Controversial opinions about Bond films

1470471473475476707

Comments

  • That's definitely a valid point. TND far and away hews closest to a straight up actioner, and QoS' lean runtime pushes it toward that as well. The frenetic cutting also gives the impression of constant movement/violence. I suppose I view the latter as being more metaphysical. The erratic editing, its relentlessness, the settings, all evoking Bond's headspace. I guess all I'm saying is that I think a picture can be both action heavy and cerebral, and I think QoS goes for both. Whether or not it achieves it is certainly up for discussion, and I myself have wavered back and forth when it comes to that for the last decade.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I guess all I'm saying is that I think a picture can be both action heavy and cerebral, and I think QoS goes for both. Whether or not it achieves it is certainly up for discussion, and I myself have wavered back and forth when it comes to that for the last decade.
    I certainly agree that they went for both in QoS. Personally I think they succeeded. There is an almost 70's cynicism to the narrative and a slight European (or at least a tinge of anti-anglo saxon imperial) flavour to it too, at least to my eyes. At the time of its release I thought it was quite bold in that respect, but like you found the feverish action editing (and in my case also the certain story elements which recall The Bourne Supremacy) a bit overwhelming. As time as progressed I've grown to overlook that, and I think the film has aged quite well & improved with repeated viewings on the small screen.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    I guess all I'm saying is that I think a picture can be both action heavy and cerebral, and I think QoS goes for both. Whether or not it achieves it is certainly up for discussion, and I myself have wavered back and forth when it comes to that for the last decade.
    I certainly agree that they went for both in QoS. Personally I think they succeeded. There is an almost 70's cynicism to the narrative and a slight European (or at least a tinge of anti-anglo saxon imperial) flavour to it too, at least to my eyes. At the time of its release I thought it was quite bold in that respect, but like you found the feverish action editing (and in my case also the certain story elements which recall The Bourne Supremacy) a bit overwhelming. As time as progressed I've grown to overlook that, and I think the film has aged quite well & improved with repeated viewings on the small screen.

    I’d absolutely agree with the fact the film has aged well. Bondjames has an astute observation on the 70s cynicism. I’d take that a little further and say that late 60s and early 70s cynicism melded with a contemporary cynicism in ‘08 (markets were crashing and wars were really being picked on...
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Funnily enough, further to my first post, there are some similarities to Connery and Moore's era. If you do it by numbers of course.

    First film: Both have a villain that isn't obvious at first, both heavily feature the Carribbean. Both feature a measure of local folklore(admittedly Dr.No's 'Dragon' was far less overt than the voodoo in LALD)

    Second film: Both feature Bond trying to wrest an 'artifact' of internationa importance from a communist nation. Both feature him going head to head with an assassin.

    Third film: Both, for better or worse, define Moore and Connery's era. Both where they really refined their respective portrayals. Both stepped slightly more in to the realms of male fantasy. Both feature a villain that wants to use Nuclear Bombs, not to destroy as such, but to achieve their 'vision'.

    Admittedly after that the trajectory's change slightly until their final (in Connery's case final EON) film.

    Last film: Both feature a somewhat tired, World weary Bond. Both heavily feature US concerns and locale's. Both feature Villains who are (in Blofeld's case simply posing as) industrialist's.

  • edited October 2018 Posts: 1,596
    @bondjames The elements of the screenplay that are transparently ripped straight from Supremacy are still a little hard to swallow, and the entire film makes it readily apparent how many writers (or, "writers") worked on the script. Aside from that, it has aged quite well, I think. I do wish it had a stronger screenplay, but overall it works.

    It flirts with the cynicism you're referring to. It's more in the corners of the film, and isn't overtly addressed too much, likely due in part to my paragraph above, and in part to the Bond franchise's obligations to a certain status quo.
  • Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough were good scripts made mediocre by bad directors, yet would have been good films in the hands of better directors, especially Martin Campbell.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough were good scripts made mediocre by bad directors, yet would have been good films in the hands of better directors, especially Martin Campbell.

    I agree, they prove that James Bond needs a action director, not an artsy drama one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Funnily enough, further to my first post, there are some similarities to Connery and Moore's era. If you do it by numbers of course.

    First film: Both have a villain that isn't obvious at first, both heavily feature the Carribbean. Both feature a measure of local folklore(admittedly Dr.No's 'Dragon' was far less overt than the voodoo in LALD)

    Second film: Both feature Bond trying to wrest an 'artifact' of internationa importance from a communist nation. Both feature him going head to head with an assassin.

    Third film: Both, for better or worse, define Moore and Connery's era. Both where they really refined their respective portrayals. Both stepped slightly more in to the realms of male fantasy. Both feature a villain that wants to use Nuclear Bombs, not to destroy as such, but to achieve their 'vision'.

    Admittedly after that the trajectory's change slightly until their final (in Connery's case final EON) film.

    Last film: Both feature a somewhat tired, World weary Bond. Both heavily feature US concerns and locale's. Both feature Villains who are (in Blofeld's case simply posing as) industrialist's.
    These are good points and I've noticed this myself.

    While there is no TB equivalent as the fourth film in Rog's tenure, I'd argue that elements of TB make their way into film 5 (namely FYEO), particularly the water and revenge element.

    Connery's fifth and Moore's fourth have a lot of similarities however.

    Ironically, FYEO was supposed to be film 4 for Rog, but SW's success caused them to insert MR instead. If it had been as initially planned, then the trajectories would have been even more similar.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    One thing TB and MR has in common is that it was their biggest commercial success.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    One thing TB and MR has in common is that it was their biggest commercial success.
    Good point. Very true.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,026
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough were good scripts made mediocre by bad directors, yet would have been good films in the hands of better directors, especially Martin Campbell.

    I agree, they prove that James Bond needs a action director, not an artsy drama one.

    One thing that TND did not fail in was action...whatever one thinks of the remainder. I'm a relative fan, if only for personal/local reasons. So no, I don't think another director would have improved on it in that regard. TND is a solid and enjoyable follow-up to the solid (though nowhere excellent) GE...which I think has dated far more badly than TND.

    TWINE is quite a different thing for me. But then, the script is so lousy, no director could have saved it without major re-writings, I suppose. TWINE was so bad, I was actually happy during the first half of DAD that they had learned their lesson...and was immediately disappointed after that. Jury's still out whether TWINE or DAD is really worse, but either way they end up at the very bottom of my list.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    bondjames wrote: »
    One thing TB and MR has in common is that it was their biggest commercial success.
    Good point. Very true.

    Indeed. I consider MR to be Moore's TB. Both were the most lavish and spectacular films up to their respective points in the series. Both actors were at their most superconfident in the roles in their 4th turns at bat. Manuela is MR's Paula Kaplan. The Rio Carnival scene is MR's Junkanoo sequence. And the final laser battle between Drax's men and Colonel Scott's astronauts is like an outerspace version of the final SPECTRE vs. U.S. Navy frogmen battle from TB but transported into outerspace.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    TWINE is quite a different thing for me. But then, the script is so lousy, no director could have saved it without major re-writings, I suppose. TWINE was so bad, I was actually happy during the first half of DAD that they had learned their lesson...and was immediately disappointed after that. Jury's still out whether TWINE or DAD is really worse, but either way they end up at the very bottom of my list.

    The first half of DAD is far more entertaining than all of TWINE IMHO so I definitely rank Brosnan's 4th higher than his 3rd.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    I prefer the Guy Hamilton films to the Lewis Gilbert ones. I quite like the quirckiness of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and would take them over YOLT, TSWLM and definitely MR.

    Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.
  • Posts: 7,507
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I prefer the Guy Hamilton films to the Lewis Gilbert ones. I quite like the quirckiness of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and would take them over YOLT, TSWLM and definitely MR.

    Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.


    I agree that the Hamilton films have more of a distinct personality. However, the quirkiness in some of them is hard to ignore. It´s a tough call I think.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    One thing TB and MR has in common is that it was their biggest commercial success.
    Good point. Very true.

    Indeed. I consider MR to be Moore's TB. Both were the most lavish and spectacular films up to their respective points in the series. Both actors were at their most superconfident in the roles in their 4th turns at bat. Manuela is MR's Paula Kaplan. The Rio Carnival scene is MR's Junkanoo sequence. And the final laser battle between Drax's men and Colonel Scott's astronauts is like an outerspace version of the final SPECTRE vs. U.S. Navy frogmen battle from TB but transported into outerspace.
    I hadn't considered this before, but I think you're right. There is an almost effortless, breezy confidence and majesty to both films, even though they are quite different.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    TWINE is quite a different thing for me. But then, the script is so lousy, no director could have saved it without major re-writings, I suppose. TWINE was so bad, I was actually happy during the first half of DAD that they had learned their lesson...and was immediately disappointed after that. Jury's still out whether TWINE or DAD is really worse, but either way they end up at the very bottom of my list.

    The first half of DAD is far more entertaining than all of TWINE IMHO so I definitely rank Brosnan's 4th higher than his 3rd.
    I agree. The first half of DAD is really quite excellent in many aspects, if one can look beyond some shoddy CGI in places (hovercraft and Hong Kong).
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I prefer the Guy Hamilton films to the Lewis Gilbert ones. I quite like the quirckiness of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and would take them over YOLT, TSWLM and definitely MR.

    Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.
    I'm a huge fan of both the Gilbert and later Hamilton (strangely, it's his earliest and most famous that I find the most ponderous) entries, but can see where you're coming from. The 70's Hamilton films are idiosyncratic but quite charismatic at the same time, without breaking the bank or being beholden to, or over-reliant on, spectacle.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    It'll never happen--it's been too long--but I'd be all for an instrumental score over the title sequence.

    When it's a bad song, it's cringeworthy and grinds the film to a halt.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    j_w_pepper wrote: »

    TWINE is quite a different thing for me. But then, the script is so lousy, no director could have saved it without major re-writings, I suppose. TWINE was so bad, I was actually happy during the first half of DAD that they had learned their lesson...and was immediately disappointed after that. Jury's still out whether TWINE or DAD is really worse, but either way they end up at the very bottom of my list.

    To me DAD will always be the worst, considering the fact that Lee Tamahori became famous with 'Once Were Worriors' which is as hard-edged a film as 'American History X'. I was quite impressed by the start of DAD in that regard, only to see it fall in shatters as this 5y/o suddenly takes over the direction.

  • edited October 2018 Posts: 1,596
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough were good scripts made mediocre by bad directors, yet would have been good films in the hands of better directors, especially Martin Campbell.

    I agree, they prove that James Bond needs a action director, not an artsy drama one.

    Sam Mendes says, "hi" after making probably the most critically acclaimed Bond film ever. Unless you don't mean critical/commercial success and are speaking from a purely subjective standpoint.

    edit: I've rarely, if ever, had someone complain about TND's action. It certainly didn't fail there, I don't think. TWINE's script is abysmally bad, TND's is middling I'd say. Not sure if Apted is to blame for the former's failure or not, but I certainly don't think Spottiswoode struggled or failed re: the action sequences.
  • No offense to TND and TWINE, but those action sequences are standard fare compared to the stuff in GE in my opinion.
  • Posts: 7,507
    No offense to TND and TWINE, but those action sequences are standard fare compared to the stuff in GE in my opinion.


    Agreed. The action in TWINE especially is very forgettable. The boat chase has a decent gadget, but it is not really utilized very creatively. (Driving through a restaurant endagering civilians, might be a little creative I admit, but it is not something I want Bond to be doing.) And the action scenes just decline steadily from then. The ski chase is ludicrously bad. The villains defeat themselves! And the ending climax is maybe the weakest and most bland in the series.

    In TND as well the action gets increasingly worse after a decent PTS. And it all just feels like a very generic 90s action flick. It doesn´t feel bondian to me. Going crazy with a machine gun is for Rambo, not Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The action sequences in TND would mop the floor with anything seen in both GE and TWINE.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    The action sequences in TND would mop the floor with anything seen in both GE and TWINE.

    Agree on TWINE but GE? No way. The final battle across the dish and the fist fight with Trevelyan is one of the best in the series, imo.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I prefer the Guy Hamilton films to the Lewis Gilbert ones. I quite like the quirckiness of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and would take them over YOLT, TSWLM and definitely MR.

    Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.

    Couldn't disagree more. GF aside, I think Hamilton's films looked a bit cheap and tawdry. Gilbert's, while certainly not breaking any new ground, have a David Lean-esque quality to them. And they are visual feasts for the eye's.
  • Posts: 15,111
    Since we're talking about action sequences : I enjoy far more the small scale ones that are centered about a combat, especially fist fights, to large scale ones that involve pursuits and a lot of things breaking up. I find Bond pushing buttons of a gadget laden car often unexciting.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since we're talking about action sequences : I enjoy far more the small scale ones that are centered about a combat, especially fist fights, to large scale ones that involve pursuits and a lot of things breaking up. I find Bond pushing buttons of a gadget laden car often unexciting.

    100% in agreement
  • Posts: 7,507
    peter wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since we're talking about action sequences : I enjoy far more the small scale ones that are centered about a combat, especially fist fights, to large scale ones that involve pursuits and a lot of things breaking up. I find Bond pushing buttons of a gadget laden car often unexciting.

    100% in agreement


    +1
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    Roadphill wrote: »
    The action sequences in TND would mop the floor with anything seen in both GE and TWINE.

    Agree on TWINE but GE? No way. The final battle across the dish and the fist fight with Trevelyan is one of the best in the series, imo.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I prefer the Guy Hamilton films to the Lewis Gilbert ones. I quite like the quirckiness of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and would take them over YOLT, TSWLM and definitely MR.

    Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.

    Couldn't disagree more. GF aside, I think Hamilton's films looked a bit cheap and tawdry. Gilbert's, while certainly not breaking any new ground, have a David Lean-esque quality to them. And they are visual feasts for the eye's.

    I agree they are visually stunning but I find them lacking in personality. Also, LALD, TMWTGG and DAF to a lesser extend might not look like Lawrence of Arabia but they do have an atmosphere closer to the Mario Bava films of the time. That can feel a bit cheap to some, but for fans of those films such as myself, that’s a big plus.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    jobo wrote: »
    No offense to TND and TWINE, but those action sequences are standard fare compared to the stuff in GE in my opinion.


    Agreed. The action in TWINE especially is very forgettable. The boat chase has a decent gadget, but it is not really utilized very creatively. (Driving through a restaurant endagering civilians, might be a little creative I admit, but it is not something I want Bond to be doing.) And the action scenes just decline steadily from then. The ski chase is ludicrously bad. The villains defeat themselves! And the ending climax is maybe the weakest and most bland in the series.

    In TND as well the action gets increasingly worse after a decent PTS. And it all just feels like a very generic 90s action flick. It doesn´t feel bondian to me. Going crazy with a machine gun is for Rambo, not Bond.

    It kind of made sense that Bond needed a machine gun to escape Russian headquarters in GE, but by the other three Brosnan films, the machine gunning got ridiculous. (And Fleming would have figured out a more creative way for Bond to escape Russian capture.)
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    Roald Dahl should have written another Bond movie or even a book. He could have made it more colorful, something that modern Bond can lack in, in both literary and cinematic.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is an echo here.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm actually very glad Dahl didn't write another Bond film. YOLT isn't exactly one of my favorites, if not the opposite of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.