›

What is one Bond film generally not well-regarded but you genuinely can't understand why?

13

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,789
    Even the Fleming novels, for all of the overstatement about it being more grounded than the films had the outlandishness to it, the Giant Squid, Blofeld in a Samurai warrior living in an isolated Japanese Castle with Poisonous plants, Red Grant killing in full moon like a wolf, even the most grounded of them all, Casino Royale have the bombers disguised as cameramen with their cameras being bombs.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Well. It's over the top. That's the point. It's the silliest movie.

    Why forgive this one?


    See, I don't know which movie you're referring to!
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited December 2023 Posts: 814
    I have always been frankly baffled why so many here love OP and then disregard TB. To me, that's sheer lunacy. I don't mean to insult fellow fans in saying that, but to me, TB is light-years ahead of OP in every conceivable way.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,340
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Well. It's over the top. That's the point. It's the silliest movie.

    Why forgive this one?


    See, I don't know which movie you're referring to!

    Octopussy.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2023 Posts: 9,509
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,711
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Even the Fleming novels, for all of the overstatement about it being more grounded than the films had the outlandishness to it, the Giant Squid, Blofeld in a Samurai warrior living in an isolated Japanese Castle with Poisonous plants, Red Grant killing in full moon like a wolf, even the most grounded of them all, Casino Royale have the bombers disguised as cameramen with their cameras being bombs.

    And voodoo might be real, and Japanese gods appear to be real and communicate through statues!
    "DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »

    Octopussy.

    Yeah, I don't see how it's more over the top than YOLT or GF, and I don't see why any of these movies needs to be "forgiven" for being the "most OTT" in an OTT series of movies.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,340
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...

    We can say the same thing about DAF, TMWGG, etc but we can barely forgive a fat Connery.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...

    We can say the same thing about DAF, TMWGG, etc but we can barely forgive a fat Connery.

    @DEKE_RIVERS , I have no idea what your point is? Who is “we”? Personally I have a blast watching DAF. What are you talking about? Are you going to expand on this thought, or just leave it mysteriously hanging?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...

    We can say the same thing about DAF, TMWGG, etc but we can barely forgive a fat Connery.

    Pink tie > fat Connery
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,340
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...

    We can say the same thing about DAF, TMWGG, etc but we can barely forgive a fat Connery.

    @DEKE_RIVERS , I have no idea what your point is? Who is “we”? Personally I have a blast watching DAF. What are you talking about? Are you going to expand on this thought, or just leave it mysteriously hanging?

    "We" are the fans.

    I like DAF too, by the way
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2023 Posts: 24,179
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Kids, the silliness isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's been there from the beginning. Dr No and FRWL were considered by contemporary critics to be borderline satirical.

    SPECTRE Island and offscreen Blofeld's Transylvanian accent and cat are completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as anything else.

    Just seems weird to say a Bond movie is almost good but for a defining feature of all Bond movies.

    Excellent post, @ProfJoeButcher. The Bonds are often taken far too seriously, while their popularity is in large part due to the level of 'silly fun' to which they are committed. One or two bogus moments aren't problematic, they are part of the series' DNA. You always give the films a few concessions; in the Bonds, you have to. For while they are grounded in reality and perfectly capable of seriousness, they also flirt with the downright fantastical. And that's why we love them.

    Where I personally draw the line is when the silly fun is poorly written, poorly executed and/or absolutely insulting. And yet, even such moments rarely ruin an entire Bond film for me. Statements such as "brothergate makes me hate Spectre" make zero sense to me. Let's not forget that even our beloved OHMSS sends out hypnotized girls for the big villainous plot.

    OHMSS also had James Bond in "disguise" using a pair of Clark Kent's discarded glasses, lol.

    Bond films (all films), aren't written, developed, produced and released for a few thousand fans worldwide. They're made for worldwide audiences. Fans may be annoyed by a one or two second Tarzan scream, but others, who are out for a fun night at the cinema, may've had a good laugh at that scene.

    Instead of taking offence at small beats throughout the series, learn to accept them as add-ons the filmmakers have always peppered in these movies for general filmgoers (and not necessarily for the discerning 007 fan)...

    We can say the same thing about DAF, TMWGG, etc but we can barely forgive a fat Connery.

    @DEKE_RIVERS , I have no idea what your point is? Who is “we”? Personally I have a blast watching DAF. What are you talking about? Are you going to expand on this thought, or just leave it mysteriously hanging?

    "We" are the fans.

    I like DAF too, by the way

    Fans speaking on behalf of "the fans" are like politicians saying what we want and need.

    No two fans are alike in their tastes, expectations, desires...
  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 728
    DAF is by far my least favourite Bond of the official series. Belting theme tune mind. The Bond/Franks fight is good but little else to rcommend it into but I appreciate why people like it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @DEKE_RIVERS , but what was your point?, and;

    “Fans speaking on behalf of "the fans" are like politicians saying what we want and need.

    No two fans are alike in their tastes, expectations, desires...”— definitely, @DarthDimi !!!
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,646
    I will never get over the promise of CR and QoS and the betrayal of Skyfall.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,789
    c4a9069a-ef82-498f-9d72-8b052620d24e_text.gif

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    We know our name.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,340
    peter wrote: »
    @DEKE_RIVERS , but what was your point?, and;

    “Fans speaking on behalf of "the fans" are like politicians saying what we want and need.

    No two fans are alike in their tastes, expectations, desires...”— definitely, @DarthDimi !!!

    My point is... If i can forgive the silliy jokes in OP, I can do the same thing with other movies.
    in fact, I can forgive everything.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @DEKE_RIVERS , you were saying “we can barely forgive fat Connery”, and I’m still not understanding your point. I’m not being facetious, I’m genuinely trying to connect the dots.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,340
    For me, OP is another DAF. A fun but silly movie. I don't want to pretend that jokes don't count.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    mattjoes wrote: »
    We know our name.

    And that's all that really matters.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2023 Posts: 9,509
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    For me, OP is another DAF. A fun but silly movie. I don't want to pretend that jokes don't count.

    Fair enough, but I think, and I stress *think*, that we all may be agreeing with the assessment: jokes do count; some are silly and people may not enjoy them as much as others, but is it really enough to disqualify an entire film for a one or two second Tarzan joke, a one-to-two second visual gag of zooming in on a woman’s breasts, a one second line, that hasn’t aged well about curry, when there are two hours of a pretty tight spy thriller?… That's why some of us don’t understand why Octopussy may score lower in the rankings when fans have criticized the film for about ten seconds of jokes in a two hour film.

    With Diamonds, which I have a blast watching, I do see a dip in the filmmaking department, and I can see where some of the criticisms do come from (cinematography that’s flat and at times ugly, a poorly conceived third act that’s executed with a lazy touch, Las Vegas isn’t exactly a sexy location, a character like Tiffany Case suddenly becomes a hapless bimbo, Blofeld who was wonderfully depicted in the early parts of the previous decade, and who had graduated to Bond’s Moriarty-like foe by the time OHMSS was released, is now a silly bit of slapstick …)…
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,340
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,078
    I'd keep the 'keep you in curry' line.

    One thing I did notice when I watched it yesterday, was Octopussy's delivery of the line about Bond giving her father an honourable way out. It was rushed I felt, and a couple of pauses would have made a bit more of such a pivotal (and Fleming-rich) line in the film.

    Having 009 die as a clown at the start, and having 007 wear the same outfit at the end is actually quite Hitchcockian. I'm not going to moan about Bond in clowns gear again.

    I'll still moan about the Tarzan yell though.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,789
    Some sort of miracle played out in this discussion. Welcome.

    200w.gif?cid=6c09b952qprggad1dlba2xc253gditdmpudvbinejagb3w2f&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,340
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The Indian parte IS very silly
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

    Then you and I are watching two different films. I suppose when one is looking for something, one will usually find it, 🤷‍♂️.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited December 2023 Posts: 4,139
    I suppose Bond is quite 'silly' in essence really. No Bond story is meant to be a 'realistic' spy thriller, and what makes the cinematic Bond so distinct is that sense of irony, humour and a tongue in cheek approach to things when needed. It's what separates Bond from other generic action heroes or spy films.

    Some viewers rate the Tarzan yell or 'sit' moment higher than others (and no, as gags they're not for everyone), but it's very much part of the humour of the cinematic Bond. I mean, are these gags a million miles away from the comedy/self awareness of, Daniel Craig falling inexplicably on a couch during the explosion in SP's PTS, or how Bond and Kara escape on a cello case in TLD or whatever? Trying to break down these films by how 'silly' vs how much of them are in the realm of 'spy thriller' is kinda pointless in that sense.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The Indian parte IS very silly
    peter wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

    Then you and I are watching two different films. I suppose when one is looking for something, one will usually find it, 🤷‍♂️.

    You can also look for meaning in some posts here where you will never find it.
Sign In or Register to comment.