Controversial opinions about Bond films

1474475477479480707

Comments

  • Posts: 15,114
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I caught POT, the directors cut last month. I agree that Costner is miscast, but he was a hot commodity at the time. However, I loved Alan Rickman in the role of Sheriff Nottingham.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I caught POT, the directors cut last month. I agree that Costner is miscast, but he was a hot commodity at the time. However, I loved Alan Rickman in the role of Sheriff Nottingham.

    Rickman is certainly one of the highlights of the movie that cast Kevin Costner, but for me the movie is sum of a lot of elements done wel. And of course Robin Hood is full of historical inaccuracies, the fellow has most certainly not existed. It was a well made actioner that did not take itself too seriously. All Robin Hood movies and what not since then have been less.
    And they had The UberBond once more in a Robin Hood movie, his Robin & Marian was certainly better.
  • Posts: 15,114
    It's not only that it's inaccurate, it has an unheroic Robin Hood as its hero. Only the BBC version managed to be that bad (although the new one seems to be working hard on sinking lower).
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I respect your opinion. That's why I wish that Bond would give America another chance in a more serious film.
  • Posts: 15,114
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I respect your opinion. That's why I wish that Bond would give America another chance in a more serious film.

    That's why I'd rather not take the risk.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @Ludovico I have no idea why you tagged me friend, I never spoke about Costner or Robin Hood?
  • Posts: 15,114
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @Ludovico I have no idea why you tagged me friend, I never spoke about Costner or Robin Hood?

    Sorry wrong person. I was too quick typing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I respect your opinion. That's why I wish that Bond would give America another chance in a more serious film.

    LALD probably "gets" the US best, but yes, it's been a misused location in so many Bond films.
  • @Roadphill

    I feel that way about John Glen. Although I don't think Hamilton ever really came close to the success of Goldfinger again, I do think he had a strong sense of visual panache and style, and his penchant for the bizarre was sorely missed once he left the series.

    So I suppose we disagree in some ways, but I do agree that as a whole his entries aren't as strong as Young's or Campbell's or Gilbert's. So we're on the same page there.

    I'm a fan of almost all of Glen's entries, with Licence to Kill perhaps being the exception, however I feel he was far more of a pedestrian director than Hamilton. Sequence to sequence, standing on visual strength, Hamilton's films for the series are more aesthetically/formally interesting. As a whole, Glen's output may be stronger. I have an appreciation for his workmanlike approach, even if I don't always see a lot of intentional artistry in his pictures. It's also worth noting that he came to the series at a different time, when they were at their most formulaic (and his five film stretch is also a perpetuation of that).

    Sorry for rambling. Just found your comment interesting and wanted to weigh in.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was never a fan of Zorin to be honest and found Walken to be playing a caricature of a Bond villain more often than none. And that it was Walken made it distracting. A less famous actor would have been more convincing I think. AVTAK had other problems, but that was one of them.

    Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.

    My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.

    @Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.

    I'll agree on the fact that it's a controversial opinion. I find Walken excellent in that film, far more believeable than many other villains. I agree however on the problem with the States as setting. I think it's part of the tradition of Bond films showing parts of the local culture. The States are just not very interesting in that way, showing off in so many other Hollywood films, and often beeing a bit 'shallow'. LALD still works well because of the destinct (sub)culture. Kentucky, however....
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Alaska and Hawaii are the two obvious untapped Bond locations in the US. (We got Hawaiian waves in DAD and volcanoes in YOLT.)
  • echo wrote: »
    Alaska and Hawaii are the two obvious untapped Bond locations in the US. (We got Hawaiian waves in DAD and volcanoes in YOLT.)

    True, many of the more interesting parts of the US have been covered already. Let's see, we've seen: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Kentucky, Miami, Key West, New York.

    I think a couple American locations Bond has visited in the continuation novels that might be interesting to see on film would be Texas and Washington, D.C. Maybe Chicago or Seattle as well. I wouldn't mind revisiting SF, NY or New Orleans either.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Re: Zorin, I must say he is one of my favorite villains. In the hands of Christopher Walken, he becomes the villain with the most chilling and clearly pronounced psychopathic tendencies. Not that there aren't other villains who are "quite mad, you know", it's just that often, those qualities aren't pushed too far within the respective movies for the sake of keeping a more entertaining, lighthearted tone. But in AVTAK, whether by design at the script/casting stage, or by accident in letting Walken do his thing, the villain is allowed to be considerably more intimidating and scary than ever before, to great effect. And the contrast between Zorin's generally jovial mood and his cruelty and lack of remorse add a great deal to the role. Only Silva comes close when it comes to creating a sense of unease through the villain.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Re: Zorin, I must say he is one of my favorite villains. In the hands of Christopher Walken, he becomes the villain with the most chilling and clearly pronounced psychopathic tendencies. Not that there aren't other villains who are "quite mad, you know", it's just that often, those qualities aren't pushed too far within the respective movies for the sake of keeping a more entertaining, lighthearted tone. But in AVTAK, whether by design at the script/casting stage, or by accident in letting Walken do his thing, the villain is allowed to be considerably more intimidating and scary than ever before, to great effect. And the contrast between Zorin's generally jovial mood and his cruelty and lack of remorse add a great deal to the role. Only Silva comes close when it comes to creating a sense of unease through the villain.

    I agree 100%.
  • Posts: 15,114
    I just don't see it about Zorin. Other villains did what he did, only better. But I'd rather have Zorin than Graves, by far the worst Bond villain.

    My controversial opinion : I find ranking Bond movies pretty pointless.
  • I don't suppose this is too controversial, but I was watching a review the other day and started to think:

    Thunderball has the most attractive group of 'Bond girls' on aggregate. The combo of Fiona, Domino and Paula is just . . . outstanding. (I'm not counting Patricia Fearing - I have problems with the way that character is handled.)
  • Posts: 15,114
    I love Pat Fearing and wished we had more Bond girls like her in Bond movies.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love Pat Fearing and wished we had more Bond girls like her in Bond movies.

    Hear hear !!
    +1
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    I don't suppose this is too controversial, but I was watching a review the other day and started to think:

    Thunderball has the most attractive group of 'Bond girls' on aggregate. The combo of Fiona, Domino and Paula is just . . . outstanding. (I'm not counting Patricia Fearing - I have problems with the way that character is handled.)
    I'm assuming you mean that literally ;). Times have changed of course. One could even say Times Up. However, I'm still glad we had characters like this in those early films.
  • No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Connery could get away with more than some of the other actors. For instance the Tania interrogation. That slap is brutal and completely looks like it would have stung hard.
    I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
    Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
    In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
    bondjames wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.

    I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
    The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Love Walken. Toby Stephens is a good actor but Graves was just a caricature.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Connery could get away with more than some of the other actors. For instance the Tania interrogation. That slap is brutal and completely looks like it would have stung hard.
    I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
    Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
    In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
    It's so true about Connery, and especially under Young's direction. He basically could get away with anything, because the portrayal and persona was so finessed onscreen. The elegance and brutality coexisted seamlessly within the characterization.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.

    I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
    The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.
    Good points, particularly with respect to the prior flirting. It's an important element, even in terms of guiding a viewer's expectations. I felt the same way about the later train encounter with Swann, which came out of the blue. In a similar scene in TSWLM, there is that slow buildup which occurs as Bond and Anya both contemplate opening that shared door prior to Jaws arrival, even though she shut him down earlier (her hard to get act lasted a bit longer than Goodnight's). It helped me to more readily accept them getting it on after he's kicked out of the window.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I think Connery's whacking of Tiffany in the face with his tie can be seen as pretty brutal. I watched DAF the other night, and this assault was necessary to show her he meant business and he's dropped the whole Peter Franks routine... And, damn, it was cold. But if this same scene played out with a man, Connery would have beaten him and CRACKED his neck with a fire poker.

    Sean Connery was a brutal assassin.

    I find Craig to be just as brutal.

    @bondjames expressed his discomfort with his seduction of Lucia.

    I agree, it is uncomfortable. But, to me, effective. He exposed the widow for what she was ("loyal to a man (she) hated"), and seduced her into giving him more info. In return, he gave her what her "fool" of a husband could not: protection.

    Because James Bond is a gentleman spy, he made sure his friend, Felix Leiter of the CIA, would grant her amnesty and protection. The trade-off was mutual and benefited both parties.

    A third, controversial, opinion:

    I am watching Connery films in backwards order (NSNA, DAF, and now YOLT); what I notice is that the storm of Blofeld's volcano is so much more unique, original and more visually exciting than TSWLM's very long and plodding attack on Stromberg.


  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    peter wrote: »
    I think Connery's whacking of Tiffany in the face with his tie can be seen as pretty brutal. I watched DAF the other night, and this assault was necessary to show her he meant business and he's dropped the whole Peter Franks routine... And, damn, it was cold. But if this same scene played out with a man, Connery would have beaten him and CRACKED his neck with a fire poker.

    Sean Connery was a brutal assassin.

    I find Craig to be just as brutal.

    @bondjames expressed his discomfort with his seduction of Lucia.

    I agree, it is uncomfortable. But, to me, effective. He exposed the widow for what she was ("loyal to a man (she) hated"), and seduced her into giving him more info. In return, he gave her what her "fool" of a husband could not: protection.

    Because James Bond is a gentleman spy, he made sure his friend, Felix Leiter of the CIA, would grant her amnesty and protection. The trade-off was mutual and benefited both parties.

    A third, controversial, opinion:

    I am watching Connery films in backwards order (NSNA, DAF, and now YOLT); what I notice is that the storm of Blofeld's volcano is so much more unique, original and more visually exciting than TSWLM's very long and plodding attack on Stromberg.


    I agree on TSWLM, it does have pacing issues in the third act.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).
  • peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Oh my - controversial indeed. What do you mean by 'sophisticated?' To me, SP looks far better on screen.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Fully agree, not in the least as TB is by far my favorite film: Connery at his best, the most seductive and beautiful women (I also agree on the playful 'blackmail' of Fearing's character; there's nothing wrong there), the best locations, best villain in an almost-compsed and efficient Largo who has just al ittle bit too much pride, and best locations. Oh, and I didn't even mention the music!

    SP on the other hand is all over the place tonally, the story is inconsistent with the wrong parts assumed and the wrong ones explained. Yes, cinematographically it's beautifully made, but it's more like a collection of beautiful clips then a full movie.
Sign In or Register to comment.