Controversial opinions about Bond films

1396397399401402707

Comments

  • Posts: 12,514
    I think Lazenby and Dalton are the least suave.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,198
    I think every single actor up until Pierce was suave. The first one to break that tradition is Craig I’d say.
  • Posts: 16,204
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think Lazenby and Dalton are the least suave.

    I find Tim more suave in TLD than LTK. I thought George was reasonably suave, but far more rugged.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    bondjames wrote: »
    This will be controversial: Brosnan best performance was GE.
    I have no problem with him in it although I find him a bit unsure on occasion.

    I think Bond should be a bit inhibited. He should definitely have the charm and charisma when it's called for, but I think his usual manner should be quite reserved. It adds to his coolness in my opinion.

    Brosnan is way more subtle with his acting in GE in comparison with the films that followed. The character feels real here, like in the Alec reveal scene, or the chat with Zukovsky's office, and the interrogation scene in the prison. This may be extra controversial, but I also belief the relationship between him and Natalya. This is because they share real moments of levity that feel genuine, rather than the barbs that Craig and Vesper exchanged, which didn't feel natural in the slightest.
  • Posts: 12,514
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think Lazenby and Dalton are the least suave.

    I find Tim more suave in TLD than LTK. I thought George was reasonably suave, but far more rugged.

    All 6 have it to an extent. Connery and Moore are the most suave easily.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    This will be controversial: Brosnan best performance was GE.
    I have no problem with him in it although I find him a bit unsure on occasion.

    I think Bond should be a bit inhibited. He should definitely have the charm and charisma when it's called for, but I think his usual manner should be quite reserved. It adds to his coolness in my opinion.

    Brosnan is way more subtle with his acting in GE in comparison with the films that followed. The character feels real here, like in the Alec reveal scene, or the chat with Zukovsky's office, and the interrogation scene in the prison. This may be extra controversial, but I also belief the relationship between him and Natalya. This is because they share real moments of levity that feel genuine, rather than the barbs that Craig and Vesper exchanged, which didn't feel natural in the slightest.
    I agree, although I thought Craig/Vesper worked well too. Having said that, the dialogue in the famed train scene seems a bit forced when I view it these days. North By Northwest still remains the standard.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Speaking of suavity, in my controversial opinion, Roger Moore was the most suave Bond.
    Pierce was fairly dapper as well, but to me it seemed a bit self conscious.
    Sean, mentored by Terence Young in the art of suavity, worked hard to get as dapper as he eventually became and IMO it paid off.
    Roger on the other hand had a natural suaveness about him that I don't think any of the others could match.
    I'd say Craig was probably at his most suave in the casino scenes, in CR, or in the dinner with Vesper. Suave, isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when I think of Craig. Neither for him or Tim.
    I agree that Moore was the most suave. Naturally debonair, sophisticated and charming. Connery was best under Young's direction where he had a great blend of tough ruggedness mixed with smooth cool (it's in the way he moves and reacts as much as the way he behaves, most notably in FRWL and TB).
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    QBranch wrote: »
    Just continuing the topic of the invisible car from the production thread, and how quite a few members said they don't have a problem with it:

    I never really had a problem with it either, and for a while, even championed the 'ahead-of-its-time' approach, but over the years (and especially now, 15 years after the film) I feel it was looking too far ahead. The only issue I have is the tech they are using in regards to the vehicle design. For a decent cloaking result, wouldn't you need the wheels and wheel arches covered behind a completely sealed shell? But even then, you'd still see the bottom of the tyres near the ground.

    I realize we are to suspend belief to a degree, but I can't help imagine Bond questioning Q, wondering if/how the tyres themselves are embedded with cameras.

    One of the things I don't get is that people can accept that 'Vanish'. Ok, let's see. Tiny camera's in: the wheel arches, the wheels, the windows'? The thing with projection is that it needs a flat surface to work, which the Aston has a-plenty of course. And even, even if we accept this utter impossibility, they put the bloody car in the snow!!!!! Like it doesn't leave any prints or anything! And that V12 engine happens to be the quetest V12 ever produced. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. If there's one thing they will never be able to produce, it's an inviseable car.
  • Posts: 15,218
    bondjames wrote: »
    This will be controversial: Brosnan best performance was GE.
    I have no problem with him in it although I find him a bit unsure on occasion.

    I'd say it serves both movie and character. Sometimes Brosnan felt too invincible and invulnerable as Bond, partially because he was so sure/smug. In his scenes with Sean Bean particularly it gave Trevelyan a necessary villainous edge.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 17,814
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Speaking of suavity, in my controversial opinion, Roger Moore was the most suave Bond.
    Pierce was fairly dapper as well, but to me it seemed a bit self conscious.
    Sean, mentored by Terence Young in the art of suavity, worked hard to get as dapper as he eventually became and IMO it paid off.
    Roger on the other hand had a natural suaveness about him that I don't think any of the others could match.
    I'd say Craig was probably at his most suave in the casino scenes, in CR, or in the dinner with Vesper. Suave, isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when I think of Craig. Neither for him or Tim.

    Agreed. As far as suavity goes, Roger Moore is the best of them. It's the thing about his Bond I like the most! And the humour of course.
  • Posts: 19,339
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Speaking of suavity, in my controversial opinion, Roger Moore was the most suave Bond.
    Pierce was fairly dapper as well, but to me it seemed a bit self conscious.
    Sean, mentored by Terence Young in the art of suavity, worked hard to get as dapper as he eventually became and IMO it paid off.
    Roger on the other hand had a natural suaveness about him that I don't think any of the others could match.
    I'd say Craig was probably at his most suave in the casino scenes, in CR, or in the dinner with Vesper. Suave, isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when I think of Craig. Neither for him or Tim.

    Agreed. As far as suavity goes, Roger Moore is the best of them. It's the thing about his Bond I like the most! And the humour of course.

    And the best eyebrow in film history !
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,663
    QBranch wrote: »
    Just continuing the topic of the invisible car from the production thread, and how quite a few members said they don't have a problem with it:

    I never really had a problem with it either, and for a while, even championed the 'ahead-of-its-time' approach, but over the years (and especially now, 15 years after the film) I feel it was looking too far ahead. The only issue I have is the tech they are using in regards to the vehicle design. For a decent cloaking result, wouldn't you need the wheels and wheel arches covered behind a completely sealed shell? But even then, you'd still see the bottom of the tyres near the ground.

    I realize we are to suspend belief to a degree, but I can't help imagine Bond questioning Q, wondering if/how the tyres themselves are embedded with cameras.

    One of the things I don't get is that people can accept that 'Vanish'. Ok, let's see. Tiny camera's in: the wheel arches, the wheels, the windows'? The thing with projection is that it needs a flat surface to work, which the Aston has a-plenty of course. And even, even if we accept this utter impossibility, they put the bloody car in the snow!!!!! Like it doesn't leave any prints or anything! And that V12 engine happens to be the quetest V12 ever produced. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. If there's one thing they will never be able to produce, it's an inviseable car.
    I can accept it because of the type of film it's in. That's not to say I will lap up any nonsense that's fed to me - I like my OTT films as much as the serious, realistic ones - and DAD crosses the line with how far-fetched I want my Bond films. Although, maybe.. just maybe.. I could handle a film like DAD once in a (long) while for the sake of variety as long as they always switch back to something more grounded afterwards.

    At the risk of defending the invisible car concept, I do think it cops more criticism than the gene therapy plot, which seems less feasible, even today.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I have opened a DAD v SP thread peeps ,to take the pressure off the other threads that multiple conversations and debate are happening at the same time.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,663
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I have opened a DAD v SP thread peeps ,to take the pressure off the other threads that multiple conversations and debate are happening at the same time.
    How about DAD vs TLD, Baz?
  • Posts: 19,339
    QBranch wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I have opened a DAD v SP thread peeps ,to take the pressure off the other threads that multiple conversations and debate are happening at the same time.
    How about DAD vs TLD, Baz?

    I would loooooooove that...but I would probably be the only DAD supporter ,Q !
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,056
    You love your DAD.
  • Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    You love your DAD.

    Even over TLD ?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,663
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    You love your DAD.
    Even over TLD (Tender Loving D'Abo)?
    I doubt it.
  • Posts: 19,339
    QBranch wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    You love your DAD.
    Even over TLD (Tender Loving D'Abo)?
    I doubt it.

    That brought a smile to my face Q,and then I nearly threw up.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,663
    Hmmm, must've been something you ate.
  • Posts: 19,339
    QBranch wrote: »
    Hmmm, must've been something you ate.

    It wasn't her.. ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,056
    barryt007 wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Hmmm, must've been something you ate.

    It wasn't her.. ;)

    Don't think, just let it happen... ;)
  • Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Hmmm, must've been something you ate.

    It wasn't her.. ;)

    Don't think, just let it happen... ;)

    Time to leave !!
  • Posts: 17,814
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Speaking of suavity, in my controversial opinion, Roger Moore was the most suave Bond.
    Pierce was fairly dapper as well, but to me it seemed a bit self conscious.
    Sean, mentored by Terence Young in the art of suavity, worked hard to get as dapper as he eventually became and IMO it paid off.
    Roger on the other hand had a natural suaveness about him that I don't think any of the others could match.
    I'd say Craig was probably at his most suave in the casino scenes, in CR, or in the dinner with Vesper. Suave, isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when I think of Craig. Neither for him or Tim.

    Agreed. As far as suavity goes, Roger Moore is the best of them. It's the thing about his Bond I like the most! And the humour of course.

    And the best eyebrow in film history !

    Indeed!

    12296-2863.gif
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Hmmm, must've been something you ate.

    It wasn't her.. ;)

    Don't think, just let it happen... ;)
    Ugh.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited November 2017 Posts: 7,198
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Fair enough, and despite other flaws I’d add TMWTGG to that list of ‘is he going to pull through.

    Indeed. Wondering if Goodnight's bumbling arse was going to get him incinerated had me on the edge of my seat.


    When I first saw both the PTS and the final duel in Scaramanga's funhouse I was pretty thrilled. Also the scene where Gibson is assassinated was tenser than anything in TSWLM in my book.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Gibson's assassination is a great scene, but I'm pretty sure TSWLM has it beat by the end of the PTS alone with the ski jump.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 7,507
    I hate the fun house scene! It's so unnecesarry and ridiculous and just drags. And then there is the frustration that they vasted time and effort with that stupid idea instead of making TMWTGG the proper spy thriller it was supposed to be. If Scaramanga prides himself of being such a brilliant asassin, why would he need such a thing? They build up the tention of having the two supposedly best gun men in the world go against each other. Yet they never demonstrate any skill at all, and are reduced to fooling around on an infantile play land of ridiculousness!

    Arrg, I feel my blood starts to boil just with the thought of this utter stupidity!
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    I like bits of it, probably because the rest of TMWTGG was so, so bad. But I agree it's hugely disappointing compared to what it could have been. So was all of the movie, really.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    jobo wrote: »
    I hate the fun house scene! It's so unnecesarry and ridiculous and just drags. And then there is the frustration that they vasted time and effort with that stupid idea instead of making TMWTGG the proper spy thriller it was supposed to be. If Scaramanga prides himself of being such a brilliant asassin, why would he need such a thing? They build up the tention of having the two supposedly best gun men in the world go against each other. Yet they never demonstrate any skill at all, and are reduced to fooling around on an infantile play land of ridiculousness!

    Arrg, I feel my blood starts to boil just with the thought of this utter stupidity!

    Bang on the money. The mano a mano showdown of what we are told are the two greatest guns on the planet comes down to Bond dressing up as a tailors dummy and Scaramanga being too thick to notice he has grown all his fingers back and is wobbling all over the place like Sean's panavision gunbarrel.

    And after that limp finale you've got the even feebler thrills of the Solex climax where we gasp in excitement at whether the cretinous Goodnight will kill Bond before he manages to....what exactly? Retrieve the MacGuffin? High stakes indeed.

    TMWTGG is pretty terrible. Actually take Christopher Lee out and it might challenge DAD for worst of all. At least DAD throws the kitchen sink on the screen and is never boring (apparently the new benchmark for quality in a Bond film) whereas there are vast swathes of TMWGG that are mind numbingly tedious.
  • Posts: 15,218
    But there's Christopher Lee in it! I don't like Gun much but I do like Moore's acting more in this film than many others. I find the movie bad in a frustrating way, while DAD is bad in an infuriating way.
Sign In or Register to comment.