Controversial opinions about Bond films

17980828485707

Comments

  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    I'd rather watch either of the Dalton Bonds than any of the Moore films.

    Not controversial just a matter of Bad taste in movies. ;)

    Yes, you really should correct that personal issue, @SaintMark. Maybe you should do a double bill of TLD and LTK for starters?

    I have both in a splendid UE dvd presentation and while I can sit through TLD allright it is TLD that makes me watch all RM movies in one sitting just to get the foul taste out of my mouth.

    I just do not find any pleasure in watching the Dalton movies. for me the man has the charisma of a dead goldfish. Dalton works for me as a baddie in The Rocketeer, Doctor Who, etc. I do find him the one terrible miscasting among the 007 actors.

    You mean LTK? :-/

    Yes LTK, even my subconcious tries and stop me from typing those letters and occasionaly wins over the concious responses.

  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    I just do not find any pleasure in watching the Dalton movies. for me the man has the charisma of a dead goldfish. I do find him the one terrible miscasting among the 007 actors.
    Rough night, eh mate?

    this thread is called: Controversial opinions about Bond films ???

    That is mine, no rough night necessary. ;)

  • Posts: 2,402
    How is Dalton miscast, but not Moore?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    SaintMark wrote:
    this thread is called: Controversial opinions about Bond films ???
    That is mine, no rough night necessary. ;)
    Smashing success there, then!
  • Posts: 7,653
    How is Dalton miscast, but not Moore?

    Sir Roger Moore is a Saint and a gentleman, he is never miscast!!

    The movie must be wrong but never Roger. :D

  • Posts: 2,402
    SaintMark wrote:
    How is Dalton miscast, but not Moore?

    Sir Roger Moore is a Saint and a gentleman, he is never miscast!!

    The movie must be wrong but never Roger. :D

    Right. I don't know what you're getting at. At all. But even Moore's biggest fans have often said he wasn't right for Bond as Fleming wrote him.
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    How is Dalton miscast, but not Moore?

    Sir Roger Moore is a Saint and a gentleman, he is never miscast!!

    The movie must be wrong but never Roger. :D

    Right. I don't know what you're getting at. At all. But even Moore's biggest fans have often said he wasn't right for Bond as Fleming wrote him.

    They are not Moore's biggest fans.

    I find Moore's James Bond a great addition and a saviour of the franchise when the franchise was in dire need for one.
    The EON franchise is mostly not Ian Flemings James Bond, some are most movies are not and yet I would not have missed them for the world.
    Roger Moore did his great job and then moved on, but of all the actors involved in this franchise I easily rate him the highest as human and supporter.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Roger's Bond was what the franchise needed in the 70's during the years of really dark and gritty exploitation films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Murdock wrote:
    Roger's Bond was what the franchise needed in the 70's during the years of really dark and gritty exploitation films.

    The 70's were a wild & crazy time. 71's DAF set the gently self-mocking tone that would be in place until 81's FYEO (and even then, Rog's last three flirted with silly a bit). In a decade filled with really brutal cop movies, gory war flicks & end-of-humanity sci-fi downers, Bond was fairly fun, family oriented stuff.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Roger's Bond was what the franchise needed in the 70's during the years of really dark and gritty exploitation films.

    The 70's were a wild & crazy time. 71's DAF set the gently self-mocking tone that would be in place until 81's FYEO (and even then, Rog's last three flirted with silly a bit). In a decade filled with really brutal cop movies, gory war flicks & end-of-humanity sci-fi downers, Bond was fairly fun, family oriented stuff.
    I feel Moore was not necessarily miscast, but the screenwriters saw how his style worked in LALD and how he didn't pull off Connery in TMWTGG and set the films on a course of campiness that destined it to just go downhill after TSWLM and FYEO (I'm just pretending MR never happened).

    That being said, here are my own controversial opinions:

    1. Skyfall is not only overrated and overhyped, but is a genuinely bad film. It has a head-scratching plot even by Bond standards (Its plot holes are so large Blofeld could build a lair in them, so i'm not going to get started on those). it criminally underuses Severine, who had the potential to be as cool a character as Anne Hathaway's catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises, which brings me to my next point. Finally, It tries oh-so-hard to be Christopher Nolan-esque, at which it fails. At least it's a nice showcase for Roger Deakins. Sort of like Mary Goodnight. Nice to look at, but don't rely on it for logical cohesiveness.
    2. Licence to Kill is the better of TD's movies. This sentiment is motivated mostly by my absolute loathing for Maryam D'Abo's Kara and two lame-o villains in Brad Whitaker and georgi koskov.
    3. Goldfinger is not the quintessential Bond adventure (IMO that distinction goes to Thunderball). Still a Top-5er, but I think you can't do quintessential Bond without the exotic, tropical locales (yeah, GF has Miami, but we're not there for very long and, from what i can gather, it doesn't have much relevance to the plot. I mean, Bond meets Felix and Goldfinger there, but that could as easily have happened in some other, cooler place.) GF also has Switzerland, but doesn't utilize it nearly as well as OHMSS does. Thunderball, on the other hand, has a great PTS in France and the Bahamas are amazingly rendered throughout the film.
    My main reason, however, is that you can't have quintessential Bond without Blofeld in all his unseen, cat-stroking allure of mystery. While Savalas as Blofeld is my favorite villain of the entire series, I always felt that the faceless ESB at SPECTRE HQ ordering Largo to steal the bombs and hold the world to ransom completely oozed Bond more than any other film has.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Here's my controversial opinion for today:
    Connery's first four, Lazenby's one & Dalton's two are the only truly Flemingesque movies.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,964
    chrisisall wrote:
    Here's my controversial opinion for today:
    Connery's first four, Lazenby's one & Dalton's two are the only truly Flemingesque movies.

    And, of course, DAD. That film screams Fleming, perfection, and is highly ranked amongst the biggest of Bond fans. Right? Right, guys?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    DAD just screams.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Not sure how GF and TB count as Fleming esque but CR isn't.

    In fact GF is a perfect example. In the book's opening Bond is reflecting on what happened the day before, him killing the mexican hit man (not unlike the bit in the CR film where Bond is washing the blood off after the stair fight and stares into the mirror, struggling to come to terms with it).

    In the film Connery's Bond cracks a one liner about it. There's a sense of vulnerability to Flemings Bond that isn't in most of the films. The Craig films have done a decent job of showing it but he's like the Terminator in the fight scenes. I think OHMSS is the film that showed it the best.

    Which leads me to my controversial opinion: Lazenby was by far the most Flemingesqie Bond.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Here's my controversial opinion for today:
    Connery's first four, Lazenby's one & Dalton's two are the only truly Flemingesque movies.

    No love for For Your Eyes Only or the Craigs?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Not sure how GF and TB count as Fleming esque but CR isn't.

    In fact GF is a perfect example. In the book's opening Bond is reflecting on what happened the day before, him killing the mexican hit man (not unlike the bit in the CR film where Bond is washing the blood off after the stair fight and stares into the mirror, struggling to come to terms with it).

    In the film Connery's Bond cracks a one liner about it. There's a sense of vulnerability to Flemings Bond that isn't in most of the films. The Craig films have done a decent job of showing it but he's like the Terminator in the fight scenes. I think OHMSS is the film that showed it the best.

    Which leads me to my controversial opinion: Lazenby was by far the most Flemingesqie Bond.

    You are exceptionally cultivated! Bang on the money about Laz (although perhaps 'by far' is a bit strong as Sean, Tim and Dan also all have their moments).

    I would also say the only really truly Flemingesque films are DN, FRWL, OHMSS, TLD and CR.

    GF and TB embrace the humour, gadgets and over the topness of the cinematic Bond too much and I find Dalton's portrayal in LTK rather too grim and cold blooded to ring quite true for the book Bond. Although Bond is happy to seek vengeance for Tracy in YOLT he only does do when the opportunity presents itself and he does not calculatingly go after it from the start.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2013 Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote:
    Here's my controversial opinion for today:
    Connery's first four, Lazenby's one & Dalton's two are the only truly Flemingesque movies.

    No love for For Your Eyes Only or the Craigs?
    Oh, I love them okay, but in my view Bond's psyche isn't as solid as Moore's, nor a fragile as Craig's at times. He's on the edge, wobbling for sure, but never falling (until Fleming's last couple).
    To distil my controversial thought for today further, only DN, FRWL, OHMSS, TLD & LTK are Flemingesque.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I don't know how you can't call Casino Royale Flemingesque.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I don't know how you can't call Casino Royale Flemingesque.

    I guess I can, after a fashion...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Cec Linder was a great Felix Leiter.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 12,837
    chrisisall wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Here's my controversial opinion for today:
    Connery's first four, Lazenby's one & Dalton's two are the only truly Flemingesque movies.

    No love for For Your Eyes Only or the Craigs?
    Oh, I love them okay, but in my view Bond's psyche isn't as solid as Moore's, nor a fragile as Craig's at times. He's on the edge, wobbling for sure, but never falling (until Fleming's last couple).
    To distil my controversial thought for today further, only DN, FRWL, OHMSS, TLD & LTK are Flemingesque.

    LTK is Flemingesque in some ways but in others it isn't. Fleming showed that Bond wasn't always happy with his job but LTK takes it a step further and actually has him going rogue.

    I think it's a fantastic idea and I love how it's handled in LTK (which is my favourite Bond film) but would Fleming be happy with it? Like @Wizard said, even in YOLT he's only after revenge once Tanaka assigns him to kill Blofeld. LTK goes further than Fleming would've gone.

    Bond's also at his most cold blooded in LTK, more than he ever was in the books. I don't really understand when people label Flemings Bond as this cold blooded assassin/blunt instrument because if anything he was the opposite.

    Fleming's Bond often struggled with killing. There's the GF example that I mentioned but the most obvious one is Scaramanga. Bond has him cornered and wounded, and instead of ending it there and then he allows him to pray.

    Film Bond (especially the rogue assassin we see in LTK), wouldn't have even let things get this far. The cinematic Bond probably would've shot Scaramanga earlier in the car, when he had the chance, maybe even throwing in a quip afterwards.

    I've gone off on a bit of a rant now but my point was that while LTK is Flemingesque (mainly because it actually uses bits of Fleming), the character we see is pretty different and he is in most of the films.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    well put @thelivingroyale.

    The Bond of the books hated killing in cold blood, and a general apathy towards killing full stop.

    Fleming's Bond was a bit of a "softy" compared to the filmic version, especially Craig's 007.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 12,837
    It's why I think Lazenby is the closest to Fleming. He seems vulnerable and much less cold than the others.

    It's also one of the reasons why I think that Sean Connery could've ruined OHMSS if he'd returned.
  • It's also one of the reasons why I think that Sean Connery could've ruined OHMSS if he'd returned.
    Agreed, I've always thought Lazenby, for his faults, is far better in OHMSS than Connery would have been.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    That’s the great unanswered question in Bond fandom. Would Connery improve OHMSS?

    Certainly he had more filmic swagger than Fleming's Bond. But if we had Connery circa FRWL, then maybe. But if we'd had Connery circa YOLT, no thanks.
  • royale65 wrote:
    That’s the great unanswered question in Bond fandom. Would Connery improve OHMSS?

    Certainly he had more filmic swagger than Fleming's Bond. But if we had Connery circa FRWL, then maybe. But if we'd had Connery circa YOLT, no thanks.

    I think that had they gotten Connery a good script in a less chaotic environment in 1967, he still would have turned in a classic performance. They might then have been able to talk him into doing You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun according to the novels in 1969 and 1971, which both would have had the potential for being amazing.

    The pitfall here is that, having completed all the novels and thoroughly worn out the desire of their leading man (who would have been even bigger at this point) they might have been unwilling to continue the series, which would have denied us all the great Bond movies after that point. It would be a very steep trade-off, to be sure.
  • Posts: 11,189
    It's why I think Lazenby is the closest to Fleming. He seems vulnerable and much less cold than the others.

    It's also one of the reasons why I think that Sean Connery could've ruined OHMSS if he'd returned.

    I would agree in many ways that Laz is the closest to Fleming...but I suppose that's because the script allows him to be.

    I think Laz's performance is a bit hit-and-miss. Sometimes he's quite bad but when he gets it, he's bang on. I suppose the question is not so much "would Sean have made it better" but "would a more experienced actor have made OHMSS better"?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Cec Linder was a great Felix Leiter.

    I agree. He wasn't quite a Hedison or Wright, but he also wasn't a Terry.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I unfortunately find all the Felixes awful except Hedison and Wright.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I unfortunately find all the Felixes awful except Hedison and Wright.
    I think that's because they've been the only two actors so far given scripts that actually let them develop and deepen the character of Felix.
Sign In or Register to comment.