Controversial opinions about Bond films

1532533535537538707

Comments

  • RC7 wrote: »
    Not sure I buy this, personally. I think they’re all as different as any other era.

    I second this. Look at the Brosnan era, for example. The first 2 Moore films share a LOT, as do the next two Moore films, as two the 2 Moore films after that. In terms of tone, dialogue, what have you.

    I don't think the Craig films have been any more monotone than any other era in the series. Just my opinion. I see a lot of difference between something like SP and something like QoS

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.

    I agree it isn't the most original, I guess just don't think originality is the be all and end all with Bond films. TSWLM's villain scheme is basically a remake of YOLT and on the surface the whole film is fairly formulaic and box ticking, but it still feels fresh and exciting and full of energy. Same with GE. It's all about the presentation imo and GE does have some novel concepts of its own (a female M calling out Bond's sexism, an evil 00, etc).

    Disagree on Orlov/Ouromov. They're both Russian generals but are very different characters imo. Orlov was mad, Ouromov was more subdued and human seeming.

    Onnatop I think is great. We've seen the mad femme fatale thing before sure but never in such an overtly sexual turned up to 11 sort of way.

    Disagree again on the tank scene. Bond coming crashing through the wall in a tank straightening his tie while the Bond theme plays is a perfect crowd pleasing moment. The actual chase is nothing special I guess but it was something different. And worth it just for that moment at the start.

    The satellite, I'll give you that. The emphasis on computers felt very fresh and modern at the time, but the actual plot of the space weapon was definitely nothing special. And yeah, the BMW was annoyingly pointless as well.

    But your last point, I don't think any of what you described is retcons. The 1986 thing I never saw as an insult (and Dalton is my favourite Bond). They needed a PTS set in the 80s so they picked a random year where there wasn't a Bond film released. Dalton wasn't sacked, he could have done GE himself if he wanted, plus Tim and Barbara were close and Brosnan has talked about admiring what he did with the part on multiple occasions. I don't think anyone involved was trying to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the Dalton era, you're not the only one to have mentioned that but I think it's just fan paranoia. Zukofsky I think is a great character and Alec's history with Bond makes him a great villain. The scene where he has Bond captured (the speech about all the vodka martinis and his funeral, and the lovely little "how is Q?", honestly surprised they never had a former 00 as a villain before) make any holes in his backstory worth it imo. And again I don't see these as retcons at all. Bond has always had off screen adventures.

    Completely agree with you on several points, particularly Orumov and Orlov. Orlov was basically a generic lunatic. Don't get me wrong, he was gloriously hammy thanks to Steven Berkoff, but nothing special.
    Orumov was far more interesting. Gottfried John gave a more nuanced performance. I very much liked the scene when he finds out Trevelyan is a Cossack, and despite everything a flicker of his patriotism kicks back in. One of the better secondary villains of the series, in my view. He probably would have worked well as a main villain in his own right.

    Ouromov made quite an impression on me when I first saw GE. His initial appearance in the PTS with Serra's score complimenting his shot was excellent, IMO.
    Although he's a secondary character, I thought Gottfried John had an amazing presence and look. I find him more interesting than some of the main villains of the latter era.
    Not only was he menacing, but had a human quality to his character. He also has some wonderful line delivery.
    I love the way he says "He escaped!". That can actually be a cliched Bond villain line referring to 007, but Gottfried John's delivery ups it several notches.

    I couldn't agree more.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Ouromov is one of the best 'henchman' of the whole series to me.
    Gottfried John is awesome .
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Agreed.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ouromov is one of the best 'henchman' of the whole series to me.
    Gottfried John is awesome .

    No chance, IMO that's Red Grant!

    From Russia with Love is one of the best Bond films of the entire franchise, hands down. One of the interesting things about the film is how many different villains are employed to carry out Blofeld’s dastardly scheme. Promising SPECTRE rookie Red Grant could be argued to be the film’s chief antagonist, but in many ways he’s just another pawn. Grant is played by the incomparable Robert Shaw, who brought so much poise and nuanced menace to one of Bond’s most formidable foes. The fight scene between the two of them in the claustrophobic train car is astounding.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    suavejmf wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ouromov is one of the best 'henchman' of the whole series to me.
    Gottfried John is awesome .

    No chance, IMO that's Red Grant!

    From Russia with Love is one of the best Bond films of the entire franchise, hands down. One of the interesting things about the film is how many different villains are employed to carry out Blofeld’s dastardly scheme. Promising SPECTRE rookie Red Grant could be argued to be the film’s chief antagonist, but in many ways he’s just another pawn. Grant is played by the incomparable Robert Shaw, who brought so much poise and nuanced menace to one of Bond’s most formidable foes. The fight scene between the two of them in the claustrophobic train car is astounding.

    But of course. Grant is on another league.
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    OK, here's another controversial opinion - I actually think "Quantum Of Solace" is pretty good.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 19,339
    BondStu wrote: »
    OK, here's another controversial opinion - I actually think "Quantum Of Solace" is pretty good.

    Agreed,i like it !
    It sits in 9th place in my rankings,but has been as high as 4th before.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    QOS is the best Bond film this century.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,139
    QOS is the best Bond film this century.

    Might as well be. I’m in doubt between the first two Craigs.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Don't know how controversial this will be but it's just something I was thinking about that I wanted to share.

    If Craig had only done CR then he'd be generally thought of as on par with Connery. I know he's very popular now but I think if he'd done that one film, got all the acclaim and the BAFTA nomination, and then left people wondering what could have been if he'd done more then he'd be even more highly regarded. Being a one film wonder didn't work for Lazenby because there was room for improvement there. But Craig debuted with what was probably the most critically acclaimed Bond performance of all time. If he'd left it there, with everyone loving him and clamouring for more, then I think in a weird way it would have actually strengthened his place in the history books.

    Another one: as brilliant as Albert Finney was, Kincade should have been at least offered to Connery. Yes it would have been proper fan servicey and sort of fourth wall breaking but I think that would have been worth it to see Connery deliver the "welcome to Scotland" line and have the two of them fighting side by side to finish off the 50th.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Quantum of Solace is phenomenal and almost as good as Casino Royale in my opinion.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    This isn't Doctor Who. None of the past actors should be brought back for anything. It's bad enough that they keep bringing the DB5 back.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Remington wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace is phenomenal and almost as good as Casino Royale in my opinion.

    Controversial. Now we’re talking.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,139
    This isn't Doctor Who. None of the past actors should be brought back for anything. It's bad enough that they keep bringing the DB5 back.

    I don’t mind bringing the DB5 back once in a while but every other movie is total overkill.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    This isn't Doctor Who. None of the past actors should be brought back for anything. It's bad enough that they keep bringing the DB5 back.

    I don’t mind bringing the DB5 back once in a while but every other movie is total overkill.

    I got the impression they're going for évery film', not every other film.


    QoS is in my top 10 for sure.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Birdleson wrote: »
    BondStu wrote: »
    OK, here's another controversial opinion - I actually think "Quantum Of Solace" is pretty good.

    Not controversial; about half of us on here love it (Top Ten for me).

    Uncommon but not controversial. I assume you're exaggerating but QoS does get more love on these forums than elsewhere
  • Posts: 7,507
    And I'll pitch in with a positive. QOS is high on my list as a top class Bond movie. In fact, even now, I still say it gets better with each viewing.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Connery as Kinkade would have killed SF,look how Kinkade talks to Bond , it would be demeaning to Daniel Craig .
    Albert Finney was perfect in the role and personally I’m sooo glad we got him into a Bond film,he is one of our acting legends and you truly believed he had that relationship with Daniel Craig’s 007.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,025
    QoS is in my top ten. A lean mean Bond film with no fat.

    Much as i like it SF was a step back in my humble opinion.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Connery as Kinkade would have killed SF,look how Kinkade talks to Bond , it would be demeaning to Daniel Craig .

    It certainly would. People would go bananas with the memes that would ensue.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Connery as Kincade (I'm pretty sure) was the original idea. I would personally have hated it; I never want any of the Bonds to be anyone but Bond in the films.

    That would have ruined the realism film and perhaps past films. In Bond Connery should play Bond or stay away.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2019 Posts: 5,131
    QoS is in my top ten. A lean mean Bond film with no fat.

    Much as i like it SF was a step back in my humble opinion.

    Daniel Craig allayed any fear that he was just a one-Martini Bond, with this, his second 007 adventure, the brilliantly Fleming entitled Quantum Of Solace.

    I've got to admit that this didn't excite me as much as Casino Royale and the villain is especially underpowered. But Craig personally has the chops, as they say in Hollywood. He officially made the part his own, every inch the coolly ruthless agent-cum-killer, nursing a broken heart and coldly suppressed rage. If the Savile Row suit with the Beretta shoulder holster fits, wear it. And he's wearing it in the film.

    This is a crash-bang Bond, high on action, low on quips, long on location glamour, short on product placement, with perhaps the best pre-title sequence of the whole series.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,820
    Yes @BondStu, controversial to like BOND 21 circa 2008 until maybe around 2012. Could expect fireworks for that kind of admission.

    The QOS failure myth was the OHMSS failure myth of the 21st Century for a while. I think both are about extinguished at this point.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Add a gun barrel, calm the editing down in car chase, rope fight, motor bike/boat action, and I really enjoy QOS.
    I also like it's pace and running time. It feels to me that of the 4 Craig films Quantum is the one that most suits DC's style of Bond. I think it got its 'failure ' reputation because of how different it was to CR. Alot of people probably found it a bit jarring.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Spot on imo @cwl007 with your last sentence
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    I thoroughly enjoy Quantum when I watch it, but for some reason it never manages to break the upper echelons of my rankings. I think a rewatch is due soon.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I thoroughly enjoy Quantum when I watch it, but for some reason it never manages to break the upper echelons of my rankings. I think a rewatch is due soon.

    Let u know if it moves up or down !!
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Add a gun barrel, calm the editing down in car chase, rope fight, motor bike/boat action, and I really enjoy QOS.
    I also like it's pace and running time. It feels to me that of the 4 Craig films Quantum is the one that most suits DC's style of Bond. I think it got its 'failure ' reputation because of how different it was to CR. Alot of people probably found it a bit jarring.

    It didn’t build on the brilliant foundations of CR, it took a side step. I don’t think it’s jarringly different, but Forster doubled down on the Bourne influence. For a Bond picture it’s incredibly bleak, with very little of the richness that one expects. It’s rough, brutal and emotionally cold. I’m aware that was the idea, but I don’t think it resonated with the public in the way CR did, precisely because of that. Even SF with its broken Bond has a richness to it, it feels alive, and SP, for it’s obvious shortcomings, has an elegance and scope.

    The one thing I’ve never understood is when people praise its ‘pacing’. Yes, it’s a short film, but it’s pacing is, for my money, pretty woeful. Watch it after GF. There’s no comparison.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I find it very watchable precisely because of the points you make. They are not criticisms of it for me. At the time it was released I'll admit I felt very underwhelmed walking out of the cinema. But now it is just another Bond in a large, eclectic and varied back catalogue I enjoy it for what it is. Which is short, well paced and tough.
    For me the beauty of Bond is, again because we are 24 (5) films in is that there is something to suit all tastes and moods. Sometimes I'm in a Quantum mood. When I am I really like it.
Sign In or Register to comment.