Controversial opinions about Bond films

1117118120122123707

Comments

  • Everyone has a got at TLD for weak villains (I personally disagree, at least with Koskov)...

    I really liked Koskov and Whitiker--as I've posted in another thread, they were "real life" villains and not cartoonish.

    Koskov was a great villain, a wonderful slimy general, who changes his story all the time to protect himself - Whitaker is okay, he doesn't get enough screen time to be all that great, but it's a good idea, and Baker pulls it off pretty well.

    The villains are probably the weakest part of TLD, compared with the Bond, Girl, Plot, Writing, Music etc...

    Agreed about Koskov. I wonder who Whitaker is supposed to be based on. TLD was released around the time of the Iran-Contra affair.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I like Koskov. He may not be a great villain but he's definitely interesting.

    Bond's suit that he wears in TLD when he brings the goods from Harrods to Koskov, M et al is horrendous.

    Necros is by far the last legitimate henchman we've seen in the series thus far.

    Silva is ridiculously overrated

    Robert Brown's M is underrated

    The amount of MI6/Q/MP screen time in TLD should be used as a blueprint for their screen time for Bond 24 and the foreseeable Movies on the series for a good while.

  • Necros was great and I agree that Brown was underrated.

    Loved Silva--I think that he's one of the best Bond villains ever.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    doubleoego wrote:

    Necros is by far the last legitimate henchman we've seen in the series thus far.

    That is an approximation of truth for certain. Hope we can get a good henchman in B24.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    @doubleoego right on, all of it.
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Necros is by far the last legitimate henchman we've seen in the series thus far.

    Well there was Onnatop, and I quite like Dario.
    doubleoego wrote:
    The amount of MI6/Q/MP screen time in TLD should be used as a blueprint for their screen time for Bond 24 and the foreseeable Movies on the series for a good while.

    I agree with this. They got enough screen time to make an impact, but not too much.
    doubleoego wrote:
    Robert Brown's M is underrated

    I don't think he's really underrated but he's not as dull as people make out. He was alright in the Moore films but I thought he was great in Dalton's films, especially LTK. I like how different his relationship with Dalton was (very cold, almost untrusting).
    doubleoego wrote:
    Silva is ridiculously overrated

    Can't agree with that. I think he's up there with Goldfinger, Sanchez, etc, as one of the best. I thought he was brilliant and that Bardem gave the best performance in Skyfall. A creepy, flamboyant, deformed, evil bisexual psychopath. Loved him.
  • Posts: 11,189
    In my opinion Brown is not underrated or overrated. He's a perfectly functional M and does what he has to effectively and competently. Its just that he's not as character defining as the others. He doesn't get that many quotable lines, hence he's somewhat forgettable (compared to the others).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Well there was Onnatop, and I quite like Dario.

    Dario, yes-how could I forget. He was good. Well, not "good" as in a Goody-two-shoes, but you know what I mean.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A creepy, flamboyant, deformed, evil bisexual psychopath. Loved him.

    Hmmm.... :))
  • A creepy, flamboyant, deformed, evil bisexual psychopath. Loved him.

    Hmmm.... :))

    Not in that way! :P
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Hehe, happy to hear it. ;)
  • Posts: 2,402
    Ooh, I have a VERY good one:

    There are grounds to argue that Connery was the worst Bond. I don't think he was, not even close, but there are valid arguments.
  • Ooh, I have a VERY good one:

    There are grounds to argue that Connery was the worst Bond. I don't think he was, not even close, but there are valid arguments.

    Worst? Let's hear them. How could anyone argue George Lazenby was better?

  • Posts: 12,466
    Ooh, I have a VERY good one:

    There are grounds to argue that Connery was the worst Bond. I don't think he was, not even close, but there are valid arguments.

    Worst? Let's hear them. How could anyone argue George Lazenby was better?

    As a whole, you can't really argue Laz was better, but he had advantages over Connery, such as being a more human Bond and possibly better in action scenes.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    How's this- FRWL has a bad title song, lousy action (except the train fight), and a dopey last moment.
  • Posts: 12,466
    chrisisall wrote:
    How's this- FRWL has a bad title song, lousy action (except the train fight), and a dopey last moment.

    -Indifferent about title song
    -Action was okay, but very limited until the end
    -Indifferent again, felt like most Connery movie endings

    My biggest issue with FRWL is just that it loses my attention in a few scenes, and took a really long time to get going. It's not bad, but it's always been the most overrated Bond film to me.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    FoxRox wrote:
    My biggest issue with FRWL is just that it loses my attention in a few scenes, and took a really long time to get going. It's not bad, but it's always been the most overrated Bond film to me.
    Agreed. I like it, but the entries before & after were more entertaining IMO.
  • You Only Live Twice is one of the best films from the Connery era.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    You Only Live Twice is one of the best films from the Connery era.

    Agreed.
  • Posts: 12,466
    You Only Live Twice is one of the best films from the Connery era.

    Agreed here; I've been saying for a long time now that it has become unfairly underrated. Sure it's a bit dated, but it's also one of the most entertaining. It's my third favorite Connery film; as for FRWL, it beats TB and DAF for me, but DN, GF, and YOLT are my favorites from Connery's tenure.
  • FoxRox wrote:
    You Only Live Twice is one of the best films from the Connery era.

    Agreed here; I've been saying for a long time now that it has become unfairly underrated. Sure it's a bit dated, but it's also one of the most entertaining. It's my third favorite Connery film; as for FRWL, it beats TB and DAF for me, but DN, GF, and YOLT are my favorites from Connery's tenure.

    I think that it may be underrated because it was the 5th film and by that time there may have been a bit of Bond fatigue, so now it's sort of overlooked. It's better than Dr. No and Thunderball, IMHO.
  • Posts: 12,466
    FoxRox wrote:
    You Only Live Twice is one of the best films from the Connery era.

    Agreed here; I've been saying for a long time now that it has become unfairly underrated. Sure it's a bit dated, but it's also one of the most entertaining. It's my third favorite Connery film; as for FRWL, it beats TB and DAF for me, but DN, GF, and YOLT are my favorites from Connery's tenure.

    I think that it may be underrated because it was the 5th film and by that time there may have been a bit of Bond fatigue, so now it's sort of overlooked. It's better than Dr. No and Thunderball, IMHO.

    Hmm perhaps. I prefer DN still (its simplicity is a huge strength, and I think it's still one of the most intriguing of all 23), but YOLT is a respectable third for me. TB also suffered from boring segments like FRWL, and I wasn't a fan of the underwater scenes. DAF was just too cheesy and weak compared to the first five.

  • I was watching YOLT the other day and I was really impressed by both the score and the cinematography--the plot is a bit cheesy (and I give it a pass), but it's just beautifully shot. Take the scene where Bond is seeing whom he is going to marry--it just looks great. And the climax where the ninjas invade the volcano is just plain awesome.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Birdleson wrote:
    I loved YOLT as a kid, but now I have to put down as Connery's 4th in quality (followed, of course, by DAF), both in terms of the film itself and his performance. For the first time we lose the cohesive (relatively) narrative structure of the book. The zaniness for zaniness sake take sup a much larger portion of the movie than it had before. Connery seems to be ambling through most of the thing. That dangerous looking, wiry predator of the first three films is gone.

    4th in quality? DAF for 5th? Is TB your 6th?
  • James Bond films are like sex and pizza, even if it's bad, it's good.

    There are no bad James Bond films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    There are no bad James Bond films.
    Moonraker.

  • chrisisall wrote:
    There are no bad James Bond films.
    Moonraker.

    I just watched that the other day and I never tire of it. Yes, it's a but cheesy, but it's so much fun.

  • Posts: 12,466
    To me, there are four 'bad' Bond films: (in order from worst to least bad) AVTAK, MR, TND, and DAD. After that I think they're all at least decent. Even though I'm not a big fan of the four listed above, they still have their merits.
  • Birdleson wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    There are no bad James Bond films.
    Moonraker.

    MOONRAKER and DAD are bad films. But I will still watch them and try to find things that I enjoy. I'm far more discriminating with films in general (I walk out on more films than I stay through), but I cut Bond a lot of slack.

    IMHO DAD is of the same quality as the other Brosnan-era films. I never understood why people single it out as being poor quality. It's an escapist, enjoyable joyride.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Not sure how 'controversial' this opinion is, but I think the most average Bond film is For Your Eyes Only. I love the PTS, song, and performance from Roger Moore, but it doesn't stand out in the series as anything great per se. My favorite thing about it is that it's the darkest and most realistic of the Moore films, and feels more traditional, but there's nothing about it either that sets it above most of the other ones. Again, if anyone asked me what the most average Bond film was, I'd say FYEO.
Sign In or Register to comment.