›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…501502504506507…707

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited January 2019 Posts: 7,162
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Apart from the barrelhead bar, LTK kicks serious rear.

    Dalton does Craig before Craig and Glen goes out with a bang, bringing serious editing and action chops.

    I think it is unfairly labelled as ‘generic’ purely and simply because of its Florida / Central American setting.

    It’s no masterpiece but it’s one of the top five action flicks of the 80s hands down.

    Agreed, LTK is a highlight. Giving Bond a personal mission when that was still fresh while also providing several brisk action scenes and fabulous stunt work.

    Funny though how people always say ‘Dalton does Craig before Craig’ while I would definitely say ‘Craig does a working class Dalton after Dalton already brought us the gentleman version’.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Controversial opinion:

    Not only is LICENCE TO KILL one of the greatest Bond films, but it's one of the greatest movies in cinema history.

    It's a decent if flawed Bond film, but 'one of the greatest in movie history'...?

    You need to see more films.

    I think OHMSS is the only Bond film that comes close to such a title.

    I'd say FRWL.

    Definitely the other option, it is equally stylish, mysterious and well-written as OHMSS, but it doesn’t have Majesty’s tragic love story.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,159
    What FRWL lacks in tragedy it gains in acting and characterisations. Not that other great Bond movies are bad in that regard... But FRWL is just better.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    FRWL is the best Bond film for me,and a great spy thriller in its own right.
    The Orient Express scenes are simply brilliant.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What FRWL lacks in tragedy it gains in acting and characterisations. Not that other great Bond movies are bad in that regard... But FRWL is just better.
    It's the gold standard in Bond films as far as I'm concerned. Never bettered or even equaled. Everything I personally desire from cinematic Bond is right there in one film.

    Frankly I don't need any more tragedy in a Bond film.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    FRWL is the best Bond film for me,and a great spy thriller in its own right.
    The Orient Express scenes are simply brilliant.
    Agreed. Those scenes get everything right. The atmosphere, tension, romance, suspense is all off the charts.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What FRWL lacks in tragedy it gains in acting and characterisations. Not that other great Bond movies are bad in that regard... But FRWL is just better.
    It's the gold standard in Bond films as far as I'm concerned. Never bettered or even equaled. Everything I personally desire from cinematic Bond is right there in one film.

    Frankly I don't need any more tragedy in a Bond film.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    FRWL is the best Bond film for me,and a great spy thriller in its own right.
    The Orient Express scenes are simply brilliant.
    Agreed. Those scenes get everything right. The atmosphere, tension, romance, suspense is all off the charts.


    +1
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited January 2019 Posts: 17,783
    I find it difficult to rank one of FRWL and OHMSS above the other. They offer quite different things to me; FRWL the straight-forward thriller without many of the formulaic elements - and OHMSS a combination of all good things the series had to offer at that point, combined with THE love story of the series. Those two, along with TB (peak Bond, IMO), makes my top three. Closely followed by several Moore Bond films (he's my favorite Bond after all).
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,159
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What FRWL lacks in tragedy it gains in acting and characterisations. Not that other great Bond movies are bad in that regard... But FRWL is just better.
    It's the gold standard in Bond films as far as I'm concerned. Never bettered or even equaled. Everything I personally desire from cinematic Bond is right there in one film.

    Frankly I don't need any more tragedy in a Bond film.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    FRWL is the best Bond film for me,and a great spy thriller in its own right.
    The Orient Express scenes are simply brilliant.
    Agreed. Those scenes get everything right. The atmosphere, tension, romance, suspense is all off the charts.


    +1

    +2
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    GetCarter wrote: »
    May I vent in this thread?

    Just watched Skyfall again. Now this is my just my opinion, and I respect the hell out of the film’s popularity (and bank), but it is plain dumb.

    Not DAD dumb, but Sam Mendes dumb. I reckon he bought to the table a number of good things, so I’ll try to be as balanced as possible, but clearly his style isn’t for me. Sorry for the negativity but this seems like the right thread.

    I won’t even focus on the plot, which is pretty dumb in itself (and documented well on these boards) but the chronic artifice of this movie, which is irritating even by Bond’s outlandish standards.

    The PTS is tight and exciting. Take the bloody shot! Close up to M looking out over a rainy London. A brilliant juxtaposition of field and HQ. No issue.

    Ditto Adele’s song. One of the better entries, love the visuals.

    And then ... oh dear. Bond has spat the dummy and, despite previously showing zero sentiment in his dealings with M, refuses to return, instead staying anonymous by ... showing off his scorpion drinking in front of hundreds of bar flies.

    But that’s by the by. This is about how Mendes constructs scenes like a play and burdens them with what he thinks is profound allegory.

    Bond is unfit for duty, so we get a Rocky training montage with Tanner babbling exposition as if it’s an ongoing conversation. What the hell?!

    M and Mallory, extraordinarily busy folk I imagine, find time to sit in on 007’s psyche assessment just so they can enhance a theatrically-designed scene.

    Bond meets the new quartermaster at a museum (?), where he stares forlornly at a painting of an old ship being towed out for scrap. Oh, Mendes.

    Back in business, then. Bond kills Patrice in a wonderfully shot, Blade Runner inspired scene, but it has all the visceral impact of a wet lettuce leaf.

    On to Macau. Bond inexplicably asks Moneypenny to shave him, presumably spending the night with her, and yet Mendes expects us to believe he never asked her name. Just so he can reveal the scoobs in full pomp at the end, see? A very stagey trick.

    Bond’s casino entrance, into the dragon’s den as it were, is great filmmaking. If only mendes limited his instinctive artifice to scenes like this, the balance would’ve been great.

    Komodo dragons, sure, it’s bond. But the Indiana jones style ‘look behind you’ I could do without.

    Sailing to Silva’s lair is a prime example of mendes’s theatrical artifice. Solange stands at the prow like a statute, joined by bond, then three goons behind them, all standing in perfect symmetry. Mendes loves people to stand. He hates movement, or anything that ruins his stagey, ponderous aesthetic.

    Silva’s entrance, fine. The rat story meanders a little but the long shuffle from the elevator works, even if the lair itself looks way too stagey and nothing like the semi-real world bond normally inhabits.

    Shooting the shot glass off the head is classic Mendes - zero movement, maximum stagecraft. For me, little impact.

    Hannibal Lecter scenes, whatever.

    The chase through the subway is good, except for the climax. We admire bonds tracking skills for much of the sequence then are expected to believe Silva has set up the train ambush precisely at that moment? Oh, mendes.

    And so it goes. The old ways are best. The radio transmitter. The Aston Martin. Skyfall. Kincaid. The hunting rifle. The bulb bombs. M herself. The bulldog.

    Mendes shoves in so much allegory poisoning we barely escape the movie alive.

    Then there is SP.

    SF is much loved and I could be way off the mark, but I reckon mendes, a fine theatre director, was ill-suited to carrying on the excellent, thrilling, visceral template laid down by CR and QoS.

    Mendes gets the scale right, both geographically and thematically (despite the overuse of allegory) but forgets to propel Bond through his beautiful world like Campbell and Forster did.
    Brilliant @GetCarter. That's pretty much how I see it, too. It's definitely allegory overload and too many for my own tastes.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,919
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Definitely the other option, it is equally stylish, mysterious and well-written as OHMSS, but it doesn’t have Majesty’s tragic love story.

    And FRWL, great as it is, is not as great a piece of filmmaking as OHMSS, which is better directed, more stylish, and just as well edited. OHMSS is also the summation and conclusion of the first Bond film cycle. It's an epic--emotionally and physically--in the way the previous films weren't.

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,182
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Apart from the barrelhead bar, LTK kicks serious rear.

    Dalton does Craig before Craig and Glen goes out with a bang, bringing serious editing and action chops.

    I think it is unfairly labelled as ‘generic’ purely and simply because of its Florida / Central American setting.

    It’s no masterpiece but it’s one of the top five action flicks of the 80s hands down.

    Agreed, LTK is a highlight. Giving Bond a personal mission when that was still fresh while also providing several brisk action scenes and fabulous stunt work.

    Funny though how people always say ‘Dalton does Craig before Craig’ while I would definitely say ‘Craig does a working class Dalton after Dalton already brought us the gentleman version’.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Controversial opinion:

    Not only is LICENCE TO KILL one of the greatest Bond films, but it's one of the greatest movies in cinema history.

    It's a decent if flawed Bond film, but 'one of the greatest in movie history'...?

    You need to see more films.

    I think OHMSS is the only Bond film that comes close to such a title.

    I'd say FRWL.

    Definitely the other option, it is equally stylish, mysterious and well-written as OHMSS, but it doesn’t have Majesty’s tragic love story.

    Well said.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    FRWL is my #2 and OHMSS is my #4. They are both in my top 5 novels too. It's not a coincidence!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2019 Posts: 8,413
    A agree From Russia is a bit slow. It's also one of those movies once you've seen once, you don't need to see again for a long time.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,054
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    A agree From Russia is a bit slow. It's also one of those movies once you've seen once, you don't need to see again for a long time.
    Because unlike certain later movies (say, the convoluted TWINE or the editing mess that is QOS) you understand the story and every detail the first time around? Those others NEED rewatching to clear up the plot twists (not saying "holes" here) one couldn't possibly catch right away.

    No, FRWL is THE classic Bond movie and never fails to fascinate me, and I've seen it probably 15 or 20 times. Slow? Not really, and no, I'm not diagnosing you as being a case of ADHS, either. But that movie has never been beat in the entire franchise for me, by ANY other Bond film.

    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,783
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence

    I really like his presence in the film. He did a good job, IMO.

    Re. FRWL, it never feels slow to me. If anything, the time goes by too quick when I watch it!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,159
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    A agree From Russia is a bit slow. It's also one of those movies once you've seen once, you don't need to see again for a long time.
    Because unlike certain later movies (say, the convoluted TWINE or the editing mess that is QOS) you understand the story and every detail the first time around? Those others NEED rewatching to clear up the plot twists (not saying "holes" here) one couldn't possibly catch right away.

    No, FRWL is THE classic Bond movie and never fails to fascinate me, and I've seen it probably 15 or 20 times. Slow? Not really, and no, I'm not diagnosing you as being a case of ADHS, either. But that movie has never been beat in the entire franchise for me, by ANY other Bond film.

    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence

    This.

    And I'd add complaining that FRWL is slow is like complaining that Mozart is too classical. The movie is as slow as it should be.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence

    I really like his presence in the film. He did a good job, IMO.

    I agree. George did well.

    But I have noticed with him that he suffers a problem other non-actors can have: they're able to do high emotion well, like anger or sadness or sneakiness, but more mundane low-key scenes are a problem. So George is great talking to M or Draco, or with Tracy, but talking with a minor player about "the club's usual high standards", or chatting with Ruby, that kind of falls flat.


  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,783
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence

    I really like his presence in the film. He did a good job, IMO.

    I agree. George did well.

    But I have noticed with him that he suffers a problem other non-actors can have: they're able to do high emotion well, like anger or sadness or sneakiness, but more mundane low-key scenes are a problem. So George is great talking to M or Draco, or with Tracy, but talking with a minor player about "the club's usual high standards", or chatting with Ruby, that kind of falls flat.


    Good point, and I think you're right about this. I do enjoy the scenes with Ruby though, as they provide great comedic relief. And about that; OHMSS is one of the films with the best balance of lightheartedness and seriousness, IMO.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,275
    bondsum wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    May I vent in this thread?

    Just watched Skyfall again. Now this is my just my opinion, and I respect the hell out of the film’s popularity (and bank), but it is plain dumb.

    Not DAD dumb, but Sam Mendes dumb. I reckon he bought to the table a number of good things, so I’ll try to be as balanced as possible, but clearly his style isn’t for me. Sorry for the negativity but this seems like the right thread.

    I won’t even focus on the plot, which is pretty dumb in itself (and documented well on these boards) but the chronic artifice of this movie, which is irritating even by Bond’s outlandish standards.

    The PTS is tight and exciting. Take the bloody shot! Close up to M looking out over a rainy London. A brilliant juxtaposition of field and HQ. No issue.

    Ditto Adele’s song. One of the better entries, love the visuals.

    And then ... oh dear. Bond has spat the dummy and, despite previously showing zero sentiment in his dealings with M, refuses to return, instead staying anonymous by ... showing off his scorpion drinking in front of hundreds of bar flies.

    But that’s by the by. This is about how Mendes constructs scenes like a play and burdens them with what he thinks is profound allegory.

    Bond is unfit for duty, so we get a Rocky training montage with Tanner babbling exposition as if it’s an ongoing conversation. What the hell?!

    M and Mallory, extraordinarily busy folk I imagine, find time to sit in on 007’s psyche assessment just so they can enhance a theatrically-designed scene.

    Bond meets the new quartermaster at a museum (?), where he stares forlornly at a painting of an old ship being towed out for scrap. Oh, Mendes.

    Back in business, then. Bond kills Patrice in a wonderfully shot, Blade Runner inspired scene, but it has all the visceral impact of a wet lettuce leaf.

    On to Macau. Bond inexplicably asks Moneypenny to shave him, presumably spending the night with her, and yet Mendes expects us to believe he never asked her name. Just so he can reveal the scoobs in full pomp at the end, see? A very stagey trick.

    Bond’s casino entrance, into the dragon’s den as it were, is great filmmaking. If only mendes limited his instinctive artifice to scenes like this, the balance would’ve been great.

    Komodo dragons, sure, it’s bond. But the Indiana jones style ‘look behind you’ I could do without.

    Sailing to Silva’s lair is a prime example of mendes’s theatrical artifice. Solange stands at the prow like a statute, joined by bond, then three goons behind them, all standing in perfect symmetry. Mendes loves people to stand. He hates movement, or anything that ruins his stagey, ponderous aesthetic.

    Silva’s entrance, fine. The rat story meanders a little but the long shuffle from the elevator works, even if the lair itself looks way too stagey and nothing like the semi-real world bond normally inhabits.

    Shooting the shot glass off the head is classic Mendes - zero movement, maximum stagecraft. For me, little impact.

    Hannibal Lecter scenes, whatever.

    The chase through the subway is good, except for the climax. We admire bonds tracking skills for much of the sequence then are expected to believe Silva has set up the train ambush precisely at that moment? Oh, mendes.

    And so it goes. The old ways are best. The radio transmitter. The Aston Martin. Skyfall. Kincaid. The hunting rifle. The bulb bombs. M herself. The bulldog.

    Mendes shoves in so much allegory poisoning we barely escape the movie alive.

    Then there is SP.

    SF is much loved and I could be way off the mark, but I reckon mendes, a fine theatre director, was ill-suited to carrying on the excellent, thrilling, visceral template laid down by CR and QoS.

    Mendes gets the scale right, both geographically and thematically (despite the overuse of allegory) but forgets to propel Bond through his beautiful world like Campbell and Forster did.
    Brilliant @GetCarter. That's pretty much how I see it, too. It's definitely allegory overload and too many for my own tastes.

    Yep,always nice if someone else manages to put a finger on something that you noticed but couldn't quite grasp.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,921
    It's interesting people are kind of talking up the merits of FRWL vs. OHMSS. I love them both and that they're different types of Bond films makes them that much more appealing.

    Where was all this FRWL love when I was arguing for my enthusiasm of it a few pages back?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    OHMSS might be a rival if they hadn't chosen that amateur actor for the main character. Lazenby is still the worst thing about that film. It's surprising how good it still turned out in spite of his presence

    I really like his presence in the film. He did a good job, IMO.

    I agree. George did well.

    But I have noticed with him that he suffers a problem other non-actors can have: they're able to do high emotion well, like anger or sadness or sneakiness, but more mundane low-key scenes are a problem. So George is great talking to M or Draco, or with Tracy, but talking with a minor player about "the club's usual high standards", or chatting with Ruby, that kind of falls flat.


    Good point, and I think you're right about this. I do enjoy the scenes with Ruby though, as they provide great comedic relief. And about that; OHMSS is one of the films with the best balance of lightheartedness and seriousness, IMO.

    You're right. I was just struggling to remember the bits I was referring to, though there are several.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,711
    You're also right about the lightheartedness of OHMSS. People remember the ending and think it's dark and gritty, but it isn't at all. It's a fun movie that doesn't go too broad and stays believable by Bond standards.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,783
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    You're also right about the lightheartedness of OHMSS. People remember the ending and think it's dark and gritty, but it isn't at all. It's a fun movie that doesn't go too broad and stays believable by Bond standards.

    Definitely agree. And the dramatic ending isn't a long sequence either. It didn't need to be.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Something that's interesting to me, pretty much every Bond fan, on this board or who I meet face to face has FRWL and OHMSS in their top 5.

    Let's face it, they are both really bloody good.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    FRWL and OHMSS are crazy good.

    Put CR in there and you have the holy trinity.

    All have a strong romantic thread too ...
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I would say that those two, along with TSWLM will always be my top 3. Unless there is an earth shattering Bond film released in the next few years, I can't see that changing.
  • mattjoesmattjoes THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST
    Posts: 7,040
    Here's a potentially controversial opinion:

    In Thunderball, when Bond says "my dear girl, don't flatter yourself...", Connery's acting leaves a bit to be desired. It's not bad at all, but his eyes are missing a certain spark. While it wouldn't have been right to be too emotional, his eyes lack a quantum of expressiveness that would've been appropriate for the anger he's feeling toward Fiona. I can see Roger Moore playing that moment very well.
  • MooreFunMooreFun
    Posts: 385
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Something that's interesting to me, pretty much every Bond fan, on this board or who I meet face to face has FRWL and OHMSS in their top 5.

    Let's face it, they are both really bloody good.

    Always has to be an exception, and that's me I guess. OHMSS is in the bottom half for me. FRWL scores high, of course, but there are too many problems with Majesty's for me, the biggest being that Diana Rigg outshines Lazenby in every scene. The pacing is poor (to the point that I found myself checking my watch to make sure it hadn't broken, because surely the movie isn't this long?), some of the other choices are odd...it's just not an enjoyable film for me.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,275
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Here's a potentially controversial opinion:

    In Thunderball, when Bond says "my dear girl, don't flatter yourself...", Connery's acting leaves a bit to be desired. It's not bad at all, but his eyes are missing a certain spark. While it wouldn't have been right to be too emotional, his eyes lack a quantum of expressiveness that would've been appropriate for the anger he's feeling toward Fiona. I can see Roger Moore playing that moment very well.

    I disagree. I think he says it with just the right amount of emotion. He's obviously lying (you should be caged) but says it to rile her up. She then repostes and he understand it's not going to be that easy (you can't win them all).

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3XSj6kUGkE
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,162
    GetCarter wrote: »
    FRWL and OHMSS are crazy good.

    Put CR in there and you have the holy trinity.

    All have a strong romantic thread too ...

    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,275
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    FRWL and OHMSS are crazy good.

    Put CR in there and you have the holy trinity.

    All have a strong romantic thread too ...

    Not for me. While CR is a good effort, it’s not nearly as stylish and sophisticated as either FRWL or OHMSS.

    Stylish and sophisticated? It's called Thunderball.....
Sign In or Register to comment.