›

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

1…6791112…153

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    QoS
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Obviously, OP.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    OP hands down-one of Roger Moores finest while Qantum of Solace is an unforgivable mess of a turd and that should be flushed out of the toilet of existance..
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    002 wrote:
    OP hands down-one of Roger Moores finest while Qantum of Solace is an unforgivable mess of a turd and that should be flushed out of the toilet of existance..

    Not a fan then? ;)
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    I hate to abandon Craig but I have to say OP. It's the second Bond film I ever saw and is a centimental favorite. But I honestly can't understand the hate for QOS. It wasn't as good as CR but much better than TND, TWINE, and DAD. I think it's one of the better post cold-war bond films.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Octopussy for reasons I don't feel I need to elaborate on. Yes, it's pure Moore nonsense here and there but does have some fine exciting sequences and there is plenty to get involved in, Roger was evidently inappropriate for the part by 1983 but all told above all else it does remain a fun two hours spent, even if weighed down by some lame humor and look away moments, plus a really fine Bond teaser with Moore in the astrojet and sky chase, Rita Coolidge puts forth a fine haunting melody and it's one of the best Bond themes of the last thirty years even, saw it on it's release and must have appreciated it more at the time as we went back again for a second viewing, it's nowhere near classic Bond and doesn't pretend to be, but it's always worth another watch if you're in the mood for such a thing
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    I hate to abandon Craig but I have to say OP. It's the second Bond film I ever saw and is a centimental favorite. But I honestly can't understand the hate for QOS. It wasn't as good as CR but much better than TND, TWINE, and DAD. I think it's one of the better post cold-war bond films.

    Yeah, I don't particularly understand the hate for QoS either. When I first watched it, I was a little disappointed because it ended too quickly and the action was confusing due to the terrible camera editing. Nonetheless, it is starting to grow on me as I watch it more times. It has great location work, probably its best quality, great action if you can really squint hard and pay attention. Actually, the editing is good during the plane dogfight and the hand-to-hand battle with Slate, so those two are more bearable. Also, I liked Daniel Craig's performance. He seemed more professional and less headstrong, like in CR where he acted like an angry rookie. I love CR, don't get me wrong, but in some scenes he acted a little out of character.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    OP
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    It wasn't as good as CR but much better than TND, TWINE, and DAD.

    Despite it's faults I must admit I've always preferred TWINE.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    BAIN123 wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    It wasn't as good as CR but much better than TND, TWINE, and DAD.

    Despite it's faults I must admit I've always preferred TWINE.

    Interesting selection that. I'd say my ranking goes like this:

    <center>TND</center>

    <center>over</center>

    <center>QOS</center>

    <center>over</center>

    <center>DAD</center>

    <center>over</center>

    <center>TWINE</center>
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Mine would be

    TWINE over QoS over TND over DAD.

    None are great films however.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    DiscoVolante wrote:
    QoS is boring, unoriginal and slow.

    Unoriginal? In the world of Bond, no, it's quite unique. Maybe for the wrong reasons but there you go. It's all about style.

    Slow? More like, fast, fast, fast! In fact too fast for it's own good. Gives you no time to breath.

    Boring - I'll give you that. The plot wasn't up to much or more likely was just presented in the completely wrong way, in order to work.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Well, I'm not even going to bother counting the votes, since Octopussy one in a landslide against Quantum of Solace! Looks like a big win for Roger Moore!

    Well, onward to the next round:

    Dr. No vs. License to Kill
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I liked both movies but I have to go with

    LTK
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think I'd go with Dr No. It's got more of a "Bond feel" to it.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited January 2012 Posts: 13,999
    I like DN, but IMO it lacks that oomph that LTK has.
  • slyfoxslyfox
    Posts: 940
    I hold both in very high regard. Both are exciting with superb Fleming-like-Bond reminders, but DN wins my vote. Also, I prefer the locations in DN (Jamaica scenes) to the made-up city in LTK.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    LTK. DN is a very, very good Bond film, but LTK is what CR was badly trying to be. LTK did "dark and serious" right. It was also the first in the series to take such a drastic turn as it did, but for the better. Just only 4 years before, you had Roger Moore (or should I say his double) snowboarding to "California Girls" by The Beach Boys, and (not his double as far as I know) making quiches. LTK didn't have a smug "look at me, I'm attempting to be dark and serious" attitude like CR. LTK felt natural with its tone, unlike CR. The only real flaws LTK has are that the locations are a bit bland and repetitive, and the film has a cheap look to it. Also, Wayne Newton's character is just.... weird. It's not funny, but It's not that annoying, compared to other characters in Bond films. The character is really nothing at all, just there. Other than that, I love it. It makes me somewhat glad LALD wasn't an accurate adaptation because I find this film so darn good. Don't get me wrong though, it's not like I only like Bond films that are "dark and serious". DAF is my second favorite Bond film, I really wouldn't call that a serious film for the most part. The way LTK did the approach it did was very well executed, and I commend it for that. I wish more Bond films, say, the ones between 1979-1985, were like it.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,778
    LTK wins for me. Don't get me wrong I like DN but it's low budget, weak musical score, and shorter runtime hurt it in areas.
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    Dr.no first Bond movie no question asked
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Doctor No has to win, not only is it the first entry of the immortal series, we get introduced to Bond on the big screen, this was at a time when Connery was at his best and would be for another two or three years, it's where it all started, it has exotic locations, Ursula Andress, a believable and smart bad guy in Joseph Wiseman, tension moments, lot's to keep the interest and it's a fine way to start it all off

    LTK is my second favorite of the two Bonds that Dalton did, it's OK admittedly, but at times it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, Dalton is restricted to one or two locations during running time, same as with Connery in 1962, fair enough, but LTK just drags on sometimes and it's more adult fare than for kids, and just brought Bond of the time out of it's comfort zone. I have to choose Doctor No, if I had a choice right now of the two, I'd put it on and have a watch and go back to where it all began

  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    License to Kill

    Overall, it beats Dr. No on its large group of great villains, much better action, a better score, and a better storyline/plot. As for Bond's performance, both DN and LTK feature wonderful performances by Connery and Dalton, in fact, some of their finest Bond work.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,310
    Dr. No for me. DN and LTK are two Bond films that I hold in high regard (LTK was the first Bond film I ever saw), but it is Dr. No that rises above. I've always regarded DN as 'the little film that could'. And Connery's slaying of Professor Dent is my favorite scene in the entire series.

    4. Dr. No (1962) - 9/10
    5. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) - 9/10
    6. Thunderball (1965) - 8.5/10
    7. The Living Daylights (1987) - 8.5/10
    8. GoldenEye (1995) - 8/10
    9. You Only Live Twice (1967) - 7.5/10
    10. License to Kill (1989) - 7.5/10
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Doctor No has to win, not only is it the first entry of the immortal series, we get introduced to Bond on the big screen, this was at a time when Connery was at his best and would be for another two or three years, it's where it all started, it has exotic locations, Ursula Andress, a believable and smart bad guy in Joseph Wiseman, tension moments, lot's to keep the interest and it's a fine way to start it all off

    LTK is my second favorite of the two Bonds that Dalton did, it's OK admittedly, but at times it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, Dalton is restricted to one or two locations during running time, same as with Connery in 1962, fair enough, but LTK just drags on sometimes and it's more adult fare than for kids, and just brought Bond of the time out of it's comfort zone. I have to choose Doctor No, if I had a choice right now of the two, I'd put it on and have a watch and go back to where it all began

    Re your comment about LTK being "more adult fare than for kids". I once saw an article in a Men's health magazine that listed 100 movies for men and DR NO was the only Bond movie to make the list. LTK is considered the most violent of the Bonds but I still enjoy it and it sounds like you also enjoyed it. Can't have all the Bonds being the same movie. Bond movies despite being formulaic still should be unique.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,859
    licence to Kill. (surpirsed Me and only 4-5 other people like Quantum of solace i've watched it over 20 times always asking the same question "why don't people love this film?" I've really tried to hate it but sadly it's brilliant. I love it)


    WHY LTK simple dark brooding my Second Favorite Bond (Craig Beats Dalton by a hair) great climax some amazing moments it's just an amazing film
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Doctor No has to win, not only is it the first entry of the immortal series, we get introduced to Bond on the big screen, this was at a time when Connery was at his best and would be for another two or three years, it's where it all started, it has exotic locations, Ursula Andress, a believable and smart bad guy in Joseph Wiseman, tension moments, lot's to keep the interest and it's a fine way to start it all off

    LTK is my second favorite of the two Bonds that Dalton did, it's OK admittedly, but at times it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, Dalton is restricted to one or two locations during running time, same as with Connery in 1962, fair enough, but LTK just drags on sometimes and it's more adult fare than for kids, and just brought Bond of the time out of it's comfort zone. I have to choose Doctor No, if I had a choice right now of the two, I'd put it on and have a watch and go back to where it all began

    Re your comment about LTK being "more adult fare than for kids". I once saw an article in a Men's health magazine that listed 100 movies for men and DR NO was the only Bond movie to make the list. LTK is considered the most violent of the Bonds but I still enjoy it and it sounds like you also enjoyed it. Can't have all the Bonds being the same movie. Bond movies despite being formulaic still should be unique.

    It's just that it seemed at the time and maybe in retrospect a bit out of line with it's predecessors. There we were from 1962 onwards, with our Parental Guidance classifications and for the most part nothing too extreme, I mean just four years before LTK we had Moore putting on some 007 fare some five year olds would enjoy, and then like all of a sudden, it all got a bit nefarious and from the comfort of Bond in gorilla suits and clown 'fits, we were introduced to sharks biting off limbs, exploding heads, and guys impaled on Fork Lifts etc, it was such a rise in content in such short time. Not that I have a problem with it, but there you are. I remember at the time when it was released in Summer '89 they gave it a '15' certificate and I was thinking 'what's all that about', it's not something we expected with James Bond, at least at the time

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    ...and by the way, for those interested in the exact numbers of the OP vs. QOS fight, according to my count it was:

    Octopussy: 19
    Quantum of Solace: 2

    :))
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    DN And what better reason is there than it being the first Bond movie?
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    I can think of no better first post than being able to vote for Dr No. Especially when it is put up against, what I consider to be, one of the more disappointing films in the series.

    Licence To Kill, in my opinion, doesn't have the sparkle, the glamour, or the fun, that I associate with a good Bond film. Dr No started it all. There really is no contest in my eyes.

    I'd rather be underneath the mango tree with Sir Sean, Ursula and Quarrel, than in the grim, gritty world of Licence To Kill.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    D and it's more adult fare than for kids, and just brought Bond of the time out of it's comfort zone.

    Thats why I love it.

    I also like Dr No, Doctor Julius No is my favourite literary Fleming figure and Ursula is very iconic.

    But LTK has an almost Shakespearian plot where 007 uses the villains paranoia against him and that tanker chase is a magnificent climax.

Sign In or Register to comment.