Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: stanton on October 22, 2012, 02:03:26 PM
-
Just before the Sky begins to fall let's have a look back what was before in the James Blond business.
James Bomb rating time:
Dr. No 6/10
From Russia with Love 6
Goldfinger 6
Thunderball 6
You Only Live Twice 4
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 7
Diamonds Are Forever 5
Live and Let Die 6
The Man with the Golden Gun 4,5
The Spy Who Loved Me 6
Moonraker 3
For Your Eyes Only 5
Octopussy 5,5
Never Say Never Again 4,5
A View to a Kill 4
The Living Daylights 5
Licence to Kill 6,5
GoldenEye 6
Tomorrow Never Dies 4
The World Is Not Enough 6
Die Another Day 5
Casino Royale 7,5
Quantum of Solace 10
-
Based on your ratings, it looks like you've sat through a shitload of shitty movies.
Wtf would you keep watching them if they were so bad?
--------------
(personally, I'm not much of a Bond fan. I only saw 2 of 'em: I first saw Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, and then saw
Goldfinger with Sean Connery. and I didn't love either. At least Casino Royale attempted to be a real action/drama.
Goldfinger was a comedy, plain and simple (I never watch comedy). As soon as I saw Goldfinger and realized that Bond movies are really comedies, I lost interest in them.
-
I'm quite sure I saw all the then released Bond films before I turned twelve (I'm pretty sure that Die Another Day is the only one I have not seen) and I very much liked them. Then I've seen some of them later but haven't really felt the same exhilaration. I guess that goes to show what's the target audience.
-
Based on your ratings, it looks like you've sat through a shitload of shitty movies.
Wtf would you keep watching them if they were so bad?
--------------
(personally, I'm not much of a Bond fan. I only saw 2 of 'em: I first saw Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, and then saw
Goldfinger with Sean Connery. and I didn't love either. At least Casino Royale attempted to be a real action/drama.
Goldfinger was a comedy, plain and simple (I never watch comedy). As soon as I saw Goldfinger and realized that Bond movies are really comedies, I lost interest in them.
Bond films are part of my childhood. I have a lot of fun with them, even most of them cry for a better directing. I have seen all of them (bare one) in the theatres.
But they are surely no comedies, but they surely overdose the added humour.
But you shouldn't watch them as they are no films for people who think too much about logic in a movie. They are mostly not build around stories.
And a rating of 6/10 is a good one for me. Still a 4 is not that bad. That could still be an entertaining film, but without any impressing scenes.
-
Bond films are part of my childhood. I have a lot of fun with them, even most of them cry for a better directing. I have seen all of them (bare one) in the theatres.
But they are surely no comedies, but they surely overdose the added humour.
But you shouldn't watch them as they are no films for people who think too much about logic in a movie. They are mostly not build around stories.
And a rating of 6/10 is a good one for me. Still a 4 is not that bad. That could still be an entertaining film, but without any impressing scenes.
I can't speak for all the films, but Goldfinger is definitely a comedy. There is nothing serious about it.
I guess everyone uses a different rating system, but for me, watching anything less than a 7/10 is a complete waste of time. A 7 or 7.5 out of 10 = a decent or solid movie, and 8/10 or above is very good to great.
But for me, I only want to watch really good movies. watching a movie is like a holy experience for me, I take it very seriously, so watching a great movie is an amazingly incredible experience for me, like a holy religious experience. Therefore, a bad movie is like defiling the holy. Anyone who is religious will tell you that the worst possible thing one can do is to defile that which is holy; well that's what I think of bad movies.
That's why I'll frequently shut off a movie after 20 minutes or so, once I see it's not gonna be a good movie, I have no reason to watch it, I am certainly not aiming to just be able to say "I saw a million movies." I only want to see great movies. So anything less than a 7.5/10, or a 7/10 at the absolute lowest, is a complete waste of time.
of course, there are some bad movies that still have great elements to it(eg. I recently mentioned that though I did not like Scarface (1932), I did love Paul Muni's performance in it. A terrible movie can have a great performance, or great production design, or a great score, etc. Eg. I didn't really like the original Kiss of Death (I rated it a 6.5/10), yet it has an iconic performance by Richard Widmark as the psychotic bad guy (in his first major role), in a famous scene, he pushes an old person in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs. So maybe it is worthwhile to see, because that's an important performance in movie history. And some movies are considered important in the history of cinema, so even if I personally hate it (eg. Gone with the Wind), I have to see it just for the sake of being able to discuss it.
So there are exceptions. But generally, I would never choose to see a movie if I didn't think it's the sort of movie that'll get a high rating
-
I liked the Bond films as a teenager but haven't seen any since Quantum of Solace was in theaters. Nor do I have much interest in doing so.
-
I can't speak for all the films, but Goldfinger is definitely a comedy. There is nothing serious about it.
You are probably alone with this idea.
There is a big difference between a comedy and a film which takes itself not serious.
If Goldfinger is a comedy than FAFDM is definitely another one.
I guess everyone uses a different rating system, but for me, watching anything less than a 7/10 is a complete waste of time. A 7 or 7.5 out of 10 = a decent or solid movie, and 8/10 or above is very good to great.
I give points for every step of quality (= entertainment). A 5/10 film is about half as good as a 10er. And I don't see much reason to use a 10/10 system if everything beneath 7 is already mediocre or even bad.
Then use a 4 star system like in Halliwell's film guide, in which half of the films get a zero.
But for me, I only want to watch really good movies. watching a movie is like a holy experience for me, I take it very seriously, so watching a great movie is an amazingly incredible experience for me, like a holy religious experience. Therefore, a bad movie is like defiling the holy. Anyone who is religious will tell you that the worst possible thing one can do is to defile that which is holy; well that's what I think of bad movies.
That's why I'll frequently shut off a movie after 20 minutes or so, once I see it's not gonna be a good movie, I have no reason to watch it, I am certainly not aiming to just be able to say "I saw a million movies." I only want to see great movies. So anything less than a 7.5/10, or a 7/10 at the absolute lowest, is a complete waste of time.
of course, there are some bad movies that still have great elements to it(eg. I recently mentioned that though I did not like Scarface (1932), I did love Paul Muni's performance in it. A terrible movie can have a great performance, or great production design, or a great score, etc. Eg. I didn't really like the original Kiss of Death (I rated it a 6.5/10), yet it has an iconic performance by Richard Widmark as the psychotic bad guy (in his first major role), in a famous scene, he pushes an old person in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs. So maybe it is worthwhile to see, because that's an important performance in movie history. And some movies are considered important in the history of cinema, so even if I personally hate it (eg. Gone with the Wind), I have to see it just for the sake of being able to discuss it.
So there are exceptions. But generally, I would never choose to see a movie if I didn't think it's the sort of movie that'll get a high rating
Basically that's my idea too. Unfortunately I'm theoretically interested to see every film ever made.
I also think it is interesting too watch really bad films. But not much of them, as one aspect of bad films is that they are really, really boring.
And apart from 3 or 4 of the Bond films they are not boring, and then only in parts.
Simple they are, yes, but still amusing.
But the newer ones become now aesthetically interesting.
-
You are probably alone with this idea.
There is a big difference between a comedy and a film which takes itself not serious.
If Goldfinger is a comedy than FAFDM is definitely another one.
Yes, when I say a "comedy," i don't necessarily mean like freaking Ace Ventura.
I mean the movie does not take itself seriously. There is never any tension. It's all about style, gadgets, sex, but there's never any tension, we don't really care what happens all that much.
In a real drama or thriller, there would be real tension about what happens, if someone dies it's sad, etc. In Goldfinger, when people die it's basically a joke. Nobody thought for a moment that when whats-her-dirty-name is flying over kentucky in then plane and shoots out the poison gas, that she was actually about to kill all those people. It was never serious. It may not have been slapstick, but it sure as hell was never serious. Anything about "international espionage" or "spy" blah blah blah is really just tongue in cheek, wink-wink, there's no real espionage thriller
There may be a lot of humor in Leone films, but humor and comedy don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. leone had a great sense of humor, a great sense of irony, of dark comedy, and cynicism.
But take eg. the moment when Indio breaks out of jail, and then they get to their church hideaway, and he instructs his gang to take Tomaso's wife and child outside..... there is not a single moment in Goldfinger where we feel in any way remotely like that. We really don't give a damn about consequences of actions, we don't give a damn if someone dies, etc.
It's all about tricked out cars, gadgets, chicks, funny-looking killers, killers with a sense of humor.....
No, Goldfinger sure as hell does not take itself serious.
The other Bond that I saw, the Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, is much more of a serious movie than i Goldfinger. I saw it quite a while ago (in theaters, so figure out when it came out), but I seem to recall it was a serious film involving serious matters, actions had consequences that were serious. I saw Goldfinger more recently (maybe two years ago?) and was instantly turned off. I mean, if you like comedies, great. But I don't
-
I give points for every step of quality (= entertainment). A 5/10 film is about half as good as a 10er. And I don't see much reason to use a 10/10 system if everything beneath 7 is already mediocre or even bad.
Then use a 4 star system like in Halliwell's film guide, in which half of the films get a zero.
Basically that's my idea too. Unfortunately I'm theoretically interested to see every film ever made.
I also think it is interesting too watch really bad films. But not much of them, as one aspect of bad films is that they are really, really boring.
And apart from 3 or 4 of the Bond films they are not boring, and then only in parts.
Simple they are, yes, but still amusing.
But the newer ones become now aesthetically interesting.
yeah, well using a system from 0 - 10, and including halves, gives us 21 total numbers (ie. ratings) to choose from. using a system of giving 0 stars through 4 stars, again including halves = 9 possible ratings.
I actually used to use that system, out of 4 stars, simply because when i first used to read movie reviews as a 14-year old in the NY Daily News, they used that 4-star system (ie. 9-ratings).. But when I came to the SLWB and saw that people used a 0 - 10 system (21 ratings) here, i started using that.
You are right that once a movie is real bad, I am not sure if I put that much thought into whether I give it a 3, a 2, or a 1, etc.
between 7/10 - 10/10, I am definitely very careful with the rankings, but for the very low numbers, not nearly as much. the difference between 8 and 9 is the difference between a good movie and one that may be borderline great. The difference between 2 and 3 doesn't mean much; they both mean, "this movie sucks!"
I will say that the vast majority of movies I watch rate up between 7/10 - 10/10. because if I am watching a movie that is bad, I will just shut it off and that's it (and I never rate a movie if I don't watch the entire thing). So it's pretty rare that i will actually watch a bad movie all the way through; therefore, it's kinda rare that you'll see me rate a movie very low.
But The Old Man and the Sea is one that i did watch all the way through.
And no, I don't think there was a single redeeming value there. And the fact that they used Tracy to narrate his own movie. Yes, I am very certain that it deserves a big fat ZERO
-
I mean, if you like comedies, great. But I don't
You remind me of some cartoon/animated character but I can't figure out which. Maybe The Grinch or something.
-
You remind me of some cartoon/animated character but I can't figure out which. Maybe The Grinch or something.
I don't watch comedies, sci-fi/fantsy, horror, or musicals
and i don't read Dr. Seuss
I am a big fan of Curious George, though
-
You remind me of some cartoon/animated character but I can't figure out which. Maybe The Grinch or something.
Perhaps him?
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7i2dcCLsk1qcqfgc.jpg)
-
Perhaps him?
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7i2dcCLsk1qcqfgc.jpg)
the resemblance is uncanny
something tells me Groggy has found a new signature.
-
That comes down to who's more badass: a cartoon squid or Jack Hawkins double-fisting Vickers guns? There's a thinker.
-
Yes, when I say a "comedy," i don't necessarily mean like freaking Ace Ventura.
I mean the movie does not take itself seriously. There is never any tension. It's all about style, gadgets, sex, but there's never any tension, we don't really care what happens all that much.
In a real drama or thriller, there would be real tension about what happens, if someone dies it's sad, etc. In Goldfinger, when people die it's basically a joke. Nobody thought for a moment that when whats-her-dirty-name is flying over kentucky in then plane and shoots out the poison gas, that she was actually about to kill all those people. It was never serious. It may not have been slapstick, but it sure as hell was never serious. Anything about "international espionage" or "spy" blah blah blah is really just tongue in cheek, wink-wink, there's no real espionage thriller
There may be a lot of humor in Leone films, but humor and comedy don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. leone had a great sense of humor, a great sense of irony, of dark comedy, and cynicism.
But take eg. the moment when Indio breaks out of jail, and then they get to their church hideaway, and he instructs his gang to take Tomaso's wife and child outside..... there is not a single moment in Goldfinger where we feel in any way remotely like that. We really don't give a damn about consequences of actions, we don't give a damn if someone dies, etc.
It's all about tricked out cars, gadgets, chicks, funny-looking killers, killers with a sense of humor.....
No, Goldfinger sure as hell does not take itself serious.
The other Bond that I saw, the Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, is much more of a serious movie than i Goldfinger. I saw it quite a while ago (in theaters, so figure out when it came out), but I seem to recall it was a serious film involving serious matters, actions had consequences that were serious. I saw Goldfinger more recently (maybe two years ago?) and was instantly turned off. I mean, if you like comedies, great. But I don't
Actually most of the Bond films are not thrillers, but over-the-top adventure films with a vague spy background. And GF isn't one neither. The first 2 could be called thrillers and the 2 with Daniel Craig also.
But GF has at least some real iconic scenes and a terrific Gert Fröbe as the baddie. But Hamilton's directing is not that great.
-
True, Goldfinger's really the template for every Bond film since: over-the-top action, cartoon gadgets, colorful villains, sex-named Bond girl. If you don't like that one Bond's probably not for you. The first two movies are, if not exactly docudramas, at least more serious in tone.
-
I've only seen Goldfinger and Goldeneye. Not a huge fan of either, though Goldfinger was sort of entertaining. I plan on watching quite a few before Skyfall comes out.
-
Spectre is coming. This is (a very little) something to look at: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16075
-
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTDaET-JweU
Looks just as stylish, kind of boring and weirdly acted (has Sam Mendes completely forgotten how to actually be fun and not corny?) as Skyfall. Will the plot be equally stupid? But the trailer is nicely done with a good use of music.
-
Bond in Rome is a first?
-
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTDaET-JweU
Looks just as stylish, kind of boring and weirdly acted (has Sam Mendes completely forgotten how to actually be fun and not corny?) as Skyfall. Will the plot be equally stupid? But the trailer is nicely done with a good use of music.
I'm glad we get to see Mr. White again. I have to say, though, I think I'm finally tiring of Christoph Waltz.
-
tucomari_bound wouldn't be so fucking nitpicky about Bond if he were still around. you guys need to chill out. christoph waltz will be a fun villain. this will be a fun movie.
-
Maybe, maybe not.
Skyfall was in parts a bit boring when I watched it first, and maybe this will happen again.
But at least I enjoyed Skyfall more when I rewatched it. It's beautifully shot, and some scenes are well made, but Mendes is only a conventional action director, and the characters lack substance.
-
007 was gonna be in a scene in Rome for LALD , it was never filmed though.......
AVTAK is better than :
DAF/MR (AVTAKs plot is pretty realistic , who knows what would've happened with a double earthquake ?)
TMWTGG (the only thing worth mentioning is Scaramanga , Nick Nack & his island....AVTAK beats this easily imo)
TND (feels like a generic actioneer , at least AVTAK has the famous Bond atmosphere)
TWINE (this is just a chore to watch imo)
QoS (editing ruined it for me)
Zorin was one of the best villains even if script was average.
-
The place I was having lunch today is right next to a Best Buy, so I wandered through and came across a display of this:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=james+bond+steelbook&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys
Way cool. Not sure why they didn't do ALL the Bonds, or even why Dr. No and Goldfinger are absent, but I like a lot of these. I decided to get Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Skyfall was in stock, but I pretended not to notice. I don't think I can get Thunderball if there's no Goldfinger to go with it. I may pick up OHMSS.
There are two kinds of people, my friend. Those who are into steelbooks, and those who are complete idiots. You know where you stand.
-
Way cool. Not sure why they didn't do ALL the Bonds, or even why Dr. No and Goldfinger are absent, but I like a lot of these.
It is a release of all the Bonds with a Spectre connection in it. Still they somehow forgot Dr. No, and included instead For Your Eyes Only only for this idiotic first szene with this loony Blofeld imitator.
And as the new Bond will have references to all the previous Craig Bonds (is Quantum in fact Spectre?), these are also included. And of course because they sell better.
These Steelbook Blus have at least pretty covers, unlike all the other Bond discs.
-
It is a release of all the Bonds with a Spectre connection in it.
Ah.
(is Quantum in fact Spectre?)
Gotta be. The presence of Mr. White cinches it. And there can't be TWO super-secret organizations bent on world domination that have infiltrated every facet of civilized life, can there?
These Steelbook Blus have at least pretty covers, unlike all the other Bond discs.
Yeah, most of these new covers are derived from art in the title sequences, a good approach. Why has no one ever thought of it before?
-
Yeah, most of these new covers are derived from art in the title sequences, a good approach. Why has no one ever thought of it before?
Ain't that a general question? Why are so many DVD covers so incredibly ugly?
-
I once knew the marketing girl at Universal who was in charge of the DVDs for Belgium/Luxembourg/Nederland. She often told me how difficult it was to conceive a DVD cover because stars' contracts include clauses about what you can and have to do with DVD covers. Things like "my name before the others" or "my face must be bigger than Thommy Lee Jones' one".
Also, people in charge of these things are - like the girl I knew - just regular marketing people who are not hired for their artistic tastes. They manage graphists for these tasks but in the end they're the one who decide what goes on the cover.
Whatever the reason is, these things look terrible.
-
Spectre: behind the scenes, practical effects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej9kDTw6RgA
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEknY-U9_Pc
20th anniversary of my first attempts with a camera :).
When I decided to make films 20 years ago I bought a little Hi8 Videocamera to start practicing. Back in those days I worked at the Mathäser Filmpalast in Munich which was equipped with a huge screen, the 2nd biggest in Germany. We had some wonderful premieres (the list of guests is impressive, incl. John Wayne & Brigitte Bardot) and we were of course delighted when - after a six year break - James Bond returned in 1995. My boss ordered me to supply Pierce Brosnan with Martinis (we had close to 1000 prepared for the guests) but he just wanted me to organize him some "Weissbier". Or two. It was a great event. Unfortunately I had to replace the music track otherwise youtube will play it silent only. Enjoy my little exclusive view behind the scenes...
-
Thanks Mike O0
-
http://pagesix.com/2015/10/11/daniel-craig-told-to-shut-up-and-stop-bashing-bond-movie/
-
Isn't wheat beer Belgian?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSliJo3HaEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBPKygDvUmc
Went to the Oslo event where I saw TB on the big screen , then in october I met several Bond girls in Blackpool......they were flabbergasted when they saw all the rare stuff I brought along to be signed :D
Bondstars I've met :
-Lazenby & OHMSS crew
-Rigg (her one and only signing)
-Lonsdale (ditto)
-Paluzzi
-d'Abo
-Munro
-Ashby
-Stavin
-Adams
-Henriques (black allergy patient , OHMSS)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDOH1k0Mucw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvVexJd5Mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYaLq206fvI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9D6SH2ZPpE
TB 50th anniversary ;)
Got amazing stuff sgd in Blackpool last october.......
-
I rewatched The Spy Who Loved Me recently, and it is a surprisingly stylish film. It is a simple film of course, like all the old Bonds, but the simplicity of story and characters is here somehow perfectly in match with the humour and the adventure. It is the perfect old style Bond film, and the sum of the development the series took in 15 years and ten films. It was also a limiting point for the following Bonds, one which made what was possible at that time for this kind of movie, and the next Bond decade (including the Connery comeback) was often a bit dull, before License to Kill brought some fresh air to the tiring franchise. Unfortunately License to Kill was also the least successful of all Bonds.
Live and Let Die is the only Moore Bond which comes close, the other 5 are far less interesting, with For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy being of acceptable quality, and Moonraker and A View to a Kill at the unimaginative end of the spectrum.
It is stunning how well The Spy Who Loved Me is directed and photographed, and how badly directed and looking the similar constructed Moonraker is, despite the same producer, director and writer
-
I rewatched The Spy Who Loved Me recently, and it is a surprisingly stylish film. It is a simple film of course, like all the old Bonds, but the simplicity of story and characters is here somehow perfectly in match with the humour and the adventure. It is the perfect old style Bond film, and the sum of the development the series took in 15 years and ten films. It was also a limiting point for the following Bonds, one which made what was possible at that time for this kind of movie, and the next Bond decade (including the Connery comeback) was often a bit dull, before License to Kill brought some fresh air to the tiring franchise. Unfortunately License to Kill was also the least successful of all Bonds.
Live and Let Die is the only Moore Bond which comes close, the other 5 are far less interesting, with For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy being of acceptable quality, and Moonraker and A View to a Kill at the unimaginative end of the spectrum.
It is stunning how well The Spy Who Loved Me is directed and photographed, and how badly directed and looking the similar constructed Moonraker is, despite the same producer, director and writer
You got me looking for some clips on the web and I just found out the whole thing is on Dailymotion: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2dpc8t_james-bond-the-spy-who-loved-me_tv