Controversial opinions about Bond films

1467468470472473707

Comments

  • edited September 2018 Posts: 7,507
    I think Pts's was one of the elements the Brosnan era pulled of pretty well. Some of them are a little too long and complicated for my taste (GE and TWINE especially) but I like the premise and (mostly at least) the execution in them. DAD is probably the weakest mainly down to the boring location...

    The era had far bigger problems elsewhere though...
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    I think TND's PTS is one of the best in the series. GE is ok but overblown. DAD's is among the best...I mean only good parts of the movie, and TWINE's should have stopped after the Bilbao scenes and left the London scenes for later, apart from most of them being nonsensical anyway. Far too long as it is.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    TWINE's should have stopped after the Bilbao scenes .

    If it did, it would be a good one.
  • Posts: 17,753
    I love the TWINE pts – all of it.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I love the TWINE pts – all of it.

    +1
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,773
    What I'll always remember is sitting in theater watching the impressive but smaller scale initial action of the PTS (most all the Brosnan openings have that, with a bigger follow-up to close it), Bond and M discussing events, pouring drinks. Is that it? And I have the feeling the main titles were forgotten--the film reels mixed up maybe by the projectionist--then all hell breaks loose in a very compelling way, MI6 itself under attack.

    I really enjoy how that all plays out, it pokes the audience to be engaged, it's very well done and not overlong for me.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,248
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Well even though QoS is one of the films I love the most due to the atmosphere, story, story telling and above all Dan's fantastic performance, I still don't like th editing at the start, especially not because it makes it hard to watch an amazing chase.

    I use dot feel that way, but after a few viewings my eye and mind seem to adapted. Now I have no trouble following and enjoying the action and filmmaking in that (and other) scenes.

    It's not that I can't follow, it just still feels like a missed opportunity. I love that chase, to me it's one of the best car chases in Bond-history. Doesn't take away the feeling it could've been even better.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    The Brosnan era PTSs are all magnificent. Very entertaining and exhilarating. The Craig era PTSs can't match them, though CR and SP's get quite close, in my opinion.
  • I love the TWINE pts – all of it.
    I agree.

    I also love GE pts. But then again, I love GE in general. Very little wrong with it IMO.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    I can't find anything particularly interesting about Martin Campbell's direction, and think his reputation with fans is entirely down to directing two well-regarded comeback films. If John Glen had done GE and Apted Casino Royale, I don't think anything would have been lost.
  • Posts: 15,110
    The PTS of TWINE would have been one of the best had it stopped at the Bilbao fight.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The PTS of TWINE would have been one of the best had it stopped at the Bilbao fight.

    Not sure how controversial that is. Several of us have said so before.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
  • j_w_pepper wrote: »
    TWINE's should have stopped after the Bilbao scenes .

    If it did, it would be a good one.

    Yes. Despite the strong staging of the boat chase, it’s all so gratuitous and bloated after Bilbao.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.

    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for. Whereas as DC has evidence before and during his time as Bond that would suggest that he is much more than his detractors say. I would argue Roger does what he does well but an actor of any great skill he is not.

    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.

    He can pretty much leave everyone else standing when it comes to comic delivery but as an actor he's serviceable and gets away with his natural charisma and charm.

    Connery some might say the same but depsite his lack of ability to change his accent, Sean can do more varied roles and has played some deeply psychologically scarred characters like in The Offense for instance. This is an example where Connery is definitely stretching himself and working outside of his usual persona.

    I've heard the argument for The Man Who Haunted Himself but it's hardly where Connery goes in The Offense.

    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it and I'm sure some would like an actor like that to play Bond again and they might well get there wish one of these days.

    Trying to claim he's anymore would be like me saying that at times DC levels Rog's abilities for delivering amusing quips, of course he doesn't but Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.

    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket, no one could ever confuse him with having any chameleon like abilities.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.

    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for. Whereas as DC has evidence before and during his time as Bond that would suggest that he is much more than his detractors say. I would argue Roger does what he does well but an actor of any great skill he is not.

    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.

    He can pretty much leave everyone else standing when it comes to comic delivery but as an actor he's serviceable and gets away with his natural charisma and charm.

    Connery some might say the same but depsite his lack of ability to change his accent, Sean can do more varied roles and has played some deeply psychologically scarred characters like in The Offense for instance. This is an example where Connery is definitely stretching himself and working outside of his usual persona.

    I've heard the argument for The Man Who Haunted Himself but it's hardly where Connery goes in The Offense.

    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it and I'm sure some would like an actor like that to play Bond again and they might well get there wish one of these days.

    Trying to claim he's anymore would be like me saying that at times DC levels Rog's abilities for delivering amusing quips, of course he doesn't but Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.

    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket, no one could ever confuse him with having any chameleon like abilities.


    Can't argue with any of that.
  • Posts: 684
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for.
    I think it's true that much of the good waiting to be discovered in Rog's performances come from those things which are subtle.
    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
    Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it
    And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
    Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
    You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.

    But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.

    This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket
    For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Strog wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for.
    I think it's true that much of the good waiting to be discovered in Rog's performances come from those things which are subtle.
    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
    Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it
    And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
    Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
    You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.

    But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.

    This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket
    For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...

    But Roger, as good as he was, did everything on the surface with a wink, or a nod, or (rarely) a steel jaw.

    DC and SC did things below the surface of the physical, and that's why their performances resonate. I have a 17 year old son, who is too cool for school, but even he, in his omnipotence and knowledge about everything dealing in everything, chooses Connery and Craig as the bad asses (follow up: GL), and; these two actors portray the agent 007 that is most believable to him; RM (whom I respect, dearly), is a cartoon that can't hold a stick to DC , or SC; my boy can't make a connection to RM...

    ... in the same breath, he and his buddies do love PB as a cartoon. They genuinely enjoy him and the Bugs Bunny dialogue that comes with him.


    This is not a scientific study... but still...
  • Posts: 15,110
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The PTS of TWINE would have been one of the best had it stopped at the Bilbao fight.

    Not sure how controversial that is. Several of us have said so before.

    I think at least as many think the PTS as it stands is one of the best of the series. Overall it is rated pretty high.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Strog wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for.
    I think it's true that much of the good waiting to be discovered in Rog's performances come from those things which are subtle.
    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
    Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it
    And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
    Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
    You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.

    But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.

    This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket
    For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...

    Couldn't agree more with this. Rog was far more versatile than anyone gave him credit for.

    I don't think anyone suggested he had better dramatic chops than Craig, but he certainly was able to bring a wider variety of different flavours.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for.
    I think it's true that much of the good waiting to be discovered in Rog's performances come from those things which are subtle.
    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
    Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it
    And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
    Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
    You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.

    But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.

    This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket
    For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...

    Couldn't agree more with this. Rog was far more versatile than anyone gave him credit for.

    I don't think anyone suggested he had better dramatic chops than Craig, but he certainly was able to bring a wider variety of different flavours.

    I think Moore was a very underrated actor, and it's seen in all his films how versatile he was.

    He could do light comedy but he could also be serious. Check out his acting in the centrifuge scene from MR. Pretty bloody convincing if you ask me.

    I never thought I'd say it but Moore was a more convincing Bond than Pierce Brosnan.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Thought of another one:

    I can explain the reasoning later, but if you didn't like Skyfall, you're very unlikely to like any future Bond films.
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Thought of another one:

    I can explain the reasoning later, but if you didn't like Skyfall, you're very unlikely to like any future Bond films.

    Unless EON find themselves wanting to return to a more lighthearted approach after Craig, this is what I fear. Didn't particularly enjoy SF, and I think SP was a bad movie – not only by Bond standards.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Thought of another one:

    I can explain the reasoning later, but if you didn't like Skyfall, you're very unlikely to like any future Bond films.

    Unless EON find themselves wanting to return to a more lighthearted approach after Craig, this is what I fear. Didn't particularly enjoy SF, and I think SP was a bad movie – not only by Bond standards.

    For the first time I am not sure if the next 007 movie will be seen in the cinema by me or I'll wait for the de bluray.
    Even if the movie is total shyte, there are enough folks on this forum who will make the movie sound like bloody brilliance. ;)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,248
    peter wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Roger Moore could act occasionally.
    I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for.
    I think it's true that much of the good waiting to be discovered in Rog's performances come from those things which are subtle.
    I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
    Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
    He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it
    And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
    Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
    You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.

    But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.

    This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
    Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket
    For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...

    But Roger, as good as he was, did everything on the surface with a wink, or a nod, or (rarely) a steel jaw.

    DC and SC did things below the surface of the physical, and that's why their performances resonate. I have a 17 year old son, who is too cool for school, but even he, in his omnipotence and knowledge about everything dealing in everything, chooses Connery and Craig as the bad asses (follow up: GL), and; these two actors portray the agent 007 that is most believable to him; RM (whom I respect, dearly), is a cartoon that can't hold a stick to DC , or SC; my boy can't make a connection to RM...

    ... in the same breath, he and his buddies do love PB as a cartoon. They genuinely enjoy him and the Bugs Bunny dialogue that comes with him.


    This is not a scientific study... but still...

    If you compare Sir Roger in his interviews and documentaries you see a man who managed to survive a harsh environment by comedy, avoiding fights he knew he couldn't win. He hated guns. Still, he handles the Walther as though it's an extention of himself, and i.e. can be very threatening (Lazare at gunpoint, TMWTGG). He was as natural a fighter as a Koala (no, not a dropbear, you odd auzzies), but still pulls of the fighting scenes. Not as good as natural fighters Connery, Lazenby and Craig, but convincing none-the-less.
    His Bond-movies are lighter, more cartoonish for sure, but that was a choice, it was the idea. Not per se to stay close to his personality but because the times were asking for it. His Bond also changes with the times. The LALD Bond is a different one then the one in AVTAK.

    To me this shows he was an underrated actor who's self-deprication made for the press not to take him too seriously. In the end it made him beeing typecast. He never complained for he was very thankful, knowing very well from where he came, to complain. But I think it's a pity. In my experience comedic actors are often the best (allthough this doesn't fly anymore with modern Hollywood 'comedies' alas).

    I can understand your son's preferences, but I think that's also part of this day and age and what kind of level of violence we're used to to be 'badass'. And obviously the more fighter-like Bond appeals more to younger men. For sure I can still remember I my thoughts were similar when I first got to know th films. I appreciate Roger's films far more now than, say, 25 years ago.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For the first time I am not sure if the next 007 movie will be seen in the cinema by me or I'll wait for the de bluray.
    I won't give up. Bond movies are the only ones I still watch in a cinema when they come out (only notable exceptions for the last more than fifteen years: Indiana Jones IV (and the Coen Bros.' HAIL CAESAR, but only because it was with a group of friends). That in spite of the fact that both TWINE and DAD were complete disappointments, QOS at least irritating and SP, well, blah.

    But both CR and SF fully made up for giving it a try, so I will the next time as well.
  • Roger Moore is my least favorite Bond but I have to say, as a genuine person he seemed like a real sweetheart. I missed meeting him in NYC but I've heard he was a genuinely kind and lighthearted person. So that perhaps he wasn't the best Bond shouldn't besmirch him as a person.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Roger Moore is my least favorite Bond but I have to say, as a genuine person he seemed like a real sweetheart. I missed meeting him in NYC but I've heard he was a genuinely kind and lighthearted person. So that perhaps he wasn't the best Bond shouldn't besmirch him as a person.

    Whatever your preferences, that doesn t besmirch any of them.
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 17,753
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Thought of another one:

    I can explain the reasoning later, but if you didn't like Skyfall, you're very unlikely to like any future Bond films.

    Unless EON find themselves wanting to return to a more lighthearted approach after Craig, this is what I fear. Didn't particularly enjoy SF, and I think SP was a bad movie – not only by Bond standards.

    For the first time I am not sure if the next 007 movie will be seen in the cinema by me or I'll wait for the de bluray.
    Even if the movie is total shyte, there are enough folks on this forum who will make the movie sound like bloody brilliance. ;)

    I might be in a similar situation this time around, even if I like Fukunaga's work on True Detective. It really depends on what we learn about the film going forward. Anything about Bond dying for example doesn't interest me at all, and if that happens, I'll happily save my money.
    I appreciate Roger's films far more now than, say, 25 years ago.

    I appreciate his films more for every year that passes, to the extent that I now think I can say Roger is my favourite Bond – even more than Sean. I can understand those calling Daniel the best Bond since Sean, with his "range" and everything. But I see nothing wrong in the way Roger played the role to his strengths (charm). That even outshines Craig's acting ability to me, as it fell so natural to Roger's portrayal.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    The funny thing is, even though Craig is clearly a good actor, I just don't find him that engaging to watch. I don't wether it's his look, voice or just the 'cut of his jib', something just doesn't appeal to me.

    Anyway for a perhaps controversial, perhaps not opinion- I think Dalton did what Craig does, but did it better.
Sign In or Register to comment.