It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
I completely understand those who hate it, I was one of them! As I get older, I appreciate the differences in all the Bonds. This is all personal taste, so no reason to get mad at what someone likes or dislikes. One thing I do find to be true though: Whether you like serious bond, silly bond, or a mix, if the Bond series didn't change tones and styles throughout the years it would be dead. If every film was made in the same vein as Dalton/Craig's serious Bonds or Moore/Brosnan's sillier Bonds, it would wear on all casual fans and even many Bond fans.
Thank you!
This is how I feel about DAF. For some reason, MR doesnt work on me the same way. I think it's because there are some moments in MR that are brilliant and to be taken seriously, and it creates a disjointed film. DAF doesn't pretend to be anything other than ridiculous.
This.
But not this:
Now I love MR and would always defend it but whichever way you cut it that's a simply appalling embarrassment of a scene.
Jaws and Dolly, California Girls, the elephant pushing JW in the canal and the kung fu schoolgirls are probably the only times I genuinely cringe.
Oh and obviously about 80% of DAD.
I don't cringe anymore, I try to embrace every moment no matter how absurd. The last two moments that last made me cringe were probably "Christmas only comes once a year" and "Welcome to my nuclear family" but even those I end up bursting out laughing at how ridiculous the lines and context are.
California Girls was just a missed opportunity because it was before snowboarding was well known and those moments of action were quite good, but they went for a campy surfing reference instead.
I feel the same way about DAF as I do MR. They fall in the same boat for me.
I know MR is dumb nonsense but from a production value its solid. In much the same way as YOLT I can enjoy the spectacle and the exceptional music by John Barry. Those aspects still stand up fairly well.
DAF (to me) just feels sloppy in terms of how its made. Like the film-makers rushed to get it finished.
MR is mad as a bag of badgers, but is just great entertainment, and its pre-credits sequence is one of my favourites, and I'm not just talking about the freefall stunts, I love the hijacking of the shuttle, great scene!
Absolutely. MR is a gloriously indulgent spectacle with every single cent there for you to see.
With DAF most of the money ended up in Sean's pocket rather than on the screen.
Well not much of Mr Patriotic's tax money did.
Well, apart from the obvious fatal missteps - Bondola, Jaws and Dolly and space laser fight - Holly Goodhead must be one of the worst Bond girls ever. Annoying, grating, and Chiles can't act at all. Listen again to the line 'hold on James' which is said in such a flat and fake way it is actually funny. The whole sequence is a joint embarrassment for everyone involved.
I'm actually having trouble thinking of a worse Bond girl. Even Jones and Sutton aren't as bad. Jinx... now that is debatable.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not comparing DAF to MR in terms of sheer quality (I actually think DAF is still better), I'm comparing them as types of film, and that's very difficult to explain because, as you said, MR is closer to TSWLM tonally than DAF.
I did mention that MR is basically TSWLM gone overboard. That's not the way I'm comparing it to DAF, though, because I understand that DAF is more serious than MR and doesn't revel in its self-parody - it's very much a GF with more humour. DAF was disappointing for many people (and me) mostly because it wasn't a satisfactory follow-up to OHMSS. Again, however, that's not what I'm trying to compare here, since story-wise, DAF and MR are really not that related. DAF is, from what I know, commonly known for being Connery's cash-in, where, despite demonstrating more interest than YOLT, he really wasn't all that interested in helping along the franchise anymore. He really just did it for the sake of doing it, but at least he looked like he had more fun than in YOLT. That's basically Moore in MR - he does still have an interest in Bond, of course, but in this movie, it's obvious that he's really just having fun.
In short, my comparison is that they're both Bond movies where Bond just seems more carefree than usual, and the way the Bond actors play their humour, or just play whatever they want, is rather unrestrained in both movies (obviously Connery and Moore have different styles of humour and play Bond in different ways). That type of Bond is entertaining, but in my opinion, not necessarily good.
My problems with DAF mostly relate to how it follows up OHMSS and its treatment of Blofeld, but otherwise, I'm mostly fine with it -it is better than MR in every way other than sheer spectacle, IMO, and on my current list I have it above MR by a couple of places.
Anyway, this might be exclusive to me (I did mention it as being my opinion) but when I watch films like DAF and MR, I get into a different mindset to something like FRWL, GF, or even TSWLM. I'm there to be entertained by what the film has to offer, not to be amazed by a cinematic masterpiece.
FYEO isn't really a serious movie, I agree. It's just one of Moore's serious efforts (for the most part, since both the prologue and the epilogue are Moonraker-tier), but the idea is that the main storyline is more down-to-earth than MR. It's unlike Moore's other adventures (except TMWTGG, somewhat), since he really doesn't have any gadgets to rely on in the field except his pistol and his survival skill.
In fairness, you are right - TSWLM does hint at the later absurdity in Moore's reign as Bond. It's just not unbearable in the movie itself, which is why I'm fine with it. I do agree with what you said about MR being cause-and-effect of Moore's take on Bond and TSWLM, I'm just elaborating on my position.
Until now I have yet to meet a male Bond fan who was a teenager when this film came out and did not absolutely love it. You're making generalized assumptions & neglecting an entire sampling of people who are Bond fans, were teenagers in 1979, and either don't get online that much or haven't joined this forum. If you dislike MR, more power to you. I have a vast appreciation for both ends of the spectrum in the Bond franchise from the serious to the more absurd outings. It seems to me your time would be much better spent singing the praises of movies you love rather than apparently coming to threads designed by people who seem to love a film to constantly share your negativity towards it over and over again (by your own admission).
They didn't just go after Star Wars. They also riffed on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with the keypad's five-note tune to gain entrance to the lab in Venice.
I think we may be at a similiar juncture now with the humour in Spectre.
Yes, Diamonds Are Forever is a turning point in the series for me - that's where we start seeing campy humour etc.
Of course, @bondjames, the earlier Bond's always had their tongue firmly in their cheek, so to speak. I think what you've just highlighted is what's known as a quip. Though it did serve some purpose as it made it clear to everybody that 007 had just switched his wallet and ID with that of Peter Franks. Simply put, it's not much different to: "This never happened to the other fella." Both are nods and winks to the audience.
For the record, I don't dislike TSWLM, as it has some great one-liners. "Can you play any other tune?" But I can't deny that when I first sat in my cinema seat back in '77 that I was more than alittle apprehensive about the level of tomfoolery in the movie, plus the blatant theft of the YOLT storyline. That said, I still enjoyed it.
Which brings me to MR. The fact that they simply regurgitated and switched the action from the high seas to deep space (again!!!) was more than enough to send what goodwill remained in me far out into the stratosphere. Yes, MR is beautifully shot, but then it was the most expensive Bond picture made up to that date. The money is most definately all up there on the screen. It's just sad that the end results were just a lukewarm rerun of TSWLM, which in turn was a disco-version of YOLT with FRWL bolted-on. But I guess some folk like insipid reruns, hence the success of The Force Awakens.
Five years ago I would have ranked it in the bottom 3, but my tastes have changed, as well as my appreciation for cinema. There is so much beauty and entertainment in MR. It is a gorgeous film aesthetically, and the music from Barry is ethereal (id watch the entire film just to hear "Flight into Space").
Oh, and Drax is a top 5 villain. The lines they give him are legendary and Lonsdale nails it. When it comes to campy-world domination Bond villains he is head and shoulders above the rest.
What you say about 'quality' is true. In terms of craft; I'm talking production design, cinematography, costume, score, special effects, art direction, sound design... it is a stunning piece of work. It's truly luscious.