Controversial opinions about Bond films

1711712713714715717»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,826
    Popularity does not mean a unanimous consensus on something or someone being good and accepted by the public. The second half of Brosnan’s run was incredibly popular yet we are able to look at those two films through a critical lens and see just what worked and what didn’t work. Craig’s always been popular but you simply can’t pretend his era hasn’t been extremely polarizing.
    mtm wrote: »
    I haven't watched a lot of his stuff but I'm always quite surprised whenever I have seen his reviews just how critical he is of all of the Bonds I've seen him talk about. I guess for the sake of content he has to find something to talk about but it always surprises me just how much of the films he's a fan of he doesn't seem to like.

    You can be a fan of something and still be critical of it - the two aren’t really mutually exclusive. I can think of at least one flaw in every Bond film or one element that I don’t enjoy - that doesn’t mean I don’t like the films.
    Calvin seems to be a Moonraker fan. Don't expect consistent reviews from him.

    So what? That’s his opinion. I’ve seen you bash Goldeneye before, does that mean we shouldn’t expect consistency from you? Or should we chalk that up to your opinion and move on?

    Well, It's Moonraker. It's like Tarzan's yell. If you forgive that, you can forgive everything. The question is, why don't you do it?




    I’m not sure if I follow your argument.

    I think he's an extreme case of "if I like the movie, I don't care."

    Good for him, but he's not a reliable critic, IMO.
  • edited April 16 Posts: 5,049
    Yeah, I guess RT and IMDB reviews give a bit of a sense of how a film is received. To be honest I'm actually always quite surprised how many non-Bond fans I know seem to like NTTD. Ok, it's not their favourite film or anything like that (although maybe for some it's their favourite Bond film - it's not impossible), but for how polarising it can be as a Bond film for us, I think a lot of people simply got a lot out of it and were entertained and/or emotionally compelled by it. I think a lot of people thought it generally well made too (with some criticisms about story here and there). But I think it definitely has something to it, and people reacted to it, which I know annoys the film's critics (hell, it annoyed me a bit at one point!) I don't get the same sense from it as I do from people who talk about DAD (and for what it's worth I think some people unfairly call it a bad movie).
  • edited April 16 Posts: 2,505
    Popularity does not mean a unanimous consensus on something or someone being good and accepted by the public. The second half of Brosnan’s run was incredibly popular yet we are able to look at those two films through a critical lens and see just what worked and what didn’t work. Craig’s always been popular but you simply can’t pretend his era hasn’t been extremely polarizing.
    mtm wrote: »
    I haven't watched a lot of his stuff but I'm always quite surprised whenever I have seen his reviews just how critical he is of all of the Bonds I've seen him talk about. I guess for the sake of content he has to find something to talk about but it always surprises me just how much of the films he's a fan of he doesn't seem to like.

    You can be a fan of something and still be critical of it - the two aren’t really mutually exclusive. I can think of at least one flaw in every Bond film or one element that I don’t enjoy - that doesn’t mean I don’t like the films.
    Calvin seems to be a Moonraker fan. Don't expect consistent reviews from him.

    So what? That’s his opinion. I’ve seen you bash Goldeneye before, does that mean we shouldn’t expect consistency from you? Or should we chalk that up to your opinion and move on?

    Well, It's Moonraker. It's like Tarzan's yell. If you forgive that, you can forgive everything. The question is, why don't you do it?




    I’m not sure if I follow your argument.

    I think he's an extreme case of "if I like the movie, I don't care."

    Good for him, but he's not a reliable critic, IMO.

    Ah fair enough - I don’t really look to Calvin as a reliable critic so much as a passionate fan whose enthusiasm I find quite palpable, and Calvin himself can recognize when he has an opinion that others will disagree with. He knows Moonraker isn’t the best Bond film but he’ll still defend it and proclaim his love for it and I admire that. I’ve always been a fan of Bond, but I can remember coming to his channel for the first time and his love of the character was so passionate that it took my love and appreciation of these films to the next level. This would’ve been around 2014.
  • edited April 16 Posts: 5,049
    Well, you can love a movie and admit to loving it out of nostalgia and much of it appealing to your sensibilities. You can point out what you see as its strong points and what you got the most out of in terms of the viewing experience. You can still also acknowledge what you see as the flaws of said film and how much they detract from your overall enjoyment of it. It's not a case where one creative choice in a film diminishes your perspective. In fact damming a film on single creative choices without acknowledging anything else is arguably the sign of a very bad critic.

    I'd say Dyson's MR review is quite good. He acknowledges in his video that the film's plot is a bit flimsy and doesn't always hold up on close examination, but he says that when he's watching the film it's not something he thinks of. I agree, and it actually shows a pretty good insight into how the film works and what he gets out of it. He acknowledges what he sees as its flaws, but also explains what he likes about it. That's all anyone can do. I don't know about 'reliable critic' (that's subjective and at the end of the day he's a fan making his own videos, although I think he's rather good at it) but I don't see anything wrong with what he's put out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 16 Posts: 17,801
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I guess RT and IMDB reviews give a bit of a sense of how a film is received. To be honest I'm actually always quite surprised how many non-Bond fans I know seem to like NTTD. Ok, it's not their favourite film or anything like that (although maybe for some it's their favourite Bond film - it's not impossible), but for how polarising it can be as a Bond film for us, I think a lot of people simply got a lot out of it and were entertained and/or emotionally compelled by it. I think a lot of people thought it generally well made too (with some criticisms about story here and there). But I think it definitely has something to it, and people reacted to it, which I know annoys the film's critics (hell, it annoyed me a bit at one point!) I don't get the same sense from it as I do from people who talk about DAD (and for what it's worth I think some people unfairly call it a bad movie).

    Yeah I would say that NTTD is just not a bad film at all: it all functions, there's good stakes, good drama, exciting action, decent gags etc. I'd say the pace keeps up and the whole thing pays off much better than, say, Spectre does.
    Now personally I prefer Spectre: it feels more Bondy, I like the texture of it; but there is something wrong with it structurally and NTTD doesn't have that. It's a good solid film. To be honest I can't remember seeing any major criticisms of it, beyond just fans complaining that he dies at the end, or YouTube weirdos complaining that there's a black lady in it.
  • Posts: 5,049
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I guess RT and IMDB reviews give a bit of a sense of how a film is received. To be honest I'm actually always quite surprised how many non-Bond fans I know seem to like NTTD. Ok, it's not their favourite film or anything like that (although maybe for some it's their favourite Bond film - it's not impossible), but for how polarising it can be as a Bond film for us, I think a lot of people simply got a lot out of it and were entertained and/or emotionally compelled by it. I think a lot of people thought it generally well made too (with some criticisms about story here and there). But I think it definitely has something to it, and people reacted to it, which I know annoys the film's critics (hell, it annoyed me a bit at one point!) I don't get the same sense from it as I do from people who talk about DAD (and for what it's worth I think some people unfairly call it a bad movie).

    Yeah I would say that NTTD is just not a bad film at all: it all functions, there's good stakes, good drama, exciting action, decent gags etc. I'd say the pace keeps up and the whole thing pays off much better than, say, Spectre does.
    Now personally I prefer Spectre: it feels more Bondy, I like the texture of it; but there is something wrong with it structurally and NTTD doesn't have that. It's a good solid film. To be honest I can't remember seeing any major criticisms of it, beyond just fans complaining that he dies at the end, or YouTube weirdos complaining that there's a black lady in it.

    I certainly couldn't call NTTD a bad film, no. As much as I think it has flaws and things I don't like about it as a Bond film (insofar as the latter is relevant for everyone - and trust me, it's really not and is very subjective anyway) I can't deny a lot of people I know alone got something out of it on various emotional levels.

    I will say, one of the things that made me revaluate the film was putting aside my thoughts on Bond dying. I would have said at one time that I didn't get anything emotionally out of Bond's final scene (I can actually admit now this probably wasn't fully the truth!) Again, I think there's plenty I'm not as keen on with the film, but there's something to it that works overall.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    Well, you can love a movie and admit to loving it out of nostalgia and much of it appealing to your sensibilities. You can point out what you see as its strong points and what you got the most out of in terms of the viewing experience. You can still also acknowledge what you see as the flaws of said film and how much they detract from your overall enjoyment of it. It's not a case where one creative choice in a film diminishes your perspective.

    That’s where I’m at with both Goldfinger and OHMSS right now. I recognize both films are extremely flawed and aren’t to everyone’s taste. But I can’t quite bring myself to agree with people’s complaints, and in the case of Goldfinger - I never dreamt of the day where it would dethrone FRWL for title of my favorite Connery Bond - yet I feel pretty secure in saying that I think Goldfinger edges it out.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I guess RT and IMDB reviews give a bit of a sense of how a film is received. To be honest I'm actually always quite surprised how many non-Bond fans I know seem to like NTTD. Ok, it's not their favourite film or anything like that (although maybe for some it's their favourite Bond film - it's not impossible), but for how polarising it can be as a Bond film for us, I think a lot of people simply got a lot out of it and were entertained and/or emotionally compelled by it. I think a lot of people thought it generally well made too (with some criticisms about story here and there). But I think it definitely has something to it, and people reacted to it, which I know annoys the film's critics (hell, it annoyed me a bit at one point!) I don't get the same sense from it as I do from people who talk about DAD (and for what it's worth I think some people unfairly call it a bad movie).

    Yeah I would say that NTTD is just not a bad film at all: it all functions, there's good stakes, good drama, exciting action, decent gags etc. I'd say the pace keeps up and the whole thing pays off much better than, say, Spectre does.
    Now personally I prefer Spectre: it feels more Bondy, I like the texture of it; but there is something wrong with it structurally and NTTD doesn't have that. It's a good solid film. To be honest I can't remember seeing any major criticisms of it, beyond just fans complaining that he dies at the end, or YouTube weirdos complaining that there's a black lady in it.

    Personally I prefer NTTD to Spectre. I just felt NTTD embraced some of the more outlandish elements than Spectre - I loved the Cuba scene (very Brosnan-esque) - and while I have an issue with some of the big plot developments of Spectre - mainly the relationship between Bond and Madeline - I found that their chemistry in NTTD had greatly improved and I loved the scenes of “The Bond Family” - those moments genuinely tugged my heart strings.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,572
    OHMSS is a prime example of a film being excellent in spite of its weak leading star. And to be fair, Lazenby is good for a novice actor. Not ready for leading, but he had something. Might have even grown in the part if he didn’t quit. Shame that he shot himself in the foot.

    I always did think a better film for Lazenby would have been LALD. It’s essentially a chase movie, and would have benefitted his physicality more than OHMSS.

    Yes, LALD is the kind of movie he would have needed.

    Moore is more charismatic anyway. Lazenby would have killed the series in the long run.

    I absolutely agree @DEKE_RIVERS (first time for everything, 😂). He just didn't have the talent. It's not as if Lazenby was the type of guy to go back to school and start learning the steps to being a decent actor. And quite honestly, when he appeared in other films and TV, even a couple decades after OHMSS, he still hadn't improved (uncomfortable, clunky, a charming blank behind the eyes).

    And I say this as a big fan of OHMSS.
  • edited April 16 Posts: 1,826
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, you can love a movie and admit to loving it out of nostalgia and much of it appealing to your sensibilities. You can point out what you see as its strong points and what you got the most out of in terms of the viewing experience. You can still also acknowledge what you see as the flaws of said film and how much they detract from your overall enjoyment of it. It's not a case where one creative choice in a film diminishes your perspective. In fact damming a film on single creative choices without acknowledging anything else is arguably the sign of a very bad critic.

    I'd say Dyson's MR review is quite good. He acknowledges in his video that the film's plot is a bit flimsy and doesn't always hold up on close examination, but he says that when he's watching the film it's not something he thinks of. I agree, and it actually shows a pretty good insight into how the film works and what he gets out of it. He acknowledges what he sees as its flaws, but also explains what he likes about it. That's all anyone can do. I don't know about 'reliable critic' (that's subjective and at the end of the day he's a fan making his own videos, although I think he's rather good at it) but I don't see anything wrong with what he's put out.

    Yeah, but it doesn't matter because if he likes the movie he doesn't care about the flaws.

    It all depends on whether he slept well that day. ;)

    Sure, it's fun but a bit pointless.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,557
    NTTD was well liked across the board, and I’d even include Bond fans. Those that do gripe about that film are just a loud minority that won’t let it down and over time give the impression to those in Bond circles that it’s perhaps a very unpopular Bond film. Much like THE LAST JEDI has been among Star Wars fan circles. But I’m not falling for that gaslighting. It doesn’t hold a candle to CR and SF, but it’s still a well made flick with a few elements in the script that could have been more fleshed out.

    For example, one of my friends saw it despite not being all that enamored with Craig in the part of Bond. But with NTTD she actually cried at the end and kept singing its high praises.
  • Posts: 5,049
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, you can love a movie and admit to loving it out of nostalgia and much of it appealing to your sensibilities. You can point out what you see as its strong points and what you got the most out of in terms of the viewing experience. You can still also acknowledge what you see as the flaws of said film and how much they detract from your overall enjoyment of it. It's not a case where one creative choice in a film diminishes your perspective. In fact damming a film on single creative choices without acknowledging anything else is arguably the sign of a very bad critic.

    I'd say Dyson's MR review is quite good. He acknowledges in his video that the film's plot is a bit flimsy and doesn't always hold up on close examination, but he says that when he's watching the film it's not something he thinks of. I agree, and it actually shows a pretty good insight into how the film works and what he gets out of it. He acknowledges what he sees as its flaws, but also explains what he likes about it. That's all anyone can do. I don't know about 'reliable critic' (that's subjective and at the end of the day he's a fan making his own videos, although I think he's rather good at it) but I don't see anything wrong with what he's put out.

    Yeah, but it doesn't matter because if he likes the movie he doesn't care about the flaws.

    It all depends on whether he slept well that day. ;)

    Sure, it's fun but a bit pointless.

    As long as any of us sleep well at night I guess that's the main thing...
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, you can love a movie and admit to loving it out of nostalgia and much of it appealing to your sensibilities. You can point out what you see as its strong points and what you got the most out of in terms of the viewing experience. You can still also acknowledge what you see as the flaws of said film and how much they detract from your overall enjoyment of it. It's not a case where one creative choice in a film diminishes your perspective.

    That’s where I’m at with both Goldfinger and OHMSS right now. I recognize both films are extremely flawed and aren’t to everyone’s taste. But I can’t quite bring myself to agree with people’s complaints, and in the case of Goldfinger - I never dreamt of the day where it would dethrone FRWL for title of my favorite Connery Bond - yet I feel pretty secure in saying that I think Goldfinger edges it out.

    I get that. I love OHMSS but I feel it has its flaws when watching the film. I'll still go out of my way to watch and enjoy it. Same with any other film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 16 Posts: 17,801
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I guess RT and IMDB reviews give a bit of a sense of how a film is received. To be honest I'm actually always quite surprised how many non-Bond fans I know seem to like NTTD. Ok, it's not their favourite film or anything like that (although maybe for some it's their favourite Bond film - it's not impossible), but for how polarising it can be as a Bond film for us, I think a lot of people simply got a lot out of it and were entertained and/or emotionally compelled by it. I think a lot of people thought it generally well made too (with some criticisms about story here and there). But I think it definitely has something to it, and people reacted to it, which I know annoys the film's critics (hell, it annoyed me a bit at one point!) I don't get the same sense from it as I do from people who talk about DAD (and for what it's worth I think some people unfairly call it a bad movie).

    Yeah I would say that NTTD is just not a bad film at all: it all functions, there's good stakes, good drama, exciting action, decent gags etc. I'd say the pace keeps up and the whole thing pays off much better than, say, Spectre does.
    Now personally I prefer Spectre: it feels more Bondy, I like the texture of it; but there is something wrong with it structurally and NTTD doesn't have that. It's a good solid film. To be honest I can't remember seeing any major criticisms of it, beyond just fans complaining that he dies at the end, or YouTube weirdos complaining that there's a black lady in it.

    Personally I prefer NTTD to Spectre. I just felt NTTD embraced some of the more outlandish elements than Spectre - I loved the Cuba scene (very Brosnan-esque) - and while I have an issue with some of the big plot developments of Spectre - mainly the relationship between Bond and Madeline - I found that their chemistry in NTTD had greatly improved and I loved the scenes of “The Bond Family” - those moments genuinely tugged my heart strings.

    That's totally fair enough and I can understand that; as I say, I do think NTTD is the better film. I probably prefer Spectre, but that's just because of the bits which appeal to me, much like I love AVTAK despite knowing it's actually not terribly good: I think NTTD is more successful at being a film. My niggles are that I just wish it felt a bit Bondier- it's lacking the 007 feel that the previous two had for my money, and yet there's still stuff like Matera, and Bond living in Jamaica, which is almost the most Flemingy, Bondy thing in any of the films, despite not coming from any of the books.

    I think Craig made two of the very, very best Bond films, NTTD was a very good entry; Sp and QoS probably on the weaker end of things but still plenty to enjoy. But having two of the best ones under your belt is nothing to be ashamed of.
    NTTD was well liked across the board, and I’d even include Bond fans. Those that do gripe about that film are just a loud minority that won’t let it down and over time give the impression to those in Bond circles that it’s perhaps a very unpopular Bond film.

    Yeah I think that's absolutely right. I reckon most just pretty much enjoyed it without it being top of the pile necessarily, but don't feel the need to repeat it as much as those who keep complaining that he died.
  • mtm wrote: »
    That's totally fair enough and I can understand that; as I say, I do think NTTD is the better film. I probably prefer Spectre, but that's just because of the bits which appeal to me, much like I love AVTAK despite knowing it's actually not terribly good: I think NTTD is more successful at being a film. My niggles are that I just wish it felt a bit Bondier- it's lacking the 007 feel that the previous two had for my money, and yet there's still stuff like Matera, and Bond living in Jamaica, which is almost the most Flemingy, Bondy thing in any of the films, despite not coming from any of the books.

    I get that and I appreciate your views on the film. I very much felt that the Cuba scene just ticked everything I wanted out of a Bond film and watching it for the first time felt like I was being transported back to being a child and watching the Brosnan flicks for the first time. I loved the chemistry between Craig and Ana De Armas - loved the competitive undercurrent between Bond and Nomi - loved Blofeld’s eyeball being carried around on a sliver platter - loved Primo getting the edge on SPECTRE and poisoning them all. For me I was waiting for the Craig era to return to the OTT nature of the Bond films I grew up watching and NTTD did not disappoint in that regard.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,842
    The only positive thing I can say about B25 is, in a similar way to how Star Wars fans felt RotJ were redeemed by the prequels being much worse, B25 makes me look a lot kinder on Skyfall. Whatever flaws I think that film has and elements I can't get on board with, it still looks like Citizen Kane in comparison to the issues B25 has. I'll never understand how someone can see a coherent story in there. For me, the worst Bond film ever made including Never Say Never Again.
  • The only positive thing I can say about B25 is, in a similar way to how Star Wars fans felt RotJ were redeemed by the prequels being much worse, B25 makes me look a lot kinder on Skyfall. Whatever flaws I think that film has and elements I can't get on board with, it still looks like Citizen Kane in comparison to the issues B25 has. I'll never understand how someone can see a coherent story in there. For me, the worst Bond film ever made including Never Say Never Again.

    B25? I think you have it wrong - it’s B52’s.

    71sbIa3wceL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
  • Posts: 5,049
    The only positive thing I can say about B25 is, in a similar way to how Star Wars fans felt RotJ were redeemed by the prequels being much worse, B25 makes me look a lot kinder on Skyfall. Whatever flaws I think that film has and elements I can't get on board with, it still looks like Citizen Kane in comparison to the issues B25 has. I'll never understand how someone can see a coherent story in there. For me, the worst Bond film ever made including Never Say Never Again.

    B25? I think you have it wrong - it’s B52’s.

    71sbIa3wceL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

    B-52 - one of the best alcoholic shots I've ever had. Recommended.

    I also now have Rock Lobster stuck in my head!
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    The only positive thing I can say about B25 is, in a similar way to how Star Wars fans felt RotJ were redeemed by the prequels being much worse, B25 makes me look a lot kinder on Skyfall. Whatever flaws I think that film has and elements I can't get on board with, it still looks like Citizen Kane in comparison to the issues B25 has. I'll never understand how someone can see a coherent story in there. For me, the worst Bond film ever made including Never Say Never Again.

    B25? I think you have it wrong - it’s B52’s.

    71sbIa3wceL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

    B-52 - one of the best alcoholic shots I've ever had. Recommended.

    I also now have Rock Lobster stuck in my head!

    I don’t do shots these days - last one I was given was an “Irish Car Bomb” and it did a number on me that night.

    maxresdefault.jpg
  • edited April 16 Posts: 5,049
    007HallY wrote: »
    The only positive thing I can say about B25 is, in a similar way to how Star Wars fans felt RotJ were redeemed by the prequels being much worse, B25 makes me look a lot kinder on Skyfall. Whatever flaws I think that film has and elements I can't get on board with, it still looks like Citizen Kane in comparison to the issues B25 has. I'll never understand how someone can see a coherent story in there. For me, the worst Bond film ever made including Never Say Never Again.

    B25? I think you have it wrong - it’s B52’s.

    71sbIa3wceL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

    B-52 - one of the best alcoholic shots I've ever had. Recommended.

    I also now have Rock Lobster stuck in my head!

    I don’t do shots these days - last one I was given was an “Irish Car Bomb” and it did a number on me that night.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    Lethal :)) Definitely been there.

    Casino-Royale-Poisoning-James-Bond.jpg

    Anyway, sorry, derailed that conversation slightly. We were moaning about Bond 52 I believe?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,557
    Irish Car Bombs are probably the smoothest and tastiest shots I’ve ever had.
Sign In or Register to comment.