Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

How Many Are Going to Brave Covid to see the Bond Flick?


Recommended Posts

Just curious. All the initial reviews are really favorable...but of course, they're written by people whose livelihoods depend on companies making movies, and people going to theaters to watch them
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm not interested in Bond. I would pay to see one of the Beatles documentaries coming out...there's the Beatles in India (haven't seen anything about it in theaters), and the Get Back Peter Jackson documentary...Get Back seems to have been hijacked by Disney+....I won't be adding the subscription, but I figure it'll be available elsewhere at some point.

 

But I'd go to a theater. The local Orlando "art house" cinema , The Enzian, would be more likely to screen my Beatles docs. That suits me fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really curious. Regardless of whether you like the genre, I always manage to steal from - I mean, be inspired by - movies where you can see the money on the screen. The Bond flicks typically have only a couple A-list actors, so that leaves a lot of budget to get the shots right. In the recent Bond movies, the framing and lighting alone are pretty amazing. I also like the way they use saturation and brightness/contrast to highlight scene changes. When they're in London, it's all a lot grayer...then they bump up the saturation for the tropical locales. The sound design is also top quality. Not quite as good as the sound design in Mad Max: Fury Road, which IMHO sets the standard for sound design, but close.

 

If a movie's really good, I have to see it twice. The first time I'm too busy analyzing it. If I go a second time, it's to kick back and enjoy the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I should mention my anti-covid protocol, which is based on my usual anti-people protocol. I go to the latest possible iMax showing on a Tuesday. Next day is a work day, and it avoids those who put off seeing a movie until they realize it's going away, so they go on Wednesday or Thursday. Also, iMax is too expensive to bring a family. Most of the time, I'm the only one in the theater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently going through my Bond 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray set. I like Bond movies in general, I don't know if it is Daniel Craig or the writing, but the new movies just don't make me want to watch more. I think for me Craig is tied for 3rd out of the Bond actors. Connery 1 of course. Brosnan 2. I must have liked him more than most fans. And Craig is tied with Moore for 3rd. I've read this is his last. Wonder who will be the next Bond?

 

As for going to the movies. My hometown Cinema 8 had problems with bed bugs before Covid came along. I was already avoiding going.

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of things that interests me about Bond movies is how they're basically a product of one the last of the mom and pop shops in Hollywood. They did what they wanted, their way, based on their gut feelings...like how record companies used to be. That allowed them to have epic fails and epic successes, which is what kept people wanting to know which one the next movie would be.

 

Daniel Craig was considered a horrible choice initially - he was rugged instead of suave, blond instead of dark-haired, and way too brooding and existential. And yet his movies are considered by many to be among the best Bond films. The dude knows how to act. Timothy Dalton was a credible Shakespearian actor, so he was a bit of a fish out of water. Yet that served Patrick Stewart well in Star Trek. Now Daniel Craig is going to do MacBeth. I bet he'll nail it.

 

For multiple generations of Broccolis to navigate a franchise over 60 years, through different actors, changes in society, changes in how movies are made...to me, that's a lesson in "How to Pivot" that borders on the miraculous. Here we are, long after the debut of the first Bond film in 1962, and people still anticipate the next one. That blows my mind. They managed to both stick to the formula, and re-invent it periodically, without losing their audience. I can't think of any music group (or film franchinse) from the 60s that can say that. But to be fair, it's often the fans who won't let them re-invent themselves.

 

Wonder who will be the next Bond?

 

Apparently they're not even going to think about it until 2023. After the way Daniel Craig re-defined the role, it's going to take another re-invention of that magnitude to make it through another decade. But I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that since MGM has bought controlling interest they'll probably screw it up, the way Disney screwed up Lucasfilms. This might be the last of the Bond films with soul, regardless of whether people liked that soul or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Daniel Craig Bond movies, and am interested in seeing it. Like you, I might find the best way to see it with the least amount of people.

 

Mad Max: Fury Road: I just saw that movie. Holy crud, is that great. Everything about that movie is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mad Max: Fury Road: I just saw that movie. Holy crud, is that great. Everything about that movie is great.

 

Give yourself a treat, and listen to it on headphones!! Every sound appears where it's supposed to appear in the soundfield.

 

Chris Jenkins, who won an Academy Award for the sound design work, was also crucial to the Hulu movie "8 Days a Week: The Touring Years" about the Beatles. I did an interview with him about that, he really had some interesting things to say about how they restored sound from those early live recordings. Pretty much sounded like a labor of love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mad Max: Fury Road: I just saw that movie. Holy crud, is that great. Everything about that movie is great.

 

Give yourself a treat, and listen to it on headphones!! Every sound appears where it's supposed to appear in the soundfield.

 

Chris Jenkins, who won an Academy Award for the sound design work, was also crucial to the Hulu movie "8 Days a Week: The Touring Years" about the Beatles. I did an interview with him about that, he really had some interesting things to say about how they restored sound from those early live recordings. Pretty much sounded like a labor of love.

 

I will have to watch that again then! With headphones! I will read that interview tomorrow.

 

What a stunning movie. I had heard it was good, but wow. I usually don't go on about movies, but this was exceptional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting interview, discussing the Beatles documentary (which I have not seen....I need to see that too).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really cool about the Beatles documentary is that it captures the time and context, not just the Beatles. It really is fascinating. Somebody born in 2000 and watching it would feel they had a window into a totally different era...in a way, I guess that's true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this article was interesting. I have to admit I've had trouble following the story over several films as it didn't seem obvious to me that there were elements I was supposed to remember from one to the next. And add to that the fact that they nod from one actor's era to another's, and wow I can be confused. :)

 

The Craig-model Bond we met in the 2006 reboot Casino Royale was a revelation. Like the Bond of Ian Fleming's novels â and unlike the Bond of the initial four decades of movies derived from them â this professional killer was as fallible as he was arrogant; unlucky in love, frequently injured, conscious of the likelihood he would be killed on the job, given to morbid reflection. "I don't stop to think about it," he said in 2015's Spectre. Coming from this Bond, you knew that was a lie.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a great interview with Daniel Craig where it seems he really has his head screwed on right. The interviewer asked if he identified with any of Bond's characteristics, and Craig basically said no, they have nothing in common. Then the interviewer asked Craig if he took the role of the southern gentleman detective in Knives Out because he wanted to do something that was the antithesis of Bond. Craig seemed puzzled. "I'm an actor. I do different roles."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We watching Being Bond (I think it was called that vs. Becoming Bond which was about Lazenby) on Apple TV+, and it was really good. They were pretty honest about what they did right and wrong with all five of his films. Craig was pretty upfront about the difficulties he put himself into. For instance, for one of the films, he was doing a lot of his own stunts as he had been doing, but with a broken leg! He had some sort of "robotic" brace to support him/his leg. Some of the films were a bit rushed and they admitted they should have fleshed them out better (this was due to the writer's strike).

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently going through my Bond 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray set. I like Bond movies in general, I don't know if it is Daniel Craig or the writing, but the new movies just don't make me want to watch more. I think for me Craig is tied for 3rd out of the Bond actors. Connery 1 of course. Brosnan 2. I must have liked him more than most fans. And Craig is tied with Moore for 3rd.

 

For me, the one who was closest to Ian Fleming's portrayal of Bond in the novels was Timothy Dalton. "The Living Daylights" was a perfect example of that. Then Dalton got sabotaged with the script for "License to Kill," which alternated between dumb for the high points, and stupid for the low points. He never got a chance to develop the role, which I think was a shame. He felt the correct portrayal was Bond as a reluctant, almost accidental hero, not Superman. Then again, he was an actor with a theatrical background, doing what he thought the original author would have wanted. That's probably not a recipe for commercial success.

 

BTW RABid after reading your post I decided to get the complete set of Bond movies on Blu-Ray for my birthday gift to myself :) Although I don't like all the Bond movies, I crunched the numbers and realized that if I got the ones I wanted individually, it would cost more than the $88 for the complete set. I had heard the audio had been remastered and the film itself restored, but frankly, the quality was mind-blowing. The people who did the restoration work get credits at the end...they deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to follow up...I'm probably not going to go. I heard it's 2 hours and 43 minutes, and that's a big chunk out of my life unless it's effing awesome. I get the impression from some reviews it tries just a little too hard as well. Couple that with Covid still being a thing in Tennessee, and I'll probably wait until the Blu-Ray comes out, or it's streamable, and I can watch it over two or three nights.

 

Now, if people chime in here and say they loved it, I could easily change my mind. I won't hold it against you if I don't like it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE:

Obviously, I'm not going to offer any spoilers. However, I will generally talk about it, so if you don't want that, look away.

 

I enjoyed it. This is not high-brow art by any stretch, but anyone who would expect that would be at the wrong movie.

 

The opening scene was nail-biting and tense and offered some aesthetics that you don't always see in Bond films.

 

The action scene in Italy was magnificently done. There was also a lot more emotional stakes apparent in some of these action scenes.

 

That we get to see what Bond is like when he is not being a double-agent was interesting. How he acted, what he chooses to do, where he chooses to go or live etc. But it was still a Bond movie with women, gadgets, harrowing escapes, cruel villains with facial defects or tics to let you know that they were a bad person, worldwide calamity approaching, secret lairs, and that kind of thing.

 

I felt like the movie almost tried too hard to wrap up the storylines dating back to "Casino Royale", but I suppose you do have to do that. I could almost sense the strain from the writers in doing so. It also seemed like it was partially setting up to continue the franchise, possibly with Nomi, the new 007.

 

I was surprised that Bond and Swann didn't have more chemistry considering that both are really good actors. Really, the acting was good in general except for maybe the cartoonish Russian scientist. Q and Moneypenny are quite likable.

 

The movie was fast-paced and didn't feel as long as it actually is. When I mean "fast-paced", I don't mean necessarily end-to-end action scenes, but that even the other scenes, including the slower scenes, advance the plot relatively quickly.

 

In my opinion, Daniel Craig and Sean Connery are the two best Bonds I've ever seen, after which I'd put Lazenby and then Pierce Brosnan. Part of the reason besides the charisma is that Craig and Connery actually seemed dangerous, and you would think that someone with a license to kill would be dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't disagree with anything Ken posted. Movie was long but never slow. Many, many storylines going on throughout. My 15 years old son went with me, was his first Bond film. He enjoyed it.

The reason I'm bringing that up is that he knew nothing about Vesper, Spectre, Blofeld, on and on and on, but still told me he enjoyed it while we were watching the credits at the end without me asking him.

Sometimes it seemed cartoonish, at times contradictory, but it's a fantasy movie so this need to be overlooked. I'll watch it again one it becomes available to see at home.

:nopity:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't disagree with anything Ken posted. Movie was long but never slow. Many, many storylines going on throughout. My 15 years old son went with me, was his first Bond film. He enjoyed it.

The reason I'm bringing that up is that he knew nothing about Vesper, Spectre, Blofeld, on and on and on, but still told me he enjoyed it while we were watching the credits at the end without me asking him.

Sometimes it seemed cartoonish, at times contradictory, but it's a fantasy movie so this need to be overlooked. I'll watch it again one it becomes available to see at home.

 

Glad your son liked it. It was definitely cartoonish at times, but it wasn't a giant CGI fest (and I don't believe any of the Bond movies have been, for that matter). I would definitely watch this again. We watched "Spectre" a few days before going to see this movie just to try and remember what came before, and this helped. I have an absolutely horrible memory for movies, including for Bond movies and things like the Marvel Universe, where I just lean back, eat my popcorn, and often don't remember much a little while later, but I think that's more due to my ADHD-addled brain.

 

I will say that when Lea Seydoux (Swann) is weeping, it's a very emotional weeping, literally a snot-nosed and beyond upset, and you don't always see that in a movie. I don't know what else she's done, but it seems to me like she has some real acting ability. And if you've seen "Spectre", you've seen the scene where she walks down the train aisle in an evening dress. Holy crud, she looks amazing.

 

I sense a change in the Bond franchise. Whatever comes next, I feel like they may turn it on its head. And in that, I would like to see them dispense with portraying bad guys as having facial defects or facial tics. I think that this depiction throughout the decades burrows its way into people's subconscious.

~~~~~~

THE RESCUE

 

This movie is inspirational, harrowing, and more. Go see it.

 

"From Academy Award-winning filmmakers E. Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin, THE RESCUE chronicles the enthralling, against-all-odds story that transfixed the world in 2018: the daring rescue of twelve boys and their coach from deep inside a flooded cave in Northern Thailand. The film premieres in select theaters this October."

 

[video:youtube]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to get the complete set of Bond movies on Blu-Ray for my birthday gift to myself

 

just purchased, price dropped currently to $77.99. Paid almost half that for myself and my son to see "No Time To Die"

 

will be a Christmas present for him, currently not in stock from the vendor I chose, but expected in 2 weeks

:nopity:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to get the complete set of Bond movies on Blu-Ray for my birthday gift to myself

 

just purchased, price dropped currently to $77.99. Paid almost half that for myself and my son to see "No Time To Die"

 

will be a Christmas present for him, currently not in stock from the vendor I chose, but expected in 2 weeks

 

I think you'll be shocked at the audio and video remastering. Excellent job.

 

What's interesting too is how much those movies are period pieces. Looking back, you can even see when certain special effects technologies were introduced (like "person catching on fire"...that was a biggie in lots of movies at the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

By now, probably everyone knows that

James Bond dies at the end of the movie.

So the question then becomes how are they going to do new Bond movies?

 

I don't think there's going to be a black Bond, a female Bond, or some other variation on the tried-and-true formula. Instead, I bet they're going to fill in the spaces between previous Bond movies, and do period pieces - like the way the Wonder Woman sequel took place in 1984. Ever wonder what happened to Bond between Dr. No and From Russia with Love? There's a movie for that.

 

They can keep creating backstory fill-ins for another 60 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...