Controversial opinions about Bond films

1222223225227228707

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    That's my favorite track in FYEO. Very good and underrated score.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Say what you want, but Newman's score for SP thrills me compared to Conti's score for FYEO. That score is the worst in any Bond film & a true chore to sir thru while watching the flick IMHO. Like I'm at a da*ned disco party... :))
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,592
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Say what you want, but Newman's score for SP thrills me compared to Conti's score for FYEO. That score is the worst in any Bond film & a true chore to sir thru while watching the flick IMHO. Like I'm at a da*ned disco party... :))
    You, sir, are on the same page as I am.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    I'd rather have a Disco with Bondian flair score than a Zimmer Ripoff score with no Bondian flair.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Murdock wrote: »
    So you're agreeing. :P

    Hehe yes. The sorry is because I know BJB006 has spectre at no 1 :-P

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Comparing GE to GF is like comparing an elephant turd to a delicious chocolate cake. You can pretend all you want, but it is not the same. At all.

    I'm not saying GE is the better film but, for me, its just a fact that it played a far bigger part in developing my love for Bond.

    I suppose for me it would be OP and NSNA's releases in 1983. In a way it's almost unfair to compare GF with GE, as they are from entirely different eras in cinematic history. In terms of Bond history both films are hugely relevant as they captured new audiences and fans. GF sparked the revival of the previous two and secured the success of TB. GE brought 007 back to the forefront with movie goers. If GE had continued the tone and feel of LTK, I doubt it would have come off as well. It was a celebration of Bond, a welcome return that embraced the formula, the character and history. In addition it proved that no matter what situation the world is currently in, 007 is still the man to take it on.

    I was 13 when GE came out. I was disappointed after seeing it at the cinema. An average Bond film with an average Bond actor. I first watched LTK at 8 years old on Sky....I was thrilled.
  • Posts: 15,218
    Since we are talking of music here's something: the songs in DN are great and the ancestors of the theme songs that were to come.
  • barryt007 wrote: »
    To throw a spanner in the works,i am 47 in about 2 weeks and QOS is easily my 'go to' film at the moment.

    QOS has matured like a fine wine. As far as pure rewatchability goes, QOS tops my list. It's quite possibly the only Bond film I am literally always in the mood for.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I am a big fan of Craig's interpretation of Bond but the womanizing aspect is something I also find less believeable - to some extend. I find his serious relationships with women very believeable in contrast - Vesper especially. But I found his flings with Lucia or Fields a bit forced.
  • Posts: 11,189
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Comparing GE to GF is like comparing an elephant turd to a delicious chocolate cake. You can pretend all you want, but it is not the same. At all.

    I'm not saying GE is the better film but, for me, its just a fact that it played a far bigger part in developing my love for Bond.

    I suppose for me it would be OP and NSNA's releases in 1983. In a way it's almost unfair to compare GF with GE, as they are from entirely different eras in cinematic history. In terms of Bond history both films are hugely relevant as they captured new audiences and fans. GF sparked the revival of the previous two and secured the success of TB. GE brought 007 back to the forefront with movie goers. If GE had continued the tone and feel of LTK, I doubt it would have come off as well. It was a celebration of Bond, a welcome return that embraced the formula, the character and history. In addition it proved that no matter what situation the world is currently in, 007 is still the man to take it on.

    I was 13 when GE came out. I was disappointed after seeing it at the cinema. An average Bond film with an average Bond actor. I first watched LTK at 8 years old on Sky....I was thrilled.

    I liked LTK when I first saw it on ITV too. But I do wonder whether quite a few people weren't "thrilled".
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2017 Posts: 8,438
    The foster brother angle in SP could have been an incredible revelation which brought together the old ethos with the new personal character drama of the Craig era. It could have been the masterstroke, the thematic culmination of the Craig era, and it could have redefined the Bond Blofeld relationship forever.

    Unfortunately it wasn't implemented well, and barely explored at all. As it is it seems more like a tacked on cheap gimmick and adds nothing to the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The foster brother angle in SP could have been an incredible revelation which brought together the old ethos with the new personal character drama of the Craig era. It could have been the masterstroke, the thematic culmination of the Craig era, and it could have redefined the Bond Blofeld relationship forever.

    Unfortunately it wasn't implemented well, and barely explored at all. As it is it seems more like a tacked on cheap gimmick and adds nothing to the film.
    That's true. The events that took place in the prior Craig films had deep resonance, both for Bond and also for the audience that have followed these reboot films over the years. To so casually link all of that to one man (just because he's called Blofeld and runs the famous Spectre) with about 45 minutes of runtime left in SP seemed like nothing more than a parlour trick. It arguably cheapened the prior entries and felt emotionally dishonest even.

    They should have built this whole thing up over two films, as was reportedly the initial plan.
  • Posts: 4,617
    "It arguably cheapened the prior entries"

    No argument from me, it just does and also undermines the integity of the original plots and themes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @bondjames, Franz could have been introduced as someone from Bond's past who enters PART ONE as an ally to 007; perhaps helping him track down the threads of the Sciarra assassination... And as Bond gets closer to unraveling the truth behind the organization, he's captured by his old
    friend an ally, Franz who is actually the leader of SPECTRE.
    Ends on a cliffhanger of some kind where Bond barely escapes with his life, but he now has a second chance of going after the man that duped him... The final scene may be Bond getting a tip off of where Blofeld's in hiding... Hit the Bond theme, roll credits and wait in anticipation for part II.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2017 Posts: 8,438
    bondjames wrote: »
    The foster brother angle in SP could have been an incredible revelation which brought together the old ethos with the new personal character drama of the Craig era. It could have been the masterstroke, the thematic culmination of the Craig era, and it could have redefined the Bond Blofeld relationship forever.

    Unfortunately it wasn't implemented well, and barely explored at all. As it is it seems more like a tacked on cheap gimmick and adds nothing to the film.
    That's true. The events that took place in the prior Craig films had deep resonance, both for Bond and also for the audience that have followed these reboot films over the years. To so casually link all of that to one man (just because he's called Blofeld and runs the famous Spectre) with about 45 minutes of runtime left in SP seemed like nothing more than a parlour trick. It arguably cheapened the prior entries and felt emotionally dishonest even.

    They should have built this whole thing up over two films, as was reportedly the initial plan.

    The biggest problem for me is that it never has any impact on the story. Everything would work out just the same if they were brothers or not, so why bother? I think it's supposed to have emotional resonance, but that never gets referenced. When a similar reveal happens in Empire Strikes Back, for instance, it turns the whole story on it's head. That's what a revelation should do - change our perception of the events and characters in a fundamental way.

    With SPECTRE I think it's a case of the formula and the story coming into conflict with one another. When they reach the desert base, there should have been a sensee of leaving the formula behind, like going off-road. They kinda did for a bit, but eventually the formula takes precedence over the story, so Bond breaks out of the torture, blows up the base, and heads off to London in the space of what, 90 seconds?

    The best Bond films are the ones where the story and the formula don't battle each other, but work in tandem. Martin Campbell is a master at this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I'm not sure what the original two story plan was, but a cliffhanger ending for Part 1 would have worked nicely. I like your idea of Franz duping Bond initially and then being revealed towards the end as being behind it all, setting up Part 2 nicely. Shame it didn't play out this way.

    I've been giving a bit more thought to this Blofeld incarnation reveal and all the tying together of the Craig storylines. I now realize that they are trying to create a 'pseudo-reality' relevancy for Blofeld in the Craig Bond universe that mirrors his importance in the literary universe.

    Important Craig Bond film characters like Vesper, Mathis and M's death are supposed to stand in for Tracy's. Madeline exists as a sort of bastardized Tracy as well (because like Tracy she is the daughter of a criminal who had a connection to Blofeld), but that doesn't necessarily mean that she will be killed by Blofeld, because he already made his mark with Vesper and M in this incarnation.

    It's all very tenuous, but I think they wanted to give the character of Blofeld (and by extension Spectre) some significance to this generation's film audience, so that if he shows up as a recurring nemesis again (even with a new actor), it will mean something to them. I don't think they were successful, but I think I get it now.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,198
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Say what you want, but Newman's score for SP thrills me compared to Conti's score for FYEO. That score is the worst in any Bond film & a true chore to sir thru while watching the flick IMHO. Like I'm at a da*ned disco party... :))

    Your critic probably only refer to the two action tracks "a drive in the country" and "runaway". Actually the rest does not really sound very disco like. Take the submarine track for instance. I like that Conti integrates some tradional Greek sounds. He also uses the Bond theme and title track. And all the tracks - even the calm one - are memorable and feel less randon than the SP tracks which could be from any other movie.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Comparing GE to GF is like comparing an elephant turd to a delicious chocolate cake. You can pretend all you want, but it is not the same. At all.

    I'm not saying GE is the better film but, for me, its just a fact that it played a far bigger part in developing my love for Bond.

    I suppose for me it would be OP and NSNA's releases in 1983. In a way it's almost unfair to compare GF with GE, as they are from entirely different eras in cinematic history. In terms of Bond history both films are hugely relevant as they captured new audiences and fans. GF sparked the revival of the previous two and secured the success of TB. GE brought 007 back to the forefront with movie goers. If GE had continued the tone and feel of LTK, I doubt it would have come off as well. It was a celebration of Bond, a welcome return that embraced the formula, the character and history. In addition it proved that no matter what situation the world is currently in, 007 is still the man to take it on.

    I was 13 when GE came out. I was disappointed after seeing it at the cinema. An average Bond film with an average Bond actor. I first watched LTK at 8 years old on Sky....I was thrilled.

    I liked LTK when I first saw it on ITV too. But I do wonder whether quite a few people weren't "thrilled".
    Comparing GE to GF is like comparing an elephant turd to a delicious chocolate cake. You can pretend all you want, but it is not the same. At all.

    +1.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Having just watched it last night, I believe QoS is the DN of our times. It has the same bare, stripped down feeling to it, but still gives off an exotic Bondian flair, like the earliest film. There's very little fluff here. No excess. Nearly everything is essential to driving the narrative forward. Like DN, it also features a Bond actor at the top of his game who exhibits the same no nonsense 'get down to business' seriousness to his approach, blending style with intensity.

    I also think that Craig worked very well off Dench. Now that she's gone, I realize how badly she will be missed. Fiennes so far hasn't been able to elevate himself to the same level, and his back and forth with Craig lacks the brutally honest, yet appealing vitality that characterized Craig's work with Dench.
  • Posts: 15,218
    The foster brother angle in SP could have been an incredible revelation which brought together the old ethos with the new personal character drama of the Craig era. It could have been the masterstroke, the thematic culmination of the Craig era, and it could have redefined the Bond Blofeld relationship forever.

    Unfortunately it wasn't implemented well, and barely explored at all. As it is it seems more like a tacked on cheap gimmick and adds nothing to the film.

    That is half controversial. A lot of people say it was a terrible idea to begin with, or at least unnecessary.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Having just watched it last night, I believe QoS is the DN of our times. It has the same bare, stripped down feeling to it, but still gives off an exotic Bondian flair, like the earliest film. There's very little fluff here. No excess. Nearly everything is essential to driving the narrative forward. Like DN, it also features a Bond actor at the top of his game who exhibits the same no nonsense 'get down to business' seriousness to his approach, blending style with intensity.

    I always said QOS was the modern DN and had a lot of common with it. There are even lines that are similar in both movies.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Having just watched it last night, I believe QoS is the DN of our times. It has the same bare, stripped down feeling to it, but still gives off an exotic Bondian flair, like the earliest film. There's very little fluff here. No excess. Nearly everything is essential to driving the narrative forward. Like DN, it also features a Bond actor at the top of his game who exhibits the same no nonsense 'get down to business' seriousness to his approach, blending style with intensity.

    I also think that Craig worked very well off Dench. Now that she's gone, I realize how badly she will be missed. Fiennes so far hasn't been able to elevate himself to the same level, and his back and forth with Craig lacks the brutally honest, yet appealing vitality that characterized Craig's work with Dench.

    It has a similar colour palette at times, but beyond that there's very little in the comparisons for me. DN feels alive, it has a vitality to it that is largely absent in QoS. I don't see the exoticism and I can't agree that everything is essential (most of the action is copy and paste). DN is by no means perfect, but as a film that was consciously crafted as the launchpad to a new franchise it's immense.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    patb wrote: »
    "It arguably cheapened the prior entries"

    No argument from me, it just does and also undermines the integity of the original plots and themes.

    Not a bit of it. Do Matrix's sequels cheapen IT? If you love a film, no bad sequel should be able to ruin that for you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Having just watched it last night, I believe QoS is the DN of our times. It has the same bare, stripped down feeling to it, but still gives off an exotic Bondian flair, like the earliest film. There's very little fluff here. No excess. Nearly everything is essential to driving the narrative forward. Like DN, it also features a Bond actor at the top of his game who exhibits the same no nonsense 'get down to business' seriousness to his approach, blending style with intensity.

    I also think that Craig worked very well off Dench. Now that she's gone, I realize how badly she will be missed. Fiennes so far hasn't been able to elevate himself to the same level, and his back and forth with Craig lacks the brutally honest, yet appealing vitality that characterized Craig's work with Dench.

    It has a similar colour palette at times, but beyond that there's very little in the comparisons for me. DN feels alive, it has a vitality to it that is largely absent in QoS. I don't see the exoticism and I can't agree that everything is essential (most of the action is copy and paste). DN is by no means perfect, but as a film that was consciously crafted as the launchpad to a new franchise it's immense.
    I didn't mean it as literally as it perhaps was taken. DN is a top 10 film of mine, & QoS isn't. The earlier film was indeed a blueprint for a legendary franchise, and QoS again isn't.

    My point is more that the films have become increasingly convoluted and ponderous. QoS is the leanest of the recent past (at least since GE). It has a fairly clean, linear trajectory to the story (perhaps on account of the writer's strike) & although it is admittedly a bit heavy on the action set pieces within the first hour, there is a lightness to it which feels similar to DN to me.
  • Posts: 4,617
    chrisisall wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "It arguably cheapened the prior entries"

    No argument from me, it just does and also undermines the integity of the original plots and themes.

    Not a bit of it. Do Matrix's sequels cheapen IT? If you love a film, no bad sequel should be able to ruin that for you.

    SP was more than a sequel, I dont accepted the camparison
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited January 2017 Posts: 7,198
    I had a truly bizarre experience with LALD.

    Used to be in my bottom five. But I watched it yesterday and I was blown away how much fun it was. Tee Hee and Baron Samedi are brilliant, the dialogue is funny and the sets with those boobytraps are ingenious.

    Furthermore, this might be Rog's best moments in the role too. He is as funny as in future outings but he never really goes over the top.

    The biggest contribution to this sudden change for me is the atmosphere however. I always found it a bit lacking in that department. But now I've noticed that the eery voodoo atmosphere in LALD is very reminiscent of Italian horror films of the day, of which I recently became a big fan.

    LALD has made the biggest jump in my ranking history.

    From BOTTOM 5 to TOP 5!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I had a truly bizarre experience with LALD.

    Used to be in my bottom five. But I watched it yesterday and I was blown away how much fun it was. Tee Hee and Baron Samedi are brilliant, the dialogue is funny and the sets with those boobytraps are ingenious.

    Furthermore, this might be Rog's best moments in the role too. He is as funny as in future outings but he never really goes over the top.

    The biggest contribution to this sudden change for me is the atmosphere however. I always found it a bit lacking in that department. But now I've noticed that the eery voodoo atmosphere in LALD is very reminiscent of Italian horror films of the day, of which I recently became a big fan.

    LALD has made the biggest jump in my ranking history.

    From BOTTOM 5 to TOP 5!
    As bizarre a turnaround as the film itself! I'm glad you've begun to appreciate this entry. I know some dismiss it for blaxploitation, but I find it quite unique and the villain roster is some of the most charismatic in the canon. I just wish the colours were a little more saturated. The film has a bit of a hazy washed out look to it at times.
  • Here's one:
    Goldfinger has been eclipsed.
    Le Chiffre is now the most popular and recognizable Bond Villain of all time, and Mads Mikkelson the most successful of all the actors that have played a Bond Villain.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Goldfinger has been eclipsed.
    Le Chiffre is now the most popular and recognizable Bond Villain of all time, and Mads Mikkelson the most successful of all the actors that have played a Bond Villain.
    I personally thought he was eclipsed a long time ago, but realize that I'm in the minority in that opinion. Given how popular CR & SF are these days with the general public, I don't suppose it will be too long before this becomes a fact.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited January 2017 Posts: 16,357
    Agreed. All the Bond spoofs I see usually have a Blofeld, Jaws and Oddjob parody in there. The Simpsons come to mind.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    That would be great.
Sign In or Register to comment.