Controversial opinions about Bond films

1685686688690691707

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,596
    I don't think the series would've survived. Lazenby wasn't a good actor. Moore was. I mentioned in conversation the other day to a friend that by and large the reclaiming of Lazenby's performance as good is actually less the performance itself (it isn't good at all) and more because the rest of the film is so fantastic (including the cast, particularly Rigg and Savalas) that they sort of compensate for how off, boy scout, and wooden Lazenby is.

    edit: All art is subjective. Of course. I'm not disputing that. But I do genuinely struggle to see what people see when they say they think Laz is good in the film. As 007, in particular, but just in general as a performance. I do not see it. It is not good. Most opinions that I disagree with I can see why people hold them (fans of SP, those who prefer TWINE to DAD, those who dislike Serra or Conti's music, etc). But this one I just cannot see. And my only conclusion is that the rest of the film masks Lazenby's shortcomings.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    mtm wrote: »
    Here's one:

    "Breadcrumbs" is one of my least favourite musical cues in the entire series. If you're going to eschew the classic, Vic Flick-type Bond theme entirely from your score, that would be a better decision than playing 16 bars of it and suddenly cutting it off at the knees. Either include the full piece (and no, reusing Arnold's arrangement in the end credits does not count and instead further illustrates the problem) or don't use it at all.

    Loads of the films use parts of the Bond theme in isolation, I’m not sure what’s different about this one?
    There’s an old rumor of EON offering David Arnold to re-score GE, but he turned it down because he not only LOVED the score but felt taking the gig would be disrespectful towards Eric Serra.

    I’m not a big fan of Arnold, but if that rumor is true I have great respect for him turning that down. Also, it’s nice he actually appreciated a score as polarizing as Serra’s, and he’s a genuine Bond fan too. That’s pretty cool.

    I don’t think I buy that one: I don’t think Arnold was on their radar in ‘95 and I’m not sure there would have been time for a rescore. Plus if they’d wanted it done someone would have done it.

    To clarify, this was AFTER his TND score. Supposedly for the DVD Special Edition release.

    Which reminds me, John Williams wanted to re-score the first STAR WARS film for the Special Edition in 1997 (so he could include cues like the Empore march), but thankfully Lucas turned that down. Though he would allow Williams to re-score the ending of RETURN OF THE JEDI.

    I do wish EON could have had John Barry re-score DN. I would have been all for that.
    Interesting if that is true. Historically EON appears to commit to the decisions they've made for better or worse, otherwise I'd have expected a re-cut of Die Another Day by now. There's a fanedit out there that shows there's a good movie hidden in there, it just needs to be a little... tidier.
  • Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.
  • Posts: 15,098
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Same here. I'll also say I was never totally convinced by Savalas' Blofeld.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,312
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    Yep, my controversial opinion on that is that it would have been better with Roger Moore. He's a bit more human than Connery and could have done the romance stuff very well, as well as had no trouble with the comedy stuff at Piz Gloria. Playing it more in his Saint style where everything is treated a little more seriously, I think he'd have had no problem with this film and I think he and Rigg would have been equally matched.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Same here. I'll also say I was never totally convinced by Savalas' Blofeld.

    That's interesting: I think he's my favourite of the 60s ones. I think he feels the most dangerous.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 15,098
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,507
    The weakness of OHMSS is definitely when Bond arrives at the Piz Gloria. As beautiful as the location is, the akward attempts at humor with the girls do not sit well with me. And it draaaags... The scenes with Ruby are just plain bad. They could have cut maybe ten minutes of this segment and I would like the film much better. The action though, when it finally kicks in, is iconic of course.

    Yeah, that's my bombshell controversial opinion for today. Now go ahead and collectively sue me! ;)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,273
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Lazenby is best in the film when he is not acting at all--either seducing women (which he did throughout the production) or seeming scared in fleeing Piz Gloria (and I'm sure, deep down, he was scared, in taking the role over from Sean Connery).

    And of course Hunt being an editor par excellence found a way to have George Baker "help" Lazenby's performance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,312
    echo wrote: »
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Lazenby is best in the film when he is not acting at all--either seducing women (which he did throughout the production) or seeming scared in fleeing Piz Glorida (and I'm sure, deep down, he was scared, in taking the role over from Sean Connery).

    Or indeed fighting, which I would say he’s easily the best at until Craig is on the scene.
  • Posts: 2,402
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Lazenby is best in the film when he is not acting at all--either seducing women (which he did throughout the production) or seeming scared in fleeing Piz Glorida (and I'm sure, deep down, he was scared, in taking the role over from Sean Connery).

    Or indeed fighting, which I would say he’s easily the best at until Craig is on the scene.

    I could still lean towards saying Lazenby is the best fistfighter of the series, although Craig leaves it damn close.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,312
    Yeah, that's not unreasonable.

    I was thinking that it's funny that I think we'd probably all agree that Roger is perhaps the least convincing fighter all of the Bonds, and yet he probably had the most practise: with The Saint and Maverick and The Persuaders and his other movies he must've easily have had at least 150, probably many more, screen fights! :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2021 Posts: 9,509
    Craig is, IMHO, the greatest Bond physically (from aesthetics of his build, to the way he moves, responds, listens, reacts fights…..).
    Laz was very good and quite dynamic in his fight scenes. But sometimes his walk looks like a mentally-slow horse.

    Controversial opinion:
    NTTD sees James Bond at his most archetypal-heroic than at any other time in the series; he is sought out (by Felix); he rejects the call to adventure (he tells Felix, thanks, but no thanks); after the internal struggle he finally accepts The Call To Adventure (to kidnap the doc); there are many obstacles and Jesters (like Magnusson)….; and finally he sacrifices everything for the greater good.

    This was one helluva an entry and I was moved quite intensely…
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,312
    Deleted
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 388
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.

    I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
    But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.

    I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)

    I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2021 Posts: 9,509
    🙏🏼
  • Posts: 15,098
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.

    I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
    But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.

    I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)

    I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.

    That might be it. Also I never found very believable that Blofeld would fall for Tracy's ruse at the climax.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,104
    Personally, I think OHMSS is near perfect and Lazenby’s Bond is an integral part of that. I never understood the criticism really. His more vulnerable Bond fits the film perfectly and that last scene is phenomenally acted, maybe the best moment of any Bond actor.
  • Posts: 207
    I actually don’t think Lazenby is that bad in the film. His inexperience showed in some scenes, but I thought he did a good job for the most part. #6 on my list but it’s not because he is bad or anything, at least in my eyes. I wonder what DAF would have looked like with him in it.
  • Antster007 wrote: »
    It needed a different interpretation and a shift away from Connery’s iconic portrayal. Sir Roger’s tenure ensured the Bond fanbase grew and was ready for a return to a darker, edgier Bond In Dalton.

    While I more or less agree with you, I think the series needed Moore but not necessarily a different interpretation, or at least not as radical as what we saw in TSWLM or MR for exemple. LALD was a box-office hit and ensured the survival of the series but Moore's Bond wasn't that different from what preceded; I would even say that his performance was more traditional than Connery's one in DAF. As long as the movies were good and liked from the audience (what lacked to TMWTGG), I think Moore could have continued with this less humorous Bond and the series would have been just fine.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,312
    I think Moore could have continued with this less humorous Bond and the series would have been just fine.


    That’s true, it wouldn’t have been as good though :)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,171
    Anyone claiming Connery couldn’t have pulled off OHMSS even if he was in his prime is just giving away an unintentional admission of Lazenby being an insufficient actor. Roger Moore would have blown him away too. I’ll take my chances with classically trained actors over a clothes horse.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,312
    It's funny, Connery could have absolutely pulled off OHMSS, because he was Oscar-winning movie star great Sean Connery and playing James Bond wasn't exactly a stretch! :)
    And yet I can never quite picture him in it for some reason. Not just because of his slightly low power YOLT performance, but also because his Bond was almost more of the untouchable superman than Roger -even in his button-pressing pomp- ever was. Can you imagine Connery doing the 'dig two graves' stuff from FYEO? I can't really. Also he was slightly more distant and unknowable, so it's a tricky fit for me.

    Roger slides into it in my mind much easier: he's more genial, warmer, I think I could buy him as the more romantic and vulnerable Bond in this. And plus, as I've said before, OHMSS opens with Bond practically being The Saint, on holiday on the Riveria, cruising the casinos and helping damsels in distress- Roger could do that stuff in his sleep and still shine like a beacon. In 1969 he'd just come off being Simon Templar, who was a marginally more humourless and hard version of his Bond persona, so I think we'd have got less of that Persuaders jokiness which he perhaps hadn't fully embraced yet.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,273
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.

    I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
    But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.

    I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)

    I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.

    That might be it. Also I never found very believable that Blofeld would fall for Tracy's ruse at the climax.

    Oh how strongly I disagree! I think Diana Rigg could charm the paint off the wall...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,312
    echo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.

    I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
    But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.

    I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)

    I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.

    That might be it. Also I never found very believable that Blofeld would fall for Tracy's ruse at the climax.

    Oh how strongly I disagree! I think Diana Rigg could charm the paint off the wall...

    Her sudden turn is a bit obvious perhaps, but I think that's a dramatic conceit for us the audience really, to show that she's playing up to him. As you say, she's utterly wonderful, and of course he's utterly insane (he wants to be a Baronet!) so I guess that makes it easier to buy into.
  • Posts: 15,098
    echo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's the best of the 60s Blofeld, yet there's something lacking. Not sure what.
    And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.

    I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
    But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.

    I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)

    I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.

    That might be it. Also I never found very believable that Blofeld would fall for Tracy's ruse at the climax.

    Oh how strongly I disagree! I think Diana Rigg could charm the paint off the wall...
    Nothing g to do with Diana Rigg. I don't think Blofeld would have been fooled.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,205
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Lazenby’s acting makes me wish Connery was still around. If he was and gave it his all in the same manner as his earlier films, OHMSS may have been my #1 Bond film. But with Laz, it has no chance of being the best.

    This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.

    OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.

    Lazenby is best in the film when he is not acting at all--either seducing women (which he did throughout the production) or seeming scared in fleeing Piz Glorida (and I'm sure, deep down, he was scared, in taking the role over from Sean Connery).

    Or indeed fighting, which I would say he’s easily the best at until Craig is on the scene.

    I could still lean towards saying Lazenby is the best fistfighter of the series, although Craig leaves it damn close.

    The thing about the Craig hand-to-hand stuff to me is that sometimes they seem a little bit over-choreographed and too well rehearsed. It started to seep in with QoS, though the rapid fire editing hides it a substantial amount, and continues into SF and SP. Though I think they managed to bring back a bit of that raw energy in NTTD. It's a trait that infected the Brosnan films as well, I think - compare the very real feeling of Bond fighting Alec in GoldenEye with his showdown against Renard in TWINE.

    I think in that respect, maybe Lazenby comes out on top. But I'll have to go back and rewatch OHMSS again to be sure.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Sean is the only Bond who I think couldn't do OHMSS. He never seems to really care about his women, or hate his villains, or really seem all that arsed about his missions generally. He is indeed the biggest superman of the bunch, and is generally pretty indifferent to his circumstances or allies. Which isn't to say I don't love him all the same.

    Roger shows disgust at Scaramanga and Zorin, kills brutally in TSWLM and FYEO, and gets quite angry with Orlov and others in OP. He gets extremely shaken in Mr and pants as he sprints up stairs to take revenge in FYEO. His feeling for Lisl and Octopussy are more believable than anything from Connery as well. He could totally do OHMSS....
  • Posts: 15,098
    Sean is the only Bond who I think couldn't do OHMSS. He never seems to really care about his women, or hate his villains, or really seem all that arsed about his missions generally. He is indeed the biggest superman of the bunch, and is generally pretty indifferent to his circumstances or allies. Which isn't to say I don't love him all the same.

    Roger shows disgust at Scaramanga and Zorin, kills brutally in TSWLM and FYEO, and gets quite angry with Orlov and others in OP. He gets extremely shaken in Mr and pants as he sprints up stairs to take revenge in FYEO. His feeling for Lisl and Octopussy are more believable than anything from Connery as well. He could totally do OHMSS....

    Moore was also the most believable widower of all the Bond actors. Imagine any other Bond actor in the PTS of FYEO. I don't think they'd sell it as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,312
    Yes it's kind of counter-intuitive because of how his films are famously the most OTT of the lot, with him standing at the centre being unflappable, but Roger is actually more of a human Bond with a (slightly!) more believable range of reactions than Connery was.

    Even in Moonraker, the silliest of the lot, it's hard to imagine Connery's Bond coming out of that centrifuge looking as vulnerable as Moore's does, or indeed showing that glimmer of anger towards Holly.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sean is the only Bond who I think couldn't do OHMSS. He never seems to really care about his women, or hate his villains, or really seem all that arsed about his missions generally. He is indeed the biggest superman of the bunch, and is generally pretty indifferent to his circumstances or allies. Which isn't to say I don't love him all the same.

    Roger shows disgust at Scaramanga and Zorin, kills brutally in TSWLM and FYEO, and gets quite angry with Orlov and others in OP. He gets extremely shaken in Mr and pants as he sprints up stairs to take revenge in FYEO. His feeling for Lisl and Octopussy are more believable than anything from Connery as well. He could totally do OHMSS....

    Moore was also the most believable widower of all the Bond actors. Imagine any other Bond actor in the PTS of FYEO. I don't think they'd sell it as well.

    Well to be fair, I don't think Dalton or Craig would have had trouble there. But I do agree that he's best of the 'first generation' of Bonds there.

    I can't help but picture Roger in scenes like the confrontation with Blofeld after his Sir Hilary disguise is blown, and just think you'd be getting a proper lead performance there, going toe-toe with Savalas.
Sign In or Register to comment.