and I strongly disagree. Yes, he seems like a throwback to the Blowfelds and Dr.No's of the old movies. But he lacks style. I find him neither intimidating nor creepy. Just comical, almost laughable.
I'm sad to see Dench leave the franchise but she's been there for a very long time and it was probably the right time to move on to, again, someone younger. Which is a theme for this movie after all.
Overall "Skyfall" was entertaining to watch with highs and lows like pretty much every Bond movie. There only were a couple really bad ones. And this isn't one of them.
This isn't a bad movie by any means but after "Casino Royale" set the bar very high it was a bit of let down.
Despite having all the ingredients I never really felt I watch a Bond movie. I can't explain it but something felt off. I like Craig's Bond very much. The rawness and solitude his Bond displays. He's a wrecking ball instead of a scalpell at this point. His motivations are understandable and relatable. He feels human despite practicall being invincible.
I felt this movie had too much action for actions sake. Especially at the beginning you hardly had time to breath as one sequence chased the next. Which didn't leave much room to establish the story. And that's the biggest issue - the story. Too busy, too much cramped into a movie that is already among the shortest Bonds. Green didn't made a great villain. He was just boring. Olga Kurylenko's character was rather flat. She seemed more like an apendix than an integral part of the story. And did I mention the theme song ? No ? because it's that awfull.
The good stuff ? Judi Dench - once more. I do like her very much in this role. She took it and made it her own. And that's not taking anything away from her predecessors. Stunts are once more top notch but like mentioned above a bit too many.
The "Goldfinger" hommage scene with Gemma Arterton was nice. Especially since the did that one in oil. And one thing I noticed right at the beginning: I remember reading the press making fun of Craig that he got an automatic Aston in "Casino Royale". Writing that this Bond can't shift. Well the director seemed to making very clear this time that Bond can drive stick.
Thank God they didn't make the "Jinx" movie. This was one of the worst characters that came out of Bond.
I actually hadn't watched this until now. And, man was this a ride.
This is the type of origin story we were missing until now. The plot feels genuinely believable. It's a very personal story. No megalomaniac evil mind wanting to destroy or re-shape the world with his contraptions.
Casino Royale reboots the franchise with Daniel Craig as the new Bond. And you know from the first minute this will be very different. Now, I've never read any of the Bond novels so I can't say which one is the closest. This Bond is raw, unpolished, brutal. He doesn't seem to stop at anything to achieve his goals. He cuts corners everywhere which doesn't sit well with his superior, M, again marveously played by Judi Dench. But he also learnes his lessons along the way. And for me that makes him kind of the most realistic Bond.
Brosnan's final outing as Bond starts as good as they come. After the opening scene it then leads into probably the worst Bond theme ever (Well, she got a role out of it, so for her it worked out). Unfortunately the whole movie never really recovers.
Now, I can live with the plot in general, be it a little bit ridiculous and stupid at times, as Bond movies were never known for their incredible writing or originality (oh, look, another diamond laden satellite in space). But this feel like they've entered the MCU and that's not to be understood as a compliment. The dialogues are extremly bad, like written by a teenager. The acting by everyone is bad to mediocre at best. And sadly this time that goes for Brosnan as well. There is nothing of the whit and panache of the previous movies. Rosamunde Pike still holds the record for not convincing me in any role I ever saw her play. Toby Stephens tries to portray the big bad villain and fails utterly. John Cleese is not even close to being in the same orbit as Llewellyn was. And Michael Madsen gives us his take on the overconfident, arrogant American. Oh, I absolute forgot about Halle Berry. Literally, she left that much of an impression.
Production wise this doesn't look to good either. While the opening sequence had a lot of pratical stunts the relied on CGI throughout the movie far too much. And in the early 2000s it just didn't cut it. Which has the result that it now looks extremely dated and fake. Addionally the sets do look exactly like that - sets. All that ice looked so fake it really hurts the whole movie.
This being the 20th official Bond I expected really something more. The little "homages" they put in where really lame. And yes, that includes Halle Berry appearance in Ursula Andress style.
While the movie has small fractions where it can be entertaining it fails as a whole and is by far the worst of the Brosnan era.
It's a Bond movie with all its pros and cons. Brosnan is still fantastic. They little nuances he brings (like adjusting his tie underwater during the boat chase) are great.
Yes, there are parts that are repetitive that we've seen in one form or the other in other Bond films. Does that mean they're less exciting ? No ! I still enjoy those pre-green screen, pre-CGI in camera stunts. They are simply amazing.
The story ? Yes, been there, done that. Is the movie less entertaining ? Again, no ! I enjoyed this one, too.
Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards have to be one of the best one-two punches in Bond history. Top 3 easily. That counts for something as well, or not ?
I haven't watched the back half of the Bond movies as much. Therefore I don't recall every minute detail. Which leads to kind of a first watch feeling .
Brosnan's second outing as Bond is absolutely in line with the first one and what I understand a Bond movie should be. I like the plot from the point that he who controls the news controls the world. It happens in todays world and probably has for a long time. Media is power. However, I find the character of Carver a bit to ridiculous even for a Bond movie. He's got no style at all. Could've been intentionally, I don't know, but he certainly isn't amongst my favorite Bond villains.
I absolutely love Dench's "M". She's as tough as they come and her whit and dry humor is spot on.
Oh, yes, that's more like it. This Bond has a great mix of humor, brutality, a dose of silliness plus tons of action. Brosnan instantly steps into the role of Bond and it feels like he's always been there. The tone of the movie is at times really grim and you sometimes feel you watch Rambo instead of Bond.
But I really need to do something about my memory. I had no recollection of Famke Jansen being in a Bond movie nor that Judy Dench has already been there with Brosnan. And she does a fine job giving us a very different kind of "M". And by that I don't speak of her sex. Famke was great also and she seems to have had a lot of fun with this role.
The theme song by the amazing, and sadly recently passed, Tina Turner is one of the best of the franchise and stands in stark contrast to the at times silly synth music used for the film.
One little weakness in the plot was that you don't believe for a second that Alec is dead simply by the fact you don't hire Sean Bean for a little teaser appearance. And since he then doesn't appear until later in the movie it's a safe bet he's the villain.
But like I said, little weakness. Overall a highly entertaining Bond movie.
I can't resist to watch them when I find they're on TV.
Starts out interesting with Bond going on a personal vendetta but it hits a wall the moment he meets the woman pilot. It becomes increasingly boring after that with bland and boring characters througout and that includes the women. The character of Sanchez seems to be written with Davi in mind but he is unfortunately as dull as the rest. The finale is explosive (literally) but it can't save the movie as a whole. Pretty generic and you could easily replace Bond with a Joe Smith. Giving "Q" a bit more to do than usual and a very young Benicio del Toro are some saving grace but that's ultimately not why I watch the movie.
With "The Living Daylights" begins a new, albeit short, new chapter.
Personally, I've nothing against Dalton. Sure, he's a different kind of Bond. But that is true for every Bond actor. They all brought their own take on the role. But I have to say he's rather dry in his portrayal and he's missing, like they say, panache. The humorous Bond one-liners are not really hitting it home. Maryam D'Abo is not selling it for me. She's a rather atypical kind of Bond girl, the innocent type. And her acting his rather bland. And it felt like even the writers didn't know what to do with her as she really has no purpose.
The plot is more grounded, more realistic. No megalomaniac, evil genius with a devilish master plan. It would have been OK had the "villains" in this story not have been caricatures.
Now the stunts are in typical Bond fashion and are once more exciting to watch. Overall an OK to watch flic, but not really multiple times. A good "6"
"Where would Russian technology be without Silicon Valley ?" :laughing:
Roger Moore's last outing as James Bond was once again immensly entertaining. Personally I don't get why people rate this movies so low. Are they silly ? Are they over the top ? Do they have at times ridicolous plots ? Of Course, that's what Bond movies are. They are not realistic spy thrillers. Maybe the books are, but the movie's aren't.
I actually thought the evil plan in this one was really inventive. Christopher Walken did a really good job and Tanya Roberts looks stunning. Yes, you could see that Moore's gotten too old and, especially on Blu Ray, it's easy to see he's doubled almost everywhere. He still looked better then Connery in "Never Say Never Again". But it was time for him to depart.
I liked the Moore era very much. Like I said he was the first Bond I saw. I don't think I've watched any of the other Bonds as much as him. Which has the upside that I can now enter the next Bond era without remembering too much from those.
Proof positive you need much more than Sean Connery to make a Bond movie. Whatever his reasons were to come back (having a say in the casting and creative influence f.e.) this movie turned out bad. And he looked about ten years older than he actually was. Which at least the'd taken into account.
Well, they couldn't use all the trademarks and it shows everywhere. From the opening scene this doesn't feel anything like James Bond. Funny enough some scenes actually do look like late 60s.
Concerning the cast: those aren't bad actors. But their acting is bad. But I guess they act like they were directed. "M" seems like a persiflage, totally over the top. Barbara Carrera is just a hanger for designer fashion. Her performance is one of the worst I've ever seen. I don't understand the Golden Globe nomination at all. And her final scene the most ridicolous thing. Brandauer is very bland as the villain. You can't say anything else above him.
And talking of blandness - re-heating an old story doesn't help. Seems to be that an original script would've been to expensive. And it takes about 1.5 h before the first decent stunt. It's also about the only significant one. I wonder where all that budget went. 36m $ compared to the 27.5m $ for "Octopussy" (all numbers imdb). Guess a lot went into Connery's pocket (actually it was 3m $ which was stupid money to pay for an actor back then). In case you'd like to know, roughly multiply the figures times 3.7 to compare it with today.
Like I said, in my eyes an unnessessary and forgetable movie. Well, since the boxoffice numbers were inferior to "Octopussy" we were spared another rogue Bond movie.
After her character met an early demise in "the Man with the Golden Gun" Maud Adams returns to the Bond franchise as the titular Octopussy. She's an incrdible beautiful woman and the chemistry with Roger Moore is absolutely there. Kabir Bedi, of Sandokhan fame, plays the henchman of Kamal Khan and also leaves his mark on the movie.
Some of the stunts are again absolutely crazy if you keep in mind the really did it in camera.
I always felt the later Roger Moore Bonds were really entertaining. And this was the first on I actually saw in cinema plus it was filmed partly in my home country.
So, that's high marks from me once Moore. :wink:
Like I've said, with Bond movies it's not about the story. That's pretty much always the same. It's about the action/stunts and the women (sorry but that's how it was).
The stunts are again amazing and there are lots of it. You really appreciate them even more if you watch the Making-offs. The helicopter stunt at the beginning was great. Althought it felt shoehorned in storywise. As if they desoerately wanted to close the chapter Blofeld once and for all. One big problem with the Bond movies was always the timeline, or the lack of one. But as mentioned, not important really.
I love the car chase. There are car chases in many (all ?) Bond movies and they can be repetitive. But do one in a 2CV at it adds an entertaining extra.
Concerning the Bond Women I have to admit that Carole Bouquet was one of the most stunning for me.
And as an added extra "For Your Eyes Only" was my favorite Bond song until Adele's "Skyfall".
So, yeah, I liked this one a lot.
James Bond ventures into Space. How much bigger can it get ?
I know I'm rating this movie rather high but this one I must have watched a dozen times as a teenager. I absolutely loved it - I was kind of a space junkie. It sure is a product of its time with the Space Shuttle and the battle in space with laser guns. This was around the time that Star Wars and Star Trek were made so there might be some reason for that. According to imdb this movie was actually brought forward due to the success of Star Wars. The end credit of "Spy" said the next movie would be FYEO.
This one is another fun ride with the typical portion of Bond humor along the ride. There are some nice easter eggs in this one. Is it repetitive ? Of course, it's a Bond movie. It's almost in its DNA. You have a formula that works (stunts, beautiful women and grandious sets) so why change it. Those were the blockbusters of the time. And if you look at franchises like Marvel or Transformers they all follow there own formula. The story is mostly just the canvas.
One of my personal favorites and the best of the Roger Moore Bond movies so far.
Bears some similarities to YOLT. Here it's a tanker swallowing subs and the finale inside the tanker is similar. But it works, looks great. I actually like the story of a villain (played by the great Curd Jurgens) not looking for money. He's not completely wrong in his assesment of humans, you know. Also the first time we see the unforgetable Richard Kiel as Jaws.
I like that we get kind of the Russian counterpart of 007, female, of course. Had an interesting setup with Bond killing Anya's lover on a mission before. Not that it mattered concerning the eventual outcome between the two of them. But it was something new. Interestingly it was the first time they mentioned Bond's marriage here.
The parachute stunt was another highlight of movie history and the Bond movies. They always try to top themselves it seems. I also like the Bond car, I remember having it as a toy way back and I actually took in with me in the tub. :laughing:
Like I said, one of my personal favs.
The stunts they did on those movie are nothing short of amazing. Even more so as they are practical stunts and not CGI.
Well in line for what a Bond movie ought to be.
A cool villain plaed by the amazing Christopher Lee who can't really diplay all his acting skills but for me ranks second behind Froebe's Goldfinger so far.
Two (!) swedish Bond girls. Althought they killed off the wrong one once again.
Great action scenes. Granted, the boat chase feels a bit repetitive especially with Sheriff Pepper appearing again. But we get one of the best car stunts in movie history and a Fantomas inspired escape that might actually work.
Cool sets and locations. I espcially like the QE wreck.
The story itself certainly isn't worse than many other Bond movies and is once more on the side of believability.
Quite entertaining alltogether.
"Live and Let Die" welcomes Roger Moore as James Bond and takes the franchise into the 1970s. Truth be told, and you may not agree, I like Moore better. Now, that's mainly because he was the Bond of my generation, he was also the first Bond I knew. And you never forget your first, don't you ? Compared to Connery I also find him less arrogant. Now, please note I said I like him more not I think he was better. In the end every era had its own Bond up to Daniel Craig.
The script seems to be rather thin as there isn't so much happening but there is a lot of entertaining action. And the adorable Jane Seymour. Katanga is not the best Bond villian and his plan is litreally not the end of the world. But all things considered the movie is a solid action flick for Bond fans and casual watchers alike.
Granted, it's not the best Bond movie so far, not even the second best. But I like this more than OHMSS. And not because Connery was back. No, that probably wasn't the best idea but one born out of desperation. His age (althought just around 40 he looked older) is clearly showing by now and he isn't as convincing as he was before. I do agree that there is a lot of sillyness in this movie. But in some way that's what I expect from a Bond movie. Not a parody but certainly a wee bit over the top. But it seems to be more aimed at an american audience. The addition of well known, and beautiful, american actress Jill St. John seems to add to that.
There is no mentioning at all of what happened at the end of OHMSS and I think that was a deliberate attempt to bury that movie. We start out again with Bond chasing Blofeld (again played by a different actor) around the world and presumably killing him. Which is later revealed to be a Doppelgänger. Not a huge surprise for the audience I might add. The two henchman Wint and Kidd add a little bit of creepyness and overall you get the usual plot holes and errors also typical for a Bond movie.
But it was "Goodbye" for Mr. Connery who carried a lot of the 1960s Bond with him. The next one would by the premiere for Roger Moore (who was the initial first choice for the character) who carries Bond into the 1970s.
The forgotten Bond. Or should I say the unwanted, unrecognized Bond.
But it's not Lazenby who's the problem. I mean, he may be part of it but he might have gotten criticism anyway because he had rather large shoes to fill. In the end he never got a real chance.
No, the main problem is the horrible script. It's cheesy and dull and there isn't much at stake. The movie felt off from the start with now Theme Song and flasbacks from the other Bond movies in the opening credits. There was no excitement going into it. I mean, there is an evil plot by Blofeld to destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. How ingenius is that ? (attention, sarkasm). And everything just so he'll be accepted as a Count ? And was that the same Blofeld as in "You Only Live Twice" I wonder ? He didn't seem to recognize Bond but he was asked how many millions he wants "this time". Which sounds like he was the same. Now, logic was never a strong suite of bond movies but this feels like a gaping hole. And the whole romantic angle ? That felt like a totally different movie. And it didn't fit. It felt completely hollow and constructed and it made no impact at the end. There isn't much more to say about that.
I also blame the director as he seem to have no idea how to get good performances out of his cast. Of course Hunt knew how to make movies as he was an editor for the first four. But knowing how to make a movie and making one are different things. Horrible German accents and weird, funny sound effects during the fights only add to the pile. And the movie was way, way too long. I checked the time after what I thought must be already two hours and I was just halfway in.
No, this was not a good movie at all. Bond or otherwise. Such a shame Diana Rigg threw away "The Avengers" for this one off appearance. And that after only being third choice for the role (after Bardot and Deneuve).
"The Wookie's Paw" is cool but the rest not so much. Just another generic Disney story with a kid being the focus. Still decent enough for watching once. It looks great, I give them that.
It has all the ingredients of a Bond movie, the good and the bad. Although one has to take into account that this is an old movie from a different time.
I like the space scenes and they already had a re-usable spacecraft. That's futuristic at that point. They take a very long time to show Japan and part of the culture. I like it when the location becomes almost a character. Tropical islands all look alike. And the sets are once more absolutely great. The finale was explosive to say the least.
My one big beef with the story: why did they kill Karin Dor ? She was much more interesting than the Japanese girl.
Better than I remembered but runs a bit too long. The underwater scenes are really good. Still, not the best Bond or one of my favorites for that matter
Love it, love it, love it !!! You can't go wrong with a classic Muppet movie.
Is this one of the best Bond movies ? I'd say so.
For starters you get a great villain that is out in the open all the time, not some mysterious evil mastermind, with one of the best replies I've heard. "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die." Brilliant.
You have one of the most memorable and recognizable scenes in all of movie history - the golden girl. A banger of a title song sung by Shirley Bassey that sets the tone for the movie. And last but not least one of the most outrageous character names ever: Pussy Galore. Come on, you'd get grilled for that one today. And as much as I liked the first two for being more realistic, Bond needs it's gadgets. And, of course, the car.
Oh, and the story isn't bad either.
Better than Dr. No. While maintaining the good stuff the story is much better and the whole movie flows better. Istanbul is a great location as it really has a character and is unmistakable whereas Jamaica looks like many islands.
First appearance of "Q" and, of course, Blofeld who has become the prototype of the evil genius.
