Just going to watch Tomorrow Never Dies, watched Goldeneye the other day as well. I don't care what anyone says them first 2 Brosnan Bonds was awesome just went way OTT after that.
Yeah, both quality. Especially Goldeneye.
Watched Skyfall for the first time last night and thought it was massively disappointing given the hype. It was a bit of an odd watch in all honesty, mainly because it seemed like it was sort of trying to take the piss out of itself a lot of the time whilst also having a stab at being serious. It just felt a bit unbalanced and the atmosphere was weird.
That's before moving on to the massively underwhelming plot. There was no real build up to it, no decent interaction or connection between Bond and the villain, perhaps too few typically Bond-esque moments (like the awesome scene at the start of the film, for example - that was typically ludicrous and brilliant) and a pretty strange emphasis on M as opposed to Bond himself. It just seemed too much like it was trying to be unique without actually being that good a
Bond film. They had this fantastic opportunity to create a brilliant rivalry between two legendary agents - one that could've culminated in one hell of a battle right at the end - but the most we saw of this other brilliant agent was his ability to casually chuck grenades through windows. That as well as bottling a shot on M when he'd just tore up half the London underground just to get to her. It was a wasted opportunity and he ended up to be nothing like as good a character as, say, Trevelyan was in my opinion. He was a bit limited by the obsession with M and, even though Daniel Craig is supposedly more like the Bond in the books with his hard-man type approach, I think his character really hinders his interaction with other characters and that the villain could've been top drawer in different circumstances. It reminds me a bit of the discussion on here not long ago about Marlo in The Wire, and how the dryness of his character was a bit underwhelming and weak for the role he was playing. I think it makes more sense in the case of someone like that in that context (whereby his sort of robotic actions also reflect his personality, but with his character still being integral to an interesting and well thought out plot without there being any detriment), whilst with Daniel Craig you lose too much in a Bond film having a character like that.
Another thing which I suppose isn't really a criticism for many...I'm a bit confused as to whether the setting of the film is meant to fit in at all with any other Bond films or stories. I've not seen Quantum of Solace and can't really remember too much of Casino Royale, but it was confusing seeing Bond's relationship with M, the emphasis on an aging/past it Bond, the subdued reaction to Bond's death at the start and the introduction of Miss Moneypenny, all in what must've been a modern day context given that it was set in today's London. I'm guessing that there was no intention to keep it consistent but it just added to the overall oddness of it. I couldn't stop thinking about how there wasn't the same context in regards to any of the other Bonds and that, even though a weak plot in a Bond film could be carried by the fact that they are part of the legacy that is the Bond series, the strength of it was further weakened because there wasn't this link. On the surface of things, the plot would've been ok-ish and acceptable in theory, but it made it a fiction within a fiction for me and fell massively short as a result. It took away the tradition and back-story that could've aided a weaker and less well refined plot.
Maybe that's just me. Everyone else seems to be banging on about how good it actually is, but the best I could say of it is that it made me want to go and watch Goldeneye.
very random
(Its because of the 3 the stand out for me was Snatch, I always confused the other 2)