Controversial opinions about Bond films

12728303233707

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Getafix wrote:

    It was fine to start with but IMO has been overused. I'm now bored of this supposedly 'interesting' tension. I'd like to see a film where M's faith in Bond is unquestioning and Bond's loyalty and professionalism taken completely for granted. For me, returning to a more traditional Bond-M relationship would at this stage actually be more radical/interesting.

    In the Empire article this month apparently Mendes is saying they're taking Bond out of his comfort zone. As another poster pointed out, it's a long time since we actually saw Bond in his comfort zone.

    But that has nothing to do with M - not sur, if you mean that or not. But what IS his comfort zone anyway?

  • Posts: 4,813
    Germanlady wrote:
    ..and I was working at the hotel bar, where he was before he took off to the Oscar show. I wished him luck...

    Awesome!! Looks like you're a lucky lady!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    It was fine to start with but IMO has been overused. I'm now bored of this supposedly 'interesting' tension. I'd like to see a film where M's faith in Bond is unquestioning and Bond's loyalty and professionalism taken completely for granted. For me, returning to a more traditional Bond-M relationship would at this stage actually be more radical/interesting.

    In the Empire article this month apparently Mendes is saying they're taking Bond out of his comfort zone. As another poster pointed out, it's a long time since we actually saw Bond in his comfort zone.

    But that has nothing to do with M - not sur, if you mean that or not. But what IS his comfort zone anyway?

    Bond's comfort zone is knowing that MI6 and the UK are not about to collapse around his ears and that his boss believes in him whatever the circumstances and trusts his instincts. The trust should be mutual.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    It was fine to start with but IMO has been overused. I'm now bored of this supposedly 'interesting' tension. I'd like to see a film where M's faith in Bond is unquestioning and Bond's loyalty and professionalism taken completely for granted. For me, returning to a more traditional Bond-M relationship would at this stage actually be more radical/interesting.

    In the Empire article this month apparently Mendes is saying they're taking Bond out of his comfort zone. As another poster pointed out, it's a long time since we actually saw Bond in his comfort zone.

    But that has nothing to do with M - not sur, if you mean that or not. But what IS his comfort zone anyway?

    Bond's comfort zone is knowing that MI6 and the UK are not about to collapse around his ears and that his boss believes in him whatever the circumstances and trusts his instincts. The trust should be mutual.

    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)

    So you like Dench M/ DC Bond relationship, as it is certainly more interesting then the old lot. Which is excatly, what others don't like. Too much attention on those two, if I finally get that right.
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I don't really have a problem with M having a bigger part in the main story. Heck, I don't mind her involvement in TWINE. Its just her "trust" issues with Bond sometimes feel a bit tedious. She SHOULD trust him. He is the best agent she has afterall and their work isnt always fun and games.

    I think for SF though it wouldn't hurt for M to take a back seat and for the focus to be back on Bond. M's had enough screen time in the last few films.
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I don't really have a problem with M having a bigger part in the main story. Heck, I don't mind her involvement in TWINE. Its just her "trust" issues with Bond sometimes feel a bit tedious. She SHOULD trust him. He is the best agent she has afterall and their work isnt always fun and games.

    I think for SF though it wouldn't hurt for M to take a back seat and for the focus to be back on Bond. M's had enough screen time in the last few films.

    Sure doesn't look that way, but if she just is in London and Scotland it might not be that much after all. But its her story nevertheless, that keeps the whole plot going, as I understood it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Germanlady wrote:
    best perfomance of any actor in any movie
    lol Jesus! I wouldn't go that far! ;)
    Both Moore and MR are out of this world. I honestly think that Moore should have won an oscar for MR.

    I know, Dustin Hoffman robbed him in 1979, lol

    ..and I was working at the hotel bar, where he was before he took off to the Oscar show. I wished him luck...

    Who, Dustin?! If so that's awesome.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I don't really have a problem with M having a bigger part in the main story. Heck, I don't mind her involvement in TWINE. Its just her "trust" issues with Bond sometimes feel a bit tedious. She SHOULD trust him. He is the best agent she has afterall and their work isnt always fun and games.

    I think for SF though it wouldn't hurt for M to take a back seat and for the focus to be back on Bond. M's had enough screen time in the last few films.

    Sure doesn't look that way, but if she just is in London and Scotland it might not be that much after all. But its her story nevertheless, that keeps the whole plot going, as I understood it.

    I know. I'm worried. The sooner Judi is pensionned-off the better IMO. Unfortunately, the British govt. keeps on increasing the retirement age. If only we were in France, Dench would have been off relaxing on the Mediterranean years ago.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Years ago when Connery quit the part and a majority of the press said that Bond was finished and out of date!
  • Posts: 6,601

    Who, Dustin?! If so that's awesome.

    Yeah, him before Tootsi. He was nice enough, somewhat distanced though - understandably. I have seen lots of celebs in my time there. And nevermind, how tall they actually are - they all are smaller then life, not bigger :)
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Germanlady wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)

    So you like Dench M/ DC Bond relationship, as it is certainly more interesting then the old lot. Which is excatly, what others don't like. Too much attention on those two, if I finally get that right.

    You two found the Bond/Admiral Sir Miles Messervy employee/employer relationship in OHMSS and LTK "uninteresting"? I found those vastly more interesting than any of the M/Bond stuff that's existed in the Dame Judi era.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Both Moore and MR are out of this world. I honestly think that Moore should have won an oscar for MR.

    I know, Dustin Hoffman robbed him in 1979, lol

    I'm sure in the years since then, more people have seen MR than "Kramer vs. Kramer".

  • Posts: 6,601
    Thanks - just checked my facts. When I met him in that bar - he was up for Tootsi and didn't win. I just thought, he did..
  • Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)

    Not necessarily...If the Bond character and the actor playing him has enough charisma, then he can carry the whole of the movie himself. Both Connery and Moore did this magnificently. Makes you wonder if the past two Bond actors weren't perceived to be 'interesting enough' to carry the films on their own, so they had to get prestigious actress Judi Dench to pull some weight. (Come to think of it, EON hired Diana Rigg for the very same reason!)

    Looking at it another way, I would much rather have an interesting villain to complement Bond (basically every villain from Dr. No through Moonraker), than having some "character" study between M and Bond. Honestly the Bond/M storyline is a boring one.

  • Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)

    Not necessarily...If the Bond character and the actor playing him has enough charisma, then he can carry the whole of the movie himself. Both Connery and Moore did this magnificently. Makes you wonder if the past two Bond actors weren't perceived to be 'interesting enough' to carry the films on their own, so they had to get prestigious actress Judi Dench to pull some weight. (Come to think of it, EON hired Diana Rigg for the very same reason!)

    Looking at it another way, I would much rather have an interesting villain to complement Bond (basically every villain from Dr. No through Moonraker), than having some "character" study between M and Bond. Honestly the Bond/M storyline is a boring one.

    Completely agree. Hugo Drax was the last proper villain. Or may be Chris Walken.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I was getting a little irritated by her in QoS too but still, SHE'S JUDI DENCH.

    Just because she's Judi Dench doesn't mean she can never be irritating or give a bad performance.....

    The same is true of Roger Moore. In MR, FYEO and OP. Well, and sometimes in LALD.

    You must be kidding! Roger Moore's performance in MR is IMO the best perfomance of any actor in any movie, and his performance in OP is just behind. He is great in LALD and FYEO too.

    Understand this: LALD was my first movie, so it'll always hold some place for me, but parts of his performance were just... erh... As far as OP, everything before the latest rip off of "The Most Dangerous Game" is good, and every after that and before the clown scene, also good, and as soon as he drops the clown outfit, he's back to good again. FYEO, he was wasted. And MR...
    Both Moore and MR are out of this world.

    Yes, out of this world, in a parallel pocket of space, comprised of anti-matter and filled with black holes, each the size of the ego that has to go into posting "both Moore and MR are out of this world".
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Rosa Klebb is dead sexy!

    No, no, no, no, no NO!
  • Posts: 5,634
    Rosa Klebb is dead sexy ? What the thump ?

    What must he think of Jane Seymour or Barbara Bach then.. :-/

    I thought for a moment I was in the 'controversial opinions' thread, looked up, and lo and behold so I was... thought there was something funny going on here..
  • Posts: 1,310
    After watching Dr. No here's another one!

    I kind of like Monty Norman's DN score....
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I was getting a little irritated by her in QoS too but still, SHE'S JUDI DENCH.

    Bingo.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I thought the G-force simulator in Moonraker would of made for an epic pre credits sequence and not necessarily a quarter way into the movie, I think it would of been ideal if they had included it before the main titles

    Also, if we can omit the Saint Marks Square bit out of it, the gondola ride wasn't really necessary, it's all a bit silly, the knife thrower etc, guy on the bridge smoking as the coffin goes under, the two lovers in the boat cut in half as it sinks etc, only in a Moore release..

    Georgi Koskov was an awful Bond adversary and totally unsuitable for a Dalton Bond picture

    The Karate exhibition in Golden Gun was a blatant nod to Enter the Dragon, and shouldn't have been included

    The whole second half of Tomorrow Never Dies is possibly the dullest half-Bond since Goldfinger and should be (add appropriate actions), I usually switch off when Brosnan leaves Hamburg, there's simply nothing much else worth watching after that. There's no sense in lying here
  • GE onwards has seen M become increasingly dominant with each picture. TWINE was interesting and innovative in the way they used her. but let's be honest...she shouldn't have returned in CR. Someone like Bill Nighy or Michael Gambon coming in would have given Craig's Bond what one poster termed the headmaster approach. Instead, we have Dench popping up like one of those fairground rides, changing opinion left right and centre!

    Trust 007...he is the best agent in the world. In Moonraker, when Drax allowed Bond to humiliate M and Defence Minister, M still has confidence in Bond to do the job, despite his orders to remove Bond from the case. In QOS, M gets cold feet about Bond after talking to the Foreign secretary and she just plays her MI6 agents off against 007 (to an extent). Time to pick up your P45 Judi's M I'm afraid
  • More opinions:

    LTK is the defining Q/Bond film. It proves they care about each other as people.

    Maybe hindsight this one but Benicio Del Toro is heavily underused in LTK and should have been given a bigger, menacing role.

    Roger Moore kicking the car off the cliff in FYEO is the darkest moment in Bond history. In fact, Moore's films are littered with dark moments which are underrated and lost in the fun of his films.

    Joe Don Baker's characters in TLD and GE/TND rank as the worst characters in the series

    The director and producers shouldn't have dubbed Lazenby in OHMSS, regardless of how bad he was.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Dench should stick to As Time Goes By.

  • Posts: 278
    Ahh.... "There's Nothing Like A Dame"....

    :-B...x
  • Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Thats's not really "interesting" enough in this day and age though. There needs to be more "character" study between Bond and M ;)

    Not necessarily...If the Bond character and the actor playing him has enough charisma, then he can carry the whole of the movie himself. Both Connery and Moore did this magnificently. Makes you wonder if the past two Bond actors weren't perceived to be 'interesting enough' to carry the films on their own, so they had to get prestigious actress Judi Dench to pull some weight. (Come to think of it, EON hired Diana Rigg for the very same reason!)

    Looking at it another way, I would much rather have an interesting villain to complement Bond (basically every villain from Dr. No through Moonraker), than having some "character" study between M and Bond. Honestly the Bond/M storyline is a boring one.

    Completely agree. Hugo Drax was the last proper villain. Or may be Chris Walken.

    ???? Franz Sanchez, to me, is the best Bond villian of all time. And Trevelayn was good too. Le Chiffre wasn't a bad villian either.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    JBFan626 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    MrEon wrote:
    Brosnan is over blown, and is still sore at being let go by Eon!, hey PB get over it!!!
    For me he filled a gap, till we got the better Bond in DC!!? When I watch a PB Bond movie now I cant help but feel embarrassed at times as to what his doing and how he carries himself!!?
    L-)

    The problem Brosnan had is that he played Bond during a period that saw a massive acceleration in the production of popular cinema. Jurassic Park set a precedent in the early nineties that forced Bond to compete with an epic new genre of big budget films.

    Before this, Bond sat comfortably alongside a smaller raft of movies that delivered spectacle and glamour and were 'event movies' of the time.

    I think it's only recently dawned on the producers that you can't necessarily compete for fanboy money in these scale stakes alone but you can with 'character' and a genuine willingness to find something new in what had become, dare I say, slightly predictable fare.

    I for one am a fan of every Bond actor (minus Lazenby) and think they all bring something unique to the part but I think the producers made the Brosnan era movies with the sensibilities of those that had gone before which is possibly why some people now look unfavourably upon them.

    I think for Bond to continue being successful they realised they needed a dramatic gear change and the first peice of the jigsaw to be dispensed with was always going to be Brosnan. I really do think it's unfortunate for Brosnan as I do think he's a fantastic Bond and in different circumstances who knows what might have happened.

    Excellent post. I think it's often overlooked in a post-Brosnan age the perspective of what the producers were going for at that time: big spectacular, pop-corn, action flics. This had been the tradition: Bond had always been at the cutting edge. Comparing the Brosnan films to DC films seems moot, because they were approached from different angles. I think the Brosnan films should be appreciated for what they were. Even in spite of that though, GE for example, still showed an example of Bond having some character depth with the beach scene with Natalya in particular.

    Excellent postings chaps. I agree wholeheartedly. Brosnan, like Craig, is a product of his time and should be viewed as such. Without the films of the 90's it can be easily argued that the DC years would never have happened. Brosnan's movies appealed to a wider demographic than any Bond films had done before, they updated themselves to suit the era of the large scale action blockbuster, and their popularity is shown in their BO takings.
  • Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    MrEon wrote:
    Brosnan is over blown, and is still sore at being let go by Eon!, hey PB get over it!!!
    For me he filled a gap, till we got the better Bond in DC!!? When I watch a PB Bond movie now I cant help but feel embarrassed at times as to what his doing and how he carries himself!!?
    L-)

    The problem Brosnan had is that he played Bond during a period that saw a massive acceleration in the production of popular cinema. Jurassic Park set a precedent in the early nineties that forced Bond to compete with an epic new genre of big budget films.

    Before this, Bond sat comfortably alongside a smaller raft of movies that delivered spectacle and glamour and were 'event movies' of the time.

    I think it's only recently dawned on the producers that you can't necessarily compete for fanboy money in these scale stakes alone but you can with 'character' and a genuine willingness to find something new in what had become, dare I say, slightly predictable fare.

    I for one am a fan of every Bond actor (minus Lazenby) and think they all bring something unique to the part but I think the producers made the Brosnan era movies with the sensibilities of those that had gone before which is possibly why some people now look unfavourably upon them.

    I think for Bond to continue being successful they realised they needed a dramatic gear change and the first peice of the jigsaw to be dispensed with was always going to be Brosnan. I really do think it's unfortunate for Brosnan as I do think he's a fantastic Bond and in different circumstances who knows what might have happened.

    Excellent post. I think it's often overlooked in a post-Brosnan age the perspective of what the producers were going for at that time: big spectacular, pop-corn, action flics. This had been the tradition: Bond had always been at the cutting edge. Comparing the Brosnan films to DC films seems moot, because they were approached from different angles. I think the Brosnan films should be appreciated for what they were. Even in spite of that though, GE for example, still showed an example of Bond having some character depth with the beach scene with Natalya in particular.

    Excellent postings chaps. I agree wholeheartedly. Brosnan, like Craig, is a product of his time and should be viewed as such. Without the films of the 90's it can be easily argued that the DC years would never have happened. Brosnan's movies appealed to a wider demographic than any Bond films had done before, they updated themselves to suit the era of the large scale action blockbuster, and their popularity is shown in their BO takings.

    But sadly the resulting films were utter dross. There arrives a point when the self-respect of the series over-rides BO. Fortunately EON realised this with DUD and has begun to slowly get things a bit more on track.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Getafix wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    MrEon wrote:
    Brosnan is over blown, and is still sore at being let go by Eon!, hey PB get over it!!!
    For me he filled a gap, till we got the better Bond in DC!!? When I watch a PB Bond movie now I cant help but feel embarrassed at times as to what his doing and how he carries himself!!?
    L-)

    The problem Brosnan had is that he played Bond during a period that saw a massive acceleration in the production of popular cinema. Jurassic Park set a precedent in the early nineties that forced Bond to compete with an epic new genre of big budget films.

    Before this, Bond sat comfortably alongside a smaller raft of movies that delivered spectacle and glamour and were 'event movies' of the time.

    I think it's only recently dawned on the producers that you can't necessarily compete for fanboy money in these scale stakes alone but you can with 'character' and a genuine willingness to find something new in what had become, dare I say, slightly predictable fare.

    I for one am a fan of every Bond actor (minus Lazenby) and think they all bring something unique to the part but I think the producers made the Brosnan era movies with the sensibilities of those that had gone before which is possibly why some people now look unfavourably upon them.

    I think for Bond to continue being successful they realised they needed a dramatic gear change and the first peice of the jigsaw to be dispensed with was always going to be Brosnan. I really do think it's unfortunate for Brosnan as I do think he's a fantastic Bond and in different circumstances who knows what might have happened.

    Excellent post. I think it's often overlooked in a post-Brosnan age the perspective of what the producers were going for at that time: big spectacular, pop-corn, action flics. This had been the tradition: Bond had always been at the cutting edge. Comparing the Brosnan films to DC films seems moot, because they were approached from different angles. I think the Brosnan films should be appreciated for what they were. Even in spite of that though, GE for example, still showed an example of Bond having some character depth with the beach scene with Natalya in particular.

    Excellent postings chaps. I agree wholeheartedly. Brosnan, like Craig, is a product of his time and should be viewed as such. Without the films of the 90's it can be easily argued that the DC years would never have happened. Brosnan's movies appealed to a wider demographic than any Bond films had done before, they updated themselves to suit the era of the large scale action blockbuster, and their popularity is shown in their BO takings.

    But sadly the resulting films were utter dross. There arrives a point when the self-respect of the series over-rides BO. Fortunately EON realised this with DUD and has begun to slowly get things a bit more on track.

    DAD was a black mark on the franchise, granted. I have lots of time for the previous three though, especially Goldeneye. Utter dross does not apply there. As for getting things back on track, well, Quantum of Solace really undid a lot of the work Casino Royale did so well. So back on track would be a phrase to be used cautiously, at least until Skyfall has come out.
  • Posts: 11,425
    QoS is still a better film that the first three Brozza bore-fests.
Sign In or Register to comment.