Controversial opinions about Bond films

1701702704706707

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,693
    I find the San Francisco Police Captain more annoying than Sheriff JW Pepper. While Pepper was an annoying racist, Police Captain was just boring, with no personality. It would have made more sense to have JW come back in AVTAK. At least we’d have a character back we don’t like already. Also, if LALD and TMWTGG got film novelizations, IFP would probably cut out Pepper, due to recent announcements.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,215
    Given how police in the USA have made clowns of themselves, I think Sheriff JW Pepper holds up even more as satire! Keep in mind Mankiewicz came from a very left wing family so it kinda tracks that he would make a mockery of southern law enforcement. That’s why we get such a prolonged scene of Pepper with Adam before Bond cuts in and ruins his arrest.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I find the San Francisco Police Captain more annoying than Sheriff JW Pepper. While Pepper was an annoying racist, Police Captain was just boring, with no personality. It would have made more sense to have JW come back in AVTAK. At least we’d have a character back we don’t like already. Also, if LALD and TMWTGG got film novelizations, IFP would probably cut out Pepper, due to recent announcements.

    I definitely like JW more than the AVTAK guy, but I wouldn't want him back in 1985. My favorite sheriff is actually the guy from DAF. That movie is full of inspired casting. I don't know if that fellow was a non-actor, a bad actor, or a very clever actor, but his low-energy line readings slay me every time. "There goes that son-of-a-bitchin' saboteur!" and the whole thing with Larry. "I think Larry got him. Attaboy, Larry." I could do with another helping of that guy.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    He was a real life cop. He even appears in LALD!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited April 2023 Posts: 4,693
    Overall, as Cubby Broccoli once said, that "I can't say there is a single [Bond film] I'd like to completely redo if I had the chance, although there are parts of The Man With the Golden Gun I'd change." There are minor things throughout Bond’s multimedia life that I would change. I think Felix Leiter should have lead the boat chase in LALD. It would have given Felix more much needed screentime. David Hedson’s version deserved it. I always find Tom Mankiewicz a hypocrite. While his Bond movies aren’t as bad as Superman got when he left, he did almost did kill Bond with his campy writing. He was always one to talk about things being too campy.
  • Posts: 4,762
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    If Licence To Kill had an amazing tie in video game instead of Goldeneye it would be reviewed much higher as I feel the love of Goldeneye comes more from the game then the film.

    I agree with this.I think GE while a perfectly fine Bond film is overrated by many fans and critics.It is in fact pretty much as silly as DAD but the latter gets criticised as being the '' worst '' of the Brosnan era.The video game of GE was just SO good and i beleive nostalgia for the game makes fans view the film through rose tinted glasses.

    LTK is a far superior Bond film but is seen as the one which nearly killed the franchise due to its less than stellar box office, being the last to feature Dalton which makes many beleive that he was '' fired '' from the role and being the one which caused the six year gap in between films.

    The strength of my nostalgia for GE keeps it at my #1 spot, but it's also my favorite for what I believe to be many merits: a really cool soundtrack, fantastic villains, engaging action scenes, a fairly interesting plot, and a fine Brosnan performance. LTK is also in my Top 5, though, so I certainly agree that it's a more deserving entry than many believe. I also agree that if it'd had a "culture" surrounding it like GE did with the video game, there'd be more praise for it. It really is a shame LTK didn't achieve what it could have, being such a unique Bond adventure.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,295
    Goldeneye is certainly in my top 5 Favorites of the series. Perhaps even top 3? It’s been a while since I’ve attempted to rank the films. I have a huge nostalgia for the film, and I can appreciate how that may “warp” my views of it, but at the same time I believe if you love a film unashamedly, then champion it in any way as long as it’s keeping it positive and respectful. Goldeneye was my very first Bond film, and by extension Pierce was my first exposure to the character, and that’s even disregarding the video game entirely because I was born in 97.

    For me money, Goldeneye not only redefined Bond films for the modern day, it’s also one of the very best action films ever made in my view. It’s so hard hitting, atmospheric, and edgy. It’s unlike anything that’s come before it really. It’s the only Bond film that really gets my adrenaline rushing in ways that other films in the series really don’t, including the Connery and Craig films. It’s perfectly cast, I mean everyone is giving it 100% in the movie, both in front of, and behind the camera. Eric Sierra’s score is perhaps my only issue with it, but I don’t have as much of an issue as others do because it’s part of what makes the film so engaging and moody. I don’t think it’s as silly as Die Another Day at all. If you put both films side to side, there is a stark difference between the two, and it shows.

    Plus for all the criticism lodged at Brosnan sometimes, he hits the ground running as soon as he walks onto the screen in the Gunbarrel. He nailed his take on Bond on his first go in my opinion, which says something considering Connery, Moore, and Craig really took a few films to hit their stride. I know there are people who insist that this film was written with Dalton in mind, and that might be true. But while I certainly love Dalton’s Bond, there was no way in hell this film was going to be green lit with him in it, and I don’t think he would’ve matched the energy, wit and charisma that Pierce brings.

    In fact, I think I’m at a stage in my life where I prefer Pierce to the other Bond actors for the most part. He’s slightly more elegant and sophisticated than Connery. He has the vulnerability of Lazenby, only he can convey it better on screen than Laz could’ve. He’s more serious than Moore but still knew how to be funny and affable. He isn’t as serious or brooding as Dalton or Craig, but still could be a force of nature not to be reckoned with if you cross him. Brosnan’s always referred to as Jack of all trades, king of none. I reject that statement. Brosnan is just Bond to me, and perhaps the greatest in my view.

    Is Goldeneye #1 in my opinion? I don’t know it’s always competing with FRWL, and OHMSS. But it’s certainly up there.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 11,189
    GoldenEye is mostly well edited and directed and has a verve and energy to it that LTK frankly didn't have. GoldenEye also has more atmosphere to it than LTK does. I like LTK but overall it has a very flat un-stylistic look to it. Most of the locations have very flat lighting. GE makes the most of its admittedly restricted resources. I frankly cant see a Glen version of the statue park scene being nearly as effective - a scene that, in its current form, uses light and shadows brilliantly.

    It's not a perfect film but it's always been a favourite ever since the mid 90s. Pierce may be awkward at times but his performance has more good than bad in my view. He also has some good chemistry with Izabella (their bedroom scene and that little pillow tussle always makes me smile).

    I'll be hated for this but I've always thought the Serra score added to the cold war atmosphere.

    Casino Royale saw Martin Campbell up his game even more.
  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    GoldenEye is mostly well edited and directed and has a verve and energy to it that LTK frankly didn't have. GoldenEye also has more atmosphere to it than LTK does. I like LTK but overall it has a very flat un-stylistic look to it. Most of the locations have very flat lighting. GE makes the most of its admittedly restricted resources. I frankly cant see a Glen version of the statue park scene being nearly as effective - a scene that, in its current form, uses light and shadows brilliantly.

    It's not a perfect film but it's always been a favourite ever since the mid 90s. Pierce may be awkward at times but his performance has more good than bad in my view. He also has some good chemistry with Izabella (their bedroom scene and that little pillow tussle always makes me smile).

    I'll be hated for this but I've always thought the Serra score added to the cold war atmosphere.

    Casino Royale saw Martin Campbell up his game even more.

    I agree mostly, except I think Goldeneye slightly edges Casino Royale for me personally. Casino lacks the atmosphere and edgy tone that makes Goldeneye so unique.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 11,189
    As much as I love GE I think Royale is the more polished film. It sets out its tougher tone in the opening sequence (possibly my favourite PTS in the series) but adds the more colourful glamorous components as it goes along.

    The violence however is never far away and packs a punch without being overly graphic or grisly (ala LTK).
  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    As much as I love GE I think Royale is the more polished film. It sets out its tougher tone in the opening sequence (possibly my favourite PTS in the series) but adds the more colourful glamorous components as it goes along.

    The violence however is never far away and packs a punch without being overly graphic or grisly (ala LTK).

    Yeah Casino Royale is much more polished in its scripting and filmmaking. In fact I’m glad you pointed out how vibrant the film is in scenes. It’s such a wonderfully shot film. It’s so hard to compare the two films for me because they both sit in top 5, they’re both largely regarded as the best entries for their respective actors, and both made by the same man. My nostalgia for Casino Royale is equally powerful because that was the first Bond film I saw in theaters when I was 9. I honestly think my Dad was blindsided taking me in to see Casino Royale. He must’ve thought it was going to be like one of the Roger Moore films, and thought CR would’ve been age appropriate for me.
  • Posts: 11,189
    It's probably the best shot film since Moonraker.
  • I’d say since Majesty’s myself.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,157
    Craig 'took a few films to hit his stride'? Really? :-O
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,295
    Venutius wrote: »
    Craig 'took a few films to hit his stride'? Really? :-O

    Yeah I think so. I don’t think he really hits his stride until Skyfall honestly. He seems much more comfortable in that film versus in Casino Royale and QOS, even if I think CR is the better film. It’s not a put down on him either, it took Connery and Moore a few films to really craft their portrayals to perfection. I was just pointing out that in comparison to the other actors, Brosnan seems to hit the ground running with ease.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 11,189
    I think Craig gives possibly the best Bond performance in the whole series in CR (yes that includes Connery).

    He's certainly given a lot more to play in his debut than any of the other actors.

    With regard to Brosnan, he admitted that he was very nervous when filming early scenes and it sometimes shows.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    Fair do's, each to their own. I honestly thought Craig hit it completely out of the park first time out with CR. And I'd had trouble actually envisaging him as Bond at all, but that first viewing convinced me completely.
  • I love Craig in his first two films, but I just think he gets better and better as the films go on. I think with every Bond actor on their first go around they do feel nervous and don’t really know how to approach the character quite. Plus like mentioned above, Brosnan felt those nerves too. What’s amazing to me about Pierce is I can hardly see it sink through his performance when compared to say Moore in LALD, or Dalton in TLD. Goldeneye feels like Pierce had already been playing the part for some time. He may have been nervous, but I think he nails it on his first go.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 11,189
    The Q scene in GE is an example of where the nerves show to me. It seems like both Broz AND Des are uncomfortable infront of the camera, they are talking AT eachother delivering their lines rather than TO eachother. Certainly in comparison to the next two scenes they did their first one feels very stilted and awkward.

    ...there's also the slight problem of Des reading his lines offscreen.
  • Posts: 16,222
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The Q scene in GE is an example of where the nerves show to me. It seems like both Broz AND Des are uncomfortable infront of the camera, they are talking AT eachother delivering their lines rather than TO eachother. Certainly in comparison to the next two scenes they did their first one feels very stilted and awkward.

    ...there's also the slight problem of Des reading his lines offscreen.

    It's very obvious Desmond is reading his cue cards in GOLDENEYE. I much prefer the Q scene in TND. Flows much better and displays a more natural chemistry between Pierce and Desmomd. Also, Q looks great in his vibrant red Avis blazer.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Casino Royale would work far better as a swansong for Brosnans bond.
  • edited June 13 Posts: 1,448
    NSNA is a near perfect comeback. It feels like an early Bond movie. A sequel to Goldfinger.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,693
    The Judi Dench version of M could be read as more of a villain than people realize. She’s always criticizing Bond (and others) for her mistakes. She’d throw anyone away based on the power of her job, when it’s really her ego wanting to be saved. See TWINE and SF for the biggest proof of this. The main villains are a result of her actions, and putting her job first so she wouldn’t get the blame. She was willing to drop Bond in both movies (plus especially DAD and QOS). GE and CR were ok as she and Bond were both new in their jobs. The biggest offender of her M is when she criticized Bond. Then she would ALWAYS say he was the best in MI6 and that she always believed in him. No sympathy from me when she died in SF. Bad writing. The Ralph Fiennes M had this to a degree happen to him in NTTD. Enough from me.
  • Craig should have stopped after three films considering what was served up in numbers 4 and 5.
  • Posts: 1,926
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    The Judi Dench version of M could be read as more of a villain than people realize. She’s always criticizing Bond (and others) for her mistakes. She’d throw anyone away based on the power of her job, when it’s really her ego wanting to be saved. See TWINE and SF for the biggest proof of this. The main villains are a result of her actions, and putting her job first so she wouldn’t get the blame. She was willing to drop Bond in both movies (plus especially DAD and QOS). GE and CR were ok as she and Bond were both new in their jobs. The biggest offender of her M is when she criticized Bond. Then she would ALWAYS say he was the best in MI6 and that she always believed in him. No sympathy from me when she died in SF. Bad writing. The Ralph Fiennes M had this to a degree happen to him in NTTD. Enough from me.

    Agreed. Yeah, this was a fresh take on the character and we were lucky to have an actress of Dench's caliber, which I think gives the character more sympathy than she deserves. But that added habit of always putting Bond down or not giving him her full support when it was often Bond having to deal with the fallout of M's mistakes made the character's actions even more annoying. I was glad when she was replaced.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Craig should have stopped after three films considering what was served up in numbers 4 and 5.

    Agreed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2023 Posts: 24,254
    Craig should have stopped after three films considering what was served up in numbers 4 and 5.

    Agreed.

    I agree that SF would have been a good 'final' Bond film... if there had been a film or two between QOS and SF. The 'old man Bond' mood has always struck me as awkward so soon after two 'Bond begins' films. It's as if we somehow missed an entire career. The final scene in QOS suggests that James Bond is finally ready to be '007'. Then, a few years later, the unshaven beard, ridiculing of Q's youth, and Mallory's harsh words suggest that Bond is ready to retire. I suffered nearly the same whiplash in theatres that Bond did when he was blown off the train by Moneypenny. ;-)
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 558
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig should have stopped after three films considering what was served up in numbers 4 and 5.

    Agreed.

    I agree that SF would have been a good 'final' Bond film... if there had been a film or two between QOS and SF. The 'old man Bond' mood has always struck me as awkward so soon after two 'Bond begins' films. It's as if we somehow missed an entire career. The final scene in QOS suggests that James Bond is finally ready to be '007'. Then, a few years later, the unshaven beard, ridiculing of Q's youth, and Mallory's harsh words suggest that Bond is ready to retire. I suffered nearly the same whiplash in theatres that Bond did when he was blown off the train by Moneypenny. ;-)

    Yeah I sympathise with the argument and maybe bc I played Blood Stone back in the day but I think Mallory's line 'it's a young man's game' does just enough work to justify and it helps that Skyfall is built around the tension of tradition vs modernity and is just a good movie full stop.

    Skyfall obviously looking back now as the middle entry is the fulcrum point of the Craig era. You can look at it as the end of a trilogy, 'Bond begins' as it were but taken with SP and NTTD it's the start of that trilogy of a more settled Bond, the man 'out of time'.

    I'm rambling but for me, apart from Spectre I wouldn't change much about the Craig era.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited October 2023 Posts: 4,693
    BT3366 wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    The Judi Dench version of M could be read as more of a villain than people realize. She’s always criticizing Bond (and others) for her mistakes. She’d throw anyone away based on the power of her job, when it’s really her ego wanting to be saved. See TWINE and SF for the biggest proof of this. The main villains are a result of her actions, and putting her job first so she wouldn’t get the blame. She was willing to drop Bond in both movies (plus especially DAD and QOS). GE and CR were ok as she and Bond were both new in their jobs. The biggest offender of her M is when she criticized Bond. Then she would ALWAYS say he was the best in MI6 and that she always believed in him. No sympathy from me when she died in SF. Bad writing. The Ralph Fiennes M had this to a degree happen to him in NTTD. Enough from me.

    Agreed. Yeah, this was a fresh take on the character and we were lucky to have an actress of Dench's caliber, which I think gives the character more sympathy than she deserves. But that added habit of always putting Bond down or not giving him her full support when it was often Bond having to deal with the fallout of M's mistakes made the character's actions even more annoying. I was glad when she was replaced.

    The Bond-M she should have had was best shown in TND. She openly supported Bond doings his job, even saying don’t launch the missile while Bond was on the ground. Then, in their car briefing, she says here’s your job, do it your way (mostly, without her criticizing him), just get it done. And to think, this all happened while she was being criticized by her superiors. If Purvis and Wade were writing, this would be a subplot. Once they started writing and Judi Dench won her Oscar, the character became almost unbearably hypocritical. Thanks for rigging the Oscars that year, Harvey Weinstein. It seemed that the Gareth Mallory M almost had this happen in NTTD. It’s getting as tiresome as Bond leaving MI6. Hopefully, Ralph Fiennes can become Sir Miles as M, and the relationship between Bond and M can become one of mutual respect. Kingsley Amis would be criticizing EON nonstop for this Bond-M relationship. He hated M, that’s why he was kidnapped in Colonel Sun. Judi Dench’s M was the Grandpa Joe (from Willy Wonka 1971) of the Bond series. In some ways, Judi Dench was just as bad of being spoiled by Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli as Daniel Craig was.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Once you get into the nitty gritty, Brosnans films are much more bondian and representive of the series as a whole than Craigs films are on average.
Sign In or Register to comment.