›

Last Bond Movie You Watched

1…331332333334335337»

Comments

  • LeighBurneLeighBurne
    Posts: 140
    Octopussy. It’s not exactly top-tier 007, and it’s hurt further by the fact the pre-titles (one of the best in the series?) is miles better than anything else about it, but as with almost any oldschool Bond movie it’s still a thoroughly entertaining couple of hours.

    Also always quite liked how this starts out as your standard globetrotting Bond feature of the period before morphing into a genuine Cold War thriller in its final act.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 845
    Agreed OP has lot of good in it.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited November 6 Posts: 2,604
    talos7 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    DAD was also my Bond film in theaters and I also have a soft spot for it. Although I didn't quite like it back in the day, I have come to like it, partly also for nostalgic reasons.

    Now there's a lot to say about its misfires, but I do think there some genuinely good moments in it as well: the pts, the title sequence, the Hong Kong hotel scene, the Cuba scenes, Raoul, the sword fight, Miranda Frost, the ice palace design and the car chase.

    I remember going to see it in my usual cinema, The Savoy, and when the curtains opened , the screen appearing bigger than usual, and someone seated behind me whispering "now we're talking!"
    As for the film, I exited so utterly depressed, thinking, is this honestly what we are going to expect from future Bond movies. At that time there was no sign of Brossa being given the boot and he looked like he could equal Moore and Connerys output! Thank God, Babs and Wilson decided to reboot!

    They get the CR rights its the one and only reason why they didnt continue with Brosnan.

    Think there was more to it than that!

    No doubt there was more to it, but securing the rights to CR was pivotal; had they not, it’s is highly likely we would have gone another, probably more grounded, Brosnan film. With the right script, re-teaming John McTiernan and Pierce could have been interesting.

    They already had the rights before making DAD. They hadn't planned to use them at first, but they changed their minds.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,460
    It’s definitely an interesting ‘what if’. In practice I don’t know what route they would have gone down if they didn’t have CR. I suppose you could argue they’d have cast a new Bond anyway (I think it was a case of things needing to change).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 845
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s definitely an interesting ‘what if’. In practice I don’t know what route they would have gone down if they didn’t have CR. I suppose you could argue they’d have cast a new Bond anyway (I think it was a case of things needing to change).

    Would that Bond have been Craig?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited November 7 Posts: 6,460
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s definitely an interesting ‘what if’. In practice I don’t know what route they would have gone down if they didn’t have CR. I suppose you could argue they’d have cast a new Bond anyway (I think it was a case of things needing to change).

    Would that Bond have been Craig?

    Potentially, as they supposedly spotted Craig as early as 1998. They would still have made DAD and Bourne would still have come around after, prompting the much needed change in direction. Brosnan's contract would still have needed renegotiating. I suppose you could argue CR being a reboot was the final straw in the decision to recast, but it's possible they'd have wanted a clean slate anyway after a point, and there's no reason they wouldn't have rebooted the franchise with a new Bond (obviously Batman Begins/stories of its development would still exist, assuming that pushed the studio and EON to go ahead with that direction for Bond).

    Honestly, I suspect if they hadn't had CR, we'd have gotten a spin on the first half of the film anyway, and from what I understand it's what they started with when this film was being developed as a fifth Brosnan installment (ie. the Madagascar chase, possibly a plane or something being bombed, and perhaps even the opening with Bond getting his 00 status if they'd recast with Craig).
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,655
    FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963)
    I relented, after upgrading from video, to dvd, to blu-ray, I decided to purchase a 4k of one of Connerys. I didnt want to fork out for the set, so I picked my favourite of his! It does look great, but not sure its a huge step up from the blu-ray! Anyway, still a cracking Bond film, full of intrigue, wonderful characters, menacing villains, great locations, Sean on tip top form, and thrilling action. Standout is Robert Shaws Donald 'Red' Grant, magnificent nemesis, silent throughout most of it, lurking in the background, when he finally does talk, impersonating a contact,the tension rattles up, concluding with a bruising fight sequence with Bond! Great viewing as always!
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 845
    007HallY wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s definitely an interesting ‘what if’. In practice I don’t know what route they would have gone down if they didn’t have CR. I suppose you could argue they’d have cast a new Bond anyway (I think it was a case of things needing to change).

    Would that Bond have been Craig?

    Potentially, as they supposedly spotted Craig as early as 1998. They would still have made DAD and Bourne would still have come around after, prompting the much needed change in direction. Brosnan's contract would still have needed renegotiating. I suppose you could argue CR being a reboot was the final straw in the decision to recast, but it's possible they'd have wanted a clean slate anyway after a point, and there's no reason they wouldn't have rebooted the franchise with a new Bond (obviously Batman Begins/stories of its development would still exist, assuming that pushed the studio and EON to go ahead with that direction for Bond).

    Honestly, I suspect if they hadn't had CR, we'd have gotten a spin on the first half of the film anyway, and from what I understand it's what they started with when this film was being developed as a fifth Brosnan installment (ie. the Madagascar chase, possibly a plane or something being bombed, and perhaps even the opening with Bond getting his 00 status if they'd recast with Craig).

    Chose Craig made sense his career was at the right spot but many didnt like his looks.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,948
    GOLDENEYE (1995)

    Honestly just kinda played it on whim with friends because we didn’t know what else to put on at the last minute. I feel like if I see it in theaters with a packed crowd I might enjoy it more. It’s a fine solid outing. 4/5
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Edward Berger for Bond 27
    edited November 19 Posts: 9,449
    You Only Live Twice (1967)

    Something that struck me watching this movie is how much of the problems that are present in DAF are already started with YOLT. From Bonds initial meeting with Osato right the way up until he gets LITTLE NELLY there's only around 3 - 4 plot points covering that whole stretch of time. The rest of the time it's the kind of random zany shenanigans that DAF is often criticised for. Bond wins over the Femme Fatale only to be betrayed again in the next scene, he gets plastic surgery for it to have no perceivable impact on how he is taken in by the locals. I think both films suffer from the same problem of not managing to come up with a plot that naturally blossoms outwards like FRWL or GF. I've always thought this about DAF but it really sunk in this time how much Connerys last two official entries have in common.
  • LeighBurneLeighBurne
    Posts: 140
    I’ve always said YOLT was where the rot started to set in for Connery - it starts really well but the last act always felt incredibly uneven to me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Edward Berger for Bond 27
    Posts: 9,449
    LeighBurne wrote: »
    I’ve always said YOLT was where the rot started to set in for Connery - it starts really well but the last act always felt incredibly uneven to me.

    I love the volcano lair, but everything it takes to get there just make it leaden IMO.

    The film works up until Bond gets rescued coming out of Osato chemicals, then the plot falters big time.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,960
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    You Only Live Twice (1967)

    Something that struck me watching this movie is how much of the problems that are present in DAF are already started with YOLT. From Bonds initial meeting with Osato right the way up until he gets LITTLE NELLY there's only around 3 - 4 plot points covering that whole stretch of time. The rest of the time it's the kind of random zany shenanigans that DAF is often criticised for. Bond wins over the Femme Fatale only to be betrayed again in the next scene, he gets plastic surgery for it to have no perceivable impact on how he is taken in by the locals. I think both films suffer from the same problem of not managing to come up with a plot that naturally blossoms outwards like FRWL or GF. I've always thought this about DAF but it really sunk in this time how much Connerys last two official entries have in common.

    What makes DAF so much more entertaining than YOLT though, is that DAF knows that it's a silly film and goes all-in on it. Not to mention Connery seems to have a good time as well. YOLT on the other hand suffers from not really being aware how absurd it really is, while it also lacks a lead that enjoys himself.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 845
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    GOLDENEYE (1995)

    Honestly just kinda played it on whim with friends because we didn’t know what else to put on at the last minute. I feel like if I see it in theaters with a packed crowd I might enjoy it more. It’s a fine solid outing. 4/5

    Great time to watch 30 anniversary.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,604
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    You Only Live Twice (1967)

    Something that struck me watching this movie is how much of the problems that are present in DAF are already started with YOLT. From Bonds initial meeting with Osato right the way up until he gets LITTLE NELLY there's only around 3 - 4 plot points covering that whole stretch of time. The rest of the time it's the kind of random zany shenanigans that DAF is often criticised for. Bond wins over the Femme Fatale only to be betrayed again in the next scene, he gets plastic surgery for it to have no perceivable impact on how he is taken in by the locals. I think both films suffer from the same problem of not managing to come up with a plot that naturally blossoms outwards like FRWL or GF. I've always thought this about DAF but it really sunk in this time how much Connerys last two official entries have in common.

    What makes DAF so much more entertaining than YOLT though, is that DAF knows that it's a silly film and goes all-in on it. Not to mention Connery seems to have a good time as well. YOLT on the other hand suffers from not really being aware how absurd it really is, while it also lacks a lead that enjoys himself.

    I think the DAF plot is better. I think Bond infiltrating the smuggling ring makes the story flow.
  • LeighBurneLeighBurne
    Posts: 140
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    What makes DAF so much more entertaining than YOLT though, is that DAF knows that it's a silly film and goes all-in on it. Not to mention Connery seems to have a good time as well. YOLT on the other hand suffers from not really being aware how absurd it really is, while it also lacks a lead that enjoys himself.
    My problem with Diamonds is that it only thinks it’s funny.

    Once Bond leaves Europe I find it almost uniformly dreadful.

    It’s one of only three Bond films (four, if you count the spoof Casino) that I genuinely can’t stand. In fact it might be the worst Bond movie ever made imo. And the fact it takes a giant dump all over the ending of the excellent movie that came beforehand makes me hate it even more. If ever there was a time for a dark revenge movie à la LtK, it was in the wake of OHMSS. Instead we got a lame, unfunny farce.

    All just my opinion, of course :)
  • LeighBurneLeighBurne
    Posts: 140
    All the talk of Licence to Kill in the controversial opinions thread gave me a craving for it.

    As much as I love this one, I always seem to feel sad when the credits start rolling. Definitely feels like it was the end of an era.

    And I will never forgive the universe for conspiring to deny us more Dalton Bond movies.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,877
    Octopussy
    Solid and exotic Bond film. This would have been a perfect send off for Moore
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,655
    LeighBurne wrote: »
    All the talk of Licence to Kill in the controversial opinions thread gave me a craving for it.

    As much as I love this one, I always seem to feel sad when the credits start rolling. Definitely feels like it was the end of an era.

    And I will never forgive the universe for conspiring to deny us more Dalton Bond movies.

    For me, considering what was to come, it was all the more depressing! I must watch Daltons two back to back again, Its a great double bill!
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 845
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Octopussy
    Solid and exotic Bond film. This would have been a perfect send off for Moore

    Cubby just wasnt ready for that.
Sign In or Register to comment.