007 Journals: Skyfall

Well this is it. While not my last Bond review it is the last in the line of official EON Bond film reviews. It's been quite a journey through the films and I've received a lot of praise, criticism, agreement, and debate and I've enjoyed every minute of it and I'm actually sad that this is my last (official) Bond review until Spectre later this year. After Skyfall I plan on doing the 1969 Casino Royale but that's more of a bonus. So for now let'a take a look at the most recent Bond film, Skyfall. So by the time this film finally released it had been four years since Quantum of Solace, which didn't live up to Casino Royale but was still a solid film. However Skyfall had a lot riding on it's shoulders. It was their chance to redeem the franchise after the lukewarm response to Quantum, and this was also the first Bond film after MGM's troubles had been sorted out. Luckily things worked out. Skyfall received generally universal praise and made over a billion dollars at the box office, becoming the most successful film in the franchise. Now when this film released all I heard from friends was that it was the best Bond, way better than Casino Royale, and I'm sorry but it's not. Don't get me wrong when I say that. Skyfall is amazing. Casino Royale is just a smidgen better.

So throughout my reviews of the Daniel Craig films I've praised the relationship building between M and Bond, and the theme of trust. Well Skyfall brings that to it's ultimate conclusion and makes it the main focus of this film. The entire plot is put into motion because M doesn't trust Bond to get the job done and ends up almost getting him killed as an assassin is getting away with a hard drive of information that isn't even supposed to exist. This causes Bond to doubt M's judgment and, when Bond finally returns from the dead, everyone questions whether Bond is still suited for the job. It's kind of amazing how much older Craig looks in just the four years between Quantum and Skyfall and I wonder if that is just natural aging or a directorial choice due to the nature of the script and where the Bond franchise was at this time, which is the 50th anniversary. Let me just say, this anniversary film is leaps and bounds better than the last. So Bond takes a little vacation after getting shot and returns when he finds out that Mi6 was attacked and M is the target. Something that has always been well crafted within the Craig films is Bond's sense of duty. Brosnan had that as well but Craig amplifies it and makes it completely believable that everything he does is for King and country. One thing about Bond is that we learn a lot more about his past in this film, which fans of the series are no strangers to. We learn more about him being an orphan, we see the grave stone of his parents, and we actually visit his childhood home Skyfall which is obviously in reference to the title of the movie. By turning the Craig films into character pieces we have built a three film character arc (that looks like it will be continued in Spectre) and honestly with Craig only assigned to the next two films you could see them doing another reboot and having a complete story told within this one actors time in the role. I would be completely fine with this and it would leave us with a solid and complete story line, depending on how well the next two films go.

The thing about Skyfall is that it completes the origin of Bond. We saw his first two missions in the last films and by the end of Skyfall we have Bond going into M's office and receiving a dossier and preparing for a mission. We also are introduced to two characters that are staples of the franchise. Q and Moneypenny. I love these new versions of the characters. Now everyone at this point knows I'm not a huge fan of the gadgetry in a Bond film so you can imagine how much I appreciate the Q scenes in this film. The gun and locator are very believable devices and I love the jokes they make about the exploding pen and how Bond jokes to Sivia about his fancy new gadget, a radio. Silva even returns the quip later in the train tunnel. None of this humor was lost on me. This is also the first film to give us more Moneypenny than ever before, showing us her in the field for the first time and how she finally decides to take a desk job. They establish her relationship very well and make the future flirting seem easy to believe. I always appreciate when they make Moneypenny a capable woman as well, able to stand her ground and defend herself. She's more than just a secretary.Can I also say that I love Ralph Fiennes as the new M. The death of Judi Dench came as a shock to me but they do a good job of seeding Fiennes throughout the film as the heir to the M role. He starts off as kind of a questionable character but becomes well suited to the job and we see the connection he immediately has with Bond. A welcome addition to the role and a fine actor and I can't wait to see how he does in the next film. So somehow the producers manage to slyly stretch out the origin story of Bond through three films and it's a brilliant move and a risk that I wish more of these superhero blockbusters would take. This is a good example of that kind of film making paying off.

Okay so let's talk about the villain. He's the Joker. Everything about his plan and his character just reminds me of Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. especially in the way his plan completely relies on luck and perfect timing, which is something that kind of bugged me the first time I watched it but was able to accept more this time around. It's less luck based than the Joker was and really could be attributed to years of perfect planning and timing. I think the biggest thing to pick at in his plan is the train crashing through the wall but honestly it's not hard to know a train schedule. It's worth noting that Sam Mendez himself has said he's inspired by Christopher Nolan and loves The Dark Knight so it's easy to see the comparisons. Both villains even have some sort of facial deformation. This one is just a lot creepier. I have to give Silva credit in being the first Bond film to completely succeed in his plan. Now it doesn't exactly go according to his schedule but his overall plan is to kill M and at the end of the movie M is dead. He's even one step ahead of Bond and Mi6 through the whole film until the end. He's the most competent villain and Javier Bardem plays the character so well. Again like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight he plays a wonderfully insane villain with only murder on the brain and is the stand out performance of the movie. This is also the second time that we have had Bond facing off against another former Mi6 agent. The last time was Goldeneye and honestly Silva does a much better job than Alec did. He comes off as evil as possible just in the one scene where he kills the beautiful Severine, who is actually one of my favorite Bond girls even with her small role. Her subtle performance is so memorable and she has very little screen time yet is one of the Bond girls I remember the most. It helps that Berenice Lim Marlohe is stunning but with what little screen time she has she gives it her all. The same could be said for Bardem who doesn't even appear in the movie until the hour and ten minute mark but he's one of the best Bond villains.

Let's talk about the production for a minute. The cinematography gets a lot of praise and it deserves it all. This movie is shot so beautifully, especially during the scenes in China. The camera work is incredible and they found some of the best shooting locations. The score is maybe the first that I have loved in a Bond film and is the only one I own. The action set pieces are all great, especially the opening scene on the train. My favorite stunt in the movie is easily when Bond grabs onto the elevator and I love it every time I see it. One thing I noticed about this film is how quiet it is. Especially after Quantum which was a series of action scenes strung together with more action, Skyfall is more subtle in it's approach to the action. There's definitely action in this movie, and it's all great, but this time it feels more like a spy film than an action blockbuster. The most explosive action comes from the villain causing terrorist attacks or when they are isolated at the end and it just feels more contained and realistic compared to the many vehicle chases in the Quantum that all ended with lots of destruction and explosions.

Is this movie perfect? Of course not. There is plenty to nitpick but none of that stuff hurts the film in any serious way. The plot relies a little on convenience, the killing of Silva off screen with a knife throw always bugs me (he could have at least just walked up and stabbed him), there's the question of how Bond survives after being under frozen water for so long (but it doesn't seem too cold since the ice is about to break anyway), and the Aston Martin is a little confusing to me. I know he won it in Casino Royale but why does it have machine guns and an ejector seat? Are we to believe that this is the same car from Goldfinger? Did this movie take place after Goldfinger or is this a new continuity as we've been led to believe? I choose to just ignore as "hey it's an anniversary film and maybe he had that stuff installed for fun". Personally my biggest issue with the movie is how it drops the Quantum story but I have hope that Spectre will address this in some way. So I think without question Skyfall is a five out of five. It's just a slightly lower five than Casino Royale.

So that's it, the end of my official 007 Journals. Next I'm going to do the 60's Casino Royale but for all intents and purposes I have now watched and reviewed every James Bond film. Now I wonder what else is next. I had a blast working my way through a franchise and It's something I'd like to do again. There are a few other major film series I've never seen (The Godfather, Rocky, Rambo and more) that I've thought about doing but I'm not sure where to go from here. I've thought about looking back to the Austin Powers films and Johnny English as fun little companion reviews to the 007 franchise and I know there's been requests for Kingsman which I will do as soon as I can see it. If any of these sound appealing to you just sound off and I will be happy to pursue them, in the meantime keep your eyes open for the Casino Royale review and know that it's been a blast reviewing these movies for you. Until next time.

007 Journals: Quantum of Solace

Okay so it's 2008, two years after one of the best Bond movie releases, Casino Royale. However this film is being written before the writer's strike. In fact the shooting draft was finished the night the strike started. The direct effect of this? It's the shortest Bond film and the story feels the most rushed. Now Quantum catches a lot of flak and honestly I think it's biggest problem is the fact that it comes after Casino Royale which is a far superior film but Quantum is in no way a bad movie. I have some advice to give about this movie. One, if you watch it directly after Casino Royale (either the same day or day after) it becomes much more enjoyable. This is something I hinted at in my last review and is the way I experienced both films and it caused me to love Quantum the first time I watched it. So did my love for the film carry over on a re-watch? Well I have some more thoughts this time around.

First off I love the idea of a shadow organization secretly ruling the world, having the power to influence nations, and just being all around creepy. Quantum delivers a lot of this, just not enough of it. First off the film is jumping locations quite a bit. It seems every ten minutes Bond needs to fly to another part of the world and it just feels like they were trying to extend their short script. It seems to be the biggest problem with having a writers strike and not being able to have the writer on set. I guess the director and Daniel Craig did most of the rewriting on set and unfortunately it shows. They are lucky that the move came out as well as it did. I just feel like this follow up should have had a much deeper story relating to the Quantum organization and quickly just becomes the pursuit for the one member Dominic Greene. Which honestly is fine. Every Bond film needs it's villain and Dominic Green is a creepy guy. He looks like a rat come to life and just has this evil tone in his speech. However he is a coward in a real confrontation and can't fight to save his life which is something that we haven't seen much of out of a main villain. He uses his connections to Quantum to his own benefit which is exactly what you expect out of  this kind of character. He helps a General stage a coupe and take over his country in exchange for some land which just happens to hold the countries water supply that Quantum will control and thus control the General and his country. It's a decent plot and actually fits perfectly into the way a shadow organization would conduct business. I just feel like they should have leaned more on Quantum as a whole and less on Greene.

So this movie has a look that's very different than any other Bond film. First off this is the first film in the series that feels like it has some artistic direction. There's a lot of silence to the action scenes and quick editing that I didn't remember from the first watch and gives this movie a unique look. The director seems to look at everything in an artistic way, even having the action set pieces  represent the elements of the earth. The car chase for earth, the boat chase for water, the plane chase for air, the hotel fight for fire. Also I think the cinematography is highly underrated. I know everyone looks to Skyfall as the stand out looking film of the series but I implore you to give Quantum a second look in that regard. This movie takes place in a lot of sandy countries so it is limited by its color palette but every shot is fantastic. I still love that shot from the beginning foot chase where they fall through the glass roof. So the Craig films get compared to the Bourne series a lot and honestly I think those comparisons stem from this film because I heard it a lot before Skyfall came out and this was the last point of reference for the Bond series. Well let me address my feelings on this. Yes the style of fighting is similar but it makes sense for close quarters fighting, it looks awesome, and isn't always the same in the Bond films. The Bourne fights are all fairly identical while Bond does just throw some wild punches from time to time. The Bourne films have the fast editing but I really only see that in Quantum as far as the Craig films go and it fits in with the rest of the direction of the film. To me it feels more like artistic choice than emulation. I've just never bought into the Bourne comparisons. These films feel completely different to me.

 Okay so since we are talking about the fight scenes, let's address the action. There's a lot of it. The movie opens up fifteen minutes after Casino Royale and starts with a great and brutal car chase. There are actually a lot of chases in this movie. It almost felt like every location change was transitioned by a chase. Luckily I love chases and all of the ones in this movie were fantastic. I feared for the stuntmen a lot in this movie. The action is just more brutal overall. Bond gets beat up a lot more, the hits feel a lot harder, there's even more blood than we normally see. Now the real complaint here is that there is too much action. Bond is a spy on the tail of a secret organization that doesn't want anyone to know they exist and he is blowing everything up along the way. I feel like the amount of action is to help with the fact that the writers strike really interfered with the script and honestly it works but does become a transparent distraction. Luckily all of the action is fantastic so it's not the worst situation to have. However if the trade off is more action and less character moments, I'd rather have the character moments. That was one thing that Casino Royale did perfectly which was to expand the character of Bond. He fell in love, quit his job, and then experienced a great loss. Not to say there are none of these moments in this film but some of them feel very forced. There is a big theme of trust in this film, especially between Bond and M. All of this is done really well. I love how M keeps trying to call him away from the mission and he won't leave his duty. M chastising him for using his charm on Strawberry Fields (yeah that's her real name), played by the beautiful Gemma Arterton, and getting her killed is also a great moment.. I wish there was more of this in the film but the script just didn't leave enough room for it. Instead they try to squeeze in a mention of Vesper whenever they can and it just feels off. However I do love the ending where he confronts and captures Vesper's boyfriend. Oh and the switching of hotels is a fun little character moment as well. Reminds me of the fake cover story he gave Vesper.

I have to say the opera scene is the best scene of the movie and really embodies what I wanted more of throughout. It's a great idea to have all of these secret members from around the world communicating through ear pieces during an opera and their reactions when they find out that they are compromised are just fantastic. Especially Greene when he comes face to face with Bond afterwards. If the whole movie was re-written around this little chunk of the movie, and Greene's party that follows, then this could have been an excellent next step in the Bond franchise. Unfortunately MGM ran into their troubles and we got a long break before Skyfall which basically ignores this plot. My hope is that Spectre picks up where this movie left off or at least addresses it in some way. That's my only hope. So aside from the Quantum story we also have Olga Kurylenko playing a a Bolivian agent that is trying to kill the general that murdered her family. Honestly this plot feels crammed into the story but it plays out well and Kurylenko was appearing in a lot of movies at this time and felt like the next IT girl and this is probably my favorite role she's had. She's a good actress who still has a lot of growing to do but in this film she brought her A game.

So do I still love Quantum of Solace? I do, it's a highly entertaining film and a solid entry into the Bond franchise. Now there are some things to note. It's more action heavy than a Bond film should be but you never feel bored because of it. It's short which can be both a good and bad thing. If it's not your favorite then you don't have much to watch but if the movie had been longer they could have made it spectacular. The way it stands now, and knowing that we have Skyfall next which softens the blow, Quantum of Solace is a nice sidetrack between Casino Royale and Skyfall and is solid action film that is at least worth your time to watch (or re-watch) and you shouldn't let the bad word of mouth drive you away if you've never seen it. I was highly entertained and gladly give Quantum a four out of five. This film is just so so highly re-watchable in my opinion and can get better with each watch.

007 Journals: Casino Royale

Man after Die Another Day I couldn't wait to rewatch this film. Alright lets face it, is there anyone who wouldn't at least nod in agreement at the idea that this is the best James Bond film? Look everyone has their favorites. You might be like Goldfinger is my favorite Bond, but Casino Royale is the BEST Bond. Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, but I also feel that he's the BEST Bond. I think mostly though that comes from the strong character writing of the Craig films. Though he is a fantastic actor, he is what I picture when I read a Bond book. Now Casino Royale is actually the only book I've read so far and I was surprised to learn that pretty much everything from the novel is in the movie with the movie only being bigger. Even the chair torture scene is ripped right out of the novel. I feel safe saying that not only is Casino Royale my favorite Bond film, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. At least in my top five. So let me take you back to my first experiences with Casino Royale. Now the movie came out in 2006 but I probably didn't see it until 2009 or 2010. At the time I was more of a casual Bond fan and didn't keep up with it. I saw this movie around but didn't know that it was a James Bond movie. The second I found out though I asked around with my friends, asking how it was, still a little miffed over Die Another Day, and I heard nothing but praise. So I did some research and found out "Huh, there are two of these already I haven't seen" since Quantum of Solace was already out. I wasn't aware of the MGM crisis going on so with reckless abandonment I sat down and watched Casino Royale and Quantum back to back and then I learned that there were no new Bond movies on the horizon and I was heart broken. I had just been blown away by Daniel Craig and I needed more! As we know it all worked out in the end. So how did my rewatch of Casino Royale go this time?

I still love this movie. Shocker right? This is, by my own definition, a perfect film. Every actor is amazing, all of the action scenes are amazing, all of the spy work is amazing, the plot is amazing, the script is amazing, yeah this is going to be a love fest. Okay let's start from the beginning. The cold open. Now this is the first movie in what is the first reboot of the Bond franchise. Maybe reboot isn't the right word. I like relaunch. We have our new Bond, we are going to watch his first mission, and what better way to start this movie than by showing how Bond achieved his Double 0 status. This is a great scene and I love the choice of starting it in black and white. It's interesting to note that the director for this film also directed Goldeneye so for me it makes sense that my previous favorite Bond film was outdone by the same person. The opening is great. I love the dialogue and it's maybe one of the moments that shows Bond being his coldest, which is the start of the biggest theme in the Craig films. M has a constant mistrust of Bond because he is just a cold machine killer. Watching Craig evolve the character throughout the movie (and the other two) are some of my favorite aspects of the entire series. Judi Dench is a big highlight from this point on as well. M now feels like a main character and is present throughout the entirety of the films plots instead of just appearing at the beginning and end. The relationship between Bond and M is seeded here and carries on through the rest of the movies and it's something that was a nice change of pace and really helps flesh out characters. Casino Royale, more than any other Bond movie, feels the most like a character piece and I'm a sucker for good character development and with the relationships of Bond and M and Bond and Vesper there's plenty of that to go around.

So let's talk about some of the other characters before moving on. Vesper Lynd, I know I'm not alone because I've seen a lot of lists, but she's my favorite Bond girl. She is sexy in that classy kind of way and Eva Green is just a phenomenal actress. The moment's between Bond and Vesper are so much fun and just watching them try to one up each other is always entertaining. The scene on the train and any moment with them in their hotel room are all solid gold moments. All of the ways that Vesper meets Bond's wit make it believable that this is someone he would fall in love with. Craig also perfectly telegraphs how Bond tucks away his feelings for her after her demise. Something that is carried over into Quantum but not to it's full extent. Can I say that the drowning scene is some of the best drowning acting I've ever seen and I tip my hat to Eva Green for her performance during that scene because it is so haunting. The other major character to mention is Le Chiffre. Mads Mikkelsen is an amazing actor and plays one of the best and most unique Bond villains. This guy isn't much a take over the world or have an evil scheme villain. He's a money handler who has seriously messed up and is trying to fix his problem. It's really just a plot of make sure this guy can't fund terrorism. As maniacal as Le Chiffre is he really feels like a victim in the sense that he's in just as much trouble as Bond is. Also he cries blood in a totally legit injury kind of way. A nice quirk that Mikkelsen didn't even need but it helps him seem so creepy. I guess I should also point out Jeffery Wright as Felix Leiter. The first time seeing the character since License to Kill. Wright plays a great Felix but he doesn't get a lot to do here but every time he's around he's great.

Okay the plot. I'll admit the first time I watched it I was kind of confused. However on a few more viewings everything made sense to me. Le Chiffre is a banker who handles money for terrorists and short sells stocks in a company and then arranges a terrorist attack to slash the stock price and pull in a huge profit for himself. A great plan until Bond steps in and foils the attack. Now Le Chiffre owes a lot of money to some powerful people (we'll get there) and what do desperate men do for money? They gamble for it naturally. So he goes to the Casino Royale for a high stakes Poker game to try and win the money back. It's a great plot and it leads so perfectly into the bigger scheme that starts in the next movie with Quantum. Not only that, it's the plot of the book to a T just blown up to big blockbuster proportions. Now what comes with those blockbuster proportions? Blockbuster action, and this film has plenty of it. The action scenes are all great and that stairway fight is one of my favorite fights in movie history. Also we have to mention that parkour chase. This was the new fad at the time (which is the tradition of Bond films) and this chase is amazing. Especially since they were actually standing up on that crane with harnesses. They did a really good job of balancing the quick parkour style running and flips with Bond just tearing through everything. It also leads into the great embassy scene where Bond just manages to run in, mess everyone up, and escape. Such a great scene. Then there was the record breaking car flip which was so incredible that it even surprised the film makers. This movie is just pure entertainment from start to finish and is one of those films that exceeds just being a blockbuster action movie. A perfect balance of story, character, and action. A quick note, I know a lot of people aren't fans of the Chris Cornell song, and I wasn't either, but every time I watch the movie I come to love it more and more and it fits perfectly with the opening of this film. Just the way they use the gun barrel sequence in this film (which is genius) and the way it explodes into the song is just perfect.

If you hadn't guessed by now this film is a five out of five for me and I know I'm not alone. So rarely does a movie come around and just feel so tightly wrapped and well executed. I know this review was just a love fest but reviews are opinion pieces and this is my opinion. I feel like I won't meet much resistance with this review and if you are wanting me to dive deeper into something else then let me know and I will add an updated section (and that goes for any of my previous reviews. Just go leave a comment on it and I'll revisit your point) but for now I just want to say I love this film and honestly if you don't you really should.

007 Journals: Die Another Day

Okay, we all knew this day was coming. I feel like there are only two acceptable answers for what is the worst Bond film. Moonraker, and Die Another Day. I feel like both of these movies are the ones that are most often criticized but for different reasons. To me Moonraker suffers in terms of making entertaining films. The plot is boring, the villain is completely dry and deadpan, and they turned one of the series best villains into a cartoon character, but the biggest thing against Moonraker is that it ceases to be entertaining at all. At least for me. Die Another Day, though not a good movie, has entertaining parts. Now both films could also fall into the category of "so bad it's good" and I know both films have their fans, but I can only speak from my personal preference and viewing experience and Die Another Day is the better film of the two, but it's really like comparing one dog turd to another dog turd. Now this film marks the end of the Brosnan era and exists in a post Austin Powers world and makes the mistake of becoming a parody of itself, when a good parody already exists. This film marked the fortieth anniversary of Bond and his twentieth film and the producers had the bright idea to use this film to celebrate. Honestly that's what this film feels like, one giant celebration of James Bond. However because of that, it doesn't end up being a very good movie. That should be obvious during the infamous gun barrel scene, a bullet actually flies towards the screen. (audible groan.)

Now let's start from the beginning. There is a lot of promise early on in this film. We have Bond surfing into North Korea . . . okay maybe I should take that back. The surfing part is bad, it's the least spy like way of sneaking into a country and is only justified by their equipment being hidden in their surfboards. It's a ridiculous way to start the opening but it gets better. Now the opening in North Korea is the tone that this movie really should have stuck with. The idea of Bond being betrayed and stranded in an enemy country, only to be released because he's thought to have been leaking information is a brilliant idea for a plot. First of we just have ignore the Madonna opening song which is easily one of the worst Bond songs but also the first time that the plot is driven during the opening song. Honestly this opening is one of the best parts of the film and if they stuck with it, could have been a film as gritty as Casino Royale will end up being. Things just go downhill so fast. Now I know a lot of people are critical of Diamond Face (I know his name is Zao but I'm going to call him Diamond Face) but honestly I like him. It's something that we've never had in the Brosnan era which is a villain with a look. Trevelyan had burns on his face but that's nothing compared to a guy with freaking diamonds blown into his head. He looks awesome and even creepier later in the film when he's stuck halfway through his DNA therapy.Rick Yune is a competent actor and plays the role well and it's nice to have a weird villain with a quirk. Granted that quirk is just stuff blew up near his face. The closest Brosnan has had to a villain like that is Renard who can't feel pain, which is honestly a better character. This whole movie just feels like a throwback which I think was their intention because of the anniversary. It's just overwhelming. There are so many references to the past films (too many to mention so  here's a link) that the whole movie just becomes a self referential mess. Bond even picks up the book that Fleming based his name off of. Now that's meta.

Now I've always said Brosnan is one of my favorite Bond's but I wouldn't defend him in this movie because of one scene in particular. After he's rescued from North Korea and has the scene with M that's supposed to be really tense and they believe that he is leaking information, but the scene is totally ruined by the fact that Brosnan is speaking in a full blown Irish accent. Like he just forgot how to act as Bond or something. I wonder if this was the first scene shot or maybe a reshoot but it just pulled me out of the movie immediatly, which is not good for a scene in the first twenty minutes. After this scene he is totally fine but I just don't know what happened here. It's like he knew this movie was doomed and just didn't care although it was the highest grossing Bond film until Casino Royale. Just think about that for a second. Okay now about the rest of the cast. I love Rousmand Pike. If you haven't seen Gone Girl yet, go watch it for her alone. She's incredible. She however is not as incredible in this. She's not bad, I just feel like this wasn't a role she had her heart in or that maybe it was the fact of it being her first movie but she doesn't do a whole lot to make her acting shine. She does however have a good character written for her and she pulls it off. Much more than the other Bond girl of the film, Halle Berry. I dont understand, she is an oscar winning actress. How does someone as talented, and beautiful, as Halle Berry turn in one of the worst performances since Denise Richards as Christmas Jones. I feel like both were as equally miscast. Nothing seems natural about the way Halle Berry carries herself through the action scenes. She honestly looks like someone who's acting and not like an actual spy. To think they were planning a spin off with this character.

Someone I do like in this movie is Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves. I REALLY wish that he was in another movie because he would be a great actor to play a villain in a really good Bond film. Here he's hindered by the absurd story and unbeleive premise of being a character who had their DNA changed. I think Stephens puts in the best performance of the movie, and again, I would have LOVED To have seen this guy in a different movie. Bring him back for the next Craig film. If they continue the Spectre storyline he would make a great Spectre member. Instead we see him at the end of this film in a robot suit with an electricuting Nintendo Power Glove. The plot of this movie has merit but is just overall so ridiculous. This movie clearly wants to be the Bond of the future and shows it off with it's insane gadgety. You have a laser satellite from space, an invisible car (audible groan), the electric Nintendo accessory, hovercrafts, DNA transplants, cars loaded with more gadgets than you could imagine, they really just pull out all of the stops to make this film seem a little more futuristic, and honestly Quantum of Solace did it better simply by having some fancy computer screens.

So what's good about this movie? Yes there are some good things. First off I think the opening up until the point where Bond leaves the Chinese hotel is all good. It's a solid opening that sets up what could be a great story. Bond was betrayed, now he's gone rogue, and he has to find out who betrayed him and why. This is a great set up for a great Bond story that just falls apart from this point on. Even the general plot of former North Korean soldier wants to destroy the minefield in the DMZ to invade South Korea is a great plot thread too. Somehow these two ideas and sewn together in what becomes a mess of a film. So what else is good? Honestly, the action scenes. The ones not involving Halle Berry in particular.  Okay that invisible car is terrible. The CG on it looks bad 100% of the time, it's a dumb idea, it honestly doesn't need to be invisible for an practical reason in the film, but I kind of like the big dumb car chase. This movie is riddled with some of the worst CG but that car chase manages to be the best looking action in the movie. The worst looking action scene is shortly before however when Bond is running from the giant sun laser in a speed car and then parasails on some of the worst CG water and ice I've ever seen. I also like the idea of them flying the plane through the laser beam and fighting on the destroyed plane but it's once again hindered by the horrible CG effects and the fact that Gustav Graves is wearing that dumb future suit.

Honestly going into this review I was sitting at a two out of five now I'm leaning more towards a one. Honestly though I think I'll say two because unlike my previous one out of five (Moonraker) I feel like Die Another Die is more watchable. That being said I don't think I'll ever rewatch Moonraker and this is the at least the third, and hopefully last, time I ever watch Die Another Day. I feel bad that Brosnan has to go out on this film becuase he could have been so much more if they just squeezed one more out of him but if they did that then we may never get the Craig era so I guess I'm happy for that. There's very little redeeming qualities about this film (the dialouge is bad, the script is bad, the action is ruined with horrible CG, the aciting is bad) that you couldn't get out of a youtube clip and I can't recommend it as a must have to any collection. Also points off for having Madonna appear in your movie.

007 Journals: The World Is Not Enough

Okay so we are in the home stretch now. This is the first of the last five Bond films that I have left to review. The first of the last two Brosnan's. Honestly this is probably the Bond movie I have seen the most. It was the only one I owned on VHS when it came out (yeah that old) and I remember not loving it when I was younger but never hating it. This was my first time watching it in years and in my adult live with a more refined mind set and I have to say I love this movie a lot more now. Now like I said before, Brosnan hits a point with Bond where he hardly changes. Goldeneye gave us a very serious and slightly dark Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies had James cracking wise left and right. The World is Not Enough is kind of the middle road between those two. We still get quite a bit of quips but nowhere near as many as in Tomorrow Never Dies and the story does call for some serious Bond action.

So I think this film is easily the second best for Brosnan and might actually make my top five if I thought about my list but I'll be thinking about rankings after I finish Skyfall. Now there are a number of things to pick at with this movie. The biggest being Denise Richards, who is maybe the worst Bond girl in terms of acting. Especially when compared to the other actress in this film Sophie Marceau who is fantastic. Maybe a little too qualified for this movie but shes great and really helps cover up for the mistake of casting Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist. Not to mention her character name is Christmas Jones. Alright look, there are plenty of odd Bond girl names. I mean Pussy Galore, really? But Christmas Jones is one I just cannot get behind. Maybe if her performance was better we would all forgive it, and maybe if they didn't include THAT line (you know damn well which one I mean and how many times a year it comes!) but unfortunately this is the performance we got and we have to live with. One thing I did notice this time around is that she honestly doesn't have a lot of screen time and I wonder if that was a conscious choice by the director. Though the scenes she is featured in are pretty crucial so there's that to fault. I've spent too much time on her alone but I think the general consensus is shes bad. Thank you Sophie Marceau for being so wonderful and counter-balancing Denise Richards. I also want to point out that the dressing of Denise Richards to look like Lara Croft seems deliberate to me because that character was popular at the time.

As bad as Denise Richards is, everyone else is great. Brosnan of course continues to be great, I already mentioned my love for Sophie Marceau, Judi Dench get's a lot more screen time and even plays a part in the plot so already this film gets a boost from that, Valentine Zurkofsky returns and man that guy is my favorite character to appear in the Brosnan's. He was fun in Goldeneye and twice as much here. He's seen a big change in his life between the films, first having what looks like a run down club and now having a casino and his own caviar and just a dashing mustache. I was sad to see him shot at the end but I hold onto the fact that they never confirm his death and I choose to believe that he was just seriously injured and lived. Now the real person to talk about here is Robert Carlyle as Renard. I don't know exactly why, but Renard has always been one of my favorite Bond villains and I liked him even more this time around. I love the idea of the bullet slowly killing him so he has no fear, he literally feels no pain, he's a man who's already dead so nothing can get in his way. He plays the character so well and he's not a big guy, but something about him just seems so imposing and creepy. I love this character and he fits so well into this film.

The story here is actually really good. First off the cold open is pretty great despite some silliness. The scene in the bank is a good way to open and the boat chase is awesome even though Bond does drive it on land, to me it works and is just a great action scene. There's a good amount of twists and the fact that Elektra turns out to be the real villain and in a way Renard is more of a henchman is a nice spin on things. I'm a big fan of how M gets involved and it's nice to see Dench get more screen time. We even get Bond figuring everything out and Elektra casting that doubt on him and questioning himself. There's a lot going on but honestly the plot is pretty tight,especially compared to Tomorrow Never Dies, This is surprisingly the first time a Bond film has dealt with oil as a main thread and this is something, like the media aspect of the last movie, that might be more relateable today. The idea of causing a meltdown to re-route oil pipelines to Elektra's, while excessive and insane, makes sense. Honestly the insanity of the plan works for me too because as you may have noticed, I love my bond villains to be as insane as possible. The end of the film where Elektra is so cocky about her influence over men that she assumes Bond wouldn't kill her is a highlight of her performance for me and really helps flesh out her character, you know right before they kill her.Though before her death she has her best scene torturing Bond with that chair which is just a great scene in general.

While Tomorrow Never Dies was action heavy, this time they tone it down but it still has quite a bit of great action. There's also a decent amount of gadgetry in the movie and for the most part it is some good stuff. HOWEVER I will never like that grappling hook watch and those X-Ray glasses are a little much but I'll buy those a little more. I liked the watch when it was just a twist on light and not a tiny grappling hook that works wonders. That jacket also just feels like the most reverse engineered thing in the whole movie. One thing I notice about this entire series is that Bond goes skiing so many times. I feel like every third film Bond has to put on some skis. The skiing scene is fine, the parachuting snowmobiles are kind of crazy but it's actually a good ski chase. There are some kind of hard to swallow vehicle moments between the parachuting snowmobiles (or whatever those things are) to the helicopters with saw blades but all of the action scenes with them are great. I actually really love the scene at the docks with the helicopters slicing everything up (that car getting cut in half is pretty good) might actually be my favorite action scene in the movie. The gunfight with Renards men when the bomb is being stolen is another highlight for me, right along with the bomb defusal (or lack thereof) in the pipe. Really every action scene in this movie is very well done and entertaining. There are also a lot of scenes within Mi6 which I really like. We've never gotten a lot of the Mi6 building outside of M's office or Q's lab but this time we get to move around a little more and it's welcome. Speaking of Q's lab we have to mention this being Q's last film. He gets a great exit by lowering into the pool table and it was sad to know that he was killed in car accident before the film premiered. We miss you Desmond Llewelyn. You were the best! John Cleese was the perfect person to bring in to replace him and it's kind of a bummer he onl'y got two movies under his belt. I would have liked to see what he could do.

Surprisingly this is the first Bond movie where the score really jumped out at me. I love the entire score through the film, especially the action scenes, and the movie's theme is incorporated very well. This is another theme song that I love and feels very Bond. I know there are a lot of people that voice their love for this movie but I feel like it always gets overshadowed by people talking about how terrible Christmas Jones is. While they are completely right I feel like this is an underrated Bond film and is definitely worth watching. I give it a four out of five and admit that Denise Richards drags the film down, but it's worth watching and having in your collection. 

007 Journals: Tomorrow Never Dies

Well coming off of Goldeneye I feel like we see Brosnan at his best and it never get's better than that film. Not to say he becomes a bad Bond but he defiintly hits a level in Tomorrow Never Dies and stays there for the remainder of his tenure as Bond. That place is one of less seriousness. He still comes off as great Bond, but there is definintly more wit and he seems a little more comfortable in the sense that "I'm James Bond so of course I'm going to win" that is until the stakes suddenly spike. This is a movie I'm not a hundred percent sure how I feel about it. It's entertaining. Brosnan is great. Really the whole cast is great. The story and some of the beats however, I just struggle to find my stance on them. I see this as a movie that every time I watch it I would probably rank it differently. With this time I will probably be finding my score as I talk about it, so let's just get into it.

First off the film starts strong. The opening is maybe one of my favorites, even if it is another plane stunt just like the last film. It's a great action scene that's as good as any finale in any other Bond film, and it's only the first ten minutes of the movie. In fact all of the action in the movie is great and there's a lot of it. So needless to say you'll never feel bored while watching this particular film. There are a lot of solid gun fights and is probably the most gun heavy Bond film to date. The only real complaint I have about the action is there are two chases that are both great (the car in the garage and the helicopter chasing the bike) but both maybe go on a little too long. The car one in particular is injected with a little more lunacy just because of the fact that he's remote controlling it the whole time. That was kind of a big groan but the scene is entertaining enough that I let it slide. I also want to point out some of the stunt work. The fighter jets in the beginning are great, I also really love the bike chase that has them trying to drive the motorcycle while handcuffed. Something I had never seen before that was played out very well and just an impressive stunt. Then there's the banner on the building. I don't know if that was actually performed, or at least performed on the side of a building, but it's a cool idea nonetheless. The underwater scene in the battleship actually gave me anxiety, mostly because that embodies everything that makes up my nightmares. There's also quite a bit of brutal action at the end and Carver's death is one of extreme brutality and prejudice from Bond. Something we haven't really seen from Bond since The Spy Who Loved Me. An excessive villain execution. Though I felt the acting from Jonathan Pryce could have been more convincing. It looks like he could have totally slipped out.

Other than that little ending moment, Jonathan Pryce turns in a great Bond villain performance. Jonathan Pryce is chewing some major scenery in this movie but it's because of this that his character works. His entire scheme is maybe the most ludicrous but somehow the most interesting and unique. Carver doesn't want to control the world, he wants to control the media. It's an interesting idea and he shows his prowess very early on with the threatening of a nation's president. This is an aspect of the film that maybe makes more sense and has a bigger impact in the current age with how the media is portrayed today. The idea that there is a media mogul just controlling the way the world is perceived is not that ridiculous of an idea anymore. I can see how in 1997 it would have been a harder pill to swallow but I'm for it now. The problem I really have is how he doesn't seem to think anything through. Hey let's try to start a war between China and England and not think that these governments might just talk to each other and see what's up? Something that surprisingly doesn't happen but Carver just feels like an insane person that is in way over his head pretty much every step of the way. Bond even seems like the assignment is child's play for a long part of the run time. What I don't understand is that when it becomes absolutely clear that Carver is behind everything why Bond doesn't just contact Mi6 right away and be like "Yeah it's him. Call up the Chinese government and let them know what's up." Mission accomplished. It's a glaring hole in the movie and the biggest thing that bothered me. I just feel like a lot of this could have been avoided. Carver is just a clinically insane man who has too much money and was able to buy an army with no idea how to use them.

I always love when Bond gets to work with another agent of some kind and Wai Lin is a great example of this. I love how they keep crossing paths during their missions and how it eventually leads to their team up. She's a great Bond girl, more so by the fact that she's a female secret agent and very capable. Something we haven't seen since, again, The Spy Who Loved Me, but Michelle Yeoh is way more believable in the role. Another complaint I have which I shared with Goldeneye is that there is not enough M. There is more of Judi Dench in this film but she doesn't do a whole lot. She also seems to trust Bond completely which she didn't in the last film. I wish that dynamic could have been drawn out a little but we do get that in the Craig films. This does however mark the first appearance of Colin Salmon who will reappear in the rest of the Brosnan films as M's right hand. He doesn't do a lot in any of the films but he is a welcoming face and a great actor. Also Joe Don Baker makes a small return but there's not much to really say about him this time. He's the same character and does even less than he did before. I feel obligated to mention Teri Hatcher as Paris, Carver's wife and Bond's former flame, but she adds little to the plot which is something the actress herself was disappointed by. It was worth mentioning that she was pregnant during filming and that may be why she enters and exits the film so quickly. She gives Bond some emotional motivation but it could have been sold a little better.

So the real question here is where do I stand? Well the film has a lot of ridiculous moments and unfortunately a lot of it comes from the story (though I really wasn't a fan of Bond messing with Wai Lin's gadgets. Too silly). There's a lot of plot holes to pick at and it's odd that this is what they follow up Goldeneye with. However it's entertaining. There's a lot of action, I was never bored, and Brosnan is still great even as a less serious Bond. Goldeneye is far superior but Tomorrow Never Dies is still a decent Bond film. Honestly I feel okay giving this a four out of five this time around but I feel like it could drop the next time I watch it and then go back up a time after that. It really just seems to depend on your mood if you will like this movie or not. It's flawed but it's fun. Also I want to point out that out of the three blonde henchman we have had so far this one is my least favorite. Also this film might get a star boost just for it's amazing theme song. One of the best.

007 Journals: Goldeneye

Well I've now crossed over into the era of Bond that I am familiar with. Something I forgot to mention is that after the last review I have no officially seen every James Bond movie except for the 1960's Casino Royale, which yes I will be reviewing. I first came to James Bond in the Brosnan era and he is one of my favorite Bond's mostly for the nostalgia. I, like many others my age, remember the Goldeneye video game fondly and I actually played the game long before I saw the movie, which quickly became one of my favorites. I've seen this film many times, and while I will try to remain as unbiased as possible, it is one of my favorite Bond films and I feel like Goldeneye gets enough praise that I don't feel like I need to defend my stance. It's simple to say I love this movie and I think a lot of others do too. So it was five years between License to Kill and Goldeneye and in that time Dalton decided to step away and Pierce Brosnan stepped in. Now I feel like over Brosnan really tries to walk the line between the darker Dalton and campier Roger Moore but not so much in this film. Goldeneye is played pretty serious with some minor jokes tossed around, mostly in the form of Bond quips, which I definitely feel like Brosnan has the most of throughout his tenure. This marks the first of a new era for Bond and to me the first film that feels like a modern Bond movie. There's a lot of 90's in this movie, including how the plot mostly revolves around computers and hacking. While this is still technically the continuation of the Bond series, we are to believe everything that has happened before exits in this timeline, this has always felt kind of like a soft reboot to me. Each Brosnan movie stands alone and there's no reference to Bond once being married to Tracy or her death. At least not to my memory. Well that's a long enough introduction (these ones will probably be longer guys) let's get onto the review.

So Goldeneye is the first outing by Pierce Brosnan and while I have seen this movie many times, I haven't seen it in a few years and have never looked at it with a reviewers thinking. While I can still definitively say that this is one of my favorite Bond films, I did notice some things I never noticed before. First let's talk about our new Bond. Brosnan is a great Bond in my opinion. My list might be slightly controversial (Craig, Brosnan, Dalton, Connery, Moore, Lazenby) and I will admit that it comes from nostalgia. Brosnan was my first Bond and I really enjoyed his time with the character. One thing I noticed in Goldeneye though compared to his other films is that he feels more real in this film. This is the first film in the series since On Her Majesty' Secret Service that gives Bond some character. We hear a lot about his past and how it reflects in who he is now. We get talk about his parents death, we hear about all of the women he couldn't save, it's suggested that his drinking is to help him cope with the people he has lost or the men he has killed. This is the first film where we get major talk about how Bond puts the mission before anything else, which is a main crux of the villains plot. This is one of the only attempts to humanize Bond up until this point and it is pulled off splendidly. These are all things I've missed in previous viewings but now that I've worked my way through the series it really stands out to me now. I'd also like to point out that to me Brosnan feels the most believable as a trained spy. The way he moves, the action scenes, the way he checks his corners. You feel like he really is a well trained spy. Something I felt Dalton was also really good at but Brosnan takes it a step above, something Daniel Craig will also do later.

Okay now let's take a look at the rest of the cast. Starting with one of my favorite characters that is present up until Skyfall. Judi Dench as M. By the time Skyfall comes around Judi Dench is easily my favorite part of this era of Bond. This was her first appearance in the role and the biggest downside is that she isn't in the movie very much, but man she sure makes the best out of her screen time. I have to give a tip of my hat towards the writing however because every dialogue she has with Bond is fantastic. It is mentioned that she is new to the role and she doesn't have a trust for her agents yet, and they don't really trust her and instead think of her more as a bureaucrat. The scene where she gives Bond his mission is a stand out scene and you really feel the animosity these two have towards each other. I wish we got more of this in the film because by Tomorrow Never Dies I feel like she already trusts Bond fully. This is also pulled off better in the Craig films since she never comes to fully trust Bond but the seeds for that kind of story were definitely planted here and you can imagine that the way it comes off in the Craig films is what the producers and writers wanted here as well. We also have our new Moneypenny who is my favorite of the Moneypennys. This is the first time where she feels like a character who has a one up on Bond. She's always matching his wit and never feels like a victim compared to how it was with Moore and Connery. Then you always felt like Moneypenny was chasing Bond, now it almost feels the other way around. Now before we move onto the villain team, lets talk about our Bond girl Natalya. She's a great character and though this movie is kind of doing that old Bond tradition (What's popular? Computer hacking. Let's put it in our movie and have a sexy hacker girl) she comes off great in her role and is actually believable as a Russian of super model good looks and actual hacking ability. She easily places in my top five Bond girls and the only complaint I would have is how easily she seems to fall for Bond after the train escape. The last character I want to briefly mention here is Joe Don Baker as Bond's CIA partner. I mentioned this in my The living Daylights review but it's weird to see him re-cast here, and this time as a good guy, Honestly though I like this character way better and I love that he reappears in the next film. I could do with more of him.

Alright onto the villains. First the small fry. Alan Cumming as Boris is such a fun character. Cumming is a great character actor and fills the role of Boris spectacularly and is very believable as a hacker.He's hilariously evil and selfish and is just a quirky character that I have a lot of fun with. Then there is Xenia Onatopp played by the BEAUTIFUL Famke Janssen. We really have to thank this movie for introducing us to this beautiful angel. She's great in this movie even though she has a weird character. A character that is extremely turned on by death to the point where she is audibly orgasming as she's gunning people down. It's a weird character but she makes it work and is just so beautiful so I'm cool with it. Oh and let's not forget how she kills people with her legs. Those lucky men. Alright now onto the main villain. Alec Trevelyan played by Sean Bean He's an amazing actor and a great villain actor. This is one of my favorite movies to watch him die in. I can't believe this idea had never come up before but Bond versus another 00 agent is such an amazing idea. What a better adversary than someone who was trained just like you and was even a number higher in ranking. There' a lot of great interplay between friends, now as enemies, and how Alec would obviously know everything Bond would try. This is easily the most interesting Bond villain to date and brings the story to a more personal level which is something I love about this film. How personal everything is for James.

So now let's look at the plot. Honestly this plot is Die Hard. A terrorist hatches this evil scheme and it's all only to steal some money and disappear. However Trevelyan's plan does get slightly sinister by also causing a financial and technological collapse. His overall scheme isn't the best we've seen in a Bond film (specially because firing the Goldeneye would render all that money he stole useless) but everything surrounding it is fantastic. We have a 00 agent faking his death so he can create his crime syndicate and pull off his revenge against the homeland he fought so hard to defend, only to be cast aside. Not to mention they were responsible for the fate of his parents. Then there's the stealing of an EMP proof helicopter so they can then steal and EMP weapon that they fire to cover their escape. Their plan is perfectly executed and one thing I didn't remember about this plot is the way Bond actually stumbles into the mission. He just happens to run into Xenia and is like "This woman seems suspicious" and follows her around. He then becomes obligated to check things out after the Goldeneye is fired. It's a great way to set up the plot and is something very different from what we've seen before.

So interesting to note, this film is directed by the same man who would go on to direct Casino Royale, which probably explains why it's one of the best Bond films. Well with that comes amazing cinematography because Goldeneye has the best camera work to date. We also get a lot of great action scenes. This film may have one of my favorite cold opens (honestly all the openings of the Brosnan films are pretty great. Yes even Die Another Day) and I just love how Bond escapes from the Russian facility. From the gun fighting to the awesome plane stunt, it's just a great introduction to our new 007. Then of course there's the tank chase through the Russian streets. So ridiculous but such a fun scene. I even like the tension during the train scene where they have to escape before it explodes. This all leads to a great finale inside Trevelyan's satellite. Seriously this movie really has it all.

I'm not really sure what else to say about this movie that wouldn't just be rambling at this point. I think it's clear that its a five out of five for me. Now I know some of you may be like "Five out of five?! That's just a nostalgia rating!" You may be right. You may also notice it's the first five out five I've given to any of these movies. Again you are correct. These reviews are written generally hours after I finish the film (at latest the next morning) and I write the scores reflecting how I feel at that time of the writing. Well it's been enough time since I've seen some of the earlier films and I have some changes to make. I gave From Russia With Love and Goldfinger both a four out of five. Well since reflecting on these films I think they are both fives. Enough time has passed and I still think about these films highly enough that I feel like the upgrade in the score is deserved. So say what you will but that gives me three films that I give a five. Trust me that they won't be the last.

UPDATE: A couple things I forgot to mention. The score of this movie is really weird sometimes, the car race in the beginning being the most obvious. Sometimes it's perfect, other times it comes off a little too new agey but really only that one scene is where it hurts the film. Also Tina Turner's Goldeneye is still my all time favorite Bond theme.