My dad and I watched TMWTGG last night. We both enjoyed it for a number reasons. Namely Sir Christopher Lee as Scaramanga. Some things haven’t aged well, Bond slapping Andrea and Goodnight around, and playing Three’s company with both. Also, by today’s standards, no way would someone like Sheriff JW Pepper be a Democrat! Nick Nack is fun, and is used just the right amount. One thing that I feel that is overlooked with TMWTGG is the realism. It could with a few adjustments take place in the real world. The MI6 conversations are unique, and M and Bond’s tense briefings were a sign of things to come, particularly with the Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes versions. The material arts scenes are a mixed bag for me, the buildup and tension did not pay off. In terms of Guy Hamilton’s directing job, I would place this third, above DAF. I wish that Tom Mackiewicz’s version of the script was used more. Bond vs Scaramanga as personal enemies could have humanized the characters more. Richard Maibaum adding the Solex power subplot was a good idea, but wasted and poorly executed. Ironically, it could still work as a modern day, real world problem. I’d say Maibaum should have sat this one out, particularly because of his criticism of Christopher Lee’s portrayal, saying he played Scaramanga as a spoiled child. The performance was great as it was. I’m sure Jack Palance also would have been great, in particular if the novel was faithfully adapted. The literary Scaramanga is easy to picture Jack Palance in the role. The sugar cane subplot, the train ride and Bond’s shooting of M still could great modern day plot points in a future Bond movie. If the script had been written to focus on Bond vs Scaramanga, (and Guy Hamilton not directing), this could have a better received Bond adventure overall. I know Cubby and Harry fighting probably also didn’t help, in more ways than one. So overall, a mixed bag, but a guilty pleasure of mine (both for Bond movies and mixed bag movies in general). However, with a great villain performance, and an early exposure to the world of James Bond make this a fun adventure, for both my dad and me.
Kingdom of the planet of the apes
I loved the original films, I loved the follow-up trilogy.
I had high hopes for this new film. But in addition to the video game atmosphere I constantly remained uninvolved and got the feeling that a story which had already ended in the last trilogy gets dragged out again to prolong it with nothing new to say.
This is IP movie making, just beating the dead horse, like a tv show in its eighth season conjuring up new twists which are not new and become boring.
Sorry.
This will probably be one of the next films I watch, although going in with low expectations due to just how disappointing the last trilogy was for me. If they could somehow get back to where they were with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, then I might come around on the series, but I always found it to be a rather strange trilogy in that it left its two biggest moments on the cutting room floor between films. The actual taking over of society by the apes falls between Rise and Dawn and then the bulk of the war between the apes and humanity falling between Dawn and War.
Not sure why these films need to be approaching three hours. I was actually going to watch this the other night but shied away from it when I saw it was 2.5 hours long.
Much like my own Apes experience: I loved that first one but barely remember a lot about its sequels. Visually impressive, no doubt. But not a hugely gripping story the way most of the original films were to me. I remember storylines from the Planet of the Apes Marvel comic that were more intriguing.
I watched Children of Men last night, with former Bond contender Clive Owen. What a brilliant, thrilling and harrowing movie, particularly in light of the current far right riots in the UK and Elon Musk’s moronic commentary on events he clearly doesn’t understand.
Last night I watched Glass Onion for the second time, and it was such a pleasure to now know the twists and see how intricately they are set up.
Such a shame that this terrific movie is not available on physical media. Damn, I have to keep Netflix for this.
Also: no Bond actor has used his popularity better between and after Bond to craft a successful and challenging career moving forward.
Sir Sean wasn’t too shabby:
MARNIE
THE HILL
THE ANDERSON TAPES
THE OFFENCE
MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
ROBIN AND MARIAN
TIME BANDITS
THE NAME OF THE ROSE
THE UNTOUCHABLES
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER
THE RUSSIA HOUSE
But also… 
Cuba
The Man with the Deadly Lens aka Wrong, or Right
Highlander II
Zardoz
Shalako
First Knight
Meteor
Medicine Man
I actualy like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen although it’s not a realy good movie.
So far, Craig has a more consistently successful post-Bond career, I think.
But Connery had that elder statesman finish Craig is still too young for.
He has definitely gone the “prestige” route, and been more selective, but that route was not as much an option in Sir Sean’s time (unless you were Paul Scofield).
Both are/were a movie star, but the terms of stardom are/were quite different for each. Connery made movies like a any jobbing actor did in his time, including stars.
Craig chooses his projects, and curates his performances, throwing in some Shakespeare and Pinter on stage for good measure. But that is how it is done nowadays.
From CR to NTTD, Craig made 16 films/16 years.
From DN to DAF, Connery made 14 films/10 years.
I will be seeing QUEER at the New York Film Festival, and will tell DC all about our community, and how he rates in our Death Matches if I have the chance LOL.
Agreed. Jobbing actor, as I said above.
Crucially they are/ were both genuine Movie Stars ( great actors but also more ) in a way that Brosnan, Moore, Dalton and Lazenby could never be.
Brosnan has a quality of almost there. A-listers boyfriend became a niche for him shockingly quick.
ALMOST but not quite - brilliant in those roles though ! and the Thomas Crown Affair almost made it for him.
Brosnan was never taken seriously, and he apparently made his peace with that, preferring to stay a working actor instead of taking time to choose roles.
Kinda the Michael Caine route.
Connery was happy to take risks to get away from Bond doing the 70‘s, became associated with box office bombs, until „The Untouchables“ gave him the comeback to capitalize on.
Moore was content with being not taken seriously before and after Bond. And his Unicef work was more fulfilling for him than trying to adjust his image. Still, one of the great underrated actors in the Cary Grant mould. But for too many critics and audiences acting is misunderstood as ACTING LOOK AT ME AND MY TRANSFORMATIONS AND MY ACCENTS AND MY SCREAMING.
Dalton is a fantastic, classically trained actor, but his talent rarely got recognized by the movie industry, and he never was desperately seeking public acclaim, so… no huge career.
Craig was acclaimed before Bond, became a huge star as Bond, but he lucked out with Rian Johnson realizing his comic timing and willingness to subvert his image.
One of the problems (albeit a major one) is that they stopped making light comedies just as Moore was peaking. Grant made his last film is 1966–WALK, DON’T RUN–a charming confection from Charles Walters–but it was a tad out of step even then. 1967 would bring BONNIE AND CLYDE; THE GRADUATE; IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT; and COOL HAND LUKE (among others).
Moore was game for Cynical Bond in TMWTGG, but he is best as Suave Bond in MR–anathema to some Bondians, but as a star vehicle for Sir Roger and his talent, the film is pitch perfect.
Interestingly, Moore did THE WILD GEESE in ‘78 and NORTH SEA HIJACK in ‘79 (though that was released only in 1980)*. Both are iterations of the cynic and ruthless Bond persona of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and both were moderately successful at the time even. So Moore did give that particular role pattern a try outside Bond. But it’s safe to say audiences preferred his lighter touch and irony to the cold blooded killer he played in those films.
*One might also consider THE SEA WOLVES in that line, but I remember too little of it to support the point. It’s more a gentlemen-at-war adventure in the tradition of many such productions that were a staple of Anglo-American film at that time.
Roger’s “Sea Wolves” character does have a hard edge, and his kills include his love interest(!).
But I agree it never felt 100% satisfying to see him outside the “Cary Grant” zone, and that he seemed to have been born a little too late to miss the heyday of the genre he was best suited to.
If you want to see Roger’s best Fleming Bond moment, it’s this bit from The Wild Geese. 
I watched the Equalizer 3 recently and enjoyed it. While it’s probably the weakest of the three movies, Denzel Washington is always good. It’s interesting as the connection to the original tv show (which I liked a lot growing up) is fairly weak. I think the changes they made were largely positive (particularly dropping the newspaper ad - though it worked well in the series though).