›

Biggest change in opinion regarding anything Bond-y?

1234568»

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,077
    Walecs wrote: »
    QoS was one of my least favourite Bond movies (I think it was #21 in my ranking, with AVTAK and YOLT being #22 and #23) but now it's #3 in my ranking.

    That's quite a leap!

    QoS seems to have that affect with repeat viewings.

    Possibly the most underrated Bond film IMO.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Moonraker used to be my favourite Moore Bond film. While I still think it’s his best performance in the role, For Your Eyes Only has now taken it’s place after my last viewing.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    When I saw Goldeneye I though Brosnan was a good combination of Connery & Moore.

    However, now looking back at his tenure, Brosnan did not bring anything new to the table, he played it safe. It feels like they just took a handsome model, put a Tuxedo on him, gave him a martini and said: "Go and look cool". Brosnan's take on Bond feels very artificial, and any attempt to add his own take on it is disrupted or ruined by the awful movie scripts he has to work with (bar GE).

    With Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig you really notice them naturally taking on the role of Bond and adding something new, whereas Brosnan more feels like the "icon" of Bond. What we expect of Bond, he seems a bit too perfect. Brosnan's James Bond was lackadaisical and smug – what once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as laziness. The 90's action-packed Bond did not age well compared to the classic 60's Connery era or the refined 80's Dalton hits. Only GoldenEye is better than average (just), the three films after that are mediocre, with his last one being an absolute trainwreck.

    Ever since Craig's Casino Royale, Brosnan's Bond films decidedly Un-Flemingesque.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,077
    suavejmf wrote: »
    When I saw Goldeneye I though Brosnan was a good combination of Connery & Moore.

    However, now looking back at his tenure, Brosnan did not bring anything new to the table, he played it safe. It feels like they just took a handsome model, put a Tuxedo on him, gave him a martini and said: "Go and look cool". Brosnan's take on Bond feels very artificial, and any attempt to add his own take on it is disrupted or ruined by the awful movie scripts he has to work with (bar GE).

    With Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig you really notice them naturally taking on the role of Bond and adding something new, whereas Brosnan more feels like the "icon" of Bond. What we expect of Bond, he seems a bit too perfect. Brosnan's James Bond was lackadaisical and smug – what once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as laziness. The 90's action-packed Bond did not age well compared to the classic 60's Connery era or the refined 80's Dalton hits. Only GoldenEye is better than average (just), the three films after that are mediocre, with his last one being an absolute trainwreck.

    Ever since Craig's Casino Royale, Brosnan's Bond films decidedly Un-Flemingesque.

    I agree with most of this. I liked Brosnan in the role until Craig came along and really became Bond.

    Admittedly Brosnan didn't get the meaty scripts that Craig got (not SP though) but compared with him, Brosnan is a flyweight.
  • IGotABrudderIGotABrudder UK
    Posts: 631
    Biggest change in my opinion has been Moonraker.

    I saw it in the cinema when it came out and thought, hmm, not as good as TSWLM, and the bits in space are really naff. For many years I never watched it at all.

    Now however I really enjoy it. And I even like the stuff in space. The Moonraker space shuttle, with the orange go-faster stripe, is a magnificent thing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,356
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Sean Connery's performance in DAF.

    For the longest time I truly disliked it. Every time I've seen the film over the past few years my appreciation for both the film and also Connery in it has increased, to the point where I now think it's a truly top notch performance. I also think he looks pretty good in some scenes, despite the slightly portly appearance and bushy brows.

    To a degree, the same thing applies to my views on Dalton in LTK. When I first saw the film I couldn't stand either. Now it's a firm top 10 entry of mine and Dalton continues to move up my actor rankings, having recently bumped Craig down a notch.

    I can't say DAF is going to get into my top 10, but I really do like the film these days, as I do the other 70's Hamilton entries with Roger.

    The DAF performance is an interesting one. I've always enjoyed DAF very much, and Connery's performance in it. The reason being, it's very clear from the start what kind of film this is – and Connery carry that lighthearted, confident performance throughout. He and Charles Gray are great together too, and Gray is a perfect Blofeld for this type of Bond film.

    For this reason, I've always had trouble ranking DAF. It gets more enjoyable for each viewing, so it will most likely find it's way to a top ten – maybe top eight even, the next time around. I like it too much not to.

    Also agree re. LTK and Dalton. Didn't like that film when I was younger. Now it's an entry I find myself enjoying – even with the obvious late eighties nod to Die Hard etc. A film of it's time, it's very understandable they went in that direction with Dalton in the role.

    I definitely prefer Connery's performance in DAF to that in YOLT. And Gray makes for a more menacing Blofeld than Pleasance, although both pale next to Savalas.
Sign In or Register to comment.