It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh, and while I'm here encouraging everyone on this forum to hate me (playfully of course), I can't put OHMSS in my top 10 purely because of Lazenby. Worst of the Bonds in my opinion, can't hack his wooden performance (see what I did there). My one credit to him is that he looked good in a fight, maybe even proto-Craig. Had the film been done with a not-bored-and-happy-with-his-contract Connery it would have really been something great. I reckon even Moore could've done a great job with it.
I think CR67 is an underrated piece of entertainment. Of course it's not a Bond film; it's a parody and compared to Austin Powers not even such a good one. But despite its flaws I love it. It has an epic score, a batch of the most beautiful women ever brought together in a 60s film, a cast that makes almost every other Bond film blush and a let's-make-fun-of-the-poison-pen-joke moment 16 years before OP would deliver said joke with a straight face. Plus, it intrigues me how Feldman was able to mess things up like this. Anyone thinking that a project with 6 directors, with a different segment of the film for each, could ever result in something consistent and coherent, is either a poor - POOR - filmmaker, or on drugs. Given the final result of the film, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss serious drug abuse as a possibility. ;-) Well then, a film that cost so much and reached such lows and was still formally and officially released, is a shining jewel in and by itself. Sometimes, when you sink from bad into worse and then lower still, there's an odd case of 'good' behind the corner. The so bad it's good thing? Exactly, that's where I'm at when watching CR67. I eat it up like candy; too much will give me stomach aches but a little of it, once in a while, can be so sweet...
I actually created a thread speculating about it.
I suggested the same thing not too long ago. If they ever rebooted Wint and Kidd, They should be played by Crispin Glover and Woody Harrelson.
Indeed. Following in his father's footsteps. Crispin is terribly underrated. Would love to see him get a big role again.
GoldenEye and For Your Eyes Only are superb soundtracks and better than some of Barry's lesser stuff (TMWTGG comes to mind).
Moonraker is arguably the best score in the entire franchise.
I would agree with this. I've always liked Eric Serra's score for GoldenEye and still prefer it to any score that we've gotten since that film as well.
I'm also a fan of Michael Kamen's score for Licence to Kill, especially his gunbarrel music and the track titled "Pam".
I think Diamonds are Forever is better than Goldfinger.
Try to talk yourself out of this, mate. ;-)
Doesn't look like I have to lol
I like GF better, even better than the last three 007 outings of which QoS & SF are very low on my list of appreciation of the 007 movies. I guess Mendes & EON better step up their game for the next Craig movie as he deserves something that can live up to the promise of CR.
But it's definitely one I don't revisit often
I was obviously exaggerating somewhat. I'm just saying no longer is it remotely a shock to see anyone saying "Bond Film X > Golfinger" like it would have been.. say.. 10 years ago even. Less.
I agree. I had difficulties watching it till the end the last time I saw it recently.
I find DN, FRWL and TB are superior to GF.
Yes me too. In fact GF is the first drop of quality in the franchise, albeit not a very perceptible one.
I don't hate Goldfinger like some indirectly accuse me of but when I see people say it's the best Bond ever, whether it be word of mouth or voted in some poll, I find it to be phony because it was popular in 1964. It's a decent film but it has it's flaws that drag it down for me. For one, right from the very Beginning, Goldfinger could have had Bond killed in Miami. If Oddjob killed Bond in his hotel room, Goldfinger would have won. But Goldfinger kept letting Bond live as if it was some sort of game. It was Goldfinger's own stupidity that caused his own death and the failure of his operation. If Auric was a smart criminal he would have offed Bond right then and there. Then comes the issue with Bond being captured for a portion of the movie. It's boring. nobody want's to see Bond captured and hardly do anything for 45 minutes. Goldfinger has a good first half but after Bond is captured, the film drops it from there. Not saying it's bad, but it's not worthy of "Best Bond Ever!"
I couldn't agree more. They're all far superior to GF.