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 must log in or # to comment.
When I saw Casino, I was blown away. I still think that’s it for the franchise, they’ll never top that movie. I’ve seen most of the newer ones since Casino, and to me I’m right.
And to me, Casino works standalone. That ending is the perfect implication of what happens next.
My favourites before Casino were From Russia With Love, Live and Let Die, and The Spy Who Loved Me.
I did really like Roger Moore, I thought his light hearted adventure style Bond movies were a lot of fun (not always good 😐)
Have you seen him in the TV show “The Saint”? It’s basically him as Bond before Bond existed.
I get what you mean, but technically Bond existed as books back then (although The Saint has existed as a book character for far longer).
I haven’t seen it. I have heard about it, but was well before my time. It was early 90s that my dad showed me all the Bond films and let me read his books.
If it had been running repeats on tv I’m sure my dad would have had us all watching it though.
Casino Royale is my favorite movie, and I’m not a bond fan otherwise, so I definitely agree that it stands alone
To me it felt like they alternated in quality. Casino was great, Quantum was meh, Skyfall was good, spectre was meh, and No Time to Die was a good and fitting end to Craig.
Quantum was meh
Maybe I was just in a good mood that night … but
seenseeing Quantum and Casino side by side, and then followed by the others, elevated it for me some how. It connected to Casino and ended that arc well enough that I’m now happy to lump it in with Casino as the sort of “optional, not a waste of time” sequel.Same. Casino was a great intro to the more serious tone and Skyfall had great atmosphere. Had high hopes for Spectre but just didn’t click for me.
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.
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.
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.
But can we agree that Adele crushed the Skyfall title track?
More than crushed it!
I was going to provide a quip along the lines of “If you want to re-watch Skyfall … you might be better just looking at stills of Roger Deakins’ cinematography while listening to Adele’s Skyfall theme”.
EDIT: See this wonderful webpage: The Cinematography of Skyfall
i love you because i completely agree with you
i thought spectre was fucking cool as well though
Brosnan is still the best bond imo
Yea after watching through the Craig-era, and being disappointed with it overall (apart from Casino + Quantum), this was what I wondered too. I’d be really interested now to see if the Brosnan era stands up. I have suspicion it might, at more than I and many others expect.
The problem with the new Bond is it takes itself too seriously.
The old ones were tongue-in-cheek, with a wink and a nod.
Archer is more of a successor to the original Bond than the Craig stuff.
Damn. That’s so true. I hadn’t out that together myself as I haven’t gone back to watch an older bond in ages.
As someone else said, Austin Powers really kneecapped 007 by dialing up every trope to 11, leaving seriousness as the remaining option.
As an aside, that one PS2 game was really fucking good.
I’m pretty sure that Quantum of Solstice was hampered by the 2007 writers strike with production starting before the script was even done. Unfortunately, that really messed with the story arc and the next two films were spent trying to pick up the pieces.
Dunno. In hindsight it seems its biggest problem was following Casino.
