Controversial opinions about Bond films

1277278280282283707

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I always felt LTK was an American action movie with a long cameo from Bond.

    Yes that's true. But you could kind of argue the same thing about GE. That was basically a Bond meets True Lies.

    But GE is very Bond centrist. Even the villain has a personal grudge against him for crying it out loud. Actually Bond even has a history with Zhukovsky. And MI6 is directly involved, London is the target of the villain's scheme, it does not feel like foreign territory the way LTK does.

    GE is average, mediocre, safe, uninspired territory. I like it as its Bond. But its mediocre in the cannon.

    [-X
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I always felt LTK was an American action movie with a long cameo from Bond.

    Yes that's true. But you could kind of argue the same thing about GE. That was basically a Bond meets True Lies.

    But GE is very Bond centrist. Even the villain has a personal grudge against him for crying it out loud. Actually Bond even has a history with Zhukovsky. And MI6 is directly involved, London is the target of the villain's scheme, it does not feel like foreign territory the way LTK does.

    GE is average, mediocre, safe, uninspired territory. I like it as its Bond. But its mediocre in the cannon.

    [-X

    Yes, too much praise there.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    22 years of changing tastes, general opinion on Brosnan's portrayal and the way the style of the Craig Bond's have moved toward something very different has certainly skewed how GE is perceived now IMO. I like it now, loved in in 1995 when I saw it on the big screen, but I feel Pierce Brosnan's Bond has somehow dated the most, more than his predecessors in a strange way, despite it being the most recent ex-Bond.
    I remember at the time it being received by the public and critics as a new and exciting update. I saw it 4 times in the cinema thinking it was brilliantly different and thrilling yet familiar and like the Bond fare I grew up with. I don't now, things change, times move on, people alter opinion.
    Far from the "safe, uninspired territory" described by Suavejmf it was fresh, modern update on the series etc, etc. But I kinda agree with your description, time has not being kind to GE (or indeed Brosnan) but then we are looking at it through our post CR 2017 eyes. Maybe the future direction will allow us to reappraise it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's still as fresh to me today as the day I saw it in the theatre. The effects work is somewhat dated (but then I'd argue that it was dated back when it came out - on account of the tight budget a lot of the cost cutting was evident even back then and contemporary films like True Lies showed it up). That's not what GE is about. I see it as a film that injected the style, swagger and flair back into Bond and can fully appreciate why it's still loved by many (this viewer included).

    Brosnan's Bond in GE was indeed a Batman (rather than Bruce Wayne) style cardboard cutout even in 1995, so I can understand why some feel his Bond in that film is dated today, especially post-Craig. As I've said numerous times, like in the best Bond films, it's the supporting cast that lifts that film well above its pay grade. I'll still take it over QoS, SP or another Brosnan entry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Only SF & CR give it a run for my money. DN is dated too, but that doesn't keep it from my top 10 either.
  • Posts: 11,189
    No matter how dated GE may be and how much it's criticised by some (who do make valid points) it was still a film I grew up with and it meant A LOT to me.
  • Posts: 40
    Dalton is my guy. I think he's a terrific actor and was a magnificent Bond.

    But LTK is a weak film. Bunsen burner fire levels manufacturing plant? What would Bond have done if Dario hadn't disappeared for the middle third of the film? M goes to Florida to chastise Bond personally?

    It has it's moments. Daltons cold disposal of Killifer resonates. The scene acknowledging Bonds wife registers as well. It has a brilliant theme song, and Davi is both believable and frightening as Sanchez.

    But it's a weak entry, and certainly the inferior of Daltons two turns.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I always felt LTK was an American action movie with a long cameo from Bond.

    Yes that's true. But you could kind of argue the same thing about GE. That was basically a Bond meets True Lies.

    But GE is very Bond centrist. Even the villain has a personal grudge against him for crying it out loud. Actually Bond even has a history with Zhukovsky. And MI6 is directly involved, London is the target of the villain's scheme, it does not feel like foreign territory the way LTK does.

    GE is average, mediocre, safe, uninspired territory. I like it as its Bond. But its mediocre in the cannon.

    [-X

    Brosnan, a poor score and satellites in space...inspired.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Yawn. (:|
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 3,336
    FYEO's score is great! Fun, beautiful and suspenseful.
  • Posts: 11,189
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.

    True. But it was just done 'ok'. Goldeneye begins with a truly outrageous stunt involving Bond freefalling in pursuit of an unpiloted, plummeting airplane. This dumb but enjoyable scene sets the tone for the rest of the film - very much a tongue-in-cheek, improbable, action-orientated romp. Brosnan is OK as Bond, though I still feel Sean Connery and Roger Moore better suited to the role. Tina Turner's powerful theme song is very good, but the incidental scoring by Eric Serra has a tinny, tacky feel to it that makes one long for John Barry (The Producers hated Serra's score)!

    What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. An average Bond movie with a few stand out moments, garnering hollow praise.

    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.
    Well said. I agree that GE is far from a classic, but it's the last standalone formula Bond film that I enjoy. It remains a very entertaining watch with some truly standout scenes in it which recall the fun, larger than life Bond adventures of yore without descending into vapid and predictable cliche. A bridge film between the old ones and the ones that have come since.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Can't argue with that.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I have never really udnerstood what "classic" actually mean with reagrd to Bond films. Of course, if "classic" means "old" or "60s" then no new Bond film can be labled "classic". But I find that "classic" is most often used when people have no other arguments :-)
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.

    True. But it was just done 'ok'. Goldeneye begins with a truly outrageous stunt involving Bond freefalling in pursuit of an unpiloted, plummeting airplane. This dumb but enjoyable scene sets the tone for the rest of the film - very much a tongue-in-cheek, improbable, action-orientated romp. Brosnan is OK as Bond, though I still feel Sean Connery and Roger Moore better suited to the role. Tina Turner's powerful theme song is very good, but the incidental scoring by Eric Serra has a tinny, tacky feel to it that makes one long for John Barry (The Producers hated Serra's score)!

    What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. An average Bond movie with a few stand out moments, garnering hollow praise.

    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.
    I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm sure a vast majority of the fans the rate GoldenEye so highly are from the same age group, meaning the people that were either introduced to Bond through this movie or through the endless nights of playing the N64 game based on it, or that simply love the game so much (it's still one of the most influential and greatest games ever made) that they can't help but love the movie too. It's nostalgia that places it so highly on lists, I reckon. Not that it isn't good, however, I do think it's very good "formula Bond", as you describe.

  • Posts: 11,189
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.

    True. But it was just done 'ok'. Goldeneye begins with a truly outrageous stunt involving Bond freefalling in pursuit of an unpiloted, plummeting airplane. This dumb but enjoyable scene sets the tone for the rest of the film - very much a tongue-in-cheek, improbable, action-orientated romp. Brosnan is OK as Bond, though I still feel Sean Connery and Roger Moore better suited to the role. Tina Turner's powerful theme song is very good, but the incidental scoring by Eric Serra has a tinny, tacky feel to it that makes one long for John Barry (The Producers hated Serra's score)!

    What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. An average Bond movie with a few stand out moments, garnering hollow praise.

    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.
    I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm sure a vast majority of the fans the rate GoldenEye so highly are from the same age group, meaning the people that were either introduced to Bond through this movie or through the endless nights of playing the N64 game based on it, or that simply love the game so much (it's still one of the most influential and greatest games ever made) that they can't help but love the movie too. It's nostalgia that places it so highly on lists, I reckon. Not that it isn't good, however, I do think it's very good "formula Bond", as you describe.

    Definitely this^^

    I was one of these people.

    Not that GE wasn't enjoyed by older people, but it was the first or earliest Bond experience for A LOT of youngers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GE was my first theatre experience, but I was a huge fan before that and had seen all of the earlier entries on VHS several times. At that time, Dalton and Laz were my worst Bonds, and Moore and Connery were my favourites. I've never played the game.

    I still rank GE quite high and it has never dropped out of my top 10. It remains a film I always enjoy immensely from start to finish. A cracking Bond adventure without a hint of the melodrama & angst we have become accustomed to lately.

    Despite the personal connection with Alec, Brosnan plays it cool and Bondian.
  • Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    GE was my first theatre experience, but I was a huge fan before that and had seen all of the earlier entries on VHS several times. At that time, Dalton and Laz were my worst Bonds, and Moore and Connery were my favourites. I've never played the game.

    I still rank GE quite high and it has never dropped out of my top 10. It remains a film I always enjoy immensely from start to finish. A cracking Bond adventure without a hint of the melodrama & angst we have become accustomed to lately.

    Despite the personal connection with Alec, Brosnan plays it cool and Bondian.

    Booo!!!!



    (I love how the computer Brosnan poses at the start of the level)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    GE was my first theatre experience, but I was a huge fan before that and had seen all of the earlier entries on VHS several times. At that time, Dalton and Laz were my worst Bonds, and Moore and Connery were my favourites. I've never played the game.

    I still rank GE quite high and it has never dropped out of my top 10. It remains a film I always enjoy immensely from start to finish. A cracking Bond adventure without a hint of the melodrama & angst we have become accustomed to lately.

    Despite the personal connection with Alec, Brosnan plays it cool and Bondian.

    Booo!!!!



    (I love how the computer Brosnan poses at the start of the level)
    That was great fun. Thanks for posting. I now realize what I've been missing!

    All this talk of GE has compelled me to revisit the film yet again. I'll be sure to do it in the next week, although TB probably deserves a viewing prior to that just on account of time (I last watched it pre-SP).
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.

    True. But it was just done 'ok'. Goldeneye begins with a truly outrageous stunt involving Bond freefalling in pursuit of an unpiloted, plummeting airplane. This dumb but enjoyable scene sets the tone for the rest of the film - very much a tongue-in-cheek, improbable, action-orientated romp. Brosnan is OK as Bond, though I still feel Sean Connery and Roger Moore better suited to the role. Tina Turner's powerful theme song is very good, but the incidental scoring by Eric Serra has a tinny, tacky feel to it that makes one long for John Barry (The Producers hated Serra's score)!

    What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. An average Bond movie with a few stand out moments, garnering hollow praise.

    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.

    Exactly what I want from my Bond movies.

    I agree about the score. It's cheesy and awful. The game had a better score.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GBF wrote: »
    I have never really udnerstood what "classic" actually mean with reagrd to Bond films. Of course, if "classic" means "old" or "60s" then no new Bond film can be labled "classic". But I find that "classic" is most often used when people have no other arguments :-)

    'Classic' means the best example of the film in the franchise for that era. A film that is a combination of artistic quality and financial success.

    I too still like GE, but it has never dropped into of my top 10.

    As I said, James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.
  • Goldeneye is either just in or out of my top ten, pushed out by the recent Craig films, two of which I think are superb. I even think I prefer QoS to this film, but not going to split hairs. The superb end sequence alone between Bond and Travelyan (sic), as well as a few other very strong action set pieces elevates this film for me, though I do have issues with some of the Moore leftover silliness like the gags in the tank chase, which kind of bring that sequence down a bit for me, but an enjoyable Bond film, all the same. I think it's a very good 007 adventure, a successful story, and surely the Broz' finest moment as Bond, for me. He literally turns into a very nice man after this film, and lost that razor edge he carried well in GE.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It doesn't necessarily matter if a plot is repeated. In GE I think it's done in an exciting way...better than it was in DAF.

    This.

    True. But it was just done 'ok'. Goldeneye begins with a truly outrageous stunt involving Bond freefalling in pursuit of an unpiloted, plummeting airplane. This dumb but enjoyable scene sets the tone for the rest of the film - very much a tongue-in-cheek, improbable, action-orientated romp. Brosnan is OK as Bond, though I still feel Sean Connery and Roger Moore better suited to the role. Tina Turner's powerful theme song is very good, but the incidental scoring by Eric Serra has a tinny, tacky feel to it that makes one long for John Barry (The Producers hated Serra's score)!

    What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. An average Bond movie with a few stand out moments, garnering hollow praise.

    James Bond's greatest crisis, whether he still had 'Box Office', had been overcome, and with audience favorite Pierce Brosnan in place, his emergence into the 21st century was assured. But that doesn't mean the film is a classic. It's a safe, solidly average film that ensured box office success.

    Exactly what I want from my Bond movies.

    I agree about the score. It's cheesy and awful. The game had a better score.

    The score does sound quite video-game-ish at times. His original (awful) scoring of the tank chase reminds me of the N64 game with the electronic style. I could see myself playing multiplayer along to this,



    That said, I think a lot of the score in the final film works. More than not actually. The cue used during both the archives chase and the final antenna showdown for example adds real intensity and excitement to the scene.


  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,134
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, GE is my favourite of the non-Barry scores. I happen to be a big fan of Serra's work for Luc Besson as well. Just love his synth scores.

    On a similar (controversial) note, after recently listening to both the SF and SP soundtracks, I must say I like the latter more than the former.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Raoul in DAD is a ridiculous character.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, GE is my favourite of the non-Barry scores.
    I agree. It's an excellent score and gives GE its unique flavour, just like all other one-off composer scored films have.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    On a similar (controversial) note, after recently listening to both the SF and SP soundtracks, I must say I like the latter more than the former.
    I'm afraid I can't agree with this. I think that the SF score is an excellent an inventive one, and is a welcome change from Arnold's work. Sadly, I find the SP score as derivative and tiresome as I do the film it's attached to, which is to say 'very'.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, GE is my favourite of the non-Barry scores. I happen to be a big fan of Serra's work for Luc Besson as well. Just love his synth scores.

    On a similar (controversial) note, after recently listening to both the SF and SP soundtracks, I must say I like the latter more than the former.

    LALD & LTK are my favorite non Barry scores.

    I'm not a fan of GE, bar the tank chase, Gunbarrel & pre-title sequence.

    http://jamesbondradio.com/composer-john-altman-explains-what-went-wrong-with-goldeneyes-score-exclusive-by-matthew-chernov/

    "The Broccoli family was a bit baffled by what Eric was giving them. So everyone was a bit wary. And of course, the public eye was on James Bond. Will Brosnan be any good? Will the film be any good? Will the composer be any good?"

    MGW & Bab's on Serra's score: "They hated it. I mean, they really loathed it."
  • Posts: 7,430
    Who is that quote from? I'm not a fan of Serras score, or Brossa, but i find it hard that MGW or Babs would speak of anyone like that assocoated with the Bond series. They're usually more diplomatic!
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    For me the only reason goldeneye is not in my top 5 is the score alone
Sign In or Register to comment.