Controversial opinions about Bond films

1349350352354355707

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    --
    bondjames wrote: »
    @thelivingroyale, I can understand where you're coming from about 'Bond' as an entity being 'above' the average blockbuster. No doubt that's true, due to the rich enduring heritage of the franchise and the groundbreaking and legendary work of the past. Indeed, an MI film can never capture that history or 'soul' if you will. I don't think that's what we're referring to.

    What the last two films have captured (for me) is that spirit and playful energy of the 60s and 70s films. That casual joie de vivre combined with wit, insouciance and a little style/glamour. It's there in spades. This is not XXX or FF style low end stuff. It's of a much higher quality. The action sequences and stunts also recall classic Bond (in the sense that there's real innovation here). It's not predictable or trite. I felt it both times but I didn't realize it was a conscious direction until recently when McQuarrie mentioned it in an interview. It was deliberate. They saw an opening given the direction that the Bond films had taken, and decided to exploit it. From that interview, it appears that MI6 will be quite different in tone and flavour, and I'm curious to see what they come up with. Perhaps something 'grittier'.

    Cruise probably realized he could effectively play in the space vacated by Brosnan, since Craig was doing something different. He saw that there was a demand for that kind of character and nobody was doing it. He does it well too. I'm especially grateful that he did what he did, because those last two films are my favourite action thrillers from the last 10 years.

    I can see that you're missing the playfullness, and I'll admit that I did like the last installment. But Bond is so much more then MI:. The last film had, just like the 'transporter' frenchise, ott action that was clearly impossible. Bond should always remain in that 'possible but highly unlikely' quadrant. The films I lke the least are the ones taking that too far (DAD on too many occations, MR, TND helicopter scene).

    Bond has more style too. Ethan Hunt is just a bit of a cowboy. Bond is far more than that. He's a gentleman, spy, assassin. MI: films are just pure popcorn, Bond is a quality dinner. Now I admit that the recent entries, especially SP, have been missing some of the joye de vivre indeed, moreso thne MI:. Still, I rate them as more engaging and memorable then the Mission films.
    @CommanderRoss, if you're talking about 'Bond' as an entity as encapsulated by 6 actors over 50 years, then I completely agree with you. There is absolutely no contest whatsoever. Bond wins any day. MI is just an American action franchise. That's not my point though.

    I mentioned on another thread that I don't afford actors, people or countries respect based on heritage and their past. Rather, I do it based on what they've done lately. On that score, the last two Cruise MI films have delivered. I disagree that the action is OTT. On the contrary actually. I feel that the action beautifully straddles the possible and 'impossible' (pun intended) just like 'classic' Bond, and does it with real class and innovation. They have had the best action sequences since CR's parkour imho. The 'car to bike' chase in the last film is as good as it gets. I feel that the innovative 'parking garage' sequence in MI-GP is exactly the kind of thing that EON would have given us under Cubby. Please don't compare that to the lazy Aston/Jag 'postcard' chase or 'CGI PTS Copter' sequence in the last Bond outing. Transporter in contrast is far more OTT, CGI infested and extreme.

    Cruise does 'Connery/Moore' style panache & nonchalance far better than Craig (again imho). There is a genuine organic playful light hearted humour in MI-RN which rivals and evokes those classics while still being very much 'Cruise'. Furthermore, the man looks damn good in a dinner jacket. More 'Grant suave' than 'McQueen tough' perhaps, but that's perfectly fine with me while Craig is off brooding on the other end of the spectrum trying to be the latter in his ill fitting suits.

    Ultimately what I'm saying is that Cruise has captured the 'essence' of the Bond classic formula in the last two films, without imitating it. He's done it in a way that feels distinctly MI rather than Bond but still evokes the Bond greats. That's very impressive, especially at a time when EON seem to have completely forgotten how to deliver classic formula without it coming across as overly predictable, trite and derivative.

    This discussion always gets confused into Bond vs MI heritage. That's not my point. If that were the discussion, Bond would win every time. Hands down.

    I stand corrected when it comes to the latest MI: films and their stunts, I remember them more ott, but perhaps that's bacause of the earlier films. I'm sure no fan of Tom Cruise (I loved him for Top Gun, hate him for Sientology) but his stunts in the last films are impecceable.

    On the other hand: your claim that the helicopter stunts were CGI, they're not. And personally I think that's one of the best aerial stunt flying I've ever seen on film!



    When I look at the bike chase it's basically the QoS PTS on bikes, which helps, it makes it more spectacular. And the editing is better so you can see what's going on. SP for me was hit and miss when it comes to the action, and what I was saying about MI is certainly partly true for that film. Agian, I love the PTS, and I also love the Hinx fight. But the Rome chase lacks excitement (traffic!) and the plane-loses-wings-still-gives-chase scene is terrible. There's no danger anymore.

    But i digress, I understand what you mean when it comes to MI: getting more sophisticated, and I applaude it. And yes, Bond's been missing 'something' lately. But I still share @Birdleson's impression the films are made for teenagers, and Bond is supposed to be more 'mature'.

    For me that means less action from now on, but in bursts when needed, good dialogue, a good story where you're eager to find out what's actually going on, style and panache. A new Thunderball, all in all.. ;-)
    @CommanderRoss, what's absolutely tragic is that the clip you posted above looks more 'real' than the scene in the actual film! The CGI enhancements (little people running all over the place like in a Marvel/DC outing, Craig's face implanted on the stuntman and the 'piss' filter take away all sense of realism for me and insert me into a 'faux' reality).

    The MI-RN bike chase is far more than the QoS sequence on bikes imho. Sure, there's the scene where the BMW twists around on the narrow streets, but I thought it was great how they incorporated humour into that sequence (when Luther and Brandt show up and run into Hunt as well as after the BMW flips). There was no humour in the QoS scene (although it wasn't necessary and I really like that one too). I'd say the way they filmed that MI bike sequence is more evocative of TSWLM's Lotus chase (the wide angle lingering shots allowing the viewer to really take in the setting) than QoS's haphazard frenetics. I absolutely love that scene including the surprise finale!

    I completely agree with @Birdleson and your point that MI is still more 'teenage' and that Bond is supposed to be more mature. I think the operative word there is 'supposed' to be. If we're talking about CR or QoS then I even agree that it was.

    Regarding the dialogue, I agree as well. Time to step up EON. More TB is exactly what we need. A few of the decision makers (including Craig) need to be locked in a room for a few days and made to watch that film on loop to understand what's been missing. They can watch their SP at the same time as well. Perhaps the comparative torture (and I don't mean the scene in the film) will even give them a new perspective on things. I'm an optimist as you can tell.
  • Posts: 1,917
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    I believe Craig's best performance as Bond was in QOS. His performance is CR is great but QOS gives him a lot of subtle character moments that I absolutely love.

    I'm a fan of that performance as well and agree the subtle character moments are part of the joy of watching it. One I don't know why I like is when he's in a car talking on a cell phone, ends the conversation and just flips it onto the seat. That just says Bond is getting on with it.

    The thing about Craig in QoS is it's about Bond and his journey, it doesn't have the piling on of SF and SP and there's no Dench M to distract from Bond as in SF or the whole brother thing in SP. "I'm motivated by my duty" really rings true.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.


    Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.


    Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
    If you're saying that UNCLE spoofed Connery/Moore Bond then I agree. It didn't reflect that era so much as slightly caricaturize it, only in a less obvious manner than Kingsman.
  • Posts: 7,507
    I thought Kingsman was a horrible travesty...
  • Posts: 684
    But I still share @Birdleson's impression the films are made for teenagers, and Bond is supposed to be more 'mature'.
    bondjames wrote:
    I completely agree with @Birdleson and your point that MI is still more 'teenage' and that Bond is supposed to be more mature. I think the operative word there is 'supposed' to be. If we're talking about CR or QoS then I even agree that it was.
    @CommanderRoss @bondjames @Birdleson The MI films are most definitely made (as with most Hollywood fare now) for teens, which is shorthand for "the largest market size possible."

    Bond is supposed to be more mature, as was said. The question is, how mature?

    Bond has spent most of its life being conscious of its audience size. I'm not sure when Bond was 'aged down,' so to speak, but if I had to make a case I'd argue that it was starting with TB, in the wake of GF's success.

    Obviously, GF was the birth of the Bond 'phenomenon.' Part of that was its having a broader appeal than either of the first two entries. That said, EON still seemed to have the mindset, in producing the film (i.e. before its success) of continuing to, for the most part, faithfully adapt Fleming's material, including its adult tone — in GF, we have a murdered naked woman painted in gold, they keep the name Pussy Galore, etc. To do the kind of business GF did, however, an age group beyond adults would most certainly have to had to contribute. I think (any collector's confirm?) that only after 1964 did Bond toys start flooding the market.

    As I say, I don't think EON intended this. They didn't say, "Let's go after the kids." GF simply ended up having, of the first three, the most surface-level attractions that younger audiences would've found appealing. Perhaps the entire basis of GF's (and hence Bond's) success actually lies in its mass-appeal.

    At any rate, once Cubby and Harry saw GF numbers it would've been foolish (financially) for them to abandoned a new set of customers and go back and do something like DN, which most certainly was intended for adults. In fact I recall some advertisements for DN explicitly stating that it was not suitable for children. This was Terrence Young's mindset even years later—maybe in the late 80s?—when during an interview he commented on the scene in DN where Bond comes home to find Sylvia in his shirt, saying that if they had shot that scene now Sylvia would have been stark naked.

    TB proved the mass appeal worked, and YOLT was the last to be produced before the MPAA ratings came into the picture, and for the next decade and a half, it was either PG or R in the U.S., the biggest market, nothing between. By the time LTK was released as PG-13 that rating had not only proven itself commercially viable but also inevitable for Bond, being a rating which became standard for any material with the vaguest hint of adultness. The Brosnan era was largely targeted at the same sort of "teenagers" that the MI films currently still are.

    (Keep in mind, I'm not saying the later Connerys are as immature, for lack of a better word, as the Brosnan entries, but I think what maturity they do have is a product of natural 1960s culture and not any specific design on EON's part; whereas I'd say the 'maturity' of DN and FRWL and, even, GF, to a certain extent, was deliberate.)

    Credit to EON for pushing CR about as far as they could. Was it enough? I'm not sure. Part of me thinks so, but another curious part wants to see what an R-rated modern Bond would look like — not for any greedy sake of gore or sex itself, but for a story that uses each to show real consequences.

    I've often seen the suggestion that the Fleming novels/short stories ought to be adapted as a television series period piece. On one level this is interesting because it points to the larger phenomena of television occupying the void left by film. Where television began out of necessity as a lowest common denominator medium ('the whole family gathered around the set'), film was the medium people 'got away to' in order to see all the stuff they couldn't watch with all other people, only certain other people. But now it's reversed. We've kind of become so isolated in our societal lives that the screens in our pockets provide much the same significant the film screen once did. And film has become the place where everyone goes to be with 'other people' and see the things suitable for all other people to see.

    My point is, I'm not sure the idea of adapting Fleming as a television series would be so throughly endorsed if the films were doing their job.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Im ashamed to say that even though i dislike skyfall as a bond film, its far better then any other spy film I can think of like Mission Impossible, the man from uncle, the november man, or kingsman
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Im ashamed to say that even though i dislike skyfall as a bond film, its far better then any other spy film I can think of like Mission Impossible, the man from uncle, the november man, or kingsman

    Head and shoulders above all of them.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    Im ashamed to say that even though i dislike skyfall as a bond film, its far better then any other spy film I can think of like Mission Impossible, the man from uncle, the november man, or kingsman

    Head and shoulders above all of them.

    No it isn't. Simply because it is so full of plot holes that it can't hold a mouth full of water. And, say whatever you want, spy movies,and novels for that matter, are after all about stories making at least some sense (or at least being able to pretend it).This can't be said about SF, even through its tries. Pretending I mean.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Strog, insightful post. I wasn't aware of the ratings changes during the early years or how Bond straddled it. Yes, I agree that Bond pushed the envelope during the early Young years. Even when I watch those first two films today I'm surprised by how 'edgy' they were. I agree that GF probably marked the turning point. It's difficult to turn back once the 'whiff' of immeasurable Beatlemania type success has been experienced.

    Arguably they did switch it up in the 80's (I believe Cubby mentioned that the way they had done things for almost 20 years had run its course with MR), but to lesser financial success with Glen.

    The next time they adopted a more 'edgy' take was with CR, but arguably that film wasn't really all that revolutionary, given Bourne had already shown that there was indeed market demand for a more serious take on the spy genre and after Nolan had already shaken up the game with Batman Begins. I'd argue that QoS was more of a risk, in terms of the subtle Anti-American politics in the narrative.

    The issue now is are we at another GF moment? Has the outsize success of the two recent Mendes films put EON (and MGM) in a box whereby they will now tone it down further in order to appeal to the global masses (particularly given the increasing % of box office coming from foreign markets, especially with SP)? Will the possible future IPO (or sale) of MGM post-B25 put massive pressure on them to ensure that their 'crown jewel' appeals to as much of the masses as possible? Will this result in an even more disgraceful CGI-fest? These are the questions I'm sure they're wrestling with. The prospect of Yann Demange perhaps suggests they won't succumb to the lowest common denominator. One can only hope.

    Still, I think it's inevitable that a more serious take on Bond is less likely. Ultimately the nuance and humour has to be translatable into multiple languages and appeal to as many cultures (and all the various sexes out there these days) as possible. Difficult for Fleming's creation to be pure in a 'PC' & Trump age without facing a backlash.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.


    Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.


    Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
    If you're saying that UNCLE spoofed Connery/Moore Bond then I agree. It didn't reflect that era so much as slightly caricaturize it, only in a less obvious manner than Kingsman.

    Yes, and also that I enjoyed it more than the last three Craig outings. The same goed for OSS 117: Le Caire, Nis d'espions with Jean Dujardin.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Not sure about the M:I films, but Kingsman was far more enjoyable than the last 3 Bond films. Even if it was almost a tribute/spoof of the Connery and Moore eras.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.

    Kick Ass was a great film so I was excited to see what Vaughn would do with Kingsman. Alas we just got mediocrity with one half decent set piece. Shockingly overrated film.

    And UNCLE? Just goes to show what a bullet we dodged when Babs said no to Cavill. I'm all for criticising her for SP's mistakes but thank Christ she intervened here otherwise if Campbell had had his way we'd have been stuck with the beefcake Rory Kinnear.

    Yes Bond has been disappointing recently but let's not let that cloud our judgement when it comes to giving woeful pretenders to the crown more credit than they deserve.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Im ashamed to say that even though i dislike skyfall as a bond film, its far better then any other spy film I can think of like Mission Impossible, the man from uncle, the november man, or kingsman

    Head and shoulders above all of them.

    No it isn't. Simply because it is so full of plot holes that it can't hold a mouth full of water. And, say whatever you want, spy movies,and novels for that matter, are after all about stories making at least some sense (or at least being able to pretend it).This can't be said about SF, even through its tries. Pretending I mean.

    Cool.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, I agree that Bond pushed the envelope during the early Young years. Even when I watch those first two films today I'm surprised by how 'edgy' they were.
    @bondjames Yes, absolutely. And what's also quite impressive is how they managed to not only be edgy but also tongue in cheek at the same time.
    Arguably they did switch it up in the 80's (I believe Cubby mentioned that the way they had done things for almost 20 years had run its course with MR), but to lesser financial success with Glen.
    Rather than, "Oh well we needed to change it up," I've always wondered if the post-MR direction of the franchise (and the accompanying loss of cinematic magic) was more about Cubby going, "Right. I'm in my 70s. I'm retiring soon. Love to keep making Bond pictures forever but hey ho. Already been in it longer than I thought. Time to save my money, especially since we're not the only big budget, multi-film series in town anymore. We're not doing MR numbers again. Pitch it as 'Bond coming back to earth' and tell Ken Adam not to spend another dime on a nail."
    The next time they adopted a more 'edgy' take was with CR, but arguably that film wasn't really all that revolutionary, given Bourne had already shown that there was indeed market demand for a more serious take on the spy genre and after Nolan had already shaken up the game with Batman Begins. I'd argue that QoS was more of a risk, in terms of the subtle Anti-American politics in the narrative.
    Yes, I think so too. Where CR pushed it was in its pre-titles and in the casino scenes. The violence there was the sort of raw and consequential stuff we're speaking of. But it gets diluted by the more tonally conventional action fare we're given in the first and final acts.

    Tonally, I think what they did with QOS, on the other hand, is exactly what they should have progressed from. Only without editing it to death on the next go. If some of CR's edginess was ruined by its other standardized bits, QOS was diluted by the filmmakers' mucking around with the editing. It can't make an impact if we can't grab an impression of it.
    The prospect of Yann Demange perhaps suggests they won't succumb to the lowest common denominator. One can only hope.
    I think each of the alleged final candidates bodes well for that. The ultimate test will be whether EON can manage to make a success of such an edgy film on its own terms, unlike CR/QOS which each had to piggyback off the success of other franchises almost as an excuse.
    Still, I think it's inevitable that a more serious take on Bond is less likely. Ultimately the nuance and humour has to be translatable into multiple languages and appeal to as many cultures (and all the various sexes out there these days) as possible. Difficult for Fleming's creation to be pure in a 'PC' & Trump age without facing a backlash.
    Indeed. We won't be getting anything like what we've discussed unless all cinema changes again. Not impossible, just quite far off.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    RC7 wrote: »
    Im ashamed to say that even though i dislike skyfall as a bond film, its far better then any other spy film I can think of like Mission Impossible, the man from uncle, the november man, or kingsman

    Head and shoulders above all of them.

    No it isn't. Simply because it is so full of plot holes that it can't hold a mouth full of water. And, say whatever you want, spy movies,and novels for that matter, are after all about stories making at least some sense (or at least being able to pretend it).This can't be said about SF, even through its tries. Pretending I mean.

    I know its shit and I hate it but, even a shit bond film is and will always be better then the competition. Their is no comparison. The production and action seauences cant even be matched by and other series. Mission impossible 5 has 1 bond level action scene. The bike one. But the rest are really not in the same league of intensity.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,581
    As much as I enjoy the M:I films, the only sequences I enjoy are the middle sequences.

    1. The CIA break in
    2. Biocyte break in
    3. The whole Vatican sequence.
    4. The Burj Kalifa switcheroo
    5. The underwater replacing of the identiy cards.

    Without those scenes there's not much there. Whereas in the Bond films, mostly every moment is enjoyable.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2017 Posts: 6,287
    When I look at the bike chase it's basically the QoS PTS on bikes, which helps, it makes it more spectacular. And the editing is better so you can see what's going on. SP for me was hit and miss when it comes to the action, and what I was saying about MI is certainly partly true for that film. Agian, I love the PTS, and I also love the Hinx fight. But the Rome chase lacks excitement (traffic!) and the plane-loses-wings-still-gives-chase scene is terrible. There's no danger anymore.

    And it made no sense that Bond would "protect" Swann by putting her in immediate danger.

    For me, the plane chase is Exhibit A why Gregg Wilson is not ready to take over the franchise, and consequently why we should trust Babs' generally very good judgment for the foreseeable future.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    As much as I enjoy the M:I films, the only sequences I enjoy are the middle sequences.

    1. The CIA break in
    2. Biocyte break in
    3. The whole Vatican sequence.
    4. The Burj Kalifa switcheroo
    5. The underwater replacing of the identiy cards.

    Without those scenes there's not much there. Whereas in the Bond films, mostly every moment is enjoyable.
    In GP I liked the following:

    1. intro kill by Seydoux
    2. improvisational jump from hospital window in Moscow (so Bond imho)
    3. Burj
    4. sandstorm chase (learnt something here, which is what used to happen in Bond films)
    5. fight in parking lot in India (again, very Bond)

    In RN I liked the following:

    1. plane grab (shades of Glen's best)
    2. underwater sequence
    3. Vienna Opera (love everything about it. Again, so Bond imho)
    4. bike and car chase (intense)


    In SP I liked the Hinx fight.

    In SF I liked the PTS (bloody excellent) & the Wayne Manor burning ending.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,581
    The fight when Hinx on the train is dampened with the love scene with Madeline afterwards. It just felt out of place following the fight.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The fight when Hinx on the train is dampened with the love scene with Madeline afterwards. It just felt out of place following the fight.
    Indeed. Tonal mismatch imho. Some defended it at the time but it just takes me right out. In TSWLM it worked because they eased into it and that was Moore's shtick anyway. Ironically there was more realism in a Moore film because he was hurt and it was the attention to that which took it further.

    I've always felt they added that because the chemistry was lacking elsewhere and they needed to get from A to B in order for her to give a toss about his plight in the torture chair.

    Poorly handled character work imho.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote: »
    For me, the plane chase is Exhibit A why Gregg Wilson is not ready to take over the franchise, and consequently why we should trust Babs' generally very good judgment for the foreseeable future.

    The self same Babs who put Gregg Wilson in charge in the first place? And signed off on stepbrothergate? Spectacular judgement.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Apologies to the above poster, I am not sure who said it, but having finally watched UNCLE tonight I have to change my opinion on Cavill. Jesus christ the man is stiffer than a viagra fueled "old chap".

    I always championed him as a potential Bond, and certainly has the perfect look but if thats the best he can do then he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the franchise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Apologies to the above poster, I am not sure who said it, but having finally watched UNCLE tonight I have to change my opinion on Cavill. Jesus christ the man is stiffer than a viagra fueled "old chap".

    I always championed him as a potential Bond, and certainly has the perfect look but if thats the best he can do then he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the franchise.
    +1. With regret.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    This will probably be controversial; Xenia Onatopp is not just the worst Bond girl, but the worst character in the series. No other character takes such a steaming dump on an otherwise great movie. I'm actually embarrassed to watch GE around other people solely due to her cringe inducing sexual-psychotic character. You could combine Bibi, Christmas, and the double-taking pigeon into one perfect storm of awful, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near the almost movie-ruining experience that having to sit through any scene involving her is.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    This will probably be controversial; Xenia Onatopp is not just the worst Bond girl, but the worst character in the series. No other character takes such a steaming dump on an otherwise great movie. I'm actually embarrassed to watch GE around other people solely due to her cringe inducing sexual-psychotic character. You could combine Bibi, Christmas, and the double-taking pigeon into one perfect storm of awful, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near the almost movie-ruining experience that having to sit through any scene involving her is.

    @BMW_with_missiles -- you came to the right place!! Your verbal abuse on Onatopp is amazingly controversial IMHO!

    I disagree wholeheartedly, but champion your right to say so!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I disagree as well. Onatopp is great fun imho, although I always feel the need to turn the volume down when she's giving it to that Canadian Admiral.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist takes the cake for me. Jinx is up there, but it wasn't the acting as much as it was a bad script. Great acting can only salvage so much (see: Waltz in SP. Bad writing only gets you so far.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist takes the cake for me.
    Agreed. Bloody awful. She's just not credible in the part for me. Halle laid it on a bit thick in DAD but I could buy her as a NSA agent.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist takes the cake for me.
    Agreed. Bloody awful. She's just not credible in the part for me. Halle laid it on a bit thick in DAD but I could buy her as a NSA agent.

    Same. Don't get me wrong, the acting was still horrid at times, but I can't imagine trying to sell "Yo mama" or "I think I got the thrust of it" while eyeballing Brosnan's package convincingly.
Sign In or Register to comment.