James Bond

[stanton]

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

[drinkanddestroy]

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.

[moviesceleton]

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.

[stanton]

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.

[drinkanddestroy]

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

[Groggy]

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.

[stanton]

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.

[drinkanddestroy]

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

[drinkanddestroy]

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

[moviesceleton]

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.

[drinkanddestroy]

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

[Groggy]

You remind me of some cartoon/animated character but I can't figure out which. Maybe The Grinch or something.

Perhaps him?

[drinkanddestroy]

Perhaps him?

the resemblance is uncanny

something tells me Groggy has found a new signature.

[Groggy]

That comes down to who's more badass: a cartoon squid or Jack Hawkins double-fisting Vickers guns? There's a thinker.

[stanton]

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.