Controversial opinions about Bond films

1363364366368369707

Comments

  • Posts: 16,154
    This probably isn't all too controversial but the discussion on the Everything Or Nothing thread about the gunbarrel put it in my head.

    The Brosnan era gunbarrel design was perfect and I hate how EON/Kleinman seem to be too stubborn to use it again. The best GB design of the modern era was Spectre and even then, the static Binder design just feels like a step back after we saw it in motion 20 years ago. Maybe they don't want to be associated with the Brosnan films because they're not that highly regarded nowadays? But even if they are ashamed of those films they must see that they got some stuff right back then. They kept Dench on after all and a lot of the production mainstays also worked on the Brosnan movies. Whatever the case I hope they go back to that design, or the same concept but with newer CGI, with Bond 25.

    The Kleinman GoldenEye gunbarrel design, IMO was an excellent tribute to Binder's work. To me it's not so different as to be unrecognizable. It's essentially the same image, but with a slick 3-dimensional movement. Beautiful. Occasionally Binder would tweak the image: OHMSS and DAF for instance, and I imagine he might have loved the Kleinman/Brosnan era gunbarrel. The only minor complaint I might have was that the blood flowed fast enough there wasn't time for the complete Bond theme melody post gunshot. Compared to what would appear in the Craig films that's only a MINOR issue.
    The Craig gunbarrels, IMO, are a disgrace. The QoS and SF designs look exactly like one might see in a cheap video parody. An insult to Maurice Binder, Bond and fans who anxiously await each new film and get that bit of excitement that the sequence should traditionally bring. How dare they?
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Surprisingly many people that I have met over the years say that Dalton is the worst Bond/actor. His Bond felt real to me though.
    His Bond certainly felt the most 'real' and 'human' to me as well, but I get that a lot about him too. Most I've met either haven't seen his films or don't like his portrayal.

    I think Dalton is fantastic @bondjames , agree.
  • Posts: 15,114
    I think SMERSH's absence is more of a series wide issue to be fair, I don't think you can single one film out based on a decision they made at the very beginning (I think FRWL suffers much more from SMERSH's absence because you actually see them in that book and they're much more menacing than SPECTRE). I'm just glad they didn't make him a SPECTRE agent, that got really boring by the end of the Connery era.
    Post edited for content

    I was literally just quoting the book though? Can't say I understand the no swearing rule. Far worse things have been said on here without a single swear word.

    I find SPECTRE to be a very capable substitute to SMERSH in FRWL. In GF Goldfinger comes off more as a gifted amateur criminal. His connection with China is slim at best. But in any case Bond remains a bystander in the movie.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames and @CASINOROYALE , I wanted to like Dalton, and still do... I just find him too angry in some scenes; very stagey in other scenes, always acting, always projecting, always forcing his inner thoughts on to me as a viewer...

    He looked great, best Bond face there is...

    I thought the very best, the most relaxed, the most cunning, the most Bond he was, was after Sanchez saved him ("you were just in time, things were about to turn nasty"-- and, yes, I even liked that lilt to his voice)... from this point on in LTK, I warm to him for the first time since his pre-title sequence in TLD, and think he was quite wonderful in most scenes from that point on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree that Dalton was a little theatrical @peter, but somehow he brought an authentic flavour to the role for me. Connery, Moore and Craig are projections of the character on the screen to me. Dalton seemed more like one of us if that makes any sense. That is what he brought which was quite unique imho.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    ..." seemed like one of us"... Interesting in that it seems Dalton was spinning around in the dark, as I would be in his shoes-- in a good way. Dalton made the story spontaneous, for sure. Like none of his scenes were predisposed and, he wanders in not knowing exactly what to. Does this make sense, and is this what you mean @bondjames ?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    ..." seemed like one of us"... Interesting in that it seems Dalton was spinning around in the dark, as I would be in his shoes-- in a good way. Dalton made the story spontaneous, for sure. Like none of his scenes were predisposed and, he wanders in not knowing exactly what to. Does this make sense, and is this what you mean @bondjames ?
    Yes, @peter, that's a good way of putting it. There certainly was a spontaneous element to his portrayal. Raw and natural. Not contrived in any way (except when he had to pull the one liners which he was uncomfortable with).

    His is not my favourite portrayal because I like my Bond a little more in control (which is why Connery/Moore are my favourites, followed by Craig), but his version is the most 'flesh and blood', as it were. The most mortal.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I can see and appreciate that, @bondjames...

    TD did feel uncomfortable with the one liners, but I will NEVER blame him for that-- I cringe at all one liners not spoken by Connery or Moore. I hate the one-liners and, unless delivered now, by dry humour (we're teachers on sabbatical...), I have no use for them...

    I know logically Tim delivered something I should love, I just need to get over the other negatives: where DC's Bond seems patriotic, for example, and as Ian Fleming's was, Dalton seems, to me, the most anti-authority. He was always pissed, angry, hating his job (Fleming-Bond never hated his job; he questioned it and his role in it, always finding a motive for righteousness for the Queen and country).

    For the above, I reject that TD was most like Fleming, since TD seemed so anti-establishment, it took away my sails to back the man. Yes he was "doing good" but, it always seemed, regrettabley! On top of the OTT SHAKESPEARIAN ACTORRRR (roll the "R"s...), he wrestles with Brosnan for lowest...
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    I think SMERSH's absence is more of a series wide issue to be fair, I don't think you can single one film out based on a decision they made at the very beginning (I think FRWL suffers much more from SMERSH's absence because you actually see them in that book and they're much more menacing than SPECTRE). I'm just glad they didn't make him a SPECTRE agent, that got really boring by the end of the Connery era.
    Post edited for content

    I was literally just quoting the book though? Can't say I understand the no swearing rule. Far worse things have been said on here without a single swear word.

    I find SPECTRE to be a very capable substitute to SMERSH in FRWL. In GF Goldfinger comes off more as a gifted amateur criminal. His connection with China is slim at best. But in any case Bond remains a bystander in the movie.

    I agree that they work well as a substitute, and FRWL is probably SPECTRE at their best (although I loved SP's take as well), it's really just my personal preference. I find SMERSH more menacing because of them being a government organisation I think. SPECTRE are good supervillains, but SMERSH are backed by this cold dark police state and that was my favourite part of the book. The contrast between them and the British.

    With Goldfinger, I just really like that he isn't tied to any organisation in the film. I love the "crime de la crime" idea of him wanting to pull off the criminal equivalent of the moonlanding. The SMERSH connection in the book undermines that a bit imo. It's the same as in the film but there's the afterthought of "oh and he's working for the Russians as well", which felt a bit played out at that point. They could have easily done the same in the film and tied him to SPECTRE but I'm so glad they didn't because I think his whole overambitious crook gimmick works a lot better with him acting solo.

    I agree on Bond being a bystander though. That's one of the things that stops it being my favourite Connery film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    he wrestles with Brosnan for lowest...
    Same for me @peter, even though I really like much of what he brought to the table performance wise (in retrospect).
  • Posts: 11,189
    peter wrote: »
    @bondjames and @CASINOROYALE , I wanted to like Dalton, and still do... I just find him too angry in some scenes; very stagey in other scenes, always acting, always projecting, always forcing his inner thoughts on to me as a viewer...

    To be honest, this is something I've had difficulties with for a while and why I've felt a little uneasy regarding Dalton. You get the impression he is consciously conveying rather than being if that makes sense. The scenes that most demonstrates this are when he finds Della in LTK and again later on when he's in the casino with Lupe. Craig has his faults, but he seems better (to me) at displaying more intricate, subtle emotions.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    I liked Dalton for his more human take on Bond but he just seemed angry at everything. At times that was did reflect Fleming ("If he fires me, I'll thank him for it") but sometimes he was just doing those "pissed eyes" which becomes tiresome after a while.

    Curious to see so many people ranking Lazenby above Dalton and Brosnan though. He was much more wooden and inexperienced (though I admit he did well for his circumstances and isn't terrible per se).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Curious to see so many people ranking Lazenby above Dalton and Brosnan though. He was much more wooden and inexperienced (though I admit he did well for his circumstances and isn't terrible per se).
    In my view Laz benefits tremendously from a few unique aspects:

    1. he only did one, and it was a cracker of a script.
    2. he was surrounded by exceptionalism (cast, score, cinematography, locations, etc).
    3. he was given an opportunity to showcase vulnerability due to the script and did well enough. His inexperience, woodenness & lack of acting skills paradoxically resulted in a subtlety.
    4. he nailed the swagger and confidence, which is a huge part of the Bond cinematic experience.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Surely the first two aren't being counted as points in favour of Lazenby himself? While calling him a weak link might be going too far, he did come off as one of the least strong elements in the film (the other being the pacing). OHMSS is a good movie, but how much of that is down to George himself? All those things you mentioned made the film almost actor-proof IMHO. George gets credit for not dragging the film down too much but I wouldn't count him among the things that makes the film legendary.

    I think he does do well with the emotional vulnerability and physical confidence, but in terms of "cinematic experience" I think every Bond actor save for Dalton easily captured that better than him. And Dalton was the superior thespian in turn.

    He's not teeth-gratingly bad or anything, just noticeably more wooden and less experienced than the others. And I think that's a valid mark against him, especially if we're already being generous towards him on account of his acting inexperience.

    On reconsideration, though, I've got Dalton and Brosnan on a par with one another. They're basically the two sides of the coin — Brosnan nailed the cinematic Bond while Dalton channeled Fleming's Bond adeptly; they each struggled with the opposite component.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Surely the first two aren't being counted as points in favour of Lazenby himself?
    No, certainly not, but my point is there is a 'halo' effect benefiting him in actor rankings on account of the script and the exceptional nature of what was brought to the table with that film (score, cast, cinematography, direction etc). In a way, I believe Brosnan benefits from some of that for GE as well. If Brosnan had stopped with GE he would be viewed far more positively. Same with Craig had he stopped post-CR (undoubtedly he would be seen as the best).
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Fair enough, but I think that's the distinction between ranking films and ranking actors. For instance, Moore and Brosnan can still be given credit in their MR's and DAD's. Conversely, Connery isn't to be praised for YOLT, and in my opinion, Lazenby not particularly so for OHMSS either.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Surely the first two aren't being counted as points in favour of Lazenby himself? While calling him a weak link might be going too far, he did come off as one of the least strong elements in the film (the other being the pacing). OHMSS is a good movie, but how much of that is down to George himself? All those things you mentioned made the film almost actor-proof IMHO. George gets credit for not dragging the film down too much but I wouldn't count him among the things that makes the film legendary.

    Possibly what you say is correct but I certainly wouldnt have wanted to see Sean in OHMSS (certainly not the disillusioned Sean of 1967) as George pulled off the 'ordinary bloke' vibe in the scenes on the mountain and at the ice rink in a way that you simply wouldnt buy if it was Sean simply because hes Sean Connery. Similarly I dont really think any of the others would have been as good as George except maybe Dan (although could he pull off 'Hmm Royal Beluga, north of the Caspian' and ' He had lots of guts' with such aplomb?).
    bondjames wrote: »
    Surely the first two aren't being counted as points in favour of Lazenby himself?
    No, certainly not, but my point is there is a 'halo' effect benefiting him in actor rankings on account of the script and the exceptional nature of what was brought to the table with that film (score, cast, cinematography, direction etc). In a way, I believe Brosnan benefits from some of that for GE as well. If Brosnan had stopped with GE he would be viewed far more positively. Same with Craig had he stopped post-CR (undoubtedly he would be seen as the best).

    I do think there is a 'James Dean' effect about George in that the fact the film is so good it makes it seem like his brief star burned brighter than possibly it did. If we had seen him continue, having to slog through the lacklustre scripts of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG, then perhaps his shortcomings would have become a lot more apparent?

    In short OHMSS was made for George and George was made for OHMSS.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Fair enough, but I think that's the distinction between ranking films and ranking actors. For instance, Moore and Brosnan can still be given credit in their MR's and DAD's. Conversely, Connery isn't to be praised for YOLT, and in my opinion, Lazenby not particularly so for OHMSS either.
    Yes, that's true. I think many confuse the two and conflate them. It's understandable. The actor is given credit for a good film and even for box office on a lot of these threads, which is borderline ridiculous in my opinion. There is so much more that makes a good Bond film than the actor, as can be evidenced from the latest effort.

    It's telling that @Birdleson's thread which asked forum members to rank actors independent of the film has hardly been utilized. It's not easy to do.

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/11780/ranking-bond-performances-by-film/p1
    bondjames wrote: »
    Surely the first two aren't being counted as points in favour of Lazenby himself?
    No, certainly not, but my point is there is a 'halo' effect benefiting him in actor rankings on account of the script and the exceptional nature of what was brought to the table with that film (score, cast, cinematography, direction etc). In a way, I believe Brosnan benefits from some of that for GE as well. If Brosnan had stopped with GE he would be viewed far more positively. Same with Craig had he stopped post-CR (undoubtedly he would be seen as the best).

    I do think there is a 'James Dean' effect about George in that the fact the film is so good it makes it seem like his brief star burned brighter than possibly it did. If we had seen him continue, having to slog through the lacklustre scripts of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG, then perhaps his shortcomings would have become a lot more apparent?

    In short OHMSS was made for George and George was made for OHMSS.
    100%. You've hit the nail on the head.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Possibly what you say is correct but I certainly wouldnt have wanted to see Sean in OHMSS (certainly not the disillusioned Sean of 1967) as George pulled off the 'ordinary bloke' vibe in the scenes on the mountain and at the ice rink in a way that you simply wouldnt buy if it was Sean simply because hes Sean Connery. Similarly I dont really think any of the others would have been as good as George except maybe Dan (although could he pull off 'Hmm Royal Beluga, north of the Caspian' and ' He had lots of guts' with such aplomb?).

    Oh no, I wouldn't have wanted Connery sleepwalking through any emotionally charged movie. In fact, I agree with the popular sentiment that Lazenby was better equipped for handling this type of film than the dispirited Sean.

    What I'm saying is that George didn't need to be a particularly good Bond, especially compared to the others on average, in order to make OHMSS a fine film.

    I wasn't too big on George's delivery of the former line, but he was definitely surprisingly good at the one-liners on the whole. Something not often mentioned about him since he's mostly just given credit for the action scenes and the final moment with Tracy's murder.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, that's true. I think many confuse the two and conflate them. It's understandable. The actor is given credit for a good film and even for box office on a lot of these threads, which is borderline ridiculous in my opinion. There is so much more that makes a good Bond film than the actor, as can be evidenced from the latest effort.

    It's telling that @Birdleson's thread which asked forum members to rank actors independent of the film has hardly been utilized.

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/11780/ranking-bond-performances-by-film/p1

    May have to visit Birdleson's thread at some point. But that aside, you're definitely right. Which is why I don't think Lazenby, based purely on his own merits in OHMSS, can be ranked above Dalton or Brosnan.

    Speaking of controversial opinions and Bond performances though, I consider Moore's Moonraker performance excellent, which I think most people disagree with since most people seem to believe he was just phoning it in. I think he was just playing along with the movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Speaking of controversial opinions and Bond performances though, I consider Moore's Moonraker performance excellent, which I think most people disagree with since most people seem to believe he was just phoning it in. I think he was just playing along with the movie.
    I 100% agree with you. Moore's MR performance is textbook perfection imho, given the tone of the film.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames - Yep. I think it's probably his best performance as Bond, actually. It just synchronises so perfectly with the film. How often can we say that about any Bond's performance? Connery's early flicks and Casino Royale, perhaps. But it's quite rare to have such seamless synergy between the Bond actor and his movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames - Yep. I think it's probably his best performance as Bond, actually. It just synchronises so perfectly with the film. How often can we say that about any Bond's performance? Connery's early flicks and Casino Royale, perhaps. But it's quite rare to have such seamless synergy between the Bond actor and his movie.
    Completely agree. Perhaps LALD as well. He (along with Seymour) came across as a 'fish out of water' (I'm reminded of Sting's Englishman in New York) which fitted the Blaxploitation tone of the film.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames I think that's a good justification for putting Moore as one of the best Bonds. Say what you want about his movies, but he has the best rate of accommodating his films with his acting style. Only Craig matches him in that regard since Connery dropped off in YOLT and Dalton/Brosnan were sometimes at odds with their scripts. Moore disliked certain scenes like the car kick in FYEO or the arm twist in TMWTGG but he still did them professionally and without looking uncomfortable. The fact that the producers could ask him to play Connery's Bond in TMWTGG and he was able to do so is definitely worth a few points in my mind, especially given that his Bond is typically known for being completely different to Connery's.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I agree about Moore @ForYourEyesOnly, but disagree on Craig based on SP, which I thought didn't suit his portrayal and did him no favours. I could see his limitations in CR/QoS actually, but those films suited him imho.

    I personally think both Connery and Moore were the only two who tailored their performances perfectly to their films. I'm not a fan of YOLT because it slows down a lot in the 2nd half, but I don't think Connery is half bad in it. It was stupid to try and disguise him as a Japanese man (he couldn't be more different looking) in the film but apart from that I liked his performance (particularly in the earlier half). He was pitch perfect in DAF imho (such a different performance from FRWL but just as well suited to the film).
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames My problems with SP are entirely to do with non-Craig elements. I think his portrayal is fine (not memorable, perhaps, but one might say the same of Sir Roger in Moonraker). Didn't notice anything particularly weak with it, but that might just be me.

    I don't think any Bond actor has ever been bad so to say, even Connery in YOLT. Bond performances are pretty much always good; I think that's part of the franchise's appeal. The highs and lows come from things like script-writing and editing, and rarely a matter of the Bond being terrible (I know you might disagree with Brosnan in TWINE; for me it's nothing worse than Connery in YOLT).

    As for the Japanese disguise, I can see how that's aged badly but that's actually straight from the book. An interesting plot point considering YOLT was the first to drop most of Fleming's premise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that primarily the highs and lows for a Bond film come from script writing, editing, casting, cinematography, score etc. I think that's why this franchise has survived for so long - because it transcends the actor.

    Yes, I realize the disguise is from the book, but it was a bad move which didn't translate well on film and just looks ridiculous now. Honestly, I think Connery is very smooth in YOLT, which fits the larger than life tone of the film.

    I think every actor conceivably tries to fit into the tone of the film, but as with everything, it's a question of execution. Brosnan seemed a bit affected to me in certain parts of TWINE, as did Craig in SP. My concerns aren't to do with the script there, but more to do with the actor. Quite frankly, I think if Craig had delivered a slightly different performance in SP I would have liked the film a lot more, brothergate and all. I may actually rank his performance in that film lower than Brosnan's in TWINE. I just can't buy his attempts at nonchalance and see them as contrived as Dalton's attempts at one liners.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @Bondjames - Fair enough. Most of this comes down to a matter of taste and I can understand yours.

    Whether we have Craig at Moore's level of performance, though, doesn't quite matter since Moore made more movies and was able to keep it up every time at 2-year intervals. Whereas Craig gets considerably more prep time before each movie. So Sir Roger Moore probably still reigns supreme in that regard for me. I always enjoy watching him, no matter what mood I'm in.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree @ForYourEyesOnly. Sir Rog has my undying respect for his contributions on and off the screen on behalf of Bond. A legend.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    @bondjames I think with Craig beeing that confident and light, he comes over more as arrogant. And that's putting people off. He's perhaps a bit too hard edged by now to make light. After all, he's the hardest edged of all, except for Dalton perhaps, who had trouble delivering the lighter parts as well.

    With Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan we could see what they did was perhaps not unhuman, but they'd never be able to pull off all those stunts consecutively. With Criag you've got the feeling he can pull it off. So a lighter remark by the others makes it a bit cartoonesk, whilst with Craig it makes him arrogant.
  • Posts: 15,114
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think SMERSH's absence is more of a series wide issue to be fair, I don't think you can single one film out based on a decision they made at the very beginning (I think FRWL suffers much more from SMERSH's absence because you actually see them in that book and they're much more menacing than SPECTRE). I'm just glad they didn't make him a SPECTRE agent, that got really boring by the end of the Connery era.
    Post edited for content

    I was literally just quoting the book though? Can't say I understand the no swearing rule. Far worse things have been said on here without a single swear word.

    I find SPECTRE to be a very capable substitute to SMERSH in FRWL. In GF Goldfinger comes off more as a gifted amateur criminal. His connection with China is slim at best. But in any case Bond remains a bystander in the movie.

    I agree that they work well as a substitute, and FRWL is probably SPECTRE at their best (although I loved SP's take as well), it's really just my personal preference. I find SMERSH more menacing because of them being a government organisation I think. SPECTRE are good supervillains, but SMERSH are backed by this cold dark police state and that was my favourite part of the book. The contrast between them and the British.

    With Goldfinger, I just really like that he isn't tied to any organisation in the film. I love the "crime de la crime" idea of him wanting to pull off the criminal equivalent of the moonlanding. The SMERSH connection in the book undermines that a bit imo. It's the same as in the film but there's the afterthought of "oh and he's working for the Russians as well", which felt a bit played out at that point. They could have easily done the same in the film and tied him to SPECTRE but I'm so glad they didn't because I think his whole overambitious crook gimmick works a lot better with him acting solo.

    I agree on Bond being a bystander though. That's one of the things that stops it being my favourite Connery film.

    For the record GF is not my favourite novel. But at least Bond does something. And Goldfinger is introduced with Fleming's prose, which makes for the rather mundane surroundings and circumstances. And here's my other controversial opinions: Goldfinger is one of the weakest villain's introductions of the movies.
Sign In or Register to comment.