It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
GF is the most overrated Bond movie. Mendes' most overrated movie is American Beauty. But in any case, saying SF is the most overrated movie of all time, of the whole history of cinema, is ridiculous.
GF is sorely underrated. It's a beautiful bit of cinema. It's got class. It's original. It's innovative. It's iconic.
I love your dedication to the cause! :D
Underrated? Where? Every bleeding reviewer says it is the greatest Bond movie of all time. Don't get me wrong, I love GF, but casts a large shadow over the two movies that preceded it and many of the following ones.
Skyfall is probably 2nd most overrated film of the series but GF is considerably more in those stakes. I say overrated but I still love it but I do think the plaudits have wound some people up big time, hence countless threads about how overrated it is and the usual suspects who can't shut up about it.
It's all quite amusing I personally hope it continues to annoy the shit out of those who find it overrated. I find it most amusing the likes of Getafix & chrisisall feel need to go on about it, I hope it's legacy continues to thrive just for that reason alone.
I have no favourite Mendes film.
But I will rank SF ahead of QoS. It's a solid 22nd on my Eon rankings.
I'm expecting SP maybe though to give me a favourite Mendes film. :D
Sheesh, some SF lovers can so testy.
Whatever you think of Mendes and SF... The most overrated movie of all times? Of all the history of cinema?
Porky's Revenge too.
Edit. Actually I meant Porkys 2: The Next Day.
The weak sequel didn't warrant a third installment. Terribly overrated by those that liked it.
But the whole series, classic original and its two not quite so excellent sequels should get props for lifetime achievement in politically incorrect cinema.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I mean specifically among fans. Reviewers, yes. Their default is GF. Having said that, if we're comparing it with SF then I would suggest SF is certainly more overrated. GF was ballsy enough to switch up the formula after and despite it's two excellent predecessors. SF marries the greatness of CR with the nostalgia of the previous 50 years. For that reason alone I find GF more innovative, more endearing, more worthy of praise.
Like a man who'd eat a rustlers burger over a fillet steak. I jest.
I haven't seen Goldfinger in forever, so I might watch it again soon and weigh in. Otherwise I agree totally with this post, although I might have opted for "oh go on then, eject me" at the end ;)
I've officially ejected you, for using the second worst line in that film.
I often find that GF is praised, at least outside this community, for the wrong reasons. Let's not forget that for all its qualities, it has its main character not doing a whole lot in the last third of the movie.
That would be a good contender. Or maybe Titanic or Avatar.
I don't see that as a flaw. In essence he does exactly what he needs to do. If it happened in a Craig film people would be lauding it a mould-breaking masterpiece.
It really depends how you look at it really. If I am correct, then by your standards SF is a beautiful bit of cinema as well no? If you talk about the aestathic....and the technical aspects of the film. But I'm not sure if you mean that. In any case, then GF and SF can actually be compared with each other, and both can be called "cinematic masterpieces of its time", famed for its aestathics, regardless of how believable the plot, story, or villain's scheme is.
For me personally, and again opinion and personal taste have a huge part in this, FRWL has that "cinematic iconic aspect" as well, although not to that extent as GF (I like to compare FRWL a lot with CR). FRWL is a bit more of a defining spy thriller, whereas GF is more of a defining Bond film.
Call me a bit a fan of Terence Young fan, but IMO he stayed a bit closer to the Fleming novels. With GF they just..."overthought" it a bit too much, to make it interesting for the public (much to the annoyance of Sean Connery):
-- Turning "Q" in a grumpy man (not necessarily a bad thing)
-- Turning Pussy Galore into a blond bombshell instead of a buth lesbian (I still love Rosa Klebb)
-- The circular saw was replaced by a leaser beam
-- The gadget-laden Aston Martin
Off course it's wunderful, but it was at that time a deliberate choice of director Guy Hamilton to turn GF in an entertaining bit of "nonsense" (he frequently used that word).
Yes it worked. Tremendously. But I prefer the more toned-down approach of director Terence Young. Moreover, GF meant that from that moment onwards everything had to be big, bigger, biggest. Even when it concerns the villain's plot.
By those standard it doesn't make SF a beautiful bit of cinema. Visually, maybe. As a package, no. GF was/is definitive. It took what had gone before and elevated it cinematically.
SF had to borrow fron GF to pacificy the audience. GF didn't need to.
Sorry, I think that last sentence is a bit...ehm.....generic. I mean, you can apply that to:
-- QOS: Ms Fields killed by oil.
-- DAD: A pathetic love for nature's resources (gold, diamonds).
-- Scenes at Q-branch, with tributes all over the place.
-- TSWLM: The henchman-/-woman with "killer" artefacts
-- DAF: Smuggling of "expensive stuff"
Obviously GF left a very hard-to-beat benchmark in cinematic history. Agreed. But I think it goes a bit too far to say that GF didn't need to borrow, whereas SF had too: Because there wasn't much to borrow really after only two Bond films. It's quite easy, from a creative point of view, as a director to set a new stamp/benchmark.
And from that point....it is of my honest opinion that SF had more cinematic impact than some of the other recent Bond films (let's say: from TWINE till QOS).
That is a bold statement as it has not really been done since and thus is a complete presumption. Sure, Bond does something, enough to say he saves the day, but I prefer when he is more proactive.
For me personally Sean had his best Bond moments in both FRWL and TB. His humour was slightly more slick. He was at key moments more serious and down-to-earth (dialogues between Bond and Fiona Volpe and between Bond and Grant). In GF Sean was, for me at least, slightly more of a "victim" of the events.
The comparisons you mention really don't fly. SF didn't allude to a previous film, it borrowed an icon wholesale. The same way SW 7 has incorporated the Millenium Falcon as it's safety net. I'll concede that GF had very little to reference, but at the same time it could have continued in the same vein as DN/FRWL. It didn't. They took a punt and put their balls on the table. No playing it safe. This isn't me deriding SF, far from it. It's acknowledging the innovative nature of GF.
GF is not really "the" formula, IMO. Bond uses all the gadgets of the DB5.. and gets captured because of reflections in a mirror. This is Hitchcock doing Bond. But in TB and in the next movies, the gadgets will always be there to save him. Except maybe for a fake moustache in OP.
Okay, well, perhaps others see them flying then :-). I agree about the innovative nature.
What is...actually your ranking of favourite Bond films? I mean, I know how you think about mine (which I slightly adjusted because of your comments). But where do you stand really?
I don't rank them. I love them all within reason. It really depends on my mood. I don't actually remember your rankings, the only thing I do remember is you putting TSWLM below NSNA which I thought was tantamount to treason. I actually don't consider NSNA a true Bond movie, but that's my personal opinion. I do however consider TSWLM to be an indulgent work of genius.
Even before I read the novels, Moonraker was killin' me.
b-(
I read the novels once a year in order. I love them, but consider them a wholly separate entity to the films.
Which Bond film in your opinion is the best and most faithful adaptation of its novel counterpart then?