Controversial opinions about Bond films

1502503505507508707

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    FRWL and OHMSS are crazy good.

    Put CR in there and you have the holy trinity.

    All have a strong romantic thread too ...

    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    Stylish and sophisticated? It's called Thunderball.....

    Fair enough ;)
  • Posts: 2,917
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.

  • edited February 2019 Posts: 16,153
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    FRWL and OHMSS are crazy good.

    Put CR in there and you have the holy trinity.

    All have a strong romantic thread too ...

    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    As much as I love CR it rarely makes my top 5. I still find both FRWL and OHMSS to be the most faithful film adaptations of Fleming's work. I think of CR as being about as faithful to it's source as, say TLD or GF. The entire first half of CR has little to do with the novel.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Although the first half of CR has nothing to do with the novel I absolutely love it! No doubt P&W´s finest hour. I cannot really believe it is their work actually!
  • Posts: 17,753
    jobo wrote: »
    Although the first half of CR has nothing to do with the novel I absolutely love it! No doubt P&W´s finest hour. I cannot really believe it is their work actually!

    The first half moves along nicely, IMO. It's the latter part of the last half that drags on too long for me.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.

    To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.

    Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Revelator wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.

    To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.

    Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.

    It was an excellent adaptation and updating of the novel, IMO.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.

    To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.

    Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.

    It was an excellent adaptation and updating of the novel, IMO.

    Exactly right. When i first saw CR i was shocked and delighted how much of the novel they managed to retain.

    Quite an achievement successfully adapting a work half a century old
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.

    To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.

    Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.

    It was an excellent adaptation and updating of the novel, IMO.

    Exactly right. When i first saw CR i was shocked and delighted how much of the novel they managed to retain.

    Quite an achievement successfully adapting a work half a century old

    Bang on. I was so pleased.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Here's a potentially controversial opinion:

    In Thunderball, when Bond says "my dear girl, don't flatter yourself...", Connery's acting leaves a bit to be desired. It's not bad at all, but his eyes are missing a certain spark. While it wouldn't have been right to be too emotional, his eyes lack a quantum of expressiveness that would've been appropriate for the anger he's feeling toward Fiona. I can see Roger Moore playing that moment very well.

    I disagree. I think he says it with just the right amount of emotion. He's obviously lying (you should be caged) but says it to rile her up. She then repostes and he understand it's not going to be that easy (you can't win them all).

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3XSj6kUGkE

    I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you're referring to, since Bond doesn't say "you should be caged" in that scene, but in the previous one. If you're talking about the whole "I did it for King and Country" bit, I agree he's saying it to rile her up, but I don't think he's lying entirely. Pleasure was a motivation for his actions, but also a sense of duty. It's not a binary thing.

    Just to clarify, I think he says it with the right amount of emotion, but his eyes don't accompany him. In the shot at 0:56, I mean. They're a little "flat."
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    Controversial Opinion:
    I like the musical transition from Bond theme into percussion dancing and then three blind mice in the opening titles of Dr No.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,615
    Controversial Opinion:
    I like the musical transition from Bond theme into percussion dancing and then three blind mice in the opening titles of Dr No.

    Me too. It's classic and classic.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited February 2019 Posts: 2,722
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Controversial Opinion:
    I like the musical transition from Bond theme into percussion dancing and then three blind mice in the opening titles of Dr No.

    Me too. It's classic and classic.

    Glad to hear it! On the other hand I understand why someone may dislike it and it certainly loses a lot of the head-to-head theme music battles on some of the threads.

    But I've always liked it with the opening titles. They're exotic, a little mysterious and set the scene well. The juxtaposition of the tune of three blind mice against what they eventually do is disarming.
  • Posts: 2,917
    To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.

    Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.

    Most of my problems with the adaptation, which softens several bits of the book, aren't with the modernization (aside from changing baccarat to poker, which I found unforgivably crass). I accepted that a new first half would have to be created, and I thought this was well thought-out, though now I don't think making Bond a rookie agent was a great or convincing idea.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,248
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Here's a potentially controversial opinion:

    In Thunderball, when Bond says "my dear girl, don't flatter yourself...", Connery's acting leaves a bit to be desired. It's not bad at all, but his eyes are missing a certain spark. While it wouldn't have been right to be too emotional, his eyes lack a quantum of expressiveness that would've been appropriate for the anger he's feeling toward Fiona. I can see Roger Moore playing that moment very well.

    I disagree. I think he says it with just the right amount of emotion. He's obviously lying (you should be caged) but says it to rile her up. She then repostes and he understand it's not going to be that easy (you can't win them all).

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3XSj6kUGkE

    I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you're referring to, since Bond doesn't say "you should be caged" in that scene, but in the previous one. If you're talking about the whole "I did it for King and Country" bit, I agree he's saying it to rile her up, but I don't think he's lying entirely. Pleasure was a motivation for his actions, but also a sense of duty. It's not a binary thing.

    Just to clarify, I think he says it with the right amount of emotion, but his eyes don't accompany him. In the shot at 0:56, I mean. They're a little "flat."

    I mentioned that because at that time he's definately enjoying himself. And to be honest I can't imagine any heterosexual man telling Luciana Paluzzi he didn't enjoy her company and meaning it. But that's perhaps my lack of imagination, or perhaps my over-active one..... Sure, duty was a motivation, but if it was duty driving him he wouldn't have bedded her in the first place, as he'd already seen the ring (in the car after 'capsizing'). That is after all part of her reposte too. 'but not this one'. Perhaps it's even a wink to Pussy Galore.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2019 Posts: 11,139
    Controvercial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Here's a potentially controversial opinion:

    In Thunderball, when Bond says "my dear girl, don't flatter yourself...", Connery's acting leaves a bit to be desired. It's not bad at all, but his eyes are missing a certain spark. While it wouldn't have been right to be too emotional, his eyes lack a quantum of expressiveness that would've been appropriate for the anger he's feeling toward Fiona. I can see Roger Moore playing that moment very well.

    I disagree. I think he says it with just the right amount of emotion. He's obviously lying (you should be caged) but says it to rile her up. She then repostes and he understand it's not going to be that easy (you can't win them all).

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3XSj6kUGkE

    I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you're referring to, since Bond doesn't say "you should be caged" in that scene, but in the previous one. If you're talking about the whole "I did it for King and Country" bit, I agree he's saying it to rile her up, but I don't think he's lying entirely. Pleasure was a motivation for his actions, but also a sense of duty. It's not a binary thing.

    Just to clarify, I think he says it with the right amount of emotion, but his eyes don't accompany him. In the shot at 0:56, I mean. They're a little "flat."

    I mentioned that because at that time he's definately enjoying himself. And to be honest I can't imagine any heterosexual man telling Luciana Paluzzi he didn't enjoy her company and meaning it. But that's perhaps my lack of imagination, or perhaps my over-active one..... Sure, duty was a motivation, but if it was duty driving him he wouldn't have bedded her in the first place, as he'd already seen the ring (in the car after 'capsizing'). That is after all part of her reposte too. 'but not this one'. Perhaps it's even a wink to Pussy Galore.
    I do like the way he stares at her after delivering the line just before the 1m mark. Just a little up and down glance - as though there's just a little guilt that he'd just been so cruel with his words. In terms of facial emotion, I think Moore probably would have shown just a little more, but I'm ok with Connery's approach. The coldness in his eyes is appropriate for the moment, because I think he's actually not trying to show emotion - however it comes across in his voice.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controvercial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    That's a conversation, and on the correct thread. I'd say the only sub-par Bond films to me are when the stories truly lost their way and were the furthest thing from Fleming-- in fact the anti-thesis of any Fleming characteristics. This would include my bottom five:

    19/SP
    20/ DAF (although I love to have a giggle and watch Connery waltz through this film)
    21/AVTAK
    22/DAD
    23/TWINE
    24/MR

    Otherwise I love the Bond films and find the franchise incredibly unique. My tops and great pop/pulp culture cinema:

    1/CR
    2/OHMSS
    3/TB
    4/GF
    5/FRWL
    6/SF
    7/DN
    8/QoS
    9/TLD
    10/YOLT (iconic sets and ran with dispensing the largesse of the franchise-- as far as it should have gone, in my opinion)

    The rest are entertaining with glimpses of the greatness of the franchise and, although not consistent, they kept a great franchise moving forward:

    11/TSWLM
    12/LALD
    13/TND
    14/OP
    15/FYEO
    16/TMWTGG (this is one of the low-points in the series, but to me, when analyzed, I find much to enjoy in this film (Christopher Lee certainly elevating every scene he is in and Roger Moore (like Dalton with Davi), benefits from their interaction)
    17/GE
    18/LTK (debatable to some, but, although the production was certainly on cost-cutting duties, the simple story, and the play between Dalton and Davi elevates this film for me (plus that underwater/water-skiing sequence and the tanker trunk sequence at the end is tops, in my mind)
  • Posts: 2,917
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.
  • Posts: 17,753
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.
    I've failed to finish it on several occasions despite seeing the film many times, so I know what you mean. I start to lose interest once Seydoux arrives and it goes downhill rapidly from there, apart from a little respite at L'Americaine.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.

    Keeps happening to me regarding DAD and TWINE. My personal jury is still out on the future of SP, by the way, but it won't be quite as dismal.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 17,753
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.
    I've failed to finish it on several occasions despite seeing the film many times, so I know what you mean. I start to lose interest once Seydoux arrives and it goes downhill rapidly from there, apart from a little respite at L'Americaine.

    That's about the same part of the film I lose interest as well. Nothing against Seydoux btw, it's just that the film itself is uninteresting from there on out…
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.

    Keeps happening to me regarding DAD and TWINE. My personal jury is still out on the future of SP, by the way, but it won't be quite as dismal.

    Must admit that I find DAD and TWINE quite enjoyable, even though they're bottom half films. Looking forward to watching them again. That's not the case with SP, unfortunately.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
    Agreed. There's a lot to like on a technical level in all of the films. I consider myself fortunate that I find most of them entertaining & rewatchable as well, irrespective of their quality which definitely varies.

    Same here.
  • Posts: 7,507
    I agree as well (which is not with the spirit with this thread, but anyway). There are several films in the series which I know from an objective standpoint are mediocre, bad or even terrible, but I can still happily rewatch them again and again, enjoying them immensely!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    jobo wrote: »
    I agree as well (which is not with the spirit with this thread, but anyway). There are several films in the series which I know from an objective standpoint are mediocre, bad or even terrible, but I can still happily rewatch them again and again, enjoying them immensely!

    Me too. Seems we’re quite lucky.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    jobo wrote: »
    I agree as well (which is not with the spirit with this thread, but anyway). There are several films in the series which I know from an objective standpoint are mediocre, bad or even terrible, but I can still happily rewatch them again and again, enjoying them immensely!

    Yes, there's no question about that...even though we might (or maybe not, haven't checked) disagree about which the mediocre, bad or terrible films are. Not saying that there is in fact an "objective" standpoint, though, It's all subjective.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,079
    The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,615
    The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films

    Can't argue with that actually. Because they were more daring, stunts and story wise.
Sign In or Register to comment.