Film Score Monthly
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jun 30, 2010 - 1:36 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Add Another of Australia’s

Most Alluring Imports

Radha Mitchell.

 Posted:   Jul 29, 2010 - 3:43 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

In the Glorious Tradition of Loren and Cardinale Department:

We end our Trinity of Casting Choices with one of the most jaw-dropping,
head turning and altogether Va-VOOM Italian exports in a lonnnnngggg tyme.

Actually, we see the luscious Ms. Bellucci in the memorable villainess category

ala these two fabulous far-from-virtuous vixens.

O, and don’t worry:

smile wink smile

 Posted:   Sep 15, 2010 - 9:46 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

"We don't want to say

'Told you so
' ..."

smile wink big grin smile wink big grin smile

 Posted:   Sep 15, 2010 - 2:35 PM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

Now if only Moneypenny herself would return in these films as well, too! smile

 Posted:   Sep 16, 2010 - 11:48 AM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

sadly.Ms. Monica is too "olde' for the series*

*not for me - no way!

 Posted:   Dec 9, 2010 - 7:44 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

In Final Appreciation: Perhaps the Ultimate Bond Woman Department:

 Posted:   Jan 14, 2011 - 8:05 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Recent entries in the 007 Syllable Sweepstakes worth recommending (at least until we get ‘round to it, wink
of which the previous epistles are roughly an accelerating Aston-Martin run for the final published finish
line realization before we depart this coiled mortality) is Alaistair Dougall’s

coffee-table quartet

They’re not inexpensive and they’re generally pleasant reading, with some enjoyable text and accompanying
photos that you can probably absorb (all four) within the space of a leisurely shaken-and-stirred afternoon.

The REALLY outstanding find is Sinclair McKay’s

It’s a masterful examination, exploration and anchored appreciation of the behind-the-scenes genesis spotlighted
and spearheaded by the particularly once-in-a-lifetime synergy of two exceptionally definitively different gentlemen -

and their genius in backing and building an enterprise whose cutting-edge vision embraced every aspect of
making films, so much so its Bonded blueprint is arguably among the most infinitely influential in cinematic history.

Mr. McKay is exceptionally insightful (one extended piece that could be headed “So you think it’s EASY
to come up with a new Bond film!?!’ is a prime example) and tackles the movies and the personalities
seminally involved in their evolution with splendid style, informed intelligence and a sheer spirit of fun that’s
totally infectious.

As to that, it’s far and away the most absorbing volume about the Bond Films since
John Brosnan’s impressive early 70s foray

We kinda figure even he'd approve.

 Posted:   Jan 15, 2011 - 1:52 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

yeah, i am reading the McKay book....
his analysis of LICENSCE TO KILL is brilliant as is his GOLDENEYE but....
his cheeky , 'writerly' style can annoy (ESP. IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND BRIT SLANG!) and his love of the Moore films leaves one a bit mystified (HE ACTUALLY LIKEs avtak!)
But, i do appreciate the perspective of a man who came of age during the Moore era since most books are written by connosieurs of the Connery era.

He also strikes me as writing from a gay point of view with his emphasis on the camp aspects and discussion of things like Craig's physique.
This is the first 007 book where the author makes frequent, and disparaging, comments on the decor of the hotel rooms Bond stays in!!! As for me, i never noticed the "horrid" color schemes. Can you imagine the slobbering, knuckle dragging neandrothals who post on this thread commenting on Moore's "naff" leisure suits? LOL!
check it out!

oh, btw there is a great photo of Luciana Paluzzi wearing a shirt that barely covers that magnifico bosom smile thank you rex features

 Posted:   Jan 15, 2011 - 8:18 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

By and large, my favorite Bond movies are from more recent years.

However, my favorite Bond women are more from the original movies. I'm not sure why its this way but, hey - what can I say?

In order, you ask? Why this is it then.

 Posted:   Jan 15, 2011 - 8:31 PM   
 By:   Advise & Consent   (Member)

Nice work if you can get it.


 Posted:   Feb 3, 2011 - 1:46 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Priceless Visual Footage Ahead wink Department:

 Posted:   Feb 15, 2011 - 12:15 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

 Posted:   Feb 16, 2011 - 9:59 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

 Posted:   Mar 6, 2011 - 1:19 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

And for the luscious ladies ahead we won't be around to salute, keep up the grand tradition of all
those gorgeous gals who've gone before you! smilewinkbig grin

 Posted:   Mar 23, 2011 - 2:28 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Rare Canadian interview with Broccoli & Saltzman Department:

 Posted:   May 27, 2011 - 2:24 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)


 Posted:   May 27, 2011 - 8:27 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)


I like that cool photo of the various Bonds at the card table.
One request: can you remove that Nancy boy Danny Craig?
can ya.?

 Posted:   May 29, 2011 - 7:25 AM   
 By:   scrapsly   (Member)

My favorite BOND woman is KRISTINA WAYBORN. That women just reaks of sex appeal and looks incredible in Octopussy. She may be a little young at this stage (I am not sure how old she is, I think she is 25) but I think TERESA PALMER would make a great Bond girl one day. I have enjoyed her acting in every movie I have seen her in, and yes I do think the lady is amazing to look at. It is definately not all that I notice, but TERESA PALMER has such an incredible smile.

 Posted:   May 29, 2011 - 8:47 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Seeing Daniel Craig pose with the Bond girls doesn't quite capture the spirit of fun it used to have.
Why is that?

I want a glamour banner for the next Bond.
I want glamour in the film and a banner in the lobby.
All the Bond films used to have a glamour banner.
You know, some of this:


 Posted:   May 29, 2011 - 10:00 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Outside (never-to-be compared to or equaled with) Diana Rigg’s
sublimely tragic Tracy, she’s the most pivotally important woman
in 007 history. And, for the second time (in our ever Unhumble
estimation), the film-makers got it remarkably right with beautifully
bullseye casting.

From her first unanticipated appearance on the train, Eva Green
captures Vesper Lynd’s complexity in all its compelling dimensions.

The 'hate-at-first-sight not-wanting-to-get-to-know-you-you-
arrogant-bastard' sequence is just about the best damn scene
between Bond and a (not-potential) paramour unencountered
since The Great Scot’s exemplary era. Kudos to Paul Haggis’

exquisite character structure – everything is right there via the
distinctive dialogue: the competitive disdain ( via one of our
all-tyme favorite lines: “You think of women as disposable
pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits”), icy but passionate
intelligence, shrewd insight, playfully poisonous repartee and
absolute equality of essence.

We believe Maibaum and Fleming would've proudly approved.

You have a real knack for the visual essay, Neo.

Forgive me, but I could not disagree more with your appraisal of Casino Royale. The writing is so important. The writing is everything. The script jettisons Ian Fleming's subtext and substitutes a new one that violates his intent. The characters are perverted into something they are not. Especially Vesper. It starts in that scene on the train with Vesper. Your idea of banter sounds like contempt and hostility to me. Since she's never met this man before, how does she know he "thinks of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits.” ? How does she know that? She's just met him on the train. Or is she talking about 40 years of feminist criticism of Bond films? Do we need that commentary in a Bond adventure? Doesn't it break the fourth wall? And if she's referring to 40 years of feminist criticism of the Bond films, what does that tell us about her character? Besides, the accusation isn't true. Actually, it's the other way around. As for the repartee, it disgusts me. It should have been thrown out on the page and started over again from scratch. Beginning with Vesper's "reading" of Bond as a maladjusted orphan with no taste who was put through college by the grace of someone else's charity. Wrong. Fleming's Bond was the son of a Scot military man and a Swiss mother who was raised in London, graduated from Eton College, and became a commander in the Royal Navy before being recruited into the Intelligence services. His sophistication and intelligence came from his upbringing.

There's a vast chasm between the character Fleming wrote and the value judgement portrayed in this film. Their motivations, background, and emotional range are entirely different concepts. Bond's reply about Vesper over-compensating was pretty sharp, but if she's over-compensating, she's not the character that Ian Fleming wrote. And the character Fleming wrote is infinitely more complex than the dumbed-down politically corrected version in this film. As for the casting, I like Eva Green better in other films. This vision of Vesper, like the vision of Bond, is pure crap, but maybe that's not her fault. If the character had been brought back into line with the novel, and if the betrayal and romance started out as a slow burn instead of an abrupt shift in emphasis, I would still find Eva Green wrong for the part.

We believe Maibaum and Fleming would've proudly approved

I seriously doubt it.
Fleming's version is the only right version and it's in his book.
He'd have shot these screenwriters on sight for the slur they cast on his story.
Maibaum was a more sophisticated writer than all the fingers in the pie on Casino Royale combined. He had impeccable taste, and this film has no taste at all. He practiced pacing, timing, character development, plotting, structure, knew how to support the clear text with an organic subtext, and most of all he understood Fleming's concepts and prose. He kept Bond's dialogue blunt, subtle, stoic, and short. The dialogue in Casino Royale is expository, declarative, repetitious, accusatory, whining, condescending, patronizing, and endless. Bond never shuts up. M is a high-pitched motormouth. You could CUT 40 minutes of utterly unnecessary chatter out of this movie and NOT miss it.

Casino Royale's biggest offense, however, was to usher in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" era. Neither Fleming nor Maibaum would approve of the uncouth, dumbed-down James Bond nor the condescending, bitchy, male-hating M. Nor would they approve of M galavanting across the globe to teach James Bond how to be a better man and a kinder gentler spy. Nor would they approve of the excoriating tirades M subjects Bond, and the male audience, to, which are straight out of Oprah Winfrey's playbook (a lot of the dialogue in the film comes from Oprah episodes, word for word). The script writers were confused who the story is about. It's supposed to be about James Bond on his mission. It is not about M. The way M keeps popping up all the time, Bond might as well stay home.

best wishes, Richard

You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.