Controversial opinions about Bond films

1522523525527528707

Comments

  • Posts: 385
    jobo wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    The whining about Skyfall is silly.

    There, I said it.


    Totally agree! I feel like it is held to a different standard to any other Bond film.

    Inevitable when certain segments act as though it's God's gift to filmmaking.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    Concerning SF, I was really hyped when it came out and I was impressed when I first saw it.

    Then everybody started to call it the best Bond film ever and I became more and more annoyed by that statement to the point that I didn’t really like it anymore.

    But my most recent experience with it was an excellent one. So much so that I would now call it Daniel’s finest hour in the role. Would probably crack my top 10 next time I do a ranking.

    Funny how things go.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Concerning SF, I was really hyped when it came out and I was impressed when I first saw it.

    Then everybody started to call it the best Bond film ever and I became more and more annoyed by that statement to the point that I didn’t really like it anymore.

    But my most recent experience with it was an excellent one. So much so that I would now call it Daniel’s finest hour in the role. Would probably crack my top 10 next time I do a ranking.

    Funny how things go.

    Mine was not dissimilar. It wasn’t that I was annoyed by the ‘Greatest Bond ever’ claims, It was more the verbal gymnastics on display in defending its ‘lesser’ moments. The bullet-proof screen had come up and all criticism was dismissed out of hand. Like all Bond films it has its issues, but it’s a unique and important film that will loom large in the Bond history books.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    MooreFun wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    The whining about Skyfall is silly.

    There, I said it.


    Totally agree! I feel like it is held to a different standard to any other Bond film.

    Inevitable when certain segments act as though it's God's gift to filmmaking.

    Such as?
  • Posts: 17,753
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    My controversial opinion: regardless of how it was handled, QOS is a great title for the movie and a great title in its own right.

    I like QoS as a title too. It certainly beats Jason Bourne, McClane and other completely uninspired titles.

    Damn those titles are dull. I always liked QoS as a Bond title.

    Those titles (JB/McClane) feels like they've been chosen close to a deadline or something.
    "Damn, we need a title for this thing! Ah. screw it, let's just call it McClane!"

    I hate to admit my shallow narrow mindedness, but JASON BOURNE as a title was the main reason I skipped that entry and have never seen it. If the next Die Hard movie ever gets made (I'm as doubtful as I am of another Indiana Jones film) and McCLANE is in fact the final title, I may skip that one as well and just pop in the original.

    Although I wouldn't necessarily skip watching a film based on the title alone, there is something half-hearted going through the trouble of producing a film, and just end up with a plain title like these two. That's not saying I don't like films which titles are the main characters name, but it's a bit different when long-running film series does the same. At least try to come up with "The Bourne (something)" and "Die Hard: (something)". How difficult can that be?

    Have yet to watch Jason Bourne myself, even though I have a copy of it. Just haven't been in the mood to watch it yet.

    My issue with such titles is that it's taking movie like sausages: here's a Hygrade, here's a Stockmeier, here's an Oscar Mayer. It becomes meaningless.

    Good point!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Concerning SF, I was really hyped when it came out and I was impressed when I first saw it.

    Then everybody started to call it the best Bond film ever and I became more and more annoyed by that statement to the point that I didn’t really like it anymore.

    But my most recent experience with it was an excellent one. So much so that I would now call it Daniel’s finest hour in the role. Would probably crack my top 10 next time I do a ranking.

    Funny how things go.

    Based on script, performance, tone, cast, score, direction and being true to Fleming, Casino Royale is by far Craig’s finest hour IMO.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 7,507
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    MooreFun wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    The whining about Skyfall is silly.

    There, I said it.


    Totally agree! I feel like it is held to a different standard to any other Bond film.

    Inevitable when certain segments act as though it's God's gift to filmmaking.

    Such as?

    I don't get it either...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Concerning SF, I was really hyped when it came out and I was impressed when I first saw it.

    Then everybody started to call it the best Bond film ever and I became more and more annoyed by that statement to the point that I didn’t really like it anymore.

    But my most recent experience with it was an excellent one. So much so that I would now call it Daniel’s finest hour in the role. Would probably crack my top 10 next time I do a ranking.

    Funny how things go.

    Based on script, performance, tone, cast, score, direction and being true to Fleming, Casino Royale is by far Craig’s finest hour IMO.

    Finest 2.5 hours.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 12,837
    I think we've swung too far the other way with SF. It has its faults sure. The plot's a bit ropey and it does get a bit too pretentious at times imo. And not long after release I found myself arguing with its biggest defenders on here and defending the likes of @Getafix for daring not to like it. Because I didn't think it was perfect like some seemed to, and I still don't.

    Now though I think it gets way too much stick. Yeah the "best Bond ever" hype was a bit much and it has its flaws. But remember when it came out and we all saw it for the first time. I left the cinema buzzing and from what I can remember, most people on here (including some of the members who now slag it off) seemed to feel the same. It might not stand up to multiple/frequent rewatches in the same way some of the other Bond films do, but I still think it takes a special sort of film to have that magic and resonate with so many different crowds of people in the way that SF did.

    It's not flawless but it was still really good. Brilliantly acted, beautiful to look at, full of great lines and fanboy pleasing moments. And while the plot might not make much sense (Silva's plan), it absoloutely nails the characters. Dench's M got the send off she deserved. Silva is one of the best villains of the series. I think it's definitely top ten.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    For me Scotland sort of redeems it. I think it starts off brilliantly and carries on being brilliant right up until Bond captures Silva. Stick a gunbarrel at the start, get rid of the hypocritical jab at GE in the Q scene and take out one of the one liners after the dragon fight (nice to see Craig in a more old school Bond mode but two in a row was overkill) and I think it'd be pretty much perfect.

    London for me is when it goes downhill and is probably what would stop it making my top five if I could be bothered to do a proper marathon/ranking. Always happy to see Bond on home turf and I do like the tube chase but Silva's plan just doesn't make much sense to me at all, he had no reason to get himself captured and I really hate the whole "he hacked us" bit. Just feels a bit naff imo. Obviously it's very dated now and even more unrealistic but I do think GE did a much better job at doing the whole cyber thriller modern Bond thing. There was still lots of veryfasttypingtoshowhowtechyandmodernweare but I thought it felt like there was more tension/danger to it in that film, mainly because you could see actual consequences of the computer stuff with the satellite kicking into gear, and because they always had a physical threat to make the veryfasttyping bits feel tense and engaging (the train being about to blow up while Natalya tracks Alec, the stuff with the pen at the base). Not a fan of M standing up and reciting a poem at the inquiry either. Felt very pretentious to me, takes me out of the film every time.

    But then Bond threatens to eject M and the film wins me back around every time, and Scotland I think is one of the best finales of the series. Could have done without hearing about Bond's tragic origin story in the batcave tunnels but I love Kincade, I love the big shootout at Skyfall complete with an attack helicopter, I love the whole bit on the ice, love Bond gunning down bad guys with the DB5's machine guns and seething when Silva destroys it. For me it's still Craig's best finale, not a huge fan of any of his other ones.

    And yeah Silva is great. I forgot to mention Severine in my last post as well. Genuinely think she might be my favourite Bond girl. Her death scene is really well done but I do wish we'd got to see more of her.
  • Posts: 7,507
    This has been debated to death before on these boards, but here we go again...

    The frustrating thing with Skyfall for me, is that the only two plot holes that actually nag me and slightly disrupt my viewing experience, were both so easily avoidable: 1) Just skip the stupid line where Q spouts about how "Silva planned to be captured" all along. The narrative is far better and more powerful in every regard if Silva was captured unwillingly but is simply a too powerfull willain who will find a way to escape regardless and turn the tables on the situation. 2) Skip the scenes and dialogue where M is informed of Silva´s escape and the fact that he is on his way to kill her, potentially endangering innocent civilians!

    The problems are solved in a blink by a lazy rewright and would make the film almost perfect for me. Instead they easily open themselves up for criticism and make sure I personaly have a nagging sense of bothered frustration whenever I watch these London scenes which should be some of the best in the film and the Craig era as a whole. How much more powerfull would that Tennyson poem and the narrative as a whole not be if M is unknowingly awaiting her fate and Bond is the only one who can save her?

    These decisions are so sloppy and stupid I find it unfathomable! I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher. But it is frustrating to think what it could have been without those nagging, completely unecessary flaws...
  • Posts: 7,415
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    Can't agree with your last statement. I found Silva a bit too cartoony, and the facial thing was unnecessary. Scaramanga and especially Sanchez were much more imposing and a threat to Bond, and at least they had a final showdown with him, unlike that cop out ending of SF!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.

    There is a tier above the top ten?

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.
    There is a tier above the top ten?
    Only when you rank Zero Minus Ten.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    QBranch wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.
    There is a tier above the top ten?
    Only when you rank Zero Minus Ten.

    Of course, how dumb am I?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    QBranch wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.
    There is a tier above the top ten?
    Only when you rank Zero Minus Ten.
    Of course, how dumb am I?
    Looking at our present situation, strictly as a ranker, I would have to say that the numbers are not on your side.
  • Posts: 7,507
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.

    There is a tier above the top ten?


    I think you understand what I mean. Top 5, top 3 etc...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I still like Skyfall a lot and I regard it as a film which belongs at least in the top ten and, on a good day (for me), even higher.

    There is a tier above the top ten?


    I think you understand what I mean. Top 5, top 3 etc...

    Of course, just kidding. Curious to see where SF ends up in my next ranking. I suspect it will at least stay in the top ten.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Concerning SF, I was really hyped when it came out and I was impressed when I first saw it.

    Then everybody started to call it the best Bond film ever and I became more and more annoyed by that statement to the point that I didn’t really like it anymore.

    But my most recent experience with it was an excellent one. So much so that I would now call it Daniel’s finest hour in the role. Would probably crack my top 10 next time I do a ranking.

    Funny how things go.

    Based on script, performance, tone, cast, score, direction and being true to Fleming, Casino Royale is by far Craig’s finest hour IMO.

    Finest 2.5 hours.

    Ha ha. Agreed.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    Can't agree with your last statement. I found Silva a bit too cartoony, and the facial thing was unnecessary. Scaramanga and especially Sanchez were much more imposing and a threat to Bond, and at least they had a final showdown with him, unlike that cop out ending of SF!

    +1.
  • Posts: 7,507
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    Can't agree with your last statement. I found Silva a bit too cartoony, and the facial thing was unnecessary. Scaramanga and especially Sanchez were much more imposing and a threat to Bond, and at least they had a final showdown with him, unlike that cop out ending of SF!

    +1.


    -1
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    Can't agree with your last statement. I found Silva a bit too cartoony, and the facial thing was unnecessary. Scaramanga and especially Sanchez were much more imposing and a threat to Bond, and at least they had a final showdown with him, unlike that cop out ending of SF!

    +1.
    +2
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Watching the latest MI6 podcast and I got reminded of this...again.

    I don't mind the slide whistle in TMWTGG. This is a film with bottoms up followed by a girls ass, JW Pepper spouting pointy head lines, his ass is the first thing you see after the stunt, etc
  • Posts: 12,837
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At times Iove it, at times I'm kind of in the middle. The first two-thirds is pretty much great, the question is always to what degree the whole section in Scotland annoys me. Great denouement (as are all of the first three Craigs').

    Silva (along with LeChiffre) is one of only two villains that I feel are great enough to stand among those of the '60s (Scaramnaga and Sanchez just miss out).

    Can't agree with your last statement. I found Silva a bit too cartoony, and the facial thing was unnecessary. Scaramanga and especially Sanchez were much more imposing and a threat to Bond, and at least they had a final showdown with him, unlike that cop out ending of SF!

    +1.
    +2

    I think Bond villains should be cartoony though. Obviously there's a line and you don't want to go into Dr Evil territory, but I don't think Silva goes that far at all. He's colourful, larger than life, but still dangerous and not a full on cartoon. Just like Fleming's bad guys.

    I agree he's not as good as Sanchez though. But then I think Sanchez is the best bad guy of the series so that's a hard bar to reach to be fair.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    w2bond wrote: »
    Watching the latest MI6 podcast and I got reminded of this...again.

    I don't mind the slide whistle in TMWTGG. This is a film with bottoms up followed by a girls ass, JW Pepper spouting pointy head lines, his ass is the first thing you see after the stunt, etc

    Get your point, but the slide whistle is an abomination. What’s irritating is that between that and the way they covered the stunt, it doesn’t have the impact it should. It was/is an incredible achievement, but I feel it’s a bit forgotten and unloved to a certain degree.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Birdleson wrote: »
    With a Barry (or just plain better) score, a recast Main Bond Girl, better setting for the SPECTRE meeting along with a better use of Von Sydow as Blofeld, and a stronger climax, and NSNA would move up my list substantially.

    Agreed. With some improvements here and there it could have ranked way better for me too.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited April 2019 Posts: 4,617
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    With a Barry (or just plain better) score, a recast Main Bond Girl, better setting for the SPECTRE meeting along with a better use of Von Sydow as Blofeld, and a stronger climax, and NSNA would move up my list substantially.

    Agreed. With some improvements here and there it could have ranked way better for me too.

    Boy, the more sequels that Irvin Kershner directed really went down in quality. From The Empire Strikes Back to Never Say Never Again to Robocop 2, that's quite a decline. That being said, I do enjoy listening to him talk about his movies. And I would have liked to have seen what he would do with an EON 007 movie.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,026
    Birdleson wrote: »
    With a Barry (or just plain better) score, a recast Main Bond Girl, better setting for the SPECTRE meeting along with a better use of Von Sydow as Blofeld, and a stronger climax, and NSNA would move up my list substantially.

    I must say I don't know what your problem with Kim Basinger is in this case. But then, I never really comprehended others' problems with other Bond girls either (say barryt007's celebrated obsession with Kara Milovy). There is simply no Bond girl that actually makes a major difference to me in the overall assessment of the respective film. Although some are quite dismal, but have a role small enough to ignore them overall.
  • Posts: 385
    Birdleson wrote: »
    They often take up too much screen time and to be ignored. Some of the best (Severine, for example) are gone in blink.

    Which raises the question - if Severine had, say, another twenty minutes of screen time, would you like her less?
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2019 Posts: 10,512
    NSNA is like a made for TV Bond. Mod edit production values. It’s nearly 20 years older than TB, yet TB oozes class. NSNA looks like someone convinced Ken Loach to make blockbuster.
Sign In or Register to comment.