Controversial opinions about Bond films

1542543545547548707

Comments

  • Posts: 1,917
    jobo wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    A thought: What if Bond tried to use the ejector seat and the passenger had a seatbelt on. That would be awkward.


    Honestly I think the ejector seat is a pretty lame idea with a lacklustre pay off. I have never understood why people rave about it.

    Looking at it as they probably did in '64 it was something so different and exciting I could see it. But now it's more intriguing than special. I admit to still getting a kick in seeing it when watching GF even now.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    BT3366 wrote: »
    A thought: What if Bond tried to use the ejector seat and the passenger had a seatbelt on. That would be awkward.

    To my knowledge the seatbelt was introduced in the nineteen seventies....
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.

    Yeah the brother imposter stuff is clunky, likely only done to make the brother not be a traitor. I dunno why that was such a concern.

    It takes away any moral ambiguity from the whole Derval family. I think that's why they went for it anyway. Also it gets Bond involved earlier on at Shrubland and makes him more proactive.

    It's the sole reason why he's not send to Canada, but to the Bahamas.

    I'd give that to the movie : in the novel Bond going to the Bahamas is far more convoluted and a tad far fetched. And it needs lots and lots of exposition from M. I love how it shows how brilliant M is, but it is a tad long and a tad far fetched.
  • Posts: 2,918
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'd give that to the movie : in the novel Bond going to the Bahamas is far more convoluted and a tad far fetched. And it needs lots and lots of exposition from M. I love how it shows how brilliant M is, but it is a tad long and a tad far fetched.

    I wouldn't give that at all. M's hunch is no more convoluted, far-fetched, or consumptive of screentime than the whole plastic-surgery double subplot silliness. I like the idea of M having a hunch that pays off--it's another bit of characterization eliminated so that Bond comes off well at M's expense, which was sadly customary in the Connery/Moore films (another controversial opinion, I know).
    The greatness of Bernard Lee tends to obscure how underwritten M was in the classic Bonds. I'm not arguing that he the character should have been as over-exposed as he/she was in the Brosnan/Craig era, but Fleming's M was certainly a richer character than the Connery/Moore-era M.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Revelator wrote: »
    it's another bit of characterization eliminated so that Bond comes off well at M's expense, which was sadly customary in the Connery/Moore films (another controversial opinion, I know).

    As much as I enjoy the classic Connery/Moore era, that's one of my little nitpicks too over how the filmmakers seemed to want to make out Bond to be a little too on top of things, that nothing can go under his nose. Like how in the GF novel it was Hawker that found Goldfinger's golf ball rather than Bond in the film. Despite that, they do try at least give Connery some vulnerability where he couldn't have made it out of a tight spot like at the end of TB where it's Domino that saves him (retained from the novel, though done in a different manner). Where they do get it right I think is in bits like Bond noticing Red Grant drug Tantiana, because you'd kind of expect Bond to be a little more alert especially after what happened with Kerim.

    It's sort of the same thing with Bond having INSANE knowledge in every field of interest, even the most obscure. I can totally buy Bond knowing the best restaurants in major cities, as it makes sense a man well traveled like Bond would take an interest to that. But when Lazenby shows his expertise as a lepidopterist it's a little TOO much (and I can't imagine that NOT boring Fleming's Bond). I can only go with that kind of stuff in the sillier films like Bond knowing the vintage date of a drink "1851, unmistakable" in DAF because so much of film is heightened it's clearly meant be more taken as a gag rather than something that impresses or tells us about Bond.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Revelator wrote: »
    it's another bit of characterization eliminated so that Bond comes off well at M's expense, which was sadly customary in the Connery/Moore films (another controversial opinion, I know).

    As much as I enjoy the classic Connery/Moore era, that's one of my little nitpicks too over how the filmmakers seemed to want to make out Bond to be a little too on top of things, that nothing can go under his nose. Like how in the GF novel it was Hawker that found Goldfinger's golf ball rather than Bond in the film. Despite that, they do try at least give Connery some vulnerability where he couldn't have made it out of a tight spot like at the end of TB where it's Domino that saves him (retained from the novel, though done in a different manner). Where they do get it right I think is in bits like Bond noticing Red Grant drug Tantiana, because you'd kind of expect Bond to be a little more alert especially after what happened with Kerim.

    It's sort of the same thing with Bond having INSANE knowledge in every field of interest, even the most obscure. I can totally buy Bond knowing the best restaurants in major cities, as it makes sense a man well traveled like Bond would take an interest to that. But when Lazenby shows his expertise as a lepidopterist it's a little TOO much (and I can't imagine that NOT boring Fleming's Bond). I can only go with that kind of stuff in the sillier films like Bond knowing the vintage date of a drink "1851, unmistakable" in DAF because so much of film is heightened it's clearly meant be more taken as a gag rather than something that impresses or tells us about Bond.

    +1
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,918
    As much as I enjoy the classic Connery/Moore era, that's one of my little nitpicks too over how the filmmakers seemed to want to make out Bond to be a little too on top of things, that nothing can go under his nose.

    Absolutely, that's partly why so many critics and journalists regularly referred to Bond as a Superman during those years. I admit that Bond's hyper-competence probably was part of the fantasy appeal of the character, but it became overdone, though you're right to point out Bond noticing Red Grant drug Tatiana as a valid exception.
    But when Lazenby shows his expertise as a lepidopterist it's a little TOO much (and I can't imagine that NOT boring Fleming's Bond).

    Yes, it's one of the little "off" moments in an otherwise great film, and meant to hark back to Bond's similar displays of recondite knowledge in the Connery era. Fleming's Bond would probably know the common names of various birds, but there's no way he would have memorized the scientific names of butterflies. Making a M a lepidopterist in the first place has always seemed weird to me, but that's because I personally find the habit a bit sinister (the whole idea of keeping cases of impaled insects in one's house, errrghhh).
  • Posts: 15,124
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'd give that to the movie : in the novel Bond going to the Bahamas is far more convoluted and a tad far fetched. And it needs lots and lots of exposition from M. I love how it shows how brilliant M is, but it is a tad long and a tad far fetched.

    I wouldn't give that at all. M's hunch is no more convoluted, far-fetched, or consumptive of screentime than the whole plastic-surgery double subplot silliness. I like the idea of M having a hunch that pays off--it's another bit of characterization eliminated so that Bond comes off well at M's expense, which was sadly customary in the Connery/Moore films (another controversial opinion, I know).
    The greatness of Bernard Lee tends to obscure how underwritten M was in the classic Bonds. I'm not arguing that he the character should have been as over-exposed as he/she was in the Brosnan/Craig era, but Fleming's M was certainly a richer character than the Connery/Moore-era M.

    Oh don't get me wrong: I said on this very topic I believe that I would like to see M more as Bond's superior in every sense of the word: as his boss yes, but also more intelligent, being more capable to see the big picture, better organised, etc. I also mentioned as an example the novel Thunderball. But I do think he comes off as almost godly in his deduction, a bit like Sherlock Holmes does sometimes. Sure, his reasoning made sense, but what were the odds that he would be that right? And while I love that bit in the novel, really enjoyed the read, I do think it would take more time showing it, or rather the conversation would obviously be less dynamic than what we had in the movie. But it might simply be that they did not want to have Derval, the Bond girl's brother, a traitor.

    In any case, I do prefer Bond to be a little more faillible than he sometimes comes off.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Even Fleming's M had some faults to him, like his inability to sympathize with what has happened to Bond in YOLT and not being sure what to do besides firing him, lumping him in as a "lamebrain" which I always felt was pretty cold.
  • Posts: 1,917
    It did bother me especially during the Moore era when he'd cut off M or Q to finish a sentence of something he knew or identifying a rare orchid. Or how he was so accurately able to identify what Loque looked like down to the shape of his glasses when just passing him.

    I know he's Bond, but you'd think he'd be more concentrated on how to escape than looking over at Loque at that time.

    But the moment in DAF when Sir Donald asks his knowledge of diamonds is limited is a nice reflection of the character. The Moore version may have explained what would follow on his own.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Apparently this is controversial, but I think Craig's the best dressed Bond of them all.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Moonraker is Roger Moore's best and imo is better than every Connery, Dalton and Craig movie as well as OHMSS.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Moonraker is Roger Moore's best and imo is better than every Connery, Dalton and Craig movie as well as OHMSS.

    I will say that Moonraker is certainly one of the most enjoyable movies. It’s cheap entertainment. The Spy Who Loved Me has some MAJOR pacing issues, particularly with its third act.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Yes I very much agree!! I really do like The Spy Who Loved Me a lot but the pacing is one of my biggest problems with it, if they solved that issue, made Stromberg as great as Drax and made Anya feel more alive and less robotic and maybe have a better musical score though I don't mind Marvin Hamlisch's score for the film then it'd be on par with MR imo and maybe even better. Still as it stands both are excellent and are a great source of entertainment.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Yes I very much agree!! I really do like The Spy Who Loved Me a lot but the pacing is one of my biggest problems with it, if they solved that issue, made Stromberg as great as Drax and made Anya feel more alive and less robotic and maybe have a better musical score though I don't mind Marvin Hamlisch's score for the film then it'd be on par with MR imo and maybe even better. Still as it stands both are excellent and are a great source of entertainment.

    Thank you for summarizing my opinions. It’s far from a bad movie, just minor nitpicking and major pacing problems in the third act, and it’s still a fun ride.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    You're welcome, and yeah I feel the same about it lol. I've always felt as if it's one that's slightly overrated but I myself see and understand why it's loved as much as it is and I mostly agree. Though tbh I find all the Moore films to be fun to watch, Moore himself is just such a treat on screen and I could watch him all day long. Moore is usually the best part of his movies and he makes them more than worth a watch along with the other good things all 7 posses
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Moonraker is Roger Moore's best and imo is better than every Connery, Dalton and Craig movie as well as OHMSS.

    It's my favorite Moore film but not the best. It does crack my top 5.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Fair enough, it's my number 2
  • Posts: 631
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Moore is usually the best part of his movies

    A perceptive comment

    Moore was a much better actor than the general public gives him credit for, I think.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    I agree, Moore is fantastic. I think he's honestly a better actor than Connery who himself is already outstanding as an actor
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,134
    It's definitely a fresh idea in
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Moore is usually the best part of his movies

    A perceptive comment

    Moore was a much better actor than the general public gives him credit for, I think.

    The Man Who Haunted Himself gives ample proof of that.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    I've heard lots of good about The Man Who Haunted himself, have yet to see it though
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It's a great film. I highly recommend it.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Moore is so underrated. There has never been an era in Bond that has veered so wildly in tone as his. Take MR to FYEO, one is virtually a sci-fi action film, the next a Fleming-esque low key thriller. He takes both in his stride and adjusts his performance accordingly.

    I would argue that the 'comedy' he is so noted for, actually only really comes in to play in the middle two films of his tenure.
  • I'll chime in a bit late on TB.

    It's a stunning film to look at in many ways, and to me is the beginning of "Blockbuster Bond," and Cubby's ethos of putting all the money up on the screen. The locations feel exotic, and the lineup of women is unparalleled. Just . . . staggering.

    And yet: I also think it marks the beginning of the self-indulgence that reached its peak in the Moore era and weakened the movies. Sometimes the right thing to do is to leave something on the cutting room floor, to imply the joke without telling it, or to lead us to the water without forcing us to drink.

    The opening sequence alone is pretty egregious: Bond beats a villain in drag to death, escapes on a jet pack (!), then defeats some pistol-wielding henchmen with water canon built into his car? . . . Maybe have 1 of those ideas in the first 5 minutes, not all 3!
  • Posts: 7,430
    octofinger wrote: »
    I'll chime in a bit late on TB.

    It's a stunning film to look at in many ways, and to me is the beginning of "Blockbuster Bond," and Cubby's ethos of putting all the money up on the screen. The locations feel exotic, and the lineup of women is unparalleled. Just . . . staggering.

    And yet: I also think it marks the beginning of the self-indulgence that reached its peak in the Moore era and weakened the movies. Sometimes the right thing to do is to leave something on the cutting room floor, to imply the joke without telling it, or to lead us to the water without forcing us to drink.

    The opening sequence alone is pretty egregious: Bond beats a villain in drag to death, escapes on a jet pack (!), then defeats some pistol-wielding henchmen with water canon built into his car? . . . Maybe have 1 of those ideas in the first 5 minutes, not all 3!

    The Pts should have ended with Bond exiting the room after he tosses the flowers, but it may have been too similar to GF!
    Still I do like when the water cannon segues into the titles sequence! Maybe if they just left out the jet pack?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    I'll chime in a bit late on TB.

    It's a stunning film to look at in many ways, and to me is the beginning of "Blockbuster Bond," and Cubby's ethos of putting all the money up on the screen. The locations feel exotic, and the lineup of women is unparalleled. Just . . . staggering.

    And yet: I also think it marks the beginning of the self-indulgence that reached its peak in the Moore era and weakened the movies. Sometimes the right thing to do is to leave something on the cutting room floor, to imply the joke without telling it, or to lead us to the water without forcing us to drink.

    The opening sequence alone is pretty egregious: Bond beats a villain in drag to death, escapes on a jet pack (!), then defeats some pistol-wielding henchmen with water canon built into his car? . . . Maybe have 1 of those ideas in the first 5 minutes, not all 3!

    The Pts should have ended with Bond exiting the room after he tosses the flowers, but it may have been too similar to GF!
    Still I do like when the water cannon segues into the titles sequence! Maybe if they just left out the jet pack?

    I think they put in the jetpack there as it wouldn't have been able to fly any further. It's a rather elaborate way of escaping abot 500 meters. So yes, they could've left it out. But I guess they wanted to show the edge of what was technically possible.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,007
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    I'll chime in a bit late on TB.

    It's a stunning film to look at in many ways, and to me is the beginning of "Blockbuster Bond," and Cubby's ethos of putting all the money up on the screen. The locations feel exotic, and the lineup of women is unparalleled. Just . . . staggering.

    And yet: I also think it marks the beginning of the self-indulgence that reached its peak in the Moore era and weakened the movies. Sometimes the right thing to do is to leave something on the cutting room floor, to imply the joke without telling it, or to lead us to the water without forcing us to drink.

    The opening sequence alone is pretty egregious: Bond beats a villain in drag to death, escapes on a jet pack (!), then defeats some pistol-wielding henchmen with water canon built into his car? . . . Maybe have 1 of those ideas in the first 5 minutes, not all 3!

    The Pts should have ended with Bond exiting the room after he tosses the flowers, but it may have been too similar to GF!
    Still I do like when the water cannon segues into the titles sequence! Maybe if they just left out the jet pack?

    I think they put in the jetpack there as it wouldn't have been able to fly any further. It's a rather elaborate way of escaping abot 500 meters. So yes, they could've left it out. But I guess they wanted to show the edge of what was technically possible.
    The jetpack would have been cooler if he hadn't worn that awful helmet...🤨
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Yes I very much agree!! I really do like The Spy Who Loved Me a lot but the pacing is one of my biggest problems with it, if they solved that issue, made Stromberg as great as Drax and made Anya feel more alive and less robotic and maybe have a better musical score though I don't mind Marvin Hamlisch's score for the film then it'd be on par with MR imo and maybe even better. Still as it stands both are excellent and are a great source of entertainment.

    Thank you for summarizing my opinions. It’s far from a bad movie, just minor nitpicking and major pacing problems in the third act, and it’s still a fun ride.

    Moonraker is better then The Spy Who Loved Me as it is a more refined version of that line of thinking for the film. TSWLM was almost a transitional film between TMWTGG and MR in terms of tone. I must say I've always loved Hamlisch's score, but you can't compete with John Barry's haunting Moonraker soundtrack.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Octopussy wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Yes I very much agree!! I really do like The Spy Who Loved Me a lot but the pacing is one of my biggest problems with it, if they solved that issue, made Stromberg as great as Drax and made Anya feel more alive and less robotic and maybe have a better musical score though I don't mind Marvin Hamlisch's score for the film then it'd be on par with MR imo and maybe even better. Still as it stands both are excellent and are a great source of entertainment.

    Thank you for summarizing my opinions. It’s far from a bad movie, just minor nitpicking and major pacing problems in the third act, and it’s still a fun ride.

    Moonraker is better then The Spy Who Loved Me as it is a more refined version of that line of thinking for the film. TSWLM was almost a transitional film between TMWTGG and MR in terms of tone. I must say I've always loved Hamlisch's score, but you can't compete with John Barry's haunting Moonraker soundtrack.

    TSWLM was good for what it set itself out to be. Following the lukewarm reception of Golden Gun, this is definitely what was needed.
Sign In or Register to comment.