Ahh, I always forget that was Jane Seymour. So hot! Hell, I recently saw her in an episode of How I Met Your Mother, and she's still got it.
James Bond: Skyfall
- Thread starter Monster Dave
- Start date
Ahh, I always forget that was Jane Seymour. So hot! Hell, I recently saw her in an episode of How I Met Your Mother, and she's still got it.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Jane Seymour is in Live and Let Die, not Moonraker.
Ah, that's right, she's the tarot card reading girl. It was Lois Chiles in Moonraker.
I know. I was using a Roger Moore quote he told her during filming of Live and Let Die, when she said she was taking the role too seriously, as to explain the cheesyness, but fun of Moonraker.
It's all cheesy fun.
But I miss the gadets, and other stuff.
Don't know if we have any West Wing fans but President Bartlet brought up a very good point. Bonds drink is ordered in the way it gets watered down. Stirred it does not break up the ice where as shaken breaks up the ice and waters it down.
Bartlet commented that his problem with Bond is, " he is ordering a wimpy Martini, but does it in a snotty way."
I love it.
Bartlet commented that his problem with Bond is, " he is ordering a wimpy Martini, but does it in a snotty way."
I love it.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I prefer a Manhattan.
as a child I grabbed what I thought was my grandma's apple juice with a cherry in it off the table for a big chug. Whiskey city! all I remember was telling her it was burning.
Solo4114
Master Member
That quote actually explains why I find the Moore era so hit-or-miss. You have this largely asexual, not-at-all-dangerous quip machine instead of the sometimes comical caged beast that was Connery in his early outings. Granted, by Diamonds are Forever, you might as well just swap Moore in, but still. "That's a Smith and Wessen. And you've had your six." Woof. Now THAT'S a line.
I find the Brosnan Bond films to be actually an odd mix. They're very transitional, if you look at the evolution of the series. Similar to the Dalton films, actually, in their mix of serious/dark and light-hearted/goofy.
PARTS of Brosnan's Bond films really make Bond a CHARACTER again instead of a caricature. And that's true in all of them, actually. My understanding is that while Brosnan toed the party line when it came time for press junkets, his real goal was to try to make Bond more serious and less asinine. It's such a shame that his last film was DAD. He deserved better. He really WAS a good Bond, but saddled with weaker films. Although even those weaker films had their good moments, including DAD.
I also think there's a slight difference between cheesiness and campiness. The Bond films of the 60s are fairly campy, up until you hit Diamonds are Forever, at which point they switch into cheesy territory. To me, the difference is that "campy" stuff is serious in its execution, but still fun. Cheesy stuff doesn't even try being serious -- it's happy to throw in slapstick humor rather than situational humor. I can tolerate campy Bond films, as long as they mix that with a little darkness. I mean, the guy's a paid killer for pete's sake. But the cheesy ones...ugh. They're tough to get through. Which is especially weird when the cheesy ones also seem to often have some of the best character moments.
Example: Live and Let Die is definitely CHEESY. The sheriff, the airstrip "lessons" scene, etc. But it's got some genuinely creepy stuff with the voodoo, and you get a bit of an insight into Bond with the scene at the beginning when he's interrupted at home. I like that bit. It makes him more "real." Not real, mind you, but "real."
DAD is the same way. The opening sequence and when he goes rogue, that's all serious business and gritty. But then they take him back and just throw all that out the window and it's non-stop bad puns and stupid over-the-top action sequences mixed with unbelievable gadgets.
An invisible car.
AN INVISIBLE FREAKING CAR!!!!!!!!
GAH!!!
Sorry. I'm better now. Anyway, I do think you can go TOO far with that. Licence to Kill is...I dunno....just...mean-spirited? Is that the right word? It has this...scummy quality to it as well. It just never sat well with me. It's not a bad movie, and I enjoy it, but it's definitely a strange departure. And Quantum of Solace has almost no cheesiness in it...but almost nothing else to offer. It's just bleak and incoherent and bland and generic. There are a handful of redeeming moments, but come on, you're gonna watch 2+ hours of jump cuts to glean maybe 10-15 min of decent stuff? Like hell.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
The two gay guys in Diamonds are Forever are unforgettable!
However, I did not care for sheriff JW Pepper.
However, I did not care for sheriff JW Pepper.
MasterDurangus
Well-Known Member
Quantum of Solace is the worst Bond movie, IMO, by far. Next to it, Die Another Day or Moonraker.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
I wonder if people will stop complaining about the invisible car when they finally do have an invisible car. I'm not saying that I loved the concept, and I'm not even disagreeing that it wasn't a 'jump the shark' moment, but it was a pretty natural evolution of the way they treated gadgets in the series. Giant incinerator ray in space? Believable. Invisible car? No way! (Despite this being something the Military is actually working on, unlike the satellite incinerator weapon).
Also, Quantum of Solace can't be viewed as a stand-alone film (for better or worse) - it has to be viewed as an extension of Casino Royale (though Casino Royale could be considered separately). QoS wasn't a bad film, if you knew what it was about - revenge. This wasn't a film about Bond as a government agent working a case, it was about revenge on those who betrayed him in the first movie. Bond was trying to set up his character to show why he can do what he does. The first movie was about him showing us that he has a human side, the second movie was about him showing us the descent into 'this is how I come to peace with who I am, what happened to the one I thought I loved, and how I move forward and become more than just a killer.'
Also, Quantum of Solace can't be viewed as a stand-alone film (for better or worse) - it has to be viewed as an extension of Casino Royale (though Casino Royale could be considered separately). QoS wasn't a bad film, if you knew what it was about - revenge. This wasn't a film about Bond as a government agent working a case, it was about revenge on those who betrayed him in the first movie. Bond was trying to set up his character to show why he can do what he does. The first movie was about him showing us that he has a human side, the second movie was about him showing us the descent into 'this is how I come to peace with who I am, what happened to the one I thought I loved, and how I move forward and become more than just a killer.'
MooMooEgg
Sr Member
I agree. I always hear people complaining about QoS, and I do agree as a stand-alone film, it's difficult to understand what's going on. And despite its many flaws, it works a lot better if you take into account the events of Casino Royale.
But hopefully, Skyfall will both continue on with the current storyline while finding a way to stand as its own film.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
I don't think even it's most dedicated defenders would say it was as good as Casino Royale, though Casino put the bar pretty high.
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, and on the subject of the invisible car, I think part of the problem is that it was just stupid on so many levels. It's not purely that it's "impossible tech," but rather that it was emblematic of how the character had come to be defined AS gadgets, and that they were going increasingly over-the-top.
Actually, I'd say the car itself wasn't the problem so much as it was the most visible (pun intended) and obvious example of how the series had disintegrated into cheap one-liners, too many gadgets -- and stupid ones at that, boring villains, and increasingly less and less grounding in reality. That plus the fact that it simply came across as making the films "bigger" and assuming that equated to "better."
I mean, the 60s Bond films were like that too, and I still love them, but (A) they had a better/different balance to them, (B) I love them at least partially because of their cheesiness, and (C) it was at least a novel concept then. Even then, the "commando assault on ridiculously improbably enemy hideout" thing was just getting played out.
The series goes through these kinds of lurchings periodically, and USUALLY manages to course-correct. So, you get a film as bad as Moonraker at least being followed by (in my opinion) the best of the Moore films: For Your Eyes Only. But then they usually start to decline again, as you end up with FYEO followed by Octopussy and A View to a Kill.
You get these peaks and valleys in the series, and unfortunately, Die Another Day -- in spite of having some really terrific MOMENTS in it -- is a pretty deep valley.
Actually, I'd say the car itself wasn't the problem so much as it was the most visible (pun intended) and obvious example of how the series had disintegrated into cheap one-liners, too many gadgets -- and stupid ones at that, boring villains, and increasingly less and less grounding in reality. That plus the fact that it simply came across as making the films "bigger" and assuming that equated to "better."
I mean, the 60s Bond films were like that too, and I still love them, but (A) they had a better/different balance to them, (B) I love them at least partially because of their cheesiness, and (C) it was at least a novel concept then. Even then, the "commando assault on ridiculously improbably enemy hideout" thing was just getting played out.
The series goes through these kinds of lurchings periodically, and USUALLY manages to course-correct. So, you get a film as bad as Moonraker at least being followed by (in my opinion) the best of the Moore films: For Your Eyes Only. But then they usually start to decline again, as you end up with FYEO followed by Octopussy and A View to a Kill.
You get these peaks and valleys in the series, and unfortunately, Die Another Day -- in spite of having some really terrific MOMENTS in it -- is a pretty deep valley.
I love the Bond franchise. That being said I struggle with Bond through the ages like I do the Batman movies with different actors playing the part. I try and focus on what I like what the actor brings to the character even if I don't enjoy most of the movie.
I think Bond has a tendancy to go crazy and then get things back on track. Look at Moonraker and how corny that was and then it's followed up by a toned down and grittier For Your Eyes Only. I think the same thing is done between Brosnon and Craig because Die Another Day was a pretty out there for me so I'm glad the franchise got back to reality a bit with Casino Royale. So far I'm happy with Craig as Bond.
Sean
I think Bond has a tendancy to go crazy and then get things back on track. Look at Moonraker and how corny that was and then it's followed up by a toned down and grittier For Your Eyes Only. I think the same thing is done between Brosnon and Craig because Die Another Day was a pretty out there for me so I'm glad the franchise got back to reality a bit with Casino Royale. So far I'm happy with Craig as Bond.
Sean
