Big Mi6 James Bond film ranking game - A few stats!

17810121324

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,865
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    NTTD was #14 for me. It shows moments of greatness but also tries to bite off more than it can chew. I'm confident that it will become something of a re-discovered "classic" someday, a film people will return to, admiring that it had the cojones to kill off Bond. Right now, I have it in the middle somewhere. There's stuff I love and stuff I struggle with, but overall, the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

    That last line is exactly how I feel about it, and it's really all I can ask for anymore. I don't need a perfect installment every time a new one is released (though how nice would that be?), but as long as the pros outweigh the cons, I'll consider it a win.

    I've given that a lot of thought myself, @Creasy47. I wonder if some of that has something to do with us. We all expect things from a new Bond film that it's bound not to deliver. Or, perhaps the studios have "outgrown" our romantic notion of what constitutes a fan-pleasing Bond film. Or perhaps there is no such thing anymore since fans have grown too diverse in their Bondian tastes as well...

    Yes, you really can't please everyone, and I quickly learned to temper my expectations when it comes to wanting something overly specific, i.e. wanting QoS 2.0 for SF and getting the complete opposite. I think if I didn't have that passionate hope and assumption for four straight years, I might've actually loved SF. It's a bummer when it happens!
  • Posts: 3,824
    It comes back that to that idea that the producers don't actually make Bond films solely for the fans. Sounds harsh, but they'd never be able to please all of us anyway!

    For better or for worse, I think they were thinking about what was right for the character's story with NTTD. I can't necessarily fault it for that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,865
    007HallY wrote: »
    It comes back that to that idea that the producers don't actually make Bond films solely for the fans. Sounds harsh, but they'd never be able to please all of us anyway!

    For better or for worse, I think they were thinking about what was right for the character's story with NTTD. I can't necessarily fault it for that.

    It's genuinely impossible, and I'm glad they avoid such an approach. That sort of thing has infected other mediums, especially the world of TV.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,952
    I can share your general feeling, but considering that three of the Craig films are in my top five (in alphabetical order: CR, NTTD, SF) I'm really not complaining. In spite of (relatively speaking) misfires like the other two, I'm highly satisfied with the Craig era. Being disappointed altogether is so...late Brosnan.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,077
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    NTTD was #14 for me. It shows moments of greatness but also tries to bite off more than it can chew. I'm confident that it will become something of a re-discovered "classic" someday, a film people will return to, admiring that it had the cojones to kill off Bond. Right now, I have it in the middle somewhere. There's stuff I love and stuff I struggle with, but overall, the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

    That last line is exactly how I feel about it, and it's really all I can ask for anymore. I don't need a perfect installment every time a new one is released (though how nice would that be?), but as long as the pros outweigh the cons, I'll consider it a win.

    I've given that a lot of thought myself, @Creasy47. I wonder if some of that has something to do with us. We all expect things from a new Bond film that it's bound not to deliver. Or, perhaps the studios have "outgrown" our romantic notion of what constitutes a fan-pleasing Bond film. Or perhaps there is no such thing anymore since fans have grown too diverse in their Bondian tastes as well...

    Yes, you really can't please everyone, and I quickly learned to temper my expectations when it comes to wanting something overly specific, i.e. wanting QoS 2.0 for SF and getting the complete opposite. I think if I didn't have that passionate hope and assumption for four straight years, I might've actually loved SF. It's a bummer when it happens!

    True. I get that. CR and QOS were on the road to something great, IMO. Four years of wanting more of that resulted in me taking in SF like a whiplash. I got over it eventually, but it wasn't the Bond film I wanted back then. Then again, maybe it's better to get something good that you weren't expecting. ;-)
    007HallY wrote: »
    It comes back that to that idea that the producers don't actually make Bond films solely for the fans. Sounds harsh, but they'd never be able to please all of us anyway!

    For better or for worse, I think they were thinking about what was right for the character's story with NTTD. I can't necessarily fault it for that.

    I think that "the fans" are naturally inclined to bring more concrete and thought-through expectations to the next Bond film than wider audiences. I think we're also far more sensitive to certain unexpected manoeuvres. So I believe you are absolutely right.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,865
    It's a rare occurrence for me but getting a product I wasn't expecting but somehow loved even more is always a joy. That happened to me with Cuckoo this past weekend: not what I was expecting and yet I was so happy it ended up being exactly what it was.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,077
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's a rare occurrence for me but getting a product I wasn't expecting but somehow loved even more is always a joy. That happened to me with Cuckoo this past weekend: not what I was expecting and yet I was so happy it ended up being exactly what it was.

    I started seeing Bonds at the cinema with GE. The only two films that positively surprised me the first time around were GE and CR. Two more made me happy compared to their immediate predecessors: DAD (believe it or not) and SP. The ones that I thought good but that also disappointed me because they weren't like their predecessors were TND and QOS. The ones that require a a couple more viewings before I was convinced: TWINE and SF. Notice the pattern? ;-)

    And then there's NTTD, which was a strange film overall. COVID, the long wait, all the information we'd already gathered, its length, its polarizing choices, its mission to tie things up, ... I liked it overall but struggled with a few things and had to mentally overcome a few serious obstacles. In a way, NTTD made me think about the film, and process the film, unlike any other Bond film ever had. I almost had to recalibrate what made me a Bond fan to like the film. I managed, rather quickly I might add, but it is the odd one in this series.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,952
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In a way, NTTD made me think about the film, and process the film, unlike any other Bond film ever had. I almost had to recalibrate what made me a Bond fan to like the film.

    But is this a bad thing, instead of always expecting and receiving the same old same old?

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,077
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In a way, NTTD made me think about the film, and process the film, unlike any other Bond film ever had. I almost had to recalibrate what made me a Bond fan to like the film.

    But is this a bad thing, instead of always expecting and receiving the same old same old?

    No, not at all. I welcome these challenges.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,056
    Speaking of change, our next entry also did something no other entry ever did before or since, for better or worse, at #17:

    MOONRAKER (1979)
    Directed by Lewis Gilbert

    263730b5536fcc751e28a3917054bbc5bcad64cda8d3d5f543662839d9e2913e._UR1920,1080_SX720_FMjpg_.jpg

    "Such good sport."

    Bond's space trip turns out to have more fans than one might expect, with one 5th, one 8th, one 9th and two 10th places.

    Five more members had a place for it in their top half, and four more in their top 15.

    Only three bottom 5's were noted: one 21st and two 23rd places, the latter being its worst placements.

    Not a bad showing for an entry that used to be generally considered the worst by default.

    MR obtained a respectable total of 111 points.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,747
    Hehehe, top 5 for me 😅, #5, in particular.....

    * Moore's most comfortable and best Bond acting yet, combining vulnerability, physicality, humor, charm, and sophistication, and yes, he's more comfortable and natural in his acting, have more facial expressions and reactions to his surroundings.

    * Great Bond villain in Michael Lonsdale as Hugo Drax, menacing, yet somehow sophisticated, witty and had a complete personality.

    * A real Bond's equal in Holly Goodhead, for whatever shortcoming of Lois Chiles' acting is the greatness of a character she's portraying, she's tough, independent, a no damsel in distress, resourceful, even her gadget saved Bond's life through that poisonous pen, and never gave a shit about Bond, the first Bond girl to kiss Bond on her own terms (not the other way around), intelligent, and matured.

    * Beautiful cinematography and score.

    * Tension, danger and thrill was present in this film, like the Rio scenes when Bond saved Manuela from Jaws (highlighting Moore's vulnerability and sincerity), the fight with Chang in the Glass Museum at night that's very physical and thrilling, and the killing of Corrine.

    I know Jaws and the outlandishness aspects of this film overshadowed the great things in this film, but for me, Moonraker is the highlight of the Moore Era, it's the best of his tenure by far, it perfected what the other films in his era were lacking and missing, it may not be the best overall in the series, but in Moore's tenure as Bond, in the entirety of his 7 films, it's without a doubt, his best.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    edited August 15 Posts: 2,090
    #14. Without Barry’s score, a cracking PTS and a genuinely gripping first hour, this one most probably would have landed in the bottom 5.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 7,202
    Yep, #9 for me. Probably was a time I had MR much lower, but I find it so entertaining, daft scenes aside! Lonsdales wonderfully droll Hugo Drax, Ken Adams fantastic sets ( Particularly the 'Mondrian' space set!) , Moore on form (especially in that centrifuge scene!), Corinnes death by dogs, cracking pts, Barrys score, beautiful cinematography, big bold set pieces! Yeh, we have utter silliness in abundance, Jaws ( whom I've never liked!), the infamous pigeon,the Venice chase and the ambulance nonsense, not to mention the crazy Space finale ( which, admittedly, is great fun!) and it's easy to see why it cracks my top 10. Always have a blast (off!!) with it!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 15 Posts: 16,099
    #8 for me, you're all mad again :D
    It's silly and very light, there's a touch too much of the stakes being pretty low, and the action scenes are generally pretty weak, but it's all such wonderful fun. And I'd say Bond has never been this aesthetically rich before: it all looks so superbly expensive. The locations, the clothes, Ken Adam ending his run on a massive high, John Barry coming up with a ludicrously beautiful score... I kind of just breathe it in as a sumptuous treat. And Roger does a brilliant job in it, he's the audience's friend in this, and he even lets us laugh at him rather than with him at a few points. And there's even a couple of moments of actual vulnerability, which you may not expect.
    It's all so well-meaning and happy to please I always have trouble imagining that anyone doesn't like it: it's like a soppy puppy. But then I guess not everyone like puppies so that's okay! :D
  • edited August 15 Posts: 3,824
    An odd Bond film, but not quite one that ‘jumped the shark’ as much as some may think.

    Score, cinematography, the opening stunt, cinematography, SFX and set design are all excellent. This film has a clear sense of spectacle to it which is really needed considering its plot often makes little to no sense (ie. It’s often pointed out Bond likely wouldn’t have been sent on this mission, and if Drax hadn’t decided to kill him he wouldn’t have become suspicious. There are incredible leaps of logic such as Bond trekking into the jungle simply because the orchid grows there, again only to get attacked rather than left to wander aimlessly). Incidentally I don’t think all Bond plots need to be airtight so long as the audience is enjoying themselves, and that spectacle along with Moore’s performance and Gilbert’s direction often outweighs logical fallacies.

    Lonsdale’s performance is another highlight. Love how darkly humorous Drax is to the point where he openly says he wants to create an interesting death for Bond! Lonsdale’s dry but sinister demeanour sells it.

    Despite how out there the idea of a space battle is, it’s something that feels real in the actual film (far more so than the inflatable Gondola!) We even get a few rather dark scenes in this film such as Connie’s death and the scientists being poisoned.

    My issues with this film - Holly Goodhead (real name supposedly) is a bit boring, especially compared to Anya in TSWLM. Chile’s performance can be a bit wooden at times too (although that might be due to dubbing at times). The cable car fight is weirdly underwhelming and awkward. I get the sense they were going for a Hitchcock type thing at the beginning with the lack of score, but it grinds the pace of things to a halt and lacks tension (then there’s Chiles’ awfully delivered ‘hang on James’). In a film with otherwise fun, fast and gripping sequences it’s a bit of an outlier. While I like the idea of Jaws turning on Drax (presumably because he won’t fit in with Drax’s perfect human race image) the cartoonish romance with whats-her-name is a bit silly even for this film and comes out of nowhere.

    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.
  • Vinther1991Vinther1991 Denmark
    Posts: 64
    I have Moonraker at #17 too. The movie is a bit all over the place, with some goofy elements that are taken a bit too far (Jaws in particular). The constant location changing is a bit too much, the pacing is very odd and it has some of the worst use of back-projection and stunt doubling in the series. The movie is also an obvious rip-off of TSWLM, which was already taking a lot from Thunderball and YOLT. Moonraker falls into the guilty pleasure category for me.
    A lot of the humor works really well, the movie looks great for the most part, the soundtrack and set designs are incredible. Moore is giving his best performance here, and I like Holly Goodhead. It has a lot of really stand out scenes for the series, so I don't see how it could ever be considered the absolute worst Bond film. The film is the definition of a Roger Moore film for me, and if there is one thing it has on TSWLM it is its willingness to go completely crazy and not take anything serious. But also, Goodhead and Drax are improvements over their TSWLM counterparts.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 15 Posts: 3,747
    I have Moonraker at #17 too. The movie is a bit all over the place, with some goofy elements that are taken a bit too far (Jaws in particular). The constant location changing is a bit too much, the pacing is very odd and it has some of the worst use of back-projection and stunt doubling in the series. The movie is also an obvious rip-off of TSWLM, which was already taking a lot from Thunderball and YOLT. Moonraker falls into the guilty pleasure category for me.

    Don't worry, TND would do the same thing again 😅.

    This is very much in the tradition of the Bond films now: GF being recycled into AVTAK, and TWINE, and to the lesser extent, QoS.

    OHMSS was recycled into TWINE, SP, and NTTD, and to the lesser extent, FYEO.

    TB was recycled into TWMTGG, GE, and again, FYEO.
    A lot of the humor works really well, the movie looks great for the most part, the soundtrack and set designs are incredible. Moore is giving his best performance here, and I like Holly Goodhead. It has a lot of really stand out scenes for the series, so I don't see how it could ever be considered the absolute worst Bond film. The film is the definition of a Roger Moore film for me, and if there is one thing it has on TSWLM it is its willingness to go completely crazy and not take anything serious. But also, Goodhead and Drax are improvements over their TSWLM counterparts.

    This, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

    And I would also add that MR have danger and thrill that TSWLM lacks, and which makes the latter boring for me to watch, because Bond had never been put in dangerous situations, Bond was mostly in control for most of the time, he's relaxed, calmed, and mostly acting smug compared to MR which he was clueless for most of the time, he have no idea what's happening and that led him to dangerous situations because he's trying to figure out things.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,473
    It's got a real feelgood charm vibe, kinda Spielberg-like - something the recent era lacked altogether. How good is that Rio alleyway scene? Love the classic investigative work in this one, taking snaps of blueprints from a safe. I put it at #12 this time, which is the highest I'm likely to place it. Typically it's somewhere in the teens.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 3,824
    Oh yeah, the story is more or less a spin on YOLT and TSWLM. And of course as said TND would effectively do it later too.

    Honestly, I don’t see how it’s a negative. If it were a complete remake without anything new to add to this formula I’d understand, but Bond is a pretty formulaic series anyway (just on a basic level there are always villains who have their schemes, Bond girls, allies etc. and Bond will always defeat these villains). It’s also a franchise prone to reworking elements of itself - character archetypes, stories etc. MR is certainly a unique film on its own!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,952
    MR took the whole trajectory from being boycotted by myself when it came out (because I thought the idea of a James Bond laser battle in space was preposterous) to belated, skeptical viewings to becoming maybe (on again, off again) my favourite Roger Moore film. I had it at No. 11 on my list for this survey, and FYEO on 10 (and LALD on 12). Really interchangeable according to my current whims. I do like those three much more than the awfully dated TSWLM, the meh TMWTGG, and OP and AVTAK (my Nos. 22 and 23). They're good, enjoyable movies, and MR even a good, funny enjoyable movie, with maybe the best-written villain of the entire franchise.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,077
    #10 for me.

    This is one hell of a silly, outrageously implausible film, barely a Bond film even. And yet... its score, impressive technical achievements, beautiful locations, Roger completely in on the joke, great theme song, and adventure elements somehow come together in a way that makes MR one of the most enjoyable trips in the series. I've had a love affair with this film since childhood, and it's never gone away.

    I have criticised other films in the series for their silliness, so why not MR? What do the others lack? I think it's a sense of harmony. Some try to be dead serious and silly at the same time and fail to find the proper balance. "Silly" can be insulting too, whereas MR honestly just wants to bring us Bondian joy at an expensive, epic scale. The money is on the screen too: even without paying attention to story, MR is a visually spectacular marvel.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,099
    007HallY wrote: »
    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.

    Yeah, I think Spy doesn't quite have the visual sparkle of this, but it does have a bit more of a sense of danger and stakes to it (only marginally, perhaps!). But then this also has Drax, who I think is way better than Stromberg.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 15 Posts: 3,747
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.

    Yeah, I think Spy doesn't quite have the visual sparkle of this, but it does have a bit more of a sense of danger and stakes to it (only marginally, perhaps!). But then this also has Drax, who I think is way better than Stromberg.

    Where's the danger and stakes? It's not executed well in the film, let alone do I see Bond being in danger, or Bond taking the mission seriously, he's mostly smug, arrogant, confident and relaxed all the time. It's the most relaxed Bond film I've seen and that aspect is one of the reasons why I tend to get bored while watching the film, the tension was dry and none of the scenes in the film kept me tight to my seat, and by the time in the middle act, I nearly lost my attention, it's not even marginal, I've watched the film many times and I could barely see any danger in the film, hence, it became one of my pet peeves about TSWLM.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,056
    Another Rog entry I absolutely love!

    The plot, of course, is its weak point, I won't argue with that.

    However, everything else is superb. The characters, the cinematography, the music, the locations and probably the best sets in the series (or maybe even outside?).

    #11 for me, could have been top 10 on another day.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 3,824
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.

    Yeah, I think Spy doesn't quite have the visual sparkle of this, but it does have a bit more of a sense of danger and stakes to it (only marginally, perhaps!). But then this also has Drax, who I think is way better than Stromberg.

    Where's the danger and stakes? It's not executed well in the film, let alone do I see Bond being in danger, or Bond taking the mission seriously, he's mostly smug, arrogant, confident and relaxed all the time in the film, where's the danger in it? It's the most relaxed Bond film I've seen and that aspect is one of the reasons why I tend to get bored while watching the film, the tension was dry and none of the scenes in the film kept me tight to my seat, and by the time in the middle act, I nearly lost my attention, it's not even marginal, I've watched the film many times and I could barely see any danger in the film, hence, it became one of my pet peeves about TSWLM.

    I'd say TSWLM has more tension than MR. Not to say MR doesn't have its moments (ie. the centrifuge scene, the PTS, and to a lesser extent the python scene) but it's notoriously quite breezy a lot of the time. I don't think anyone goes into the Gondola chase seriously expecting Bond is going to get hurt or will get captured. The film defaults quite a bit to gadgets which come out of nowhere too (again, the inflatable Gondola, Bond's watch he uses to explode the vent, the boat he uses to trek into the jungle) which contributes to that breeziness. It's entertaining, sure, but it's not edge of your seat stuff. We're watching to see how Bond's going to get out (again, often with a deus ex machina gadget), not to find out whether he'll be able to do so.

    TSWLM on the other hand relies quite a bit on foreshadowing to build that sense of danger. It's a much stronger script in that sense. You have, for instance, two scenes where Jaws kills people quite brutally, so by the time we get to Bond's first fight with him we've established how this man can kill people, and indeed how strong/dangerous he is. Same for Stromberg's elevator/shark trap. First time viewers will genuinely believe that Bond might be dropped into that tank because we've seen it earlier in the film. It's a very neat subversion that Bond figures it out. Even the gun at the bottom of the table is set up in this rather Hitchockian manner, where the audience see it first and Bond is unaware until a certain point.

    Even when TSWLM surprises us with gadgets such as the Lotus's submarine feature, it's more purposefully crafted. We see Bond talking to Q about the car (but do not hear what he says as it's essentially from Anya's perspective) so by the time we get the chase and it crashes into the water the audience genuinely aren't sure what's going to happen and are expecting Bond and Anya to have to find a way out.

    Slightly different Bond adventures, but I think TSWLM is deceptively well made in filmmaking terms. Dare I say I think there's more substance there than MR (again, MR's exceptionally well made, but often in a way that makes the audience forget about some of that lack of stakes/logic/tension).

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I agree about Drax being better than Stromberg, and while Anya had an interesting backstory about her killed boyfriend (I'd liked to see this done better in a future Bond film), she's not Bond's equal as everyone making her out to be, she's not tough, mostly a damsel in distress and passive, Goodhead while very much a conventional Bond Girl, yes, she's way less interesting as a character especially in terms of dynamic, but she paved the way for future tough agents like Pam Bouvier, Wai Lin and yes, Jinx (despite of her flaws, she have a skillset), I'm saying it now, the 'Bond's equal' debate had been proved already for so long, I liked the scene when Holly impressed Bond when she physically fought those men in the shuttle, like someone's doing that in the 70's, if that's the case, Holly was ahead of her time, and that moment changed Bond's perception of women for better, he started respecting women in the subsequent films after this, no longer showing smugness and arrogance, so it also helped regarding Bond's character development.

    The whole battle of the sexes thing is there, but it's a pretty minor character thread in my opinion. I suppose if you look at it like that Anya has her faults (although I don't think 'Bond's equal' girls are always especially interesting - even Wai Lin has a rather shoehorned romance with Bond and isn't all that well developed as a character. Same for Jinx. Even Pam ends up pining for Bond with the weird love triangle in LTK. I find Anya a much better character because there's something much more tangible baked into the script - namely Bond killing her boyfriend. She feels more like a real person).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 15 Posts: 3,747
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.

    Yeah, I think Spy doesn't quite have the visual sparkle of this, but it does have a bit more of a sense of danger and stakes to it (only marginally, perhaps!). But then this also has Drax, who I think is way better than Stromberg.

    Where's the danger and stakes? It's not executed well in the film, let alone do I see Bond being in danger, or Bond taking the mission seriously, he's mostly smug, arrogant, confident and relaxed all the time in the film, where's the danger in it? It's the most relaxed Bond film I've seen and that aspect is one of the reasons why I tend to get bored while watching the film, the tension was dry and none of the scenes in the film kept me tight to my seat, and by the time in the middle act, I nearly lost my attention, it's not even marginal, I've watched the film many times and I could barely see any danger in the film, hence, it became one of my pet peeves about TSWLM.

    I'd say TSWLM has more tension than MR. Not to say MR doesn't have its moments (ie. the centrifuge scene, the PTS, and to a lesser extent the python scene) but it's notoriously quite breezy a lot of the time. I don't think anyone goes into the Gondola chase seriously expecting Bond is going to get hurt or will get captured. The film defaults quite a bit to gadgets which come out of nowhere too (again, the inflatable Gondola, Bond's watch he uses to explode the vent, the boat he uses to trek into the jungle) which contributes to that breeziness. It's entertaining, sure, but it's not edge of your seat stuff. We're watching to see how Bond's going to get out (again, often with a deus ex machina gadget), not to find out whether he'll be able to do so.

    TSWLM on the other hand relies quite a bit on foreshadowing to build that sense of danger. It's a much stronger script in that sense. You have, for instance, two scenes where Jaws kills people quite brutally, so by the time we get to Bond's first fight with him we've established how this man can kill people, and indeed how strong/dangerous he is. Same for Stromberg's elevator/shark trap. First time viewers will genuinely believe that Bond might be dropped into that tank because we've seen it earlier in the film. It's a very neat subversion that Bond figures it out. Even the gun at the bottom of the table is set up in this rather Hitchockian manner, where the audience see it first and Bond is unaware until a certain point.

    Even when TSWLM surprises us with gadgets such as the Lotus's submarine feature, it's more purposefully crafted. We see Bond talking to Q about the car (but do not hear what he says as it's essentially from Anya's perspective) so by the time we get the chase and it crashes into the water the audience genuinely aren't sure what's going to happen and are expecting Bond and Anya to have to find a way out.

    Slightly different Bond adventures, but I think TSWLM is deceptively well made in filmmaking terms. Dare I say I think there's more substance there than MR (again, MR's exceptionally well made, but often in a way that makes the audience forget about some of that lack of stakes/logic/tension).

    I guess, but I think despite of the examples being laid out in here, they're interesting, but I think Moore downplayed it, I suppose, because most of the time, it's like he's not taking it seriously, he's mostly confident and smug all the time, and he's mostly in control, the example of this was in his encounter with Sandor, that scene was supposed to have tension in it, but I didn't felt any tense in it mainly because Moore acted like "oh, yeah, this is very easy for me", the same for that scene with Stromberg, he played with it cool, and was not shown to even break a sweat while confronting Stromberg, when he had survived the shark trap in that elevator, along with the score (that's very relaxing and not tense), he even quipped a line in a cool way like those obstacles were very easy to Bond himself.

    Unlike in Moonraker where he showed some fear or reactions to his surroundings, when Bond was in a tense situation in that film, I see that he's serious about it, he couldn't keep his cool and thinking that he may not survive, think of the scene in his fight with Chang in Glass Museum or when he confronted Jaws in the Rio Alleyway at night, he'd never showed confidence.

    Even those Egyptian scenes where Anya was very urgent to drive the van away from Jaws, but Bond was still, cool, he's calmed and not aware of the danger that they're in, he's just too smug in this film, I guess, that he'd downplayed all of the tense scenes in TSWLM.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,099
    I think even the Lotus chase has a fair amount of tension compared to any of the MR chases. The sidecar car bit is an obvious bit of tension, but even with Naomi chasing it feels quite dangerous and risky.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 15 Posts: 3,747
    mtm wrote: »
    I think even the Lotus chase has a fair amount of tension compared to any of the MR chases. The sidecar car bit is an obvious bit of tension, but even with Naomi chasing it feels quite dangerous and risky.

    I'll admit to that, none of the chase scenes in MR were quite dangerous, yes, that chase scene in TSWLM is better, I'll give it that, I think it's one of the most memorable scenes and best scenes of the TSWLM (despite of the plodding middle act), but I'm not going to say it's dangerous either, again, Bond handling the scene with ease (the score also didn't helped), but it's entertaining to watch for sure.

    The tension in MR lies on the Museum fight, Bond scanning Drax's vault, Bond entering Drax's secret laboratory, the shooting game between Bond and Drax, the Rio Alleyway at night scenes, the Cable Car fight scene, the Ambulance scene, the phyton scene, the Centrifuge scene, when Bond and Holly was held on a gunpoint in the shuttle scene (the scene where Bond deactivated the gravity), and the scene when Bond was targeting the last bomb before it entered the Earth's atmosphere.
  • Posts: 3,824
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    On the whole it’s an enjoyable film. So much so you often forget its flaws. Not for everyone (and for me not on the level of TSWLM) but a solid, and rather excellently stylistically crafted Bond movie.

    Yeah, I think Spy doesn't quite have the visual sparkle of this, but it does have a bit more of a sense of danger and stakes to it (only marginally, perhaps!). But then this also has Drax, who I think is way better than Stromberg.

    Where's the danger and stakes? It's not executed well in the film, let alone do I see Bond being in danger, or Bond taking the mission seriously, he's mostly smug, arrogant, confident and relaxed all the time in the film, where's the danger in it? It's the most relaxed Bond film I've seen and that aspect is one of the reasons why I tend to get bored while watching the film, the tension was dry and none of the scenes in the film kept me tight to my seat, and by the time in the middle act, I nearly lost my attention, it's not even marginal, I've watched the film many times and I could barely see any danger in the film, hence, it became one of my pet peeves about TSWLM.

    I'd say TSWLM has more tension than MR. Not to say MR doesn't have its moments (ie. the centrifuge scene, the PTS, and to a lesser extent the python scene) but it's notoriously quite breezy a lot of the time. I don't think anyone goes into the Gondola chase seriously expecting Bond is going to get hurt or will get captured. The film defaults quite a bit to gadgets which come out of nowhere too (again, the inflatable Gondola, Bond's watch he uses to explode the vent, the boat he uses to trek into the jungle) which contributes to that breeziness. It's entertaining, sure, but it's not edge of your seat stuff. We're watching to see how Bond's going to get out (again, often with a deus ex machina gadget), not to find out whether he'll be able to do so.

    TSWLM on the other hand relies quite a bit on foreshadowing to build that sense of danger. It's a much stronger script in that sense. You have, for instance, two scenes where Jaws kills people quite brutally, so by the time we get to Bond's first fight with him we've established how this man can kill people, and indeed how strong/dangerous he is. Same for Stromberg's elevator/shark trap. First time viewers will genuinely believe that Bond might be dropped into that tank because we've seen it earlier in the film. It's a very neat subversion that Bond figures it out. Even the gun at the bottom of the table is set up in this rather Hitchockian manner, where the audience see it first and Bond is unaware until a certain point.

    Even when TSWLM surprises us with gadgets such as the Lotus's submarine feature, it's more purposefully crafted. We see Bond talking to Q about the car (but do not hear what he says as it's essentially from Anya's perspective) so by the time we get the chase and it crashes into the water the audience genuinely aren't sure what's going to happen and are expecting Bond and Anya to have to find a way out.

    Slightly different Bond adventures, but I think TSWLM is deceptively well made in filmmaking terms. Dare I say I think there's more substance there than MR (again, MR's exceptionally well made, but often in a way that makes the audience forget about some of that lack of stakes/logic/tension).

    I guess, but I think despite of the examples being laid out in here, they're interesting, but I think Moore downplayed it, I suppose, because most of the time, it's like he's not taking it seriously, he's mostly confident and smug all the time, and he's mostly in control, the example of this was in his encounter with Sandor, that scene was supposed to have tension in it, but I didn't felt any tense in it mainly because Moore acted like "oh, yeah, this is very easy for me", the same for that scene with Stromberg, he played with it cool, and was not shown to even break a sweat while confronting Stromberg, when he had survived the shark trap in that elevator, along with the score (that's very relaxing and not tense), he even quipped a line in a cool way like those obstacles were very easy to Bond himself.

    Unlike in Moonraker where he showed some fear or reactions to his surroundings, when Bond was in a tense situation in that film, I see that he's serious about it, he couldn't keep his cool and thinking that he may not survive, think of the scene in his fight with Chang in Glass Museum or when he confronted Jaws in the Rio Alleyway at night, he'd never showed confidence.

    Even those Egyptian scenes where Anya was very urgent to drive the van away from Jaws, but Bond was still, cool, he's calmed and not aware of the danger that they're in, he's just too smug in this film, I guess, that he'd downplayed all of the tense scenes in TSWLM.

    Except for the van example I don't particularly get a different sense of Moore's Bond in TSWLM compared to MR. I think he looks genuinely scared when he's fighting Jaws in the train carriage. I especially get that sense when he's trying to diffuse the bomb during the climax (another exceptionally tense and well crafted scene). Same for the bit afterwards when he places the bomb by the guarded doors and the cable he's on stops/he has to let go and take cover from the explosion.

    I think TSWLM is actually Moore's best performance as Bond. Very effortless (to the point I think some don't realise just how much acting he's actually doing).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 15 Posts: 16,099
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think TSWLM is actually Moore's best performance as Bond. Very effortless (to the point I think some don't realise just how much acting he's actually doing).

    I'm not sure what I'd say his best performance is, I think he's generally terrific in all of them. Even just when he's being a sort of light entertainment Bond, as he is mostly in MR, it's not something that just anyone can pull off.

    I think he's excellent right out of the gate in LALD: I watched that again recently imagining if they'd somehow kept Lazenby on for it, and I just couldn't picture him giving anything close to the different levels Moore is playing it on. That scene with Rosie in the hotel room where he's kind of letting the audience in on the joke- Lazenby just didn't have that kind of skill or easy rapport with the viewer. And yeah, I think you're right that in Spy, with Gilbert, the role was fitting him like a glove.
Sign In or Register to comment.