Movies

[lucklucky]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Speaking of Beretta's, there was an interesting episode of Royal Armouries on the Robocop gun.

 

[Stargrunt6]

On 6/23/2024 at 2:19 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

First two I agree with. In fact the guy playing Kerim Bay, Pedro  Armendáriz, was suffering from terminal cancer at the time, and was determined to turn a career best performance. Which he did.

OHMSS was not a bad film. I think the main problem with it is that its too long. I think they could have easily trimmed quarter of an hour off it and it would have been a lot tighter. For that reason I wouldnt put it in the top three. Top 10, certainly. Id have swapped places with Casino Royale, which is a much tighter, more rounded film (and its got Eva Green in it, one of the best Bond heroines).

For your eyes only is far better than Quantum of Solace. Cant think what the hell they were thinking there.

 

Sir, we don't discuss QoS when discussing good Bond films. Be polite.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well it had Olga Kurilenko in it, and it looked good compared to Die Another Day, so it wasnt ALL bad.

 

[Ol Paint]

This trailer popped up on YouTube:

It would appear the ship used in the movie is D/S Hestmanden that was used in WWI and WWII. 

The movie was released in December 2023 in Norway.

Doug

[sunday]

3 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

This trailer popped up on YouTube:

It would appear the ship used in the movie is D/S Hestmanden that was used in WWI and WWII. 

The movie was released in December 2023 in Norway.

Doug

Saw it some weeks ago. It is not bad, but it is more focused on personal issues than in war things.

[Yama]

On 6/23/2024 at 1:53 AM, Ivanhoe said:

Bond films, ranked;

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/best-james-bond-films-ranked-151500405.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I disagree with many of the assessments, but I am pleased that The Living Daylights and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service got some recognition.

Skyfall would easily be in my top 10, and I would put GoldenEye well ahead of Quantum of Solace.

 

Quantum of Solace ranked so high is really bizarre - it is very weak and forgettable flick. I remember the characters simply because I was so baffled why this movie had such forgettable characters, compared to previous one. Also the plot was maybe lamest ever: oh no, water supplier is privatized and new owner going to charge 60% more! That kind of shit happens here all the time, why don't we see Bond blowing up things? 

Some other major disagreements with the list, such as Living Daylights and View to a Kill placed so high, and some of the Brosnan films placed so low (except Die Another Die, it sucked). I agree with placements of two last Craig films, I feel they were really overrated (especially Spectre, it was HUGE letdown after Skyfall).

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2024 by Yama

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, Spectre was a real disappointment. I think part of the reason was the scriptwriting was lamentably bad, and Lea Sedoux, whom is a good actress, had zero chemistry with Daniel Craig. By contrast there was chemistry with Eva Green, which is largely why that plotline felt so believable.

 

[Yama]

Yep, Seydoux is at her best when she gets to portray haughty characters with hard exterior. In Spectre they tried to write her a gentler, kinder character and it didn't work for her. She was basically just baggage for Bond. Also, all the plot 'revelations' were bad, like 'Rise of Skywalker'-level bad.

[Ssnake]

And Christoph Waltz was completely wasted. Damn fine actor - but for what, really?

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 minutes ago, Yama said:

Yep, Seydoux is at her best when she gets to portray haughty characters with hard exterior. In Spectre they tried to write her a gentler, kinder character and it didn't work for her. She was basically just baggage for Bond. Also, all the plot 'revelations' were bad, like 'Rise of Skywalker'-level bad.

Yeah, 'Bro-feld'. That just did not work for me, not least because they didnt recognise each other in 'You only live twice'. Ok, so there is a certain amount of Retconing going on, but maybe I dont like retconing in Bond films, anymore than I liked it in the Star Trek reboot.

The sad truth is, the modern Bond Franchises start off well with a new actor, and generally end up getting weaker and weaker because they know they have established a cash cow. This happened with Brosnan (Goldeneye was good, the vast majority that followed it were considerably weaker, even really bad films), and Craig .Casino Royale is right up there with Goldfinger, with both QOS being understandably weak under the circumstances, Skyfall was interesting and ended strongly, Spectre was rubbish, and No Time to die was just weird and uneven (The Ana de Armas sequence was great, the confrontation with Blofeld was disappointing, the plot choices (all of spectre being murdered for no real plot development, Leiter being killed) deeply questionable).

I think there is a case for getting new Bonds and giving them a contract for 2 or 3 films and moving on. After that, they arguably stop trying. I also wouldnt embark on new odyssey as they did with Casino Royale. I could see what they were trying to do, but with different writers and directors whom all have their own strange ideas, it just doesnt work. Not over an arc that lasts 15 years anyway.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

And Christoph Waltz was completely wasted. Damn fine actor - but for what, really?

Yeah, he could have been the best Bond villain since Gert Frobe. But unlike Frobe, he had nothing to work with.

[Ivanhoe]

I suspect that within a Bond series, stories go to crap because of the producers allowing some "showrunner assistant" or whatever their "turn" at driving the bus. So they impose elements of the movie they've always wanted to make. Female protagonist is a one-legged lesbian stripper, male antagonist is a country/western singer Bubba Gurring.

 

[Ivanhoe]

So I watched "Bullet Train" the other night. I had low expectations, but it was a fun movie. I was a little disappointed that Masi Oka only had a brief cameo.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I suspect that within a Bond series, stories go to crap because of the producers allowing some "showrunner assistant" or whatever their "turn" at driving the bus. So they impose elements of the movie they've always wanted to make. Female protagonist is a one-legged lesbian stripper, male antagonist is a country/western singer Bubba Gurring.

 

I still feel an opportunity was missed not casting Ana de Amas as a Mossad Stripper Assassin.

[Ivanhoe]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I still feel an opportunity was missed not casting Ana de Amas as a Mossad Stripper Assassin.

Subscribe me to your newsletter when its available.

 

[Yama]

On 7/6/2024 at 12:01 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

The sad truth is, the modern Bond Franchises start off well with a new actor, and generally end up getting weaker and weaker because they know they have established a cash cow. This happened with Brosnan (Goldeneye was good, the vast majority that followed it were considerably weaker, even really bad films), and Craig. Casino Royale is right up there with Goldfinger, with both QOS being understandably weak under the circumstances, Skyfall was interesting and ended strongly, Spectre was rubbish, and No Time to die was just weird and uneven (The Ana de Armas sequence was great, the confrontation with Blofeld was disappointing, the plot choices (all of spectre being murdered for no real plot development, Leiter being killed) deeply questionable).

I think this happened with all Bonds, except Connery whose best movies were in the middle (though early ones were good too). Character just runs its course, screenwriters out of ideas and lead actor out of motivation. 

But all Bonds have their fanbase. Just recently I was involved in attempting to find elderly lady bunch of books and movies for the summer: surprisingly, she especially wanted Bond movies, and specified "...and they must have Roger Moore in it, he was the real James Bond!"

 

On 7/6/2024 at 12:01 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think there is a case for getting new Bonds and giving them a contract for 2 or 3 films and moving on. After that, they arguably stop trying. I also wouldnt embark on new odyssey as they did with Casino Royale. I could see what they were trying to do, but with different writers and directors whom all have their own strange ideas, it just doesnt work. Not over an arc that lasts 15 years anyway.

Agreed, one should have Marvel or George Lucas-like control over it if one really wants to push "big story arc". I don't see it happening. Reboot is pretty much necessary as Bond is too old now for even comics-style 'sliding timeline'. He would be what, 110 years old by now...? (And of course now they killed Bond, and have to start over).

Long contracts are two-edged sword, they make the actor iconic, but also the franchise becomes their prisoner.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 7/6/2024 at 9:55 PM, Ivanhoe said:

Subscribe me to your newsletter when its available.

 

Im launching a crowdfunding campaign from my villa in the Bahama's, feel free to join.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, Yama said:

I think this happened with all Bonds, except Connery whose best movies were in the middle (though early ones were good too). Character just runs its course, screenwriters out of ideas and lead actor out of motivation. 

But all Bonds have their fanbase. Just recently I was involved in attempting to find elderly lady bunch of books and movies for the summer: surprisingly, she especially wanted Bond movies, and specified "...and they must have Roger Moore in it, he was the real James Bond!"

 

Agreed, one should have Marvel or George Lucas-like control over it if one really wants to push "big story arc". I don't see it happening. Reboot is pretty much necessary as Bond is too old now for even comics-style 'sliding timeline'. He would be what, 110 years old by now...? (And of course now they killed Bond, and have to start over).

Long contracts are two-edged sword, they make the actor iconic, but also the franchise becomes their prisoner.

Much as I love Diamonds are forever, there is no doubt that Connery looked tired and bored in that one. Which is a shame, because it was in many ways one of the most innovative ones they made.

I like Roger Moore. Im not sure he was the best Bond, but he is a favourite of mine. Specifically Live and Let Die, The Spy who loved me and For your Eyes only. The latter I think, whilst it has clunky dialogue, is actually one of his best.

I think they should either had 3 story arcs and contracts to keep the same team together (which considering how much they cost, I just cannot see happening in this say and age). Or just go back to stand alones

As for the reboot, here is a daring suggesting, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would work. I think the next Bond should be Dev Patel. If you are chasing the market, India is clearly the one to be chasing.

[Ivanhoe]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think they should either had 3 story arcs and contracts to keep the same team together (which considering how much they cost, I just cannot see happening in this say and age). Or just go back to stand alones

Agreed. Lock the whole team in to doing 3 movies in roughly 6 years or less, then wrap it up and let everyone move on.

As for the reboot, here is a daring suggesting, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would work. I think the next Bond should be Dev Patel. If you are chasing the market, India is clearly the one to be chasing.

Good idea, but wrong actor. Patel doesn't have the physicality to pull that role off.

Of course, if you really want to twist people's tails, choose a Sikh. Watch LW heads explode when they realize the POC Bond is from a very conservative culture.

 

[TrustMe]

In think that the Bond who you watch as a kid is the one you remember fondly the most.

[Ssnake]

That would've been Moore, and it's the one I like least. Heck, even the first one with Timothy Dalton wasn't as bad as the worst with Moore. Goldeneye was wonderful, as was the Casino Royale reboot with Craig. Connery's makeup prosthetics to make him pass as an Asian in Dr. No are cringeworthy, though the film is otherwise actually pretty good, probably because it has a considerable investigative amount.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Asian 'blackface' scene, thats you only live twice. And yes, its completely weird, and so off the wall, almost like the bit at the beginning when he gets murdered, and then fired out of a Torpedo tube. Its what you get when you get a script off Roald Dahl I guess.

Edited July 8, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Agreed. Lock the whole team in to doing 3 movies in roughly 6 years or less, then wrap it up and let everyone move on.

Whether there is enough money in Christendom to do it that way, I dont know. But what the hell, Disney seems to find the money for multi film arcs for StarWars, and they seem to make money, even though they are universally panned.  There assuredly has to be a market for doing it this way.

I dont know, drop a pile of cash in front of Dev, and watch the little bastard bulk up, faster than you can say 'beefcake'.

[Ivanhoe]

You mean "steroids."

If Disney can afford to lose $100M on every Star Wars miscarriage they drop, surely Hollywood can scrape up the dinero to make good series.