›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…282283285287288…707

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    .
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is easier to accept MR now, but for those of us who saw it in the theatre in 1979, as a follow-up to the beloved TSWLM, it was devastating. No PPK, double-take pigeon, Jaws turns full Looney Toons...horrendous. We had no idea that things would turn around, the films had been getting more or less progressively looser and sillier. For all we knew it was going to get worse. I can enjoy it now, as a curio...an oddity, a fun romp that sticks out, like DAD, but I couldn't get excited for Bond for a few decades after it's release. It damaged the franchise that much. I believe I speak for many originals ( @chrisisall , @BeatlesSansEarmuffs ) when I say that was a dark time.

    This is the feeling I had when I was watching Die Another Day in my late-20s. I'd been a Bond fan for 15 years and I remember sitting there in the cinema (at the national premiere no less!) thinking to myself... 'well, I guess this is what Bond films are now...'
    Definitely agree on DAD. I couldn't believe what rubbish I was witnessing in 2002, especially after having to endure the tripe that was TWINE in 1999 and the disappointment of generic & predictable TND not capitalizing on GE's great start.

    I first watched MR on tv as a kid and loved it. Over the years it dropped down my ranks, but is definitely experiencing a positive reassessment these days!
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited March 2017 Posts: 2,722
    bondjames wrote: »
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    .
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is easier to accept MR now, but for those of us who saw it in the theatre in 1979, as a follow-up to the beloved TSWLM, it was devastating. No PPK, double-take pigeon, Jaws turns full Looney Toons...horrendous. We had no idea that things would turn around, the films had been getting more or less progressively looser and sillier. For all we knew it was going to get worse. I can enjoy it now, as a curio...an oddity, a fun romp that sticks out, like DAD, but I couldn't get excited for Bond for a few decades after it's release. It damaged the franchise that much. I believe I speak for many originals ( @chrisisall , @BeatlesSansEarmuffs ) when I say that was a dark time.

    This is the feeling I had when I was watching Die Another Day in my late-20s. I'd been a Bond fan for 15 years and I remember sitting there in the cinema (at the national premiere no less!) thinking to myself... 'well, I guess this is what Bond films are now...'
    Definitely agree on DAD. I couldn't believe what rubbish I was witnessing in 2002, especially after having to endure the tripe that was TWINE in 1999 and the disappointment of generic & predictable TND not capitalizing on GE's great start.

    I first watched MR on tv as a kid and loved it. Over the years it dropped down my ranks, but is definitely experiencing a positive reassessment these days!

    For sure! I really enjoy Moonraker. About five years ago I started reappraising it. I remember getting the 50 year box set in 2012 and rewatching it for the first time in ages and there were so many things I enjoyed about it. It's my fourth favourite Moore film! But when @Birdleson puts it in those terms - I get the concern over it. When I started being a fan of Bond (in 1987) it was definitely thought of as the 'worst' or at least silliest Bond film.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is easier to accept MR now, but for those of us who saw it in the theatre in 1979, as a follow-up to the beloved TSWLM, it was devastating. No PPK, double-take pigeon, Jaws turns full Looney Toons...horrendous. We had no idea that things would turn around, the films had been getting more or less progressively looser and sillier. For all we knew it was going to get worse. I can enjoy it now, as a curio...an oddity, a fun romp that sticks out, like DAD, but I couldn't get excited for Bond for a few decades after it's release. It damaged the franchise that much. I believe I speak for many originals ( @chrisisall , @BeatlesSansEarmuffs ) when I say that was a dark time.

    I can certainly understand feeling that way. That's similar to how I felt after seeing CR, QOS, and SF. Even though I like those films (QOS notwithstanding), I was wondering if we would ever see classic film-Bond elements like gadgets again. We would in SP, but unfortunately it would be in the from of poorly executed homages to the past (again, I do still like the film). I suppose I like to think that the series will always course-correct itself eventually, no matter what direction it heads in for a time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    What do you think were some of the biggest moments of uncertainty in the Bond franchise, and do you think we are entering another one of those periods at the present time?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    The biggest moment of uncertainty was probably the 6 year gap between LTK and GE. Up until that point a film every 2 or 3 years was the norm so 6 must have been never-ending in comparison.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is easier to accept MR now, but for those of us who saw it in the theatre in 1979, as a follow-up to the beloved TSWLM, it was devastating. No PPK, double-take pigeon, Jaws turns full Looney Toons...horrendous. We had no idea that things would turn around, the films had been getting more or less progressively looser and sillier. For all we knew it was going to get worse. I can enjoy it now, as a curio...an oddity, a fun romp that sticks out, like DAD, but I couldn't get excited for Bond for a few decades after it's release. It damaged the franchise that much. I believe I speak for many originals ( @chrisisall , @BeatlesSansEarmuffs ) when I say that was a dark time.

    You must have loved FYEO & TLD on release then??
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The biggest moment of uncertainty was probably the 6 year gap between LTK and GE. Up until that point a film every 2 or 3 years was the norm so 6 must have been never-ending in comparison.

    Agreed. Despite being just 13 at the time of GE's release it was a disappointment. I had all the films on tape and GE was just average in the canon. I loved LTK, it was like the books and more serious like the first 4x Connery films and the follow up just wasn't as good IMHO.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Lots of people didn't seem too fond of LTK it seems...including Dalton.

    Going into the second film LTK was it more tailored to you?

    No, I don't think so. I simply said don't write for me. Write a wonderful Bond story where there's danger, where there's humour. And my job is to play it. To fill it out. For some reason the second one is a lot of peoples favourite of my Bonds. I much prefer the first one. Give me jokes....It had that one theme of revenge and had a go at establishing a different kind of Bond. But it dragged it away completely. It came out at the time of Lethal Weapon and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Why can't you have both? Seriousness and droll cynical wit?"
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MrBond wrote: »
    Peter Hunt was also offered FYEO but turned it down due to other commitments.
    He also turned NSNA down, but out of loyalty for Cubby.

    So everyone were asked and turned it down before they asked Glen.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    Didn't know Peter Hunt was offered FYEO! What could have been? Though I think Glen did a good job on it, Hunt would have been fantastic, if he went at it with the same passion he did OHMSS! Didnt know about Terence Young either, though i would have prefered him take on NSNA as Irvin Kershners Direction is pretty flat!
    I wonder was it 'Death Hunt' that prevented Peter tackling Bond? Think that came out that year?
    Suppose the chance to work with heavyweights Bronson and Lee Marvin was too much to turn down?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2017 Posts: 8,400
    Great hearing the perspective of someone who was around when these films came out.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Definitely compared to the 60s films as well as those in the late 70s Glen's films did seem to lack a certain visual flair at times.

    I remember when I saw OHMSS and LTK back-to-back. The cheap look and direction of the latter really stuck out.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Compared to the way OHMSS was directed, the Glenn Bond films look like they were shot by a TV director.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    LTK isn't cheap! It's just... frugal. :D
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Oh, I enjoy LTK, it's just not very stylish.
    OHMSS, CR, those pictures are unbelievably well shot.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Yes, OHMSS oozes class.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Oh, I enjoy LTK, it's just not very stylish.
    OHMSS, CR, those pictures are unbelievably well shot.

    Pretty much my view.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    LTK overcomes style with good story and characters. I definitely think it would have had different views if John Barry scored it. Kamen was a poor choice, and his minimalist score had too many Lethal Weapon echoes, hence the Miami Vice accusations by some!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I like the Kamen score actually, eventhough it does have a Die Hard/Lethal Weapon vibe. It's more the bland direction that I have an issue with.

    Agreed there's some good characters like Sanchez, Dario and Krest but also some poor/disappointing ones. Pam is a fairly one-note "tough yank" (Lowell is frankly a rather lightweight actress), Lupe had potential but is undermined by Soto's poor performance, Della isn't much more than a blonde bint of a sacrificial lamb, Sharkey is bland and Killifer is ham personified.

  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I like the Kamen score actually, eventhough it does have a Die Hard/Lethal Weapon vibe. It's more the bland direction that I have an issue with.

    Agreed there's some good characters like Sanchez, Dario and Krest but also some poor/disappointing ones. Pam is a fairly one-note "tough yank" (Lowell is frankly a rather lightweight actress), Lupe had potential but is undermined by Soto's poor performance, Della isn't much more than a blonde bint of a sacrificial lamb, Sharkey is bland and Killifer is ham personified.
    General Orlov would like a word with you.

    I don't know if I'd call Killier a ham performance, I think it's just a bad one. While I like Everett Mcgill as an actor (Twin Peaks!), he really phoned it in there. It's almost cringe-worthy. It's not the scene-chewing glory that the best ham performances deliver.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I agree McGill doesn't have anything on Steven Berkoff.

    Even so I do wonder what the hell he's doing in that opening interrogation scene. He and "Agent Johnson" are awful and I always end up laughing a bit.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Some of the performance stuff could have been helped a little if the film would have been shot in an interesting way.
    May of those set ups seem like TV movie of the week stuff.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2017 Posts: 6,304
    barryt007 wrote: »
    47....enjoy being 15 kiddo !!

    No,but seriously ,you do ask genuine questions rather than being a 'fan boy',now that you have calmed down on the swearing ;)

    You are a welcome addition to the forum,and Bond needs to get to Kenya and Africa IMO !!

    Hey, I'm 47 too. We have all the time in the world.
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    It helps when the composer co-writes the song with the artist (as with Casino Royale) and intends the theme for use throughout the film from the beginning. As opposed to the composer being told, "We know you're coming up with your own themes here, but we'd like you to use this other theme, too." Which remarkably Arnold was a good enough sport about doing with "Another Way to Die" (of all songs) in Quantum of Solace. In both Skyfall and Spectre neither of the main title themes are integrated into the scores, however they each receive a single seemingly arbitrary orchestral arrangement.

    Skyfall's was included late in the game as I understand it and was arranged not by Newman but by one of the orchestrators who worked on the song with Adele. Spectre's accompanies Bond and Madeleine's impassioned lovemaking following the Hinx fight, and in this respect perhaps serves the film better narratively than Skyfall's theme playing over the approach to the casino (as gorgeous as that moment is aesthetically). However, the sudden lovemaking in Spectre is played for laughs (or at least the transition in is) and the relationship between Bond and Madeleine just slightly less convincing than that between Bond and the Ocean Club receptionist in Casino Royale, so I'm not sure that either of these singular uses of the title theme were put to best use.

    By contrast, the Surrender theme in Tomorrow Never Dies clearly serves as an alternate heroic theme for Bond in the film, the main theme of The World Is Not Enough fittingly serves as Elektra's theme (or perhaps a theme representing the evil scheming of both Elektra and Renard), and the YKMN theme in Casino Royale serves as sort of a proto-James Bond theme for Bond before Bond is really Bond.

    Now that was pretty funny!
    GBF wrote: »
    The biggest problem of the Glen films are the casting choices. I think that especially the minor characters are often not acted so very well. I don't find, however, that the films look as cheap as some people say here. If I think of some shots in FYEO (shot over the Greek Islands) or AVTAK (the Chateau scenes, City Hall on fire, Golden Gate bridge), TLD (Vienna at day time and at night, sniper scene, some shots in Afghanistan). I rather find that the overall locations are maybe less beautifull and glamorous compared to for instance the ones in TSWLM and MR. In those two films the locations were rather chosen by their look whereas the locations in the Glen films were predominantly chosen to make sense in the film. In MR, it is very obvious that Bond moves from one place to another just in order to bring another beautifull local into that film at the expense of the pacing and the overall plot.

    I sort of see what you're saying. But I'll take locations that make sense over ones that look great just to look great, so for that reason I prefer the '80s films (although there are times like AVTAK when the locations do *not* go well together with the story). First we're horse doping, now we're causing earthquakes...whaaat?
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    The biggest problem of the Glen films are the casting choices. I think that especially the minor characters are often not acted so very well. I don't find, however, that the films look as cheap as some people say here. If I think of some shots in FYEO (shot over the Greek Islands) or AVTAK (the Chateau scenes, City Hall on fire, Golden Gate bridge), TLD (Vienna at day time and at night, sniper scene, some shots in Afghanistan). I rather find that the overall locations are maybe less beautifull and glamorous compared to for instance the ones in TSWLM and MR. In those two films the locations were rather chosen by their look whereas the locations in the Glen films were predominantly chosen to make sense in the film. In MR, it is very obvious that Bond moves from one place to another just in order to bring another beautifull local into that film at the expense of the pacing and the overall plot.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Glen generally didn't know how to make the most of the locations. He paid them lip service and always seemed more concerned with the action. In a way, his manner of filming is more like contemporary filmmakers today who always seem to be in a rush and just flash locations for a few seconds before getting to the next set piece. FYEO is perhaps the exception.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    bondjames wrote: »
    Glen generally didn't know how to make the most of the locations. He paid them lip service and always seemed more concerned with the action. In a way, his manner of filming is more like contemporary filmmakers today who always seem to be in a rush and just flash locations for a few seconds before getting to the next set piece. FYEO is perhaps the exception.

    This is a pretty fair assessment, though the opening of TLD is magnificent.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I think he did well in The Living Daylights. Gibraltar, Tangiers, Afghanistan. I think the only one he didn't capture as well considering it's vibrancy is India in Octopussy - mainly because it has been captured so well in so many other films. Glen's films leap around a lot more in locations than the early Connery ones so it may be necessary to do shorthand more often in his.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Lots of people didn't seem too fond of LTK it seems...including Dalton.

    Going into the second film LTK was it more tailored to you?

    No, I don't think so. I simply said don't write for me. Write a wonderful Bond story where there's danger, where there's humour. And my job is to play it. To fill it out. For some reason the second one is a lot of peoples favourite of my Bonds. I much prefer the first one. Give me jokes....It had that one theme of revenge and had a go at establishing a different kind of Bond. But it dragged it away completely. It came out at the time of Lethal Weapon and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Why can't you have both? Seriousness and droll cynical wit?"

    That was going to be my controversial opinion: I think Dalton was not happy with LTK. Seems I was right.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I still prefer LTK. "License to Kill" features a realistic, believable story. Add to it the equal ruthlessness of Bond and Sanchez in their respective portrayals by Dalton and Davi and you have a movie that will stand out over time as one of the best in the series.

  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    I always liked the smaller characters in LTK. Particularly Sanchezs henchmen, who are all given their little moment! And of course it was great to see Hollywood heavies like Anthony Zerbe and Don Stroud make an appearance. Have to defend Pam too. I think she is gorgeous, particularly in that outfit she wears in the finale. And her and Dalton are good together!
Sign In or Register to comment.