criterionforum.org

From Russia With Love: not terrible, just okay, which is way more than I expected going in. Still have zero patience for the male fantasy of women without agency throwing themselves at some asshole they just met, but I guess I'm going to have to get over that if I keep watching these (still a big if). Robert Shaw is infinitely more interesting than anything or anyone else here, but I already hate this stupid Bond trope of the villain regurgitating exposition and not just killing Bond. Again, I gather I will have to get over this. Clear influence here on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Some fun novelties like the poison shoe. Much better directed than the first. Spent the whole movie trying to think if there are any spy movies I even like that much, couldn't come up with any. So these may be doubly doomed anyways. I will proceed, for now.

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm Spent the whole movie trying to think if there are any spy movies I even like that much, couldn't come up with any

Do you not count the Mission: Impossible movies?

Yeah okay there you go, there's two I like

There's always the Hitchcock spy films

Hitchcock is his own thing

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm but I already hate this stupid Bond trope of the villain regurgitating exposition and not just killing Bond.

Domino wants to end the whole series. Haha

domino harvey wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:04 am Yeah okay there you go, there's two I like

5 Fingers?

Dishonored, Spione, Ninotschka, Pickup on South Street, The Human Factor...

Yeah okay maybe I just hate spy movies that are like this or le Carre

The Bond films are a lot like the Zatoichi formulas, and leaning into those frustrations would be akin to being bothered by how every small-town villain Zatoichi encounters underestimates his fighting skills because he's blind, or that he's invincible, or how Zatoichi's luck always prevails in the dice games. Not that these aren't fair things to be bothered by, but they don't and won't go away. I realize I've championed it already by citing this example and others, but what I love about Thunderball is how hard Connery leans into the absurdity of Bond's icon with full cognizance. Similar to Zatoichi's dice games, there's a scene where he just happens to get the right card that's one higher than his nemesis, and the ridiculousness of how shaken and into the game the villain is contrasted with Bond's nonchalant "I Win Of Course" attitude is hilarious, not because it's some strong gag, but because the scene is shot in a manner of suspense completely undercut by Connery and the director's total awareness that the idea this could be suspenseful is insane and worth deflating at every opportunity. It's not the first time the franchise has flirted with acknowledging his silly invincibility but it is the most consistently "Look, we're not even gonna pretend this anything but cartoonish artifice" approach. I don't expect that to strike some reflexive instinct to make one appreciate abhorrent behavior because there's "self-awareness" but it's where this is going, and Roger Moore's whole stretch is basically riding this lampooning wave only with half as much energy.

therewillbeblus wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:27 am every small-town villain Zatoichi encounters underestimates his fighting skills because he's blind

To be fair, that seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take.

So is assuming Bond is not invincible and will die when placed in countless traps! Though the absurdity of dragging it out/leaving the room is certainly underscored more drastically there, both situations involve baddies assuming the protagonists are fallible humans when they are actually superhuman. You'd think neighboring towns would catch wind of this indestructible blind swordsman just as Bond's reputation as an immortal man clearly precedes him from movie to movie, but all narratives involve underestimation contingent on their luck running out, and that never happens- the definition of insanity applied across new villains expecting different results

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:08 am

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm but I already hate this stupid Bond trope of the villain regurgitating exposition and not just killing Bond.

Domino wants to end the whole series. Haha

At least we got a hilarious Simpsons joke out of it.

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm From Russia With Love: not terrible, just okay

Higher praise than I was expecting!

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm Still have zero patience for the male fantasy of women without agency throwing themselves at some asshole they just met

Even from my perspective as a fan it can still be a bit much. In the case of Bianchi's Tatiana in this film I can forgive it a bit because it's part of her job, seduce him and point him down the path SPECTRE wants. What I still can't get past is that she appears to fall head-over-heals after a night with him. At first I think it can be passed off as just part of the act, but as we get to the train it becomes clear that she has, in fact, "fallen" for James. I at least like the little test of loyalty in the last moments but I wish the movie toyed more with the idea she's playing him, or both sides at least. It's a common thing as well for the "bad" women to throw themselves at him, but in those cases it's usually to assert some sort of control or manipulate him in some way, and since he can apparently still think with the wrong head it gets him into various situations he could have otherwise avoided. In those scenarios it's more annoying that Bond doesn't see what's happening, or he does and goes along with it because that's just who he is. I did like how this was handled in Thunderball and Never Say Never Again (which I'm sure you know are both the same story).

If you continue you're also still going to have to go through plenty of moments where various "good" women throw themselves at him while he ignores consequences. Live and Let Die is one of the sketchier ones as it involves a character that has to remain a virgin otherwise risking death from the film's villain. I can't recall if Bond knew this beforehand (I haven't seen it in a while) but he of course thinks sleeping with him is worth dying for.

domino harvey wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm Robert Shaw is infinitely more interesting than anything or anyone else here, but I already hate this stupid Bond trope of the villain regurgitating exposition and not just killing Bond.

It's a trope you really have to accept alongside many other tropes and cliches, otherwise there just isn't a point. I don't mean to say this in the manner of "shut your brain off" as that's always been just stupid but you do still have to go into these films just accepting that there are going to be plenty of irrational things and take the films on their own merits. It doesn't excuse a lot of them from being terrible (and I will still say most of them are bad) but they really are just their own thing.

Shaw is also one of my favourite villains in the series, and the films usually live or die by them. The stronger the villain(s) the better the film. Apparently I'm in the minority but Michel Lonsdale's villain in Moonraker is probably my least favourite, with the film just being a dreadful entry as well. The film's ridiculousness at least shook everyone up and pushed them to make the more grounded For Your Eyes Only, with Moore's Bond going a little bit darker compared to his previous films.

At any rate, I'm still hoping you continue because I really can't wait to see what you think of You Only Live Twice (but I'll be really disappointed if you end up liking it).

I can’t wait till he gets to Goldfinger, which has some of the most jaw dropping sexism I’ve ever seen.

Spoiler

”Run along now. Man talk.”

Maybe not as glaringly sexist, but Dr. No has one moment where it's as its most baldfaced for me

Spoiler

After giving Ursula Andress complementary attention in the courting process as she plays hard-to-get, as soon as we cut to them in bed together post-coitus, the tables have turned and she makes some I Love You-equivalent statement and he completely ignores her romantic gestures to respond harshly, "I'm hungry." I always think he's going to ask her to make him a sandwich, Maybe he does, I forget, but it wouldn't surprise me.

cdnchris wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:57 pmApparently I'm in the minority but Michel Lonsdale's villain in Moonraker is probably my least favourite, with the film just being a dreadful entry as well

I think that’s a pretty popular opinion, and I agree. Same goes for Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill and Matthew Amalric in Quantum of Solace - all three are bottom-of-the-barrel Bond movies, and totally waste perhaps the three most interesting actor picks for a villain role in the franchise

Someone I follow tried talking up QoS on Instagram and I responded with “sound and fury signifying nothing”. His retort was rather good, that they are all kind of like that.

Recent Bond villains have wasted big name actors. Javier Bardem in Skyfall was tedious, whilst I have forgotten every ounce of Spectre so can barely remember Christopher Waltz. Maybe casting known names is part of the problem. Didn't Boyle partly leave No Time To Die over the casting of Remi Malek over Tomasz Kot from Pawlikowski's Cold War?

Mendes supposedly pushed for Kevin Spacey in Skyfall, but he was blacklisted by the producers because he was pushing for top billing when he was briefly attached to do one of the Brosnan movies.

I think Javier Bardem served his purpose well, and his disengagement from any self-preservation or personal gain outside of suicidal revenge made for a frighteningly compelling villain a la Ledger's Joker. There was no reasoning to be done, or Achilles Hell to be found, and this came off much better than the same kinda deal with Rami Malek in the latest entry.

It's funny, in going through all the films, I don't know if there are any villains I outright "like" or think are granted the shades of dimension we may want to or expect from them. Bardem isn't an outlier here or anything. I think Yaphet Kotto and Christopher Lee are fun, as is Gert Fröbe. Sean Bean maybe the closest we get to someone getting fleshed out, but for me he's just Bardem's villain reduced to a money-grubbing traitor rather than barely-nuanced nihilist. So maybe Bardem is the most complex villain in the series... which is saying more about the franchise's priorities than signaling him out as particularly strong in a vacuum. The side villains have always been more fun for me, in part perhaps because the stakes are lower for them to hold any intimidating power over Bond - Luciana Paluzzi's Fiona Volpe in Thunderball being a personal favorite in how she plays with and exposes Bond's Achilles Hell for sex. I love how it's never quite clear who's using who, and who's authentically engaging in pleasure and when, during their trysts. Not that it's a 'mystery' worth exploring, but each scene they share is deliberately nebulous in these respects, and I like to image that for two people who both weaponize sex and are organically sexual people at their cores, it's a little bit of both. Their light switches just might not work the way they do for audiences whose sexual parts operate a bit differently!

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:49 am Someone I follow tried talking up QoS on Instagram and I responded with “sound and fury signifying nothing”. His retort was rather good, that they are all kind of like that.

Quantum truly descends into the most illogical and difficult to deduce sequence of events from any of the films. It feels like an array of potential action scenes were given the Gysin/Burroughs cut-up treatment and then left as is

I actually don’t mind Christopher Walken too much in View to a Kill; he does what he can with the given material. By that film, it’s very obvious that Moore simply couldn’t handle the more physically taxing requirements of the role. It’s not as extreme as, say, Harrison Ford in the 4th Indiana Jones or Ving Rhames in the last few Mission: Impossible films (there doesn’t even seem to be enough coverage of him briefly sprinting in the last one), but still discernible

Jimmy Page has a great story about recording the Goldfinger theme in If These Walls Could Sing, Mary McCartney’s new documentary on Abbey Road Studios on Disney+.

The main thing I remember about Quantum of Solace is that Adam & Joe brutally but wonderfully tore into it with their respective proposed theme tunes.

On Bond villains, I did like Robert Carlyle's unable to feel pain villain in The World Is Not Enough (though of course it pales in comparison to his magnificent baddie in the same year's Ravenous!)

beamish14 wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 6:46 pmI actually don’t mind Christopher Walken too much in View to a Kill; he does what he can with the given material.

To be fair, I think this could be said for nearly all the actors cast in their respective villain roles- if not the material, then the way the directors/Broccoli expect them to behave according to their vision of the character. It’s worth asking what the point is in casting talented players if they’re going to be given so many restrictions in range prohibiting shades of that talent to make the characters their own