Controversial opinions about Bond films

1394395397399400707

Comments

  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    I absolutely agree. Might actually qualify as the rarest of the rarest of opinions here on this forum.

    For me it's GE>TWINE>DAD>TND. Love the first two. TND I don't mind but I prefer DAD because as stupid as it is, it's at least out there and memorable and very James Bond, while TND gets very bland and generic by the end imo.

    I think on balance I'd say I prefer the Brosnan era to the Craig era too. Partly because of nostalgia, partly just because I preferred the more old school straightforward approach, and because while the Brosnan era is a mixed bag there isn't a film there I hate as much as QoS.

    The weakest era for me is the Moore era. I think LALD is decent, TMWTGG is terrible, TSWLM is great, MR is pretty poor, FYEO is really forgettable, OP is great, and AVTAK is pretty poor.

    So only three films out of seven there that I think are actually good, and I'm not even particularly fond of LALD. I love Roger as Bond and to be fair, all those films do always have stuff going for them. But that's probably the weakest overall for me.
  • Posts: 15,117
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.

    In fairness I think Brozza himself does improve with every film (possible exception of painface overload and 'Knew all about my shooouuulder' in TWINE) and I wouldn't level a single fault of DAD with him as he gives a very slick performance even with everything collapsing around him. He was very badly served by scripts and directors and was the patsy for Babs and MGW making some appalling decisions on DAD which nearly sunk the series.

    Broz deserves to be given a decent amount of respect for resurrecting the series and always being professional and doing his job.

  • Posts: 12,466
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    I absolutely agree. Might actually qualify as the rarest of the rarest of opinions here on this forum.

    For me it's GE>TWINE>DAD>TND. Love the first two. TND I don't mind but I prefer DAD because as stupid as it is, it's at least out there and memorable and very James Bond, while TND gets very bland and generic by the end imo.

    I think on balance I'd say I prefer the Brosnan era to the Craig era too. Partly because of nostalgia, partly just because I preferred the more old school straightforward approach, and because while the Brosnan era is a mixed bag there isn't a film there I hate as much as QoS.

    The weakest era for me is the Moore era. I think LALD is decent, TMWTGG is terrible, TSWLM is great, MR is pretty poor, FYEO is really forgettable, OP is great, and AVTAK is pretty poor.

    So only three films out of seven there that I think are actually good, and I'm not even particularly fond of LALD. I love Roger as Bond and to be fair, all those films do always have stuff going for them. But that's probably the weakest overall for me.

    For me, the Moore era is a mixed bag, but I would lean positive.

    LALD = unique, really good
    TMWTGG = meh; besides the villain, pretty weak
    TSWLM = great, one of the series’ best
    MR = maybe the worst Bond film
    FYEO = really good; the most basic, Connery-esque film of Moore’s, and I like it
    OP = sometimes too silly, but overall good and fun
    AVTAK = not strong overall, but has good elements like the title song and villain

    1. TSWLM
    2. FYEO
    3. LALD
    4. OP
    5. AVTAK
    6. TMWTGG
    7. MR
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730

    FoxRox wrote: »
    DAF is the third-weakest EON Bond film ever for me. A huge step back from the 60s films. A few elements keep it above my bottom two, but it definitely needs to be near the bottom of my list.

    Yeah, it’s my least favorite bond film. It feels cheap, there is too much america, connery is shit in it, the plot is shit, the action is shit. Blofeld is trash in it. The henchman are amazing, those two are awesome, however it cannot save this film. Ay it’s ten times better than never say never again tho.
  • Posts: 15,117
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.

    In fairness I think Brozza himself does improve with every film (possible exception of painface overload and 'Knew all about my shooouuulder' in TWINE) and I wouldn't level a single fault of DAD with him as he gives a very slick performance even with everything collapsing around him. He was very badly served by scripts and directors and was the patsy for Babs and MGW making some appalling decisions on DAD which nearly sunk the series.

    Broz deserves to be given a decent amount of respect for resurrecting the series and always being professional and doing his job.

    I'd agree with this especially about resurrecting the series. He brought back and kept Bond on the radar. But he himself said in an interview that after GE his other Bonds are blurry to him, there's his first then the other ones. He also said that TND was just not as good as GE.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,120
    About Craig's era, I think one thing they've really lost and which is very important for me is the playfulness. Dalton had some pretty serious films but they never lost that unique Bondian feel. The Craig films on the other hand take themselves so seriously it comes of as pretentious. There is no self-awareness.

    Give me some existential drama any day, but not in a Bond film. I'll gladly turn to Antonioni or Bergman for such occasions.

    I also feel Craig is sleepwalking half of the time, sometimes I think the guy has only two emotions: repressed anger and tough guy.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Seems like a controversial opinion that Moonraker is actually not one of the worst movies... but I suppose it depends on the mindset you have coming into it all.
  • Posts: 12,466
    I can’t help but put MR at the bottom. Drax is an okay villain and the title song and PTS are decent, but that’s about it for me. Don’t care for the Bond girls in it (forgettable) and I feel like it’s Moore’s least good performance as Bond. Don’t care for the idea of Bond being in space.
  • Posts: 684
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    About Craig's era, I think one thing they've really lost and which is very important for me is the playfulness. Dalton had some pretty serious films but they never lost that unique Bondian feel. The Craig films on the other hand take themselves so seriously it comes of as pretentious. There is no self-awareness.
    Yes, a good point. Ties into the 'popcorn' merit I mentioned above. I wonder which of Craig's have been closest in this sense to Brosnan's? CR seems the obvious example (having the most traditionally playful moments), but QOS is such a ride that I might give it the edge.
    Seems like a controversial opinion that Moonraker is actually not one of the worst movies... but I suppose it depends on the mindset you have coming into it all.
    Controversial definitely, but I agree. It skirts the top ten for me, amazingly. Bar several seconds-long lapses of all worldly judgement, it's an amazing piece of filmmaking. The series would be much poorer without it. Though I do of course realize the insanity of this position.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Strog wrote: »
    Controversial definitely, but I agree. It skirts the top ten for me, amazingly. Bar several seconds-long lapses of all worldly judgement, it's an amazing piece of filmmaking. The series would be much poorer without it. Though I do of course realize the insanity of this position.

    Couldn't agree more. I can't really trust someone who is so up their own arse they can't sit back and enjoy the greatness MR for what it is - exceptional popcorn entertainment.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    About Craig's era, I think one thing they've really lost and which is very important for me is the playfulness. Dalton had some pretty serious films but they never lost that unique Bondian feel. The Craig films on the other hand take themselves so seriously it comes of as pretentious. There is no self-awareness.

    Give me some existential drama any day, but not in a Bond film. I'll gladly turn to Antonioni or Bergman for such occasions.

    I also feel Craig is sleepwalking half of the time, sometimes I think the guy has only two emotions: repressed anger and tough guy.
    I quite agree. They really have to tailor a film to his strengths for it to work in my view and that constrains them to an extent. Brosnan also had limitations, but his were quite different. They tried something new with the emotional tangent in TWINE (probably Babs' idea) and he couldn't pull it off (imho). So they went back to what worked for him as an actor in DAD. Craig in contrast has been great with the moody TWINE style stuff (heck, he's the only Bond actor who can pull off bawling on screen without seeming effeminate), but I haven't found him all that credible attempting the cool insouciant Bond swagger which he tried in SP, and even less so as he's aged. So hopefully for his last entry they 'pull a DAD' (so to speak) and tailor the film more to his strengths. I hope for his sake that it turns out to be a far more well liked entry than Brozza's last, so that he may depart in peace and not feel compelled to attempt yet another 'high'.
    Seems like a controversial opinion that Moonraker is actually not one of the worst movies... but I suppose it depends on the mindset you have coming into it all.
    I very much enjoy MR. A guilty pleasure. I objectively rank it low (although far from bottom) but if I was to be subjective, I really like the film. Same goes for TMWTGG (another one which I objectively rank low but actually enjoy far more than my ranking would suggest).
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    About Craig's era, I think one thing they've really lost and which is very important for me is the playfulness. Dalton had some pretty serious films but they never lost that unique Bondian feel. The Craig films on the other hand take themselves so seriously it comes of as pretentious. There is no self-awareness.

    Give me some existential drama any day, but not in a Bond film. I'll gladly turn to Antonioni or Bergman for such occasions.

    I also feel Craig is sleepwalking half of the time, sometimes I think the guy has only two emotions: repressed anger and tough guy.

    I agree wholeheartedly! Much of what I enjoy about Bond, the qualities that drive me to watch the series and be a fan, have been toned down or altogether eliminated in the Craig era. There's no more fun. And when they attempted it in SP, they just had to mix in the typical Craig era emotional crap with the stepbrother "twist". I miss Bond.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 19,339
    MR is #23 for me but if you rank them then they all have to slot in somewhere,some low some high.

    MR is due another viewing soon for me.

    At the end of the day I like all the films,it just depends on my mood.
    That's why we are lucky to have such a selection of 24 films so far.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    edited November 2017 Posts: 127
    SP is too long for the plot it has. Could have been better at 2 hrs.
    This. So, so, so much of SP feels like filler and there's a severe lack of energy about the whole thing. Tightening up the film would let it zip along at a faster pace. Interestingly, SF is nearly as long as SP but I hardly notice, it's so well-paced and engaging.

    Also this is the controversial thread so I'll just throw this out there, eliminating SP's action scenes (apart from the Hinx fight, that's too awesome, and maybe the PTS) and instead making it a legitimate Fincher-esque thriller, lean and tense instead of trying epic and grand, would have made a much better film. I understand this is an action-blockbuster franchise, but action is almost put into SP as an afterthought and all of it is very tedious excluding aforementioned fist-fight.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,030
    At the risk of repeating myself (certainly from my IMDb forum days), I've grown to actually like MR very much, from the point of rejecting it with a vengeance when it first came out. I simply refused to watch a "Star Wars" Bond movie, see my favourit secret agent going into space, shooting lasers etc. I didn't see MR until the late 90s or so, when I decided I had to buy the entire series on VHS, even after having reconciled with the franchise as such.

    But that is clearly the past. For me, MR gets better with every viewing, having inched its way up for me from a low 6/10 to a very solid 7, bordering on the 8 I've been awarding TSWLM and FYEO. It's simply a fun movie, with incredible "production values", one of the best villains ever (at least his quotes), one of the best PTS ever (albeit a bit too funny at the end, but I find Jaws silly in TSWLM as well - I wouldn't have minded if he had been dumped along with the Bondola and the double-taking pigeon, but still), superb cinematography, and Ken Adams' last magnificent set. The only Roger Moore movie that rivals it for "rewatchability" is LALD, but the latter more for nostalgic reasons. It won't be long before MR officially moves up to being my favourite Roger Moore Bond movie. Even now, it's not half as dated as TSWLM.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    At the risk of repeating myself (certainly from my IMDb forum days), I've grown to actually like MR very much, from the point of rejecting it with a vengeance when it first came out. I simply refused to watch a "Star Wars" Bond movie, see my favourit secret agent going into space, shooting lasers etc. I didn't see MR until the late 90s or so, when I decided I had to buy the entire series on VHS, even after having reconciled with the franchise as such.

    But that is clearly the past. For me, MR gets better with every viewing, having inched its way up for me from a low 6/10 to a very solid 7, bordering on the 8 I've been awarding TSWLM and FYEO. It's simply a fun movie, with incredible "production values", one of the best villains ever (at least his quotes), one of the best PTS ever (albeit a bit too funny at the end, but I find Jaws silly in TSWLM as well - I wouldn't have minded if he had been dumped along with the Bondola and the double-taking pigeon, but still), superb cinematography, and Ken Adams' last magnificent set. The only Roger Moore movie that rivals it for "rewatchability" is LALD, but the latter more for nostalgic reasons. It won't be long before MR officially moves up to being my favourite Roger Moore Bond movie. Even now, it's not half as dated as TSWLM.
    Long time no see, JW.

    MR is fun, no doubt. A great film you can just sit back and watch. Flaws aside, it's the ideal escapist adventure. A lost art in movies in general, not just Bond.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited November 2017 Posts: 7,021
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    About Craig's era, I think one thing they've really lost and which is very important for me is the playfulness. Dalton had some pretty serious films but they never lost that unique Bondian feel. The Craig films on the other hand take themselves so seriously it comes of as pretentious. There is no self-awareness.

    Give me some existential drama any day, but not in a Bond film. I'll gladly turn to Antonioni or Bergman for such occasions.

    I also feel Craig is sleepwalking half of the time, sometimes I think the guy has only two emotions: repressed anger and tough guy.

    I agree wholeheartedly! Much of what I enjoy about Bond, the qualities that drive me to watch the series and be a fan, have been toned down or altogether eliminated in the Craig era. There's no more fun. And when they attempted it in SP, they just had to mix in the typical Craig era emotional crap with the stepbrother "twist". I miss Bond.

    I think CR is great fun and Spectre is fun enough, but not the other two, which is why they're among my least favorite. You could compare them with something like LTK and the latter, for all its intensity and serious tone, still feels like its primary purpose is entertainment. So do FYEO, OHMSS, FRWL. QoS and Skyfall, while interesting in their own way, went in another direction. That's why I prefer the Brosnan era, and probably all the others, to the Craig era: fun. And there was something CR had they never fully replicated afterwards. They brought back its grit but couldn't match its elegance and its romance.

    I think Craig sleepwalks in Skyfall, but not in the others.

    Edit: in retrospective, CR wound up being a transitional film that lead into the next three with their higher artistic aspirations. It should've been the destination, not a stop along the way. In fact, now I feel CR's sense of playfulness was just a leftover from the Brosnan days.

    I hope with the arrival of Bond #7, the Brosnan films will be reevaluated and appreciated as the solid entries they are, along with the obscenely underrated TWINE.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,030
    Aren't we lucky we have a thread for "controversial" opinions? I still think SKYFALL is the absolute best among the Craig movies, with an admittedly very slight edge over CR, and my second-favourite James Bond movie of them all (nothing surpasses FRWL). And it certainly blows SPECTRE out of every water imaginable, not to mention the editing-mess that is QOS.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    I think Skyfall is fantastic as well. I didn't truly appreciate it until Spectre came around, but now it safely rests as by far my favorite Craig and one of my favorites period.

    I can understand why some may dislike the direction it took, but I find it to be the perfect middle ground between exciting, over-the-top Bond adventure and serious character analysis and thematic depth. The previous two Craig films went too far into the latter portion and Spectre had a hard time deciding on which way to go. Skyfall was the product of a very specific vision of a very talented director, and I think it succeeded wildly. Mendes should have never returned for seconds when his first meal satisfied everything.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.

    In fairness I think Brozza himself does improve with every film (possible exception of painface overload and 'Knew all about my shooouuulder' in TWINE) and I wouldn't level a single fault of DAD with him as he gives a very slick performance even with everything collapsing around him. He was very badly served by scripts and directors and was the patsy for Babs and MGW making some appalling decisions on DAD which nearly sunk the series.

    Broz deserves to be given a decent amount of respect for resurrecting the series and always being professional and doing his job.

    I'd agree with this especially about resurrecting the series. He brought back and kept Bond on the radar. But he himself said in an interview that after GE his other Bonds are blurry to him, there's his first then the other ones. He also said that TND was just not as good as GE.

    I think he's just sort of going with the crowd with that one (not liking any of them after GE). I know he said in the 50th doc he couldn't remember any of them but I'm sure I remember him saying ages ago that his favourite was TWINE.

    He has always been critical of TND though. I think it was because it was a messy production. He's said a few times that when they were making it he didn't have any idea what the film was actually about.

    @TheWizardOfIce I agree about him getting better and I'd go as far to say that DAD is one of the best Bond performances in general. I really can't picture any of the other actors holding it together as well as he does. Moore would have sold the OTT stuff as always and I bet he could have nailed the North Korea stuff too based off the OP finale, but I can't picture him in the colder moments (trying to shoot Miranda, killing Zao). Dalton and Craig would have nailed those bits and the dramatic scenes but I'm not sure they'd be able to sell the really stupid stuff. Connery probably would have just phoned it in. But Brosnan nails it. It might be the most tonally inconsistent film of the series and he really holds it together.

    I think by that point as well he was at his most confident and self assured. He wasn't playing Bond anymore, he was Bond, he'd grown into the role.

    This might be a controversial opinion actually: people call Brosnan the generic/greatest hits Bond but I actually think that's a really tough job. He never got a script that played to his strengths like Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig did, he had to play all the different sides of the character and make it feel consistent, like it was the same person, and I think he did that really well.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Having just rewatched the Brosnan era, I think they actually continue to improve up until DAD.

    Even Brosnan would disagree with this.

    In fairness I think Brozza himself does improve with every film (possible exception of painface overload and 'Knew all about my shooouuulder' in TWINE) and I wouldn't level a single fault of DAD with him as he gives a very slick performance even with everything collapsing around him. He was very badly served by scripts and directors and was the patsy for Babs and MGW making some appalling decisions on DAD which nearly sunk the series.

    Broz deserves to be given a decent amount of respect for resurrecting the series and always being professional and doing his job.

    I'd agree with this especially about resurrecting the series. He brought back and kept Bond on the radar. But he himself said in an interview that after GE his other Bonds are blurry to him, there's his first then the other ones. He also said that TND was just not as good as GE.

    I think he's just sort of going with the crowd with that one (not liking any of them after GE). I know he said in the 50th doc he couldn't remember any of them but I'm sure I remember him saying ages ago that his favourite was TWINE.

    He has always been critical of TND though. I think it was because it was a messy production. He's said a few times that when they were making it he didn't have any idea what the film was actually about.

    @TheWizardOfIce I agree about him getting better and I'd go as far to say that DAD is one of the best Bond performances in general. I really can't picture any of the other actors holding it together as well as he does. Moore would have sold the OTT stuff as always and I bet he could have nailed the North Korea stuff too based off the OP finale, but I can't picture him in the colder moments (trying to shoot Miranda, killing Zao). Dalton and Craig would have nailed those bits and the dramatic scenes but I'm not sure they'd be able to sell the really stupid stuff. Connery probably would have just phoned it in. But Brosnan nails it. It might be the most tonally inconsistent film of the series and he really holds it together.

    I think by that point as well he was at his most confident and self assured. He wasn't playing Bond anymore, he was Bond, he'd grown into the role.

    This might be a controversial opinion actually: people call Brosnan the generic/greatest hits Bond but I actually think that's a really tough job. He never got a script that played to his strengths like Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig did, he had to play all the different sides of the character and make it feel consistent, like it was the same person, and I think he did that really well.

    An excellent analysis. I wholeheartedly agree.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Maybe a more controversial opinion I could push is that Live and Let Die isn't all that great. I know there's quite a few fans of it, but for me, despite some classic characters and moments, it's thinly plotted and has a weak start and finish. Quite entertaining at times, but I rank it in the middle of the pack myself. It's merely the highlight of an era that I consider to be Bond's lowest (the early 70's), and I don't think it really stands out in comparison to the rest of the series, except for the weirdness of it all.

    On Moonraker, I agree it's hard to make a defence for it being one of the better Bonds unless your criteria is based primarily on entertainment. But as the largest Bond movie in terms of scale, with the sets and score to match, there's something very alluring about that production. The humour is inserted quite well (even if it goes overboard in a couple of instances) and while the performances aren't amazing, there's surprisingly good chemistry between the cast. So it flows, even if it's not to a place that you might like. But I personally prefer it over LALD, in all honesty. It does the escapist job better, and neither film is really intended to be more than that (unlike, say, FRWL or CR).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think that is a common view here.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Remington wrote: »
    The Craig era is worse than the Brosnan era.

    Thanks to SP.

    And Bond 25.
    Amazing how one can judge a film 2 years prior to actually seeing it.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Yeah, I don't agree with that. Craig takes the early lead over Brosnan with CR over GE (although they're both brilliant), which Brosnan makes up for with TND over QoS. But then he stands no chance with TWINE against SF. And as low as SP gets, it doesn't quite reach DAD's level. So as far as film averages go, I'd give Craig the comfortable lead.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 463
    I agree, @ForYourEyesOnly, except with QOS/TND - I find QOS to be the more satisfying movie by far.

    CR
    SF
    GE
    QOS
    SP
    TWINE
    DAD
    TND
  • SP
    GE
    SF
    TWINE
    CR
    DAD
    TND
    QOS
  • Posts: 12,466
    1. CR
    2. SF
    3. GE
    4. SP
    5. QOS
    6. TND
    7. TWINE
    8. DAD
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    TND
    TWINE
    DAD
    CR
    GE
    SP
    SF
    QOS
Sign In or Register to comment.