If anything he bought Tilly a few hours more of life.
Exactly! And even better, it gives us more classic Bond exchanges where everyone is oh so civilised to each other, but with âIâm going to kill youâ undertones, one of my favourite aspects of Bond (and one I thought Spectre did rather well). âIs the julep tart enough for you?â
1 Like
Well he tried to get it to the CIA, but hat plan failed. Pussy Galore was the one who called the CIA.
I donât feel like Bond has been good for decades, with The Living Daylights representing the last, brilliant Bond film. I like Goldeneye and even moreso Casino Royale, but I honestly donât find them AMAZING like I find the films during the Connery and Moore era amazing. Something changed since LTK. They lost their genuine Bond-feeling. The Brosnan films are a pastiche, slightly trashy facsimile of Bond; Craigâs era is too dour and unfun, lacking the genuine swagger of the older films.
Iâm sure many disagree; but this is my confession 
1 Like
I actually agree to some degree. But I also wonder whether that has something to do with the kind of enthusiasm one can only have while younger. In addition: with the onslaught of similar films that just were not as abundantly there back then, Bond films naturally lose their impact.
1 Like
FELIX LEITER IS THE CODENAME!
Just kiddingâŚ
1 Like
For the most part, I agree, although Iâd move the timeframe up one film since I think LTK is the best Bond film. As far as Iâm concerned, Cubby went out with a bang. (Yes, before the inevitable correction comes, I know he worked on GE).
Fully agreed on the Brosnan films, with perhaps GE excluded. I see where youâre coming from on the Craig films, and while I do have issues with them, I like the shift in tone to the more dour and serious. While the films themselves may have not had the kind of swagger of the early Connery films, I think that Craig himself brought enough of it to them.
I think the biggest problem in this post-Cubby franchise is the overuse of the same themes and, essentially, story. All of these films, with the exception of TOMORROW NEVER DIES, are either about Bond and M fighting through their trust issues, Bond going rogue, or whether or not Bond is still relevant, and often times they touch on more than one of these themes (or all three) in the same film. Quite frankly, that gets boring over a 20+ year stretch. With regards to the relevancy question, thatâs something a franchise should only ask itself on screen every once in a blue moon. Doing it several times over in consecutive fashion would lead one to think that maybe the whole thing is past its prime, especially if the creators of it seem to be asking that question on a frequent basis.
5 Likes
I somewhat agree with whatâs been said, although I do very much enjoy many of the Brosnan / Craig entries.
I think, for me, the real litmus test is rewatchability, and this is what is sorely lacking in basically every Bond film after LTK. Even though CR is one of my favorites and I really enjoy many of the other post-Cubby entries, that sense of awe and wonder from the Cubby era really left with him. As much as I love most of the recent ones, I just donât find myself in the mood to rewatch them nearly as much as anything pre-Brosnan.
^^This. 100% this.
1 Like
IMO, TND is one of, if not, the most watchable film in the canon. Itâs fast paced, has a light-hearted story with an excellent villain, exciting set pieces, a great score, a top 5 Bond girl, and even a strange early appearance by Gerard Butler.
5 Likes
I say the same of YOLT and LALD.
1 Like
I agree. The Brosnan era gets smashed as being poor (I actually have very fond memories of the entire era, sue me), but the first two films especially are entertaining. TND is the first Bond film I saw at the cinemas, and itâs a big reason why Iâm a fan today. Sure, I watched the Connery/Moore films on VHS beforehand, but a cinema going experience, especially at that age, is something you donât forget. I also remember seeing the TND theatrical poster at a restaurant and being really excited. Bond was well and truly back after the 1989-1995 drought and the world was loving it. So yeah. Tomorrow Never Dies â great Bond movie.
5 Likes
I was in prime Bond-loving age during the Brosnan era - particularly TND and TWINE - and I think theyâre the absolute worst (with DAD alongside) in the series despite enjoying them at the time. Since Goldeneye, and aside from Casino, every Bond film has been severely dissapointing. Goldeneye, to me, is aging poorly, as are parts of CR. In contrast, the rest of the Bond franchise, though clearly âof its timeâ, is aging very nicely.
âQuarrel fetch my shoes.â
âThatâll keep you in Curryâ
Making Bond Japanese.
So, so much of the Bond films of the 70âs & 80âs
Bond films do many things well. Aging is not one of them.
2 Likes
I find the last 20/30 minutes of almost all Bond Movies yawn inducing , so tend to switch off at those points
Diamonds Are Forever - The Living Daylights are like that for me, LTK is weirdly the opposite. I enjoy it more once it hits Mexico.
2 Likes
I did say almost! Agree on LTK , and OHMSS, FRWL, SF too
3 Likes
Denise Richards gets far more vitriol than she deserves.
4 Likes
I donât disagree at all. Sheâs the only one in TWINE that actually seems to be putting in an effort.
1 Like
I think GE has a cracking final 20 minutes, as is the final third of FRWL and OHMSS.
Whereas the final 20 of DAF is borefest and the final 24 minutes and 50 seconds of SP make me cry blood.
90% of DAF is borefest.