Just caught wind of this fucker right here, set to be released to tie in with Skyfall, also premiering in October
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006PFCQR4/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=5336653544-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeA SIN=B006PFCQR4"]James Bond - 22 Film Collection [Blu-ray] [1962]: Amazon.co.uk: Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, George Lazenby: Film & TV[/ame]
Looking back on TLD through to TND and I somewhat miss the two main songs they would have to begin and end the films, the end songs from those films don't get quite the same amount of love as the title tracks do (although the cover of LTK's outro became a hit for Celine Deon)
I hope they release the films individually as well. I'd like to pick up Goldeneye on Blu-ray. I'm a Bond fan, but I'm not sure I'd need the entire collection.
They need to drop Daniel Craig get him doing something closer to the XXX series and get the guy doing the car insurance comercials in to do some actual Bond movies.
They need to drop Daniel Craig get him doing something closer to the XXX series and get the guy doing the car insurance comercials in to do some actual Bond movies.
If you're talking about the Charlie character from the Terminator TV series. Yeah. I could see him as Bond. Mayhem!
I enjoyed Quantum more when I watched it the night after Casino, and thought of it as an epilogue rather than a stand alone movie. But Quantum just seemed too pre-occupied with packing itself to the gills with sky, land and sea chases when Casino made itself exciting through a bloody poker game.
Looks spectacular, but I liked that Javier Bardem looked like he was going to be a physical AND mental match for Bond. Why have them fannied him up by giving him a ridiculous blonde wig?
I'm excited for the movie, adore Bond, but that hair is ridiculous looking. I've seen Javier in No Country so many times that him in blonde just looks jarring to me.
or live long enough to see yourself become a dumdum.
Posts
27,455
Mentioned
198 Post(s)
Tagged
0 Thread(s)
Rep Power
1634110
Originally Posted by Mik
Looks spectacular, but I liked that Javier Bardem looked like he was going to be a physical AND mental match for Bond. Why have them fannied him up by giving him a ridiculous blonde wig?
i was kinda hoping they wouldn't go about showing him so blatantly in the trailers. the first couple teasers kept him out, bar that one shot of him covered in darkness with the fire behind him, which was a great image.
Also watched Quantum of Solace for the first time last night. It's not as bad as I thought it was going to be. It did seem to be set-piece after set-piece for the first two thirds of the movie, but I did quite enjoy it.
I watched it years ago but my overriding memory of it was that it didn't really make much sense and the thing the "bad guy" was doing wasn't even illegal, just sort of morally not OK.
Saw this on Friday. It was great fun. Bardem was good as expected and Craig really held his own. He's the man. The opening sequence thing is fantastic. After leaving the cinema the last 4 or 5 times feeling critical and disappointed, this made up for it.
Skyfall was bloody brilliant! Best Bond in a while - I can remember very little of Quantum of Solace, whereas Bardem was a stand-out villain and the series feels like it got another update of sorts what with
a new "M" and "Q" (and a new Moneypenny)
There were some excellent set pieces, great recalls of former films and yet setting up for a bright future.
LOVED him fixing the cufflinks as he hopped on the train.
There was a review by the Irish Times (main paper here) which didn't like the in-your-face advertising of Heineken/Cat/Sony etc
but although initially aware of it (prob due to that review in the first place!) it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film.
My own minor gripe is
I liked Silva so much, and thought he was a great match for Bond, that I would have liked him to get away this time and been a recurring bad-guy - haven't had one of those in years! He could have been blown up in the explosion and come back even more deformed, or been captured again and taunted Bond that there were still two rats standing. I just think it's a shame that he went out like he did. Excellent bad-guy.
People can sod off with their concern about product placement as far as I'm concerned. Thats how the film gets financing and in the real world people use real products...as long as it isnt jarring and takes you out of the film I dont really care. Product placement fits in James Bond anyway. He drinks Martinis and drives Aston Martins and wears a Rolex watch. None of the product placement takes away from the character or the iconography of the film and none of it really stands out with only the possible over-lingering on the watch at one point. It barely even shows the Heineken bottles and the Catterpillar logo is hardly garishly displayed. I thought that the iconic Martini reference was actually rather cleverly subtle too. Some people have nothing better to complain about in reviews. Such a good film, is really the only thing worth talking about the fact that Bond uses realistic real world products?
A lot of people have complained (most have lauded though) about his performance because of its over the top campness. I can only assume that they are fairly new to the Bond franchise.
Javier's character as genuine secret service agent that M had a genuine connection with or maternal feeling for in the past.
He played it more like a gay lounge singer, not nearly "hard" enough for M, who was only sentimental for Bond because they're both as tough as nails.
This doesn't take anything away from the film though. I thought everyone in it was incredible, the story was great and I loved how it was both a throwback to the old Bond's as well as a bold new step in a very personal direction for the character.
Lovely stuff.
Last edited by Guy; November 3rd, 2012 at 1:45 PM.
I really enjoyed it. Bardem was incredible... I think he deserved to be in it a bit more, and to go out with a bit more glory than he did. It was a weak offing, not even worthy of 24. It went a bit weird as soon as it went to scotland, and they didn't earn the Kincaid stuff, nor the boohoo poor bond stuff... Still, the best bond since royale... And that fight where they are just silhouettes was just amazing.
I still don't get why they've kept Dench as M since the reboot.
I mean I know Bond has a bit of a wavy continuity at best anyway, but still.
Yeah, and then to take it full circle at the end makes it even more wavy. It kind of suggests the timeline or continuity starts with Royale, then all the drench missions like goldeneye etc, up to sky fall, then back to dr no.
Well this film completely shat on the idea of "James Bond" being a codename. But let's be honest, who really cares I suppose.
I will agree that they didn't earn a sudden appearance by the gamekeeper at the end there, it was a bit late for a swerving important character introduction. Maybe a quick meet and bit of exposition, sure, but having him hang around like Harry Brown was a bit off.
I really enjoyed it. Bardem was incredible... I think he deserved to be in it a bit more, and to go out with a bit more glory than he did. It was a weak offing, not even worthy of 24. It went a bit weird as soon as it went to scotland, and they didn't earn the Kincaid stuff, nor the boohoo poor bond stuff... Still, the best bond since royale... And that fight where they are just silhouettes was just amazing.
Originally Posted by Guy
Well this film completely shat on the idea of "James Bond" being a codename. But let's be honest, who really cares I suppose.
I will agree that they didn't earn a sudden appearance by the gamekeeper at the end there, it was a bit late for a swerving important character introduction. Maybe a quick meet and bit of exposition, sure, but having him hang around like Harry Brown was a bit off.
Got to be honest, I dont know a whole lot about the history of Bond. I'd be surprised if I've seen more than 8 of them the full way through including the Craig Bonds, but as a rookie Kincaid seemed like a good character and a good fit for the film to me. Now with that said the idea of going to Scotland although a nice change of pace and a visual treat, did feel a bit out of place.
I enjoyed the whole Scotland part. As it was something we've never really seen of the Bond series which is a window into the character's home/personal life AND a more rural, stripped down finale to the movie.
No lavish foreign locations, no epic bridge dangling fight scene. Just some old fashioned rifles and a shitbox run down old manor out in the middle of Scotland. Kincaid, to me, was just some odd unexplained character that literally just walked into the end of the movie right out of nowhere and then stuck around for the big shoot-out. When I mean unexplained I mean that he's had no history with the character in the series, or mention in the movie up until that one moment. Which is especially strange considering how EVERY character in that movie has a purpose, motivation and growth except this old man that just turns up suddenly, fights, and then disappears for the conclusion.
Don't get me wrong, it didn't take me out of the film, it was still a damn incredible ending and the character was very easy to accept as Albert Finney is quite charismatic in his own right. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a bit of a left-field, last moment character introduction.
Also I felt the move to Scotland was easier to swallow than Casino Royale's jarring last act. That whole movie is incredible, until the torture sequence is interrupted, then it suddenly gets all a bit time skippy (with Bond's healing testicles) and THEN suddenly we're in Venice watching them have a vacation, then suddenly a whole separate action set-piece. I think it's a case of the villain dying in the second act of the movie essentially throwing the pace of it off a bit, and then no other "main" villain being encountered properly until the lead into Quantum of Solace.
Also my mate and I were throwing shit giggles during Skyfall with Bond playing "Home Alone" in his parent's country manor.
Last edited by Guy; November 10th, 2012 at 6:49 PM.
If he had then it would've been a bit easier to swallow.
I get that he was supposed to be a link to Bond's past, which is fine and makes complete thematic sense considering the family motif and maternal motivations of M. But in a literal narrative context it would make more sense for Bond to sneakily have contacted Felix Leiter, who was strangely absent in this movie but at least has an already established background as the one man in the world that Bond can trust. Although I can see how that would be a bit of a stretch to do, with him being American and having to get to Scotland without anyone noticing, but if they wanted to set up an ally for Bond to have a shoot out side by side with, that would possibly make a tad more sense in my eyes, as having Bond's old family manor, a church, and his parent's graves, are all already enough as a thematic family link for the film.
If Felix did show up then, it would have made sense, but I like Kincaid for the most part if you pretend its Connery's Bond, it makes even more enjoyable. The timeline is pretty cocked up. Yet, we somehow got to going into future adventures with Bond by going back to the past. That is pretty surreal and awesome. I did love this film and the Tennyson poem montage was pitch perfect of who Bond is.
Saw it last night. Loved it. I'd still have Casino Royale highest, but this is right up there with From Russia With Love and Goldfinger for the next spot. Everyone was terrific in it and I loved how scaled back it was in many ways. It starts huge and then climaxes in the middle of nowhere, which made it much more intimate (the last two rats and all.) Bardem was terrific as the baddie, giving a nice view to how far Bond could have fallen had he stayed away and let his wounds/hate fester for years.
Love all the nods to the past movies (think I even saw "SPECTRE" on the bottom of Q's coffee cup) and how they brought it full circle, so by the end Craig Bond is set up in the same mold as classic Bond. Don't think I'll ever mark out so hard to see a coat rack again...
OH! Craig Bond having THAT as his personal car almost gave me a stiffy.
Originally Posted by Guy
If he had then it would've been a bit easier to swallow.
I get that he was supposed to be a link to Bond's past, which is fine and makes complete thematic sense considering the family motif and maternal motivations of M. But in a literal narrative context it would make more sense for Bond to sneakily have contacted Felix Leiter, who was strangely absent in this movie but at least has an already established background as the one man in the world that Bond can trust. Although I can see how that would be a bit of a stretch to do, with him being American and having to get to Scotland without anyone noticing, but if they wanted to set up an ally for Bond to have a shoot out side by side with, that would possibly make a tad more sense in my eyes, as having Bond's old family manor, a church, and his parent's graves, are all already enough as a thematic family link for the film.
I may be totally wrong here, but I got the feeling he was written for Connery while watching the movie. The slow reveal, in Scotland, seemed like it would have been an amazing way to pop in a bearded out Sean to fuck up some baddies, help Craig Bond move on from his demons and pass the torch.
I dont think it would've been awful. Sam Mendes did say that the role wasnt written for Connery, but he had thought about approaching Connery for the role and decided that although it would be fun, it would pull the audience out of the film...which I think is about right.
Just for the record guys, this is a pretty big new film thats just come out in the US, so can we apply correct spoiler protocol and use spoilers and mark our spoilers appropriately.
I've been waiting for Connery to pop up in an anniversary Bond, either as a cameo or enemy for a long time now. I'm surprised no previous Bond's have ever returned for that.
When Die Another day came out, celebrating Bond's anniversary and basically being a two hour callback to previous movies, I was positive there was going to be a poker table in the movie somewhere with all the former Bonds sat around.
Yes, but there was reconciliation near the end. I would have loved to see Connery, but I understand why they didn't. Still, him and Craig standing side by side each other blasting baddies while trading lines is too much for the one screen to handle.
Saw it today. I really enjoyed the film. Good action, and nice nods to the previous films and characters. The villain was good, but wasn't Iconic. I still don't like Craig as bond, but the dislike is waning a bit.
I will probably always have Goldfinger as #1. From Russia with Love, and Dr. No jockey for the next spot. I would put Casino Royale with the next tier: You Only Live Twice, GoldenEye, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
Roger Moore was interviewed for Empire's podcast the other week nd he said how much Connery has hated his attachment to the series and makes sure to distance himself completely from the franchise. There's no way he'd ever get involved in another Bond film.
Originally Posted by Atty
Love all the nods to the past movies (think I even saw "SPECTRE" on the bottom of Q's coffee cup)
I'm pretty sure that it was actually 'SCRABBLE' that you saw on Q's mug.
Connery would be fine if the price was right I dont doubt.
I stumbled across a video of him on Youtube justifying to an American chat host about a statement he'd made claiming that it was okay to give a girl a slap. He doesnt come across as all that great a guy.
You'd think so. I'd think so. But you never know how much money could be offered. This new Bond is HUGE. They could spend $50m on Connery and still make a huge profit.
Lads I've never seen a Bond film but feel like it would be worth having a look at one, which would you recommend? I'd probably be more interested in the modern ones, anything from Goldeneye onwards at a guess.
Why would they take a 50 mil cut in profits to actively harm the film?
Because they could make 60 Mil on him being in it. People would flock to see Connery as Bond one last time. Probably the only one of the ex-bonds to command that much attention. However,
now that we know that James Bond is not a code name, it would damn near impossible for him to be Bond in this world. He would have to be someone else like Kincaid or M or even the villain. This was the perfect movie for him to be in and I doubt they will get that chance again.
I'm genuinely staggered that someone could get to mid-to-late 20s in Britain without seeing a Bond film. What the fuck was on your TV every Bank Holiday?
Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall are all very watchable. I don't think you should discount the classics though. Dr No, Goldfinger, Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and the Welsh ones all stand up well, IMO. Definitely skip Moonraker and the latter Brosnan films.
I'm genuinely staggered that someone could get to mid-to-late 20s in Britain without seeing a Bond film. What the fuck was on your TV every Bank Holiday?
Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall are all very watchable. I don't think you should discount the classics though. Dr No, Goldfinger, Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and the Welsh ones all stand up well, IMO. Definitely skip Moonraker and the latter Brosnan films.
I think I have said this before but up until quite recently (and only changed at least partially as a direct result of this forum) my film knowledge was incredibly poor. I've still never seen any of the Bonds, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings...someone post a list of however many films and I will tell you how many I've seen, it's likely to be pretty low. I've seen Anchorman like 50 times though, so it's all good.
I would say all you really need to see is Casino Royal and Quantum if you want to see Skyfall. Dr. No, Russia from Love and Goldfinger are the best ones of the the old guard and form a nice trilogy in some regards. I know people are going to cry HMSS, but its not that great. Goldeneye is pretty good, long, but good.
Because they could make 60 Mil on him being in it. People would flock to see Connery as Bond one last time. Probably the only one of the ex-bonds to command that much attention. However,
now that we know that James Bond is not a code name, it would damn near impossible for him to be Bond in this world. He would have to be someone else like Kincaid or M or even the villain. This was the perfect movie for him to be in and I doubt they will get that chance again.
.
I'm almost certain they'd lose as much with turning people off because it'd be an utterly daft 'shark jump' move.
I saw Skyfall at the weekend. It was fantastic - a much-needed return to form after Quantum of Solace, which I watched again in the lead-up. Quantum doesn't really feel like a Bond movie, and doesn't even work well as a "Bond going rogue" movie either. It's just a mish-mash of action set-pieces with none of the flair or excitement of Casino Royale.
Skyfall was great across the board - an interesting take on the character of Bond, a memorable villain, a story with twists and turns, some great action and some nice stuff set up for the next film. Also, it looked amazing - especially the scenes in Shanghai. The colours and shadows will no doubt look awesome on Blu-ray.
Major plot spoilers for Skyfall in tags below:
I thought they did a terrific job in making us think that M was going to be killed during the hearing. The shot of Bond desperately running through the streets of London, with the poem being narrated, was edge-of-your-seat stuff.
The stuff with the digger on the train at the beginning was classic Craig Bond - the blunt instrument carving a path towards his adversary. I loved all the scenes with Bond trying to re-educate himself. Craig and Whishaw seem to bounce off each other quite well, so I look forward to seeing more of their banter in future films.
When Silva removes his prosthesis, I loved the way Bond had a "I don't give a shit" look on his face.
The stripped-down finale was really good - it made things much more personal when Bond is defending a single house against a small army. The machine-guns popping out of his car and laying waste to some goons was superb. Though I thought Silva deserved a more memorable death than a knife being thrown off-camera into his back.
Oh I think it's by far the best looking bond film in terms of production value, set decorations, locations, costumes and cinematography. Probably doesn't hurt the amount of Oscar talent they had behind the scenes. Roger Deakins knows hot to compose a beautiful shot.
Roger Moore was interviewed for Empire's podcast the other week nd he said how much Connery has hated his attachment to the series and makes sure to distance himself completely from the franchise. There's no way he'd ever get involved in another Bond film.
That's also what he said after You Only Live Twice, when he left the series. He then made Diamonds Are Forever. He was then "done" with Bond again after that, until he made Never Say Never Again...
I CAN DREAM, OKAY!
Originally Posted by Beefy
Connery is completely retired now isn't he? I think they offered him a fair bit of cash for Indy 4 which he turned down.
I wouldn't have come out of retirement or that script either...
I would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove myself right
Posts
16,154
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
0 Thread(s)
Rep Power
262
Anyone here listen to Mayo and Kermodes film review podcast?
No?
Anyways, if you go to the November 2nd episode and go exact 30 mins in you'll hear Al Murray read out a review. That review was written by my bro. He calls it beautifully written which is weird cause my bro is a bit thick.
Watching Skyfall tomorrow so I've skipped the rest of this thread.
I went to see Skyfall recently and was blown away by it. It had everything a Bond film should have. I wasn't a big fan of Craig as Bond before this but it was a great performance.
This has sparked a minor Bond obsession in me recently, I have the Bond themes cd (Nobody does it better is one of the greatest ever songs imo) and I am going to get this over Christmas: http://www.amazon.co.uk/James-Bond-F...4710633&sr=8-1
Last edited by Bad Collin; December 5th, 2012 at 11:53 AM.
Skyfall Passes $1 Billion Mark Worldwide ign link
by Jim Vejvoda December 30, 2012
Skyfall Passes $1 Billion Mark Worldwide
James Bond's most successful movie ever.
The new James Bond film Skyfall has passed the $1 billion mark at the global box office, making it only the third film this year to join that club behind The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.
The film is now in 14th place at the all time worldwide box office, right behind The Dark Knight. Skyfall is also the highest-grossing Bond film of all time (not adjusted for inflation).
In addition, Sony Pictures announced that Skyfall is the highest-grossing film at the worldwide box office in the studio's history. It's also the highest-grossing UK release of all time.
Skyfall has so far made $289.6 million domestically and another $710.6 million internationally for a current total of $1,000,200,000.
Marvel's The Avengers has made
Domestic: $623,357,910 41.2%
+ Foreign: $888,400,000 58.8%
= Worldwide: $1,511,757,910
and The Dark Knight Rises made
Domestic: $448,139,099 41.5%
+ Foreign: $632,902,188 58.5%
= Worldwide: $1,081,041,287
Skyfall isn't quite done yet. It still had show times in the regular theaters in my area. The cheap theater in my town doesn't look to get it for a few more weeks.
Skyfall is at
Domestic: $289,600,000 29.0%
+ Foreign: $710,600,000 71.0%
= Worldwide: $1,000,200,000
Last edited by The Rick; January 1st, 2013 at 9:42 PM.
Reason: fixed due to mik's keen eye.
The only thing that ticked me off slightly about this movie (and only slightly, I still love it and it's awesome and such), is that I believe they used the "old, washed up agent" storyline too early.
They've had ample opportunity to use it in the past with aging 007's (It should be noted that Never Say Never Again made a fleeting effort to do so) but they never bothered, instead pretending that Bond was ageless when he clearly wasn't. However, whilst you can definitely see those few extra years on Craig since he did Casino Royale, he's definitely nowhere near the age he could be to do a justice to a good "aging Bond" angle. I believe that with this reboot, they could've genuinely taken Craig into his maturer years and dealt with it as it came instead of pretending he hadn't aged or replacing him outright. And then once he truly had had enough, just re-cast and move Bond back a couple of years as they usually end up doing anyway.
Not so much a complaint, more just thinking out loud.
The only thing that ticked me off slightly about this movie (and only slightly, I still love it and it's awesome and such), is that I believe they used the "old, washed up agent" storyline too early.
They've had ample opportunity to use it in the past with aging 007's (It should be noted that Never Say Never Again made a fleeting effort to do so) but they never bothered, instead pretending that Bond was ageless when he clearly wasn't. However, whilst you can definitely see those few extra years on Craig since he did Casino Royale, he's definitely nowhere near the age he could be to do a justice to a good "aging Bond" angle. I believe that with this reboot, they could've genuinely taken Craig into his maturer years and dealt with it as it came instead of pretending he hadn't aged or replacing him outright. And then once he truly had had enough, just re-cast and move Bond back a couple of years as they usually end up doing anyway.
Not so much a complaint, more just thinking out loud.
Especially considering that when Craig made Skyfall he was only a year or so older than when Brosnan made Goldeneye and about 5 years younger than when Moore made Live and Let Die
The continuity is all messed up, obviously, but Skyfall is set 21 films after Casino Royale. His weariness is supposed to be less about the age of the actor playing him than it is about the miles on the clock of the character. And the fact that he almost dies at the start of the film.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by doct1400
