Controversial opinions about Bond films

1536537539541542707

Comments

  • I'm pretty sure the opinion that Drax is a far better villain than Stromberg isn't controversial. At least, it shouldn't be.
  • Posts: 7,507
    My controversial opinion is that while Moonraker is pretty obviously a(n inferior) 1 to 1 ripoff of TSWLM, Drax is a far better villain than Stromberg.

    Not because his plan is cleverer or more evil, it's not, it's essentially the same one, but because he manages to have a character other than "evil German man who loves fish".

    He actually interacts with Bond more than twice, for a start. In fact, he engages Bond in dry, witty repartee multiple times throughout the film and Lonsdale's uber-dry delivery meshes very well with Moore's.

    He's also responsible for Corinne's death, which for me, ranks as one of the most horrific scenes (in a good way) ever to appear in one of these films.

    Personally I think your opinion is not controversial enough. Although I admit Spy is objectively the better film, I get more pleassure from watching Moonraker. Silly, outlandish Bond is not my preferred take on the character anyway, but Moonraker boasts even more memorable locations, a more exciting climax (both are a little drawn out though) and a significantly better score. And on the topic of main villains: There's no contest. Drax is in a different league!
  • Glad to know my controversial opinion isn't so controversial after all. I only thought it might be because TSWLM is generally much more highly regarded than MR.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The only main villains in the series I consider to be on the weak side are Blofeld in DAF, Koskov + Whitaker in TLD, Renard in TWINE (if you count it as him; it’s about shared with Elektra, who is much better), Gustav Graves in DAD, and Blofeld in SP. As for the rest, some are stronger than others, but I enjoy them all.

    What's really interesting about that list, is that literally all the villains on it were written to involve some kind of misdirection as to their identity and or evil plan.

    I actually like a lot of these villains, but I will concede that they can often feel a bit shortchanged by having the narrative prevent the audience from actually getting to know them until around the 3rd act.
  • My controversial opinion is that while Moonraker is pretty obviously a(n inferior) 1 to 1 ripoff of TSWLM, Drax is a far better villain than Stromberg.

    Not because his plan is cleverer or more evil, it's not, it's essentially the same one, but because he manages to have a character other than "evil German man who loves fish".

    He actually interacts with Bond more than twice, for a start. In fact, he engages Bond in dry, witty repartee multiple times throughout the film and Lonsdale's uber-dry delivery meshes very well with Moore's.

    He's also responsible for Corinne's death, which for me, ranks as one of the most horrific scenes (in a good way) ever to appear in one of these films.

    Fair point. When I think of Drax, I think of big dramatic monologues and a stony, almost bored affect. When I think of Stromberg, I just have a mental picture of a portly, wheezy man sat behind a table.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Drax has more of a calm menace about him,and has a great 'two and fro' battle with Bond verbally,throughout the whole film.

    I feel that Bond is in more danger during MR than in TSWLM,and John Barry's excellent score,haunting in parts,adds to that danger.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 1,596
    If I recall correctly, I think I placed Drax in my personal top 3~ villains in the series? I absolutely love him. The line delivery is perfect "menacing camp," as though the actor is relishing every line. It is still menacing, but it falls in with the film's overarching tone so perfectly. Just a wonderful performance.

    My opinions might be a bit out of the mainstream, though. Max Zorin ranks up there as well, alongside some of the more populist picks like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Scaramanga.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    Upon watching TWINE, I think it is really unfairly treated by some. I’d say it is very well-written despite its reputation. Also think this one features Pierce’s best turn as Bond and Sophie Marceau makes a top-notch villain.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited November 2019 Posts: 9,026
    jobo wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that while Moonraker is pretty obviously a(n inferior) 1 to 1 ripoff of TSWLM, Drax is a far better villain than Stromberg.

    Not because his plan is cleverer or more evil, it's not, it's essentially the same one, but because he manages to have a character other than "evil German man who loves fish".

    He actually interacts with Bond more than twice, for a start. In fact, he engages Bond in dry, witty repartee multiple times throughout the film and Lonsdale's uber-dry delivery meshes very well with Moore's.

    He's also responsible for Corinne's death, which for me, ranks as one of the most horrific scenes (in a good way) ever to appear in one of these films.

    Personally I think your opinion is not controversial enough. Although I admit Spy is objectively the better film,...
    Not only do I dispute that Moonraker is "pretty obviously a(n inferior) 1 to 1 ripoff of TSWLM" (while admitting that it is as much a ripoff of YOLT as TSWLM is), but I also do not agree that TSWLM "is objectively the better film". What's objective? I think in terms of cinematography, score, villain, "Bond Girl" acting abilities, and art direction MR blows TSWLM clearly away (and yes, I know that Ken Adam did both in the latter case, but MR was his late great masterpiece, IMO). And that "IMO" sums it up: There is no objectivity involved. I discarded MR initially, even refusing to watch it until I bought the DVD, because I thought Bond going into space was ludicrous and only based on the success of Star Wars. But no other Bond movie has grown on me as much in comparison, and at least I enjoy watching MR more than I enjoy watching TSWLM. Whatever others may think, it's not any more "objective" than my feeling about this.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Count me as someone who regards MR as an improvement over TSWLM. It may feel derivative, but I think it's a much more refined attempt on the formula by Lewis Gilbert. There's stuff in TSWLM that didn't quite work for me like the villain, and the casting of XXX didn't really compliment the tension that was supposed to be between her and Bond. Lois Chiles isn't a great actress either, but at least the film doesn't try to do anything more with her beyond the banter she has with Bond. What makes Drax work is that he's so droll that he works as a counterpoint to all the craziness going around the film. It's the same thing with John Barry, who never actually plays his music in a way that levels with the silliness but rather plays it very straight and grand that it almost helps ground the film in some respects.

    It may be my favorite installment of the 70s Bonds.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I'm also in the MR over TSWLM camp. I've said numerous times it was MR that made this casual Bond fan into a serious one when I saw the film at age 12 and always maintained a soft spot for it.

    I'm just curious as to if I'd actually seen TSWLM first two years prior that would've made that type of impact on me; I opted to go to a baseball game that day instead of the film. Seeing it on its TV premiere just didn't have the same impact I'd hoped.

    On the Elektra King thing, she's really down there in my rankings. After one gets over the twist and her being a woman villain, there's not much there other than a spoiled, manipulative heiress type pulling the strings of a terrorist. If anything, it makes Bond seem like a fool for not figuring her out quicker, but the majority seem to forgive that due to the "I never miss" scene, not to mention M. Personally, I still feel that REnard is the main villain.

    She still outranks Stromberg, though, my least favorite main villain.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I've said this elsewhere, but TWINE probably had the most promising concept for a thrilling and emotional Bond film for Brosnan's run. Given I rank it dead last at #24, it's an understatement to say I was disappointed.
  • Posts: 19,339
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Upon watching TWINE, I think it is really unfairly treated by some. I’d say it is very well-written despite its reputation. Also think this one features Pierce’s best turn as Bond and Sophie Marceau makes a top-notch villain.

    Yes yes and yes !!
    It bounces around my top 10 in my rankings,it’s #11 atm .
    Love it !
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Upon watching TWINE, I think it is really unfairly treated by some. I’d say it is very well-written despite its reputation. Also think this one features Pierce’s best turn as Bond and Sophie Marceau makes a top-notch villain.

    Yes yes and yes !!
    It bounces around my top 10 in my rankings,it’s #11 atm .
    Love it !

    I think it's unfairly treated, yes, but the dialogue isn't that good and Brosnan doesn't do that inner-hurt-but-going-on Bond well. TBH one moment would've made the film so, so, so much better, if he hadn't melodramatically hung over her dead body, but just had given her a final glance and muttered, whilst stepping outside: 'I never miss'.

    Still, definately not a bad film at all.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    DAD, while problematic, has a lot going for it and not in the least David Tattersall’s cinematography. I think it has the best cinematography of all the Brosnan films and can hold a candle to any of the others as well.
  • GoldenGun wrote: »
    DAD, while problematic, has a lot going for it and not in the least David Tattersall’s cinematography. I think it has the best cinematography of all the Brosnan films and can hold a candle to any of the others as well.

    I'd give the edge to Robert Elswit's cinematography in TND out of the Brosnan movies, but I do love the way DAD looks. Elswit has lensed some absolutely gorgeous films, namely the majority of Paul Thomas Anderson's feature length work, and the 2015 Mission: Impossible entry. TND is stunning.

    Honestly, I like GE's industrial, post-Cold War aesthetic as well. It's really only TWINE that I think has fairly pedestrian cinematography (hardly offensive, but nothing particularly striking).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Here's one ,I just my not be old enough to get it but I think OHMSS has way to high a ranking amongst the hard core fans it has almost ruined it for me , it wins so many elimination games here I actively root for its downfall

    Maybe when you get older.
    OHMSS is number 1 for me, and I'm a diehard Dalton fan (Dalton was offered the role then....Man, I would have loved that!)
    OHMSS has everything I want from a Bond movie, good story, great cast, brilliant action and terrific score, plus many Bondian/Fleming moments.
    NTTD will have to be something extra special to knock it off top spot for me!

    21 year old Timothy Dalton was offered the role in 1967/68? Tell me more.
  • GoldenGun wrote: »
    Upon watching TWINE, I think it is really unfairly treated by some. I’d say it is very well-written despite its reputation. Also think this one features Pierce’s best turn as Bond and Sophie Marceau makes a top-notch villain.
    THANK YOU!!!! It's a top 10 and one I like to rewatch all the time. And Elektra might be my favorite villain in the series!
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    I have always been of the opinion that Sylvia Trench and Bond were together before DR. NO - that is, they did not meet that night in Le Cercle over cards but were only playing a lovers' game with each other as they were wont to do. Because I'd already seen FRWL and knew who she was... and because I couldn't believe that some random woman could break into Bond's pad so easily.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 1,469
    I appreciated the discussion about Bond villains, and about MR and TSWLM, which are also favorites of mine and which I consider amongst the biggest in scope. Also thinking about Rami Malek/Safin and how I've opposed his casting because I don't think he looks threatening to me. Frankly to me he looks like a geek with weird eyes. Of course he could surprise me in the film. Maybe I'm old-fashioned in that I think a Bond villain should look threatening or have a threatening presence, like Drax, Largo in TB, Silva, Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Dr. No (though he was more creepy), some Blofelds. Thinking about some other Bond films, why is it so hard to find a threatening-looking villain, with all the actors in the world and those in related professions? Like Lazenby was trained to act for OHMSS--the central role no less!--the person chosen to play the villain could be trained to act, if they have the ability. Maybe it's because EON has wanted to fit the villain more to the narrative of the film, and aren't willing to take more chances in casting someone who looks the part but may not have the ready-made acting talent. Just like EON has taken zero chances in getting better writers lately! Everything starts with the idea, the concept, and the writing.

    I have had it with Bond's brother Blofeld, and Bond's woman knowing the Bond villain. Give me a bloody break. What would Ian Fleming think about all this? Maybe in the next installment of the "Bond's Not-So Secret Life" soap opera, we'll find out that M has gingerly begun a romantic relationship with Moneypenny, and Q and Bill Tanner are going to sideline by starting up a marijuana business. Wow, that'll be awesome, and woke!

    Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson--I think you two have some serious soul-searching to do.
  • Posts: 7,415
    NicNac wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Here's one ,I just my not be old enough to get it but I think OHMSS has way to high a ranking amongst the hard core fans it has almost ruined it for me , it wins so many elimination games here I actively root for its downfall

    Maybe when you get older.
    OHMSS is number 1 for me, and I'm a diehard Dalton fan (Dalton was offered the role then....Man, I would have loved that!)
    OHMSS has everything I want from a Bond movie, good story, great cast, brilliant action and terrific score, plus many Bondian/Fleming moments.
    NTTD will have to be something extra special to knock it off top spot for me!

    21 year old Timothy Dalton was offered the role in 1967/68? Tell me more.

    I should have said "considered for the role", not offered. Both in John Glens book, For My Eyes Only, and Charles Helfensteins excellent The Making of The Living Daylights, they state that Dalton was always on Cubbys radar, but according to Helfenstein, Peter Hunt stated he would never have got the part because he was far too young!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Cubby said they had spoken to Dalton in 1968, 1980 and again in 1986. He didn t make a screentest until July 1986.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    I've said this elsewhere, but TWINE probably had the most promising concept for a thrilling and emotional Bond film for Brosnan's run. Given I rank it dead last at #24, it's an understatement to say I was disappointed.

    Agreed. I've said elsewhere that TWINE has one of the best stories (particularly as it's original), however scattershot it is in its execution.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    It's been pointed out in another thread that Dalton wasn't actually considered the role for OHMSS but rather DAF.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited January 2020 Posts: 7,110
    Lately I came to realise I really like the much-maligned Die Another Day. Granted, it's flawed. It has moments of incomprhensible lunacy. But on the other hand, there is so much to enjoy: Brosnan, the Vanquish v Jag duel, the ice palace, the sword fight, Bond in captivity, the David Arnold score, the cinematography, allies Raoul and Chang, the hotel entry and Miranda Frost. I have to admit I like Halle Berry and the Madonna song as well. Admittedly, the first Bond I ever saw on the big screen is bound to have some nostalgic value for me though I stand by the positives I just mentioned. I expect it to go up in my next rankings to a place I have never put it before.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Lately I came to realise I really like the much-maligned Die Another Day. Granted, it's flawed. It has moments of incomprhensible lunacy. But on the other hand, there is so much to enjoy: Brosnan, the Vanquish v Jag duel, the ice palace, the sword fight, Bond in captivity, the David Arnold score, the cinematography, allies Raoul and Chang, the hotel entry and Miranda Frost. I have to admit I like Halle Berry and the Madonna song as well. Admittedly, the first Bond I ever saw on the big screen is bound to have some nostalgic value for me though I stand by the positives I just mentioned. I expect it to go up in my next rankings to a place I have never put it before.

    I agree, no-one is going to say it's a masterpiece but I appreciate the things that worked. In fact, to break it down simply, my main dislikes are the script and use of cgi - the premise is excellent, including the gene replacement and invisible car.

    Unfortunately, script and stunts are prerequisites for a good Bond film...
  • Posts: 12,466
    I wish I liked DAD more. It had the potential to be a decent send-off for Brosnan, but really drops the ball. The first half or so (maybe a little less) is mostly fine, with a couple really good moments sprinkled in (Bond's imprisonment and the sword fight are my favorite parts). But that second half is just so bad it derails the whole thing for me and leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The one-liners and dialogue throughout are also more or less the series' cringiest I think. It's certainly comparable with SP for me in that I can get behind most of the first half (neither is particularly great, but have some solid moments), but the latter stages of the two films are about the most dire the series has gotten.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I remember seeing an interview with Pierce Brosnan in 2002 for the BAFTA 40th anniversary show. It was just before DAD came out and he was asked by Michael Parkinson how you made a good Bond film. Literally the first thing Brosnan said was and I quote " you take a director like Lee Tamahori"...
    Bless him. I don't believe for a second he meant that, he was just doing his job as a good current employee of EON with a film to promote. Lee Tamahori, for me, is the exact reason the film was as disappointing as it was/is. I really do think there is a great film hidden in there somewhere and we'd have got it with a more grounded director. Of courseI know a film is a huge collaborative effort so I shouldn't blame just one person. However Tamahori was a massive influence on the film we got, I feel about him the same as I do about Schumacher after Batman and Robin. Very misguided people with a lack of respect for the subject's legacy.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,026
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Lately I came to realise I really like the much-maligned Die Another Day. Granted, it's flawed. It has moments of incomprhensible lunacy.
    I'm quite satisfied noting that you realize your sudden love of the worst Bond movie ever qualifies as part of "Controversial opinions about Bond films". My latest attempts at review of DAD (and TWINE) didn't really help propel those two further up from my bottom two rungs of the ladder.
  • Posts: 1,917
    cwl007 wrote: »
    I remember seeing an interview with Pierce Brosnan in 2002 for the BAFTA 40th anniversary show. It was just before DAD came out and he was asked by Michael Parkinson how you made a good Bond film. Literally the first thing Brosnan said was and I quote " you take a director like Lee Tamahori"...
    Bless him. I don't believe for a second he meant that, he was just doing his job as a good current employee of EON with a film to promote. Lee Tamahori, for me, is the exact reason the film was as disappointing as it was/is. I really do think there is a great film hidden in there somewhere and we'd have got it with a more grounded director. Of courseI know a film is a huge collaborative effort so I shouldn't blame just one person. However Tamahori was a massive influence on the film we got, I feel about him the same as I do about Schumacher after Batman and Robin. Very misguided people with a lack of respect for the subject's legacy.

    To be fair, wouldn't the BAFTA appearance still have been early on in the filming of DAD at the time? The energy may have been there still at that point considering the hype around Halle Berry's Oscar win and it fell apart more as it went on and in editing where many of the bad decisions were made. Just a guess.

    In 2002, I enjoyed DAD upon first seeing it while still recognizing its many flaws. It was on repeat viewings things like Jinx and the disappointment of the second half are more glaring. Either way, it was a lot more fun than the soap opera that preceded it and remains so for me.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    cwl007 wrote: »
    I remember seeing an interview with Pierce Brosnan in 2002 for the BAFTA 40th anniversary show. It was just before DAD came out and he was asked by Michael Parkinson how you made a good Bond film. Literally the first thing Brosnan said was and I quote " you take a director like Lee Tamahori"...
    Bless him. I don't believe for a second he meant that, he was just doing his job as a good current employee of EON with a film to promote. Lee Tamahori, for me, is the exact reason the film was as disappointing as it was/is. I really do think there is a great film hidden in there somewhere and we'd have got it with a more grounded director. Of courseI know a film is a huge collaborative effort so I shouldn't blame just one person. However Tamahori was a massive influence on the film we got, I feel about him the same as I do about Schumacher after Batman and Robin. Very misguided people with a lack of respect for the subject's legacy.

    Just go and see the films Tamahori made before Bond and you'll appreaciate Brosnan's comments far better. How Tamahori got so unhinged on Bond will probably always be a mistery.
Sign In or Register to comment.