|
|
Post by Leolian'sBro on Nov 6, 2024 11:42:26 GMT
Goldeneye is my favourite, which is entirely due to its peerless cinematography, acting and script and nothing at all to do with the fact I was 16 when it came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Nov 6, 2024 11:52:56 GMT
I urge you to retain that 16 year old memory. Found it a bit of a struggle, but it does still have some of the magic and some great set pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by zisssou on Nov 6, 2024 11:57:06 GMT
I mean I'm not the biggest Daniel Craig Bond fan, but if I were to pick two films, that would be Casino Royale and Skyfall. Anyway this has reminded me, that I was going to rewatch all the Brosnan Bond films. This is where I'm at. Btw, don't rewatch Brosnan. They have not aged well, including Goldeneye, which I loved on release There is an element of nostalgia for me. Tomorrow Never Dies was my first cinema Bond film, then The World is not Enough. I'm not sure why Bond has really entered my mind again, as I really had gone off it for years. Maybe everything that has happened this year, just reminded me of the how fun Bond can be. |
|
|
|
Post by cristar on Nov 6, 2024 11:57:29 GMT
Also thought Casino Royale was his best by far. And in the group that think Skyfall is completely terrible. Completely full of ridiculous plot holes and anything good in it is basically just plucked straight from The Dark Knight, except in this instance a lot of it makes no sense.
I'm sure this could be done for most Bond films but;
QoS and No Time to Die are might be worse. But that isn't saying much. |
|
|
|
Post by zisssou on Nov 6, 2024 11:59:01 GMT
Also Teri Hatcher! pwhhooorrr.
|
|
|
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Nov 6, 2024 12:32:20 GMT
You could just say you don't like Skyfall without linking to one of those terrible CinemaSins videos. They're the absolute worst way to look at a movie and think about why it does (or doesn't) work.
|
|
rftp
New Member
Posts: 656
Member is Online
|
Post by rftp on Nov 6, 2024 13:03:39 GMT
I don't like Skyfall.
Oh yeah, fancy that!
(I haven't seen Skyfall)
|
|
mikeck
Junior Member
Posts: 1,916
|
Post by mikeck on Nov 6, 2024 13:10:24 GMT
I must be in the minority when it comes to the Daniel Craig Bond films (not a Bond fan at all really) as I thought No Time to Die was pretty good, and a fitting end to his run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 6, 2024 13:18:02 GMT
The irony was that he did in fact have time.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 6, 2024 13:21:46 GMT
They are my most unfavourite to the point that I don't really consider them Bond movies. The problem is that I tend to consume them now like Carry on Movies, I stick one on when I have nothing else to watch and with them being all interconnected in one long arc and half of them being shit, I never, ever feel like watching them.
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,472
|
Post by Lizard on Nov 6, 2024 13:38:05 GMT
Skyfall is bilge. Three films in and this new, gritty Bond is enjoying the memberberries and setting booby traps.
I hadn't considered it before reading these opinions, but I reckon DC is my least favourite Bond too. I watched QOS a few days before going to Skyfall. On the way to the cinema I realised I couldn't remember a single thing about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 6, 2024 13:41:28 GMT
I really enjoyed Skyfall and No Time To Die a fair bit, both 7-out-of-10 films for me. Maybe even 8. I like them as films too, not just because they're part of a franchise (I'm pretty indifferent to Bond as a franchise)
Neither is as good as Casino Royale but both are far better than QoS and Spectre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 6, 2024 13:44:57 GMT
I really, really didn't like QoS. It's always reminded me of Licence to Kill where its a Bond film only in name.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenkey on Nov 6, 2024 13:47:47 GMT
I think QoS is actually quite good, for a bond film.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but Dame Judy Dench ruined the abond Franchise. Too big a star, M ceased to a person who appeared for 5 seconds to send Bond off on a mission and ended being part of the action, diminishing the size of the world Bond occupied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 6, 2024 13:53:46 GMT
Err, OK. Some proper takes today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Nov 6, 2024 13:56:12 GMT
Alan Partridge may have something to say about these posts tbf
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 6, 2024 14:04:15 GMT
Not liking Skyfall or Time to Die I can understand, even though I like them both, but I'm really struggling to understand any love for QoS.
|
|
|
|
Post by zisssou on Nov 6, 2024 14:07:02 GMT
I think QoS is actually quite good, for a bond film. I've mentioned it elsewhere, but Dame Judy Dench ruined the abond Franchise. Too big a star, M ceased to a person who appeared for 5 seconds to send Bond off on a mission and ended being part of the action, diminishing the size of the world Bond occupied. Right that's it. Come here  |
|
|
|
Post by clemfandango on Nov 6, 2024 14:07:36 GMT
Re. the Judi dench thing, she was great in the Brosnan movies but why they thought it a good idea to make a movie (skyfall) about her and have her die in it is beyond me. M was never a major character and erm you know it’s supposed to be a bond movie right?
Skyfall is shite IMO, I wonder if there is a correlation between who people who like it and other marmite movies on here, like say the last Jedi (also utter dog shite)? 😊
|
|
|
|
Post by gamingdave on Nov 6, 2024 14:12:45 GMT
Said it before but I really didn't like Skyfall when I first saw it in the cinema, came out really disappointed and really couldn't see where the praise was coming from. On the one hand it was trying to be a serious film, giving depth to characters (and continue a multi-film arc), on the other it had the daftest plot and was utterly preposterous in it's sequence of events and outcomes. You can't be both Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and F&F at the same time.
On a rewatch more recently I was more favourable, but it's still a poor entry in the franchise as are most of the DC era of films.
Bond has had to change over the years, with varying degrees of success but I think it's time to retire the franchise, at least in the modern world.
The Bourne films did "serious" better. The MI films did/do fun and excitement (and gadgets) better. The F&F franchise does daft better.
|
|
|
|
Post by zisssou on Nov 6, 2024 14:13:00 GMT
I think I need more than it is shite. Because that is quite dismissive, of a film I rank fairly highly in terms of Bond. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but like Die Another Day is shite.. Skyfall... hmm?
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 6, 2024 14:19:47 GMT
I've gone off Bourne recently, at least the Greengrass sequels, the shaky cam action scenes have really started to do my head in.
I think it's more the influence they had on action scenes in other films then the film's themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by clemfandango on Nov 6, 2024 14:25:29 GMT
I think I need more than it is shite. Because that is quite dismissive, of a film I rank fairly highly in terms of Bond. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but like Die Another Day is shite.. Skyfall... hmm? Die another day is shite too. I have a short list of bond movies I wouldn’t watch if they were on tv and I was bored. This includes all the DC movies bar casino royale, die another day and diamonds are forever (though I do like wint and kid). I’d watch any of the other ones with varying degrees of enjoyment. Absolute top tier is: The living daylights On her majesty’s secret service For your eyes only Dr no Goldfinger The spy who loved me Enjoyable romps are: All the other Roger Moore, Brosnan and Sean Connery ones and licence to kill. Oh and then there is casino royale I think the only way forward for bond is to set them in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s again. Which is bizzare really…. |
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Nov 6, 2024 14:43:48 GMT
Casino Royale has the best song.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Nov 6, 2024 14:44:10 GMT
Oh behave etc.
Re setting them in the 60s
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 6, 2024 14:46:34 GMT
Yeah, I don't see why a time period change would lead to a better film.
|
|
|
|
Post by clemfandango on Nov 6, 2024 14:49:56 GMT
Yeah, I don't see why a time period change would lead to a better film. My thoughts were his character just doesn’t work in the modern day. Setting it back in the days when he was relevant would probably work better. Otherwise we will just get 20 more years of bond films where M calls him a dinosaur etc. Oh and who doesn’t like a good period spy action movie 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 6, 2024 15:09:16 GMT
He doesn't work in modern times if you have bad writers.
|
|
|
|
Post by zisssou on Nov 6, 2024 15:11:37 GMT
The problem is that setting it within that period, would be associated with the other films, where Bond was a bit of a womaniser and misogyny ran rife.
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,472
|
Post by Lizard on Nov 6, 2024 15:17:09 GMT
Let's have '90's rave Bond then
|
|
