Definativley defining a reboot

Can anyone definitively define what a reboot is? The term has been around for decades but it was made popular with the release of Batman Begins in 2005, and since then, countless films have been labeled "reboot" as a lazy way to capitalize on Begin's success. In order for a film to be classed as a reboot, it has to be set in a new continuity from previous films and to have a different style.

The way I see it there are two different kinds of reboots; financially and aesthetically. Financial reboots are films that are labeled so by executives because, like I said, of the terms connotations with "Batman Begins". Aesthetic reboots are the opposite. These are films that are reboots based on how they are made and weather they have any connections to previous films. Also, it is worth mentioning that in order for a reboot to be a "reboot", said reboot will need to spawn sequels, otherwise this reboot attempt has failed.

Financial reboots:                 

1. Star Trek 
2. Dredd
3. Conan the Barbarian
4. Friday the 13th
5. X-men: First Class

Aesthetic Reboots:

1. Batman Begins
2. Man of Steel
3. Casino Royale
4. The Amazing Spider-man

Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond

Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond. People normally say that its either Connery or Craig, but their wrong. Brosnan didn't put a foot wrong during his four film stint. He had the looks, looked convincing in gun battles and fist fights and was funny. Ironically he was in the lesser films in the series, apart from Goldeneye. Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Doe Another Day are normally placed at the lower half of "best Bonds" lists.

Sean Connery looked bored halfway through his stay, Lazenby didn't make enough movies, Roger Moore was great early on but looked to old for the action as the years went on, Timothy Dalton gave Bond that hard edge found in the novels but didn't seem as comfortable with the lighter moments and Daniel Craig was great in Casino Royale and Skyfall but too moody in Quantum of Solace. But Brosnan was consistant with everything. Him being in the lesser movies makes his performances even more impressive.

A View to a Kill isn't the worst film

As I wrote in the last post, Diamonds are Forever is my worst Bond film, but a common statement made by many Bond fans is that A View to a Kill is the worst film. In my opinion there are at least 4 worse films. A View to a Kill has a lot going for it. On the one hand it has Christopher Walken's Max Zorin; one of the best Bond villains, it has the great finale atop the Golden Gate Bridge and my favourite Bond song; "A View to a Kill" by Duran Duran. But, I can see why people don't like it; Roger Moore was too old and wasn't convincing in the action scenes, the humor as well got out of control and got to a point where the films were turning into self parody. All in all, I can find a lot of enjoyment in A View to a Kill, more than most fans at least/

Diamonds are Forever is the worst Bond film

In this particular session, I had watched the brilliant On Her Majestys Secret Service and then I had to watch Diamonds are Forever, a Bond film that I already didn't like. After watching it, I realized it is even worse than I first thought. DAF suffered from Americanization; an attempt to make Bond American. A move that may have worked but as a result, the film lost its British identity

Firstly though, as I touched upon in a previous post, Sean Connery looked bored as Bond and had also put on a little bit of extra weight, and I actually think that Lazenby could have done a better job, especially with the emotive undertones after the end of OHMSS.

The story is all over the place, it starts as a smuggling story then goes into nuclear war story with Blofeld selling nuclear supremacy. The Bond girl, Tiffany Case is by far one of the weakest. When we first see her, she is confidant and street smart, but by the end of the film, she is a bumbling idiot. Don't get me started on Blofeld. Forget the threatening performances of Donald Pleasence and Telly Savalas  This one isn't scary, isn't threatening and even has to resort to cross-dressing; one of the too many camp overtones found in the film.

Talking about camp, the film boasts the two worst assassins in movie history; Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. How Bond struggled to kill them and got knocked out by these two I will never know.

I am struggling to think of any good points....................................................OK, I thought of 2, the fight in the elevator between Bond and Franks, and the car chase in Las Vegas.

On Her Majestys Secret Service is the best Bond film

Why do so many people hat this movie? OHMSS is the anomaly among the Bond films. It is the only film that starred George Lazenby who, depending on where you read, left on his own accord or was fired. Over the years, the film has been known as the "the best Bond film with the worst Bond actor", which is a sentiment I have come to agree with on multiple viewings.

OHMSS for me, is the best Bond film. It is the same for a good few fans, and i feel that if it were Connery in the role, the opinion would be more unanimous. One of the reasons I like this film so much is because it was the first of the series that presented Bond as a man, instead of a template of an action hero; it broke the traditional Bond formula. The villain, Blofeld, doesn't die and Bond doesn't get the girl.

Perhaps the greatest triumph of the film is the score. Its immense. Without doubt the best score of the series so far. Onto Bond himself, George Lazenby is no Sean Connery, but he brought something to the role that every actor since bases their performance on; vulnerability.

Not only is OHMSS my favorite Bond films, but one of my favorite of all time.

Goldfinger isn't the best film

If you go to any film fan and ask them what their favorite Bond film is, more often than not, they will answer Goldfinger. But I've got news for them, its not. It is a great film, don't get me wrong, but Dr. No and From Russia With Love are better, they have better story lines, and in my opinion, better villains. But I can see why so many people think its the best, I just don't.

Sean Connery isn't the best Bond

Connery, in his first three films, Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger, gives a great performance. Effortlessly combining elements of danger and passion, especially in From Russia With Love. But it is from Thunderball onwards where things start to go downhill. From here we get visible signs that Connery looked bored with the role, and it didn't help in the matter that the film itself is incredibly boring with a very slow start in which Bond doesn't get his mission briefing until about 45 mins into the film.

One impression I got with Connery's Bond was that he was becoming increasingly unlikable due to his womanizing and putting duty on the back foot in favor of other ventures. Also, when compared to other Bonds, Connery had a distinct lack of humanization and never appeared to show any emotion. From Thunderball onwards, I didn't care for the character.

However. Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger consistently rank in best ever Bond films because  I feel Connery's portrayal is the exact opposite from his in later films.

James Bond in 5 days

As the title states, I watched all 22 official James Bond films in the space of 5 days to get ready for Skyfall. By the time I finished Quantum of Solace, I had some positively shocking observations.

• Sean Connery isn't the best Bond
• Goldfinger isn't the best film
• On Her Majestys Secret Service is the best film
• I got bored with Sean Connery by the time I watched Diamonds are Forever
• Diamonds are Forever is the worst film
• George Lazenby had the potential to be the best Bond 
• Roger Moore's best film is The Spy who Loved Me
• A View To A Kill isn't Moores worst
• Timothy Dalton was a good Bond
• Pierce Brosnan was the best Bond
• Quantum of Solace is one of the worst.