Review: Tucker and Dale Versus Evil

Why does nobody think about the hillbillies!?

That's what Tucker and Dale Versus Evil asks the viewer as it takes the tired teen slasher horror film and turns it on its head, making a gory but entertaining comedy as two hapless red necks are mistaken as killers by a group of dumb teenagers on vacation. A breath of fresh air for me!

It only has a run time of eighty minutes, and that's no surprise; the film's gimmick is very straight forward to setup, but is executed well for horror fans to see the developing spoofs. The film starts ordinarily enough with dumb teens and ominous red necks, only for the point of view to switch and we see these two men as hapless, innocent bystanders, while the teens themselves turn into a pack of raving lunatics.
That isn't even explaining it fully, the teenagers are acting like the stereotypes of  the genre; reacting blindly and taking everything at face value, scaring and winding each other up into a frenzy. It was good fun watching them go into an ignorant insanity... worryingly believable too really.

I was surprised to see Alan Tudyk (Firefly and 3:10 to Yuma) here as Tucker, he's always a fun character actor to watch. The film has a lot of heart too, in fact I was more compelled by these two men than any character in a traditional slasher film! But it really was how the film reverses the summer vacation horror on its head that made it worth watching, making the slew of murders merely slapstick accidents, the two hillbillies looking on in horror.

It is a lot of fun, and if I had to pick any holes in it I would only say that some of the teens' jumps in conclusion are a little extreme, or how the one sane kid does a 180 turn in logic to "charge in guns blazing" towards the end. They are minor gripes, but for such a simple, short film they appear more obvious.

Having subjected myself to so much of this genre, seeing a well made spoof-with-a-heart of it is greatly rewarding because... well... teenagers in those films ARE stupid! I'd say this is up there with Shaun of the Dead.

Review: Sinister

Perhaps it is from railing so hard on Insidious earlier that I went into Sinister with such low expectations that I actually enjoyed it?

That isn't to say it doesn't have its issues; straight off the bat we have the classic setting of a family moving into a house with a history of grisly murders, and experience a host of spectral horrors. But if the creators of Insidious have apparently learned anything, it is learning the meaning of tension.

Ethan Hawke plays a fiction writer who, after success in writing non-fiction crime stories, looks for inspiration by moving his family to a house subject to murders. While not telling his family this. But when his two kids start acting strangely, and his investigations lead to an old film projector showing serial murders... he questions whether his loyalty lies with his work or his family.

Sinister starts out very calmly and actually establishes its characters, who they are and what they do, we get to know them and they each have a role to play in the story. Even side characters are useful, helping or hindering Hawke's character, but not taking the focus off him. It is a horror film tied around investigation; we see this writer returning to the seedy, unpleasant video footage repeatedly, trying to uncover the truth of the mystery. The camera work is slow, the atmosphere is dark and limiting, shot-compositions are thought out and set up most of the scares well.

Most. Some of the jump scares are predictable if you have seen a lot of horrors before. Hawke will be carrying a phone as a torch, limiting our view, only to stop and turn the light on himself... in total darkness. No one does that with a torch. The soundtrack drops too; audio jump scare and character reaction is imminent!
It doesn't "jump the shark" like Insidious, it doesn't get overly stupid. Yes, the evil spirit looks like the lost member from Kiss, but he is used sparingly; all of the tension is built from the raw, grainy footage we are compelled to watch. The soundtrack is better too, maybe a little OTT, but full of angry, grungy, bass sounds to set you on edge.

With much better characters and a stronger sense of humanity within the family involved, Sinister is surprisingly okay. It isn't amazing, but for any horror junkie it is a sure-fire fix.

Saga Review: James Bond (No.21 - No.22)

That's right, with Skyfall releasing later this year I am opting to give you my thoughts on all of the Bond films! There's twenty-two films, and when I started this challenge there were twenty-two weeks before Skyfall, sounds good to me!
I grew up in the six year drought of Bond films, between the Dalton and Brosnen Eras, so my definition of Bond is Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights and License to Kill, while Goldeneye is one of my top favourites. It took me a little while to watch all of the other James Bond films, but they were regularly shown on television, and while the Brosnen films quickly worsened I would never grow to like the Roger Moore era. At least not yet.

We have reached the end of this endless journey! Now we have two remarkably stand-out films to review as part of Daniel Craig's ongoing era as the super spy.

It is impressive to see that even now, fifty years on and after twenty films the franchise can still find some solid ground without resorting to parody or remakes. True, Casino Royale is technically a prequel (and ignoring the Peter Sellers spoof, not a remake!) but that is at least forgiveable isn't it?

So let's see how we get on with this new, edgy James Bond. There will be free-running and rooftop chases, endless Poker games, angry, angry revenge and slimy villains. It is the Craig era.

Casino Royale (2006)

Four years on, James Bond gets a face lift the only way movie franchises know how: with a prequel!

Daniel Craig takes over the role as the special agent when he is given his 007 status from M (Judi Dench reprising her role) and he is given the task to investigate Le Chiffre, a terrorist money dealer and notorious poker player. MI6 sends Bond to participate in the Casino Royale poker game and prevent Le Chiffre from keeping his criminal finances and turn his clients against him.

After directing Pierce Brosnen’s first outing Goldeneye, Martin Campbell returns to direct this fiercer, bolder and grown-up Bond outing. Craig has great presence as Bond, going from icy intensity to playfully and relaxed with ease. Eva Green is also a competent Bond Girl, to the point where she might not be considered a “Bond Girl” in the traditional sense.

The film is perhaps the most solid Bond film I have ever seen, it feels like a story with integrity; we aren’t dealing with some doomsday device intent on world destruction, just a banker with a bleeding eye. Okay, so there are some unusual elements. The film has huge, lengthy action sequences strung together with Bond’s character development, and the action is kinetic, real and immersive! (Then again, the last time I saw him; he was para-skiing through icebergs while being chased by an orbital solar laser beam...)

It is a grown up Bond film, and even more integrated and complete than the Dalton films (or at least more so than Living Daylights) some people may find its pacing too slow and its story lacking in “wow” factor; the third act does get a little lost. The villain here is pedestrian compared to previous films too, but I like the film a lot simply because it is showing the potential Bond films have. They had better not screw up this potent mixture!

This one is excellent in my opinion, it may not be for everyone, and it does have some teething problems, but it shows great promise.

Additional Marshmallows: The decision to almost completely ignore the traditional James Bond theme throughout the entire film (give-or-take) may irk a lot of fans (John Barry did not work on Casino Royale) the soundtrack is comprised of Chris Connell’s theme “You Know My Name” for the majority. This is however quite thematic, as the film is witnessing the birth of the vengeful, famous Bond we all know and love.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum of Solace, much like its title, is hard to quantify; I want to say I enjoyed watching it, only it doesn’t allow me too.

A cold, hate-filled Bond pursues the nebulous villains behind the schemes of Le Chiffre, taking him across the globe and risking the lives of everybody around him in the process.

In a unique move for the franchise this film is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, picking up where we last saw Daniel Craig’s super spy, capturing the only suspect who knows about a global criminal group that MI6 has no knowledge about. This leads Bond to investigate an environmentalist who is secretly taking control of the world’s natural resources.

The film is very different from Casino Royale. Like the flip-side of a coin; Casino was often moody and slow paced, while Quantum is a frenetic action sequence that never ends! Not in a good sense; the editing is rapid, we have that shaky-camera action filming and a lot of CG stunt elements (for a Bond film, often praised for their physical stunts). You could say it lacks conviction with its content too; it is a film of story padding, you can’t shake the feeling that there should be more going on, even its finale feels quite lacking. This likely stems from the weak villains, who make Le Chiffre appear multi-layered and threatening, and over-reliance on action sequences.

But the film does look great. It has lush visuals, a great moment of espionage where Bond gets the upper-hand against the mysterious organisation at a theatre, and the general sense of bottled rage from Bond is exciting to watch (if not entirely capitalised upon) Craig is still an excellent Bond.

It is certainly a weak individual film, and even when watched after Casino Royale it feels directionless and poorly executed. Here’s hoping the following films can make up for this unintelligent stumble!

Additional Marshmallows: Quantum of Solace is the first Bond film to not use the traditional opening montage of Bond shooting towards the camera! Instead it is tagged onto the beginning of the end credits...

Well, I have to say I am now completely stoked for Skyfall's release next week! I only hope it is more like the Dalton films and less like Quantum of Solace... Given the film industry's current obsession with "more action, less integrity", Daniel Craig's time as Bond could descend into a mash of brainless action and explosions. James Bond films need to have espionage, those moments of slowness where we can appreciate what's happening and appreciate Bond's wit and sophistication.

From the looks of Skyfall's trailer, there's plenty of action but also a more stand-out villain played by Javier Bardem (see No Country for Old Men for his credentials in playing villains!) which is much needed in this series now. We can only hope that more of this secret organisation is revealed, and a proper spy story can develop along the way.

Director Sam Mendez has stated he grew up watching Roger Moore's first film Live and Let Die... Well, so long as Sherriff Pepper doesn't make an appearance, I'll be at ease!

See you all at Skyfall! 

The Connery Era

The Lazenby / Connery Return films

The Moore Era

The Dalton Era

The Brosnen Era

Review: Hostel

This is going to be a disappointing horror-October isn't it?

Okay, so Eli Roth's Hostel is still regarded as one of the original "torture-porn" gore exploitation films, and certainly it did release only a year after Saw, but honestly... I found Hostel more like a black comedy than a horror film.

So we join three backpacking young men as they travel across Europe seeking little more than sex and drugs, and after being told of a hostel hosting nothing but beautiful, naked women, they find themselves duped and picked off one by one.

We have the insecure, fish-out-of-water guy, we have the jock, and we have the zany weird one. Character development: done. We have Germans. Villains: done.

Hostel is the bare bones of narrative and within the first fifteen minutes I knew that I wasn't going to find anything remarkable from the story... which leaves its centrepiece: the torture.
Now if Japanese horrors and the Saw movies have taught me anything, it is that often the sky's the limit... Hostel however, didn't phase me. I found it peculiar that characters complain that torturous acts cannot be "too quick", yet the film suffers exactly that. It didn't get under my skin, it merely flashes by. The worst bit wasn't even during torture... though it did involved a pair of scissors and an eyeball, but at least it had squirm-in-your-seat tension.

The rest of the film is quite goofy, especially in its closing scenes where the last boy standing has to escape, not to mention the gang of ten year olds who are apparently feared by the entire town's population! It was so over-the-top that it was virtually clowning around. Seriously, how can people not find at least some of this funny??

Either I wasn't drawn into the film, or I have a weird sense of humour, or both. Either way, I find it hard to agree with those who say it is a scary film, or even very gut-wrenching. It gets a small amount of favour for a humour twist I didn't expect, otherwise it was underwhelming.

Review: Fright Night (2011)

Ticks all the boxes for a classic vampire-High School-teen-horror film, it doesn't compel but I did enjoy it.

Now I will start by admitting I've not seen the 1985 original movie of the same name, and according to some this new film's major problem is that its merely a remake. If that is true, then Fright Night really is a pretty average affair.
When the young people of a small town start vanishing, one boy attempts to uncover a vampire who has taken up residence next door. Along the way he is aided by a flamboyant supernatural television star.

The film does have good pacing, a good soundtrack and some stand-out performances from Colin Farrell and David Tennant, who easily steal the show. Again, speaking as one who hasn't seen the original, it feels like it harkens back to Buffy territory of vampires; modern and teen directed yet dark and sinister. I like that, vampires are predators who operate exactly as Farrell depicts in this movie.
The film even keeps most of the vampire mythos intact: crosses, stakes, sunlight, no reflection, don't show up on video recording... they are evil.

It is a good solid film, I didn't find the characters too irritating (except maybe Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character... but that could just be him) and Anton Yelchin continues to give good performances too.
I will say it goes a little pear-shaped when it includes CG elements... sure it isn't as bad as I Am Legend's CG effects, but really I don't understand the need to overdo vampires like this. At least do it well if you are doing it at all!

Nothing I haven't seen before, it can be put on in the background as you do something else, but it'll be good for people who are getting into the vampire genre; it treats the creatures with respect.

Additional Marshmallows: Hey, look at that, I wrote a vampire film review without mentioning the "T" word.......... well, technically at least.

Review: Insidious

Insidious, more like Insipid.

Wow, I'm reminded straight away how October's horrorfest can really bring out the worst in movies. Nothing is quite as bad as a horror film without any scares!

Insidious tries some new concepts and new imagery in a tired genre, but it collapses like a deflating balloon; comical and silly.
We see a family of five move into a new house only for one of their sons to fall into a coma, but when stranger things begin to happen around them they realise it is no ordinary coma, and that spirits and creatures from the ether are being drawn to the boy.

Perhaps its from seeing The Woman in Black this year, but Insidious is rife with laughable attempts at building tension and executing scares. Even the atmospheric, generic stuff that works as a prelude feels contrived; never before with a horror film have I felt like I was watching actors bumbling around in someone else's house while a camera wobbles around behind them. Not this much!

Once things get... intense? No... "different" is a better word, you wonder where the Ghostbusters are at. Certainly two characters called in to investigate remind me exactly of Bill Murray wandering around with a squeezy bag and a hose pipe.
As for the "demon" that presents itself, I was hoping its initial goofiness would be balanced with an almost Hellraiser-esque ferocity in the film's climax but nope... the film just keeps up the quirky blandness and the total absence of terror. He's like something from a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode. For your information: apparently the best way to dispel evil creatures is to shout at them in a mildly annoyed tone, they don't like that at all. You'd think a hell demon wouldn't be so easily startled by harsh tones.

The characters are more two-dimensional than in most horrors, some of them are barely explained or even needed (the family's daughter and other son seem to vanish midway through the film), and twists in the plot are predictable and textbook. The soundtrack is simply ghastly too; it shouts at you "You WILL find this scary!" OooooooOooo, EEK, EEK, EEK!

There are hundreds of more visually impacting and chilling films out there than Insidious, so don't even bother with it unless you are morbidly curious. Even people with a nervous disposition will find it laughable.

Saga Review: James Bond (No.17 - No.20)

That's right, with Skyfall releasing later this year I am opting to give you my thoughts on all of the Bond films! There's twenty-two films, and when I started this challenge there were twenty-two weeks before Skyfall, sounds good to me!
I grew up in the six year drought of Bond films, between the Dalton and Brosnen Eras, so my definition of Bond is Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights and License to Kill, while Goldeneye is one of my top favourites. It took me a little while to watch all of the other James Bond films, but they were regularly shown on television, and while the Brosnen films quickly worsened I would never grow to like the Roger Moore era. At least not yet.

Because there are twenty-two films I am breaking my reviews down into eras as best I can, and quite possibly Pierce Brosnen's reign as Bond proves to be the most intriguing. I remember them well, especially Goldeneye as that was the first Bond film I saw in cinemas, and of course the Nintendo video game of the same name. But almost immediately we can sense the franchise struggling to find identity in this new era; Goldeneye was a success after the six years hiatus, but after that the magic and power ebbed away at an increasing rate.

What would happen would be a downward spiral, but what can we expect from this wild, flailing era? Awesome and unique villains, I can say that much, but also helicopters with chainsaws, Solar death-rays, newspapers, the Goldeneye theme, ice palaces, invisible cars and awful casting choices. The list goes on, and on!

Goldeneye (1995)

Pierce Brosnen revives the Bond franchise six years later with a bombastic, entertaining return.

When the key and access codes to a sophisticated weaponised satellite are stolen, James Bond must stop whoever is responsible before they use it to destroy the modern world. But while he is teamed up with a rogue Russian computer technician a dangerous femme fatale wants him dead, while the mastermind behind the plot seeks personal revenge.

Goldeneye is a leap into the 1990s, and a positive all-change for the franchise. Judi Dench takes over as the first female M, and Samantha Bond plays the third Miss Moneypenny, while the film itself is riddled with tech-talk and “internet hacker” jargon that has most certainly dated the experience! The film’s soundtrack is all over the place, feeling disjointed and awkward.

However, Brosnen does a great job as Bond, coming somewhere between Dalton and Connery. Bond’s darker, merciless side is hinted at in conversation, while Brosnen has the correct amount of wry comedic timing without hamming it to death! He and Desmond Llewelyn’s scenes in Q’s lab are genius, and possibly the best in the series!

The other actors, except for Sean Bean as an excellent and original turncoat villain, are a little... over the top; there are some questionable accents being thrown around, while Famke Janssen topples all previous villainesses with a truly psychotic (and memorable) character.

But, I do love it. As the first Bond film I saw on release, how can I not? Sure it is 1990s, but Goldeneye has the first use of computer graphics (okay, some satellite shots are dodgy) and it is the first Bond film to come on DVD. It also has the most use of models and miniatures of any Bond film and it shows, with some excellent effects. Tina Turner’s opening theme is still incredible, and tops all the others, while the opening itself (with new designer Daniel Kleinman) is a much needed breath of fresh air for the franchise!

It is punchy, incredibly fast paced yet maintains the sense of danger and espionage nicely. Brosnen’s reign as James Bond looks very promising indeed. Right? ... Right?

Additional Marshmallows: If you are like me, and anyone growing up with Goldeneye as their Bond film, you will have obsessed over the tie-in Nintendo game on the N64. It is very, very hard to watch it again without thinking “God, that level was murderous!”

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

It seems like Tomorrow Never Dies gets a lot of criticism thrown its way, but personally, I think it is the only other good Brosnen film next to Goldeneye!

After military unrest is caused between the British and the Chinese when a secret GPS encoder was used to mis-direct battleships, Bond is sent to investigate the intelligent but power hungry media magnate Elliot Carver.

Goldeneye was quite the act to follow, but asides from a few clichés and glib expositionary dialogue, Tomorrow has a massive amount of action and a consistent pace, making it very easy to watch yet with new ideas to spin some intrigue.
Jonathan Pryce plays Elliot Carver, a transparent but unique villain, and I for one fully appreciate this character; at least he gives an impression of having a plan that works. The naysayers really should watch Moonraker some time, for an example of a stupid, stupid villain. The film also features Michelle Yeoh as Wai Lin, possibly the most capable Bond Girl we have ever seen! We also continue to get great scenes between Bond and Q, Desmond Llewelyn and Brosnen have some great chemistry in these scenes.

The theme by Sheryl Crow could never beat Goldeneye, but thank god the film’s score rises head and shoulders above its predecessor! This soundtrack actually has an identity, grounding the film in its own surroundings and story, and being punchy and loud when it’s supposed to be.
There is however a dip in Bond’s darker presence... and while this only gets worse in later films, it is already happening here; Bond is almost always jovial here and the one-liners are tumbling out. You could also say Joe Don Baker’s recurring character is like the Moore era’s Sherriff Pepper... but at least Baker’s character has a purpose in the story!

I definitely enjoy Tomorrow Never Dies. It may have its flaws, but I’ve been through eighteen Bond films now and I can say none of them are without flaws; at least this one has some unique features, memorable moments and some grounding in reality!

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know this was the first Bond film to not use any Ian Fleming references? While Carver’s German bodyguard Stamper was originally drafted to have a brain injury that made him register pain as pleasure... a characteristic altered and adapted for the next Bond film’s villain.

The World is Not Enough (1999)

There begins the sagging demise of Pierce Brosnen’s Bond career. While nowhere near as bad as Roger Moore’s worst, this certainly has too much overly juvenile stupidity.

The World is Not Enough begins with a merciless terrorist who cannot feel pain (due to a bullet lodged deep within his brain) killing a oil baron and targeting his daughter next. Bond must protect her while uncovering the terrorist plot.

Okay, I have to get the negative out of the way first, because it was becoming painful throughout the film... Denise Richards. It has been ten Bond films since I saw this sort of pathetic excuse of a Bond Girl; I thought we were past this! A nuclear physicist who runs around in a sleeveless shirt and hot pants... give, me, a, break. She does next to nothing except spout exposition so Bond knows what to do and otherwise makes it look like Brosnen’s dragging around a blow-up doll. She could have easily have been written out of this for the movie’s benefit.

The film feels choppy, as though there were several ideas churned together, individually eye-catching, but together they feel disjointed. We have a man who feels no pain, parachuting ski-mobiles (“Parahawks”, Google it) and helicopters wielding buzzsaws, the latter was indeed in an early draft of Goldeneye. Certainly the best elements of the film are the villains, and while I usually attest to a good villain making a good film... here they just feel wasted, especially Robert Carlyle’s Renard, I mean what an interesting casting choice!

It has its moments; the opening includes a motorboat chase around London and the Thames River, ending on the Millennium Dome, the villain’s plot is relatively interesting. But the character of Christmas Jones is just a travesty; some of the dialogue is more juvenile than even Moore standards, while Brosnen himself is looking less-and-less invested.

Intelligence and integrity are buried under needless stupidly here, pushing aside unique ideas in preference for overloaded campiness. Better than I remember, but possibly due to comparison with previous Bond films!

Additional Marshmallows: The film features an absent-minded farewell to Desmond Llewelyn as Q and his replacement by John Cleese. Unfortunately Llewelyn died in an automobile accident soon after the film release, he had commented on wishing to return in the next movie. The video and DVD of The World is Not Enough features a tribute to his appearance in the last seventeen Bond films.

Die Another Day (2002)

Should have been called “Parody Another Day” or “Overripe Garbage”.

Where to begin...

The twentieth outing for super-spy James Bond was going to be special, a triumphant celebration of forty years of movie magic. Shame that all we get is an infantile mash of explosions, pointless gadgets and pointless characters, with an overwhelming amount of padding, and literally endless one-liners!

Bond is captured and tortured in North Korea while investigating diamond smuggling and arms dealings, only to later defy MI6 and uncover the connections between these illegal trades and an overnight diamond billionaire developing an orbital space weapon. Meanwhile, Halle Berry is in this.

So, the good aspects are easy to list, since there are only two. The villain’s henchman Zao (played by Rick Yune) who could have carried the entire film had he been given the chance, and the brand new Aston Martin Vanquish and its final ice-skating car chase!

Unfortunately, everything else is bad. We can assume the twentieth Bond would have some cameos, some references to previous films, but did they need to replace the story with them? We have laser torture (ala Goldfinger) we have ejector seats, we have Union Jack flag parachutes, jet packs, knife shoes, and oh yes, Halle Berry butchering the original Bond Girl’s (Ursula Andress from Dr No.) entrance, replacing subtly for brazen slow-motion, rivets of water and breasts.
It is a messy, choppy and nonsensical action film that strays so far from what Bond is that it goes beyond parody; this is jumping the shark in almost every scene. When the villain dons an electric power-suit akin to Power Rangers, you wonder just what the hell you are watching!

This is a shame, because the opening isn’t too bad, it starts with surfing. SURFING! I’ve never seen that; they've finally replaced skiing with something different (although I still don’t believe hovercrafts can safely traverse minefields) and Bond being captured and tortured was also unique (although this too is ruined with that selfishly “standout” theme from Madonna...)

Ultimately, Die Another Day fails at almost everything it attempts; everything good is countered with something bad i.e. cool looking car = they make it invisible; strong female character = they cast Berry; different setting with North Korea = they turn the bad guy British... wait what?

There’s so much wrong I cannot list it all. 2002 was a bad year for film franchises, seeing Resident Evil begin and Star Trek: Nemesis, and like Nemesis, Brosnen’s last Bond film is a jumble, a mess without any coherence; bubblegum for the eyes.

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know that Halle Berry was looking to start a spin-off series with her character Jinx, “The first Bond Girl to get her own film”? I cringe at the thought, fortunately it was canned and she went on to film Catwoman. Hah.

Now I am going to hit you with a revelation I've had... I believe that Pierce Brosnen is the weaker actor.

I know, I know!

... Stop throwing the cabbages, tomatoes and grenades at me!

I'm not saying the films themselves are the worst (certainly not; Moore and Connery have some of the worst stories/plots/villains of the series) but Brosnen only ever looks comfortable as the character once... and that is during Goldeneye.

This and the fact that Bond becomes an unmoving cliché of himself in these films, he requires more interesting characters around him to make things dynamic. Michelle Yoeh from Tomorrow Never Dies, Robert Carlyle in The World is Not Enough, and in Die Another Day Halle Berry practically steals everything from Bond in becoming his equal!
Maybe he isn't as bad as Roger Moore as the character... but at least Moore felt consistent (horrendously consistent, yes) and fairly confident throughout, and if you like that sort of thing... then that's... good? Brosnen does look and sound the part.

The actor himself has been quoted as being uncertain about the character, that he "never really nailed it", and how he may have wanted to portray Bond in a slightly edgier manner than the Moore-like comedic route; "a more ferocious way".

However you look at it (and perhaps you really like the Brosnen films as they are!) there is a lack of confidence underneath the films, either with the character or the storytelling in general.

But this is all quite harsh because I really enjoy Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies, in fact Goldeneye was the first Bond film I owned, even before Licence to Kill! The films have some great ideas, great villains, and are entertainment (all the way down to the most basic definition of the word) I would rather watch these four twice rather than the seven Moore films!

Next time, things get dark and gritty. We are no longer watching happy-go-lucky, suspension of disbelief action anymore, Bond is getting a realistic edge now! The last and current Bond, Daniel Craig arrives in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!

The Connery Era

The Lazenby film & Connery's Return

The Moore Era

The Dalton Era