Kaka

With a budget of 58 million USD, it is not nearly as eye-catching as the more polished and doubly expensive parts that followed. However, as a kind of basic building block it’s alright. It is still the first groundbreaking “modern Bond film”, even though it seemingly lacks the twists and changes that the previous License to Kill had, at the same time it is not nearly as controversial an addition to the series as its predecessor. Pierce Brosnan is okay, essentially blending all the previous protagonists together, with the closest resemblance to Roger Moore’s nonchalant gentleman. The action is robust, although it has its gaps.

A heavyweight Bond flick. Long, plot-heavy, appropriately robust, with a great performance by Craig. One can't help but feel a certain similarity to the previous Spectre, especially in terms of pacing and formal opulence, but Mendes's directorial prowess and flair for scene-setting is replaced by the industrious Fukunaga, who doesn't shy away from overlong running time, another 00-seven on set, or the spectacular layering of motifs in an ingeniously pieced-together narrative mosaic. This time it's not an action Bond, but a flesh-and-blood hero full of emotion and anguish.

An overwrought, supermodern Bond, full of crazy aesthetics (colorful sets, crazy hairstyles, outrageous music) and an almost sixty-year-old Roger Moore, who has to annoyingly rely on editing or even rear projection in every other scene, something that had practically disappeared in the 80s. I wouldn't expect that in a high-budget film with the reputation that the story of agent 007 was currently quite skillfully creating. John Glen tried to rely on frantic action and expensive pyrotechnic stunts in the last Roger Moore's story, but succeeds only half-way, so technically View to a Kill is the most pumped-up Bond film until then, Christopher Walken is brilliant, but the charm of "classic" is missing together with the gadgets and the typical trademarks. It rather looks like a pure action thriller, but it falls short in terms of capacity, and doubly so for the breathless leading man.

The opening song is vocally stunning and can be compared, for example, to Goldeneye by Tina Turner. The rest, however, is unfortunately weaker compared to the previous installment, even though it may seem impressive at first glance, a high-budget eye-candy joyride of that time. Perhaps fans were somewhat blinded by it back then, and today, the evaluation is hardly objective because sentiment plays its part, but Goldfinger cannot be a better film than the previous one. It is disgracefully simple, straightforward, and lacks various script elements, like, for example, the political conflict of the previous film. Instead of beautiful locations, we have a imprisoned Connery, and instead of darkness and intense fights, there is Mr. Tau and a Bond girl with the first name Pussy. What else can be said? The glossy facade hides its flaws. The quality is hardly average.

License to Kill has exactly the same problem through the eyes of an ordinary viewer as Quantum of Solace has in the new millennium. It is a purely genre film that is confident, fierce, with raw action, aware of "itself" and its qualities. It is not independently functional, the viewer needs to have a little insight into Bond and be able to read between the lines and make connections in order to realise they are watching the most self-aware episode, one that pushes the bar higher in terms of hard action. The same applies to the Bond girls, where for the first time we can see what will be par for the course in the coming years - confident young women, refined, elegant, "image-oriented", representing the latest fashion trends. Until then, they were, with a few exceptions (Barbara Bach in The Spy Who Loved Me), merely accessories with almost no brain activity. Here, the trademarks change a little – or perhaps adapt – and the hero himself undergoes a change, paradoxically becoming much tougher and more straightforward than ever before, and yet still being much more human than it might seem at first glance. One of the building blocks of James Bond. The truck finale is textbook quality.

The first Bond that is practically without a beginning. It takes a while to get used to the fact that the film starts essentially in the middle, so we don't get a lot of character analysis and explanations of who is working for whom. Quantum of Solace is almost exactly on the well-worn tracks of Casino Royale, and that is a good thing. Daniel Craig has achieved something unprecedented, he has perfectly defined the contemporary action hero, which no one has been able to do in the past 10 years. Ethan Hunt is too action-oriented and not believable enough, Jason Bourne is an emotionless machine, but Crags's portrayal of James Bond is a thrilling persona that fits perfectly into the current trend of the perfect man: a rough, charismatic, and intelligent killer who is like a fish out of water without a luxury suit. Thankfully, there are emotions and love, but presented intentionally in a subdued manner, and delivered in precise doses, and Bond is breathtaking in those moments with the accompaniment of a gentle piano. Forster knows exactly what is in nowadays and he is careful. Perhaps it is only in the last two Bond movies where they managed to bring rawness to the action, meaning that finally the blows are hard enough, the falls are rough enough, and the running is fierce enough; no frills, no clever cameras shortening this or that, absolutely fierce, uncompromising, and devilishly fast action without any time for thinking. It could almost be said that the adrenaline can be felt through the screen. Casino Royale plus Quantum of Solace: timeless filmmaking.

The change of director was a good decision and moved the franchise closer to the eighties as well. Bond stopped making stupid jokes and started playing a real agent, women dress much more daringly than ever before, there’s plenty of technology, and no shortage of refined shots of sunsets. The cold and intimate spy thrillers have turned into full-fledged eye-candy spectacle, without losing any of the traditional values and attributes that make Bond Bond. By far the best Moore film to this day.

Very artsy, visually captivating, charming, and aesthetically precise, but it is not a timeless film, and James Bond as a character and main hero is timeless. Most of his films do not age, Skyfall, however, will likely age, as it is a more precise reflection of our time than the other movies, with the heroes, the characters, the dialogues, and the polished visuals want now. In 10 years, the trend will possibly be completely different. Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale were about revenge, or rather about love, motifs that will still move the film world in 100 years, and They are missing in Skyfall. Now it is trendy, we will see what it will be like in a few years.

Skyfall was already a precise reflection of our times and an homage to the current intelligent high-budget blockbuster. It didn't have the pull, emotion and inner strength of Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, but it's clear why; there was something going on there. But the Vesper references are very much evident in this fourth mashing of the plot, which was fully capitalized on in Daniel Craig's very first Bond, and it became a complex and full-bodied film that took the story of Agent 007 a level further in the film industry. It became a mass appeal, not a fan thing, thanks to its means of expression. Logically, there are not many ways they can go without taking it in a completely different direction, which Spectre fails to do, and it even wasn't intended to, unfortunately. Fans will try to "find it there" for the entire 150 minutes, but they won't. The few iconic scenes that warm the heart or dazzle with their sophistication are just carbon copies of previous episodes (most of the train scenes, the base in the desert). It's clear that filming the same thing twice in a row the result will not be the same. After a second viewing, the rating has to go up. Essential and visually incredibly lavish and sophisticated filmmaking. Emotionally, it's not the ride that Casino Royale was, and Léa Seydoux is no Eva Green, but Spectre assaults the other senses and does so excellently as well.

Uncharismatic actors, empty plot, instead of epic grandiosity and monumentality we have a stark journey of a group of homeless people to a pseudo city with visually impressive digital pyramids, the changing of locations is downright awkward (three minutes of cold, three minutes of jungle, three minutes of desert). The special effects team did a fairly good job, but otherwise this mess is completely pointless. Camilla Belle is delightful eye-candy, but even with the heroic music, half of which is stolen from King Arthur, the poor thing can't save it.