criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:54 pm**

Sean Harris was in the last two MIs for a reasonably short period but exudes such quiet menace (helps if you've seen Southcliffe). A far more powerful nemesis than in most Bonds.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:58 pm**

And it was also fun how different he was in each.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2022 9:13 pm**

Agreed but PSH was even better in III

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:58 am**

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2024 9:50 pm**

Returning to this viewing project after giving myself enough time to heal, Goldfinger... ranks somewhere between the previous two films for me, which for what is supposed to be the series highlight is a grim realization indeed. I was surprised that all the iconic moments of the film that I already knew from a lifetime of pop culture references were all frontloaded in the first half. Sadly, this is the only surprise the film had in store for me, as my biggest complaint this time (aside from pointing out the even odds presented in this film alone of dying if you are a woman and even just talk to the guy) is how baldly every potential novel surprise the film could produce is instead telegraphed in advance by a conspicuous piece of expository dialogue ("You shouldn't shoot that gun in this airplane," &c). This makes the film feel like a checklist that's getting duly marked off as it trudges along, which doesn't help my overall take that watching these films is like doing homework for a class I don't need to pass.

If the series does live and die with its villains, I found this titular one quite deadly boring. Probably doesn't help that the film sets up this madman by first showing him cheat at gin rummy and then, horrors, cheating at golf! For like fifteen fucking minutes that guy cheats at golf. I did think it was industrious of him to become obsessed with something that appears in his surname, though, so I'm glad that worked out for him. Looking ahead at what lies in store for me if I choose to continue down this path, I see Yaphet Kotto plays a villain next decade. That gives me something to look forward to, because that's got to be great, right? Please tell me that's going to be great and not lame.

Also, how many more times am I going to have to see a bomb get stopped with 007 seconds left? Is is any more times? Because that's too many

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2024 10:26 pm**

It's actually pretty lame. Thunderball is next, and it's my favorite, but the value I get from it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The reasons for its supremacy have required multiple viewings of the canon and an understanding of Connery's Bond lampooning himself here (ever so slightly) compared to the more self-seriousness of the first three and what follows. But maybe you'll get all that and somehow love it - who knows! The villain is extra lame, but the scene where Bond is ultraconfident about his luck and bests him at cards while he emotes our of sync never fails to make me laugh, again as an in-joke

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 12:59 am**

blus wrote:It's actually pretty lame.

Yup. Same problem with Christopher Lee. How a venerated movie series praised for its great bad guys manages to make one of cinema's best villains, indeed someone known for being the bright spot in bad movies--how they managed to make him unwatchable, I don't know.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:51 am**

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2024 12:59 am
blus wrote:It's actually pretty lame.
Yup. Same problem with Christopher Lee. How a venerated movie series praised for its great bad guys manages to make one of cinema's best villains, indeed someone known for being the bright spot in bad movies--how they managed to make him unwatchable, I don't know.

To piggyback this, I would also put Christopher Walken into this same camp. A View to a Kill is perhaps the worst Bond film, or at least the bottom three. Such a waste.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 8:38 am**

I'll stick my neck out - I love A View to a Kill!

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:38 pm**

Love the song. Simon le Bon butchering the high note during Live Aid pops to mind.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:52 pm**

We all know that Bond villains don't get good until Goldie turns up in The World Is Not Enough.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:57 pm**

I still think the most wasted talents in a Bond villain are Mathieu Amalric's - it's less obvious but inspired casting, in a film that has zero other inspiration

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:34 pm**

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2024 12:59 am Yup. Same problem with Christopher Lee. How a venerated movie series praised for its great bad guys manages to make one of cinema's best villains, indeed someone known for being the bright spot in bad movies--how they managed to make him unwatchable, I don't know.

Yep, Lee's an absolute waste in one of the worst Bond films. Other wasted outings are Robert Carlyle (whose villain apparently feels no pain, a trait that doesn't come into play, like ever), Amalric (as already mentioned, and it's a bad film), Christoph Waltz, Michael Lonsdale, and Remy Malek. Walken's meh, but I've always had a soft spot for him. My favorite still may be Robert Shaw, though I guess he's technically a henchman. I've also always had a soft spot for some that I feel get forgotten, like Yaphet Kotto (despite the absolute stupidity in how he's taken out) and Joe Don Baker. For Your Eyes Only also has a forgettable villain, though that may have to do with how it's not clear who the villain is until halfway through after some misdirection (though it's not a shock).

Then there are varying degrees for Blofeld. Waltz is by far the worst one. Savalas was probably miscast but I still like him. I also like the pompousness of Charles Gray.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:59 pm**

Yeah, Robert Shaw is good. So's Javier Bardem. Robert Davi also does an effective 80s action movie villain in License to Kill. None of these are iconic, and yet they're probably the top 3 Bond villains.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:50 pm**

Maybe it's childhood TV nostalgia, but the best collection of villains is in Goldeneye: Sean Bean, Famke Janssen, Robbie Coltrane, Gottfried John, and Alan Cumming.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2024 9:15 pm**

Orlac wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2024 8:38 am I'll stick my neck out - I love A View to a Kill!

Me too. But I also love Quantum of Solace, especially as the properly fractured and soul shattered complementary follow up to the far more stately and classically elegant Casino Royale. For me, for the single scene alone

Spoiler

in which a despairing Bond briefly considers a murder suicide,

easily one of the most astonishing and indelible moments in any of these films, it belongs among the greats. As to the question of greatest villain, I like Walken a lot but I'd have to give it to Lonsdale in Moonraker. Wonderfully fey.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2024 4:05 am**

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:59 pm So's Javier Bardem.

Bardem is quite good. I like how much information about his backstory and characterization is elided, whilst still emphasizing the utility of his pain and the importance of how he arrived at his worldview. I think this bothered a lot of viewers, but for me it just emphasized his threat and made me extra curious/hypervigilant about all the details of his performance.

Or, all the villains are drawn to only give us peanuts about them, but Bardem's presence is so captivating and his role so crucial, that we crave 'more'. And being deprived of that is a strength of the film, because it's just all the more unsettling.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:17 am**

I have a big soft spot for View to a Kill, despite its myriad issues, and Walken is the best thing in it, even if by his standards it's a relatively phoned-in performance. Malek was completely wasted and I never particularly cared for Christoph Waltz's Blofeld (though that may be more down to the scripts than Waltz himself, who can be a very enjoyable screen presence).

Carlyle, though, has my favourite line in a bond film of any character, when he retorts to Bond

And what do you believe in, preservation of capital?

It's a great line, and one of the very few, if not only, semblances of political ideology being in any way acknowledged anywhere in the series. Though strangely it comes after Bond accuses him of being a man who believes in nothing, which has absolutely zilch to do with being an anarchist, which we're repeatedly told Renard (Carlyle's character) is.

The other great villain line is Lonsdale's assertion that Britain's only contribution to civilised culture is afternoon tea - always cracks me up.

I'd also put Davi high up there - he brings a genuine menace to proceedings and fits well with the Dalton era. As much as there is criticism of the villains in Living Daylights (my own personal favourite bond film) I think the more muted 'evilness'/villainy, for want of better terms, fits well with a relatively more realistic approach they were going for in that era. Davi's villain still feels believable, but has a darker edge.

I agree Amalric's character could have had more to do/more presence in the film, but I've always thought criticisms of his character as not having an evil plan etc. as being completely bizarre and out of touch with geo-political realities. If anything, the films' themes seem more and more prescient as time goes on.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 4:12 pm**

Amazon/MGM gets total control of the James Bond 007 IP

Spoiler

Amazon MGM Studios is set to take creative control of the James Bond franchise.

The shock announcement — which is sure to shake and, indeed, stir the industry — was made Thursday, alongside the news that long-time producers and custodians of 007, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, would be stepping back.

As per details of the historic agreement, Amazon MGM Studios, Wilson and Broccoli have formed a new joint venture to house the James Bond intellectual property rights. The three parties will remain co-owners of the iconic franchise but Amazon MGM will have creative control.

“Since his theatrical introduction over 60 years ago, James Bond has been one of the most iconic characters in filmed entertainment,” said Mike Hopkins, head of Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios.

“We are grateful to the late Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman for bringing James Bond to movie theatres around the world, and to Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for their unyielding dedication and their role in continuing the legacy of the franchise that is cherished by legions of fans worldwide. We are honoured to continue this treasured heritage, and look forward to ushering in the next phase of the legendary 007 for audiences around the world.”

Added Wilson: “With my 007 career spanning nearly 60 incredible years, I am stepping back from producing the James Bond films to focus on art and charitable projects. Therefore, Barbara and I agree, it is time for our trusted partner, Amazon MGM Studios, to lead James Bond into the future.”

Broccoli commented, “My life has been dedicated to maintaining and building upon the extraordinary legacy that was handed to Michael and me by our father, producer Cubby Broccoli. I have had the honor of working closely with four of the tremendously talented actors who have played 007 and thousands of wonderful artists within the industry. With the conclusion of ‘No Time to Die’ and Michael retiring from the films, I feel it is time to focus on my other projects.”

In 2022, Amazon bought MGM for $8.5 billion, acquiring a vast catalog with more than 4,000 films and 17,000 TV shows alongside the rights to distribute all of the James Bond films.

“No Time to Die” — the 25th James Bond film and Daniel Craig’s fifth and final turn as 007 — was released in 2021 and earned $775 million. Since then, despite endless speculation in the press, there have been no announcements regarding the timeline for production of the next film or Craig’s replacement.

Hopefully, now we will get a three season Q: An Origin Story series we've all been asking for.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 6:17 pm**

This does seem like a watershed moment - despite the ups and downs of the Bond series, Wilson and Broccoli have mainly been for the positive in safeguarding the series and realising, especially in the past two decades, less is more. Apparently, according to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon MGM wanted more spin-off TV series and films to monetise Bond which Wilson and Broccoli were resisting. Perhaps No Time to Die really will be the last Bond film as we know it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:01 pm**

It would be a shame if Bond became another franchise like the MCU or Star Wars, where branching out into TV and other media diminishes the quality but also the sense of an event when a new film is released. I'm in the middle of revisiting all the Bonds with a friend, we have a Bond night once a week and right now we have two more Roger Moores to go.

What I'd like to see as a fresh start would be filming the books in the sequence they were written, being reasonably faithful to plots and characters, and having them be period pieces.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:06 pm**

The Curious Sofa wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:01 pm right now we have two more Roger Moores to go.

I'm sorry you have to go through that.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:10 pm**

HJackson wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:06 pm
The Curious Sofa wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:01 pm right now we have two more Roger Moores to go.
I'm sorry you have to go through that.

Those are my favorites!

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 9:14 pm**

Orlac wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2024 8:38 am I'll stick my neck out - I love A View to a Kill!

The Living Daylights song and film are far better.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2025 9:15 pm**

Tomasz Kot (from Pawlikowski's Cold War) was supposedly Danny Boyle's choice for the villain for No Time To Die. Had both stayed on the project, it might've been a far more interesting film.

criterionforum.org

James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Re: James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)