BOND POLLS 2016: The Top 10 JAMES BOND-007 Film Ranking Contest (Results: winner!, on page 60)

15354555759

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @bondjames
    TWINE sits firmly at the bottom of my ranking except for its rip off that is even one place below TWINE
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I can understand that view @BondJasonBond006. I personally like the remake, especially the cinematography, wonderful atmosphere, superb acting, rich characterizations and camp charismatic villain, all of which were absent in the predecessor film (imho), but I realize why some dislike it.
  • Posts: 154
    I'm just curious, what is it everyone hates so much about TWINE, other than the obviously miscasting of Denise Richards? The only problems I see are the same problems that are in every Bond movie, plot faults, etc. To me, it's one of the most action packed movies in the series, having some of the very best stunts, laced through one of the most grounded and realistic espionage stories. I love it and have never been able to understand the hate.

    Other Bond movies that I personally love, that some others hate, I can understand... I love LTK but some hate it because it's too out of formula. OK, I get it. I love SP but some hate it because it's too formula. OK, I get it.

    TWINE though, I've never understood the hate. You can't blame the entire thing on Denise Richards (though I agree that miscasting was the worst thing about the movie). I found the Boris character every bit as annoying a character in GE, but that alone doesn't completely ruin that movie. GE's stunts are just as over-the-top as TWINE's stunts (and I love ott stunts, it's one my favorite things about Bond movies), so it can't be the OTT stunts.

    What gives with the TWINE hate? I really just wanna understand what I'm not seeing.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    gklein wrote: »
    I'm just curious, what is it everyone hates so much about TWINE, other than the obviously miscasting of Denise Richards? The only problems I see are the same problems that
  • Posts: 12,269
    I like TWINE. I just like several other Bond films more. Other than Denise Richards, it isn't particularly rewatchable IMO.'
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    gklein wrote: »
    I'm just curious, what is it everyone hates so much about TWINE, other than the obviously miscasting of Denise Richards?

    What a strange thing to say.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2016 Posts: 5,131
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    So DAD just has bad cgi? I beg to differ. Another tedious Vic Armstrong opening chase, lousy theme song, Bond in silly long hair and beard get up, Brossas bad acting trying to emulate tension in the handover (he hasn't a clue how to play it!), Bond stopping his heartrate, strolling into the hotel in pyjamas (please!!), Halle Berry-quite quite terrible, Toby Stephens sneering comic book villain, Madonnas cameo, Mr. Kil!!!,invisible car, the whole sequence in Iceland, Michael Madsens wish I was anywhere but here performance, Brossa back in combat gear, those awful flying contraptions Bond and Jinx are in, the disintegrating plane, the helicopters, Moneypenny with the glasses, loads of bad one-liners and dialogue! No, its definitely not just the bad cgi!
    Rant over, back to business, a great game and I agree CR a worthy winner!

    @Mathis1, I'd say that about covers it, yeah.

    If only Madsen had been allowed to cut an ear or two off to get some information out of Graves' goons. Now THAT would have improved the film immensely, with Arnold providing a track to the score that orchestrated "Stuck in the Middle with You" Barry style.
    You forgot the Robocop outfit, Vlad (a pathetic pantomime character) and the boring 'excuse for an uninspiring' plane action sequence finale! Oh and John Cleese ruining Q.....wjy the hell would he have Rosa Klebbs boot in his lab!!!!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the plate if they're to be as successful as Craig.

    'Luck' has nothing to do with it.

    Craig and the script are the best thing about Casino Royale. Period.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the plate if they're to be as successful as Craig.

    'Luck' has nothing to do with it.

    Craig and the script are the best thing about Casino Royale. Period.

    Better than EVA GREEN??? Ridiculous.
    Better than the direction??? Ludicrous.
    Better than the score and theme song???? Hilarious.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2016 Posts: 28,694
    [delete]

    The forum is really acting up today when it comes to posting.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2016 Posts: 28,694
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    So DAD just has bad cgi? I beg to differ. Another tedious Vic Armstrong opening chase, lousy theme song, Bond in silly long hair and beard get up, Brossas bad acting trying to emulate tension in the handover (he hasn't a clue how to play it!), Bond stopping his heartrate, strolling into the hotel in pyjamas (please!!), Halle Berry-quite quite terrible, Toby Stephens sneering comic book villain, Madonnas cameo, Mr. Kil!!!,invisible car, the whole sequence in Iceland, Michael Madsens wish I was anywhere but here performance, Brossa back in combat gear, those awful flying contraptions Bond and Jinx are in, the disintegrating plane, the helicopters, Moneypenny with the glasses, loads of bad one-liners and dialogue! No, its definitely not just the bad cgi!
    Rant over, back to business, a great game and I agree CR a worthy winner!

    @Mathis1, I'd say that about covers it, yeah.

    If only Madsen had been allowed to cut an ear or two off to get some information out of Graves' goons. Now THAT would have improved the film immensely, with Arnold providing a track to the score that orchestrated "Stuck in the Middle with You" Barry style.
    You forgot the Robocop outfit, Vlad (a pathetic pantomime character) and the boring 'excuse for an uninspiring' plane action sequence finale! Oh and John Cleese ruining Q.....wjy the hell would he have Rosa Klebbs boot in his lab!!!!

    Easy. She had her kicks, now he wanted his turn.

    Fun fact: Lotte Lenya said that after she became big-time famous off the back of FRWL, every time people came up to speak with her, they would always check her feet first. A great image, that.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    On what page is the final list please @GustavGraves?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    [delete]

    The forum is really acting up today when it comes to posting.

    OMG, Putrumpary or whatever is attacking MI6...
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performanc
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the plate if they're to be as successful as Craig.

    'Luck' has nothing to do with it.

    Craig and the script are the best thing about Casino Royale. Period.

    Better than EVA GREEN??? Ridiculous.
    Better than the direction??? Ludicrous.
    Better than the score and theme song???? Hilarious.

    Yes. The best Bond since Connery and even better after the low point Brosnan era. Plus a Flemingesque script after a pastiche middle of the road era.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the plate if they're to be as successful as Craig.

    'Luck' has nothing to do with it.

    Craig and the script are the best thing about Casino Royale. Period.

    Better than EVA GREEN??? Ridiculous.
    Better than the direction??? Ludicrous.
    Better than the score and theme song???? Hilarious.

    Yes. The best Bond since Connery and even better after the low point Brosnan era. Plus a Flemingesque script after a pastiche middle of the road era.

    The best Bond since Connery?? Now it gets grotesque.
    Dalton was way better, so was Moore.

    Flemingesque scipt?? About as Flemingesque as Casino Royale 67 I would say.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    You clearly haven't read Casino Royale then (or maybe the Swiss translated version is edited incorrectly
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited November 2016 Posts: 6,786
    suavejmf wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read Casino Royale then (or maybe the Swiss translated version is edited incorrectly

    I wouldn't go as far as comparing it to CR'67 but he does have a point.

    The first half has nothing to do with the novel. As well as the Bond Begins angle.

    The only aspects that remain from the novel are the casino/torture/suicide scenes and they had all been altered as well.

    Especially Vesper's suicide misses the subtlety of the novel.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2016 Posts: 5,131
    Gettler, Relationship with Vesper and betrayal, Le Chiffre, car chase, torture scene, general purpose of the mission....its all there. The tone is also more Fleming than most of the series bar early Connery and Tim.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The term anti-Bond might at first seem a bit harsh, but it is very fitting.

    Let's be honest here, Craig wouldn't have stood a chance if CR hadn't been the movie it is.
    Craig is the weak link in the film, he only gets elevated thanks to a brilliant ensemble cast, that quite frankly, is playing him to the wall in most scenes.

    He got lucky, I said this long ago and I still believe it's true. It took four! movies to make him a proper cinematic Bond that finally resembles the way Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery portrait the character.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

    So it's all down to the supporting cast that Craig gives such an assured and game changing performance as Bond? Do me a favour.

    In actual fact not only was his performance in CS outstanding, in my opinion he gave an even better one in QoS.

    Craig is a very good actor as we've seen in so many other performances in film and TV and his 007 replacement will have to really step up to the plate if they're to be as successful as Craig.

    'Luck' has nothing to do with it.

    Craig and the script are the best thing about Casino Royale. Period.

    Better than EVA GREEN??? Ridiculous.
    Better than the direction??? Ludicrous.
    Better than the score and theme song???? Hilarious.

    Yes. The best Bond since Connery and even better after the low point Brosnan era. Plus a Flemingesque script after a pastiche middle of the road era.

    +1
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!

    Which climax do you mean? Sorry but I don't see neither a great climax nor any great action scene. The fight between Greene and Bond who is at least twice as strong is so extremey unexciting. In my eyes it is a very generic underwhelming action movie in the tradition of the Bourne films with an overly serious tone and without any sense of self reflexion and irony which used to seperate the Bond films from causal action films.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    GBF wrote: »
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!

    Which climax do you mean? Sorry but I don't see neither a great climax nor any great action scene. The fight between Greene and Bond who is at least twice as strong is so extremey unexciting. In my eyes it is a very generic underwhelming action movie in the tradition of the Bourne films with an overly serious tone and without any sense of self reflexion and irony which used to seperate the Bond films from causal action films.

    The entire building and location they are in is a true Bond villain lair..

    It's in an exotic location, the building is on fire and falling a part and you have Bond fighting against a crazy man swinging an axe at him. Sure Bond is a way better fighter but he is still in a burning building fighting against a man with an axe... The movie had so many great moments.

    You can't say that the car chase is not one of the best car chases of all time it is truly amazing. The camera cuts and roar of the engines. Just wow. The opera sequence, boat scene, opening chase sequence, various fight scenes, Bond escaping the CIA. The film is a Bond film to me. It's also different and fun. It keeps the story and film moving.

    It's probably one of the only Bond films that does not have any boring parts.

  • Posts: 3,336
    CR getting some backlash now is inevitable it seems.
  • QOS is one of the few Bond films where my opinion of it actually gets worse every time.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    gklein wrote: »
    I'm just curious, what is it everyone hates so much about TWINE, other than the obviously miscasting of Denise Richards? The only problems I see are the same problems that are in every Bond movie, plot faults, etc. To me, it's one of the most action packed movies in the series, having some of the very best stunts, laced through one of the most grounded and realistic espionage stories. I love it and have never been able to understand the hate.

    Other Bond movies that I personally love, that some others hate, I can understand... I love LTK but some hate it because it's too out of formula. OK, I get it. I love SP but some hate it because it's too formula. OK, I get it.

    TWINE though, I've never understood the hate. You can't blame the entire thing on Denise Richards (though I agree that miscasting was the worst thing about the movie). I found the Boris character every bit as annoying a character in GE, but that alone doesn't completely ruin that movie. GE's stunts are just as over-the-top as TWINE's stunts (and I love ott stunts, it's one my favorite things about Bond movies), so it can't be the OTT stunts.

    What gives with the TWINE hate? I really just wanna understand what I'm not seeing.

    I like it less and less on each viewing. The PTS is great, the rest is garbage

    - Horrible script. Many cringeworthy lines.
    - Terrible action (apart from PTS)
    - Soap opera plot falls flat "knew about my shoulder". Bond and Elektra sound like schoolkids bullying each other
    - Worst use of locations (where is Istanbul?) And where is Azerbaijan?
    TvyamNb-BivtNwpvn7Sct0VFDulyAfA9wBcU0gVHVnqC5ghsilcV84C9L3fzRo9NdwV9Ij4Sr-nVNTh5zQ
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2016 Posts: 28,694
    [delete]
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read Casino Royale then (or maybe the Swiss translated version is edited incorrectly

    I wouldn't go as far as comparing it to CR'67 but he does have a point.

    The first half has nothing to do with the novel. As well as the Bond Begins angle.

    The only aspects that remain from the novel are the casino/torture/suicide scenes and they had all been altered as well.

    Especially Vesper's suicide misses the subtlety of the novel.

    To adapt just the CR novel would make for a shorter film, with a limited appeal. The script added more atmosphere through more locations and characters outside just Bond and Mathis in the field to build up a strong narrative, including the necessary action for audiences.

    We just had this discussion days ago, but CR isn't trying to be endlessly faithful, because it would be impossible to do so out of the 50s time period. However, as @suavejmf says, all the big beats are there, including Le Chiffre's motivations, a near-death experience for Bond during the card game, his connection with Vesper, her betrayal and later suicide, and Bond's mood after he finds Vesper and contacts M, denying the effect she had on him ("the bitch is dead").

    There are many things in the film that I would argue even improves upon the novel. The card game is just as good, and the poisoning of Bond is a good substitute, even better, than a gun being pressed behind his chair at the card table. Vesper as a character is also better handled, as she annoys me in the novel and I struggle to see why Bond was attracted to her; in the film she is strong, alluring and complicated without seeming like a damsel or annoyance. While her suicide in the film isn't as quiet as the one in the book, it gives me chills every time to see Vesper lock herself away out of Bond's reach. Eva's performance makes it look like she's really dying, and it's uncomfortable and haunting to watch. When Bond finally breaks through the elevator and gets her out, but fails to resuscitate her back to life, the agony on his face as his breathing intensifies to hysterics is tragic.
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!

    Some corrections:

    If we take the definition of 'going rogue' to be "to cease to follow orders; to act on one's own, usually against expectation or instruction," then Bond doesn't go rogue in either QoS or SF.

    In QoS Bond is always working the mission, following his orders. He doesn't ignore what M wants him to do, as he keeps on tracking Greene and his associates, and even gets Mathis involved to help, as well as Felix. On the British side the worry is that Bond is going to unleash himself on Vesper's killer, but in reality Bond is doing everything unmotivated by his anger and rage. Even when M travels to Bolivia to take him in, he escapes and talks to her after, letting her know that his/their mission will be completed, and Greene will be taken care of. When Tanner tells her about the CIA, M says, "I couldn't give a shit about the CIA and their trumped-up evidence. Bond is my agent, and I trust him."

    There's never a moment where Bond is doing something that isn't asked of him, something M doesn't want, and when she finally sees that he has been following orders the entire way, she gets it and takes control, even after the CIA have a capture or kill order out on him. At the end of the film, when M asks Bond to come back in, he says, "I never left," and he's not wrong. In a movie all about revenge, Bond never sought his own and did only what his mission demanded, like a true professional. Vesper would be proud.

    Going into Skyfall, now I'm really grasping at straws about where Bond went rogue. After he got shot he recuperated in Turkey, but he wasn't on a mission or acting as an agent outside his orders or jurisdiction, so it can't be that (all he does is recover from the shot and get hammered at a bar). Later, when he takes M to Scotland it's with the help of MI6, so again, I wouldn't call that very roguish behavior, especially since his boss is in his passenger's seat.

    Bond never truly goes rogue in any movie, and largely because that's just unBondian. He's a professional and follows orders, even when he disagrees with them or lacks the resources to complete his mission; he always finds a way. Even in LTK, in the fog or rage, he gets Sanchez reigned in, finishing what he started, while avenging Della as a side bonus.

    As Bond says to M in QoS, "I'm motivated by my duty."
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    GBF wrote: »
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!

    Which climax do you mean? Sorry but I don't see neither a great climax nor any great action scene. The fight between Greene and Bond who is at least twice as strong is so extremey unexciting. In my eyes it is a very generic underwhelming action movie in the tradition of the Bourne films with an overly serious tone and without any sense of self reflexion and irony which used to seperate the Bond films from causal action films.

    The entire building and location they are in is a true Bond villain lair..

    It's in an exotic location, the building is on fire and falling a part and you have Bond fighting against a crazy man swinging an axe at him. Sure Bond is a way better fighter but he is still in a burning building fighting against a man with an axe... The movie had so many great moments.

    You can't say that the car chase is not one of the best car chases of all time it is truly amazing. The camera cuts and roar of the engines. Just wow. The opera sequence, boat scene, opening chase sequence, various fight scenes, Bond escaping the CIA. The film is a Bond film to me. It's also different and fun. It keeps the story and film moving.

    It's probably one of the only Bond films that does not have any boring parts.

    Ok I just think we have different tastes. I find the building completely stupid. Why should there even be a hotel in the middle of the desert. Obviously nobody wants to stay there since it has no guests and only one employee. It is also not really explained why the whole building is set on fire out of the sudden. But the scene is also not really intense since the fight between Bond and Greene is very unequal and lacks any interesting development. That the building is on fire is also not explained well and also not really a bigger issue. Greene does get out of the building easily and so do Bond and Camille. I never really felt any danger. In my eyes, the burning elevator scene in AVAK is much more intense than the burning eco hotel.
Sign In or Register to comment.