Re: Seamaster and Iago's endless rehashing Bond thread

[Iago]

You keep throwing that criticism out against some of the things that I have mentioned, but it seems a bit odd to apply that to a Bond film. Is there a single realistic car chase in the entire series? I cannot think of one. In fact, the race in Goldeneye is one of the lowest key chases in the series. It is all relative. Sure, I would love it if all of the Bond films were completely realistic and believable, but we would not have had fifty years of Bond if they were. I prefer the more realistic Bond films to the fantastic ones, but I have no illusions about them actually being that close to reality and I accept most of them for what they are. As a poker player, the final hand in Casino Royale is stunningly unrealistic, but I understand that it works dramatically and that most of the non-players who watch the film would never even notice, and I am O.K. with it. Same thing with cars. As long as they do not have machine guns and do not go too far over the line of physical behaviour, I can accept them. (I even accept the spectacular rollover in Casino Royale, despite the fact that it is completely impossible without a cannon like they used.)

I am more worried about making to Goldeneye in my watch-through. From what I have read, it is one of the worst transfers in the entire set, if not the worst. It is the only one of the catalogue titles that Lowrey did not touch. MGM just took an old HD master of the film and ported it straight over, and it is heavily processed (DNR and edge enhancement.) Pits. OHMSS was a bit disappointing, too. The detail and colours were good, and there is no excessive enhancement, but they did boost the overall levels so that it is far too bright. The photography in that film was originally pretty low-key, but not in this transfer. I can deal with it, but it is kind of the pits that two out of my four favorites got the short end of the stick.

Speaking of my run-through, I hit the exact halfway mark (numerically, not in terms of time span) with Moonraker last night. That should be a great palatte cleanser; Skyfall will automatically look like Citizen Kane in comparison! But I am really enjoying myself and have not felt like I was "overdosing" on Bond yet.

I have had a few minor revisions on this run-through. I have never cared for You only live twice, partly due to how little of the book it uses, but mostly due to its silly sci-fi elements, but on this viewing I enjoyed it more than I ever have before. The racial elements are nearly as cringe-worthy as Live and Let Die, and Connery's pronounciation of Japanese words could not POSSIBLY be worse (he mentions having taken "Oriental Languages" at college, but he must have flunked out,) and the plot is as stupid as ever, but the second unit work is actually quite good. (Peter Hunt had wanted to direct the film and had to settle for second unit, which worked out in the long run given how what he did with OHMSS was partly in reaction to the excesses of films like this.) The fight between Bond and a Japanese henchman (though I think that the stunt man was Samoan, not Japanese) in the offices near the begining of the film is actually one of the best and most brutal in the series, though it is briefer than the other great fights like From Russia with Love and Goldeneye. While I have disliked the gadget-laden "Little Nellie" chase in the past (a flamethrower with an eighty-yard range? Really?) I enjoyed it more this time. And director Lewis Gilbert's helicopter shot of the rooftop as Bond escapes is one of the best shots in the series. (And as an aside, when he jumps off the roof and lands on some crates below, it is literally one of the best and smoothest "Texas switches" that I have ever seen. The stuntman hits the crates, rolls off the back and Connery stands up with absolutely perfect placement and timing.)

I also revised my view of The Spy Who Loved Me up a bit. Most people consider it one of Moore's best, but kind of like Goldfinger, for me no matter how good it is I keep being bothered by how it exemplifies what I dislike about the series. That said, it bothered me much less this time through and I was able to appreciate its fun qualities much more. (Goldfinger suffered on this run-through by coming right after watching Dr. No and From Russia with Love, whereas Spy only had to compare to Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun. While I actually like the latter film quite a bit, nevertheless those two films did not exactly set the bar very high.)


Got my tickets all set for Skyfall tomorrow, and all will be known by early tomorrow afternoon! Hopefully you can work out getting to see it; it sound like you need the break even more than I do. Best wishes getting through the suckage!

[mrblur]

I think you missed your calling you should have been a movie critic.

[Seamaster]

I have my tickets purchased and seats booked for a showing tomorrow night. So I, too, will know soon enough.

I would like to respond to your Bond comments, but a bit pressed for time. For now, I will just say that I'm impressed you were able to sit through Moonraker. The last time I watched that film, I made it through, but then I shelved it and thought to myself "never again." Of course, I will return to it, but it will take me a long time.

[Iago]

I have no real plans to ever watch Moonraker again, barring another complete run-through. In fact, that is the only reason that I watched it this time. The continuity of watching them in order and back-to-back has really been interesting. One thing I noticed doing it this way was just how many actors make repeat appearances in different roles. Some are obvious, of course, like Maude Adams, Charles Gray, Martine Beswick, Robert Brown, Joe Don Baker and Walter Gotschell, but some are a bit less obvious like Shane Rimmer (You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me and George Baker OHMSS and The Spy Who Loved Me (I honestly never caught on that it was him as the admiral in Spy. And that is only a partial list that does not even include repeated cameos.

But Moonraker is definitely one of the three worst, along with Diamonds are Forever and A View to a Kill. (I am giving Die Another Day the courtesy of withholding judgment until I get through it on this runthrough, but it will likely join them.)

I will very much like to hear your take on Skyfall. I really want to see it a second time (preferably after this miserable cold goes away, as that proved too distracting) before I pass final judgment, but I think that I am quite happy with it at first glance.

[Seamaster]

Sorry I have taken so long to respond. Past while has been hectic.

I really enjoyed Skyfall and would put in my list of Top 5 Bond films. I also need a second viewing to confirm, but I thought it was really well done. A few things bothered me, but they are minor in the overall scheme of things. For example, at the beginning, I found it difficult to believe that Bond had been shot and could still go on fighting. He was hit with a heavy calibre, and this reboot of Bond has always shown him as being more human. I would rather he had not being shot. I also found the middle segment of the movie to drag, and I struggled with Silva's inability to do in Bond or M during the court hearing. Of course, that would have made for a much different movie, but that segment felt like filler to me. And, lastly, I wish the Aston had been cadget free, but appreciate the nod back to Goldfinger. Having said that, I thought the film well executed, especially considering that the film crew were on a reduced budget. Lots of action for a budget Bond. I also enjoyed the subtle nods and attempts to continue or reintroduce Bond lore: the introduction of Money Penny was quite clever and I like that she is no longer the office secretary who pines for Bond. Indeed, times have changed, and it would have been odd to hang on to that old thread, but I like what was done. I was little sad to see Judi Dench go, but she has been doing Bond films for some time now, and perhaps she felt it time to move on. I can say more, but will wrap up for now by also commenting on the filmography: Overall, well done. I enjoyed the cool filters used to convey despair, and was thankful for a steady cam and smooth transitions throughout. Oh, and you were right about the opening credits: one of the best in a long time.

Regarding some of your other comments:

• I can't say I've been impressed with any of the car chases in Bond films, but Goldeneye bugs me because they don't keep their damn eyes on the road. This has more to do with my enjoyment of cars and driving than anything else, though.
  
• You Only Live Twice is a mixed bag. I enjoy it because I feel it was Connery's last decent performance as Bond until he came back and did Never Say Never Again. But it sorely lacks when compared with the book or other entries in the canon of Bond films.

[Iago]

Glad you enjoyed Skyfall! I did go back a second time the following weekend, and it holds up well on the second pass. At this point, it will not supplant From Russia with Love, OHMSS or Casino Royale on my list, but it I think it will be a solid #4. Time will tell, though, as Casino Royale took a couple of years and multiple viewings before I put it in the top three.

It definitely has some minor issues, but all Bond films do, so it is hard to be too critical of them. My two biggest problems include the gadgets in the DB5, which makes no logical sense in terms of continuity as that must be the DB5 that Bond won in Casino Royale (but it is hard to argue with the resounding cheers from the audience, not just at its first appearance but during the ejector seat joke and the appearance of the machine guns.) The other one is Q plugging Silva's computer into their network, which would never have happened. The whole decrypting scene is hardly realistic, but it is acceptably unrealistic up to that point. Regarding Bond being shot, I guess that even after a second viewing it is not completely clear that he was actually struck by a bullet from the villain's gun, but rather just by shrapnel as it passed through the front of the cab. He later pulls small pieces of shrapnel out of his shoulder, and not very deep ones either, so it would seem more likely that the bullet broke up before it struck him. I may just be justifying, though. I have read complaints about him surviving a fall from that height, but to me that is "acceptable" unrealism from a Bond film.

Speaking of the opening, I really appreciated it more on the second viewing. I read a review that called it a Bondian meta-chase, rather than a simple action sequence, so the second time through I watched it with that thought in mind and I agree. It is not so much a chase as it is a commentary on chases, deliberately ticking through all the tropes like clockwork before pulling the rug out from under the viewer by changing up the ending with having Bond be the "loser." That conclusion is all the more effective for how the rest of the scene sets up expectations. It starts as a foot chase, then becomes a car chase, then a motorcycle chase, and ultimately a train chase, with Bond overcoming all obstacles in his way. It even has a "fruit cart" moment, which I am convinced (given everything that the writers and director have said about their approach to the film) was put in there as a very deliberate cliche.

Many of the nods to the rest of the series are obvious, but many are pretty subtle. The second time through, I loved Bond and Severine's exchange about guns. He tells her that she has a hidden Beretta, and she tells him that he has a hidden PPK. Of course, in both the movies and the books, Bond was forced to trade in the former gun for the latter, with the Armorer commenting that the Beretta is a only good for a lady's handbag, so having a lady wear it in Skyfall was pretty clever.

Speaking of the Armorer, I cannot think of a way that I could possibly be happier with reintroducing Q. Whitshaw was very, very good, and aside from the network silliness I do not think that they could have done anything better with the character. And I say that as a true skeptic who never really liked Q that much in the first place! Same with Moneypenney; sure, the dynamic will be different, but I think that she will be even better than Lois Maxwell. It all depends how they write her scenes in future films, of course, but I am optimistic.

And as for that whole ending: wow! From revealing Moneypenny, to actually showing M's traditional office with Moneypenny's desk outside (and a hat rack!!!!) to revealing M himself, I sat there and grinned like an idiot schoolboy both times that I saw the film. Homage is a tricky thing, but this film was homage done right.

Craig was wonderful, and he officially has supplanted Connery on my list (narrowly, of course, but he has.) Every other actor was perfect, even if the flamboyant gay aspects of Silva's character were a bit offputting in this day and age (surprisingly, the film has received very little criticism for the stereotype of the gay villain, so maybe I am reading too much into it.) Adele's song was perfect for the film (not necessarily one of the greats, but perfect in context for this particular film,) the titles were excellent, and even the music was better than I expected it to be. I do believe that Deakins should get a Academy Award nomination for his photography, even if it will not win. Flaws? Sure, but for the 23rd film in a series that has covered so many bases so many times before, it is hard to complain.


I am up through A View to a Kill in my run-through, and still having fun with it. That movie is definitely one of the four worst, but it is interesting that only Moonraker so far seems completely irredeemable. Kill is pretty bad overall, but it does have one of the best titles songs, and one of Barry's best later scores. It also has Willy Bogner's last ski sequence for the series (yes, nearly ruined by the stupid Beach Boys song, but good otherwise) and a passably good henchperson (ruined again by "turning" her at the end like Jaws.) Tanya Roberts may be a terrible actress, but she is mighty pleasing to the eye (and Allison Doody as one of MayDay's henchperson's is quite striking.) Diamonds are Forever is also terrible, arguably worse than Kill, but again it has one of the best title songs, and Jill St. John is appealing, even if her character is poorly written. I also have a soft spot for Kidd and Wint, despite the grating gay stereotypes. But Moonraker? A barely tolerable title song, and that is about the only positive thing that I can say about it.

[Seamaster]

Moonraker had the gondola scene with Jaws, which ended stupidly and really wasn't very good. But we at least got a gondola. We can give the film that. It's interesting the you mention Kidd and Wint in Diamonds are Forever. I also have a soft spot for those villains and I'm convinced that the characters are based on Disney's Chip and Dale.

I need to revisit my list of the top Bonds, but I think I agree with you. I might change up the order, but I would need to directly compare films before doing so. Either way, that's not bad for Craig. Three Bond films to his name and we think that two of them belong in the Top 4 or 5 out of 23 Bond films made.

As much as I'm a fan of Connery, I agree that Craig makes a better and more believable Bond. Part of that also has to do with the era. Craig is asked to play a more serious Bond, and the fans are all the better for it, but that does give him an advantage because that type of character appeals to us more. Having said that, I do think Craig is simply a better actor, and I don't want to take anything away from his performance. He has done a good job of playing a more believable Bond and delivering some dry wit to boot, without it coming off cheesy. Hats off to him.

I actually thought Silva's gay quirks were quite clever for two reasons. First, it plays back to Casino Royale and Bond's run in with a knotted rope. Secondly, it's the only time where we see Bond truly uncomfortable. It's a little unnecessary that Silva needs to comment on Bond's discomfort, stating something along the lines of, "your training didn't you prepare you for this . . . " but the acting was so well done that I can forgive the unnecessary line. There were also a number of psychological issues underlying the story in Skyfall that haven't been as well done in any Bond film before it. For example, Silva's mummy issues are cliche, but it's quite a mature subject, and I was thinking that it does provide an excuse for why Silva does not kill M when he first has the chance. One could even argue that that is why he doesn't take Bond out as well. Perhaps he is looking to hurt M through Bond. But I feel like I'm making excuses at this point.

I have not seen the film a second time yet. I will have to rewatch that opening scene from the viewpoint you described.

[Iago]

I think that the opening of Skyfall would have been extremely effective if they had not revealed the punchline in the trailers. The sequence keeps setting increasing challenges for Bond to overcome, which he does, and then it ratchets down to a simple fistfight (well, as simple as a fistfight can be on top of a train!) so there is no reason for the viewer to expect that Bond will not be victorious. Given how all of that is set up, I think that it really would have been shocking to see Bond get shot against all expectations that the scene has created.

Silva's gay affectations did not bother me for any other reason than they skate pretty close to the stereotype of the flamboyantly gay villain. But yes, the callback to the scene with Le Chiff in Royale adds further ambiguity to Bond's comeback "Who says this is the first time?" Is Bond referring to his previous torture, or implying that he has had sex with a man -- or is it just Bond trying to defuse Silva's attempts to get under his skin? And in that context, since many gay men have had mother issues (all the gay men that I have known certainly did) it adds psychological believability to Silva's obsession with M and his plot to get revenge (and yes, possiby to his failure to kill her when he has a chance, and his unfeigned sorrow at seeing her injured at the climax of the film.) Thinking about it that way, it is not making excuses for seeming inconsistencies, but instead a fairly well-conceived character.

By the way, I loved Albert Finney, too. His line "Try and stop me, you jumped-up little shit" actually got a laugh out of my dad, who usually never laughs at swearing.


Regarding Moonraker, I could add the opening aerial sequence, though like the gondola sequence it ends stupidly. But even if that sequence does not entirely work, it did start the B.J. Worth/Jake Lombard stunt era for the Bond films, which led to the pair's great fight outside the plane in Octopussy, Worth's spectacular Eiffel Tower jump in A View to a Kill, and best of all the cargo net scene in The Living Daylights, which is one of my favorite stunt sequences in the series. But it is still pretty slim pickings for Moonraker.

[Seamaster]

Good points.

I still have not seen Skyfall a second time, but having rewatched some of the earlier Bonds, I think my Top 5 comprises:

• From Russia With Love
  
• Goldfinger
  
• On Her Majesty's Secret Service
  
• Casino Royale
  
• Skyfall

I need to think about the actual order, and so I only listed chronologically. I really do not think any of the Moore films deserve a place in the Top 5. Dalton did a decent job, but, again, I don't think his efforts really stand above those I have listed. Goldeneye is in consideration and might displace one of the five I have listed, but I have a hard time with that film because I know the storyline too well (that happens when you play a video game that follows the movie closely) and find it hard not to be bored when watching.

I know you don't agree with Goldfinger, and I actually agree with many of your reasons regarding its silliness, but I still find that film to be my favourite fun Bond.

[Iago]

Well, my top five, in vague order:

From Russia with Love
OHMSS
Casino Royale
Skyfall
Goldeneye.

I have always vacillated between Russia and OHMSS for the top slot, and in this round of viewing they ended up nearly tied. Royale is a solid #3, but I REALLY like that film, and after a few more years it could possibly move higher. Skyfall and Goldeneye are a bit of a tossup as well. Interestingly, Goldeneye makes my list for the same reason that Goldfinger makes yours; it is my favorite "fun" Bond.

After that, my runner-ups include Licence to Kill, Goldfinger and The Man with the Golden Gun. While I enjoyed The Spy Who Loved Me much more this time through, I just have a soft spot for Golden Gun, despite all of its warts. On this pass through, Licence really came close to getting grouped with the others top films. Honestly, a bit of judicious fan-editing would fix my biggest issues with the film -- cut out things like the swordfish as a weapon, the electric eels (and cheesy rubber lure stand-ins for maggots,) the wheelie with the Kenworth, the laser Polaroid and a few similar bits of silliness and I think that you have one of the best of the series. I like the plot for very similar reasons to why I like the plot for Skyfall; it is very simple and largely driven by believable human motivation.

I have made it through Goldeneye on my run-through now, and that film definitely has the worst transfer of the set. It is the only one of the older titles that Lowrey had nothing to do with, and it looks like Fox/MGM just took an old HD master, probably done for cable, and processed it heavily to clean it up. It barely looks better than upconverted DVD. But it is still an improvement over the DVD, however minor, and it I enjoyed it as much as ever on this viewing. While you may be overly familiar with the plot because of the game, one thing that you miss on the N64 is that it arguably has the best overall cast of the entire series. It certainly has the best villain "collective." Sean Bean may not be the best Bond villain, but he is very good, and Famke Janssen may not be the best henchperson, but she is certainly up there. But the two secondary villains, Alan Cumming and Gottfried John are also excellent. While none of them may be the best individually, as a group they are hard to beat. The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent as well; from obvious ones like Judi Dench and Samantha Bond, to Joe Don Baker as the best non-Leiter in the series, to Robbie Coltrane (and the all-time greatest Minnie Driver cameo in history,) and Even Tcheky Karyo stands out as the Russian Defense Minister. Plus, it was Michael Kitchen's first turn as Tanner, and his interplay with Brosnan was one of the highlights of Brosnan's films (though I think Rory Kinnear came into his own in Skyfall.)


By the way, Skyfall had a bangup Thanksgiving weekend (actually, the whole U.S. box office shattered all previous records by a factor of several times.) It was the first Bond film to cross $200 million and now stands at over $220 million. It could actually take a bite out of $300 million before it is done, and that is just domestically. Worldwide as of Sunday it stood at $789 million, and by the end of this evening it will have easily crossed $800 million. While it is a very long shot, it could be the first billion dollar Bond film. Craig's three Bond films are now the highest grossing of the series, at least in absolute dollars. Adjusted for inflation, Thunderball is still on top with and equivalent of $593 million, and that will never be topped. Goldfinger is not too far behind that, and the next one is You Only Live Twice with an adjusted $285 milliion. Skyfall is #4 on the list, and it has a very good chance of beating Twice before it is done. But those grosses are just U.S.; the interesting thing is that foreign grosses back in the Sixties were only a small fraction of what they are now. In fact, it is only in the last few years that foreign box office has become bigger for most films than U.S. box office. If Skyfall comes close to a billion dollars worldwide, it may well be the highest grossing Bond film of all time, even adjusting for inflation. But I do not know if anyone has the numbers for worldwide grosses from back then; the numbers that I pulled from boxofficemojo.com do not show them.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

I could not be more pleased with the success of the film!

[Seamaster]

How are the box-office results faring now?

Goldeneye does have a bang-up cast, but I'd need to do some comparisons before concluding that it is the best overall cast. Certainly, there are some big names, but is the cast any better than in Casino Royale, for example? I'm not so sure.

[Iago]

As of the end of the weekend, $245 million domestic and $623 million worldwide, for a total of $868 million. Should cross $900 million easily, but there are some other biggies coming out in the next couple of weeks so it should start to decline. Interestingly, Twilight was still on top as it has been since that film opened, but it did about $17.4 million domestic last weekend compared to Skyfall's $17 million, so it only beat Bond by a squeaker. So while Twilight will certainly make more money, Bond arguably has better legs, since it opened the weekend BEFORE Twilight, and made barely half in its opening of what Twilight did in its opening. Skyfall has declined significantly less in its run than Twilight has. In a way, it was the perfect counter-programming to Twilight. A lot of parents probably dropped their kids off and went to see Bond instead.

Looking at the adjusted chart, I think that Skyfall does stand a chance to beat YOLT and become the third-highest grossing Bond film adjusted for inflation. I would love to see it cross $300 million domestic and $1 billion worldwide, but that is pretty much wishful thinking.

By the way, the DanielCraigisnotBond site is still active, and while they have not posted anything new on the main page since August, their forums are going. Needless to say, the success of Skyfall is causing some consternation over there.

[Iago]

Update to that: Skyfall has officially become the highest grossing film in UK history, grossing over 94 million pounds and edging out Avatar. Interestingly, the latter film took 11 months to reach that total, and Skyfall did it in 40 days. I was also reading a bit on BoxOfficeMojo about foreign grosses where they said that in just its current territories, Skyfall should be able to cross $950 million -- and the catch is that it has not yet opened in China, which is a major market nowadays. I thought that it was going to just cross the $900 million mark, but if that analysis is correct it may come withing sqeaking distance of that magic $1 billion number.

Incidentally, I have a toy coming related to the movie to go outside my home theatre room. I will post a picture when I get it.

[Seamaster]

Don't get me started on Avatar.

Interested to hear what toy you've ordered.

[Iago]

The toy is not an order, but rather something that I requested and am going to receive. You will have to wait for the pictures, but it is possible that you have seen one already. Not in a home, though!

More Skyfall updates. It jumped back on top of Twilight last weekend, and if the trend of the latter film falling off more quickly continues, Bond may actually end up outgrossing it domestically. Globally, Skyfall has already smoked it by a large margin, but the Twilight series has not been particularly big overseas. But as a part of that, Skyfall has amassed over $918 million worldwide, which officially makes the the highest-grossing film in Sony/Columbia history, besting Spiderman 3. It still has not opened in China yet, so that billion dollar mark now looks like a reality. The Hobbit does open this weekend and will certainly take a bite domestically, if not overseas, but I think that Bond may still provide some counter-programming for those who consider all fantasy to be "kiddie fare." (Of course in the case of this book/film, they are actually right!)

[Iago]

I just finished Die Another Day, so after watching the two Craig films I will have the whole set retired. (Should still be fresh on my mind when Skyfall hits disc in a few months, too.) The biggest surprise was how negatively I reacted to Brosnan this time. Goldeneye remains one of my favorites, and Tomorrow Never Dies is merely O.K., but I may actually drop him a notch in my pantheon, below Roger Moore. Yes, I just said that. Something just seems "off" about him in every scene, regardless of the quality of the film itself. (Speaking of which, he is the only actor in the series whose films ran a consistent downward arc, starting with one of the best of the series and ending with one of the worst.) I cannot put my finger on it, but it is something in his face. He always has this pinched expression; he may be trying to be "brooding" or "smoldering" but it comes off as overacting. It literally distracted me in every scene. I always tried to be charitable toward him and say that he did his best but the movies themselves were terrible, but watching them consecutively (after watching all of the rest of the series first) shows that he really was not a very good actor, at least in the Bond films. I have seen him in other films where he was quite good, like The Fourth Protocol, but frankly his performance as Bond was really not very good.

So my new pantheon, in order:

Daniel Craig
Sean Connery
George Lazenby
Timothy Dalton
Roger Moore
Pierce Brosnan

[Seamaster]

I agree with your top two. Not sure what to make of Lazenby versus Dalton. And Bronson versus Moore: again, I'm not sure. I might put them even. I obviously need to give it more thought, but right now I'm almost seeing three pairs of two:

Craig -- Connery
Lazenby -- Dalton
Bronson -- Moore

I will be doing more Bond viewing over the holidays, so I should have a better idea in the new year.

[Iago]

Well, I have always considered Moore to be the absolute bottom of the list (even before there was a Dalton, Brosnan or Craig!) But he did not bother me quite as much on this pass through as Brosnan did. I wish that I could define it better, but I just cannot put my finger on what I found off-putting, other than some really obvious "acting."

I have usually put Dalton ahead of Lazenby, but I am far more forgiving of Lazenby's deficiencies as time goes on. He remains the right actor for that particular movie -- maybe Craig could have pulled it off, but even Connery at that time would have not worked very well. Dalton does fit Licence to Kill very well since it was tailored to him, but the generic script that was written for The Living Daylights prior to his casting does not always suit him.

[Seamaster]

I will have to see. I still consider Moore the worst, but you might be right. Bronson was a bit soft for Bond, and maybe even more soft than Moore. I will do some comparing over the holidays.

I agree that Connery would not have done a better job than Lazenby in Majesty, considering where Connery was with the Bond character at that time. Maybe earlier on when the role was fresh to Connery, but even then I'm not so sure. Lazenby brought an element of sympathy to the Bond character that I don't know Connery ever would have been able to deliver. I do not think that Lazenby was the better physical actor, but much of Majesty's strength comes from the character development and relationship development between Tracy and Bond, not from physical action. To be honest, I find the fight scenes almost unwatchable in Majesty. But Lazenby shined with delivering emotional scenes. He sometimes went over the top and there are a few scenes where his facial expressions seem quite silly, but other moments are spot on. A good example is at the end when Bond cradles Tracy in his arms. Lazenby did that very, very well.

I think Craig could have done better than all of the previous Bonds. He has given us the most physical Bond to date, is intelligent, but realistically so, and does display emotion (the shower scene in Casino rivals anything Lazenby did, for example). Craig is a complete actor and that's why I now have him at the top.

[Iago]

Well, I may certainly feel differently on my next run-through and return Moore to his proper place at the bottom of the heap, but for now Brosnan has narrowly landed under him.

I finished Royale this weekend, and also watched the extra miscellaneous bonus disc in the set. That is nearly worthless, consisting mostly of 2-4 minute featurettes. It does have one single good one however; a 65 minute compilation of every title sequence from every film, in order. That is actually surprisingly interesting to watch. It did give me an idea for a new "Best of" list; the best title sequences. Overall, I definitely like Danny Kleinman's titles better than Binder's -- I actually like every one that he did, while some of Binder's make me cringe. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the quality of the films or the title music; in fact, one of my favorites is from one of the worst movies. Here is my list, in vague order:

Casino Royale -- probably the single most out-of-the-mold titles in the series; initially, even I found them a bit off-putting, but having watched them several times now I think that they are the best of the lot. One thing that Kleinman does better than Binder is that his titles are always related thematically to the content of the film; in fact, if you watch closely they often contain slight "spoilers."

On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- Binder's only titles that really linked thematically to the film, emphasizing time and memory, and giving a history to the character via clips from the older movies (a cagey way of helping the audience understand that while the actor may have changed, the character is the same.)

Goldeneye -- Kleinman's first titles keep the traditional Binder style while starting to make things his own. I particularly like the cheeky imagery of scantily clad women with sledgehammers destroying statues of Stalin and Lenin; what better way to sum up how the West REALLY won the Cold War? Plus, it is actually an element from the film, since one scene is set in a "graveyard" of old statues.

For Your Eyes Only -- two words: Sheena Easton. 'Nuff said.

Goldfinger -- the only non-Binder and non-Kleinman titles on my list, partly because they do something different than any other film (well, I suppose that From Russia with Love did something similar, but less effectively) but mostly because they just "work" perfectly for that film.

Die Another Day -- terrible movie, but the only titles in the series that are actually a part of the film, bridging the pre-title sequence with what follows. Casino Royale does show Bond getting his double O status during the titles, but DAD actually bridges fourteen months of time, and getting to watch Bond being tortured for the whole sequence is definitely something that has never happened before and probably never will again.


Speaking of Royale, if like me you only had the older Blu-Ray, the newer features from the 2-disc version are actually pretty good, particulary a half-hour history of the rights to the book and how they finally got to make the movie, and another that looks at specific experiences that Ian Fleming had which he borrowed for the novel. Worth a look.

[Seamaster]

Hmmm. Interesting list. You've now given me more homework!

[Iago]

Actually, I forgot one that I would have put on the list just above Die Another Day:


Live and Let Die -- mostly for the truly creepy beginning, when the woman's eyes bug out like saucers right on the rising triplet just before the "Say live and let die" line; cross-cutting into a flaming skull is icing on the cake.

[Iago]

I was doing some digging and found an interesting chart. The BoxOfficeMojo site dose not list adjusted worldwide totals (or even worldwide totals, period for the older films.) I found this chart that was updated on 12/12, and according to it Skyfall has passed Goldfinger in adjusted dollars, and is withing striking distance of Thunderball (and keep in mind that the chart does not include last weekend's grosses, which have pushed Skyfall over $950 million.)

http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php


The mind boggles. Boy, do I really hope that Eon does not screw up the next one!

[Iago]

Another version of the same from MI6-HQ, with more up to date totals for Skyfall and higher estimates for Thunderball (that whole adjusted gross thing is hardly an exact science.) Either way, it does place Skyfall at #2, so Goldfinger has fallen.

[Seamaster]

Incredible. Unfortunately, as you say, none of this guarantees that the next movie will be any good.

[Sponsored content]