AndyDursin wrote:You'd also have thought Roald Dahl would've brought some more offbeat sensibilities to the material, yet the film is pretty much down the middle all the way.

Yeah, I expected him to inject something fresh to the series, but for the most part the script falls flat.

I was also surpised that a former military man like Dahl could be so ignorant as to include a line that claims James Bond is the only man who carries a Walther PPK. Odd, seeing as we were told in Dr. No "The American CIA swear by them".

AndyDursin wrote:I'd put DAF ahead of YOLT a little bit, but not much.

Ugh, Diamonds Are Forever is horrible, the worst Connery 007 movie by a wide margin. You can tell that 75% of the movie's budget went into lining Connery's pockets...it just might be the cheapest-looking Bond movie ever made. Plus, it was the true point where the series started tipping into hollow camp, pre-dating the Roger Moore era (the mincing, homosexual assassins Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are the most embarassing villains in the history of the franchise, and particularly regrettable 40+ years later). You Only Live Twice is lavishly produced, with great gimmickry, scenery and one of John Barry's prettiest scores for the series. It's not the best Connery film, but it's FAR better than DAF.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:I'd put DAF ahead of YOLT a little bit, but not much.

Ugh, Diamonds Are Forever is horrible, the worst Connery 007 movie by a wide margin. You can tell that 75% of the movie's budget went into lining Connery's pockets...it just might be the cheapest-looking Bond movie ever made. Plus, it was the true point where the series started tipping into hollow camp, pre-dating the Roger Moore era (the mincing, homosexual assassins Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are the most embarassing villains in the history of the franchise, and particularly regrettable 40+ years later). You Only Live Twice is lavishly produced, with great gimmickry, scenery and one of John Barry's prettiest scores for the series. It's not the best Connery film, but it's FAR better than DAF.

Another YMMV situation as they say. Both are flawed but at least Connery looked like he gave a damn in DIAMONDS, despite his Zardoz-era flab. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE looks and sounds nice but for all its "gimmicks" like Blofeld's lair, Ken Adam's production design and 007's "Little Nellie" it's a tedious chore to sit through. I'd rather listen to the album.

Larger point for me is that neither one of them compare to the earlier run of Connery's films, so I don't give either of them a lot of replay.

I personally prefer Connery in YOLT. He's so out-of-shape and gray in DAF it's hard to take him seriously (and he looks considerably older than he actually was at the time).

Paul MacLean wrote:I personally prefer Connery in YOLT. He's so out-of-shape and gray in DAF it's hard to take him seriously (and he looks considerably older than he actually was at the time).

He's out of shape physically but, in terms of his actual performance, he looks far more engaged to me in DAF than he is in YOLT. There's no energy in his performance in YOLT at all, and it's clear he was totally bored with the series by that point. In DAF, he's back and in it strictly for the money, totally, but he looked like he was having a much better time making it -- the "flab factor" physical element notwithstanding.

Paul MacLean wrote:I personally prefer Connery in YOLT. He's so out-of-shape and gray in DAF it's hard to take him seriously (and he looks considerably older than he actually was at the time).

The same thing happened with Moore...only two years elapsed between the release of Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only, yet Moore looked like he had aged fifteen years. Funny that Pierce Brosnan doesn't look much older now than he did in Die Another Day a decade ago.

Quantum of Solace

This film is considerably better than I remembered. On first viewing I found Quantum of Solace very confusing, but watching it again -- this time one day after Casino Royale -- I realize now how much QOS is a direct sequel to its predecessor. In fact it is so connected to CR that it is almost impossible to follow without CR fresh in one's mind. So, taken on its own, QOS is arguably a failure, but it is a very good Bond adventure if viewed in tandem with CR.

I do think Marc Forster was an odd choice to direct a Bond film, and as such Quantum of Solace feels a little...odd, and "un-Bond-like" at times. The action sequences are a bit awkward -- overly frenetic and a little confusing. The opening tunnel chase is incredibly well-staged and a real nail-biter -- but it is also very similar to the tunnel chase in The Bourne Supremacy. In fact there is a "Bourne" quality to the style of QOS overall, which is disappointingly unoriginal. The opera shooting was somewhat heavy-handed, with its confusing crosscutting between the performance on stage and the carnage in the lobby (the eradication of sound effects in lieu of the opera music also came off as contrived).

The plane sequence doesn't really fit with the more serious tone of the Craig films -- particularly the freefall (shades of Moonraker) where Bond and Camille are saved when their (single!) parachute deploys at the last second.

However I do have to say Olga Kurylenko's Camille Montes is one of my favorite Bond girls -- wounded, driven, intense (and one of the most attractive as well).



Daniel Craig remains impressively stalwart and believably callous, though I do see a need better clutivate the "genteel" side of Bond in future pictures (I'd like to see more sequences like the golf game in Goldfinger for instance). For all its flaws, COS is still solid and has enthralling moments. But it is also so tied-in to CR it doesn't really work as an independent story, making it almost like a supplemental "special feature" rather than an actual movie in and of itself.

QOS seemed more of a CASINO ROYALE, Part II when I first saw it, and for that reason I rather enjoyed it at that time. I think Craig is becoming my favorite Bond (sorry, Connery fans!) yet I also think he needs a scene like the golf match or maybe a sequence with "Q" to show him having a day off, so to speak. As long as they keep hiring top-notch directors like Sam Mendes (bring him back-PLEASE) to make these films into more than just a big-budget action series, I think Bond may be around for a while.

Why not get Ben Affleck to do one in the future?

Jedbu wrote:Why not get Ben Affleck to do one in the future?

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see an American/anyone-other-than-British director helm a Bond picture.

As long as they keep hiring top-notch directors like Sam Mendes (bring him back-PLEASE) to make these films into more than just a big-budget action series, I think Bond may be around for a while.

Why would it matter? For all the bricks people toss at the Moore and Brosnan films, they made millions upon millions of dollars. This franchise has been around for decades and will continue to be around, with or without Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig.

I'm not directing this so much at you Jeff, but I don't get all these people who think Sam Mendes just reinvented the wheel with Skyfall. He did a fine job directing it, and the movie's good -- but it's not THAT good. You'd think there's never been a decent Bond film in the entire 50 year history of this series the way some film snobs gush over Mendes and his IMO overpraised body of work.

AndyDursin wrote:I don't get all these people who think Sam Mendes just reinvented the wheel with Skyfall. He did a fine job directing it, and the movie's good -- but it's not THAT good.

The adulation aimed at Mendes reminds me a lot of the way Alfonso Cuaron was revered for supposedly making the first "real" Harry Potter film. But in each case both these guys were basically building on the work of others.

That said, I really do think Skyfall deserves a place in the top five Bond films. I don't think Mendes reinvented the wheel, but it had one of the best storylines -- I loved the "transitional" arc of the story (Bond saying goodbye to Judi Dench's M, and the set-up for future films, with a new M, Q and Monnypenny) and the way it gave us some insight into Bond's past (though these ideas may well have been the work of the Broccolis and/or screenwriters and not Mendes at all).

Personally I'd like to see Ridley Scott do a Bond film...provided David Arnold writes the score!

First of all, I don't feel that Mendes reinvented the wheel or is the second coming-never said that, never implied that. I just meant that perhaps having someone with his background might (and I am using the word MIGHT here) be why SKYFALL drew having Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes to the series, that's all.

I would also like someone like a Kathryn Bigelow to do one of these films, as well.

As far as Alfonso Cuaron is concerned, most of the critical huzzahs for the HARRY POTTER films really began when he made the third film and most of the people I know who have watched the entire series (myself included) feel that he did the best job of directing in the series. Of course, coming after Chris Columbus and having what many consider the best book to work with didn't hurt, either.

First of all, I don't feel that Mendes reinvented the wheel or is the second coming-never said that, never implied that. I just meant that perhaps having someone with his background might (and I am using the word MIGHT here) be why SKYFALL drew having Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes to the series, that's all.

I wasn't directing that statement at you Jeff (it's the first thing I wrote!). There are, however, plenty of people who think because Sam Mendes was involved, SKYFALL is unquestionably the greatest James Bond film ever produced and is "legitimate" because of his filmography.

Of course, coming after Chris Columbus

Oh no Jeff, them's fighting words! lol

I've never understood the Columbus "hate." So what's the problem with him -- he's American? A "studio guy"? His career accomplishments far outweigh the work of David Yates...yet you see the critics and so called "cultured film buff" constantly turn their nose at Columbus. Columbus deserves credit for establishing the entire series, helping cast these kids (he was a producer on these films too) and giving them a cinematic feel which many of the later series entries -- which look like expensive Syfy Channel films -- lack.

I love the wintry, child like fantasy of the first two HP films, and Williams' scoring therein is the best of the series for me anyway. Azkaban is a good movie but it's overrated in the same way I feel the first two films are underrated. Cauron put so much of his "stamp" on the material that it took away the fantasy element Columbus established, whether it was in the cinematography or the kids wearing "normal" clothes or what not. That freeze frame that ends the movie makes me cringe every time yet it's been declared "genius" by some viewers...apparently because he's not Chris Columbus!

AndyDursin wrote:Azkaban is solid but it's a patently overrated film IMO. That freeze frame that ends the movie makes me cringe every time yet it's been declared "genius" by some viewers...apparently because he's not Chris Columbus!

If you ask me, the best Harry Potter films are Sorcerer's Stone and Deathly Hallows Pt. 2.

I do love the third Potter film, but it has some very awkward moments, and is not as smooth a job of directing as the first two films. Cuarron has a slicker visual sensibility than Columbus (and there is some lovely imagery), but his film lacked the warmth of the first two movies. I love beautiful images too, but I don't agree that swapping sentiment for cynicism necessarily means "great".

I'd have to concur, in the case of both Azkaban and Skyfall, a fair amount of the praise heaped on the films was due to the directors' reputations, rather than the films' intrinsic merits.

I loved Skyfall, but not because Sam Mendes was attached. I've actually never seen any of Mendes' other films.

SOLOMON KANE
8/10

Can't believe this had been sitting on my shelf for over a year: a surprisingly entertaining, robust adaptation of Robert E. Howard's pulp hero -- kind of a reformed warrior trying to live a life of peace in the 17th century when he's thrust into trying to save the daughter of a family he meets along his travels. Shot mostly in the Czech Republic with some Scottish location shots, SOLOMON KANE is terrifically handled for the most part: James Purefoy is pitch-perfect as the haunted Solomon seeking redemption (despite his Van Helsing-like appearance), with support turned in by Max von Sydow as his estranged father, and Pete Postelthwaite (that's how long ago this was produced) and Alice Krige as the parents of Rachel Hurd-Wood who's abducted by a mysterious sorcerer who sold his soul to the devil. While the fight sequences are more or less routine, the story is cliched in some regards but is compelling in others (and has a healthy dose of religion added into the mix), the cinematography top-notch (the locations are visually appealing) and even Klaus Baldelt's scoring is better than average. Ironically, because of the $40 million budget, the film doesn't have loads of CGI (just some monsters at the beginning and end), and benefits from a physical production modest in scope but feels more "real" because it's not entirely green-screened.

Though completed in 2009 and released overseas some time ago, SOLOMON KANE is still -- amazingly -- unavailable on video in the U.S. but is now available for streaming on Amazon and other sites. (Presumably a home video release will happen at some point...I guess). For the pulpy fantasy genre, this is far better than the recent CONAN and comes with a strong recommendation for fans.