True; when the bad guy starts climbing the crane, he was pretty much trapped. Bond didn’t have to chase him, just go to the base of the crane and wait.
But that’s beside the point. The chase in CR didn’t make sense, but it was exciting. I just think action scenes in movies keep getting bigger, but not better. One guy chasing another guy is all you need, if you do it right.
Yes. It was implied this data existed. The ‘bots were so sophisticated, you could target related family members. Like if you had, say, Prince Charles’ DNA, the nanobots would kill anyone with familial links. The entire royal family, from the Queen to Lilibet, would be killed.
That part was a bit…confused. I understood the movie that the tanks were NOT nanobots, but only “conventional” poisons. Safin was the “poisoner to the stars”, as it were. He was supposed to be THE go-to guy for poisons. Which of course, only makes sense in the Bond Universe. No one mail orders poisons. How would someone even find the guy?
Craisglist, Daniel Craigslist.
Perfect.
Would many Bond fans be able to explain wtf “Quantum of Solace” means?
The Niven parts were indeed- excellent. Peter Sellers tries, and Ursula Andress is excellent.
Woody Allen stunk.
The Craig version? He is a solid actor, and oddly Texas Hold 'em makes more sense, as it is a game of bluffing to some extent. But too much crazy action.
No Time to Die makes no sense at all. Why does Bind have an illegal spy car if he is retired? And why did Bond turn traitor vs MI6, and try to turn Obruchev over to the CIA instead, which led to his escaping? Silly plot as Just_Asking_Questions says.
Okay, Bond is an assassin. He kills people by order of MI6. The nanobots are a targeted killing tool. Bond is a targeted killing tool.
snort. 
Well, I can: IIRC (and I’m not looking it up yet because that would be cheating), it’s from a Bond short story? that doesn’t actually have any Bond adventure in it but describes a husband’s being mercilessly unforgiving toward his adulterous wife. Because her cheating was so blatantly selfish that it denied him what the narrator called a necessary “quantum of solace”, i.e., the minimal amount that your spouse needs to be kind and thoughtful towards you. Basically, AFAICT, a fancy-sounding concept for rationalizing a revenge fantasy about a cheating spouse.
To the best of my understanding the phrase makes absolutely zero sense as the title of the Bond film in question or any other filmed Bond adventure, but if the filmmakers didn’t care then why should we? IIRC it wouldn’t be the first Bond short-story title to be gratuitously slapped onto a film whose plot has nothing to do with the original story.
CR is the best Craig, and possibly the best Bond. That opening sequence, I was like ‘oh shit, this is not your daddy’s double O’. They got progressively more Silly, Bond Silly, after that. Until the last one which I quite liked. NTTD comes in second of the Craigs, the rest are forgettable,
I guess what got to me in CR is that M knew Bond was going to have heart attack and so provided defibrillator–even for 007 movies that seemed over the top
I agree.
Craig’s Bond had such a serious demeaner. Not sure if that’s his fault, or the fault of the writers. I prefer the more lighthearted Bonds who would smile and crack a joke every once in a while.
Total opposite here.
The Bond for laffs movies are a travesty. The Bond as effete wuss who somehow can also fight & shoot but only against incompetent adversaries are also a travesty. The Bond as badass movies are where it’s at. Connery & Craig for the win. The rest are mostly sludge. Mostly.
Having said that, the plot of a couple of these Craig movies got too convoluted for me. And I intensely dislike the idea of “story arcs” that extend across multiple movies. Movies are not episodes; each MUST stand alone. I understand the studios’ thinking: creating a requirement for the audience to watch every movie in order. it’s all about their demand management, and I refuse to be so managed.
I loved skyfall apart from the Home Alone ending.
The plot not making sense I thought was just a normal Bond thing. I mean the whole premise is that he’s a spy that gets recognized everywhere he goes, it’s inherently silly.
I’m told the Lazenby (OHMSS) movie is actually among the best as a straight spy thriller. I haven’t seen it yet though.
I liked Casino Royale, up until the ball torture. The other 3, not so much. Haven’t seen the latest one.
“Familicide!”
Nothing says “straight spy thriller” like having the villain’s plan involve brainwashing a beautiful girl who’s allergic to chickens on top of a mountain. That’s practically torn from the headlines.
Great theme song.
…well, relative to Bond movies in general.
I’m not sure it was ever stated clearly. I think Bloefeld just wanted chaos. Take out all the world leaders (and their relatives) and , install a new order? Live in a post-apocalyptic hellhole? I think he just hated the world, but to be honest I never do deep psychoanalysis on Bond villains. That was lies madness! (I did like one Bond special TV show where Roger Moore said something similar: "We don’t care about the psychology. Do we stop the action and have Bond say, ‘You know, I was never allowed to play with toys as a child.’ ")
Using this as a starting point…
I have a theory that what any one person thinks a Bond movie should be like depends highly on which movie they saw first. I think they get “imprinted” and any movie that is different from that style seems “wrong”. I saw Moore first, so I think Bond should be more flip and lighthearted. That didn’t stop me from changing my mind and thinking Timothy Dalton was my favorite (until Craig).
There are several Bond movies that makes sense, and of course just as many that make no sense. And some that have a straightforward plot, but the idea and the execution is completely cuckoo (YOLT, Moonraker). From Russia with Love is perfectly straightforward. Same as For Your Eyes Only.
I am a complete Bond geek so i have ranked them all many times, and each time some probably move up or down slightly, but at the moment, based on their current positions in the whole Eon series of 24 before No Time to Die, I would rank the first 4 of Craig’s films as:-
Casino Royale (2)
Skyfall (9)
Spectre (20)
Quantum of Solace (21)
I haven’t ranked NTTD yet as I’ve only seen it once, although I did enjoy it at the time.
Spectre and QoS are a mixture of mostly dull (QoS) and mostly stupid (Spectre). Skyfall is daft but done with panache.
My top film overall incidentally is From Russia With Love, just the best actual spy film in the series, it’s like if Hitchcock had done one.
The Bond movies clearly don’t take place in the real world, and I’m not looking for a probing psychoanalysis of the villain’s motivations, but the evil scheme du jour has to make some kind of sense. In Moonraker, for example, Drax wanted to kill all the people on Earth, except for his breeding stock to start repopulating it. This is clearly insane, but it does make some kind of sense; the steps he’s taking are in furtherance of his goal. I can accept that as part of the movie. The part I have trouble with is all the people helping Drax, who must have known what he was planning, but who weren’t part of his hand-picked group of survivors. As a wise dog once said, it just don’t add up.
I like Dalton as Bond, but wish his two movies had been better.