Controversial opinions about Bond films

1183184186188189707

Comments

  • edited July 2016 Posts: 25
    It's not that TSWLM needs different music, IMNSHO there are moments where additional music is required to lift the scenes and stop them dragging. YMMV :-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2016 Posts: 41,011
    The only poor, standout performance in NSNA is Basinger. Agreed on Felix, he's one of my favorites throughout all of the films, EON official or not.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 12,837
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Ludovico, for me, those first two movies were when he was at his best, particularly TMWTGG.

    Love him in LALD but I feel like TMWTGG is probably him at his worst. Not his fault though, it's the script. They did a great job in distinguishing him from Connery in LALD, and giving him a script that played to his strengths and let him really define his take on the character, then in TMWTGG they have him in a number of rugged, darker more Connery esque moments which not only clash with his take on the character but also with the ridiculous campy tone of the film. I think Moore himself seemed uncomfortable in these moments too, he's said before he didn't like them and it shows.

    For me he's at his best in LALD, TSWLM, and OP. Still young enough to be plausible, very confident in his potrayal and given a great script that plays to his strengths. He's good in FYEO too but I find the script there quite forgettable so I have trouble recalling stand out moments like I do in the other three (the one that's often bought up, the car kick, just doesn't suit him imo much like the TMWTGG scenes I mentioned). And in Moonraker he seems a bit too smug at times, but he does have some great moments ("a woman?" gets a laugh out of me). In AVTAK he's good, I like his interactions with Tibbet in particular, but he's just too old to be plausible in the role anymore sadly.

    As for TSWLM, it's top five for me. The way I've always put it is this: Goldfinger invented the formula, TSWLM perfected it. It's the perfect Bond blockbuster. They really went all out, it's iconic, clever, original, fun, and as well as being such a great epic Bond film also has a number of moments of genuine depth. I love it, definitely Moore's best for me.
  • Posts: 15,229
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.
    I agree. I wish Moore had played it more like that for the rest of his Bond tenure quite frankly. There is still a little bit of that edginess in TSWLM as well, although his trademark light humour is starting to come through slightly, before becoming overblown in MR.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Apart from TSWLM and MR , in which I think Moore was too easy going. I enjoyed his
    Other performances as 007 ( I also enjoyed TSWLM & MR ) ;)
  • Controversial opinion: QOS is not "tight and fast like a bullet". To be so it would have to have a constant sense of momentum. There is none of this. In fact the pacing is all off. Scattered action scenes with no build-up, many minor conflicts that are resolved in approximately ten seconds, with no overall suspense or momentum between them. GE is tight and fast, QOS is not.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    WSD77 wrote: »
    My own controversial opinion on TSWLM is that it falls apart from the fight at Liparus onwards. Everything up to then was exciting and original. Then all the scenes seem to go on too long. The final return to Atlantis lacks any sort of tension.

    I think this is partly down to the score - or lack thereof at certain points. Just something that struck me last time I watched it through.

    This reminds me of my last watch of LALD. While it's one of the best non-Barry scores, it feel too repetitive and silent at times
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Jaws should have been a great henchman. But the comic outcome makes him a joke (and not a funny one).
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    He was good in TSWLM, but they made him far too "Kid Friendly" and not
    Scary or menacing at all. A comedy relief in MR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I was definitely frightened of him the first few times I saw TSWLM and that is still my primary impression of the character from that film. Especially his first couple of kills in Egypt (Fekkish & Kalba in particular, with the ominous music playing in the background in both cases).

    He was a joke in MR no doubt, but I prefer to think of that as a different character. A parody.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Controversial opinion: QOS is not "tight and fast like a bullet". To be so it would have to have a constant sense of momentum. There is none of this. In fact the pacing is all off. Scattered action scenes with no build-up, many minor conflicts that are resolved in approximately ten seconds, with no overall suspense or momentum between them. GE is tight and fast, QOS is not.

    I don't see this as controversial, just very accurate. However, a lot of people on here think it's a near-masterpiece so in that sense it is perhaps controversial.
  • Posts: 9,858
    My main issue with Spectre is in a way it does take away one of the cool elements of Quantum of Solace. In Quantum we are presented with a new orgnization that we don't know who is at the top and who is pulling the strings in Spectre we find out once again it's all just Blofeld being a jack ass... Kind of anti climatic
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I found QoS intentionally 'scattered' in the beginning, but also 'tight and fast', if that makes any sense.

    I thought it then became progressively more organized as it went on.

    I believe it actually was intended to mirror Bond's state of mind during the film - namely confusion, intensity & anger at the start, which then continued to resolution (solace) and calm at the end.

    It wasn't perfectly executed by any means, but I thought it was creatively interesting.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Oh boy, while we're in the Quantum discussion...

    I just gave it an independent watch and... I confess it has its' many problems and it is by no means a favourite of mine, but... I... liked it. I enjoyed watching it... that f@#$ing gunbarrel aside! I think it is a decent enough film. Shoot me.

    All of these non-Bondathon viewings of films I normally only watch IN a Bondathon have been somewhat revelatory for me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I was definitely frightened of him the first few times I saw TSWLM and that is still my primary impression of the character from that film. Especially his first couple of kills in Egypt (Fekkish & Kalba in particular, with the ominous music playing in the background in both cases).

    He was a joke in MR no doubt, but I prefer to think of that as a different character. A parody.

    His good twin brother Joss.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Controversial opinion: QOS is not "tight and fast like a bullet". To be so it would have to have a constant sense of momentum. There is none of this. In fact the pacing is all off. Scattered action scenes with no build-up, many minor conflicts that are resolved in approximately ten seconds, with no overall suspense or momentum between them. GE is tight and fast, QOS is not.

    A perfect description of QoS if I've ever heard one.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?

    Hear, hear.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    I was definitely frightened of him the first few times I saw TSWLM and that is still my primary impression of the character from that film. Especially his first couple of kills in Egypt (Fekkish & Kalba in particular, with the ominous music playing in the background in both cases).

    He was a joke in MR no doubt, but I prefer to think of that as a different character. A parody.

    Until he drops a rock on his foot like a clown!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Oh boy, while we're in the Quantum discussion...

    I just gave it an independent watch and... I confess it has its' many problems and it is by no means a favourite of mine, but... I... liked it. I enjoyed watching it... that f@#$ing gunbarrel aside! I think it is a decent enough film. Shoot me.

    All of these non-Bondathon viewings of films I normally only watch IN a Bondathon have been somewhat revelatory for me.

    Agreed. But yes the gunbarrel needs to be at the beginning and the walk is too fast!
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Moore was channeling Connery. Rather, he was playing James Bond, as was Connery. Moore's treatment of Goodnight and Anders seemed more callous to me than Connery because one almost expects that from Sean's Bond, while with Moore it appeared to be to be something his Bond was doing because of his mission focus, as opposed to something inherent in the character. A slightly different interpretation.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Connery also slapped around Tanya in FRWL.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    If I had a choice, I'd much prefer Bond to do the slapping to being slapped himself, which happened all too often to Pierce during the liberated 90's.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Moore was channeling Connery. Rather, he was playing James Bond, as was Connery. Moore's treatment of Goodnight and Anders seemed more callous to me than Connery because one almost expects that from Sean's Bond, while with Moore it appeared to be to be something his Bond was doing because of his mission focus, as opposed to something inherent in the character. A slightly different interpretation.

    -A Mission Focus does not explain everything; especially in the wake of all the things that was going on at the same time. ..!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Moore was channeling Connery. Rather, he was playing James Bond, as was Connery. Moore's treatment of Goodnight and Anders seemed more callous to me than Connery because one almost expects that from Sean's Bond, while with Moore it appeared to be to be something his Bond was doing because of his mission focus, as opposed to something inherent in the character. A slightly different interpretation.

    -A Mission Focus does not explain everything; especially in the wake of all the things that was going on at the same time. ..!
    Well, if I had the world's #1 hitman after me, a faceless assassin no less, I'd also probably be a little edgy and less concerned with pleasantries.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Moore was channeling Connery. Rather, he was playing James Bond, as was Connery. Moore's treatment of Goodnight and Anders seemed more callous to me than Connery because one almost expects that from Sean's Bond, while with Moore it appeared to be to be something his Bond was doing because of his mission focus, as opposed to something inherent in the character. A slightly different interpretation.

    -A Mission Focus does not explain everything; especially in the wake of all the things that was going on at the same time. ..!
    Well, if I had the world's #1 hitman after me, a faceless assassin no less, I'd also probably be a little edgy and less concerned with pleasantries.
    -To that I answer,- some people has moore ego than others-especially with reference to Patricia Highsmith's last HURRAH-before she died..!( the following Year)..!
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TMWTGG is maybe the most frustrating Bond movie ever made, but I think Moore's performance in it is excellent, partially because he is still finding his feet and channeling Connery.

    I'm surprised so many feel this way. Don't we prefer the actors to give their own take on the role? I prefer to watch Roger Moore doing what he's best at, playing his Bond, rather than the sub par Connery impression he does in certain scenes of TMWTGG (interrogating Anders being the worst offender). Isn't the whole reason that Brosnan gets so much stick on here because he was too similar to his predecessors?
    Only speaking for myself, I didn't see it so much as a sub par Connery impression but rather as Moore 'playing James Bond'.

    His TMWTGG characterization is on occasion (Lazar, Anders, Goodnight) tougher and more of a b@$t@rd than anything Connery did, while still retaining Moore's trademark smooth humour & charm. I'd liken it, ironically, more to Brosnan's Andy Osnard from TOP, but the latter is a little 'over the edge' in comparison to Bond.

    It's a very difficult thing to pull off, and I think Moore did it admirably, but in a different way to Connery.

    I think EON were wrong to back away from this approach. I don't think that was why TMWTGG didn't do as well. Rather, I believe it was more the hurried & sparse script, which really isn't all that.

    Jeez - Connery choked a woman with their own bikini top in DAF, threatened to break a woman's arm in Dr No and in the same film shot a fatally wounded man in the back. Seems harsher than Moore was in MWTGG.
    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Moore was channeling Connery. Rather, he was playing James Bond, as was Connery. Moore's treatment of Goodnight and Anders seemed more callous to me than Connery because one almost expects that from Sean's Bond, while with Moore it appeared to be to be something his Bond was doing because of his mission focus, as opposed to something inherent in the character. A slightly different interpretation.

    -A Mission Focus does not explain everything; especially in the wake of all the things that was going on at the same time. ..!
    Well, if I had the world's #1 hitman after me, a faceless assassin no less, I'd also probably be a little edgy and less concerned with pleasantries.
    -To that I answer,- some people has moore ego than others-especially with reference to Patricia Highsmith's last HURRAH-before she died..!( the following Year)..!

    Why do you always write in riddles?
Sign In or Register to comment.