TND runs out of puff once they find the stealth boat but before that...it's absolutely stunning. Moves at breakneck pace, has great sequences and you're right, Brozzer's best.
I think it's the last classic Bond film and taps right into the 1990s Brit pop stuff so well.
I'm going to have to see how DAD plays this time around but I have a feeling I'm going to rate it higher than TWINE. This one is just dull, and I recall that DAD...for all of its faults...at least moves.
Anyways...
The good:
This is probably David Arnold's best Bond score. The theme song by Garbage is first rate as well.
The pre title sequence is the only part of the film with any real oomph to it. The initial briefcase retrieval in Bilbao, Spain works as s nice, short burst of credible action, and the boat chase on the Thames is pretty slick. The boat chase goes on maybe a tad too long but it's overall effective and makes you think you might be watching one of the great films.
Setting Bond, as a character, up with a movie-long injury is an interesting hook that is unfortunately not really capitalized on. Oh well.
The opening oil-based graphics playing over the theme song are great. This is probably Kleinman's best effort.
It's fun to see Robbie Coltrane back. The film picks up a bit whenever he's present to add some humor.
The production design is top notch. The sets are all full and lush, and the submarine in the finale is particularly believable looking and functioning.
The bad:
The film is dull. The pacing never really gets out of 2nd gear, even in the action sequences. I get that there was a desire to focus more on character than action but holy cow, even the character work is dull. I found myself bored and multi-tasking while watching the film, something I'd yet to do in this franchise rewatch. My wife was also quite bored.
Many of the action sequences are flat out bad. The entire parahawk sequence is particularly insulting with the languid pacing and the incompetent pilots. The assault on Coltrane's caviar facility...with the helicopters and the sawblades...is also stupid and goes on far too long.
The character of Renard is set up to be a fantastic bad guy. A man with a bullet in his brain who knows he's going to die and can't feel pain? Played by Begbie???? This should have been a grand slam. Instead, he's barely a base hit. What a phenomenal waste of opportunity and talent. Carlyle deserved much better.
The character of Christmas Jones is clearly modeled after Lara Croft in terms of appearance and Dr. Goodhead in terms of competence. A better actress might have been able to make this character work but she's simply a bad character conceptually. I doubt Meryl Streep could have made this character work, so expecting Denise Richards to carry the role is a unfair. She's clearly not up to the task in terms of acting but there have been other actresses in other films who have been just as bad or worse. Barbara Bach didn't fare much better in TSWLM and Tanya Roberts was far worse in AVTAK.
The acting quality is inconsistent. Both GE and TND were solidly acted without anyone standing out as being bad. TWINE has several actors duff it, not just Denise Richards. A lot of the supporting cast just aren't up to snuff. Brosnan is on point but he often looks angry at some of the actors who are clearly not operating at 100%, something I seemed to catch with Dalton in his two films as well.
The humor rarely works. In both GE and TND, the one-liners from Bond felt natural and 'in the moment'. Here, they're stiff.
Not a good entry.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
OHMSS
FRWL
TSWLM
MR
FYEO
TND
DN
GE
TLD
YOLT
TMWTGG
OP
TB
LTK
GF
DAF
LALD
TWINE
AVTAK
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,889Chief of Staff
I couldn’t agree more with regards to Renard…a fabulous actor and an an incredible idea for a villain…and nothing is done with it…nothing remotely interesting anyway 😫
The problem with Renard is he isn't the villain - he is the henchman - so from the point it is revealed he is in Elektra's palm he ceases to be interesting and her motivations take over the story. Ultimately, he is just a very strong terrorist with a bullet in his head. A bit MCU really.
I for one am fully aware of its faults but I really enjoy the soap opera aspect of the film. I love Elektra King and the interplay between her and all the other characters, particularly Bond and M. I do agree that the action in the film is really weak, I even tire these days of the Q boat sequence which goes on too long.
If we're looking at usage of M (which IMO plagues the Brosnan and Craig films) then I think this is hands down the best over usage of M all justified by the Robert King relationship.
I actually really enjoy the talking parts and the acting.
Christmas Jones is so sexy to me that I just look past all the bad acting and lines. Oh boy.
This is trying to be MOONRAKER but without the finesse or tonal control.
The good:
The idea of Bond being captured and held hostage/tortured for 14 months is a great hook, and the opening sequence is pretty decent to establish that hook.
The overall idea of changing a North Korean to an Englishman works. It's a sci fi element for sure but it's really just an update of the whole idea of plastic surgery, which we saw in the double making scenes for Blofeld in DAF. I could roll with this...of all of the sci fi elements in the film, this one worked.
Great casting of the North Korean actor and his English version, played by Toby Stephens. If you look at them in terms of body build and facial structure, you could buy that they're the same guy with different patinas.
The overall plotline ain't bad, actually. On paper, it's decent enough and the narrative throughline is structurally sound.
While the second half of the film (once they hit Iceland) is completely off the rails, the first half is honestly pretty darn good.
If you ignore the bad CGI and goofy sci fi crap, the action sequences are pretty well put together in terms of direction and editing. I generally never felt like an action scene was going on for too long and I was engaged enough with the action to maintain focus without wanting to surf my phone. I take issue with the speed ramping/slow motion inserts but I'll cover that below.
I like Rick Yune's Zao. He's got presence and I love the embedded diamonds in his face. I wish he'd had more to do as he felt underutilized.
The bad:
Terrible CGI. I mean, really terrible CGI. The surfing scene is especially bad but the climactic scene with the disintegrating aircraft didn't look good either. This isn't just a retrospective evaluation of the effects work at the time...they looked bad in 2002.
The speed ramping/slow motion stuff doesn't feel Bondian. Bringing in those elements is a completely different aesthetic and they really don't belong anywhere near the Bond franchise. The good news is that they haven't reappeared since then.
The acting is wildly inconsistent. Halle Berry can act when given the right material (and she did win an Oscar) but she's terrible here. Thank God we never got a Jinx spinoff. Toby Stephens is also a much better actor than you'd surmise based on his performance here. Madonna can't act and her cameo is painful to watch. Michael Madsen is his typical terrible self (he's great for Tarantino, terrible for everyone else). A lot of the other supporting actors aren't really up to snuff either.
The sci fi elements jump the shark. Most of the Bond films have pushed credibility with the gadgets but none have gone as far to stretch the illusion of reality like this one. The invisible car is of course the worst offender, but the electrified suit and the laser beam watch are too much as well. The training scene where he has VR glasses is also too much, although the Moneypenny bit at the end makes for a great comedic stinger.
Not a great David Arnold score. It's not terrible but it's also not his strongest.
The Madonna song is terrible.
More of a nitpick but something the wife and I were laughing about: When Halle Berry is flying the plane during the climax, all of the controls are in English (not Korean) and the alarm going off is in English (not Korean). That just feels like a lazy mistake.
I prefer this to TWINE for the simple fact that this is rarely dull. Things move here.
While this thing made absolute bank at the box office, I'm glad that EON decided that they needed to get back to basics with the next one. While I love MOONRAKER, the franchise really needed FOR YOUR EYES ONLY as a follow-up to reset things. Similarly, we needed CASINO ROYALE after this one.
One of my biggest issues with DAD is how bad the chemistry is between Brosnan and Berry. One liners and bad insulting quips back and forth give a vibe of you're the last man on earth I want to be with. Brosnan is not cool enough for her and the script knows it. It's painful to watch. Bond is supposed to be cool, not an outcast.
Sorry, Mr. Canyon but DAD is so much worse than TWINE. At least TWINE feels like a Bond film not a XXX, Vin Diesel rip off video game. Your point about slo-mo and sped-up stuff highlights this.
However, I do forgive Lee Tamahori and the producers for going for what they did at the time. The action flicks around them were all pretty CGI heavy, throwbacks to 60s/70s films and generally things were all quite silly. Especially with the recent Austin Powers success poking fun. I don't always want Bond films to be taken seriously and critically acclaimed, but I do want what's contained within the films to be enjoyable and DAD just makes me want to turn it off.
Agree with @heartbroken_mr_drax here - TWINE feels like a proper old school Bond movie albeit on telly it is let down perhaps by having so many TV actors in it - it lacks grandeur for that reason, I mean we're talking Brosnan, Dench, Cleese, Coltrane, Carlyle, Kitchen pretty much all of them though this does mean the acting gels, it works, like TV acting often does.
Okay, the action scenes don't have that zip or sense of jeopardy.
I'd watch the more colourful looking DAD for 15 mins or so on telly, it's a beer and pizza movie, but I think TWINE is the only one where the plot seemed to have been worked out ahead of filming, as with just about all Brosnan's other films you get the sense there are last-minute rewrites that make a nonsense of the thing, or NSNA-style rewrites during filming that render the script essentially a first draft, with weak diaogloue and awful jokes as a consequence, as there's no time to finesse the final work.
For me, there was no brilliant Brosnan movie. If mixed them all up a bit and gave them a shake, you might get a decent one.
Regarding preference for DAD over TWINE: it's a slight difference. If you look at my ranking, they're both in the basement. The thing sinking TWINE is really just the languid pacing...it feels like a 4 hour movie. I have a similar complaint with SPECTRE so we'll see how that plays when we get to it.
I agree…it’s always good - well, sometimes it’s good (😬) to get another perspective…I loathed & detested DAD walking out of the cinema…it’s the only time I felt genuinely let down by a Bond film…nowadays, I just think it’s terrible 🤣
No, wait 🤗 I really like the first hour or so, but the second hour just throws that all away…I can watch it now…but it’s BY FAR my least watched Bond film.
DAD is a guilty secret - I know it is a fairly dreadful enterprise and does the OO7 legacy few favours, but for all that, like HarryCanyon, I find it more enjoyable than many supposeably 'better' Bond films. What I enjoy and what I artistically appreciate are separateable IMO. This happens a lot with films, music, art, literature, etc
I tried to be objective about this one and see it fresh, divorced from any of my pre-existing positive opinions from prior viewing experiences. I really tried. Flaws and all, this really is one of the very best entries in the entire franchise.
The good:
The action is first rate. Martin Campbell and the second unit team choreograph and block everything clearly. The action sequences flow and are easy to understand in terms of location geography and what's actually being presented with one exception, noted below. Everything feels gritty and real, aided by the fact that Daniel Craig looks physically able to do the things presented on screen. The stunt doubles don't stand out so much so it's easy to get immersed in what's going on.
The acting is solid from everyone with Craig being particularly good here. His verbal and physical acting is all on point, and his overall Bond demeanor is fun in a dismissive/snarky way. You can see elements of Dalton and Lazenby in his take.
The casting of Mads as Le Chiffre was genius. He kills it and ended up successfully launching a career in English language films.
Eva is fantastic as Vesper and has great chemistry with Craig. All of their scenes together work and are compelling enough to support the necessary plot contrivances.
The plot is strong. Some of the narrative before they get to Montenegro is clunky (it's all setup) but nothing that's really jarring. I suspect that some stuff from the first act was edited out to keep up the pacing and get Bond to the casino quicker. Regardless, the film is almost perfect from the time they get to Montenegro until the ending. I have issues with the Venice climax running a bit long but that's about it.
Great score by David Arnold with a killer, ballsy theme song by Chris Cornell. Let's get another rocker for Bond 26, yeah?
The callbacks to the prior 20 films are fun. The appearance of 'Goldfinger' and 'Bambi and Thumper' in Nassau are delightful, and the Aston Martin DB5 is reintroduced in a fun way. Him showing indifference to getting a martini 'shaken or stirred' makes for a good joke.
The film ends perfectly. Bond is Bond at that point and gets to deliver his classic 'the name's Bond...James Bond' line as a capper. The credits roll on an arrangement of the Monty Norman theme. Just awesome.
The not so good:
Again, I find the narrative for the first act to be kinda clunky. There's kinda a sense of 'what's going on here?' to the proceedings that could be clearer. Again, I suspect that this first act was edited down somewhat to get to Montenegro more quickly, but it really feels to me like another 5 minutes of plotting would benefit things greatly.
As with a lot of Bond films, the climactic fight goes on too long and has too many moving parts. It's all so busy and frantic inside of the collapsing building in Venice. Where all prior action scenes were shot and edited beautifully, this scene kinda has a 'flailing arms' patina that just adds to confusion. The airport scene in the first act kinda goes on a bit too long as well but it's always clear as to what you're seeing at least.
That's really about it for complaints. It's definitely in the conversation for 'best' film in the franchise. At this moment and with this franchise rewatch, I'm pretty comfortable putting it in 3rd place (so far) but honestly, it could be in the #1 spot. The top 4 are all about equal.
We started QOS on Thursday night. We finished it last night and then went right into SF.
QOS:
I know a lot of people are down on this one for various reasons, some of which I agree with. I've always kinda liked it and this viewing was probably the best that the film has ever played. Even broken up over two nights (my wife got a phone call on Thursday night from a friend that she had to take), the thing worked for us.
The good:
The film looks great. The production design is fantastic and well shot by cinematographer Roberto Schaefer. I take issue with some of the really tight framing in some shots but that's about it.
The acting is excellent across the board. Almost everyone is really intense with the exception of David Harbour's CIA agent, who provides some much needed levity in his brief scenes.
Bond gets to be smart here. I love him going to Austria and figuring stuff out at the Tosca opera sequence, for instance.
The styling of the film is the best of any of the Bond films. Bond's wardrobe is 10/10 great and well tailored. I want every single outfit that he wears in this film.
The action scenes are frequent and intense. I take issues with the editing on some of them (see below) but I think they work overall. The opening car chase is fantastic (fight me on this) and the one-on-one fight in Haiti is one of the best fights in the entire franchise. I also really like the airplane battle which is very well shot but neutered somewhat by the editing choices. I also like the climactic hotel battle quite a bit. it's one of the few climactic battles that doesn't go on for too long. Not all of them work, though.
The plot is actually pretty strong. The script itself is underdeveloped (see below) but the overall narrative throughline works. I know the film took a lot of crap for ultimately being about water, but that's a ridiculous complaint. If you want to rule the world, controlling all of the natural resources would absolutely be the way to do it. Look at what China has been doing in Africa over the last two decades and you'll see that Quantum's plan is actually spot on.
I think Mathieu Amalric is fantastic as Dominic Greene. He plays Greene differently based upon who he's with in the situation which is great to see. He's ultimately a bit of a sleaze underneath his cultured patina and it's fun to see that sleazy side come out. He's highly underrated in the Bond villain pantheon.
Olga Kurylenko is very good in her underwritten role. I think her character suffers the most in the script (again, see below) but she brings a lot to the table and makes her dramatic scenes work quite well with her overall demeanor and body language.
The not so good:
The script needed another go. While the structure is pretty sound, it feels pretty bare bones and a lot of characters really get the short end of the stick. Kurylenko's character is particularly hurt by the script as her character just feels thin. Gemma Arterton is also really given nothing to do here. I also think that Felix Leiter is kinda wasted in the film. It's great to have Geoffrey Wright back but I wish he'd been given more of an active role in the proceedings. We had the writer's strike here, though.
While the film 'looks' great, I take issue with a lot of the really tight framing of some of the shots, especially in the action scenes. A lot of great sets aren't fully utilized to their highest potential because there are no establishing shots to clarify what you're looking at.
The editing is too tight and often leads to confusing action scenes. I get what the director and editor were going for with the framing and the editing and sometimes it worked great (like in the opening car chase), but often this editing doesn't create excitement...it creates confusion. The worst scene, in my opinion, is the foot chase between Bond and Mitchell early on. They're both dressed similarly, and with the lighting, the framing, and the quick editing, it's nearly impossible to tell what exactly is going on or who you're watching at any given moment. There are some great locations at play in that scene, especially at the end, but the editing is confusing and there's very little sense of the geography of the sequence.
It's an over-hated entry in the franchise.
SF:
One of the really good ones of the entire franchise. Well acted, directed, edited, and shot. The script is well thought out and flows nicely.
The good:
It's well directed and edited. Sam Mendes knows how to compose a shot (it helps having Roger Deakins...) and block out sequences such that you can fully understand what's going on. The editing is never obtrusive, letting things flow nicely. The action sequences are all clear and understandable, even if some of them lack oomph.
The film flat out looks fantastic. Roger Deakins shoots this beautifully with many shots having an artistic quality to them that really stun.
The acting is great from everyone. Craig has to do a lot here in terms of really showing an arc, going from 'losing a step' to being back on his A game by the end of the film. I'd like to particularly single out Berenice Marlohe as Severine who, while underwritten, is extremely effective in her limited screentime. She's particularly fantastic in the Macau scene where she first meets Bond, having to convey a lot of mixed emotions in her face and with her voice. Craig, Dench, Bardem, Harris, and Fiennes all rightly earn praise for their work here, but Marlohe really stands out.
I like that, by the end of the film, all of the standard franchise tropes are in place. It's taken three films to get to this point but we now have Bond, M, Moneypenny, and Q all in place. It's a comfortable pair of shoes that all franchise fans can slip into.
The not so good:
I personally find the action sequences pretty underwhelming. They're not BAD per se, they just lack oomph. The pre-title sequence is probably the best overall action sequence in the film but even then it's lacking a lot of the propulsive energy of the prior two Craig films.
Daniel Craig's haircut is awful and distracting.
Daniel Craig's suits are a size too small and distracting. It looks like they've shrunk. I don't buy for a minute that a suit that ill fitting would be suitable in action scenes. You certainly would not be able to hide a shoulder holster in one of those suits. It's night and day from the great styling of QOS. That said, a lot of the outfits in the film do impress.
Silva's plot relies on too many things going exactly right to work. It'd be one thing if Silva's plan was just to deliberately get captured in order to set off a virus inside of MI6. For his plan to work, he also needs to escape at a specific time in order to cause a train crash and get to M's commission meeting...all things that had to be planned in advance and not allow for any sort of timing error. It doesn't hold up.
The climactic battle at Skyfall is a riff on HOME ALONE. I'm sorry but it is. I also laugh at all of the men that Silva sends in initially to, essentially, die so that he can fly in later in a helicopter.
I don't like dropping the F bomb in a Bond film. I don't mind saying the S word occasionally but the films should be classier than this. Having the F bomb come from Dench's M is particularly crass. It's also not necessary, especially for the scene in which it's used. I have a similar problem in NTTD with its usage.
But it's a definite film of real quality. I get why many cite it as the 'best' of the Craig films. I don't but I won't slam anyone who does.
Thanks @HarryCanyon great reviews there and again I tend to agree with your opinions.
While I was very negative about QOS when I initially saw it, chiefly because it was a sudden and scything change from CR, chiefly due to the framing & editing issues you mention, overtime I have softened to it remarkably. As a proper sequel - a first for Bond - it works really well and the revenge motive is there but sufficiently a subtext so it does not interfere with the main thrust of the plot [take note SP and NTTD]. I really dig the action scenes and enjoy the confusion, which has elements of the genuine often missing from Bond movies. The environmental plot is an excellent conceit. Unlike you, I find the climax over the top.
Interestingly, while I found SF excellent om release, now I find it laboured and while great to look at [as you attest] it simply isn't swift enough. Silva's revenge motive here also gets in the way of a more interesting plot and scheme. Bond taking a time out slows the start - that uranium tipped bullet is also a guaranteed death sentence - and as the movie develops it is even less interesting. By the end I find it lethargic. Its disappointing given all that is good about it.
I wouldn't quite call SF lethargic but it definitely could stand a boost of adrenaline. It's positively on fast forward compare to SPECTRE, though. I'm trying to keep an open mind on that one and will try to watch it with fresh eyes, but my long standing opinion is that it's a snooze fest and the absolute worst of the Craig films and in the basement of the franchise in general.
I forgot to mention that the scores for both films are fantastic. David Arnold's score for QOS is really quite strong and his opening music cue for the film (flying across the water leading into the car chase) may be one of his best pieces.
Really great sound design in that sequence as well. The cars sound amazing. Actually the sound editing in QOS in general is really top notch.
The Thomas Newman score for SF is strong too. Lots of really great musical cues throughout.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,889Chief of Staff
QoS is my most watched of the DC era…loved it on release, love it even more now…I saw it a ridiculous amount of times in the cinema…somewhere between 15 and 20 times 🤣
It gets better with each viewing, especially since the editing becomes easier to follow when you know the plotline. I honestly think it's really only the Bond/Mitchell foot chase that's outright 'bad', mainly because they're dressed identically and the geography of the tunnels they run through is completely unclear.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,889Chief of Staff
I'm idling between ITV channels this evening: I caught MR from the launch of the Moonrakers to the end of the film, and am now watching SP, which I picked up from Hinx's entrance in the board meeting. It's a double bill which enhances my appreciation of SP: if MR is pure hokum in the Bond idiom, achieving some sense of grandeur and gravitas in the process, SP has a surreal quality of its own, hosting Bondian tropes as if in an eerie dreamscape. Ad breaks and cuts to sanitise the violence (e.g. when Hinx kills Guerra) go with the territory.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I cleared the slate and tried to watch this fresh without any pre-conceived bias so as to give it a fair shake. Maybe I'd have a similar experience here like I had with LTK where the film played better this time around and I elevated it in my overall ranking.
Nope.
The good:
It's very well acted from everyone. Craig, Walz, Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw, Seydoux, Bautista, Bellucci, everyone...they all deliver. All small roles also put in good work.
The film really looks great. You don't have Roger Deakins this time around but Hoyte van Hoytema really delivers a film that looks incredibly artistic. I take issue with some of his color palette choices but that's a minor quibble.
The Thomas Newman score is excellent, even better than the one he did for SKYFALL. Note, I said the score here...not the song.
The pre-title sequence is technically brilliant. It's made to look like one continuous shot but you can tell...if you know what you're looking for...where the two breaks are. The sequence itself doesn't make any sense (there's absolutely no reason for Bond to be in disguise and play things cute when all he needs to do is get into position with his gun) but it's still pretty well done. Some of the helicopter work over the square is stunning as well, even though it doesn't make any sense at all (why is the pilot swirling around out of control?)
That train fight between Craig and Bautista is fantastic. It's the only time in the entire film that has any sort of energy or tension to it. It's extremely well choreographed, performed, shot, and edited. After watching it this time, I think it may actually surpass the Connery/Shaw fight in FRWL in terms of pure skill of execution.
The wardrobe overall is really, really excellent. I take issue with how things fit on Daniel Craig (the suits are too dang tight) but the taste in clothing is exquisite.
Craig's haircut is slightly better. It's not quite as tight as in SF and shapes his head better.
The not so good (oh boy):
The film is dull to the extreme. Apart from the train fight, the pacing is simply lethargic and unengaging. There's no sense of urgency to anything that's going on. They even add a conceit of a 'ticking clock' of sorts before 9 Eyes goes active, but they don't really do anything with it to build tension. The airplane/car chase after the Hoffler Clinic scene is dull, the leisurely car chase through Rome is dull (although the driving is quite good), the escape from Blofeld's Morocco lair is dull (albeit with a cool explosion at the end) and the climax is dull. Nothing moves.
There are some really stupid 'because movie' plot elements in place, especially in some of the action scenes. Some examples include: after the train fight, wouldn't there be some sort of fallout from the other passengers and the workers? The entire dining car got destroyed and 6 kegs of beer were thrown out the open door...I'd think that the train conductor might come back and say 'hey, what happened?' Why are there no cars on the road in Rome for that car chase? Sure, it's 1am or so and the roads shouldn't be crowded, but there should be SOME traffic out there on the roads other than the Fiat that blocks Bond. At L'Americain, I'm fine with there being a hidden room, but wouldn't the hotel know about it? Apparently there's no hidden door per se...you just have to smash through the wall. Who fixes that wall every year? It looks like it was a professional job so I'm assuming the hotel fixes it on a yearly basis. That makes no sense. At Blofeld's lair in Morocco, the bad guys have the aiming capabilities of Imperial Stormtroopers...can't hit the broad sign of a barn...whereas Bond is hitting everything with pinpoint accuracy (even after having drills literally in his head). It's just stupid.
Both Craig and Seydoux are pretty good actors individually and their scenes together here work ok when they're just interacting as normal people, but there's absolutely zero spark between them. I never buy for one second that they even 'like' one another much less 'love' each other. The film forces a romance that simply doesn't work. It doesn't help that Seydoux doesn't enter the film until the halfway point, leaving very little time for a romance to actually happen both in film time and in plot time (the film establishes early on that 9 Eyes is going live in a week and Bond only meets Swann on what...day 3 or 4 of 7? Something like that), and there's nothing there to indicate real love between the two. I can buy the beginnings of a romance happening but the film posits that Bond is madly in love with her to the degree that he's going to quit the service at the end of the film. OHMSS took the time to build a relationship between Bond and Tracy (helped immensely by Lazenby and Rigg playing well off of one another) and CR benefitted from having Bond and Vesper also having great chemistry and interplay, also allowing time in the third act to suggest that they got to spend plenty of time with one another to build their relationship prior to the climactic battle. There's none of that here.
The Blofeld as brother angle is poorly thought out, feels forced, and is a direct lift from the third AUSTIN POWERS film. It's also completely unnecessary. The film would have worked fine without it...just have Blofeld be mad at Bond for directly interfering with 3 SPECTRE operations. But no...we need to make this personal.
The Sam Smith song is absolute pants.
A nitpick, but the film kinda tries to ignore the existence of QOS. When Bond is traversing the inside of MI6 at the end, he comes across pictures of Le Chiffre and Silva in some of the rooms (along with Vesper, Mr. White, and M/Dench). Where's Dominic Green? He should have been in there. He was briefly mentioned earlier in a throwaway line by Q when he finished analyzing the SPECTRE ring but that's it. Why? I mean, I get that QOS isn't the highest regarded film in the Craig run of films but you still shouldn't ignore or minimize it. You should still acknowledge Quantum as an organization and explain how they fit in with SPECTRE.
Monica Bellucci is wasted in an absolutely nothing role. How do you cast an actress like this in a film like this and give her a role that should have been relegated to an up and coming actress? Side note: Craig has 10x the chemistry with Bellucci that he has with Seydoux...
I have other issues but whatever. I've made my point. It's easily the worst Craig Bond film and it absolutely ranks in the basement of the franchise in general. This film insults the intelligence of the viewer.
Fair points on SP. It's not my favourite Craig Bond film but I probably prefer it to NTTD. I think that the fine casting and performances outweigh the flaws to a large degree. There's a dreamlike quality to some of the slower sequences, creating an unsettling ambience. It's as if ideas, images and situations from classic Bond films - an alternate reality - are impinging associatively on Craig Bond's overturned world. (On the sidelining of QOS, an image of Dominic Greene does flash across Q's laptop, alongside the faces of the other Craig Bond villains, but the presumably subcontractual relationship of Quantum to SPECTRE isn't something that's explored: if there's been a retro-fit, this is simply due to the real-world fact that Eon had got back the rights to use SPECTRE and decided to exploit it.)
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Comments
TND runs out of puff once they find the stealth boat but before that...it's absolutely stunning. Moves at breakneck pace, has great sequences and you're right, Brozzer's best.
I think it's the last classic Bond film and taps right into the 1990s Brit pop stuff so well.
"Better make that two."
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
I'm going to have to see how DAD plays this time around but I have a feeling I'm going to rate it higher than TWINE. This one is just dull, and I recall that DAD...for all of its faults...at least moves.
Anyways...
The good:
The bad:
Not a good entry.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
I couldn’t agree more with regards to Renard…a fabulous actor and an an incredible idea for a villain…and nothing is done with it…nothing remotely interesting anyway 😫
For me, the entire Brosnan run was weak. TND was by far the best, at least it had a proper megalomaniac villain and plot.
I’m not a fan of Carlyle’s acting, but his turn as John Lennon in Yesterday was wonderful.
The problem with Renard is he isn't the villain - he is the henchman - so from the point it is revealed he is in Elektra's palm he ceases to be interesting and her motivations take over the story. Ultimately, he is just a very strong terrorist with a bullet in his head. A bit MCU really.
Poor old TWINE.
I for one am fully aware of its faults but I really enjoy the soap opera aspect of the film. I love Elektra King and the interplay between her and all the other characters, particularly Bond and M. I do agree that the action in the film is really weak, I even tire these days of the Q boat sequence which goes on too long.
If we're looking at usage of M (which IMO plagues the Brosnan and Craig films) then I think this is hands down the best over usage of M all justified by the Robert King relationship.
I actually really enjoy the talking parts and the acting.
Christmas Jones is so sexy to me that I just look past all the bad acting and lines. Oh boy.
"Better make that two."
DIE ANOTHER DAY
This is trying to be MOONRAKER but without the finesse or tonal control.
The good:
The bad:
I prefer this to TWINE for the simple fact that this is rarely dull. Things move here.
While this thing made absolute bank at the box office, I'm glad that EON decided that they needed to get back to basics with the next one. While I love MOONRAKER, the franchise really needed FOR YOUR EYES ONLY as a follow-up to reset things. Similarly, we needed CASINO ROYALE after this one.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
One of my biggest issues with DAD is how bad the chemistry is between Brosnan and Berry. One liners and bad insulting quips back and forth give a vibe of you're the last man on earth I want to be with. Brosnan is not cool enough for her and the script knows it. It's painful to watch. Bond is supposed to be cool, not an outcast.
Sorry, Mr. Canyon but DAD is so much worse than TWINE. At least TWINE feels like a Bond film not a XXX, Vin Diesel rip off video game. Your point about slo-mo and sped-up stuff highlights this.
However, I do forgive Lee Tamahori and the producers for going for what they did at the time. The action flicks around them were all pretty CGI heavy, throwbacks to 60s/70s films and generally things were all quite silly. Especially with the recent Austin Powers success poking fun. I don't always want Bond films to be taken seriously and critically acclaimed, but I do want what's contained within the films to be enjoyable and DAD just makes me want to turn it off.
"Better make that two."
Agree with @heartbroken_mr_drax here - TWINE feels like a proper old school Bond movie albeit on telly it is let down perhaps by having so many TV actors in it - it lacks grandeur for that reason, I mean we're talking Brosnan, Dench, Cleese, Coltrane, Carlyle, Kitchen pretty much all of them though this does mean the acting gels, it works, like TV acting often does.
Okay, the action scenes don't have that zip or sense of jeopardy.
I'd watch the more colourful looking DAD for 15 mins or so on telly, it's a beer and pizza movie, but I think TWINE is the only one where the plot seemed to have been worked out ahead of filming, as with just about all Brosnan's other films you get the sense there are last-minute rewrites that make a nonsense of the thing, or NSNA-style rewrites during filming that render the script essentially a first draft, with weak diaogloue and awful jokes as a consequence, as there's no time to finesse the final work.
For me, there was no brilliant Brosnan movie. If mixed them all up a bit and gave them a shake, you might get a decent one.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'd call TND pretty brilliant and GE really good.
Regarding preference for DAD over TWINE: it's a slight difference. If you look at my ranking, they're both in the basement. The thing sinking TWINE is really just the languid pacing...it feels like a 4 hour movie. I have a similar complaint with SPECTRE so we'll see how that plays when we get to it.
I have been thoroughly enjoying these reviews, @HarryCanyon
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree…it’s always good - well, sometimes it’s good (😬) to get another perspective…I loathed & detested DAD walking out of the cinema…it’s the only time I felt genuinely let down by a Bond film…nowadays, I just think it’s terrible 🤣
No, wait 🤗 I really like the first hour or so, but the second hour just throws that all away…I can watch it now…but it’s BY FAR my least watched Bond film.
DAD is a guilty secret - I know it is a fairly dreadful enterprise and does the OO7 legacy few favours, but for all that, like HarryCanyon, I find it more enjoyable than many supposeably 'better' Bond films. What I enjoy and what I artistically appreciate are separateable IMO. This happens a lot with films, music, art, literature, etc
I find DAF and DAD to be similar, both in plot and that the first half of both films are pretty solid, only to dissolve into a pile of ooze.
CASINO ROYALE
I tried to be objective about this one and see it fresh, divorced from any of my pre-existing positive opinions from prior viewing experiences. I really tried. Flaws and all, this really is one of the very best entries in the entire franchise.
The good:
The not so good:
That's really about it for complaints. It's definitely in the conversation for 'best' film in the franchise. At this moment and with this franchise rewatch, I'm pretty comfortable putting it in 3rd place (so far) but honestly, it could be in the #1 spot. The top 4 are all about equal.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
That's the thing, that first hour of DAD is pretty darn strong. Once they hit Iceland...yeah.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL
We started QOS on Thursday night. We finished it last night and then went right into SF.
QOS:
I know a lot of people are down on this one for various reasons, some of which I agree with. I've always kinda liked it and this viewing was probably the best that the film has ever played. Even broken up over two nights (my wife got a phone call on Thursday night from a friend that she had to take), the thing worked for us.
The good:
The not so good:
It's an over-hated entry in the franchise.
SF:
One of the really good ones of the entire franchise. Well acted, directed, edited, and shot. The script is well thought out and flows nicely.
The good:
The not so good:
But it's a definite film of real quality. I get why many cite it as the 'best' of the Craig films. I don't but I won't slam anyone who does.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
Thanks @HarryCanyon great reviews there and again I tend to agree with your opinions.
While I was very negative about QOS when I initially saw it, chiefly because it was a sudden and scything change from CR, chiefly due to the framing & editing issues you mention, overtime I have softened to it remarkably. As a proper sequel - a first for Bond - it works really well and the revenge motive is there but sufficiently a subtext so it does not interfere with the main thrust of the plot [take note SP and NTTD]. I really dig the action scenes and enjoy the confusion, which has elements of the genuine often missing from Bond movies. The environmental plot is an excellent conceit. Unlike you, I find the climax over the top.
Interestingly, while I found SF excellent om release, now I find it laboured and while great to look at [as you attest] it simply isn't swift enough. Silva's revenge motive here also gets in the way of a more interesting plot and scheme. Bond taking a time out slows the start - that uranium tipped bullet is also a guaranteed death sentence - and as the movie develops it is even less interesting. By the end I find it lethargic. Its disappointing given all that is good about it.
Looking forward to the last two !
I wouldn't quite call SF lethargic but it definitely could stand a boost of adrenaline. It's positively on fast forward compare to SPECTRE, though. I'm trying to keep an open mind on that one and will try to watch it with fresh eyes, but my long standing opinion is that it's a snooze fest and the absolute worst of the Craig films and in the basement of the franchise in general.
I forgot to mention that the scores for both films are fantastic. David Arnold's score for QOS is really quite strong and his opening music cue for the film (flying across the water leading into the car chase) may be one of his best pieces.
Really great sound design in that sequence as well. The cars sound amazing. Actually the sound editing in QOS in general is really top notch.
The Thomas Newman score for SF is strong too. Lots of really great musical cues throughout.
QoS is my most watched of the DC era…loved it on release, love it even more now…I saw it a ridiculous amount of times in the cinema…somewhere between 15 and 20 times 🤣
It gets better with each viewing, especially since the editing becomes easier to follow when you know the plotline. I honestly think it's really only the Bond/Mitchell foot chase that's outright 'bad', mainly because they're dressed identically and the geography of the tunnels they run through is completely unclear.
Is that supposed to be deliberate though…?…both are MI6 agents…and it’s the confusion that can happen in a chase and fight 🤔
I guess I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt 🤷🏻♂️
I'd respectfully argue that it should not be confusing for the viewer, especially when obfuscation is not an actual plot point.
After some consideration and pondering on QOS, I'm adjusting my ranking (so far) for this franchise rewatch.
Probably…but I genuinely never felt confused watching it 🤗
I'm idling between ITV channels this evening: I caught MR from the launch of the Moonrakers to the end of the film, and am now watching SP, which I picked up from Hinx's entrance in the board meeting. It's a double bill which enhances my appreciation of SP: if MR is pure hokum in the Bond idiom, achieving some sense of grandeur and gravitas in the process, SP has a surreal quality of its own, hosting Bondian tropes as if in an eerie dreamscape. Ad breaks and cuts to sanitise the violence (e.g. when Hinx kills Guerra) go with the territory.
God I love MOONRAKER.
SPECTRE
I cleared the slate and tried to watch this fresh without any pre-conceived bias so as to give it a fair shake. Maybe I'd have a similar experience here like I had with LTK where the film played better this time around and I elevated it in my overall ranking.
Nope.
The good:
The not so good (oh boy):
I have other issues but whatever. I've made my point. It's easily the worst Craig Bond film and it absolutely ranks in the basement of the franchise in general. This film insults the intelligence of the viewer.
Current rankings on this franchise rewatch.
Fair points on SP. It's not my favourite Craig Bond film but I probably prefer it to NTTD. I think that the fine casting and performances outweigh the flaws to a large degree. There's a dreamlike quality to some of the slower sequences, creating an unsettling ambience. It's as if ideas, images and situations from classic Bond films - an alternate reality - are impinging associatively on Craig Bond's overturned world. (On the sidelining of QOS, an image of Dominic Greene does flash across Q's laptop, alongside the faces of the other Craig Bond villains, but the presumably subcontractual relationship of Quantum to SPECTRE isn't something that's explored: if there's been a retro-fit, this is simply due to the real-world fact that Eon had got back the rights to use SPECTRE and decided to exploit it.)