Controversial opinions about Bond films

1528529531533534707

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I’ll happily watch any Brosnan film, any time.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 17,756
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me, I don't think so. Because there has never been a Bond film before SP (and I've been going to them since the '60s) that left me devoid of joy or excitement. Even the ones that I was initially down on (MR, AVTAK, DAD, QOS), gave me some degree of pleasure from the first.

    This is exactly how I feel too. A film that leaves no favourable impression whatsoever isn't going to suddenly grow on you.

    SP is also the first time I've considered leaving the cinema before the film ended (I was with company when watching it, so I couldn't).
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    For me, I don't think so. Because there has never been a Bond film before SP (and I've been going to them since the '60s) that left me devoid of joy or excitement. Even the ones that I was initially down on (MR, AVTAK, DAD, QOS), gave me some degree of pleasure from the first.

    This is exactly how I feel too. A film that leaves no favourable impression whatsoever isn't going to suddenly grow on you.

    SP is also the first time I've considered leaving the cinema before the film ended (I was with company when watching it, so I couldn't).

    I missed Judi Dench lol
    No offence to Ralth Fiennes but he's not her.
    I dont think Craig himself was satisfied with Spectre which is partly why he's coming back again to do NTTD. If the trend of his films continue then his fifth outing should be a cracker!
    History is not on Craig's side though considering every previous actor has had a fairly poor outing to finish; DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD.
  • SP is also the first time I've considered leaving the cinema before the film ended

    That bad?

    The only films I’ve ever considered walking out the cinema on were Last of the Mohicans and Love Actually. And they were both years ago.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,136
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me, I don't think so. Because there has never been a Bond film before SP (and I've been going to them since the '60s) that left me devoid of joy or excitement. Even the ones that I was initially down on (MR, AVTAK, DAD, QOS), gave me some degree of pleasure from the first.

    This is exactly how I feel too. A film that leaves no favourable impression whatsoever isn't going to suddenly grow on you.

    SP is also the first time I've considered leaving the cinema before the film ended (I was with company when watching it, so I couldn't).

    I missed Judi Dench lol
    No offence to Ralth Fiennes but he's not her.
    I dont think Craig himself was satisfied with Spectre which is partly why he's coming back again to do NTTD. If the trend of his films continue then his fifth outing should be a cracker!
    History is not on Craig's side though considering every previous actor has had a fairly poor outing to finish; DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD.

    LTK is not a poor outing by any means. It’s far superior to DAF, AVTAK and DAD. If anything, it’s a very strong outing, I’d say.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited September 2019 Posts: 13,807
    I was just telling another Spectre fan that in a decade or so, no normal person is going to rank that at the bottom, which I suspect is true.
    Yup. Maybe already true.

    INTENT: Normal reaction to Spectre, won't be ranking it on the bottom. Normal as in commonplace, regular, frequent reaction.

    I didn't refer to persons here as "abnormal" or invoke the word "abnormal" toward a person.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    So we who disagree are abnormal? That is the personal stuff I'm talking about and will not tolerate on here from any side of any issue. Knock it off now. Consider that a friendly warning.
    Thank you. No fan should be obligated to rank any Bond entry at any position.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Moonraker is my second favorite Bond film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    Birdleson wrote: »
    So we who disagree are abnormal? That is the personal stuff I'm talking about and will not tolerate on here from any side of any issue. Knock it off now. Consider that a friendly warning.

    I agree. These boards have always been a place of mutual respect regardless of one’s personal opinions, let’s keep it that way.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ll happily watch any Brosnan film, any time.

    Me too. Even tho the experience makes me always think about the Queen song "Pain is so close to pleasure".
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I sometimes struggle
    BondStu wrote: »
    Well - here's another quite controversial opinion... I LIKE SPECTRE!!! *runs away*

    It's probably my favorite, so I'm even worse!

    Look, in a few years, all the hyperventilating will cease, and silly folks will stop pretending Spectre is worse than DAF or AVTAK. Hell, people are now coming round to the Star Wars prequels, and Spectre is a lot better than those.

    Not sure they will. SP had a serious identity crisis, odd pacing, poor use of locations and bland characterisation. Plus the whole 'Brofeld' thing will always be a huge black mark on the film, for a lot of the fan base at least.
    Glad you liked it, though. And that's the beauty of threads like these.
  • Posts: 19,339
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I will jump on the fence and defend Kara to my final days @barryt007 ;)

    Oh I know that GG haha !!
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    BondStu wrote: »
    If I said I prefer Never Say Never Again to Thunderball - would that be considered a controversial opinion?
    I'm all with you...in that I find NSNA more entertaining (i.e. less prone to be boring at times), if not necessarily "better" (in terms of cinematography etc.) than TB. But I must also add that I saw NSNA several times before ever watching TB for the first time, so I never developped a feeling of NSNA illegitemately ripping off TB in the first place. I think on overall terms it's about equal...knowing that the majority here will definitely dispute this.

    I dispute this !!!

    But then, you're also about the only one here that hates TLD (or at least Kara), aren't you?

    I was joking with you (what is up with people on here recently )...
    Just for the record: So was I :-).

    Jolly good :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ll happily watch any Brosnan film, any time.

    Damn right,he is isn't my favourite Bond but I watch his films the most for sure,pure escapism and a great ride !
  • Posts: 19,339
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me, I don't think so. Because there has never been a Bond film before SP (and I've been going to them since the '60s) that left me devoid of joy or excitement. Even the ones that I was initially down on (MR, AVTAK, DAD, QOS), gave me some degree of pleasure from the first.

    This is exactly how I feel too. A film that leaves no favourable impression whatsoever isn't going to suddenly grow on you.

    SP is also the first time I've considered leaving the cinema before the film ended (I was with company when watching it, so I couldn't).

    I missed Judi Dench lol
    No offence to Ralth Fiennes but he's not her.
    I dont think Craig himself was satisfied with Spectre which is partly why he's coming back again to do NTTD. If the trend of his films continue then his fifth outing should be a cracker!
    History is not on Craig's side though considering every previous actor has had a fairly poor outing to finish; DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD.

    LTK is not a poor outing by any means. It’s far superior to DAF, AVTAK and DAD. If anything, it’s a very strong outing, I’d say.

    Agreed.
    I love LTK.

    I find DAF,AVTAK & DAD weaker but equally watchable.
    I think I just love Bond films (although SP is pushing it big time )
  • I'm popping in a few dozen posts too late to say that some of the TB opinions thrown about a couple pages back caused me genuine physical pain. I'll be divvying up the hospital bill to those responsible. (Kidding, btw)

    I could try to argue why, using the text of the picture as evidence to support my claims, why TB is far from boring, but to be bored is such an incredibly subjective reaction that I have no other choice but to respect it. Even some that recognize it as a "good" film still confess to being bored by it. It pains me greatly, but you gotta' respect it.

    I've written at length on these boards about the movie (in piece meal fashion, a little here a little there) but perhaps someday I'll compile my thoughts into a longer form review/essay that attempts to articulate just why I find it so enthralling, exciting, unique, and frankly the pinnacle of what the cinematic Bond has achieved.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I agree with the departed Wizard of Ice in that the third act of the film lacks tension. That brings it down a bit.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Being abnormal is very normal around here.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    I very much love TB, consider it to be Bond at his archetypical best. It’s my favourite Connery entry and my second favourite 60’s entry. Despite previous entries being more established classics, I think TB takes all what had been done before and perfects it. At least it does so in my book. Consequently, it never bores me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    TB ranks lowest of the 60s entries for me, but is still a top ten.
  • Posts: 12,473
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I very much love TB, consider it to be Bond at his archetypical best. It’s my favourite Connery entry and my second favourite 60’s entry. Despite previous entries being more established classics, I think TB takes all what had been done before and perfects it. At least it does so in my book. Consequently, it never bores me.

    Exactly how I feel. To me it’s the most entertaining and satisfying Connery entry, and only behind OHMSS of the awesome 60s run. It effortlessly combines the styles of FRWL and GF. For someone looking to tick all the boxes of what’s in a Bond film and have it done excellently, I’d say TB is arguably the most bang for your buck experience in the series.
  • Thunderball to me is the epitome of the James Bond film. They have never made a film since then which feels more like a James Bond film.

    The earlier films were probably better films, and some of the later ones were better too, but there’s a certain bouquet of Bond which only Thunderball has. It’s marinaded in Bond. It seems to ooze Bond from almost every frame.
  • @IGotABrudder I think I completely agree with this and that is part of the larger argument I'd make about where I view TB in the canon of Bond films.

    I'm going to be reductive so hopefully detractors don't tear me apart for being this reductive (I promise I can elaborate in an eventual longer piece, but I recently returned to school after many years away and I'm now a graduate student so the time I can devote to something like this is unfortunately really minimal at best). There are certainly many other factors, and as I said this is reductive, but I think part of Thunderball's excellence can be attributed to its director's Bond background as well as its position within the Bond "timeline," if you will.

    Terence Young's first two pictures, in my opinion, ooze a lot of Fleming. They feel like Fleming's prose, and even if Dalton's portrayal is a bit more Flemingesque than Connery's, I think those first two Bond films feel the most like a Fleming novel in their cinematic grammar (cinematography, editing, mise en scene, movement, pacing) than any others in the series. Young's Bond is also dangerous and lethal, much like Fleming's.

    In comes Guy Hamilton with Goldfinger (easily one of the best in the series, if not the best) with a bigger budget, more polish, more glamour, more bravura. It's bigger, looser, laced with more camp and irony and absurdism that would come to define the series. It was the series' first blockbuster. In it, Bond is far more playful, with Connery's charismatic magnetism taking the front seat and the lethality of his performance playing second fiddle.

    In short, Thunderball, with its gigantic size, scope, and budget, is a flawed but masterful amalgamation of the two incarnations of Cinematic Bond we had gotten to that point. Young was able to maintain, and even exceed, the level of sheer aesthetic spectacle that Hamilton strove for. The big plot machination, the bombast. He fused it with his intrinsic 007 sensibilities. The Fleming remained, moreso than in its predecessor, namely in Connery's performance, the way he looms over the beautiful beaches like an omen of death. There's also a Flemingesque sexuality to the film that is in keeping with Young's preoccupations. The action scenes, which some view as slow, allow us glimpses of just how dangerous these situations are. A knife flashes. Oxygen is running low. Two bodies struggle in the dimly lit waters for an advantage. They fight for their lives against their assailant as well as against the environment in which they do battle -- what will be their end? The knife? Or will their lungs flood with water as they violently struggle beneath the surface?

    Thunderball is cinematic Bond at its apex. It is flawed, but it's as good as we've gotten of a merging of Hamilton's established "cinematic Bond" elements with Fleming's Bond which differs considerably. Balancing the two so well is something I don't think we've seen since. The breathtaking blockbuster and the cold thriller both functioning not in spite of the other, but in tandem.

    (It looks like I wrote a lot anyway, and I apologize, I'll definitely be saving this for notes on my eventual essay on my favorite of the series).
  • Posts: 12,473
    @ThighsOfXenia very good post, and I agree with it - especially how the combination of the Fleming Bond and cinematic Bond was never bettered than how good it was in TB. I’d absolutely love to see what just one more Young/Connery film would have been like post-GF. Amazing for sure.
  • @Birdleson Thanks! I appreciate it.

    @FoxRox Ditto, though I think Connery's fatigue with the role was really setting in somewhere between his 4th and 5th, and I think the extreme paparazzi/fandom that seemed to be especially strong in Japan (from what I've read??) was ultimately what pissed him off. If we could get another Young/Connery film with the same level of charisma he brought to his first four outings, I totally agree.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I agree with most of your assessment @ThighsOfXenia. However, I’d say it’s a film I can convince myself is better than it is. I can’t pick too much fault in what you’re saying, and I’ve gone into it thinking the same several times, only to feel a little shortchanged. On the other hand I’ve gone into GF after hearing blanket negativity only to think, ‘this is just brilliant’.
  • @RC7 That's totally fair. Like I said in an earlier post, arguing against something like "boredom" is futile, as it is an even more subjective response to a piece of art/film/whatever than typical.

    It is paced in an unhurried manner, especially for a Bond film. It takes its time visually, leading viewers through SPECTRE's plot/process. I can see how and why people view it as slow (for a Bond film, it is). I don't view slow(er) as unexciting or boring in any way.

    Also, when I was very young, the underwater sequences bored me to death because as an American I had been conditioned to respond and be stimulated by or compelled by a very specific set of "action" in cinema. I demanded a level of extreme kinetic action that the film doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate. As I've gotten older, however, and as I tried to articulate (briefly) in my post when talking about the underwater scenes, I think they are truly some of the most thrilling and gripping and compelling in the series.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Count me among the TB fans.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    I’m in the camp that finds TB terribly boring. It’s a beautifully shot film and oozes 60s style, but I genuinely don’t care about the story it’s trying to tell because it drags so hard. However, QOS is the the only the only Bond film that I’ve ever had to fight sleep during my first viewing. I struggle to find anything to enjoy in that movie.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 16,169
    Some sections of TB do drag a bit. However, I love every frame. It almost always reaches my top 5, often battling with GF for #1.

    I love the Bahamas locale, Domino, Connery's superb performance as Bond, Domino, the wonderful Barry score, Domino, the great villain that is Largo, the superbly beautiful Ted Moore scope cinematography and Domino.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 17,756
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Some sections of TB do drag a bit. However, I love every frame. It almost always reaches my top 5, often battling with GF for #1.

    I love the Bahamas locale, Domino, Connery's superb performance as Bond, Domino, the wonderful Barry score, Domino, the great villain that is Largo, the superbly beautiful Ted Moore scope cinematography and Domino.

    Good things can't be repeated enough! :-bd
  • Posts: 16,169
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Some sections of TB do drag a bit. However, I love every frame. It almost always reaches my top 5, often battling with GF for #1.

    I love the Bahamas locale, Domino, Connery's superb performance as Bond, Domino, the wonderful Barry score, Domino, the great villain that is Largo, the superbly beautiful Ted Moore scope cinematography and Domino.

    Good things can't be repeated enough! :-bd

    My number one favorite Bond girl for decades now, and that unashamedly affects my ranking of the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.