Controversial opinions about Bond films

1503504506508509707

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,773
    I'll disagree. The last three Bond films are better, more rewatchable and enjoyable that way. And they have a superior character to key in on and relish.

    But I'm obviously biased.
  • Posts: 12,466
    I'd give a slight edge to Bond for my own personal preference. SP is by far the weakest of the 6 films, but QOS and SF are both extremely enjoyable, rewatchable films for me. The last 3 MI films are maybe a little more consistent in good quality, and I did really enjoy them all, but QOS and SF are the two films among all of them that I will be coming back to over and over.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,079
    I'll disagree. The last three Bond films are better, more rewatchable and enjoyable that way. And they have a superior character to key in on and relish.

    But I'm obviously biased.

    Please explain what you mean by stating... 'But I'm obviously biased.`
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited February 2019 Posts: 13,773
    As are we all. I like Bond and Bond films.
  • The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films
    Fallout is better than QOS (forgettable entry) and SP (not very good).

    SF however is better than all three of those for me...
  • Posts: 7,507
    I'll disagree. The last three Bond films are better, more rewatchable and enjoyable that way. And they have a superior character to key in on and relish.

    But I'm obviously biased.

    Please explain what you mean by stating... 'But I'm obviously biased.`

    This is a site for Bond fans... duh
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2019 Posts: 8,395
    The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films

    By a country mile.

    I sometimes wonder why people rate the Craig films so highly. It seems much of that legacy is just build on CR.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films

    By a country mile.

    I sometimes wonder why people rate the Craig films so highly. It seems much of that legacy is just build on CR.

    Not just that but because it's a Bond film some people will rate it better by default no matter how terrible.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The last three M:I films are collectively better than Craig's last three Bond films

    By a country mile.

    I sometimes wonder why people rate the Craig films so highly. It seems much of that legacy is just build on CR.
    Not just that but because it's a Bond film some people will rate it better by default no matter how terrible.
    This.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited February 2019 Posts: 984
    I agree much of Craig's legacy is built on CR. I am not a huge fan of any of his others. SF is ok, massively overrated, but still watchable. QOS and SP are pretty dismal.

    I think the problem Craig's era has had, and I know many will disagree, they all just feel so similar. Bond having an emotional attachment, Bond going rogue...yawn. Those aspects can work well when used now and again, but used for four films in a row...it's too much.

    This type of thing is why the 60's and 70's Bond films(with a couple of exceptions) are still the golden years, especially when watched in the order of release. We get films that shift tonally a lot. Didn't like the low key spying of FRWL? Here's GF. Didn't like the excess of YOLT? Here's OHMSS. Didn't like Space Lasers in MR? Here's FYEO(I know that was 1981 but you get my meaning).
  • Posts: 16,153
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I agree much of Craig's legacy is built on CR. I am not a huge fan of any of his others. SF is ok, massively overrated, but still watchable. QOS and SP are pretty dismal.

    I think the problem Craig's era has had, and I know many will disagree, they all just feel so similar. Bond having an emotional attachment, Bond going rogue...yawn. Those aspects can work well when used now and again, but used for four films in a row...it's too much.

    This type of thing is why the 60's and 70's Bond films(with a couple of exceptions) are still the golden years, especially when watched in the order of release. We get films that shift tonally a lot. Didn't like the low key spying of FRWL? Here's GF. Didn't like the excess of YOLT? Here's OHMSS. Didn't like Space Lasers in MR? Here's FYEO(I know that was 1981 but you get my meaning).

    Exactly!!!!

    Although the Cubby produced films faithfully adhered to the formula, each film felt completely different. You can randomly pick any 2 films from 62-89 for a Bond double feature movie night and get variety. LALD and TB for instance.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,343
    In the end M:I movies are just boring for me. They can entertain but after the show I always feel like a watched just a competent - yet empty and superficial - collection of stunts made by a character nobody cares about. The notion of M:I movies being better then Craig’s ones is just absurd for me, but I can see some hardcore fans unsatisfied with Craig’s Bond that are missing “the good-old days” trying desperately to find another contemporary franchise “in the vein” of 007 that they like better... more action packed, less autorish, more superficial, less refined.

    Plus, I always felt one of the reason’s Craig’s movies were great was also because they all feel and look really different. Each movie has a different yet unique look and feel and to me the difference is far more evident than for example Moore’s tenure and Brosnan’s tenure. I would put Craig’s one in the vein of Connery’s one, speaking of different feel and look.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    matt_u wrote: »
    In the end M:I movies are just boring for me. They can entertain but after the show I always feel like a watched just a competent - yet empty and superficial - collection of stunts made by a character nobody cares about. The notion of M:I movies being better then Craig’s ones is just absurd for me, but I can see some hardcore fans unsatisfied with Craig’s Bond that are missing “the good-old days” trying desperately to find another contemporary franchise “in the vein” of 007 that they like better... more action packed, less autorish, more superficial, less refined.

    Plus, I always felt one of the reason’s Craig’s movies were great was also because they all feel and look really different. Each movie has a different yet unique look and feel and to me the difference is far more evident than for example Moore’s tenure and Brosnan’s tenure. I would put Craig’s one in the vein of Connery’s one, speaking of different feel and look.

    I couldn't agree less. You honestly think that SF and SP are as significantly different than TMWTGG and TSWLM? Or MR and FYEO?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    matt_u wrote: »
    In the end M:I movies are just boring for me. They can entertain but after the show I always feel like a watched just a competent - yet empty and superficial - collection of stunts made by a character nobody cares about. The notion of M:I movies being better then Craig’s ones is just absurd for me, but I can see some hardcore fans unsatisfied with Craig’s Bond that are missing “the good-old days” trying desperately to find another contemporary franchise “in the vein” of 007 that they like better... more action packed, less autorish, more superficial, less refined.

    Plus, I always felt one of the reason’s Craig’s movies were great was also because they all feel and look really different. Each movie has a different yet unique look and feel and to me the difference is far more evident than for example Moore’s tenure and Brosnan’s tenure. I would put Craig’s one in the vein of Connery’s one, speaking of different feel and look.

    Agreed. The MI films are certainly entertaining and have great action and stunts, but they offer little else and are certainly not very interesting.

    To me they're like a Chinese meal. After finishing you soon want something else.

    As a Bond fan obviously I'm more interested in 007, but as far as I'm concerned none of the M.I series can hold a candle to Craig's first 3 Bond films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.
    That depends. I prefer femme fatales a lot myself, as I find damsels boring. They're akin to fairy tale princess trapped in some tower, guarded by some dragon, only for the prince charming to come and save them. That's boring for me.

    But, a damsel that doesn't acknowledge being one and acts like a big shot like Madeleine Swann, that is the worst kind. That's why she's my least favourite Bond girl.

    That said, while I love the idea of a femme fatale Bond girl, we really haven't had a very decent one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    I agree!
    +2
    Birdleson wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)

    I agree!
    +2

    As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.

    I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners are annoying to me.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    I agree!
    +2
    Birdleson wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)

    I agree!
    +2

    As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.

    I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners
    are annoying to me.

    And we all know who the main protagonist of whining and clinging is don't we ?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    I agree!
    +2
    Birdleson wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)

    I agree!
    +2

    As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.

    I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners
    are annoying to me.

    And we all know who the main protagonist of whining and clinging is don't we ?
    We certainly do my friend. I share your disdain on that front 100%.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Roadphill wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    In the end M:I movies are just boring for me. They can entertain but after the show I always feel like a watched just a competent - yet empty and superficial - collection of stunts made by a character nobody cares about. The notion of M:I movies being better then Craig’s ones is just absurd for me, but I can see some hardcore fans unsatisfied with Craig’s Bond that are missing “the good-old days” trying desperately to find another contemporary franchise “in the vein” of 007 that they like better... more action packed, less autorish, more superficial, less refined.

    Plus, I always felt one of the reason’s Craig’s movies were great was also because they all feel and look really different. Each movie has a different yet unique look and feel and to me the difference is far more evident than for example Moore’s tenure and Brosnan’s tenure. I would put Craig’s one in the vein of Connery’s one, speaking of different feel and look.

    I couldn't agree less. You honestly think that SF and SP are as significantly different than TMWTGG and TSWLM? Or MR and FYEO?

    Yes.

    First, SF and SP have a really different look and feel. The first is all silhouettes defined by an artistic yet expressionist use of colorful light, while the second is defined by a more gritty and dark panoramic feel that plays with the palette contrasts of light and darkness, sand and snow, sun and rain. Second, even if they're both Mendes work to me it's pretty clear that they represent a kind of ying and yang of a bigger vision. SF is a dark and crepuscular piece of filmmaking while SP is a more vintage and classical flamboyant adventure. If SF was about a struggle to keep alive a tradition, SP was about celebrating that tradition. Plus, the differences between CR and QoS, or QoS and SF are even more obvious and gigantic. For the life of me I can't say the same about the titles you mentioned. Probably because the formal aspects of filmaking regarding EoN Bond movies were pretty standardize at that time - even if differences in budget can be seen on screen - and also because there where no themes at all...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    There are certainly subtle differences between some of the older films. TSWLM and MR are a yin and yang imho, at least tonally.

    There is a lot of difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM. One is more noirish, quirky and old fashioned and the other is extravagant, lavish and modern to the extreme.

    FYEO has themes of revenge (Blofeld, Melina, Columbo) and competition (Columbo/Kristatos and Bond/Gogol).
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,615
    I'm happy that Martin Campbell did his two movies, and called it quits. It would have made us think less of him. He's a rare person in the world of James Bond (movies, books, video games), that actually left on higher note then he started.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,343
    bondjames wrote: »
    There are certainly subtle differences between some of the older films. TSWLM and MR are a yin and yang imho, at least tonally.

    There is a lot of difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM. One is more noirish, quirky and old fashioned and the other is extravagant, lavish and modern to the extreme.

    FYEO has themes of revenge (Blofeld, Melina, Columbo) and competition (Columbo/Kristatos and Bond/Gogol).

    Agreed. Of course there where differences, but for me taking every possible aspect in consideration not as much as in the Craig's tenure. Just look at QoS and SF... or at Craig's portrayal, which sees a constant and clear evolution throughout the four movies. Can't say the same about Moore or the others. Plus, those differences you mention are more related to genre and external influences than rather technical, without taking the different autorish stamp in consideration, something absent in the Moore's tenure (which is not a critique, just a consideration).
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 7,507
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I agree much of Craig's legacy is built on CR. I am not a huge fan of any of his others. SF is ok, massively overrated, but still watchable. QOS and SP are pretty dismal.

    I think the problem Craig's era has had, and I know many will disagree, they all just feel so similar. Bond having an emotional attachment, Bond going rogue...yawn. Those aspects can work well when used now and again, but used for four films in a row...it's too much.

    This type of thing is why the 60's and 70's Bond films(with a couple of exceptions) are still the golden years, especially when watched in the order of release. We get films that shift tonally a lot. Didn't like the low key spying of FRWL? Here's GF. Didn't like the excess of YOLT? Here's OHMSS. Didn't like Space Lasers in MR? Here's FYEO(I know that was 1981 but you get my meaning).

    I think you present this a bit simplistic. 60's ok, but was there really that much variety during the 70s, early 80s or 90s? I beg to differ. Bond has always changed it's tone depending on outside influences, trends and what the public wanted at the time. But it has usually happened over time. Craig has only made four films. The fact that they are tonaly quite similar is not unique.

    It is all very subjective anyway. One could easily argue Casino/Quantum and Skyfall are very different. In the first we have a rookie Bond slowly finding his feet as a professional agent. In the next we have an old, experienced agent some claim to be washed out and who has to prove his abilities and relevance. That seems quite different to me...

    The Craig films are as different in their attempt at exploring Bond's character as lets say the 70s films were at not exploring anything at all.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,343
    BTW @bondjames I don't want to criticize those titles like there were no technical achievements or improvement over the years. That would be a lie. My considerations are more related to the formal aspect that define a picture from an artistic point of view. Without forgetting the fact that the Craig era tried to explore the iterations and the evolution of the character far more than in the past.

    BTW, out of all Craig’s tenure the movie that gave to the audience more elements reprised from the typical Bond formula that a lot of fans are missing so bad is also the Craig most hated one within the fan base (at least here). How ironic.
  • Posts: 15,110
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I agree much of Craig's legacy is built on CR. I am not a huge fan of any of his others. SF is ok, massively overrated, but still watchable. QOS and SP are pretty dismal.

    I think the problem Craig's era has had, and I know many will disagree, they all just feel so similar. Bond having an emotional attachment, Bond going rogue...yawn. Those aspects can work well when used now and again, but used for four films in a row...it's too much.

    This type of thing is why the 60's and 70's Bond films(with a couple of exceptions) are still the golden years, especially when watched in the order of release. We get films that shift tonally a lot. Didn't like the low key spying of FRWL? Here's GF. Didn't like the excess of YOLT? Here's OHMSS. Didn't like Space Lasers in MR? Here's FYEO(I know that was 1981 but you get my meaning).

    Actually, regardless of what you think of SF @Roadphill, Craig owes his reputation and longevity at least as much to it. It was both a critical and popular success, overrated as it may be. Not his GF, but in many ways his TSWLM.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Let's get back to talking Bond. I can't sit through a few minutes of those damned Tom Cruise popcorn-fests.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one finding the Tom Cruise promotional vehicle with Ethan Sue insufferable.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm glad I'm not the only one finding the Tom Cruise promotional vehicle with Ethan Sue insufferable.
    I wouldn't go so far as to consider the M:I movies insufferable...but at least completely forgettable. I haven't seen the latest one, and do not expect that to change until I can get it on Blu-ray for well under 10 euros. But I've seen all the others (I even own them on BD, more for completism than actual affection) and, quite frankly, do not recall anything specific about them except that they had that big-nosed dwarf as the main character. Oh yes, and that Jim Phelps was the bad guy and they had that ridiculous Eurotunnel helicopter chase and a lot of scenes in Prague in the first entry, but that is the only one I so far cared to watch for a second time. Not saying M:I is not entertaining altogether, but give me all and any Bond film (except maybe TWINE and DAD) over the entire bunch anytime.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    There are certainly subtle differences between some of the older films. TSWLM and MR are a yin and yang imho, at least tonally.

    There is a lot of difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM. One is more noirish, quirky and old fashioned and the other is extravagant, lavish and modern to the extreme.

    FYEO has themes of revenge (Blofeld, Melina, Columbo) and competition (Columbo/Kristatos and Bond/Gogol).

    Agreed. Of course there where differences, but for me taking every possible aspect in consideration not as much as in the Craig's tenure. Just look at QoS and SF... or at Craig's portrayal, which sees a constant and clear evolution throughout the four movies. Can't say the same about Moore or the others. Plus, those differences you mention are more related to genre and external influences than rather technical, without taking the different autorish stamp in consideration, something absent in the Moore's tenure (which is not a critique, just a consideration).
    Undoubtedly the effects are more pronounced and deliberate during the Craig era, which follows a direct continuity timeline. I agree. That's not to say I like this aspect, because frankly I don't. I think it was a massive error attempting to tell an 'arc' for an actor who will inevitably and eventually be replaced, and particularly in the hamfisted manner they have gone about it.

    I do believe there are deliberate differences between TSWLM and MR though, and they are very apparent on a back to back viewing. Not only tonally, but also performance wise. Gilbert had the same overall conceptual premise, but presented it differently in subtle ways. FYEO was the start of the older '80s' Moore interpretation which carried over to AVTAK. A seasoned vet.
    matt_u wrote: »
    BTW @bondjames I don't want to criticize those titles like there were no technical achievements or improvement over the years. That would be a lie. My considerations are more related to the formal aspect that define a picture from an artistic point of view. Without forgetting the fact that the Craig era tried to explore the iterations and the evolution of the character far more than in the past.

    BTW, out of all Craig’s tenure the movie that gave to the audience more elements reprised from the typical Bond formula that a lot of fans are missing so bad is also the Craig most hated one within the fan base (at least here). How ironic.
    Regarding SP, I think it's important not to take the wrong message from the criticisms leveled (correctly imho) at that film. It's not that EON did formula that was the problem - rather it was that they botched it. The current management over there has no clue how to do it properly (they haven't done it well since GE imho, when Cubby still had oversight) and their lead actor hasn't got a clue either. They rely on the wrong elements like amateurs - almost like they think they're better than it (or us). It's like when my sisters used to play cops and robbers with me when we were kids. They didn't know what they were doing and it impacted the fun. Ultimately you've got to really believe from within imho. Otherwise don't touch it.

    PS: Tom Cruise and Co. (discussed earlier here) know precisely how to deliver formula in interesting ways, and that's why quite a few Bond fans (obviously not all) appreciate what they've been able to achieve over there with the last few films. That doesn't mean we're lesser Bond fans - just that we're different kind of Bond fans - the type that enjoy formula delivered well, with precision and with a focus on the right aspects. Other Bond fans appreciate other elements of Bond films, and that's fine. Ultimately either works for me, as long as it's done well.
  • Posts: 385
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding SP, I think it's important not to take the wrong message from the criticisms leveled (correctly imho) at that film. It's not that EON did formula that was the problem - rather it was that they botched it. The current management over there has no clue how to do it properly (they haven't done it well since GE imho, when Cubby still had oversight) and their lead actor hasn't got a clue either. They rely on the wrong elements like amateurs - almost like they think they're better than it (or us). It's like when my sisters used to play cops and robbers with me when we were kids. They didn't know what they were doing and it impacted the fun. Ultimately you've got to really believe from within imho. Otherwise don't touch it.


    To quote Alan Partridge, STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!
Sign In or Register to comment.