Controversial opinions about Bond films

1352353355357358707

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.

    Are you round the bend?

    The only criteria in which CR67 could be said to have beaten YOLT was academy award nominations and having the most directors.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Give it a go some time. I enjoy it for what it's worth - worst case, you hate it and know you needn't watch it again.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Give it a go some time. I enjoy it for what it's worth - worst case, you hate it and know you needn't watch it again.
    For sure. I just can't believe it cost more than YOLT (which was a massive production).

    I've always wanted to view it but unfortunately it wasn't included in the 50th Anniversary boxset and I wasn't smart enough to sue. ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Christ knows where all the money went. It just goes to show how much the Bond name alone could make you money. How one of the worst films of all time could make 3.5 times it's budget back is incredible.

    If you havent seen it believe the hype - it is bad. Very bad. Not quite up to Star Wars Holiday Special levels (so bad it passes through being 'so bad its good' territory and comes out the other side into 'being so bad its bad') but fairly dismal all the same. Only ever managed to sit through it once in its entirety.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    My mistake, then. Sure I read it somewhere.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Christ knows where all the money went. It just goes to show how much the Bond name alone could make you money. How one of the worst films of all time could make 3.5 times it's budget back is incredible.

    If you havent seen it believe the hype - it is bad. Very bad. Not quite up to Star Wars Holiday Special levels (so bad it passes through being 'so bad its good' territory and comes out the other side into 'being so bad its bad') but fairly dismal all the same. Only ever managed to sit through it once in its entirety.
    I just looked up the cast and can't believe how many famous names are listed. I must watch it even if out of curiosity now. Thanks for the heads up. Expectations will be suitably lowered.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Christ knows where all the money went. It just goes to show how much the Bond name alone could make you money. How one of the worst films of all time could make 3.5 times it's budget back is incredible.

    If you havent seen it believe the hype - it is bad. Very bad. Not quite up to Star Wars Holiday Special levels (so bad it passes through being 'so bad its good' territory and comes out the other side into 'being so bad its bad') but fairly dismal all the same. Only ever managed to sit through it once in its entirety.
    I just looked up the cast and can't believe how many famous names are listed. I must watch it even if out of curiosity now. Thanks for the heads up. Expectations will be suitably lowered.

    Try and count out the actors who would also appear in an official Bond film, see how many you come up with.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Christ knows where all the money went. It just goes to show how much the Bond name alone could make you money. How one of the worst films of all time could make 3.5 times it's budget back is incredible.

    If you havent seen it believe the hype - it is bad. Very bad. Not quite up to Star Wars Holiday Special levels (so bad it passes through being 'so bad its good' territory and comes out the other side into 'being so bad its bad') but fairly dismal all the same. Only ever managed to sit through it once in its entirety.
    I just looked up the cast and can't believe how many famous names are listed. I must watch it even if out of curiosity now. Thanks for the heads up. Expectations will be suitably lowered.

    I'm shocked to think they werent at rock bottom in the first place.

    Its basically a loosely connected series of sketches a few of which are mildly amusing but it goes on forever - 131 mins for a film with barely any plot - and you grow tired of it inanity about 30 mins in.

    Miss Moneypenny is spectacularly fit mind.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Watch it with a bottle of scotch and get pissed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    I don't get all the dissapointment forAVTAK, especially considering the grounds on which DAD is appreciated here. Comparing the two: both villains are over the top, but somehow Christopher Walken seems legit. I do like Stephen's Graves, but Walken is just the better psychopath. The plot in DAD is as lazy as can be. In AVTAK Bond at least does some spying. The Bond-girls even out in beauty, but where the one screams you off the screen, the other acts so badly I'd still go for the damsel in distress. At least that's some sort of realistic.

    AVTAK has some proper humour, a plot that is outlandish but holds some water, and some real moments of disbelief and hate (Tibbet's death) fun (the race between Bond and Zorin) and class (the party is way better then the ice palace).

    Would it 've been better with Dalton? Perhaps, I like TLD more then LTK, mainly because it's the darkness of Dalton put in a light film for Moore, which works wonders imo.


    I think the way May Day goes out (plus Zorin's reaction, and Barry's soundtrack) is one of the best of its kind ("villain turns hero") in the series. And it's Jones' best acting in the film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    I've always been a big fan of David Niven and I enjoy every single performance he ever gave. As such I enjoy him in CR67 as well.

    Two other quite amusing aspects are the Burt Bacharach soundtrack and the insane sets (notice the Dr Caligari sets in East Berlin).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    One of my favorite scenes is the introduction of Mata Bond (the daughter of Mata Hari and James Bond). Note Sandor as a guard.

    That's surreal. Now I have some idea where the money went. I'm still trying to understand how a spoof cost more than YOLT.
  • Posts: 15,114
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Christ knows where all the money went. It just goes to show how much the Bond name alone could make you money. How one of the worst films of all time could make 3.5 times it's budget back is incredible.

    If you havent seen it believe the hype - it is bad. Very bad. Not quite up to Star Wars Holiday Special levels (so bad it passes through being 'so bad its good' territory and comes out the other side into 'being so bad its bad') but fairly dismal all the same. Only ever managed to sit through it once in its entirety.

    I think Orson Welles didn't do it for charity.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Their attempt at semi-seriousness (TWINE) failed miserably (I think the rival AP film beat it at the box office, which was the first time a spoof had done that and it wasn't too well received critically) and so they threw all their chips on the table.

    CR beat YOLT in 67.
    Global #'s are showing $112m for YOLT vs $41.7m for CR-67.

    What's amazing is that CR-67 reportedly had the higher budget (????). $12m vs. EON's $10.3m

    I've not seen it.

    Give it a go some time. I enjoy it for what it's worth - worst case, you hate it and know you needn't watch it again.

    I imagine that you'll hate it at the first go, but, like several of us, over time you'll find sections that you love. The saddest part is that the dullest section is close to the front.

    Are you talking about the Deborah Kerr section? That's the part that really loses me. I kind of dig the groovy '60s sets and outfits later on, and of course, the music.
  • Posts: 170
    I don't buy the Bonds on dvd/blue ray. I find that watching them when they come round on tv is more than sufficient. Don't want to watch them to the point where I know the script off by heart. Best to watch sparingly like all good films
  • Posts: 7,415
    Bad and all as it is (and it is bad!) I would sooner sit through CR67 than DAD!
    Always liked David Niven, no matter how terrible the stuff he takes part in, he is still a class act. And yes, Moneypenny is indeed hot!!
    A word too for animator Richard Williams titles!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I can't say that it is the worst film of all time, but it is a surreal mess.

    "Are you Peter O'Toole?"
    "No."

    That exchange is what the film classes as "humour". Watch it once to say that you have seen every Bond film, and then never watch it again.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    To this day I still have never seen CR67
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    Like Major said, whether you end up loving or hating it, you should at least see it once to say you've seen them all, both official and unofficial films.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Like Major said, whether you end up loving or hating it, you should at least see it once to say you've seen them all, both official and unofficial films.

    Is there really anyone out there who actually loves it? And who isn't incarcerated in Broadmoor?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Like Major said, whether you end up loving or hating it, you should at least see it once to say you've seen them all, both official and unofficial films.

    Is there really anyone out there who actually loves it? And who isn't incarcerated in Broadmoor?

    I know nobody who "loves" it, per se, but I can manage to enjoy it, as can others. Some are describing it as if it's the worst abomination ever to touch film.
  • Posts: 12,526
    To this day I still have never seen CR67

    It really is a car crash of a movie!
  • Posts: 15,114
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Like Major said, whether you end up loving or hating it, you should at least see it once to say you've seen them all, both official and unofficial films.

    Is there really anyone out there who actually loves it? And who isn't incarcerated in Broadmoor?

    Two friends of mine liked it a lot. But that was 20 years ago.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Courtesy of TWINE, "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" is one of my favorite bad one-liners.
  • Posts: 7,507
    What CR 67 does have, is possibly the greatest selection of beautiful women ever put on film. It is worth a watch only for that ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Could Peter Sellers have played James Bond in a serious film?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,189
    It's a bad film but we did get the soundtrack out of it so I can forgive it for that.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Minion wrote: »
    Courtesy of TWINE, "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" is one of my favorite bad one-liners.

    Mine is "I'm Mr Kil, there's a name to die for". Surely the king of bad Bond puns. Something Alan Partridge would have said.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    jobo wrote: »
    What CR 67 does have, is possibly the greatest selection of beautiful women ever put on film. It is worth a watch only for that ;)
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It's a bad film but we did get the soundtrack out of it so I can forgive it for that.


    Very true on both points.
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Courtesy of TWINE, "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" is one of my favorite bad one-liners.

    Mine is "I'm Mr Kil, there's a name to die for". Surely the king of bad Bond puns. Something Alan Partridge would have said.

    Bit of respect please. P&W dream of being in Partridge's league when it comes to one liners:

    'Glen I was walking through Paris today and I saw a madman throw himself in the river. He was quite literally in Seine.'

    Jurassic Park.

Sign In or Register to comment.