What is your least favourite Brosnan flick ?

1235713

Comments

  • Posts: 612
    The only good thing about DAD was the credits.

    "James Bond will Return". - Finally, I've been waiting since Licence to Kill.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yep GE definitely 'wins' because the contrast in quality with Dalts was so striking. After that you were just numbed. All feeling had gone. It was a bit like supporting a once great but now rubbish football team during the Brozza years. You kept turning up on match day out of habit, a sense of duty and a misplaced hope that a miracle might occur and they might just produce a decent result. Of course, it never happened.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Because of one notorius moment in the movie? It has to be Die Another Day.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    Yep GE definitely 'wins' because the contrast in quality with Dalts was so striking. After that you were just numbed. All feeling had gone. It was a bit like supporting a once great but now rubbish football team during the Brozza years.

    Thats my big problem with the Brozzer years - after the Dalton era it seemed we had gone backwards.

  • actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Yep GE definitely 'wins' because the contrast in quality with Dalts was so striking. After that you were just numbed. All feeling had gone. It was a bit like supporting a once great but now rubbish football team during the Brozza years.

    Thats my big problem with the Brozzer years - after the Dalton era it seemed we had gone backwards.

    But basically anything would've been a step backwards after the amazing Dalton years so I don't care. I think Dalton left a really tough act to follow and Brosnan did great, even if he didn't beat him (which nobody has done, and nobody will do)/

    I'm glad they took a different approach with Brosnan instead of just trying to continue Daltons era without him.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Yep GE definitely 'wins' because the contrast in quality with Dalts was so striking. After that you were just numbed. All feeling had gone. It was a bit like supporting a once great but now rubbish football team during the Brozza years.

    Thats my big problem with the Brozzer years - after the Dalton era it seemed we had gone backwards.

    The Dalton era had it's issues too. TLD was good but LTK felt like a TV film (despite Davi who was amazing) - in recent months I've felt iffy about that film and can at least see what they were trying to do with GE (bring back more spectacle).

    Sadly it didn't last with Bond being more reliant on cheese.

    GE, as Haphazard said, was what the series needed in 1995 to make it popular again. Despite what people here say I don't buy that the majority of people ever took to Dalton sadly - and I don't think they ever would either. I feel sorry for Dalton but I'm not entirely convinced he had what it took to charm audiences in the way Connery and Moore did before him (and Brosnan and Craig did after him).

    Brosnan was cheesey and smarmy but, thinking about it, he probably is the more charismatic actor onscreen.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.
  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.

    It's not the only Bond film to have crappy back projection. The casino scene could've been better but what's wrong with the factory, and Leiters house? It's just a house. He's not going to live in a f*cking volcanoe lair or space station.

    Alright, that's at the end. What about the start? How many TV films can afford something like the plane fishing?

    People complain about LTK looking cheap, but I think the action disproves that. I will admit though they could've done a bit more with the locations.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.

    It's not the only Bond film to have crappy back projection. The casino scene could've been better but what's wrong with the factory, and Leiters house? It's just a house. He's not going to live in a f*cking volcanoe lair or space station.

    Alright, that's at the end. What about the start? How many TV films can afford something like the plane fishing?

    People complain about LTK looking cheap, but I think the action disproves that. I will admit though they could've done a bit more with the locations.
    And they made up the Isthmus location.
  • I don't care about that. Plenty of the films have made up locations (eg- Commando).
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.

    It's not the only Bond film to have crappy back projection. The casino scene could've been better but what's wrong with the factory, and Leiters house? It's just a house. He's not going to live in a f*cking volcanoe lair or space station.

    Alright, that's at the end. What about the start? How many TV films can afford something like the plane fishing?

    People complain about LTK looking cheap, but I think the action disproves that. I will admit though they could've done a bit more with the locations.

    Hmm ok the plane fishing was good but little of the film screams cinematic. That's the problem I have with it. Most of the best Bond films (FRWL, GF, CR etc) have that cinematic quality. I've said this before but the last time I saw LTK was as a double bill with OHMSS...and I was suprisingly disappointed with Kill because of the 'cheap' nature of it. Up until that point I'd considered it one of the best in the series.

    I don't want to go too far off topic but GE does deliver in terms of spectacle where LTK didn't. The bunjee jump at the start is amazing - only re-watched that scene the other day.
  • Posts: 1,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.

    Oh Bain.

    Theres some cheap looking sets in GE such as most of Russia was filmed in Leavesden. Russia looks like an industrial estate off the A40.

    If you want crappy back projection look at the PTS of GE with him dropping after the plane. 006 falling from a great height isn't that great either.

    GE has nothing of the gorgeousness of Sanchezs' mansion on Acapulco bay.

  • There's also the plane water skiing, another great stunt. And as for sets Sanchez's mansion is great.

    I love how you talked about the crap rear projection then bought up GE, which has the awful back projection for the skydiving after a plane part :)) GE and LTK both look cinematic. They both have great action.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    All of them are pretty terrible but I guess DAD is lowest of the low but TWINE is one uneven mess, TND just is a SWLM rip off, I admire GE for what it was trying to do but don't really like the finished product.

    I think it's fair to say it was the lowest ebb for me in the 50 years of the series so far.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    but LTK felt like a TV film

    I've heard this so many times and I always respond with this: when have you ever seen an action sequence like the tanker chase in a TV film. And that's just one of many examples.

    But that's not until the end though. What about the cheep looking sets (in Leiter's house, in the casino, in the factory at the end) and the crappy back projection in the boat.

    Oh Bain.

    Theres some cheap looking sets in GE such as most of Russia was filmed in Leavesden. Russia looks like an industrial estate off the A40.

    If you want crappy back projection look at the PTS of GE with him dropping after the plane. 006 falling from a great height isn't that great either.

    GE has nothing of the gorgeousness of Sanchezs' mansion on Acapulco bay.

    Its got the casino- which looks far more alluring than the one in LTK, shots of Monte Carlo at night, shots of MC during the day, shots of Cuba or even the single shot of the Grand hotel.

    Plus there were the fancy computers in the Mi6 building (the heat television screen) and Alec's control room.

    GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.
  • On the subject of crappy back projection. Due to the technical limitations of the day, particularly when LTK (1989) was made, nearly all films had poor back projections. Even Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade has some pretty dodgy back projection work during the plane fight sequence. Today most of the time you can't tell when a film uses this technique....and concerning GE. There are a number of effects in the film that I have never liked such as Bond catching up to the plane in the PTS.
  • ....and for me Brosnan's worst Bond film is DAD...the worst Bond film.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    On the subject of crappy back projection. Due to the technical limitations of the day, particularly when LTK (1989) was made, nearly all films had poor back projections. Even Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade has some pretty dodgy back projection work during the plane fight sequence. Today most of the time you can't tell when a film uses this technique....and concerning GE. There are a number of effects in the film that I have never liked such as Bond catching up to the plane in the PTS.

    Ha, yeah that is kind of silly :p I do like Brozza's face when he's trying to regain control of the plane though.

    In terms of "crappy back projection" though I think EVERYONE on here knows which film takes the cake. THAT scene makes the freefall in GE look pretty good actually.
  • BAIN123 wrote:

    In terms of "crappy back projection" though I think EVERYONE on here knows which film takes the cake. THAT scene makes the freefall in GE look pretty good actually.

    Would that scene also involve Brosnan? and maybe some floating chunks of frozen water?

  • Posts: 1,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.

    Well, as someone who was there at the front of the cinema in 1989 as the tanker chase unfolded believe you me it was very cinematic.

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Honestly, TWINE. It's just horrible. Atleast DAD has a decent 1st half. TWINE has no redeeming feature whatsoever.


    No you are very wrong, DAD was horrible, TWINE had many redeeming moments to it .
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.

    Well, as someone who was there at the front of the cinema in 1989 as the tanker chase unfolded believe you me it was very cinematic.

    Well I've talked to other people on here who were there in 1989 and said they were slightly disappointed when they left the cinema - partly due to the occasionally "poor" production values.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Don't forget Goldeneye was made for $50 million, which was on the cheap side compared to rivals at the time such as True Lies as they testing the waters to see how popular the franchise still was after the 6 year hiatus. Still stands up well IMO, much better than Diet Another Day with the infamous iceberg CGI disgrace.
  • Posts: 11,189
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Don't forget Goldeneye was made for $50 million, which was on the cheap side compared to rivals at the time such as True Lies as they testing the waters to see how popular the franchise still was after the 6 year hiatus. Still stands up well IMO, much better than Diet Another Day with the infamous iceberg CGI disgrace.

    I think some of GE does look quite cheap now but a lot of it still looks good. I like the little things like the shots of Monte Carlo.
  • Posts: 1,548
    BAIN123 wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Don't forget Goldeneye was made for $50 million, which was on the cheap side compared to rivals at the time such as True Lies as they testing the waters to see how popular the franchise still was after the 6 year hiatus. Still stands up well IMO, much better than Diet Another Day with the infamous iceberg CGI disgrace.

    I think some of GE does look quite cheap now but a lot of it still looks good. I like the little things like the shots of Monte Carlo.


    I have alot of fond memories of GE as it was the 1st Bond for 6 long years and remember all the hype and publicity! Plus Isabella Scorupco is still very hot!
  • Posts: 11,425
    With regard to the plane 'stunt' (was there any actual stunt work involved?) at the start of GE, can someone tell me whether that is even possible within the laws of physics? wouldn't the plane have been falling at the same velocity as Bond? with its engines going wouldn't it actually be going faster? how does Bond catch up with it? always hated that scene. it screamed fake to me from the first moment I saw it.
  • Posts: 1,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.

    Well, as someone who was there at the front of the cinema in 1989 as the tanker chase unfolded believe you me it was very cinematic.

    Well I've talked to other people on here who were there in 1989 and said they were slightly disappointed when they left the cinema - partly due to the occasionally "poor" production values.

    Anecdotes and opinions of others are not evidence. I can find you just as many people who thought it was impressive.



  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    GE does have its cheap spots I agree but it looks more cinematic than Kill does.

    Well, as someone who was there at the front of the cinema in 1989 as the tanker chase unfolded believe you me it was very cinematic.

    Well I've talked to other people on here who were there in 1989 and said they were slightly disappointed when they left the cinema - partly due to the occasionally "poor" production values.

    Anecdotes and opinions of others are not evidence. I can find you just as many people who thought it was impressive.



    The film as a whole or the chase? The tank chase is good - I admit that but there is some validity to people who say most of the film 'looks poor' or 'looks like a tv film'. Quite a lot of it does.

    Kill is a controversial film amongst fans. Always has been.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't care about that. Plenty of the films have made up locations (eg- Commando).

    Of course, but what I mean is that I would be more intrigued by a film if it shot in a real city. It heightens that intrigue I feel as the viewer.
Sign In or Register to comment.