SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

Getafix

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Amen to all of this. One of the best summaries of GE I've ever read on here. How this dire film is rated so highly I will never know.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Going back to the thread title, although I'm no fan of SF, I have to acknowledge that it is clearly a better film than GE.

CraigMooreOHMSS

Mental.

mtm

Getafix wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Well I'm certainly surprised to read that on a Bond forum. I'm not sure how it's out of character for Bond to cause destruction.
What I love about that scene is the look on Natalya's face: she's overjoyed that he's coming to save her, and I love that he goes through all of that to save a woman he's only just met.

I genuinely had no idea any Bond fans disliked that scene though.

NicNac

Well calling the plane stunt

mtm wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Well I'm certainly surprised to read that on a Bond forum. I'm not sure how it's out of character for Bond to cause destruction.
What I love about that scene is the look on Natalya's face: she's overjoyed that he's coming to save her, and I love that he goes through all of that to save a woman he's only just met.

I do agree.
I keep reading how LTK is so 'Fleming-esque', yet here is Bond running rough shod over everyone, wrecking a carefully planned sting by the Chinese, wrecking Pam's set up with one of Sanchez's men, getting a British civil servant killed, disobeying orders, beating his own men up, flashing Sanchez's money around in Sanchez's own casino whilst apparently intending to infiltrate Sanchez's set up (thank goodness Sanchez isn't bright enough to put together his missing money with the sudden appearance of a British agent with the exact same amount eh? Phew). There's an uncultured moron in my book.

jetsetwilly

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

+1. Spot on, man!

Just reading this makes me remember how bad GE actually is. Its also a nasty reminder of how bad the Brozza era was in general.

jetsetwilly

NicNac wrote: »

Well calling the plane stunt

mtm wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Well I'm certainly surprised to read that on a Bond forum. I'm not sure how it's out of character for Bond to cause destruction.
What I love about that scene is the look on Natalya's face: she's overjoyed that he's coming to save her, and I love that he goes through all of that to save a woman he's only just met.

I do agree.
I keep reading how LTK is so 'Fleming-esque', yet here is Bond running rough shod over everyone, wrecking a carefully planned sting by the Chinese, wrecking Pam's set up with one of Sanchez's men, getting a British civil servant killed, disobeying orders, beating his own men up, flashing Sanchez's money around in Sanchez's own casino whilst apparently intending to infiltrate Sanchez's set up (thank goodness Sanchez isn't bright enough to put together his missing money with the sudden appearance of a British agent with the exact same amount eh? Phew). There's an uncultured moron in my book.

In 1989 it was the first time we'd ever seen Bond go rogue, and be driven by revenge. In the books Bond was often driven by revenge as a personal motive.

The overall tone of LTK is very downbeat, even realistic (other than the truck stunts at the end) and serious in tone too, but its Dalton's performance which really nails Fleming. This is why it feels more like the novels.

Since 1989 Bond going rogue and driven by revenge is the norm - it happens just about every film now.

MajorDSmythe

I don't need to whip out my Dalton:Bond credentials, i'm sure everyone knows what they are. Personally, I don't think LTK is particularly Fleming-esque, beyond the scraps of various full and short stories that make up parts of the film. TLD is positively dripping with Fleming, LTK.... not so much. Not being Fleming-esque, or as I prefer to think of it in the case of LTK, letting Bond off the leash, is one of the things I like about the film.

Escalus5

Getafix wrote: »

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Another problem: The filmmakers didn't seem to understand that they could create a lot more suspense by making Bond the vulnerable one and putting him in the car and the villains in the tank pursuing. This is the same issue I have with the stupid plane / car chase in SPECTRE.

Shardlake

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

mtm

NicNac wrote: »

Well calling the plane stunt

mtm wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Well I'm certainly surprised to read that on a Bond forum. I'm not sure how it's out of character for Bond to cause destruction.
What I love about that scene is the look on Natalya's face: she's overjoyed that he's coming to save her, and I love that he goes through all of that to save a woman he's only just met.

I do agree.
I keep reading how LTK is so 'Fleming-esque', yet here is Bond running rough shod over everyone, wrecking a carefully planned sting by the Chinese, wrecking Pam's set up with one of Sanchez's men, getting a British civil servant killed, disobeying orders, beating his own men up, flashing Sanchez's money around in Sanchez's own casino whilst apparently intending to infiltrate Sanchez's set up (thank goodness Sanchez isn't bright enough to put together his missing money with the sudden appearance of a British agent with the exact same amount eh? Phew). There's an uncultured moron in my book.

Haha! It's a very good point: there's an awful lot completely contrary to Fleming -especially Fleming's version of Bond- in there. He's very reactive and a tiny bit psychopathic, and as you say: in some places he does more harm than good by not actually thinking.

jetsetwilly wrote: »

NicNac wrote: »

Well calling the plane stunt

mtm wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Well I'm certainly surprised to read that on a Bond forum. I'm not sure how it's out of character for Bond to cause destruction.
What I love about that scene is the look on Natalya's face: she's overjoyed that he's coming to save her, and I love that he goes through all of that to save a woman he's only just met.

I do agree.
I keep reading how LTK is so 'Fleming-esque', yet here is Bond running rough shod over everyone, wrecking a carefully planned sting by the Chinese, wrecking Pam's set up with one of Sanchez's men, getting a British civil servant killed, disobeying orders, beating his own men up, flashing Sanchez's money around in Sanchez's own casino whilst apparently intending to infiltrate Sanchez's set up (thank goodness Sanchez isn't bright enough to put together his missing money with the sudden appearance of a British agent with the exact same amount eh? Phew). There's an uncultured moron in my book.

In 1989 it was the first time we'd ever seen Bond go rogue, and be driven by revenge. In the books Bond was often driven by revenge as a personal motive.

Is he? And yet I see an awful lot of fans complaining that the films are always too personal.

jetsetwilly wrote: »

The overall tone of LTK is very downbeat, even realistic (other than the truck stunts at the end) and serious in tone too, but its Dalton's performance which really nails Fleming.

I don't think so, no. Bond isn't really as unhinged and reckless as that. Still, at least we found a Bond film that you actually like! :D

TripAces

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

jetsetwilly

mtm wrote: »

I don't think so, no. Bond isn't really as unhinged and reckless as that. Still, at least we found a Bond film that you actually like! :D

In the novels Bond's revenge motives are evident, whether its avenging the death of Tracey, or something smaller like avenging Felix in LALD, but its usually conveyed as internal thoughts and anger by Fleming.

I still say LTK is the most Fleming Bond I've seen on screen - even moreso than any early 60's Bond's too.

And there are a few other Bond films I like too - GF, FRWL, OHMSS, Dr. No, LTK, TLD, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TB and CR.... ;)

NicNac

Birdleson wrote: »

I don’t get how anything can be overrated or underrated. It’s preference and perception and priority.

That's always been my argument. When I read 'Is Film X overrated?' my first thought is, overrated by who? The critics, the public, or the fans?
Everything is subjective.

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

I don't need to whip out my Dalton:Bond credentials, i'm sure everyone knows what they are. Personally, I don't think LTK is particularly Fleming-esque, beyond the scraps of various full and short stories that make up parts of the film. TLD is positively dripping with Fleming, LTK.... not so much. Not being Fleming-esque, or as I prefer to think of it in the case of LTK, letting Bond off the leash, is one of the things I like about the film.

You're always whipping something out Major.

CraigMooreOHMSS

Escalus5 wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Another problem: The filmmakers didn't seem to understand that they could create a lot more suspense by making Bond the vulnerable one and putting him in the car and the villains in the tank pursuing. This is the same issue I have with the stupid plane / car chase in SPECTRE.

It's not a problem, because that's only one of many ways of creating suspense. Though I agree that the plane pursuit in SPECTRE is very poor. The tank chase leaves it for dust in the excitement department.

mtm

jetsetwilly wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

I don't think so, no. Bond isn't really as unhinged and reckless as that. Still, at least we found a Bond film that you actually like! :D

In the novels Bond's revenge motives are evident, whether its avenging the death of Tracey, or something smaller like avenging Felix in LALD, but its usually conveyed as internal thoughts and anger by Fleming.

Just twice then! ;) I actually can't honestly remember much internal drive from Bond when Felix is hurt, but I'm sure there must be: it would be weird if there wasn't.

jetsetwilly wrote: »

I still say LTK is the most Fleming Bond I've seen on screen - even moreso than any early 60's Bond's too.

I think I'd probably go for OHMSS (Lazenby is, for me, the closest to book Bond: because in the main he isn't really there! All of the others give him more personality than Fleming does, really), or perhaps CR, because it's the most pleasingly crazy Fleming plot.

mtm

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

Escalus5 wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Another problem: The filmmakers didn't seem to understand that they could create a lot more suspense by making Bond the vulnerable one and putting him in the car and the villains in the tank pursuing. This is the same issue I have with the stupid plane / car chase in SPECTRE.

It's not a problem, because that's only one of many ways of creating suspense. Though I agree that the plane pursuit in SPECTRE is very poor. The tank chase leaves it for dust in the excitement department.

Yeah it is funny how similar they are in construction and stakes, but the Spectre one definitely feels a bit flat in comparison. Would perhaps the Bond theme blaring out help? I don't think it would fix it, but it might perk it up a little.

jetsetwilly

mtm wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

I don't think so, no. Bond isn't really as unhinged and reckless as that. Still, at least we found a Bond film that you actually like! :D

In the novels Bond's revenge motives are evident, whether its avenging the death of Tracey, or something smaller like avenging Felix in LALD, but its usually conveyed as internal thoughts and anger by Fleming.

Just twice then! ;) I actually can't honestly remember much internal drive from Bond when Felix is hurt, but I'm sure there must be: it would be weird if there wasn't.

You Only Avenge Twice!

No, it happens frequently in the novels. Bond digging the nails into his palms thinking of Kidd and Wint kicking him nearly to death with their football boots, avenging Quarrel's death in Dr. No.

Even Bond's disgust at The Robber in LALD, or Oddjob killing the cat in GF, or Scaramanga killing the 2 birds in TMWTGG usually provokes an internal reaction in Bond, and usually its a method of justifying to himself when killing someone.

suavejmf

In answer to the thread question....no. SF isn’t even a top 5 Bond film. For starters the untouchable first four destroy it!!!

Getafix

Escalus5 wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Another problem: The filmmakers didn't seem to understand that they could create a lot more suspense by making Bond the vulnerable one and putting him in the car and the villains in the tank pursuing. This is the same issue I have with the stupid plane / car chase in SPECTRE.

Totally agree. I've said this many times in recent years. Ditto the PTS in CR and SF where Bond chases the villain in a bulldozer and a digger respectively.

It's almost always much more exciting when Bond is the one being chased. Struggling to think when we had a good manhunt where Bond is being chased. It used to happen all the time in the early films. OHMSS has one of the best, where Laz ends up looking terrified and defeated and gets saved by Tracey. These were genuinely suspenseful and thrilling Bond moments.

And yes I totally agree, had it been the villain chasing Bond in the tank in GE it would have been a lot more Bondian.

Bond does not usually go around wrecking the great historic cities of Europe. That's what the baddies do- or threaten to do anyway.

Bond is there to save civilisation, not destroy it. I can't think of another moment in a Bond film where he wantonly wrecks a beautiful city. It's one of the reasons I always disliked the "standard operating procedure" line, as it's really not what defines Bond at all. Bar the villain's lair and odd car chase, Bond is notably not a wrecker and destroyer. Quite the opposite.

mtm

jetsetwilly wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

I don't think so, no. Bond isn't really as unhinged and reckless as that. Still, at least we found a Bond film that you actually like! :D

In the novels Bond's revenge motives are evident, whether its avenging the death of Tracey, or something smaller like avenging Felix in LALD, but its usually conveyed as internal thoughts and anger by Fleming.

Just twice then! ;) I actually can't honestly remember much internal drive from Bond when Felix is hurt, but I'm sure there must be: it would be weird if there wasn't.

You Only Avenge Twice!

No, it happens frequently in the novels. Bond digging the nails into his palms thinking of Kidd and Wint kicking him nearly to death with their football boots, avenging Quarrel's death in Dr. No.

Even Bond's disgust at The Robber in LALD, or Oddjob killing the cat in GF, or Scaramanga killing the 2 birds in TMWTGG usually provokes an internal reaction in Bond, and usually its a method of justifying to himself when killing someone.

Well that's him getting angry because the bad guys are, well.. bad. Even Roger shows a bit of that occasionally! :D

mtm

Getafix wrote: »

Escalus5 wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Bond smashing a tank through St Petersburg is probably the most un Bondian moment in the entire series. Bond is not supposed to be an uncultured moron but this is what GE turns him into.

Another problem: The filmmakers didn't seem to understand that they could create a lot more suspense by making Bond the vulnerable one and putting him in the car and the villains in the tank pursuing. This is the same issue I have with the stupid plane / car chase in SPECTRE.

Totally agree. I've said this many times in recent years. Ditto the PTS in CR and SF where Bond chases the villain in a bulldozer and a digger respectively.

It's almost always much more exciting when Bond is the one being chased. Struggling to think when we had a good manhunt where Bond is being chased. It used to happen all the time in the early films. OHMSS has one of the best, where Laz ends up looking terrified and defeated and gets saved by Tracey. These were genuinely suspenseful and thrilling Bond moments.

And yes I totally agree, had it been the villain chasing Bond in the tank in GE it would have been a lot more Bondian.

That would be rubbish and extremely ordinary though. There's so much character stuff going on because it's Bond doing the chasing. It's funny because it's Bond doing it.

CraigMooreOHMSS

I don't buy into this notion at all. There have been some outstanding chases where Bond is the pursuer and some pretty poor ones too. Vice versa, some great ones and some poor ones where he is the one being chased. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter whether he's the pursuer or not, as long as the sequence is well made, explosive and exciting - which the GoldenEye tank chase and the Parkour pursuit in CR most definitely are.

The notion that a sequence is "less Bondian" because he's the one doing the chasing is very silly, imo.

Shardlake

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

I love SF no problem with me, my issue that LTK is more Fleming like than SF.

What because Dalton is in it, Dalton is more Fleming like in TLD. LTK is like some knock off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.

In the same way that some like to say QOS is a Bourne rip off, the same can be said for LTK it a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard, it even has the same person doing the score.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

mtm

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

I don't buy into this notion at all. There have been some outstanding chases where Bond is the pursuer and some pretty poor ones too. Vice versa, some great ones and some poor ones where he is the one being chased. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter whether he's the pursuer or not, as long as the sequence is well made, explosive and exciting - which the GoldenEye tank chase and the Parkour pursuit in CR most definitely are.

The notion that a sequence is "less Bondian" because he's the one doing the chasing is very silly, imo.

Yeah, it's nonsense.

jetsetwilly

Shardlake wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

I love SF no problem with me, my issue that LTK is more Fleming like than SF.

What because Dalton is in it, Dalton is more Fleming like in TLD. LTK is like some knock off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.

In the same way that some like to say QOS is a Bourne rip off, the same can be said for LTK it a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard, it even has the same person doing the score.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

That last sentence of yours is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet today (and there is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet right now)!

Craig's Bond in SF is like a sulky teenager for the first part, then a washed up has-been, then a hen-pecked cuckold of M by the last part. I see very little of Fleming at all in SF, and I'm amazed if anyone sees anything of Fleming in it.

LTK feels like a modern day take on Fleming in every way possible. It also mirrors a lot of TMWTGG. Dalton's performance in this film is the closest, and I mean absolute closest - we have ever seen to the literary character on screen. I seriously doubt any actor will get that close again.

mtm

Shardlake wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

I think both have their moments. Dalton certainly dresses much more like FlemBond, especially in Key West- I'm not sure someone has looked more like the book Bond, and he certainly doesn't lay around in a leather jacket drinking beer. But then the bit where Bond has a drinking contest against a scorpion- that's got a lovely bit of Fleming to it!

Shardlake

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

I love SF no problem with me, my issue that LTK is more Fleming like than SF.

What because Dalton is in it, Dalton is more Fleming like in TLD. LTK is like some knock off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.

In the same way that some like to say QOS is a Bourne rip off, the same can be said for LTK it a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard, it even has the same person doing the score.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

That last sentence of yours is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet today (and there is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet right now)!

Craig's Bond in SF is like a sulky teenager for the first part, then a washed up has-been, then a hen-pecked cuckold of M by the last part. I see very little of Fleming at all in SF, and I'm amazed if anyone sees anything of Fleming in it.

LTK feels like a modern day take on Fleming in every way possible. It also mirrors a lot of TMWTGG. Dalton's performance in this film is the closest, and I mean absolute closest - we have ever seen to the literary character on screen. I seriously doubt any actor will get that close again.

It resembles late 80's violent actioner, I totally disagree, Dalton has not cornered the market on this Craig represents Fleming Bond better in CR than anything that Tim did.

His performance is stagey, he isn't that confident in his delivery and his accent can't even stay consistent.

I love TLD but LTK is at times not like a Bond film.

Craig is a far superior cinematic actor to Dalton, Craig has total confidence in his performances, Dalton doesn't.

jetsetwilly

Shardlake wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

I love SF no problem with me, my issue that LTK is more Fleming like than SF.

What because Dalton is in it, Dalton is more Fleming like in TLD. LTK is like some knock off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.

In the same way that some like to say QOS is a Bourne rip off, the same can be said for LTK it a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard, it even has the same person doing the score.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

That last sentence of yours is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet today (and there is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet right now)!

Craig's Bond in SF is like a sulky teenager for the first part, then a washed up has-been, then a hen-pecked cuckold of M by the last part. I see very little of Fleming at all in SF, and I'm amazed if anyone sees anything of Fleming in it.

LTK feels like a modern day take on Fleming in every way possible. It also mirrors a lot of TMWTGG. Dalton's performance in this film is the closest, and I mean absolute closest - we have ever seen to the literary character on screen. I seriously doubt any actor will get that close again.

It resembles late 80's violent actioner, I totally disagree, Dalton has not cornered the market on this Craig represents Fleming Bond better in CR than anything that Tim did.

Let's agree to disagree. You ain't going to change my mind, and I ain't going to change yours either.

Peace.

Shardlake

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Shardlake wrote: »

In the same way that SF is regarded overrated because of how the general public perceive it and the acclaim it received that some Bond fans just don't see.

LTK is very overrated in the Bond fan community, some Dalton fans are willing to let a film with jarring tonal shifts and utter cheese on display off.

The film never is convinced what it is, a gritty revenge thriller or a standard Bond on a mission film.

Q turning up while Bond supposedly rogue to deliver the worst bag of tricks of the series totally undermines all the serious intentions beforehand. Bond should have attempted his hit on Sanchez using his wits and expertise rather than an old man helping him out.

SF is deemed overrated by a small percentage of Bond fans. This isn't an absolute.

I love SF no problem with me, my issue that LTK is more Fleming like than SF.

What because Dalton is in it, Dalton is more Fleming like in TLD. LTK is like some knock off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.

In the same way that some like to say QOS is a Bourne rip off, the same can be said for LTK it a Lethal Weapon/Die Hard, it even has the same person doing the score.

To be honest I would say Craig embodies Fleming more in SF than Dalton does in LTK.

That last sentence of yours is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet today (and there is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet right now)!

Craig's Bond in SF is like a sulky teenager for the first part, then a washed up has-been, then a hen-pecked cuckold of M by the last part. I see very little of Fleming at all in SF, and I'm amazed if anyone sees anything of Fleming in it.

LTK feels like a modern day take on Fleming in every way possible. It also mirrors a lot of TMWTGG. Dalton's performance in this film is the closest, and I mean absolute closest - we have ever seen to the literary character on screen. I seriously doubt any actor will get that close again.

It resembles late 80's violent actioner, I totally disagree, Dalton has not cornered the market on this Craig represents Fleming Bond better in CR than anything that Tim did.

Let's agree to disagree. You ain't going to change my mind, and I ain't going to change yours either.

Peace.

Fair enough you are right we aren't.

CraigMooreOHMSS

I think Dalton in TLD is the performance to beat in terms of Fleming's Bond being lifted from the page and meshed with what we had come to expect from cinematic Bond.