Controversial opinions about Bond films

1554555557559560707

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    I think even though YOLT is a bit style over substance, there are still some genuinely awesome Connery moments too:
    - 'Request permission to come aboard, Sir?'
    - the Moneypenny scene
    - the Henderson scene
    - 'Siamese wodka'
    - 'Really?' (referring to Helga's healthy chest')
    - Every scene with Tanaka
    - 'Heaven forbid'
    - 'Impregnable?'
    -...
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    Well, they say that one man's trash is another mans treasure. In no way, shape or form do I sell Connery short as he's my second favourite Bond actor behind Lazenby and to me is the quintessential cinematic Bond. If you look at my favourite 5 Bond films, 4 of the 5 are Connery pictures. I appreciate his portrayal of Bond and the animal-magnetism and sheer charisma he brought to the role. As for Moore he is the reason I'm on this forum and growing up I wanted to be Roger Moore. However, when I first watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service I fell in love with Lazenby's portrayal of Bond for the reasons mentioned above. I will concede that the filmmakers made obvious attempts to draw parallels between Connery and Lazenby in the film, but I honestly don't see them in the same light. That is possibly due to the context of the narrative or Peter Hunt's direction, but that's all we have to go on as he didn't return for a second outing, unfortunately. Fleming is up for interpretation and when reading the book I can picture Lazenby and that isn't due to him being Bond in the film, IMO. Despite the Bond in the books being at a latter stage of his career, I personally think that the film proves that the story can work with a younger Bond too. I'm not saying that Connery couldn't have pulled it off, I'm saying that he wouldn't have given his character arch, IMO. I can see the Connery of Dr. No or From Russia With Love falling in-love, but not that of the films that followed, IMO.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    Well, they say that one man's trash is another mans treasure. In no way, shape or form do I sell Connery short as he's my second favourite Bond actor behind Lazenby and to me is the quintessential cinematic Bond. If you look at my favourite 5 Bond films, 4 of the 5 are Connery pictures. I appreciate his portrayal of Bond and the animal-magnetism and sheer charisma he brought to the role. As for Moore he is the reason I'm on this forum and growing up I wanted to be Roger Moore. However, when I first watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service I fell in love with Lazenby's portrayal of Bond for the reasons mentioned above. I will concede that the filmmakers made obvious attempts to draw parallels between Connery and Lazenby in the film, but I honestly don't see them in the same light. That is possibly due to the context of the narrative or Peter Hunt's direction, but that's all we have to go on as he didn't return for a second outing, unfortunately. Fleming is up for interpretation and when reading the book I can picture Lazenby and that isn't due to him being Bond in the film, IMO. Despite the Bond in the books being at a latter stage of his career, I personally think that the film proves that the story can work with a younger Bond too. I'm not saying that Connery couldn't have pulled it off, I'm saying that he wouldn't have given his character arch, IMO. I can see the Connery of Dr. No or From Russia With Love falling in-love, but not that of the films that followed, IMO.

    OHMSS could arguably be the best Bond film. But Lazenby is the second worst actor for the following reasons;

    - His acting ability is ok, he looks the part, but as John Barry put it; “Laurence Olivier he is not”. He benefited from a great Director, great score, great script and a great supporting cast.
    - His none descript fake English accent doesn’t suit Bond.
    - His Australian swagger/ walk is not right for Bond.
    - He lacks the screen presence of Connery or Moore. Again, whilst he is ok, it is obvious that he lacks that essential ‘star quality’.
    - He isn’t convincing as a Brit. He seems like an imposter/ ‘stand in’ as described above.

    As an Englishman I can categorically say that no Englishman has ever picked out Lazenby as the best Bond, because we can pic out the flaws above. Again, OHMSS could be the best film, but it is laughable to me to suggest Lazenby as the best Bond IMO.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    What most likely sounds weird to native speakers is that since every movie is dubbed in Germany, Lazenbys performance was uplifted quite much due to his german voice ... since it was the very same actor who mostly dubbed Connery (except in DN). I can only imagine how surreal this must read but having seen the movie in both the english audio and the german track I undoubtly like the german version way better. There is no other voice when he‘s pretending to be Sir Hillary and, as said, the voice actor was one of the best we had in general (once labelled the „dubbing king“ over here).

    Anyway, this really uplifted it and so at least I enjoy this movie more due to it. Many movies are ruined by the dub - but not this one (in fact no Bond movie was).
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2020 Posts: 5,131
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    What most likely sounds weird to native speakers is that since every movie is dubbed in Germany, Lazenbys performance was uplifted quite much due to his german voice ... since it was the very same actor who mostly dubbed Connery (except in DN). I can only imagine how surreal this must read but having seen the movie in both the english audio and the german track I undoubtly like the german version way better. There is no other voice when he‘s pretending to be Sir Hillary and, as said, the voice actor was one of the best we had in general (once labelled the „dubbing king“ over here).

    Anyway, this really uplifted it and so at least I enjoy this movie more due to it. Many movies are ruined by the dub - but not this one (in fact no Bond movie was).

    Why would they give Bond a German accent when he’s a Brit character? Why not just subtitle the film. The only Germans in OHMSS are the bad guys! :)
  • Posts: 15,106
    Controversial opinion: I wish Lazenby never got the role. I love OHMSS, but that's in spite of him. He just never clicks for me. An experienced and professionally trained actor like Connery or even Moore would have CRUSHED it. Lazenby, to his credit, turns in an adequate performance for a first time actor, but he doesn't have the charisma of a leading actor, and he's just way too young for the Bond that should be portrayed in the story OHMSS has. It's even more evident when paired with Diana Rigg, who even she regretted in an interview about not being paired with Connery or Moore.

    I'd tend to agree. And I'll add to this that had he come back he would have seriously hurt the franchise, maybe to its death. And as much as I dislike DAF, it is the movie the franchise needed at that point.
  • Posts: 1,916
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.

    In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.

    I thought he turned that down.

    I'm saying after YOLT Connery's asking price was £1m, EON rejected that, thus he walked away from doing a sixth Bond film. He would only come back in DAF when United Artists made that offer.

    It's kind of remarkable though that even though these films made well over $100m, EON wasn't even willing to pay Connery just 1% of that. Cut to 50 years later and EON is willing to pay up Daniel Craig because they know he's worth the money.

    Seems to say more about Cubby and Harry there. But even if Connery had gotten his million, would he have also demanded the provisions that went along with his DAF contract such as a determined shooting schedule with X amount paid for every week over? My sticking point is how long it took to shoot OHMSS would it have cost more to keep him and what would that have done to his patience or would Hunt have had to compromise his vision to accommodate Connery's demands? It's sort of a case of watch what you wish for.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    My understanding is that the DAF deal he got was what David Picker offered him for that, rather than something he demanded. The deal also included guaranteeing funding two films that he’d get to choose, one of them being THE OFFENCE (a second project never happened).
  • Posts: 1,394
    NSNA was the best Bond film of 1983.

    I like Octopussy but the plot is very convuluted and Connery slipped back in to the Bond role with ease that year and proved that even after such a long absence,he was the best Bond.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    OP never seemed convoluted to me. TLD, on the other hand...
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,546
    echo wrote: »
    OP never seemed convoluted to me. TLD, on the other hand...

    I'll be honest, I found both pretty convoluted. OP: Two opposing sides within the Russian construct, a real egg, a fake egg, suddenly there were diamonds and a bomb... Too much going on IMO. TLD I thought was less convoluted but still had a lot happening.

    Ironically the novel story I find to be exquisitely simple, internal, and powerful. One of my favourites. Property of a Lady is also great on it's own.
  • Posts: 16,149
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    NSNA was the best Bond film of 1983.

    I like Octopussy but the plot is very convuluted and Connery slipped back in to the Bond role with ease that year and proved that even after such a long absence,he was the best Bond.

    I love NSNA. I tend to rank both films as equals.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    I don’t particularly care for either one, though I suppose my favorite of the two is OP. It’s not a great Bond movie, but it’s definitely superior to NSNA. At least OP is more original. I can’t abide inferior remakes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    OP is just more fun. NSNA was actually my VERY first Bond film (first official was TND shortly after). I assumed it was part of the series, so it was kind of underwhelming to believe that THIS is supposed to be something people hyped up about.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Both OP and TLD are amongst my favourites, Cold War intrigue at its best with border-crossings and Iron Curtain suspense galore.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    NSNA was the best Bond film of 1983.

    I like Octopussy but the plot is very convuluted and Connery slipped back in to the Bond role with ease that year and proved that even after such a long absence,he was the best Bond.

    +1.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Here's a possibly controversial opinion.
    I find every under water sequence in the Bond films boring to watch and always look forward to them being finished.
    Caveat: the only one I don't dislike quite as much is the FYEO keelhauling scene, probably because it's paced reasonably quickly.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    I, for one, always love some underwater action. TB and LTK are my favourites.
  • Posts: 1,916
    I like that OP has so much going on that extends beyond one big plot. He keeps finding more and more layers as it goes on.

    It's more interesting than Bond investigates racehorse doping and the overall basic plot of FYEO of find the ATAC. There are other things involved in those as well and leading to a bigger thing, but OP just does it better.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I, for one, always love some underwater action. TB and LTK are my favourites.

    +1
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,474
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Here's a possibly controversial opinion.
    I find every under water sequence in the Bond films boring to watch and always look forward to them being finished.
    Caveat: the only one I don't dislike quite as much is the FYEO keelhauling scene, probably because it's paced reasonably quickly.

    Yes! There are way too much under water scenes in TB. The footage is fascinating when we think about the time it was produced. However, I feel a bit bored, too. And the scenes in the shipwreck in FYEO and TND aren't more than okay.
    I like the underwater scenes in LTK. They are short and combined with action on the watersurface.
  • Posts: 7,405
    I quite like underwater scenes mentioned, including FYEO, and i think Bond movies do them much better than general films (am thinking of James Camerons The Abyss, which bored the life out of me!)
  • Posts: 7,507
    Although I have nothing against old George and think he is very likeable man whenever he shows up in interviews or documentaries these days, I must agree with his detractors. He was not the right choice for Bond - for many reasons.

    First of all, his motivation for the part were not right. The series needed a new actor with series purpose and intent to follow after Connery, an actor they could establish through a continuous series of films. A man that wanted the role to get chicks and who´s heart and intent was not really to continue in the role was far from ideal. When he turned down a second film it created many unecesarry problems. OHMSS could potentially have been a great kick start movie for a new actor, instead it turned out to be a curious (yet obviously great) one off in the series.

    Secondly he was a trouble maker. All the shenanigans and misbehaviors during the production and the ways in which he rubbed his co stars and producers the wrong way are well documented by now, so I don´t feel the need to go into depth. But it goes without saying that better professionalism should be expected from a man in such a coveted role. Learning about all these stories, I am really quite surprised the producers actually wanted him to continue. His performances and star attraction had to be absolutely stellar to justify such bad behavior and problems he created during production. Which leads me on to the final point...

    His acting. Lets be honest, even if I feel the need to defend him (which I actually have on many occations) my objective opinion has to be that Lazenby was really not a good actor. When I see people praise his performance, I simply can´t concur. I suppose you could make the case that he at least is servicable, that the film makers were for most of the time cleverly able to direct and edit away his obvious limitations, and that there are some scenes he does better than others. Yes, I get it. But was he a worthy succesor to Connery, the one the series needed to move on strongly? Obviously not I´d say. His lack of charisma, integrity and believability is striking in so many places. In so many scenes he is simply being Lazenby, not James Bond. The few scenes he does well can´t hide the fact that this in truth was an inexperienced model in a role far too big for him. Could he have grown into the role given more experience? It´s the question his fans love to ponder, which in many ways admits that there were some serious issues there to begin with... And after all the question is a completely useless one when we know that his motivation to continue and do his all in the role was not there to begin with. It is basically a lost case.

    I am always struck with how good OHMSS is. It sits comfortably in my top five, often in my top three. But when I hear people say Lazenby "did great" I cannot help rolling my eyes. The film is a succes despite of him, not because of him.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Funny, I always roll my eyes when people say the opposite.
    The man is self-assured and elegant throughout OHMSS. I also buy effortlessly into the romance with Tracy and the final scene is one of the best acted and most moving moments in the series.
    George completely outshines Craig when we compare the death scenes of Tracy and Vesper.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Funny, I always roll my eyes when people say the opposite.
    The man is self-assured and elegant throughout OHMSS. I also buy effortlessly into the romance with Tracy and the final scene is one of the best acted and most moving moments in the series.
    George completely outshines Craig when we compare the death scenes of Tracy and Vesper.

    +1, except I think Craig did great with the reaction to Vesper’s death. I think the difference in reaction largely stems from the fact that Tracy of course didn’t betray Bond like Vesper did. I think Craig sold the mixture of being crushed by her betrayal and crushed even more by her death. Add to that the fact that she chose to die, and he couldn’t save her. All this is plainly going through Bond’s head and Craig nailed it.
  • Posts: 7,653
    For me Craig was robbed a decent scene of morning the passing of Vesper simply due to the sinking house sequence which took away any chance of seeing the acting skills from both actors. Sadly EON and director chose this route.
    Lazenby had the advantage with a pure Fleming style ending and he really hit the ball out of the ballpark.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me Craig was robbed a decent scene of morning the passing of Vesper simply due to the sinking house sequence which took away any chance of seeing the acting skills from both actors. Sadly EON and director chose this route.
    Lazenby had the advantage with a pure Fleming style ending and he really hit the ball out of the ballpark.

    This is a legitimate point. And even the "For James" email softens the blow in a way that Fleming did not.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    jobo wrote: »
    Although I have nothing against old George and think he is very likeable man whenever he shows up in interviews or documentaries these days, I must agree with his detractors. He was not the right choice for Bond - for many reasons.

    First of all, his motivation for the part were not right. The series needed a new actor with series purpose and intent to follow after Connery, an actor they could establish through a continuous series of films. A man that wanted the role to get chicks and who´s heart and intent was not really to continue in the role was far from ideal. When he turned down a second film it created many unecesarry problems. OHMSS could potentially have been a great kick start movie for a new actor, instead it turned out to be a curious (yet obviously great) one off in the series.

    Secondly he was a trouble maker. All the shenanigans and misbehaviors during the production and the ways in which he rubbed his co stars and producers the wrong way are well documented by now, so I don´t feel the need to go into depth. But it goes without saying that better professionalism should be expected from a man in such a coveted role. Learning about all these stories, I am really quite surprised the producers actually wanted him to continue. His performances and star attraction had to be absolutely stellar to justify such bad behavior and problems he created during production. Which leads me on to the final point...

    His acting. Lets be honest, even if I feel the need to defend him (which I actually have on many occations) my objective opinion has to be that Lazenby was really not a good actor. When I see people praise his performance, I simply can´t concur. I suppose you could make the case that he at least is servicable, that the film makers were for most of the time cleverly able to direct and edit away his obvious limitations, and that there are some scenes he does better than others. Yes, I get it. But was he a worthy succesor to Connery, the one the series needed to move on strongly? Obviously not I´d say. His lack of charisma, integrity and believability is striking in so many places. In so many scenes he is simply being Lazenby, not James Bond. The few scenes he does well can´t hide the fact that this in truth was an inexperienced model in a role far too big for him. Could he have grown into the role given more experience? It´s the question his fans love to ponder, which in many ways admits that there were some serious issues there to begin with... And after all the question is a completely useless one when we know that his motivation to continue and do his all in the role was not there to begin with. It is basically a lost case.

    I am always struck with how good OHMSS is. It sits comfortably in my top five, often in my top three. But when I hear people say Lazenby "did great" I cannot help rolling my eyes. The film is a succes despite of him, not because of him.

    Excellent post, couldn’t have said it better myself.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited April 2020 Posts: 13,767
    I'm aware of the differences between book and film for Casino Royale, but isn't it Fleming-esque for Bond to firm up his resolve to go after the bad guys. Which is what Bond sets out to do in the novel Casino Royale, and Bond is shown executing that at film's end with Mr. White.

    And as great an ending as On Her Majesty's Secret Service has, that scenario was atypical for Fleming or the movies.
  • Posts: 1,394
    They need to have Bond slap women around again.Not saying that behavior is acceptable in real life mind,but Bond is a spy and uses violence a lot of the time to acheive his objectives.To show him killing men but not laying a hand on women just because its not PC in the real world is ridiculous.
Sign In or Register to comment.