James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Message

The Invunche · #76 Post by **The Invunche** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:10 pm

Mann should go back to 80's electronic pop.

Highway 61 · #77 Post by **Highway 61** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:27 pm

Matt wrote:Tomorrow Never Dies actually had songs from several artists submitted to be the theme: Space, The Cardigans (which was eventually sung by Scott Walker, but not used in the film), Pulp, Saint Etienne. And they went with... Sheryl Crow.

Let's not forget k.d. lang's "Surrender," which was dumped to end credit status in favor of Crow's dreck.

Frankly, the only Bond song that's even passable is "Live and Let Die," although I hear Johnny Cash's rejected "Thunderball" and Alice Cooper's "Man with the Golden Gun" are actually really good. I know the Cooper song is available on a best of, but does anyone know if the Cash has ever been released?

ltfontaine · #78 Post by **ltfontaine** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:36 pm

I know the Cooper song is available on a best of, but does anyone know if the Cash has ever been released?

The song is available on this box set from Bear Family Records, a label that is to recorded music what the Criterion Collection and Masters of Cinema are to film.

#79 Post by **cdnchris** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:35 am

Well, I almost cried out in horror when the film didn't open with the "down-the-barrel" shot. I thought to myself "I know you want to change the direction of the franchise, and rightfully so, but COME ON!!" But eventually I did get it and I liked the little twist they took on it, as though they were giving an origin for that famous image.

But then there was that GOD-AWFUL title sequence. I know the Bond title sequences are lame, but that one took lame to a whole new level. And the Cornell song is even worse in its entirity, and made that title sequence even more horrific.

Oh, but the rest of the film more than made up for it. Awesome film. I loved it. This is probably the nicest surprise I've had all year. I was afraid the word-of-mouth would get my hopes up and I'd be let down, but I don't think I could be anymore pleased with the movie. I never thought I'd ever see a Bond film that would ever get up there with From Russia With Love or On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but I'd say this one does. Strong on all levels. This is a real Bond film unlike that last one.

It was nice to have actual dialogue instead of bad double entendres (though I liked the bit where Bond states Vesper's undercover name is Stephanie Broadchest) The poker scenes were great. And I was pleased with how Le Chiffre turned out. I was always afraid they'd mess this character up, if they ever did an actual adaptation, that they would made him big and broad and over the top, but they kept him grounded and he's a worthy Bond adversary. And when we get that final shot with the "Bond, James Bond" line, with the Bond music finally making an actual appearance, I couldn't have been happier.

I do enjoy some of the more ridiculous Bond outings, but I really, seriously hope they keep the series on this route. Friggin' great, and I think the most fun I've had at the movies all year (a few years, actually)

Polybius · #80 Post by **Polybius** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:44 am

ltfontaine wrote:
I know the Cooper song is available on a best of, but does anyone know if the Cash has ever been released?
The song is available on this box set from Bear Family Records, a label that is to recorded music what the Criterion Collection and Masters of Cinema are to film.

Excellent analogy 8-)

colinr0380 · #81 Post by **colinr0380** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:25 pm

cdnchris wrote:But then there was that GOD-AWFUL title sequence. I know the Bond title sequences are lame, but that one took lame to a whole new level. And the Cornell song is even worse in its entirity, and made that title sequence even more horrific.

I haven't seen the title sequence but did get to listen to a little of the song at the weekend when a programme talking about the behind the scenes dramas of all the Bond songs was shown on television. My one thought was 'they went with that?', but if that's the worst thing about the film we got off lightly!

obloquy · #82 Post by **obloquy** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:39 am

ummm...'Shadow on the Sun' is perfect in Collateral. The Bond song wasn't so great, but I didn't think the credits were notably bad. Then again, I've only ever seen shitty Bond movies.

Oedipax · #83 Post by **Oedipax** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:34 am

I enjoyed this one a great deal and already like Daniel Craig in the role a lot more than Brosnan.

One bit of fun for Nic Roeg fans - I was reminded of Don't Look Now when the section in Venice started, and then I was convinced there was an homage to said film in the form of Eva Green's red dress she wears as Bond follows her around the city, catching small glimpses of her around corners. I googled around for a bit, and found an interview with the costume designer where she mentions it was intentional.

One small issue I might take with the film is the way the poker game is handled - I know it's not trying to be a poker movie, in the sense that we would have knowledge of Bond's cards and pay attention to the action of the betting, and so on, but there was something decidedly flat about how the action occurred in the film. In the end, Bond won the game because he got extremely lucky with a straight flush to beat his opponent's full house (and the other players either had smaller full houses or flushes, and also got all their money in). There was no psychological depth to it, even though we are told to look for some kind of tell - the way his opponent handles his chips, or perhaps an inoppurtune bloody tear from his eye. There was no bluffing or strategy, just a no-brainer all-in raise on the river with what had to be the best hand.

Another thing that stuck out a bit in retrospect was the use of black and white in the opening segment - it doesn't make much sense seeing as it must take place sometime in the 1990s at the earliest, and it's also not very far removed from the time period where the film takes place. I'm not really complaining, though, as it looked quite beautiful and anytime I can see black and white in a theater I'm thankful.

flyonthewall2983 · #84 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:28 pm

I should start by saying that I too thought that "Shadow On The Sun" was perfect for Collateral, and that it was nice to see a Bond theme done by a rock musician, first time since McCartney did the theme to Live And Let Die I believe. And I liked how the melody of "You Know My Name" was basically the main theme throughout Casino Royale, rather than the traditional Bond theme. Although I'm glad that the traditional Bond theme is present, especially at the end. It helped in giving the film a more realistic approach, in my view.

Narshty · #85 Post by **Narshty** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:22 am

Not much more to add - this is a really, really good film. It's gratifying to see a movie in which the action is all tactical, rather than merely spectacular (though as huge set pieces go, the Venice one was a blinder). It is, quite literally, a thinking man's action film and astonishing to see a new film featuring a lot of effects work where not once did the word "CGI" cross my mind.

#86 Post by **cdnchris** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:05 pm

Narshty wrote:...astonishing to see a new film featuring a lot of effects work where not once did the word "CGI" cross my mind.

Exactly! This was one of the main things that irked me about Die Another Day, the big action sequences were all CGI'd. Badly! (That wind-surfing sequence was the worst CGI bit I've seen in recent memory) I know the other Brosnan films used CGI, but at least they never called attention to themselves, and the action scenes were still done in the same fashion as the other Bond films. For the most part the sequences were actually being done by actual people and actual "things". But they suddenly went overboard with the last one and you could tell. It looked incredibly phony.

While they may have used CGI to touch up some things in this film I could never tell, and the action sequences were great. And that final one, while overboard, was classic Bond and was just beautifully done. I don't know if they actually did sink a building, or if it was a model, or just really excellent CGI, but whatever it was, I bought it.

#87 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:35 pm

Narshty wrote:Not much more to add - this is a really, really good film. It's gratifying to see a movie in which the action is all tactical, rather than merely spectacular (though as huge set pieces go, the Venice one was a blinder). It is, quite literally, a thinking man's action film and astonishing to see a new film featuring a lot of effects work where not once did the word "CGI" cross my mind.

Spoilers:

That is exactly what made the actions scenes work: you could see the participants having to think on the fly and come up with solutions to physical problems rather than being able to do them merely because they have to be done to move us to the next set-piece. Especially in that first chase: the bomb-carrier is obviously more agile than Bond; so rather than give us a Bond who is somehow as physically adept as his rival, we see him trying to overcome problems in which he is physically outmatched with quick thinking.

The movie also has one of the most satisfying hanging-off-the-side-of-a-truck-for-dear-life scenes. When the truck swings for another vehicle to smash Bond off the side, rather than giving us the usual swinging onto the roof at the last second moment, the movie shows Bond having to painfully leap onto the pavement because it's just not possible to swing upwards on a swerving truck, and Bond has no intention of getting killed. Can't recall I've ever seen that happen before. And how Bond gets back on the truck is so logical: the driver has to veer suddenly to not smash totally into that other vehicle, making him slow down long enough for Bond to jump back on.

One of my favourite scenes from the movie comes right at the end of the action scene at the airport, when the truck slams to a halt and Bond climbs out of the cab and collapses onto the tarmac. There is just such a look of relief on his face--it's impossible not to identify with it. It's a nice touch since most action heroes finish a chase by shrugging it all off and carrying on. Here his reaction is much closer to what the audience would assume would be the result.

che-etienne · #88 Post by **che-etienne** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:16 pm

I liked the film in the end, but I have a few major criticisms. I think perhaps Bordwell's blog lectures on scene blocking and shooting style in classic Hollywood may have rubbed off on me a little too much, as my problems with the picture are somewhat related.

My major problem is how the film was shot. Now maybe that sounds a little picky, this being a Bond film after all, but in my opinion part of the reason that Connery specifically was such an effective screen presence was that for the most part he was filmed in medium and wide shots. We got a good sense not only of the *ahem* exquisiteness of his physique but also of how he moved and commanded space with his movements. There's a moment in "Thunderball" particularly where he walks into a game room about to confront Largo at the tables, and he encounters a woman just exiting. He and the woman then engage in an awkward sort of dance to get by one another, exchanging an unstated "excuse me" once then twice, until Bond plays the gentleman and lets her through. Still, the moment never puts Bond or Connery out of character. He never loses his grace. Its a revealing moment for the character in a way, because it is demonstrative of his composure and his charm with such subtlety and no where near as blatant as in this most recent film where two women in tennis gear or the like pass by Craig admiringly. Craig for the most part is filmed in close-up, except during the action scenes, which compensate by being over the top and flashy (I forget who said the first chase was something out of a Chan flick but he was right, and the second plays out almost like a less slapstick version of Raiders of the Lost Ark). Now, I liked Craig. I thought his performance was fantastic, especially in terms of the physical, but the shooting and blocking of the scenes, which was mainly static and isolated - especially and most disappointingly around the game table - did not allow him the room to breath so much, or any of the characters for that matter. Character was mainly expressed through looks and dialogue. The game table is my biggest pet-peeve because of how wonderful that whole sequence could have been if staged and shot differently.

My other complaint is with the pacing of the film, which is uneven throughout. Too much time was devoted to the large action sequences at the start, and then too little time was spent at the casino and especially between Vesper and Bond, whose scenes were so fantastically written they had me aching for more. Then as if compensating for not having ably fleshed out the romance beforehand, the film speeds through their last love scenes and takes us to Venice for an explosive and tedious finale. Finally, the plot does not build or resolve well. Each complication is presented at the wrong moment, and though we get a couple of inklings as to Vesper's past such as the neckless, these aren't enough for the recognition and resolution to resonate with us at the end. The finale, which should have played out like any good tragedy just doesn't pan out so well. Again we have Bond chasing a faceless enemy. Its not until afterwards that we realize who that enemy is and that M reveals Vesper's secrets.

Those two issues, the plot and staging, were I felt the film's greatest weaknesses. On the other hand, the dialogue was well-written pretty much across the board, especially in the courtship scenes, and further backed-up by a strong cast all performing at peak levels, from Craig to Green (imo the best Bond girl) to Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, Dench as M, and the nice cameos by both Giannini and Wright as Felix. Also, I liked the film's allusions to Bond's working-class background, the torture/initiation scene, the distinct lack of gadgets, and the inclusion, albeit brief, of the original DB5. I liked that Bond is on his own, a maverick - that we never see him at MI6 headquarters and that he is never officially 'briefed' on the mission.

The coda of the film was decidedly tepid, going for the typical Bond is back effect rather than a more ambivalent depiction of his clearly about-to-be bloody revenge on the man who killed his true love. I just wish the film could have been more about reinventing and reintroducing Bond the man rather than "Bond, James Bond."

P.S. yeah the title sequence and song were pretty terrible...

Steven H · #89 Post by **Steven H** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:15 pm

che-etienne wrote:I liked the film in the end, but I have a few major criticisms. I think perhaps Bordwell's blog lectures on scene blocking and shooting style in classic Hollywood may have rubbed off on me a little too much, as my problems with the picture are somewhat related.

I thought the film was a blast, but I'll definitely agree with you about the ending when just about everything in the film suffered (acting, shooting, action/tension, score, editing rhythm). And as much as I enjoyed it, and don't want to be the guy who says "isn't this just like...", but I thought a good deal of the film was Bourne inspired (like someone took Matt Damon's roles in The Bourne Identity and Rounders into the Bond realm.) Not that I fault them for doing this, necessarily, as it made for an extremely entertaining film, but it was there for me, and was a distraction.

Certainly Green was the best Bond girl, I think. A smart femme fatale (fatale with a heart of gold), with plenty of charisma and looks.

Antoine Doinel · #90 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:37 pm

Saw this tonight and well, hell, if this movie doesn't come of the gates guns blazing with a great parkour sequence followed by an elaborate manhunt that's all just a setup for the main course.

Daniel Craig is fantastic as Bond (hitting the right notes of humor, detachment and ruthlessness) and for the first two acts, the film works remarkably well (even if Jeffrey Wright is wasted in a role that could've gone to anybody). The only part of the film that was shaky was the last act. It was unevenly paced and considering the twist could be easily guessed (and I didn't read the book and I'm not familiar with Bond lore at all) it was too long. There was no need for this movie to run more than two hours.

But I think my favorite thing about the movie was the grittiness of the violence. More than any Bond film I can remember, this is one that actually got my heart rate going. This is most visceral Bond has been, well, ever.

a.khan · #91 Post by **a.khan** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:12 am

A pivotal scene betrays the tone of the new Bond film: Daniel Craig's muscular spy has just crippled a nemesis with a bullet. As the injured man writhes in the dust, his unseen assailant hovers over him - sniper rifle slung over shoulder - and then suddenly introduces himself: â€œBond. James Bond.â€

jt · #92 Post by jt » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:14 am

adnankhan wrote: ...suffers us a tacked-on romantic subplot.

I think that point may be a little unfair. While this is indeed a 'reset' and hence must stand on its own to some extent, it is unlikely that many viewers will have seen none of the previous bonds or come to this film without preconceptions.

I did find myself thinking 'Bond would never say "I love you"..!' during the bridge to the third act but then I think that is exactly the point. It has never really been explained why Bond is so cold. If I had Eva Green (best ever bond girl?) and lost her, I'd probably not let myself get close to women again, as I'm sure we'll see in future Craig films.

After all, this film has to exist inside the Bond universe and if he had just used and discarded women like we're used to, people would have asked why. At least they had a pretty good stab at explaining his psyche, or at least what his psyche will become in the future.

a.khan · #93 Post by **a.khan** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:05 am

I agree with you on your point that they had a pretty good stab. But it may have more to do with appealing to a larger demographic than to explain Bond's psyche.

Credit where its due, the Le Chiffre character was excellent.

Antoine Doinel · #94 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:12 am

[quote="adnankhan"]
â€œCasino Royaleâ€

a.khan · #95 Post by **a.khan** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:22 am

I'm not surprised to be in the minority opinion here, but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.

I love how covert agents can blow shit up at airports, get close-to-fatal injuries, play cards, get poisoned and then jump start themselves, and yet still live to tell their jolly tales. Now that surprises me to no end but may be â€“ forgive me â€“ I just don't get the hyper-idealisation of masculinity.

jt · #96 Post by jt » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:54 am

adnankhan wrote: but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.

I wouldn't claim for a second that there is anything intellectual about bond but I think you might be on to something in general. I think when a self-confessed cineaste or art-film lover enjoys an all-out action film, he probably feels a little guilty, hence people sometimes reading more into it than was actually there.

I for one, really enjoy bond films, even the last Brosnan one with the ridiculous invisible car because I am in the same frame of mind when watching them as I am when I read a graphic novel.
So that is why Casino Royale delighted me. It is still unrealistic and macho (but I don't think a 'realistic' representation of an MI6 agent would make for a very interesting 2 hours...) but at the same time it was visceral, well acted and exciting.

Of course, it was just an action film, but it was damn good one...

Antoine Doinel · #97 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:58 am

adnankhan wrote:I'm not surprised to be in the minority opinion here, but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.

I love how covert agents can blow shit up at airports, get close-to-fatal injuries, play cards, get poisoned and then jump start themselves, and yet still live to tell their jolly tales. Now that surprises me to no end but may be â€“ forgive me â€“ I just don't get the hyper-idealisation of masculinity.

You're looking for realism and depth from a Bond film?

And if you don't see how a guy who can bed beautiful women, drive around in only the best of sports cars, beat up guys in a tuxedo, change and then go and win a poker tournament is some kind of idealization of the stereotypical male fantasy, then I don't know what else to tell you.

As jt said, it's just an action film and a damn good one.

a.khan · #98 Post by **a.khan** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:15 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote: You're looking for realism and depth from a Bond film?

And if you don't see how a guy who can bed beautiful women, drive around in only the best of sports cars, beat up guys in a tuxedo, change and then go and win a poker tournament is some kind of idealization of the stereotypical male fantasy, then I don't know what else to tell you.

As jt said, it's just an action film and a damn good one.

I was merely replying to your earlier comment. I don't know what axe you have to grind, Antoine, but the last thing I wanted was to offend anyone or invite thinly veiled attacks. If one reads my original post again I never alluded to any expectation of seriousness from the film. Infact, as you rightly said, it's just another action film. (And know that I am not above action films.) Even on that contention I cannot accept "Casino Royale" as a good example (any "Bourne" film beat it hands down). It was boring and painfully obvious. But that's my opinion only, and I only wished to express it. So, chill out, dude!

I really like this place, and the reason I posted my thoughts above - and will continue to do so - is to get some indirect feedback on my prose from the terrific minds here. As Truffaut once said â€œI have always written for my own pleasure or to clarify my ideas.â€

Antoine Doinel · #99 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:22 pm

Hey adnan, I apologize if I came off harshly, that wasn't my intention at all! Sometimes I'm not aware of my own snob meter, so please keep posting and I'll try and keep more civil next time (even if I wholly disagree with you

)

a.khan · #100 Post by **a.khan** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:26 pm

You just earned my respect, Antoine!

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and encouragement.