Bond ... James Bond

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I've not seen all the Bond films. Of the ones I've seen, I've enjoyed them.

This one I LOVED.

One thing that really bothers me about contemporary action movies (that are not sci-fi or fantasy) is the overuse of CGI to make the action look incredible. I don't want to see action that's so incredible it's impossible and ridiculous. The stunts were amazing and intense. The sheer physicality of it all - THIS was an action movie. The opening sequence is one of the best ever captured on film. Love that crazy French dude.

And Daniel Craig...ah, how I thought he was talented and dishy in Sylvia. He's pretty weighty in everything he does, save Tomb Raider. Guess I'm going to have to rent Layer Cake, after all.

More Craig Bond. More!

Dench also was given some wonderful opening dialogue.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

That eliminates 3 out of 5 from your list.


The 1964 Astin Martin, btw, was one of the more delicious homages to past Bonds - - in this case, the first of the famous gadget cars in Goldfinger.

I also loved the switch-homage that the Cricket's featuring in his current avatar - - the twist on the Ursula Andress bit from Dr. No. - acknowledging this time the sexiest player in the film is Mr. Craig as Mr. Bond. Yummy indeed.


And, heheh, my fave homage was the very modern, somewhat disturbing twist on the Goldfinger laser beam between-the-legs.
"You expect me to talk"

"No, Mr. Bond ... I expect you to die."





.

[Alex]

At least for the Pierce Brosnan films the cars definitely were product placement. There was a lot of news when BMW bought Bond into their cars instead of Astin Martins and the last three Bond movies introduced new models.

When the Z3 was introduced in Golden Eye it was viewed as one of the most successful product placement campaigns of all time. Bond paid more than $3 million to get Bond into a Z3 and then the movie was used heavily in the promotion of the new model.

Tomorrow Never Dies introduced the 750i as well as a BMW motorcycle and The World is Not Enough introduced the Z8.

Ford paid $14 million to get their new Mondeo into this Bond movie (according to Forbes though other articles say 14 million pounds which would be considerably more than $14 million).

Now, product placement doesn't really bother me, but the cars (at least the Ford ones) definitely are product placement.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

Umm, yeah there was. Why do you think Columbia pictures rented out an entire theatre at the spectrum for Premier Automotive Group employees and their freinds and family? The event that was btw hosted by the guy who's entire job within Ford is product placement. He does not however, pay to get cars in tv and movies, but simply offers vehicles to the studios free of charge for their use.

The FoMoCo and Sony product placement was ridiculous and over the top. I don't typically have a problem with it but it was a bit obnoxious in this tepid action flick. Everwhere you turned there was a Jag, Volvo, Lincoln, or Land Rover. And of course, the requisite Aston Martin (which I have zero problem with). Even a hand-built prototype of the new european market Ford Mondeo (which did look really good and it was mildly amusing to see Bond in a rental car for once). I guess for those (like apparently Steve) who don't know that Ford owns all those brands it was not as apparent as it was to me, but I did feel it was over the top. Product placement is great for us, sure, but not when it starts to feel like a freakin' commercial. Heh, especially when you start to see all those exact same cars show up parked outside exotic locales in supposed different parts of the world.

Oh, and you'd frankly be quite surprised at how many Aston's we sell because of the Bond connection. I know it sounds ridiculous that people would buy $150-250k cars because of a movie but, well, they do.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps NirvanaMan is simply too young to remember when Bond was not a ridiculous laughing stock.

I, too, get a kick out of the over-the-top ones that became the defacto style ... but those are not my faves. And there's PLENTY of them. Every Roger Moore and every Pierce Brosnon, not to menton a few of the Sean Connerys. So, for fans of that Bond brand, there's plenty to choose from.

But the roots were far less absurd ... and since this one was specifically a back-to-the-beginning entry, the absurd style would not be fitting.


Not that this Bond was lacking in absurd. It was just of a different, more spy-like style. Instead of ejector seats and oil slicks, the car was filled with poison-antidotes and other live-saving devices. And there might have been more gagetry, but

Spoiler:

the car was totaled after 10 minutes

The girl-on-horseback on the beach was all silly. But I'm glad the action veered away from tank chases to foot races.

Spoiler:

The fuel tanker chase was appropriately over-the-top without getting outrageous, as was the final bit in the collapsing Venesian villa.

Oh, and there hasn't been a "Q" for a few films now ... and it was nice to see "M" have a meatier role.



But yeah, for the general public who might not be aware of the various brands owned by a single corporate overlord, the vehicle product placement was not as tacky. Again, since the type of vehicle is very important to the Bondness, it's not merely product placement for the audience to be aware of the type of car. I'm glad - - if astounded - - to learn that the high-end automobiles get some sales from these ventures ... but I maintain that a made-up car would not work at all in the James Bond context.


And the movie was wall-to-wall action. I don't know how anyone could find this film tepid. Perhaps there were no rocket-powered submarine chases or foiling of plots to crash the Moon into Washington D.C. ... but the more-realistic action (and only more realistic by outrageous Bond standards, btw) made for a much more thrilling film, in my opinion.


But Octopussy and The World is Not Enough and You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me and Goldeneye and Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever and A View to a Kill are all out there on DVD if you want your Bond absurdist.


.

[Gemini Cricket]

Although I loved CR, my favorite Bond is still "Goldfinger". But Craig has the best Bond body period.

[NirvanaMan]

Perhaps in his old age, ISM's failing memory forgets when Bond flicks were fun.


A good Bond movie left you wanting to drive fast on the way home from the theatre and tackle any evildooers along the way. After this flick, we went home and went to sleep.

While there has been no Q (his brilliance will be missed) there was an R which was his effective replacement.

I guess the movie simply wasn't fun for me, and it certainly was not thrilling. Plot "twists" could be seen from a mile away (and I'm typically bad at such things) making for very slow going. By the time they revealed each supposed twist, it had already been clearly obvious for 10 minutes. That makes for a slow moving movie. The action was rather dull and could hardly be called "wall-to-wall", except for the intro scene which would have worked better in a Bruce Lee flick than a Bond flick, but was still impressive none the less.

I did like the intro song though. Other than that, I'll just have to wait till they introduce the next Bond. Ugh, that will be a long wait.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yeah, I liked the intro song well enough ... after hearing from many quarters that it sucked. It was not terrible, like many of the opening songs of the modern Bond era. And the title sequence was, imo, wonderful.

I don't understand about seeing the plot twists 10 minutes out. When has that ever not been the case in a Bond movie? They follow a predictable formula ... probably the most formulaic film series ever. This one followed the form to the letter ... every single plot point was by-the-numbers, hence knowable not only 10 minutes prior ... but 10 years prior.

The trick was to go through the standard Bond story with updated action style, quip style, and Bond style. I think that was handled brilliantly ... and the stylistic updates would have been less appreciated by me had they not been grafted onto what's been the by-the-book Bond story ever since Goldfinger.


To each his own, but I was hardly sleepy after seeing this movie ... and it was three a.m. when the theater let out. I am still jazzed on it 32 hours later, and intend on seeing it again before I see many a new release.



And like G.C., I have to keep Goldfinger at the top of my BestBond list, but Casino Royale is close on its heels at Number 2, with License to Kill in Third. I don't like my Bonds omnicient - where's even the pretense of danger with that? Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnon were sissy-boys, btw.


.

[Gemini Cricket]

No love for George Lazenby, eh?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

No love for George Lazenby, eh?

George rocks, OHMSS is one of my favorites, up there with From Russia with Love. I love the early vunerable Bond, so I think I'm really going to like this one.