2001 the film

Yeah I think PSH and DDL are up there, but GH is sometimes overlooked. He was exceptional.

I’m not sure about it’s general reputation, but I found Elektra hard to get through and I was quite looking forward to it as a fan of Bill Sienkiewicz.

Well because it’s a post scarcity civilisation

Tbh these movies have never failed to make me laugh consistently, which is their primary purpose and frankly no small feat judging by the low bar of many feature comedies. So the critic reviews seem totally out of kilter to me, and evidently to most of the audience. Caveat that I haven’t actually seen DM4 yet, but I thought the other three were hilarious. Yes, even DM3 (and yes I am the father of a child who has grown up watching them, always laughing his ass off).

Good point! I always forget about him when I think of movie villains, but actually he is fucking terrifying… one of the best villains… even more so for such a plausible performance, based on the Zodiac killer I think? His crazy bullshit is a perfect antithesis to Harry’s zero bullshit approach.

Incredible actor. So naturalistic and unforced on screen yet such complex performances.

Great comment. I completely agree. I don’t see why it’s weird for a literature teacher to mention great literature or a movie adaptation by an eminent director! If there was a sleazy context to what they said - some kind of inappropriate overtures - then sure, but otherwise why not? It’s their job to discuss art!

Yeah I think it’s overhated. It has issues, but imo there is enough good for B tier.

Masterful

Life Aquatic

Yes, that’s another thing! Lazenby was so young. Of course Connery in Dr No was older, but also young compared to Craig in CR. Ironic given the latter is intended as a youthful Bond.

I agree! I think his acting is fine anyway, but when you think he wasn’t even an actor it’s actually pretty impressive. The last scene is particularly moving because of his performance. Plus he has a youthful earnestness about him that really makes me believe that he would fall in love and be devastated by the loss. I think he’s the closest to ‘young Bond,’ more than Craig in CR.

The Fury Road of comedies. Nice.

Brosnan I think. Craig next for me. Craig has two that I think are very good, whereas even the Brosnan film that most people think of as the best - GE - I think is good, but a bit overrated.

Having said that I think all the Bonds have a mixed score card with only Lazenby and Dalton having perfect records imo, no doubt largely due to their short tenures. People will cite Moore, but I don’t find him particularly more mixed than Connery. Both those long running Bonds have ups and downs, and severe tonal shifts.

The original, especially the DC.

There are a lot of things I prefer about it - cinematography, music, production design, casting - but at bottom I like the ambiguity in its treatment of replicants and Deckard’s own identity. I do think 2049 is very good though. Far better than I would have expected.

I actually think Craig’s physique is on trend for the cinematic fashions of our times, but possibly too muscle bound for what he is actually meant to be - a secret agent. His physique represents a lot of time in the gym rather than on a mission.

I would say Bond should be in condition, and be highly trained in combat skills, etc, but should ideally have a leaner physique than Craig’s. If anything you would underestimate him as a killer based upon how he looks. Someone with more knowledge can correct me by all means, but when I see pics of field agents or undercover agents they are not necessarily muscle bound. They have ‘a very particular set of skills’ to quote another franchise and presumably prefer to be in a position where they’re underrated as a threat because surprise is a part of their arsenal.

Of course Bond is a fantasy, and a world famous secret agent in some of the films, so we don’t need to hew to pure realism, but Craig is often held up as a more realistic depiction.

Oh I love that scene. 007 grabbing anything to hand and improvising an escape on the spot, plus the whole of that section of the film revolves around the cello - picking it up, etc - so it’s narratively elegant that the thing that almost gets them caught provides their escape!

Agree with all that. I think part of the reason it feels a bit off kilter in the film is because it’s unusual to have all the major action set pieces at the very start (because then they get on with adapting the book).

It makes the film kind of top heavy, and runs the risk of anti climax for anyone who is just there for the action. Personally I’m not complaining (the middle act is my favourite part) and I can see why it happened, but it does give the film an unusual structure.

I will say that CR feels like three distinct parts and the early action sequences are tonally quite different to the middle act in the casino. I think precisely they wanted to pack in the high octane stunts as you say before the relatively more sedate scenes playing cards. I actually think the action is extremely good, but it does make the film feel a bit disjointed.

For me the car chase in the car park in TND. I don’t like Bond controlling a car remotely like a video game, even if he is in the back seat. I want to see him showing off his skill as driver, and feel the visceral thrill as he twists the wheel.

Brutal film! Very memorable.

I tend to agree with other people here that if you take The Courtyard, Neonomicon and Providence together then you have one of Moore’s major works. Neonomicon is fine on its own, but much better as part of the trilogy.

Would have been a great post for r/okbuddycinephile

I think I might as well. Not sure. The civil war setting of The Good the Bad and the Ugly is great, and it’s a true epic, but For A Few Dollars More has more emotional impact for me, and the climax with the watch is just amazing.