Top 5 Bond films you want to rewatch this year

[dalton]

@secretagentfan

Was it an evil act?

Yes.

It’s not as though this nano-virus was a simple assassination tool that could be used and then forgotten about afterward. Yes, it only kills the people targeted through DNA, but it spreads uncontrollably an infects quite literally everyone. Bond is already infected with it before he reaches the island, as is Madeleine, Mathilde, and quite literally every character we see in the film because they’re all made contact with each other (and then subsequently passed it on to an ungodly number of people in the “real world”.) It may not pose them any danger in the immediate moment, but if Spectre and Safin know of its existence, then it’s not unreasonable to think others don’t know about it as well. What could be done with the nano-bots inside these unsuspecting people? No idea, but the fact that M’s pet project at some point, with no further action on anyone’s part, end up infecting the entire global population is not a good thing.

@sharpshooter

They both acknowledged the situation was what it was and worked together to resolve it.

According to the film’s logic, however, there is no resolving the situation. They can resolve the immediate situation with Safin, but Heracles is out in the wilderness, so to speak, and would eventually go on to infect, although not kill, every single human being on the planet. M simply acknowledging a mistake when his actions have caused the introduction of a foreign agent into literally 8+ billion people isn’t something that can just be resolved.

[sharpshooter]

The way I see it, the film intends the situation to be resolved with the factory being destroyed and the buyers not having a product to purchase. If they knew how to manufacture the product they wouldn’t have been en route. SPECTRE is dead, the upstart rival Safin and all his goons are too. And most importantly Obrushev. Just as I accept Batman surviving the nuclear explosion in Rises, and not being noticed in Italy as Bruce Wayne, I’m happy to accept their ending statements. Neither stories continue past that point.

[Stbernard]

Octopussy

I was brought back to my childhood, watching it on the big screen, I remembered queuing to see it and the giant image of Moore and Octopussy wrapped round him, getting bigger as I got closer to the Savoy Cinema entrance in Dublin.
I was constantly reminded of it as I watched, being there with my Dad and Granddad. The joy of that experience informing this viewing.
It’s better than I give it credit for, Moore as the clown is utterly commanding in the scene in the circus and it brought me back to my point about Brosnan’s weakness at being’ rather acting’. Moore is far more present in the scene.
The film is better than most of the Mission Impossible movies imo.
Definitely enjoyed more than I thought I would

[sharpshooter]

@Stbernard

It’s better than I give it credit for, Moore as the clown is utterly commanding in the scene in the circus and it brought me back to my point about Brosnan’s weakness at being’ rather acting’. Moore is far more present in the scene.

I think they established the threat of the bomb really well. The conversation with Orlov is also full of feeling, and when he later says “that’s for 009” he really means it. Bond shooting that guard between the eyes has always been one of his coldest kills.

The train sequence itself is genius and I think better than the Skyfall equivalent. Driving the car on the railway tracks is pure Bond, and we still have the ducking under bridges/running across the carriages content. Watching the behind the scenes of the filming makes you appreciate how good it is, and how brave the stunt doubles were. Martin Grace sustained serious injuries for our entertainment.

[dalton]

Absolutely agreed. That whole sequence in Octopussy, and the film itself for that matter, doesn’t get nearly the credit or respect that it deserves. It has some silly elements, sure, but I think it and its predecessor both show that Roger could have easily held his own in a more traditionally “serious” Bond film if that’s what he had wanted to do with the character.

That said, not that I’d want to lose the film that we ultimately got because it’s my favorite Bond film, but I would love to have seen what Roger could have done with Licence to Kill. I think he could have pulled it off better than most would think, and both with his history with Hedison as well as his tenure’s tendency to lean into the campiness of things would have given things perhaps a different kind of weight than they had in the actual film.

[sharpshooter]

@dalton

That said, not that I’d want to lose the film that we ultimately got because it’s my favorite Bond film, but I would love to have seen what Roger could have done with Licence to Kill. I think he could have pulled it off better than most would think, and both with his history with Hedison as well as his tenure’s tendency to lean into the campiness of things would have given things perhaps a different kind of weight than they had in the actual film.

There’s an audio clip of Adam West reading a quote from TDK Returns that I really like. Imagining the bright Batman of the 60s evolving into a weary old man, now living in a darker world, makes that story even better to me. The same would apply to Moore. Seeing a fun, flippant Bond upset and angry would hit the heart strings harder, and I have no doubt he could’ve pulled it off. The fact Moore would be ruffled when he was always so unruffled would make you know the situation is serious.

[plankattack]

@dalton

That said, not that I’d want to lose the film that we ultimately got because it’s my favorite Bond film, but I would love to have seen what Roger could have done with Licence to Kill. I think he could have pulled it off better than most would think, and both with his history with Hedison as well as his tenure’s tendency to lean into the campiness of things would have given things perhaps a different kind of weight than they had in the actual film.

Definitely an interesting thought experiment. Throughout his career, too many have mistaken Sir Rog’s “ease” with “not acting.” He is most definitely a much better thespian than he ever got credit for.

Could he have pulled off a “darker” effort? Without a doubt. (I’d offer large chunks of FYEO as a start to making the case). Frankly, watching an aging Sir Rog return to the ancestral home might have been as compelling (in a different way) as watching DC.

[Dustin]

@plankattack

Throughout his career, too many have mistaken Sir Rog’s “ease” with “not acting.”

Also, back in Moore’s day that was what the lion’s share of ‘entertainment’ was about, ensuring people had a good time. There was dramatic, noir-ish content too, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, DOUBLE INDEMNITY or later KRAMER VS KRAMER, but that was just the serious part of the spectrum. Many actors never went into this field simply because they weren’t needed in a much narrower market.

For Moore’s generation the most work was in mainstream light entertainment. Had he been born 10 or 20 years later he might have competed for roles like Hoffman or De Niro landed. But his was the career of a workhorse actor one generation earlier and with no reason to change track. He was the perfect fit for his time. I’m not even sure he’d have done as well had he come from classical Shakespeare theatre or aspired to such.

[sharpshooter]

@plankattack

Could he have pulled off a “darker” effort? Without a doubt. (I’d offer large chunks of FYEO as a start to making the case).

TMWTGG would be my pick. He has the aura of a ruthless, elitist bastard who I wouldn’t want to cross. Case in point his meeting with Anders in the hotel room. I’m glad his performance evolved as the films went on, but Moore showed enough to me early on to suggest he could go dark when required.

[secretagentfan]

Dr. No

So, of course, the first Bond I re-watched this year was not on my initial top 5 list.

It is a film I haven’t watched as much as the rest (still way too often, as I hear many people in my life say). And I had not watched it since my last re-watch session in 2015, so I thought: why not start here.

As I have already stated too many times, TSWLM was the first Bond movie I have ever watched. When I found out: what, there are 9 more already? What a treasure trove! With no video or Bond films on tv at that time, I had to track down cinemas which did the revival screenings, and with no interweb and me being, well, 8 years old, I nevertheless grabbed the phone (which I hardly used) and called the automatic service of every cinema near our town, checking out whether a Bond movie was being shown. At some point, Dr. No was in my sights.

I don’t know how many other Bond films I had seen at that point. But I was aware, of course, that this did not star my dear Roger Moore but that tough guy Connery. And I was aware that it was the oldest of them, naturally a bit different from the later ones.

I don’t remember whether I really enjoyed it. I know I enjoyed parts of it, especially the second half. Villain´s lair, fights, you know, the usual. But it always remained the one Bond film which was important because it started everything… yet the one which was a bit like a trial run. Or so I thought at that age.

Watching it again now, after well, too many years to count, I tried to imagine how it must have felt watching this in 1962 - NOT knowing any other Bond film, not knowing any film like it at all.

It is difficult, probably impossible to appreciate the immense novelty of Dr. No back then, and the profound impact it left on the audience. But one element that still hit me right from the start even 62 years later was this: Sean Connery. The moment he appears he changes everything. He commands the screen, he commands the story, he is so powerful that the movie can rest on his shoulders, and even the most outrageous moments become perfectly logical and natural because of him.

Also, Joseph Wiseman is a terrific villain, really frightening and arrogant. The dinner scene between Bond and Dr. No has wonderful, snappy dialogue and pointedly characterizes Bond´s agenda for every following movie.

And NTTD owes so much to DR.NO, it probably was the only way to bookend the whole series to go back to it.

Of course, knowing that FRWL followed DN, one can’t help to be impressed how much a second film upped the ante on the first one - it should be considered as one of the great movie sequels. Without taking away anything from DR.NO, of course. I still had a great time watching it, being entertained throughout. And again - it already was wonderful, original, exciting and innovative filmmaking.

One thing I had forgotten: Bond´s introduction is only ironically mirroring Sylvia Trench’s. So we have to thank “Trench, Sylvia Trench” for this iconic line.