Controversial opinions about Bond films

1149150152154155707

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Again, it wouldn't have fit. Lazenby's reaction is highly believable. I think so anyway.

    Craig is at his best, when showing despair, exhaustion or pain. There's no question about it, I even would put him over Connery in those departments.
    Luckily for Craig, CR, QOS and SF are full of such moments.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,263
    It's supposed to fit -- that's just how closely emotions are written on your face and body language. Just because you believed it doesn't mean it was done authentically. This isn't to say that the scene is disingenuous, but rather the detail that he put into his own performance was not reflective of how a person who was feeling the exact emotion he was trying to convey in the scene would appear. There is little written on his face below the eyes.

    Perhaps my perspective is altered by my interest in the topic, having did some research on nonverbal communication and body language in undergrad studies. When I see acting like that, I can't connect with it as thoroughly.

    Edit: This is another instance of showing criticism to a Bond I rank in my top 10. I really only said anything because I see it gets unchecked praise without grounding some of it into reality. The acting by Lazenby in it was simply not exemplary and that in large part is why I rank it in the bottom of my top 10 instead of at the top.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    I would give a rating of 8.5/10 or higher to 20 of the 23 films. Only DAF, YOLT and DAD I rate much lower. I hope that's not too controversial. :-)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I would give a rating of 8.5/10 or higher to 20 of the 23 films. Only DAF, YOLT and DAD I rate much lower. I hope that's not too controversial. :-)

    :)>- nah it's not.

    I'd rate 21 movies 8.0 or higher. 12 over 9.0.
    Only QOS and DAF get lower ratings. DAF 6.5, QOS 7.5
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Wasn't it documented that Laz actually got teary when reading the last chapter of the OHMSS novel? Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Laz's performance is effective- it's genuine, to an extent. Another reason why I can't see Connery in this scene (or the film, for that matter).
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,263
    Wasn't it documented that Laz actually got teary when reading the last chapter of the OHMSS novel? Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Laz's performance is effective- it's genuine, to an extent. Another reason why I can't see Connery in this scene (or the film, for that matter).
    I agree with it being said the way you have. He doesn't make the moment feel false, but for me, he doesn't get enough emotional connectivity to what happens. He speaks the dialogue well, his voice cracks a bit when he delivers the all the time in the world, which is a nice touch. If anything, I think as a hypnosis, his facial expressions were consciously made because of the initiative in direction to have him project a certain image.

    It's a common phenomena that happens in every day life with the fake smile. A smile made with the emotion of joy, happiness, tenderness, what have you will always be accompanied by upward folding marks around the eyes. When those emotions are not felt and a smile is made, those marks are not present. The reason is because they are two separate muscle groups and it is difficult (albeit possible) to control them both consciously. That's how I can tell he isn't acting the way he felt when he read the last chapter of the novel because he is only working the one muscle group.

    That doesn't mean it's not believable either. People buy fake smiles all the time. That's why people do them.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding Lazenby's acting at the end of OHMSS, I like the fact that he didn't overplay it, thereby still appearing Bondian. The grief was apparent to me, but I would have preferred just a little bit more emotion somewhere, maybe in the voice, or the facial movements.

    I haven't done the kind of research or study into this sort of thing to understand all the intonations or facial movements and their meaning, however. I think my feeling is a subconscious one (picking up on Lazenby's body language without knowing it) because just looking at the scene, it seems fine.

    Regarding his overall performance in OHMSS, I thought it was ok. Not brilliant. Not bad. Just ok. He must be credited for stepping into probably the biggest shoes to fill at that time and doing a half decent job, especially given his limited acting skills. I am not convinced however that he would have been able to take the role further in future films.....including a possible alternate universe revenge driven DAF.....because he appeared to me at least to have a limited acting range in OHMSS.

    I'm glad we got his one film, and that it was a different and meaningful one, making his brief time in the role all the more memorable.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    Would Lazenby have been a critical success with any other Bond story? This is a retroactive question since it has critically aged well. I just can't imagine his character being utilized effectively in another film like Thunderball or Live And Let Die. I have long thought that he had the most meager presence as Bond out of all the actors. I've seen quite a few people say that about Brosnan on here to which I disagree. Brosnan was very charismatic (probably a big reason why the public wanted him so much) and that's something that is uncommon to have and hard to act.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @Mansfield, I'm not so sure how well he could have done with some of the other types of Bond films. Like Craig in CR, he had the benefit of starring in a film that was quite meaningful and deep, and so the film and the excellent story together subconsciously help the actor's portrayal and how he comes across....imho.

    Sometimes I think it's harder to appear as a credible Bond in a lighter tone casual Bond picture because in such instances a lot of the focus is on Bond himself (sometimes to save/carry the film), thereby showing up any cracks in the actor's portrayal more obviously. That's my view anyway.

    Personally I thought Lazenby had great screen charisma for James Bond. I was very impressed with him. Brosnan and Dalton actually less so, in this regard. Regarding Brosnan, I personaly feel a lot of his charisma comes from his acting (as opposed to his presence), and in the case of Bond, he was sort of straightjacketed (based on how he likes to act/is more comfortable acting vs. what the role requires) so he did not show his best side. To me he is much more charismatic in non-Bond roles (Tailor of Panama, The Thomas Crown Affair, After the Sunset, The Ghost Writer).
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,263
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally I thought Lazenby had great screen charisma for James Bond.
    We differ a bit here. In my view, it is Diana Rigg who has an enormous attractive presence on screen. I never quite feel like Lazenby tames that. In fact, I get the impression that Rigg curtails her own presence in the cabin to let him take over to provide a sense of neutrality. The only time I really like Lazenby in the role is at their wedding when he is beaming. It's a really great moment as all of his MI6 colleagues and Draco embrace him on his farewell. That's the scene that makes the film for me more than any other perhaps.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Mansfield wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally I thought Lazenby had great screen charisma for James Bond.
    We differ a bit here. In my view, it is Diana Rigg who has an enormous attractive presence on screen. I never quite feel like Lazenby tames that. In fact, I get the impression that Rigg curtails her own presence in the cabin to let him take over to provide a sense of neutrality. The only time I really like Lazenby in the role is at their wedding when he is beaming. It's a really great moment as all of his MI6 colleagues and Draco embrace him on his farewell. That's the scene that makes the film for me more than any other perhaps.

    I certainly agree on that last part. The knowing respectful glance/acknowledgement he and Moneypenny give each other before he leaves is as good as it gets in a Bond film. Pure gold.

    Rigg is definitely dynamite. Like Green.
  • Posts: 232
    Mansfield wrote: »
    Lazenby doesn't get enough credit, IMO for his action sequences though, especially the fight scenes. Very athletic, and I love the way the scenes are cut and stilted. A lot like the action scenes of today.
    I agree on this point. Lazenby was a real bruiser and very convincing in the action sequences.

    Never understand this admiration. Look at the PTS (or most action sequences.) Lazenby swings like a girl, it's not even a punch-shaped delivery. It'd be fine for boxing somebody's ears if you used both arms. Plus, for a guy in good shape, he doesn't move great (when he is told to get into that little boat, he has to bend his leg out to one side inside of just step up, which is about as UNBond as you can get.

    The almost automatic credibility Connery brings to most of Bond is pretty much entirely absent in Lazenby, except some of the bedroom stuff.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited August 2015 Posts: 5,080
    Lazenby's scenes with Moneypenny, and perhaps even M, are my favourite Moneypenny/M scenes in the series.
  • Posts: 232
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I have watched CASINO ROYALE (1967) over a dozen times since the early '70s. I've actually grown to like most segments, but it took many years.
    I watched the 67 CR a dozen times DURING the 70s, it was on the weekend movie at least twice a year in the bay area. I don't know that I can defend it, except perhaps to say at least it knew it was preposterous and revelled in that, as opposed to the Moore films which had the official label but embarrassed me a lot more to see.

    Since I bought the dvd, I find it hard to watch all the way through, but I do love seeing single sequences (which is actually how I watch most 'genuine' Bond films that I don't consider to be good ones ... you watch the Ken Adam stuff or the Derek Meddings stuff, or the sequences that Barry really did a number on, and move on.)
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    trevanian wrote: »
    Never understand this admiration. Look at the PTS (or most action sequences.) Lazenby swings like a girl, it's not even a punch-shaped delivery. It'd be fine for boxing somebody's ears if you used both arms. Plus, for a guy in good shape, he doesn't move great (when he is told to get into that little boat, he has to bend his leg out to one side inside of just step up, which is about as UNBond as you can get.
    I'll admit I never broke down his fighting motion, and I also think the PTS for On Her Majesty's Secret Service is overrated (the reference to "the other fella" might do it for some people, but I put it one notch less campy than the Blofeld opening of For Your Eyes Only). With that said, Lazenby is physically imposing and some of his action scenes were convincingly brutal for me. Maybe I'm easier to sell in action pieces or just choose to ignore some of the things you point out as negatives here.
    trevanian wrote: »
    The almost automatic credibility Connery brings to most of Bond is pretty much entirely absent in Lazenby, except some of the bedroom stuff.
    Agreed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Lazenby's scenes with Moneypenny, and perhaps even M, are my favourite Moneypenny/M scenes in the series.

    Maxwell brought out the best in Lazenby. In that respect, she outacted the other actors in the film.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    pachazo wrote: »
    Okay, here's one. I'm not sure if this is the proper venue or not. To those people who only like a handful of Bond films, I'm not sure why you're here. It's a valid opinion, for sure, but I'm not sure why you'd bother to join the community. I guess I'm just an eternal optimist. To each their own.

    I agree. There are people here that hate the Craig era, hate Moore, hate 3 of the 4 Brosnan films and pick opportunities to bash them at any chance.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't hate any of them, but there are a few stinkers in the pot........thankfully very few and far between, amazingly so when you think for how long this franchise has been alive cinematically.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    edited August 2015 Posts: 538
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Even though there are probably less than eight that I can objectively call great films, I enjoy watching each of them (though some contain some long stretches that I could do without).

    That's the other side of it. There aren't many I have a hard time watching, but there also aren't many that are Academy Award type movies or feature great performances outside of it being just a Bond film. I thought Casino Royale was on that level and Skyfall was close as well. Eventually, I think the budget of these newer films will push newer Bonds towards more award consideration. The franchise is just outworking other action/adventure contenders.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    There is no "worst" Bond movie. Just a least good one.

    That alone may not be controversial.

    But this may be:

    The Bond movie that is closest to bad is Diamonds Are Forever.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Birdleson wrote: »
    realistically and objectively, I'd say the DN-GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, CR and SF are great movies, for different reasons, obviously. And I'd say TB, YOLT and LALD are pretty close.

    I guess this is what I was trying to target with the Awards comment, though I get your point…even a truly great Bond movie might not win an award because of politics.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,020
    Why did Skyfall get Oscar nominations and even won some?

    Only because of the billion dollars.

    Or does anybody really believe Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight or LOTR 3 would have gotten Academy Award nominations let alone winning them* if those movies hadn't been that successful??

    *technical awards, like special effects, sound editing etc. not counted.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Raises a question if its fair to compare older Bond movies to newer ones, if MGM is going to pour so much money into the current films.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    Raises a question if its fair to compare older Bond movies to newer ones, if MGM is going to pour so much money into the current films.
    I brought this up in another topic a few months ago. There are so many more ways for art to move us in film now. Though, it is a double-edge sword since the digital advancements allow for all news kinds of gaffes.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    edited August 2015 Posts: 538
    Bond is very good at protecting untrained (fighting) female accomplices, contrary to what Alec may have suggested in GE. Here's the difference….

    Category 1:
    "You can't protect me from him/them."
    Rosie, Anders, Paris, Chick in the TWINE PTS, Vesper*, Severine

    Category 2:
    "Let's go"
    Honey, Tatiyana, Tiffany, Solitaire, Melina, Kara, Natalya, Christmas

    [In the interest of full disclosure, Teresa had the "ride or die" spirit and well…died. Plus, Lupe appears not to have cursed herself despite uttering the magic words. But the trend overall is real. The ladies need to participate in their rescue and maintain a positive mental attitude.]
  • Posts: 2,162
    Camille is one of the best written bond girls in the entire franchise.

    She is a fully developed character with a decent backstory (no pun intended) that ties her strongly to the plot of QoS.

    Olga did a great job of portraying her. It would be good if she popped up again at some point in the series' future, if just for a cameo or extended sequence.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Controversial opinion: I would rather watch YOLT than TB any day, even though TB is a better movie.
  • Posts: 15,114
    Mallory wrote: »
    Camille is one of the best written bond girls in the entire franchise.

    She is a fully developed character with a decent backstory (no pun intended) that ties her strongly to the plot of QoS.

    Olga did a great job of portraying her. It would be good if she popped up again at some point in the series' future, if just for a cameo or extended sequence.

    I agree completely.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Camille is one of the best written bond girls in the entire franchise.

    She is a fully developed character with a decent backstory (no pun intended) that ties her strongly to the plot of QoS.

    Olga did a great job of portraying her. It would be good if she popped up again at some point in the series' future, if just for a cameo or extended sequence.

    I agree completely.
    Me too.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Shes great, just wish her and Bond shagged.
Sign In or Register to comment.