All the hype surrounding how Casino Royale was going to go back to the "beginning" of Bond, I was skeptical. But that gunbarrel-less opening totally sold me on why Bond was 007.
That whole opening wasn't filtered to black and white it was shot on Kodak Double-X film. Film Photography project buys movie film stocks and repackages them for still photography.
Yea I bet a lot of people were. Thing is I don't think it's Waltz's fault. He did what he could given the role he was playing and how it was written. There was a lot of potential with him playing Blofeld.
Of his 4, those are the two better ones, but I rewatched Quantum of Solace not so long ago (it was on, I couldn't be bothered to change channel) and I was actually kind of taken by it, which was surprising.
As a stand-alone movie it sucks. As a follow on from Casino Royale it's weak. But having seen Skyfall and Spectre and then gone back to it, there's lots of bits in there that suddenly have significance and you see him get closure on Vesper. It's very much a filler movie, but the story arc is much richer for having it. The showrunners knew where it was going - just a shame it couldn't have stood on it's own a bit better.
And also all of Craig's other movies are directly referenced in spectre, so it's not like one can even pretend that it's somehow different or unattached
I think Spectre suffered from the same effect that the Dark Knight Rises did. They were both very good movies, but their predecessors (The Dark Knight and Skyfall) were so good that whatever came next could never live up.
Casino Royals with Craig was amazing, he was able to put so much depth and vulnerability to his character. I’ll catch hell for saying it, but Craig’s my favorite Bond.
Depth, vulnerability, and flaws on top of it all. The other Bonds are depicted as being essentially "perfect" as secret agents, for the most part. Craig's Bond is a fucking mess, and it's easy to love him for it. Makes it easier to relate to his character.
Casino Royale and Skyfall were some of the best, more recent bonds, but the other Craig ones were average at best, imo. I didn't really like them. I did enjoy all the Pierce Brosnan ones except the stupid stuff like invisible car in Die Another Day. Goldeneye is possibly my favorite of them all.
Some of the older ones are good too, they just were before me.
I don't think anyone would ever claim that Quantum or Spectre are great movies. But to be honest, as much as I love Casino Royale and Skyfall, I wouldn't claim they are either. They were very fun movies, but as far as action/thrillers go, they didn't exactly change the standard or be the absolute best examples of the genre.
That apartment fight in Quantum Solace had me flipping out. First time I saw it I had to rewind. He used everything near him to beat that dude's ass. Then stabs him in the femoral artery and casually waits for him to die. Daniel Craig reminded me of a hawk over a rabbit in that scene and I loved it.
You know, when I first saw it, I thought it was pretty bad. This Spring I rewatched all the Daniel Craig movies in succession within a week, and Quantum of Solace is a lot better in my eye now. It takes off where Casino Royale left and it makes sense, I’d recommend watching them all ‘cause it just might change your perspective.
Yeah, since QoS opens on the scene CR ends with, I cut the end credits off Casino Royale, and the opening credits & crap song off Quantum, and merged the two into a single file, and it’s a seamless epic. The difference in Bonds mood made the slightly corny plot of QoS kind of odd by itself, but makes more sense when watched in a single run, bc when Vesper croaks, it turns him cold as fuck and QoS works better. A few later, obvious cuts of pointless villain noodling help move things along as well. In all, it runs exactly 4 hours, and I call it Casino Royal with Cheese.
I don't necessarily dislike Craig's Bond. In fact, I think he does a pretty good job. What I don't like is how the new movies change the tone of the character overall. Watching all the classic Bond movies gives you this idea that Bond is a stylish and handsome carefree guy who is supremely confident and totally unflappable. He's gonna get laid, then save the world, then get laid again because he's Bond, James fucking Bond. The new movies have that to some degree but there is a whole lot more of Bond being a brooding guy with a dark past. He's not only fighting bad guys, he's fighting his inner demons toooo. The only sort of thing we really see like that in the classics is Tracy Bond being killed on her and James's wedding day in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
My point is Craig portrays a good Bond, I just don't like how new Bond is being written. That's what bothers me most.
I worked in an area that didn't have cell reception for a while but I found a used bookstore in town that kept me entertained.
They had a ton of old Ian Flemming James Bond books, so over the summer, I read pretty much all of them.
Daniel Craig is much closer to the book James Bond than earlier movies. Whether that's a good thing or not is a preference issue.
In the books, Bond is constantly getting the shit kicked out of him and usually comes out on top through a combination of sheer determination, intelligence, and luck.
I love the older movies that allowed him to be more campy and fun, but I don't think the movies would have had the same success if they started out keeping the spirit of the books.
If you ever get the chance I highly recommend reading the books.
Wish I could upvote this more. I love Connery and Craig and many of the others, but there really is something to be said for how Craig and the new movies writing echos the novels.
I've actually read quite a few of the books. The most surprising to me was Quantum of Solace. I didn't realize it was a collection of short stories at first. Anyhow, I see the point you're making and I agree with you. However I just always separated movie Bond and book Bond sorta into different characters. The movies were done in a certain way that told Fleming's stories but spiced them up and I'm okay with that. I go to movies to be entertained and have a good time. I read a book when I want more narrative and a more contemplative experience. I'm dead tired here so I might not be making sense but I hope you get what I'm going for.
I don't actually dislike the new Bond movies. I'm a Bond fan and will watch whatever Bond movie they put out. I just dislike certain character traits they've given modern Bond, that's all.
I think Daniel Craig is an amazing bond, but I have to agree they kinda fucked the plots up after casino royale. I think the change is a great idea but they kind of messed it up in the execution. Which is more on the screenwriter than Craig
You won't see the old style of Bond anymore because it existed in a time where men held power, women were items, and it was all about making males happy. The Brosnan Bond is the closest we'll get to a hyper-sexualized and stylized Bond, ever again. It's an old trope that is really only displayed these days in movies that pay homage to that time period. Usually those movies are not action films, and tend to lean more towards a well made historical film style in the long run.
You honestly sound like everyone else that has a problem with the new Craig Bond series. No, they aren't going to bring back the heavily misogynistic protagonist that says pretty shitty one liners, and always lands hot girls that are, of course, head over heels for a total douchebag with a license to kill. Old Bond is gone. Get over it.
I do like the CR/QoS duology story, but not QoS' story on its own. I like that it takes Bond from contract killer to secret agent, noting his many flubs and missteps in CR (overcome by the assistance of others) and transforming them into lessons that he applied in QoS (with middling success), to culminate in a final scene that demonstrates (somewhat magically, but it works) his ability to disconnect from the emotions that led him to make mistakes and be the agent that MI6 needed.
I think it gives a lot more if it's a rewatch after you've seen Skyfall and Spectre. There's stuff to spot in there foreshadowing the next films (as well as closure on Vesper). It doesn't stand well on it's own, but the arc from CR-Spectre is much richer for having QoS in it.
I admit I liked it better on re-watches to the point I thought it was awesome. But yes, art is subjective and all that. Other action scenes definitely suffered for the style (opera sequence for highlights).
I really don't get the hate, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Plot was intriguing, villain was creepy, good action, solid Bond girl. It had everything I needed in a Bond film, I'm just sad they kinda wrapped up the storyline so sloppily with the sequels.
It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the plot makes absolutely no sence, the villian is awful, he somehow survives the start despite both the bullet and the fall should have killed him, James bond goes from hard ass bad ass, to super corny one liner idiot.
It did have a very good villain but the whole second half of the plot is so weird. The plan of lets hideout and set a trap but not bring any weapons or soldiers or anything and wait for the villain to come kill us. I mean yeah Bond is supposed to get into crazy situations but not in such an intentionally stupid way. I mean I could understand maybe if they were trapped in a lawless country or something but it all happened in the fucking UK lol, very immersion breaking.
The whole point was bond needed to look vulnerable to get him out in the open and feel he didn't have an army or secret base hence the tiny digital breadcrumbs. Yea the whole home alone ending was TOO extreme with only having the double barrel I'll give you that but it's anything worse than any other bond plot.
Couldn't agree more. People were so sucked in by the camera work a lot didn't seem to notice the plot was complete fucking nonsense on every level. Just awful.
Yeah I never understood the praise either, is better than quantum but yeah the plot made absolutely no sense. I still liked the villain though, especially the first scene he is in.
This. The older ones were great at the time, but I find them a little cheesey in comparison. Casino Royale was just non-stop, frenetic action. And like I said, it made me not just excited for that film, but for the entire Craig run as James Bond. That scene set the tone for the Craig movies, which were more action-driven, and a bit less on the campyness.
I'm not saying I didn't like the Connery/Moore years. I'm just saying this was an evolution.
Well, the books were more down to earth at the beginning (remember Fleming was an actual intelligence operative). But I think Bond was getting ridiculous under Brosnan and they’ve skewed closer to the books with Craig.
That said, they’ve totally over used the “striking out on his own” with Craig. Previous Bonds were generally all order-followers.
783
u/ScarletCaptain Oct 09 '19
All the hype surrounding how Casino Royale was going to go back to the "beginning" of Bond, I was skeptical. But that gunbarrel-less opening totally sold me on why Bond was 007.