Zhang Ziyi woulda made a great bond girl
Going to start working my way through all 25 Bonds - leading up, specifically, to the very first, âDR NOâ, which, unbelievably, is celebrating its 60 Anniversary this year. It actually premiered in London, on October 5th, 1962.
Happy days ahead; filled with fast cars, drinks which are shaken, not stirred, and gadgets galore. 
No Time to Die (2021, Cary Joji Fukunaga)
What shall I say?
Itâs not the best Bond in history, but not the worst either. All in all itâs a befitting send-off to Daniel Craigâs interpretation of the worldâs most popular secret agent. He dominates the entire film and when heâs on-screen the other actors almost seem to disappear. The biggest victim is Lashana Lynch, MI6âs new recruit who has (after Bonds retirement) inherited his 007 number: at one point she feels obliged to give it back to James. Itâs just a number. Yes, just a number, but itâs also her only functional scene. She pops up every now and then, mainly to give Bond a lift, but the film could have easily done without her. But sheâs black and a woman and I guess sheâs there for the sake of diversity.
Another victim of the film makersâ decision to put all their money on Craigâs Bond, is Rami Malekâs villain. Malek is a good actor and he seems to have it all to be a good Bond villain, but his role feels more like an extended cameo. That is a pity, the more so because his Lyutsifer Safin (howâs that for a villainâs name?) is a potentially interesting character, an avenger who is at the same time a savior, a madman who wants to destroy humanity but has some humane traits as well. I wonât tell too much about his relation to Bond, to Bondâs love interest Madeleine and Bondâs arch enemy Blofeld. And I wonât tell too much about Bondâs relationship with Madeleine or the emotional ending either. Discovering how all things piece together is part of the fun here.
The plot about a so-called Heracles project to decimate the worldâs population is rather convoluted and packed with unneccesary complications, but there are several great set pieces, notably the attack on Madeleineâs childhood home and a shootout in a misty Norwegian wood. And Spanish actress Ana de Armas has a brief but explosive guest appearance as a CIA agent who gives Bond some assistance.
But what are they going to do without Daniel Craig? And what are they going to do without Bond?
*** out of 5
Never watched Craig as Bond, only a few clips here and there.
I am very much a Connery purist but I absolutely love Skyfall. For me anyway, it is right up there with the best.
I love Skyfall as well, but I also know pople who think itâs a dud 
Craig is my favorite Bond along with ⌠no not Connery, but Dalton. Iâve never been a great Connery fan, but I admit that he was in a few very good Bonds, notably Thunderball and From Russia with Love (most pople would add Goldfinger , but Iâm not sure about that one)
Dalton catches a lot of flak from people and, I admit, even from me in my youth. As time has passed though, my view on Dalton has softened quite a bit and Iâve come to appreciate his contribution more. I wonder if he had come in a different place in the order if he wouldnât be thought of more fondly as I donât know if people were quite ready for the more harsh and violent turn the movies took after the relatively light-hearted and comical Moore years.
Iâd totally recommend Casino Royale and Skyfall. The rest you wonât lose anything by missing really. Although I completely prefer classic Bond, Casino Royale is still one of the best!
I wouldnât bother ⌠youâre not missing a thing!
Although âCasino Royaleâ is the best of of a very weak bunch - Craig is not convincing as 007 ⌠he looks like a night club bouncer in his tux ⌠the stories are similar to Superhero origin tales, which bore the pants off me. The productions are big budget, but lack any sense that itâs a Bond movie, until youâre reminded by hearing a phrase or two of the âJames Bondâ theme, which now seems as out of place as if they used the music from âSteptoe and Sonâ.
Itâs a franchise without a soul or any artistic merit - I wish the producers would pack it in and search for some refreshingly new stories to tell - this current crop, plus Dalton and Brosnan were and are âflogging a long dead horseâ. I canât blame the actors, although I donât rate any of them - itâs a series thatâs now driven by lack of imagination and greed.
Iâm a lifelong Bond fan, who has read the books, collected the toys and annuals etc (when I was young!) to me the series was a 1960âs/70s phenomenon - after that period the films just nosed dived and became slightly embarrassing rather than supercool and untouchable, as they were with Connery, Lazenby and Roger Mooreâs first two appearances - Even as a kid in 1977 watching âThe Spy Who Loved Meâ in the cinema, I felt this had become silly and stale.
I can still watch Mooreâs later efforts with a sense of nostalgia ⌠but I have to admit theyâre pretty bad by that time we have no John Barry or a director worth a damn - Did Broccoli give John Glenn the job because he would do as he was told and not go over budget or schedule? Anyway ⌠I could go on at greater length, but to quote Connery from âThunderballâ âI think he got the point!â
I think Iâm in the minority here, but I hold the opinion that all Bond actors were great in their own distinctive ways. If I happen to dislike this or that movie, itâs because of their storylines or factors other than the male lead.
While I can understand some complaints about asininity of certain outings, I think the series has always been on the silly side, even in its earliest stages. If you want realism, you will turn to a John Le Carre adaptation or something along those lines. Itâs the loss of cultural identity I deplore more about these newer entries.
In my view, the whole spy craze James Bond flicks are reflective of and rely on is inextricably embedded in the 1960s Cold War paranoia; other parts of the equation are the 1950s sci-fi cheese and cartoonish action both of which are also part and parcel of a successful Bond formula. The most successful works combined these elements in various ways to arrive at pretty much the same conclusion, seasoning the end result with exotic locations and all that.
The moment the series started drifting away from these roots also marked the point at which the franchise began to grow stale. For me, it was in the 1990s that the series noticeably started to lose its steam. Apart from GoldenEye, Brosnan Bonds were either bland (Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough) or just plain terrible (Die Another Day). As a matter of fact, Iâve recently re-watched Die Another Day, expecting it to grow on me, yet it has just gotten much worse. The last 30 minutes are so effing terrible theyâre essentially unwatchable for me. Itâs so bad itâs embarrassing, definitely the point at which the franchise hit rock bottom.
Craigâs Bond had at least more highlights (Casino Royale, Skyfall), but saw more of that corporate homogenization of the Bond formula for lack of a better term. Besides Casino Royale, these movies do not feel very Bond-ish Iâd say. Donât get me wrong, theyâre good action flicks, but they feel just like it, like generic action flicks while failing to encapsulate the same tone the old entries had. I guess the absence of John Barry might have something to do with that too. Plus they excessively wallow in maudlin sentimentality and even though the emotional Bond shtick mightâve felt fresh in Casino Royale, it feels completely overdone and pretentious in the latest one.
That is obviously not to say that there are no bad old Bond flicks e.g. I think Thunderball has aged very badly. Though I find Octopussy to be mostly watchable in spite of its numerous faults, there is no denying that it is badly structured and badly written cringy shit. With that being said, the overall Bond flavor was still there, something that canât be said about these newer productions. I guess I sort of donât care that much. Sorry for the blogpost BTW.
Agree 100% Mickey. I canât say Iâve loved all of the Bond movies, but all of the actors who played Bond have been excellent.
Now that Iâve thought about it a bit more, I think another reason why these newer entries seem lacking in comparison with older releases is because they lack adventure in the old sense of the word. What I mean by that is that there used to be a lot more in the way of collecting information, talking to people and regular, down-to-earth ground work in those storylines, which engendered more human interaction. These ostensibly digressive plotlines actually constituted a significant part of the formula in that they substantiated the characters along the way, supplied cultural context and provided a useful respite from big action set pieces.
Consequently, there was more variance in tone in that these movies were not just about cheap thrills, but also about amusement, escapism and relaxation. The reason why newer Bonds appear to have drifted away from that in favor of more linear storylines is because itâs a lot trickier to get things right in such scenarios and it requires some experimentation and harmonization of different elements to get the right results.
Experimentation necessitates risk and risk is bad for the investors who want to secure a return on their investment, so the films have naturally been made more linear in the process; instead of contributing to an organic development of the story, the adventure has become more about consecutive âcheckpointsâ each of which serves as a structural crutch to propel the story as well as a prelude to the next action sequence. It kills the overall feel of these pieces because it rings hollow.
The adventure is no longer at the forefront, but rather constitutes a backdrop to the big action set pieces. It is still there to push the story forward and maintain the structure, but the main draw and appeal lies in action now. In the case of Craig Bonds, all of that vacuity is sugarcoated with schmaltzy drama, but the dynamics remain the same in my book.
Hence, the films are not radically different now, but they are still different because the focus has changed; the adventure component and all that nonlinearity has been scaled back in favor of crowd-pleasing action because at the end of the day, it sells better and it is easier to manage as far as production goes. All IMHO, YMMV and all that. Sigh, sorry for another blogpost.
Craig seems to have the look he always urgently needs to go to the toilet 
Timothy Dalton is my personal favourite Bond, so I was happy to get the chance to see The Living Daylights on the big screen. As I was coming out, I bumped into a chap who had been attending the screenings on a regular basis and we started to chat again. He had brought his wife who unfortunately ended up dominating the conversation by talking about how disgusted she is by the men who enjoy these âsexist dick flicksâ (her words). I wonder if these types ever have fun in their lives.
âLIVE AND LET DIEâ (1973), is today celebrating 50 years ago that the World was first introduced to the new 007, Sir Roger Moore. 
This is my favourite Bond film, so I though it only right and proper to commemorate its anniversaryâŚ
On Thursday 5th July 1973, the eighth Bond movie, âLive and Let Dieâ, held its Royal World Premiere at the Odeon Cinema in Londonâs Leicester Square, with HRH Princess Anne in attendance.
The event was attended by a mixture of the cast, crew and famous faces from the entertainment industry such as Michael Caine, Burt Reynolds, Peter Sellers, Gregory Peck, David Frost, David Bowie and Lulu.
Most importantly, the new face of 007, Roger Moore, had just returned from a worldwide press promotional tour, the aim of which was to separate himself from the legendary Sean Connery in the role.
The movie went on general release in London the following day on Friday 6th July 1973, and nationwide the week after from Thursday 12th July 1973. 9 million Brits went to see the film before the end of the year.
Strangely enough, the film had opened in the USA on 27th June 1973, a week earlier than the world premiere in London.
The rest, as they say, is historyâŚ
I love this one too Happy birthday âLive and Let Dieâ
I watched on âDiamonds are Foreverâ (1971) on New Years Day.
It was the first Bond I ever watched at the cinema.
Not PC - which is why I absolutely love it, and Connery is fab as always. As for the Bond girlâŚJill St. JohnâŚshe is so gorgeous.
Special mention must also be made of Charles Grey - the campest âBlofeldâ everâŚbut ever so brilliant, as always.
All in allâŚnot a Bond that people rate very highlyâŚbut I love it.
Personally, I think it was a great swan-song for SeanâŚand a million miles better than âNever Say Never Againâ (1983)
And then, in 1973, we got to Rog in âLive and Let Dieâ - nuff saidâŚ
âA 2021 survey conducted by the British Board of Film Classification found that almost two-thirds of teenagers polled supported trigger warnings on films which might negatively affect their mental health.â
Iâve noticed the âsolutionâ for mental health issues is to do anything other than to seek out and address any real potential causes for mental health issues. Which means the people supporting things like âtrigger warningsâ donât care about mental health; they care about controlling things under the guise of pretending to care about mental health.