Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
You Only Live Twice vs. Moonraker vs. Die Another Day
Im sure this has been discussed at some point but I've looked thru the discussion board pages and couldn't find this exact one, so I'll post it. The Bond films have a tradition of becoming so fantastical and gadget-driven that they almost forget where they came from and naturally the right decision is to bring the series back to it's roots instead of induldging in even more outlandishnish. These three films are the pinnacle of the above metioned. Each of them have something to do with space, have plenty of gadgets, and are followed by a more down-to-earth "Flemingesque" story. I wouldn't any of these on my top ten list but which of these do you guys think is most enjoyable. Personally I'll have to go with Moonraker. It was one of the first Bond films I ever saw, it has arguably the best pre-credit sequence, and Roger Moore seems to really be enjoying himself.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Moonraker is only just below it and is a kind of classic in its way. The story flows, the Ken Adam sets are beautiful and intrigueing, the locations are wonderful, the John Barry score is classic and the whole thing has a sheen of classiness in places. Its often undone by humour that doesnt work but the sum is greater then the whole.
Die Another Day?
Oh Christ. i lay the blame for this mess souly at Tamahori who was one of the worse mistakes in the forty eight years of Bond. I am not going to go into why this one self-destructs from the off as it is too depresing. I dont buy the idea that it goes downhill upon arrival in Icleand. It was bad from the off. The idea that Bond can shoot down the gunbarrel sort of proves it. Personnally, from the stop the heart in Hong Kong the film becomes unwatchable.
ranking them, they'd go..
You Only Live Twice
Moonraker
...
Die Another Day
YOLT, was the first of it's kind... as big as Thunderball was for it's time, YOLT took the baton and literally took it into the stratosphere lol.. it was at times a bit hokey - like Bond becoming Japanese? was that really necessary? lol - some would say that Connery looked as though he was growing tired with the role in this film.. i didn't see it... his performance was definitely a step down, but i didn't get the sense of him "going through the motions"...
MR, first off was a cash in on the space craze and special effects high that everyone was on after Star Wars.. this film has some decent moments, but it felt like it was A.) Trying too hard.. and B.) it felt way too much like TSWLM version 2.0 - except it wasn't an upgrade over it's previous model.... the plot and story arch almost unfolds the exact same way as the previous film - complete with a climactic battle..... in space.... and that's where this movie really lost it... it pushed the envelope just a tad too far... plus, i never liked Drax's excuse for stealing back his own shuttle - "because i needed it... one of my other shuttles developed a problem.." - well Mr. Moneybags, why didn't you just build another one?? - maybe then your scheme wouldn't have been foiled by Bond - and it's not like he was hurtin' for money either lol...
DAD, i've already spewed enough venom over, so i'll keep it light..... it's just f***ing terrible... it's a film with little to no redeeming value - not from directing, not from score, and not from acting... every line of dialog was delivered with such cringe worthy finesse, that i wondered if it was (at times) done intentionally.... almost every joke was forced, so much so that most of them had no real place in the movie, making no real sense with what was going on in the scene.. "I'm Mr. Kill" - really?.. well he must've known his occupation as soon as he was brought onto this earth - future Bond henchman... but that small bit of exchange was entirely not necessary.. what difference would it make if his name was Kill or Fred? - just so we can hear Bond spit out a dumb (forced) joke of a line?... shame on you Purvis and Wade.... there is a lot more - maybe one day i'll make a youtube video, and exorcise these demons for my own benefit lol..
MR is an hour of fun and an hour of awkward self-indulgiance. Maybe DAD could be described in a similar way, but by 2002 they should have known better. The last 40 minutes almost made me cry. Thank goodness for Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig.
I'm planning on rewatching YOLT soon.
DAD has its...reputation :-S
I have a feeling Twice will win on this.
I will say this about DAD though. The swordfighting scene is superb and possibly one of the best action set pieces in any Bond pic.
Moonraker is a very enjoyable yet overly fantastic Bond adventure overly criticized for its brush in space. YOLT is a nice classic Bond adventure often criticized due to Connery's "bored" look, and well Die Another Day is a travesty of a flick, a complete rape of the Bond Franchise on screen.
To me DAD's biggest fault is trying too hard to be BOTH a serious Bond film (first part) and an over-the-top Bond film (second part). If they had picked one or the other it would have helped a great deal.
I believe @thelordflasheart is not just yet to see those three films, they're are others too. I think he's only seen about half of the Bond films - could be wrong though and hope I am!
Seriously though GE and FRWL are #1 and #2. :p
YOLT is a far more enjoyable film to the others. There is a better developed plot and fewer useless extended action/chase scenes eating up screen time than in MR and DAD (though they still do exist in YOLT, just not as many and they are better used in driving the story along)
i'm going to use a comparison here to maybe help explain (at least my hatred towards) Die Another Day - and i'll use your statement about the first half compared to the second half..........
just because Hitler was a good painter for the first half of his life, doesn't excuse the travesties he created during his second half.... i know, i know, a little excessive of an example - but hopefully the analogy works, and you get what i am trying to say..
from gun barrel to Cuba, Die Another Day was tolerable - it had it's awful moments, but they were sparse - one part that comes to mind for me is Brosnan's slow-mo jump away from the flamethrower on the hovercraft in the PTS - something about that has never sat well with me.. not to mention, the one building that explodes because a flipping hovercraft landed next to it - not on top of it.......... but once it gets to Cuba, the plot starts wizzing itself down it's leg.. it makes the implausible plots of Moonraker and Goldeneye look like terrorist documentaries.. DNA replacement therapy? - Blofeld creating doubles of himself was more believable in Diamonds Are Forever, and that was simply using plastic surgery... not to mention, Zao was turning himself into that kid from Final Destination - and it just gets worse and worse and worse and worse.......... the sword fight was refreshing - but not enough sadly - it's the one rose in a room full of crap..
I have already mentioned the bullet down the gunbarrel but the rest. Something about the North Korea part doesnt work. Something is off. Whether it is the ridiculous hovercraft/diamonds chase or simply Brosnans little pot belly after nine months starving in a Puoynyang jail cell with nothing but scorpions to eat.
Bits of Cuba work.The bit in the cigar factory, the shot of Brozzer in a fifties convertible with salsa in the background. Even the bits of Cadiz trying to be Havanas Malecon (the seawall) but as soon as Jinx emerges from the briny - it all goes to hell.
Jesus, that scene with Brozzer at the oceanfont bar. Followed by the most cringy sex scene ever. I am sorry but I dont want to see Brozzers cum face. Whose idea was that? Has to be Tamahori doesnt it? You can imagine him selling it with "we've got a really sexy sex scene. We've never had that before. We're new ground.." Oh dear god.
As for the fencing scene? Yes, Brozzer and Toby Stephens give their all. Its a well coordinated physical fight. But we have to talk about the whole scene then we have to include the Madonna appearance.
Well deserved long term Razzie winner. When she turned around on screen the guy in front of me muttered "jesus wept"
Sorry bu the first half of DAD is just as grotty as the second half.
002) YOLT
003) DAD
MR and YOLT were my 2 favorite Bond films as a child. Both delightful sci-fi extravaganzas. I give the edge to MR since it features Moore's best performance and it introduces the lead villain and lead Bond girl far sooner in the picture. I like DAD more than most around here do. It features Brosnan's best and least politically correct performance as Bond and I like how North Korea filled the role that the former Soviet Union did in the Cold War-era Bond films. I also don't mind its attempt at a FRWL/TLD style film for the first half followed by a DAF/MR style second half. That stated, I rarely ever watch it probably because I rarely ever watch any of the Brosnan-era films.
Mods, can a poll be added to this one, please?
Thanks.
As for ranking the three, well, in terms of quality I'd have to put Twice first, MR second and DAD, predictably, third. But, truth be told, I probably do enjoy MR more than Twice - that might well be the Sir-Rog-in-his-prime factor at work there as much as anything else, mind... ;)
Oh and Luds, having re-watched both in the last few days I can safely say YOLT is better than MR. :p It may be comic-like in places but at least it doesn't resort to double-taking pigeons/Jaws falling in love (yuk).
When I first saw Bond I was 11 years old and saw a double feature of GF and DAF on TV one Sunday afternoon. They were unlike anything I had ever seen and I was blown away. While Star Wars was some kids' favourite film I felt that way about GF. Basically, it was wish fulfilment for wishes that I never even knew that I had.
Connery was the coolest guy I had ever seen and he was exactly the kind of man I wanted to be when I grew up. At this time (1980) they would show a Bond film on TV once every month or two, mostly the Connery ones. The first time I saw a Moore film (I can't remember which one) I changed the channel after a half an hour. The film was just too immature for my tastes - even at that young age! - but more importantly Moore just wasn't Bond. The character had the same name, but where was Connery's forceful presence? His manliness? His raw animal appeal that made it believable that any and every woman would want him? His prowess in a fight (a very important trait to a young guy)? His charming, nonchalant look of "Who, me?" when he did something badass or was a bit of a bastard...you get the point. To put it simply, Connery was the epitome of what I thought a man could be and Moore was...not. I'd channel surf when his films came on but never kept watching for more than a few minutes. Oddly enough, even though I didn't like Lazenby nearly as much as Connery he still fit into that "role model" idea far more than Moore. Plus, even at that young age I was a romantic so OHMSS appealed to me (plus it had the best action scenes of any Bond film up until that time).
Of course, my opinions made me an outcast at school. Everyone told me that Connery was "a loser" because he wore stupid clothes - can you imagine NOT wearing flared pants?! - and had brylcreme in his hair. My best friend was the only other guy who preferred Connery to Moore who was our age.
Many years later I was convinced to "try" some Moore films, largely by people on alt.fan.james-bond. My only experience of seeing a full Moore film was when we couldn't get in to see NSNA and a friend convinced me to see OP as we had already taken the bus all the way to the mall. I thought it was okay, but Moore was a liability. But several years back I rented FYEO as I was told it was the "best" Bond film Moore had done. I thought it was good but not great - again, lots of silliness (the hockey goon fight, Bibi Dahl, the atrocious Blofeld opening, the Thatcher "sketch", the uncomfortable age gap between Moore and his leading lady) but some good things. Basically, I didn't get the "Oh thank GOD" factor that Bond fans would have had after MR which I guessing elevated many opinions about FYEO when it was first released.
Then I had a chance to see TSWLM at my local rep theatre and thought I'd try it as I heard that it was the best "big" Moore film. I thought it was okay or sort of good but that was it. Then I watched LALD on TV and thought it was terrible. I can't even remember any of it.
So given those experiences I'm in no rush to see TMWTGG, MR, or AVTAK. Moore is so poor as Bond IMHO that I ask why would I watch the film around his performance? Now that I'm older I can appreciate that people like him and fair enough they're entitled to their opinion. But any thought I had of checking out his other films died when I saw Casino Royale. Watching Craig as Bond I had the same reaction as the reviewer who said "For the first time since watching Connery as a kid I watched a Bond film and thought I want to be that guy!". It's cool to have heroes, even at my age (I'm the same age as Craig). It's hard to take a Moore film seriously when I realized at 18 that if I met Moore's Bond at the height of his powers in a dark alley, he would fear me, not the other way around. That's not what I want out of Bond.
What is your opinion of Dalton's and Brosnan's Bonds?