›

Bond Movie A vs. Bond Movie B (Diamonds Are Forever vs. The World Is Not Enough)

1…7172747677…153

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    NSNA is not at all bad IMO. And Kim Bassinger is another decent American Bond girl to add to the list.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But a lot of the drama isn't really all that memorable though is it? At least not compared to the Shaw/Connery showdown or the shower scene in CR

    I agree too @actonsteve but all the films u mention were more captivating, more engaging and yes more fun than QoS was. yet they were also 'grown up' films

    Plus QoS had it's fair share of 'bangs and car chases' - all thrust in there to cover the holes in the thin story (2 big chases in under 10 minutes?)

    Compared to OHMSS, FRWL, GF, CR and GE (my top 5 Bond films) QOS is a dullard

    Too right BAIN. How have you suddenly morphed into one of the most perceptive posters on here?!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But a lot of the drama isn't really all that memorable though is it? At least not compared to the Shaw/Connery showdown or the shower scene in CR

    I would say the hunting down and cornering of Yusef and Bond nearly mercy killing Camille as the fire rages around them is pretty memorable.

    And you think QoS is a dullard while others of us lap it up.

    "Dullard" is a harsh word I'll agree but upon my most recent viewing (not long after watching CR I might add) you realise Royale is easily the better made, more compelling film. While there are some good scenes in Solace (I LOVE the moment where Craig moves the guards limb back into the lift with his leg) it just feels very...flat as a whole for a better word.

    YOLT isn't one of the greatest Bond films and Connery does at times look rather disinterested but its a film that succeeds more in offering fun escapism. It's not pretentious or trying overly hard to be clever either. I have no problem with lengthy subtitles for instance but they feel out of place in a Bond film. They were never used for long periods in FRWL, OP or GE for instace and nobody seems to mind that.

    From a technical standpoint you can see the skill of the filmakers involved in YOLT. That AND the likes of Donald Pleseance, his pirahna pool and Nancy Sinatra make for a flawed but enjoyable Bond flick.

    Unlike Solace I can re-watch Twice on a wet afternoon and have fun with it.
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But a lot of the drama isn't really all that memorable though is it? At least not compared to the Shaw/Connery showdown or the shower scene in CR

    I agree too @actonsteve but all the films u mention were more captivating, more engaging and yes more fun than QoS was. yet they were also 'grown up' films

    Plus QoS had it's fair share of 'bangs and car chases' - all thrust in there to cover the holes in the thin story (2 big chases in under 10 minutes?)

    Compared to OHMSS, FRWL, GF, CR and GE (my top 5 Bond films) QOS is a dullard

    Too right BAIN. How have you suddenly morphed into one of the most perceptive posters on here?!

    Haha. I just love Bond @Getafix. Seriously I don't hate QoS but I have a bit of a hostility towards it for some reason. Its probably one of the films in the series that frustrates me the most. I WANT to say its great and I can see some good things in it but as a whole (its story, its action and its pacing) all I can say is...meh.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    YOLT: 19 votes
    QoS: 16 votes

    So close for Quantum! Well, all right, onto the next round. At the request of @DoubleOhhSeven, the next match-up is:

    Dr. No vs. Casino Royale
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Wow, could this get tougher? This is almost as rough as FRWL v.s. CR!

    We have Sean in the amazing Bond origin, with one of the best scenes in film with Bond's intro and Honey's exit from the sea, and Quarrel, one of Bond's greatest allies. Then we have my favorite Bond film, great performances by an outstanding cast, the heavenly Eva Green as my favorite Bond girl, my favorite opening theme and theme song, great locations all around, an amazing card game, my favorite Bond scene in the Bond/Vesper meeting, and a great modern adaption.

    I say CR, but DN fights like a true warrior, and both films are top tier and deserve all the acclaim they receive.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    edited May 2012 Posts: 1,082
    DN by far! IMO it's much cooler and more Bondian. I really like it. And the last half hour of CR vs. the last half hour of DN is a no brainer to me.
  • wildboonjivewildboonjive
    Posts: 299
    Casino Royale. More compelling, and better made all around.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    A start for Bond on both fronts if you will, but the very first adventure wins it over the reboot for sure, Andress - streets ahead of Lynd, Wiseman - a thousand times better than Mikklesen, it's merely a common sense Bond, the very epitome of what Bond should be almost, but that came the year later with FRWL. Royale is a decent, fun and lively film, but borderline implausible sometimes, while Doctor No doesn't have that, in that it's a perfectly feasible outing that keeps the interest and has some common sense action sequences, therefore Doctor No wins the round
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Oh, sh*t... this is tough. The first Bond versus my favorite Bond... I need to think about this.






    (thinking)





    CR, by far. Credit has to be given to DN, since it was the first Bond film, and they had no idea what they were doing, but CR just ends up a better film.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    wildboonjive wrote:
    Casino Royale. More compelling, and better made all around.

    Seconded. I do like DN but CR just feels like the more polished film.

    (I suspect Fleming purists will have a field day with this round)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    CR
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Casino Royale.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    While I love CR I think DN is a gem of a movie.

    Connery looks sharp, locations look beautiful, Adam set the production design precedent, awesome villain, well paced (doesn't feel short like QoS). I think it's as good a blueprint for a Bond film as you can get, even more than GF is suggested to be. An effortlessly stylish and cool film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    I find the scene where Bond and Doctor No converse over dinner to be just as good as anything in Casino Royale.

    But this.....is one damn tough call. :/

    I'll have to go with Dr.No...by a hair.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DN easily

    CR fumbled the ball when it comes to Flemings first novel, everything that was good about the book was lost in translation to the CR movie. It could have been Micheal Bay doing 007, especially the emotional resolution gets thrown out for a sinking bloody house. And people complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    DN easily

    CR fumbled the ball when it comes to Flemings first novel, everything that was good about the book was lost in translation to the CR movie. It could have been Micheal Bay doing 007, especially the emotional resolution gets thrown out for a sinking bloody house. And people complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)
    Don't compare CR to Michael Bay. The fool doesn't deserve to be called a director.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    CR
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    DN easily

    CR fumbled the ball when it comes to Flemings first novel, everything that was good about the book was lost in translation to the CR movie. It could have been Micheal Bay doing 007, especially the emotional resolution gets thrown out for a sinking bloody house. And people complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)
    Don't compare CR to Michael Bay. The fool doesn't deserve to be called a director.

    I disagree his speciality is OTT actionmovies and there are very few directors that can do that and satisfy an apperent need for that in cinema. His recent movies might not my cup of tea but what do I know when we talk BO.

    He did make the Rock which is probably in my list of all time great actioners with none other than the magnificent Connery in the role of a british agent.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    DN easily

    CR fumbled the ball when it comes to Flemings first novel, everything that was good about the book was lost in translation to the CR movie. It could have been Micheal Bay doing 007, especially the emotional resolution gets thrown out for a sinking bloody house. And people complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)
    Don't compare CR to Michael Bay. The fool doesn't deserve to be called a director.

    I disagree his speciality is OTT actionmovies and there are very few directors that can do that and satisfy an apperent need for that in cinema. His recent movies might not my cup of tea but what do I know when we talk BO.

    He did make the Rock which is probably in my list of all time great actioners with none other than the magnificent Connery in the role of a british agent.

    Yes, Sean is the only reason the film is even moderately good.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    SaintMark wrote:
    DN easily

    People complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)

    You're not alone, thy allmighty. Good post.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    DN easily

    CR fumbled the ball when it comes to Flemings first novel, everything that was good about the book was lost in translation to the CR movie. It could have been Micheal Bay doing 007, especially the emotional resolution gets thrown out for a sinking bloody house. And people complain about the OTT action in DAD, what a laugh. CR is less the previous British agent James Bond more the British agent James Bland. All my humble opinion of course. O:-)
    Don't compare CR to Michael Bay. The fool doesn't deserve to be called a director.

    I disagree his speciality is OTT actionmovies and there are very few directors that can do that and satisfy an apperent need for that in cinema. His recent movies might not my cup of tea but what do I know when we talk BO.

    He did make the Rock which is probably in my list of all time great actioners with none other than the magnificent Connery in the role of a british agent.

    Yes, Sean is the only reason the film is even moderately good.

    What a load of bollocks, it is a good action movie.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    CR. I know it's the first one but I don't like DN, it's pretty boring compared to the rest of the Connery films, sometimes I struggle to stay awake. Dr No is a great villian but he's barely featured.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    For me both are in my top 10. CR is #4 and DN is #8.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,382
    This is a tough one. DN is the blueprint for the series but there are things that date it badly (the score!, "Fetch my shoes!", Caucasians playing Asians...) CR is a template in its own right and is more interesting to me as a character journey, so I choose:

    CR.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Dr No.

    YOLT vs QoS was much closer for me.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Dr. No is a great film and no doubt a classic- but Casino Royale is just a bit better.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    It is amazing watching Dr. No to see just how much of the Bond formula is there from the first movie. Brilliant scenes with Moneypenny and M. A legendery Bond girl, nice location (close to Fleming's heart), great villains in Prof Dent and Dr. No. Brilliant casino intro for Connery as well. Some nice Ken Adam sets. One of my top five.

    CR is a decent but much inferior entry.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    CR is obviously a much better made movie but Dr.No has a rawness to it that makes it unique as an individual film within the series. For starters, I applaud the fact that Dr.No was hardly in the film and yet the suspense of his villainous presence lived upto when we actually do see him. No other Bond film has done that since.

    Jamaica is just beautiful. Exotic and dangerous, the Bond girls set the standard here and Connery has to be commended. This iron fist of a man was moulded into a velvet glove. The rest is history. Dr.No gets my vote.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote:
    CR is obviously a much better made movie but Dr.No has a rawness to it that makes it unique as an individual film within the series. For starters, I applaud the fact that Dr.No was hardly in the film and yet the suspense of his villainous presence lived upto when we actually do see him. No other Bond film has done that since.

    Jamaica is just beautiful. Exotic and dangerous, the Bond girls set the standard here and Connery has to be commended. This iron fist of a man was moulded into a velvet glove. The rest is history. Dr.No gets my vote.

    Great point about Dr. No's presence being felt so keenly throughout the opening act. And yes, the fact Connery takes on and defines the role so (seemingly) effortlessly is gob-smacking.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Why do people always take issue with the 'get my shoes' line from Dr No, being serious, I never took umbrage with it, if you watch it again, they were on the beach, Bond had left his shoes aside, Quarrel was nearest, they were in a hurry, and Bond says 'Fetch my shoes', as in 'he (Quarrel) was nearest', I fail to see the furore sometimes. If Andress had been closest, she would of got the shoes, I never see anything beyond it than that, it all seems innocent enough etc ?
Sign In or Register to comment.