this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
63 points (97.0% liked)

movies

1769 readers
78 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
maegul@lemmy.ml
Blaze@lemm.ee
UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk
orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
neidu2@feddit.nl
Emperor@feddit.uk
TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
maegul@lemm.ee
63
Basic thoughts after I recently re-watched the Craig-era Bond Films (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 months ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/movies@lemm.ee
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I watched them roughly once every night or two. And I'd previously seen them all.

And I was rather surprised at how I felt about the films afterwards. It seemed really clear that the quality of the films went continuously down after Casino Royal.

I thought Skyfall would stand out as the best followed by Casino Royal. But, in sequence, nah. Despite having clearly positive qualities, it seemed bloated and empty by comparison.

I also thought Quantum of Solace would rank pretty low as I recall thinking little of it at the time it came out. Instead, I thought it paired really well with Casino as a great follow up.

In fact, it felt like the Craig-era was basically Casino + Quantum and "other things". And yea, the "post-Skyfall" films just didn't feel like they were worth the effort. I thought they'd be more passable than they were, but after Casino + Quantum, which, for me, had a real punch and through-line, Spectre + No-Time-to-Die just felt like they were going through the motions and taking up space. At times, they really seemed to be badly flawed. And that's where my impression of Skyfall really hit ... it seemed that was the "what do we do now with this character?" moment and that Skyfall belonged with Spectre etc not the other way round.

Is this common among Bond fans or am I off base here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pikmeir@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I know many people loved Casino Royale, but from that movie onward they shifted to be too serious and no longer fun, action movies. The set pieces are great, but I stopped enjoying myself watching Bond movies because from the Craig era they all took themselves way too seriously. I think they just saw how well the Bourne series was performing, and like they've always done, switched gears to copy whatever's popular. But by doing so got rid of the main reason why I enjoyed the series in the first place.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 6 points 4 months ago

It's not that the Bourne trilogy did so well, it's that the Austin Powers trilogy did so well. That took the comedy from Bond.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

from the Craig era they all took themselves way too seriously.

Yea ... I think this is the issue I ran into. For Casino ... and Quantum too, IMO, as a previous hater I'm a defender now ... the seriousness works, it's part of the darker more violent energy. But afterwards, the stories and directing just don't capture that same energy ... so at some point you start to sort of see through what they're trying to do and lose immersion.