Last Bond Movie You Watched

1124125127129130327

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited June 2015 Posts: 11,090
    Octopussy. I think this is probably Roger's best outing overall. Just the right level of seriousness and cheese that tames Roger's usual slapstick antics. I also think till date and with the exception of CR this is the last real magical adventure we've seen in a Bond movie; however, SP looks to change that. Roger looked pretty good in the film and his suits looked fantastic, particularly the cut and fit of both dinner suits he wore.
    Now, there are moments of absurdity but fortunately they're not frequent enough to ruin the movie experience. It would be so awesome to make a similar movie like this, with appropriate changes in this day and age with the Craig-era effect and give it more of a thriller vibe. Also, rewatching this movie reminded me how soft the Bond movies have become. When Bond arrives at OP'S island we see OP emerge from the water completely naked and we even get to see a bit of frontal nudity after the lovely shot of her naked body from behind. Also, Bond shooting a guy right in the forehead....what the hell happened to the world that it got so bloody soft that we don't get stuff like this anymore?
  • Watched Goldfinger.

    I suppose your response to the great debate of FRWL vs. GF will depend in large part on how much love (or tolerance) you have for the creeping elements of OTT for the sake of OTT. Goldfinger definitely adds some lines seemingly just because they seem like something Bond would say, and not because they actually add anything to the movie (like his bit on the brandy with Col. Smithers) a problem that would be exacerbated in Thunderball. It also begins the trend of Bond as supergenius, which would reach its climax in the Moore era, when he was an expert on nuclear power, space travel, and everything in between. Then, of course, there are the gadgets and the plots, which ultimately lead to the series collapsing under its own weight in the second half of Die Another Day. Gert Frobe's performance as Goldfinger didn't seem as good this time around, or maybe it was that the dubbing was somehow more noticeable. Pussy Galore is the best of the Bond girls to date, and has the most to do or say other than be eye candy/token idiot, the scene in the barn aside.

    All in all, still the best in the series, although FRWL is another worthy entry, and they sit atop the series together.

    1. Goldfinger
    2. From Russia With Love
    3. Dr. No
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Just finished Goldfinger

    It's been a couple of years, but since a few members have just watched it, I was motivated to see it again. It's never quite been a favourite of mine for some reason, dropping down my rankings over the years since my first watch, and so I wanted to see if I'd have a different impression this time.

    Sadly, I didn't. It's a perfectly good Bond feature of that time, but I think my relative opinion of this film is influenced by its iconic status (I always expect it to be more due to its reputation, and it disappoints relatively speaking) and because I always tend to judge in relation to TB, FRWL, & DN in particular (since they are all of that era), and I personally prefer those three. I also think I'm influenced by the fact that some if its quintessential reputation rests on the Aston, which has been played to death in later years. I was not around when this came out in the theatre, and only watched it much later, having already seen other more modern Bond films, which have copied this film but done it better/grander imho (e.g. OP backgrammon cheating, TSWLM Lotus).

    I find the dialogue pales in comparison to TB in particular, but also FRWL. TB just seems to have a much more lush feel to it, also....more romantic and expensive. Conversely, on the stripped down espionage front, FRWL is miles ahead. Furthermore, I don't find Connery's performance here to be as lethal as he is in those others. He seems somewhat ineffective on many an occasion..basically lumbering into situations lackadaisically, and he also finds himself in trouble far too often for my liking.

    The film definitely has its moments mind you, and they are certainly iconic. The gold painted Eaton, the golf game, the swiss alps scenery, Odd Job, the Goldfinger presentation, the lazer scene, the death of Solo, the Aston, and of course the brilliant pretitles.....but it all really feels more like a precursor of the more popcorn style later Roger Moore entries to me than TB, which I somehow find tauter & more integrated (maybe because of the brilliant dialogue in that film..) while GF feels more like a combination of iconic scenes.

    I'm sure it would have had more of an impact on me if I was around when it first came out, since it set the tone for the future films.

    So from my point of view, Terence Young directing Connery is perfection. Guy Hamilton, not so much, although of course I'm being quite harsh, and am quite probably in the minority. This is still a classic Bond film..

    For early Connery, I'll take FRWL, TB & DN in that order, with GF coming in 4th.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,041
    bondjames wrote: »
    For early Connery, I'll take FRWL, TB & DN in that order, with GF coming in 4th.
    I'd even put YOLT ahead of GF...


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For early Connery, I'll take FRWL, TB & DN in that order, with GF coming in 4th.
    I'd even put YOLT ahead of GF...

    I think I agree with you.. YOLT suffers for me during the middle after the Little Nellie thing (during the wedding etc.) but GF's climax with Pussy's girls spraying the area with gas etc. was quite dull for me too, only redeemed by the Odd Job/Bond fight.

    Yes, maybe I actually enjoyed YOLT more when I saw it a few months back..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @Birdleson, no I actually think the golf game in GF is one of its best moments, along with the dining scene with M....I was more referring to the OP rip off of the post-titles card game introducing Goldfinger cheating in Miami.

    Don't get me wrong, I do like GF. It's just that it is the Bond film (along with YOLT) that has been most copied since, and I think in both cases, I prefer Roger Moore doing the more bombastic style Bond....I think it suited his delivery better and peaked with him in the mid to late 70's....and they had the benefit of far better/superior special effects then. As mentioned earlier, I wasn't around when GF/YOLT were first in the theatres and wonder if my opinion would be different if I had been able to feel their seminal impacts when they were most effective/apparent to audiences.

    I personally find Connery to work much better in the more stripped down Bond thriller type vehicles (which have yet to be surpassed on that front, although Dalton & Craig have gotten close) and count TB (despite its insane budget for the time) to be one of those, and even DAF to a degree, despite the overuse of comedy in some cases.

    I know many people say TB is more overblown than GF, but I don't feel that way. I find TB to be the superior film, visually and narratively....much tighter - a lot (but not all) of that has to do with the way Connery is directed by Young.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,196
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Octopussy. I think this is probably Roger's best outing overall. Just the right level of seriousness and cheese that tames Roger's usual slapstick antics. I also think till date and with the exception of CR this is the last real magical adventure we've seen in a Bond movie; however, SP looks to change that. Roger looked pretty good in the film and his suits looked fantastic, particularly the cut and fit of both dinner suits he wore.
    Now, there are moments of absurdity but fortunately they're not frequent enough to ruin the movie experience. It would be so awesome to make a similar movie like this, with appropriate changes in this day and age with the Craig-era effect and give it more of a thriller vibe. Also, rewatching this movie reminded me how soft the Bond movies have become. When Bond arrives at OP'S island we see OP emerge from the water completely naked and we even get to see a bit of frontal nudity after the lovely shot of her naked body from behind. Also, Bond shooting a guy right in the forehead....what the hell happened to the world that it got so bloody soft that we don't get stuff like this anymore?

    Great review @doubleoego. Always nice to see someone else who appreciates OP.
    It's got so much going for it, and yes it does have one or two irritating moments I could live without. But they don't ruin the film for me. When Bond arrives in Germany the tension and thrills really build up for an edge of your seat climax.


    bondjames wrote: »
    Just finished Goldfinger

    It's been a couple of years, but since a few members have just watched it, I was motivated to see it again. It's never quite been a favourite of mine for some reason, dropping down my rankings over the years since my first watch, and so I wanted to see if I'd have a different impression this time.

    Sadly, I didn't. It's a perfectly good Bond feature of that time, but I think my relative opinion of this film is influenced by its iconic status (I always expect it to be more due to its reputation, and it disappoints relatively speaking) and because I always tend to judge in relation to TB, FRWL, & DN in particular (since they are all of that era), and I personally prefer those three. I also think I'm influenced by the fact that some if its quintessential reputation rests on the Aston, which has been played to death in later years. I was not around when this came out in the theatre, and only watched it much later, having already seen other more modern Bond films, which have copied this film but done it better/grander imho (e.g. OP backgrammon cheating, TSWLM Lotus).

    I find the dialogue pales in comparison to TB in particular, but also FRWL. TB just seems to have a much more lush feel to it, also....more romantic and expensive. Conversely, on the stripped down espionage front, FRWL is miles ahead. Furthermore, I don't find Connery's performance here to be as lethal as he is in those others. He seems somewhat ineffective on many an occasion..basically lumbering into situations lackadaisically, and he also finds himself in trouble far too often for my liking.

    The film definitely has its moments mind you, and they are certainly iconic. The gold painted Eaton, the golf game, the swiss alps scenery, Odd Job, the Goldfinger presentation, the lazer scene, the death of Solo, the Aston, and of course the brilliant pretitles.....but it all really feels more like a precursor of the more popcorn style later Roger Moore entries to me than TB, which I somehow find tauter & more integrated (maybe because of the brilliant dialogue in that film..) while GF feels more like a combination of iconic scenes.

    I'm sure it would have had more of an impact on me if I was around when it first came out, since it set the tone for the future films.

    So from my point of view, Terence Young directing Connery is perfection. Guy Hamilton, not so much, although of course I'm being quite harsh, and am quite probably in the minority. This is still a classic Bond film..

    For early Connery, I'll take FRWL, TB & DN in that order, with GF coming in 4th.

    I think you've perfectly summed up my own feelings regarding GF here @bondjames.
    I enjoy GF and have possibly been a little harsh on it at times. Though all that you point out, the formula setting in, the espionage that was so much better in DN and FRWL, along with the writing.
    Watched Goldfinger.

    I suppose your response to the great debate of FRWL vs. GF will depend in large part on how much love (or tolerance) you have for the creeping elements of OTT for the sake of OTT. Goldfinger definitely adds some lines seemingly just because they seem like something Bond would say, and not because they actually add anything to the movie (like his bit on the brandy with Col. Smithers) a problem that would be exacerbated in Thunderball. It also begins the trend of Bond as supergenius, which would reach its climax in the Moore era, when he was an expert on nuclear power, space travel, and everything in between. Then, of course, there are the gadgets and the plots, which ultimately lead to the series collapsing under its own weight in the second half of Die Another Day. Gert Frobe's performance as Goldfinger didn't seem as good this time around, or maybe it was that the dubbing was somehow more noticeable. Pussy Galore is the best of the Bond girls to date, and has the most to do or say other than be eye candy/token idiot, the scene in the barn aside.

    All in all, still the best in the series, although FRWL is another worthy entry, and they sit atop the series together.

    I think @Soundofthesinners also makes a great point about GF. This is where Bond starts with his genius level on everything. At first it's a little joke, and can be forgiven. But by the time we get to the Moore films, it's become silly. It's one of the reasons that I'm not a fan of the Guy Hamilton directed Bond films. The start of the superBond and over use of gadgets and gimmicks. DN and FRWL are leaps and bounds better films than GF, and as with @bondjames, I'd also put TB as being a better film.
    One of the things that DN and FRWL also share is the writing team of Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather. It's hard to know how much input Harwood ans Mather had with Maibaum, but the films themselves have some of the best scripts of all the Bond films.


  • I should clarify (although I do say it near the end) that this is perfectly acceptable in Goldfinger, because it's the first time they were done, so it wasn't worn out, and they also keep it to a relatively reasonable level, especially considering that Goldfinger has the upper hand on Bond for quite a while, and he really only saves the day through a Pussy Galore hail mary (if that's an Americanism, let me know) (he also kind of sexually assaults her, but we'll leave that aside for now).

    The laser table scene is one of my favorite scenes in the series for that reason. It's an elaborate, kind of silly, deathtrap, but it's one that's also completely effective and would absolutely have killed Bond if he hadn't talked his way out of it. Compare this to the million and one other attempts to kill Bond (especially that awful DAD attempted homage) and you'll see the difference.

    All the same, thanks very much for the compliment @Benny.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,041

    The laser table scene is one of my favorite scenes in the series for that reason. It's an elaborate, kind of silly, deathtrap, but it's one that's also completely effective and would absolutely have killed Bond if he hadn't talked his way out of it.
    An absolute highpoint for sure & for certain!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,041
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The horrendous ordeal that Bond and Agent Brand endure to survive being trapped in the exhaust of the Moonraker rocket in the exceptional novel on which this movie is based, is pared and gutted to Bond simply pulling explosive putty out of his watch and escaping.
    Yep. It was an excruciatingly bad movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,041
    I groan at MR; I wince at DAD.... wince < groan, therefore DAD wins for me. :))
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    I've finally started my Bondathon. I haven't watched a Bond film in a while and since i'm visiting the beach tomorrow, I was just hankering for a Bond fix to go until I reach SPECTRE.

    Dr. No.
    I haven't watched this film in quite a while. I really love the Bluray, It's truly magnificent. Dr. No is an example of filmaking at it's finest. Full of vibrant colors and a great atmosphere. I felt like I was all the places Bond visited. I really love how the film is lacking the usual element's we've grown accustom to in Bond films over the years. It's so unique and I enjoy the film even more for it. I also love how pulpy it is. It's a raw film that's always in your face. Nothing drew my attention away. I was looking for new things I hadn't noticed before in previous viewings so I got to absorb so much more.

    Dr. No also has one of my favorite Gunbarrel sequences. I love the use of weird radio signal sound effects as Cubby and Harry's name appears in the dots, then were introduced to the Gunbarrel itself. And once the gun has shot, the Bond theme kicks in at maximum overdrive. I love it every time. This film is a gem and a joy to watch. I appreciate it even more. I couldn't find anything wrong with the movie. Even Monty Norman's score has grown on me a bit. It's still strange in some places but it adds to the uniqueness of the film.

    MURDOCK'S BONDATHON RANKING.
    Dr. No.
  • Posts: 7,341
    Watched Goldfinger again yesterday. And the verdict is the same as usual. I absolutely love the first half up until the "lazer scene"... and then the rest i a total bore! It is a shame and quite annoying, I want to like it, but it is nevertheless my impression. The plot just slows down to a standstill (in addition to not making much sense of course), and the Fort Knox ending is a tame anticlimax. I don't know why the ending gets so much praise...


    Since I was a young boy I have always wanted to understand this film and love it like I am supposed to. But I have given up on that now. It jut won't happen, and I have given it plenty of chances. But at least that first half is bloody brilliant though! :)
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,993
    The last Bond movie I watched was TSWLM. Got to love Moore; "Can you swim?"
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I personally still put MR way ahead of DAD. It's the gadgetry and action scene editing that upsets me every time. Just when it gets interesting, some stupid gadget pops up to spoil the fun (gondola, speedboat, python etc. etc.).

    However, there are several components of this film that are far superior to that mess DAD and these are important components (For a Bond film) for me, namely:

    1. score is exceptional by Barry
    2. cinematography is incredible
    3. Moore is Bond, misogyny and all, even if he's just a little too glib here
    4. Lonsdale's Drax is a far superior villain to Stephen's Graves
    5. lines are excellent and even iconic ("A woman?", "You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season", "Desolate MR. Bond. Heartbroken Mr. Drax", "You missed! Did I?", "I think he's attempting re-entry sir" etc .etc.)
    6. When it's serious, it's really good (i.e. Corinne's death, fight with Chang in the glass factory, centrifuge, opening pretitles sans Jaws fall).
    7. no garbage CGI to take you out of the experience - even the much maligned space section at the end is absolutely brilliant for 1979, lazer fight and all
    8. Bernard Lee & Lois Maxwell
    9. Ken Adam
    10. Jaws on a bad day has more charisma (even just his teeth does) than Zao or Mr. Kill

    I realize that for those who love the novel, it's a serious let down. From my perspective, this is a deeply flawed film, but even mentioning it in the same breadth as DAD is an insult to it. It's an end of an era in so many ways (it ended the 70's Bond universe, the last of the larger than life Bond films - and no I don't count TND & DAD among these, the last with Lee, Adam & Bassey, the last time Moore looked young enough for Bond, last time we heard the magnificent 007 theme etc. etc). There's absolutely nothing as indecent as 'Yo Mama' here.

    I will paraphrase and bastardize Drax to make my point about MR's biggest failing imho:
    "Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you. You're not a sportsman, why do you always pull some gadget out of your hat to save yourself. Why don't you use your bloody wits instead to get out of a jam I have painstakingly devised for you!"
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Objectively, MR is completely bonkers and is the polar opposite of what you'd normally expect when hearing the name 'James Bond'. But, Barry's score is so magnificient, the locations/cinematography is so lush, and Sir Roger Moore is visibly having the time of his life, it's really tough for me to hate this film and not be totally entertained by it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,331
    The greatest think about SPECTRE (2015) is that it will evoke a lot from Moonraker, at least from set images. I love the epic, lush style of bond film pioneered by Mr. Lewis Gilbert and friends and am glad to see that legacy continued. Not only is the globetrotting from Moonraker and TSWLM return, but also the larger roles of side characters like the MI6 crew. This is very good news indeed! I realize that Bond should be the focus of any Bond movie, but Moonraker uses characters we know brilliantly and add to the epic fantasy feel of the film.

    My only wish now is that we get to see another army versus army fight in either SPECTRE or Bond 25. The last time we had one of those was The living Daylights so I think we are overdue for one, please. Oh, and those who say that 'epic Bond' style is not what Fleming had written are talking for somewhere other than their mouths. I am utterly fed up with the rhetoric that Fleming's book were all dark and realistic. They weren't. I mean, Casino Royale was, sort of. But Fleming was the one who escalated the character and the plots, not the film producers. If you read the books in order you would realize that they get progressively bigger in scale and stakes. So the 'epic Bond' is as much a creation of Fleming as anything else. Ergo, don't feel guilty for enjoying Moonraker, as if it isn't in Fleming's image. It is.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,079
    The greatest think about SPECTRE (2015) is that it will evoke a lot from Moonraker, at least from set images. I love the epic, lush style of bond film pioneered by Mr. Lewis Gilbert and friends and am glad to see that legacy continued. Not only is the globetrotting from Moonraker and TSWLM return, but also the larger roles of side characters like the MI6 crew. This is very good news indeed! I realize that Bond should be the focus of any Bond movie, but Moonraker uses characters we know brilliantly and add to the epic fantasy feel of the film.

    My only wish now is that we get to see another army versus army fight in either SPECTRE or Bond 25. The last time we had one of those was The living Daylights so I think we are overdue for one, please. Oh, and those who say that 'epic Bond' style is not what Fleming had written are talking for somewhere other than their mouths. I am utterly fed up with the rhetoric that Fleming's book were all dark and realistic. They weren't. I mean, Casino Royale was, sort of. But Fleming was the one who escalated the character and the plots, not the film producers. If you read the books in order you would realize that they get progressively bigger in scale and stakes. So the 'epic Bond' is as much a creation of Fleming as anything else. Ergo, don't feel guilty for enjoying Moonraker, as if it isn't in Fleming's image. It is.

    Post of the day, good sir. =D>
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    A word about Goldfinger. This was my first Bond, and got me started on this long road, but, to me, it is not the best Bond (FRWL and OHMSS beat it all to hell), but as it was my first it does have a special place in my heart. But it is the film where the silliness started, and I have to lay that squarely at Hamilton's feet. He brought in elements that Connery complained were comic book - Oddjob crushing the golfball , for one- and then Hamilton wanted the car to have revolving number plates. Why? Could't you go abroad on British plates in the 60s? Utter tosh. And even as a 10 or 11-year-old the soldiers falling down dead was pretty lame, and who the hell choose Cec Linder as Felix, awful casting! But it's not all bad, great car, locations, Eaton, Lee, the laser, fantastic golf game [mind you where is Bond hiding that rather heavy gold bar?], great pre-title (apart from the seagull on Bond's head), Oddjob and Ken Adams sets. And I have to say that other Hamilton directed Bond get worse, especially as by then they had abandoned Fleming's plots, and any director who thought Burt Reynolds would make a good Bond just didn't get the character.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    From Russia With Love.Another good watch but this time I found it slightly weaker than Dr. No surprisingly. I can't quite figure out why but this is rather different for me. Perhaps it's the lack of vibrant colors and Ken Adam's touch. This is all very perplexing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    It's all good @Murdock. Those first two are absolute classics as we know, and yet they're quite different.

    The atmosphere in FRWL is quite dark (for a Bond movie) and romantic, as is Monro's score. It always sits very high on my list for those reasons alone, along with Grant, and Connery's performance.

    However, I can see how DN can be preferred on occasion. It's more upbeat, and actually more traditional Bond-like, with the repartee with the villain in his HQ and everything blowing up (including Adam's sets) etc.

    I wouldn't be surprised if your opinion shifts back on the next watch though. They both rank very high for me.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    @bondjames, yes It's quite a fun experience reviewing the Bond films in a Marathon mode. Both DN and FRWL are structurally the same. I also noticed that Dr. No is heavily Bond focused while From Russia With Love is heavily focused on the villains. I never noticed that before until this viewing. I like picking up on little things like that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    @bondjames, yes It's quite a fun experience reviewing the Bond films in a Marathon mode. Both DN and FRWL are structurally the same. I also noticed that Dr. No is heavily Bond focused while From Russia With Love is heavily focused on the villains. I never noticed that before until this viewing. I like picking up on little things like that.

    I never noticed that either. I've been waiting for closer to the SP release date to do my full Bondathon, but it looks like it's overdue...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,041
    Murdock wrote: »
    Dr. No is heavily Bond focused
    A slightly bigger budget and a total Barry score would have made DN my all time favourite Bond...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I may have to do a DN/FRWL 1-2 punch view now.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,871
    GoldenEye.

    Still sits at #1 for me and always will. It's been ages since I've last watched it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    GoldenEye.

    Still sits at #1 for me and always will. It's been ages since I've last watched it.

    GE is great. Still one of the most entertaining Bond films I've ever seen. Every time I watch it, I'm taken back to the excitement in 1995 for the Return of James Bond finally!
  • Posts: 8,940
    The Man with the Golden Gun in honor of Christopher Lee

    I am always surprised with how Lee single handedly saves a mediocre bond film and how stunning Brit Ekland is she is GORGOUS.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Risico007 wrote: »
    The Man with the Golden Gun in honor of Christopher Lee

    I am always surprised with how Lee single handedly saves a mediocre bond film and how stunning Brit Ekland is she is GORGOUS.

    Britt's not really my type, but I agree she does look quite fetching in TMWTGG. If she threw herself at me, I wouldn't object, let's put it this way. For Queen and Country.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    @bondjames - have to disagree there. I don't find her attractive in this film, she was great and sexy in The Wicker Man, but here she just leaves me sort of meh. And of course her character was a complete no-hoper.
Sign In or Register to comment.