Reviews

'The World is Not Enough' fixes many issues with the previous entry in the franchise 'Tomorrow Never Dies'. The prior film was criticized for having goofy villains and a silly story. 'The World is Not Enough' re-aligns the franchise by bringing back better villains, a more interesting story, and adding much more substance to the characters. The film throws a few curve balls and misdirections at the audience as well, so you'll be kept on your toes. All of the actors put on a great performance, with the exception of Denise Richards. She plays Dr. Christmas Jones and she is not believable in the slightest as a nuclear scientist. But she's such a gorgeous bombshell I can overlook her crappy acting. M is also much more involved in the plot, which is quite welcome because she really dominates her scenes. Overall I enjoyed 'The World Is Not Enough', it's much better than the prior Bond film, but still not quite as good as 'Goldeneye'.

'Tomorrow Never Dies' is the 2nd James Bond movie of the Pierce Brosnan era. The movie was greenlit due to the enormous success of 'Goldeneye'. Unfortunately, I found 'Tomorrow Never Dies' to fall drastically short of 'Goldeneye' in terms of storytelling and overall quality.

The premise of 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is that the main villain, Elliot Carver, is a media mogul who wants to manufacture a global conflict so his media outlets can provide coverage of it. Really. That's it. Not only is this plot highly implausible, but the the character Elliot Carver himself is very nonthreatening and lacks any sort of menacing traits. He also has two henchmen - a guy who looks like he lives in mom's basement drinking Mountain Dew and playing MMORPGs all day, and another guy who looks like he belongs in a 1990's German boy band. These three make up a very lackluster crew of villains that I found boring.

Paris Carver is also a very unremarkable Bond girl. We learn she is James Bond's former girlfriend, but the film never actually dives into their history. What a wasted opportunity. Adding some depth to the history of James Bond and Paris Carver would have made the audience significantly more invested in her as a character, and would have made future scenes with her much more impactful. Instead, we don't really care much about her because her character was shallow to begin with.

The special effects were pretty good. The film is very action-packed. 'Tomorrow Never Dies' was given double the budget as the previous film 'Goldeneye', and it especially shows during the action scenes. My only major complaint is the sound effects for the kicks and punches were way overdone. A very gentle punch or kick produces an unrealistically loud "WHACK!" which stands out as too over-the-top.

'Tomorrow Never Dies' checks off all the classic James Bond tropes, but is bogged down by a weak plot and an undistinguished lineup of characters. It's a shame because I really enjoy Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. If the plot had much more substance, this could have been a great movie, but instead it's just mediocre. I rate it a 6/10 overall. 'Goldeneye' is very much the superior film.

I distinctly remember the collective groan from the James Bond fan base back in the mid 2000's when the announcement came that Daniel Craig would replace Pierce Brosnan as the new James Bond. Fans were up in arms because Daniel Craig has blonde hair and baby blue eyes, instead of themore traditional darker traits that were synonymous with the James Bond character. Funny how once 'Casino Royale' was actually released, those skeptics immediately disappeared.

Daniel Craig proves he has the charm, elegance, presence, and confidence that the fans have come to expect from James Bond. He just has a very powerful aura about him from that start that easily establishes him as the next James Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen plays the main antagonist Le Chiffre, who is one of my favorite James Bond villains. The film actually provides insight into his backstory to shed some light on the motivations behind his actions. Le Chiffre is humanized because the audience simply understands his reasons for being "the bad guy", which makes him much more relatable and interesting as a character. This is the antithesis of traditional Bond villains that have a tendency to be very over-the-top and evil just for the sake of being evil.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, who is assigned to supervise James Bond during his mission. Not only is Eva Green stunningly beautiful, she also perfectly portrays the charm, wit, determination, and overall likeability of Vesper. Not much can be said without getting into spoiler territory, but I will say her story arc is one of the highlights of the movie. The women in the James Bond franchise have historically been shallow sex objects, but Vesper's character contains significantly depth than female characters in prior films.

The action sequences are perfectly placed throughout the film and choreographed beautifully. However, some of the most suspenseful scenes in the film aren't even the scenes with action. The high stakes poker game itself unfolds in a way that creates enormous suspense and excitement. These scenes at the card table are so perfectly crafted, the audience is left with even greater anticipation and excitement than any action scene in the film.

Every part of 'Casino Royale' is extraordinarily well-written. The characters are interesting, relatable, and have depth. The plot is stimulating and compelling. The movie is beautifully shot. There is so much attention to detail. There are so many small moments scattered throughout the film that add massive amounts of depth to the story. There are many elements of cinematography utilized, like lighting/colors/camera angles, that perfectly complement the storytelling aspect of the film.

'Casino Royale' is not just a good James Bond film, it's a good film altogether. It's a must-watch film for anyone, whether or not you're a fan of the James Bond franchise.

Right upfront, the Daniel Craig era James Bond films tell a continuous story. If you have not already done so, watch them in order prior to viewing this film ('Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace', 'Skyfall', 'Spectre', and then 'No Time to Die'). The story arc carries over from one film to the next, and 'No Time to Die' will be much more impactful when you understand the plot elements and story lines set up by the prior films.

Now onto the review. The performances are once again top-notch. Daniel Craig slays as James Bond, and has really grown on me as perhaps the best actor so far to portray Bond. It's bittersweet that his tenure as Bond has come to an end, but on the other hand there's newfound excitement for the fanbase to see what the future holds for the Bond franchise. Rami Malek plays the main villain, and although his performance was great, I felt he did not have the same dominant presence as other Bond villains, such as Javier Bardem's character in 'Skyfall' or Christoph Waltz in 'Spectre'.

My biggest complaint with the previous Bond installment 'Spectre' is the film lacked depth and didn't take risks. 'No Time to Die' is the opposite. The story is filled with twists and turns at every corner. You'll find yourself completely immersed in the plot, waiting in anticipation to find out what direction the writers chose next. Without getting into spoilers, the film does a great job of really getting the audience emotionally invested in the characters and cheering them on (or rooting against them) all throughout the film.

In additional to an interesting story, the film has the typical action sequences you can expect from a James Bond movie. High speed chases using cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, and any other vehicle. Shootouts, hand to hand combat, etc. It's all pretty standard by this point. The action sequences in 'No Time to Die' were handled spectacularly and made excellent use of very creative camera work. One scene in particular that stood out for me was toward the end where one continuous shot was used during the a climactic action sequence.

The film also has many themes and motifs. Most obviously "Time" - the word is in the title, it's in several very important moments, Bond uses a watch as a weapon, etc. But also, there are many Easter Eggs sprinkled throughout the film that long-time fans of the franchise will be happy to notice.

I really enjoyed 'No Time to Die'. I rate it a 9/10. A very enjoyable movie, but still not as good as 'Casino Royale', but to be fair, I don't see any James Bond movies passing that film soon.

I also really enjoyed the theme song by Billie Eilish. She gets a lot of hate I think solely because she's an angsty generation Z artist, but she does have a great voice which complements the overall ambiance of the film.

I enjoyed Spectre, it was a fun movie. It was a good James Bond movie, but it felt lacking in certain aspects.

I'll start with what I liked. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful. Director Sam Mendes makes excellent use of lighting, camera angles, and all the tricks in order to capture some excellent shots. There is also several settings throughout the film with lush scenery that really adds variety and atmosphere to the film.

The performances are all top-notch, but that's pretty much standard with these movies at this point. Daniel Craig has already established himself as a high-caliber actor fully capable of playing James Bond. I enjoyed Christoph Waltz's performance as the main villain, I really liked him in "Inglourious Basterds" and was thrilled he delivered a stellar performance once again. Dave Bautista also did a great job playing an intimidating bad guy, and him and Bond had some brilliantly choreographed action scenes together.

My biggest criticism with Spectre is it just doesn't take very many risks. The film is a formulaic James Bond movie and doesn't add anything new. There aren't any major plot twists. The film misses so many opportunities to add additional depth and lore to the James Bond franchise. For example, we learn the main antagonist and James Bond have major history together, but this is only brought up once and never mentioned again. What a wasted opportunity to further delve into their back stories and facilitate character development and really get the audience better invested in these characters.

In my opinion, the theme song is also the weakest of all five Daniel Craig James Bond films. I found it to be very forgettable.

Spectre is by no means a bad movie. It's action-packed with excellent actors. The major flaw is the film's lack of depth, but sometimes, there is a comfort in familiarity. Final score: 7/10.

Quantum of Solace gets regarded as being one of the weaker James Bond films for good reason. Skyfall does a fantastic job of realigning the franchise and matching the very high expectations set by its predecessors.

The acting is on point. Daniel Craig gives a stellar performance as James Bond, as per usual. Javier Bardem's portrayal of the main antagonist will send shivers down your spine. I was excited to see him in Skyfall since I loved his performance in "No Country for Old Men" and he does not disappoint in the slightest.

The writing is extraordinarily compelling. Without getting into spoilers, the movie contains several perfectly timed plot twists that keep the audience on the edge of their seat. One major criticism I had with Quantum of Solace is the plot was too convoluted and needed more breathing room. Skyfall, on the other hand, is perfectly paced and gives the audience ample time to follow along.

I rate Skyfall a 9/10. Any criticisms I have would be nit-picking, and I don't want this review to come across as pretentious and overly critical.

I rank Skyfall as the 2nd best Daniel Craig era James Bond film, with Casino Royale still being the best. Casino Royale is an almost-perfect film that's nearly impossible to surpass, but there is no shame in being second best.