What is one Bond film generally not well-regarded but you genuinely can't understand why?

1235

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited December 1 Posts: 4,054
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace

    The leanest meanest Bond film! I can understand some viewers have a problem with the editing, but then this is why the film repays repeat viewings! But it has so many other great qualities. Craig is a force of nature as Bond, visceral action, cool locations, perfectly paced and an outstanding score.

    Bond groups on FB (Which i really should avoid to keep my sanity) always come up with the allegation it's a carbon copy of the Bourne series. Yet again, following a well worn narrative that isn't remotely true (Bit like those Moon landing conspiracy nitwits)

    Number 8 in my rankings. If only the rest of Craig's Bond films could have been like this!

    Yep, with you all the way there mate!
    Admittedly I do remember being thrown by the editing in the cinema when I saw QoS first, but it's the one Bond movie that rewards greatly on multiple viewings!

    Yep. One of my most watched Bond films :D
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 1 Posts: 2,124
    Me three! I love QoS! The shots before the opening car chase looks like the reveal of a new Bond. The intercutting and all. I would have loved Craig's intro shot as Bond in CR, to have such a visual style. Maybe as Dryden was going up the building, Bond's eyes, and gun, watch , etc would have been shown stylishly too.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,054
    Me three! I love QoS! The shots before the opening car chase looks like the reveal of a new Bond. The intercutting and all. I would have loved Craig's intro shot as Bond in CR, to have had such a feel. Maybe as Dryden was going up the building, Bond's eyes, and gun, etc would have been shown stylishly too.

    Oh yes! I love those quick opening shots and then we're straight into a brutal car chase! Damn i love this film!
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,124
    Me three! I love QoS! The shots before the opening car chase looks like the reveal of a new Bond. The intercutting and all. I would have loved Craig's intro shot as Bond in CR, to have had such a feel. Maybe as Dryden was going up the building, Bond's eyes, and gun, etc would have been shown stylishly too.

    Oh yes! I love those quick opening shots and then we're straight into a brutal car chase! Damn i love this film!

    Yeah. I love how the build-up intensifies, as the shot gets closer the Bond's eye.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,502
    I don't know if it's generally not well-regarded, but I'm often baffled by the scorn which Skyfall receives from a lot of fans. I think it's one of the very best Bond films, right up there potentially even jostling for the top spot.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,594
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if it's generally not well-regarded, but I'm often baffled by the scorn which Skyfall receives from a lot of fans. I think it's one of the very best Bond films, right up there potentially even jostling for the top spot.

    I agree. It's either people love it or absolutely hate it. I'm in the former
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,054
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if it's generally not well-regarded, but I'm often baffled by the scorn which Skyfall receives from a lot of fans. I think it's one of the very best Bond films, right up there potentially even jostling for the top spot.

    It's just about in my top ten, but i do think it's overrated. Too many inconsistencies IMO.

    I have a lot of problems with the middle section of the film.
  • Posts: 24
    I think Skyfall is a very good film and the best Craig film imo, but I got a bit tired of it because they kept showing it on ITV2 all of the time! I need a bit of a rest from it.
  • Posts: 7,520
    I don't hate SF, but I do find a lot of it very dull, and so it will never be the first choice if I want to watch a Craig era Bond film!
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,124
    I've always felt the action in the Macau casino and Silva's island should have been major action scenes....longer and more elaborate. I think the shortness of those two action scenes, is the reason Skyfall isn't an action-heavy Bond film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,162
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I don't hate SF, but I do find a lot of it very dull, and so it will never be the first choice if I want to watch a Craig era Bond film!

    That's also my sentiment. I appreciate several elements in it, but overall I'm not a fan. It's my least favourite of them all, including NSNA.

    However, rest assured gentlemen, it is very well-regarded generally. You can go to pretty much any ranking online and it will always be somewhere in the top 10, more in than outside the top 5's, and even several top spots.
  • Posts: 7,520
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I don't hate SF, but I do find a lot of it very dull, and so it will never be the first choice if I want to watch a Craig era Bond film!

    That's also my sentiment. I appreciate several elements in it, but overall I'm not a fan. It's my least favourite of them all, including NSNA.

    However, rest assured gentlemen, it is very well-regarded generally. You can go to pretty much any ranking online and it will always be somewhere in the top 10, more in than outside the top 5's, and even several top spots.

    Yep, a bit baffling to me, it will never crack my top 10, I just don't enjoy it as a Bond movie!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,054
    Me three! I love QoS! The shots before the opening car chase looks like the reveal of a new Bond. The intercutting and all. I would have loved Craig's intro shot as Bond in CR, to have had such a feel. Maybe as Dryden was going up the building, Bond's eyes, and gun, etc would have been shown stylishly too.

    Oh yes! I love those quick opening shots and then we're straight into a brutal car chase! Damn i love this film!

    Yeah. I love how the build-up intensifies, as the shot gets closer the Bond's eye.

    I believe there's a really quick shot as Bond flicks the safety off of his machine gun..
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,502
    In your excellent recent ranking of people on here it came in at no.11, which I cannot understand to be honest. It's absolutely superb.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 1 Posts: 2,124
    Me three! I love QoS! The shots before the opening car chase looks like the reveal of a new Bond. The intercutting and all. I would have loved Craig's intro shot as Bond in CR, to have had such a feel. Maybe as Dryden was going up the building, Bond's eyes, and gun, etc would have been shown stylishly too.

    Oh yes! I love those quick opening shots and then we're straight into a brutal car chase! Damn i love this film!

    Yeah. I love how the build-up intensifies, as the shot gets closer the Bond's eye.

    I believe there's a really quick shot as Bond flicks the safety off of his machine gun..

    Yeah.
    Oh, and I meant "Closer to Bond's eye"...slight typo from me.
  • Posts: 1,921
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I don't hate SF, but I do find a lot of it very dull, and so it will never be the first choice if I want to watch a Craig era Bond film!

    That's also my sentiment. I appreciate several elements in it, but overall I'm not a fan. It's my least favourite of them all, including NSNA.

    However, rest assured gentlemen, it is very well-regarded generally. You can go to pretty much any ranking online and it will always be somewhere in the top 10, more in than outside the top 5's, and even several top spots.

    Yep, a bit baffling to me, it will never crack my top 10, I just don't enjoy it as a Bond movie!

    Nice to know I'm not alone in my lack of enthusiasm for SF. It's especially frustrating because it has some of the best cinematography and direction in the series and Silva was the best villain in years. It just feels too much like a Bond film starring M with Bond in the supporting role, almost a TWINE redux.
    I've always felt the action in the Macau casino and Silva's island should have been major action scenes....longer and more elaborate. I think the shortness of those two action scenes, is the reason Skyfall isn't an action-heavy Bond film.

    This is another big reason SF doesn't work for me is there are no real standout action pieces. The MI series was raising the bar on such scenes and Bond began lagging. The opening bike chase and train fight didn't come close to the series' best takes on such scenes and the Macau casino with the Komodo dragon felt more like it was from the Moore era, almost played for laughs.

    That said, I am a fan of the underrated QoS. The consistent criticisms of it seem to be Greene and the plot being underwhelming. Otherwise, I find it a nice combination of story, spying, action and Bond's journey.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 1 Posts: 6,334
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace

    The leanest meanest Bond film! I can understand some viewers have a problem with the editing, but then this is why the film repays repeat viewings! But it has so many other great qualities. Craig is a force of nature as Bond, visceral action, cool locations, perfectly paced and an outstanding score.

    Bond groups on FB (Which i really should avoid to keep my sanity) always come up with the allegation it's a carbon copy of the Bourne series. Yet again, following a well worn narrative that isn't remotely true (Bit like those Moon landing conspiracy nitwits)

    Number 8 in my rankings. If only the rest of Craig's Bond films could have been like this!

    Yep, with you all the way there mate!
    Admittedly I do remember being thrown by the editing in the cinema when I saw QoS first, but it's the one Bond movie that rewards greatly on multiple viewings!

    I like QoS well enough, but if a movie's editing fails to communicate basics of what is going on--conventions established over a hundred years of filmmaking--upon a first viewing (I don't think anyone understood the boat chase on his/her first viewing), QoS has failed on some level.

    No one goes into Bond expecting an experimental film. It's not Warhol or Anger. So I think Forster failed on that level.

    The Bourne films don't quite push the editing to the point of incomprehension the way QoS does, but Bourne comes close to that line too.

    This is partly why SF was so well-received, by comparison. Its editing is classical and easily understood on the very first viewing.
  • Posts: 7,520
    echo wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace

    The leanest meanest Bond film! I can understand some viewers have a problem with the editing, but then this is why the film repays repeat viewings! But it has so many other great qualities. Craig is a force of nature as Bond, visceral action, cool locations, perfectly paced and an outstanding score.

    Bond groups on FB (Which i really should avoid to keep my sanity) always come up with the allegation it's a carbon copy of the Bourne series. Yet again, following a well worn narrative that isn't remotely true (Bit like those Moon landing conspiracy nitwits)

    Number 8 in my rankings. If only the rest of Craig's Bond films could have been like this!

    Yep, with you all the way there mate!
    Admittedly I do remember being thrown by the editing in the cinema when I saw QoS first, but it's the one Bond movie that rewards greatly on multiple viewings!

    I like QoS well enough, but if a movie's editing fails to communicate basics of what is going on--conventions established over a hundred years of filmmaking--upon a first viewing (I don't think anyone understood the boat chase on his/her first viewing), QoS has failed on some level.

    No one goes into Bond expecting an experimental film. It's not Warhol or Anger. So I think Forster failed on that level.

    The Bourne films don't quite push the editing to the point of incomprehension the way QoS does, but Bourne comes close to that line too.

    This is partly why SF was so well-received, by comparison. Its editing is classical and easily understood on the very first viewing.

    Yes, but SF is deathly dull! What little action there is, is poor and not on the grander scale of other Bonds. And QOS has great action scenes, but it has very strong dramatic scenes too. I would also take issue with SF being better photographed, it has a few very striking scenes, but a lot of the interior sequences I find flat! I think QoS has a richer look throughout and I prefer Schaefers work here!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 695
    The Man With the Golden Gun. I never understood how it always ranked so low on mainstream lists. Usually the complaints have to do with there being too much humor and Ekland being too ditzy, but I think most of the humor lands and Ekland is fine playing somebody who's clearly not meant to be a field agent. She contrasts with Moore's more lethal portrayal of Bond very well.

    Apart from that, I always found TMWTGG to be the most Flemingesque Moore entry, with the dramatic scenes (Lazar, Bond and Scaramanga meeting at the arena) being just as engaging as the stunts and chases. There's a good deal of pathos in the movie that balances out the humor. It's not as sterile as TSWLM and MR. Bond actually seems like a killer, and Moore does the icier scenes very well.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,334
    There's a much better movie trying to get out of MR than the one we got. Moore and Lonsdale are definitely trying to make it memorable. Less so for the rest of the cast.

    And of course bringing Jaws back was a mistake...is there another film earlier in the series that feels as much like a sequel as MR does to TSWLM?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,219
    echo wrote: »
    There's a much better movie trying to get out of MR than the one we got. Moore and Lonsdale are definitely trying to make it memorable. Less so for the rest of the cast.

    And of course bringing Jaws back was a mistake...is there another film earlier in the series that feels as much like a sequel as MR does to TSWLM?

    An interesting question, @echo. I get the sense that Cubby and others where playing it safe. TSWLM had cost a small fortune and had been Cubby's first solo Bond. Plagued by lawsuits and such, it had been a huge bet. But it had paid off. I understand the temptation to do it again, especially with the Star Wars wind in the sails of a more space-themed Bond. And at least financially, it paid off again.

    I'm a fan of the '80s Bonds, bar AVTAK. One thing that can be said about all of them, though, is that they all feel different; no two of them are alike, neither in tone, nor in concept, nor in setting. Watch FYEO and then LTK: in one of them, Bond lectures a girl on the personal traps of going out on a personal vendetta; in the other, Bond himself is vendetta personified. Isn't that great? I love that most Bonds are similar and yet also very dissimilar.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,054
    I was among the few on the long-departed IMDb James Bond board who had some kind words to say about QOS when it came out. But I do think the only thing about it that warrants multiple viewings is that indeed you keep discovering details you missed the first five or six times, due to the dismal editing which for me really ruins much of the enjoyment of this movie.

    As for SF, I don't care if for some people it is not well-regarded. For me, it is solidly among the top five of the franchise, and I keep watching it for enjoyment.

    (Just realized I forgot to actually post this about 2 1/2 hours ago, so this does not take the last four postings into account.)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,162
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Man With the Golden Gun. I never understood how it always ranked so low on mainstream lists. Usually the complaints have to do with there being too much humor and Ekland being too ditzy, but I think most of the humor lands and Ekland is fine playing somebody who's clearly not meant to be a field agent. She contrasts with Moore's more lethal portrayal of Bond very well.

    Apart from that, I always found TMWTGG to be the most Flemingesque Moore entry, with the dramatic scenes (Lazar, Bond and Scaramanga meeting at the arena) being just as engaging as the stunts and chases. There's a good deal of pathos in the movie that balances out the humor. It's not as sterile as TSWLM and MR. Bond actually seems like a killer, and Moore does the icier scenes very well.

    I'm with you on this. Unforgettable foes, great atmosphere, a superb Rog, a fine score and the Golden Gun itself.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 1 Posts: 7,575
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace

    The leanest meanest Bond film! I can understand some viewers have a problem with the editing, but then this is why the film repays repeat viewings! But it has so many other great qualities. Craig is a force of nature as Bond, visceral action, cool locations, perfectly paced and an outstanding score.

    Bond groups on FB (Which i really should avoid to keep my sanity) always come up with the allegation it's a carbon copy of the Bourne series. Yet again, following a well worn narrative that isn't remotely true (Bit like those Moon landing conspiracy nitwits)

    Number 8 in my rankings. If only the rest of Craig's Bond films could have been like this!

    Yep, with you all the way there mate!
    Admittedly I do remember being thrown by the editing in the cinema when I saw QoS first, but it's the one Bond movie that rewards greatly on multiple viewings!

    I like QoS well enough, but if a movie's editing fails to communicate basics of what is going on--conventions established over a hundred years of filmmaking--upon a first viewing (I don't think anyone understood the boat chase on his/her first viewing), QoS has failed on some level.

    No one goes into Bond expecting an experimental film. It's not Warhol or Anger. So I think Forster failed on that level.

    The Bourne films don't quite push the editing to the point of incomprehension the way QoS does, but Bourne comes close to that line too.

    This is partly why SF was so well-received, by comparison. Its editing is classical and easily understood on the very first viewing.

    Yes, but SF is deathly dull! What little action there is, is poor and not on the grander scale of other Bonds. And QOS has great action scenes, but it has very strong dramatic scenes too. I would also take issue with SF being better photographed, it has a few very striking scenes, but a lot of the interior sequences I find flat! I think QoS has a richer look throughout and I prefer Schaefers work here!

    Interesting discussion on Skyfall in here. I agree with this take but I still probably hold the film in higher regard. I particularly think the action in the PTS is pretty fantastic; the cinematography, and generally the beautiful nature of the visuals makes up for the dullness in my opinion. Maybe strange but I sometimes consider it the Bond franchise's Mona Lisa; obviously an outstanding achievement and I have the utmost respect for it, but yeah, I'd prefer to engage with something else more often than not.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,334
    What I like about SF is that the scenes breathe just enough, not too little (QoS), not too much (SP).
  • Posts: 1,396

    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Man With the Golden Gun. I never understood how it always ranked so low on mainstream lists. Usually the complaints have to do with there being too much humor and Ekland being too ditzy, but I think most of the humor lands and Ekland is fine playing somebody who's clearly not meant to be a field agent. She contrasts with Moore's more lethal portrayal of Bond very well.

    Apart from that, I always found TMWTGG to be the most Flemingesque Moore entry, with the dramatic scenes (Lazar, Bond and Scaramanga meeting at the arena) being just as engaging as the stunts and chases. There's a good deal of pathos in the movie that balances out the humor. It's not as sterile as TSWLM and MR. Bond actually seems like a killer, and Moore does the icier scenes very well.

    Yeah. Anyway, all Moore's movies have humor and compared to Octopussy and Moonraker this movie seems like Billy Wilder.
  • edited December 2 Posts: 4,230
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if it's generally not well-regarded, but I'm often baffled by the scorn which Skyfall receives from a lot of fans. I think it's one of the very best Bond films, right up there potentially even jostling for the top spot.

    I agree. It's either people love it or absolutely hate it. I'm in the former

    Even then I think it's more Bond fans who feel that way about it. Most people I know outside these forums would say it's one of the best Bond films. Without it I really can't see Craig's Bond era being quite as successful.

    Anyway, for me TND is one I can't understand not being quite as well regarded. I think nowadays it has a much better reputation amongst wider audiences owing to the media mogul/fake news aspect (and how entertaining the film itself is), but I'm actually quite surprised it wasn't quite as well received at the time. It's not perfect (no film is) but it's got that wonderfully fast, but fine tuned pace to it the very earliest Bond films have, and it's fun and even dramatically gripping to watch in places. It's one of my most watched Bond films.
  • edited December 2 Posts: 1,396
    I think TND is Brosnan's best movie.

    I think the problem is that it's not a GE sequel. I'm not a GE fan so I don't care. This is more fun and more suitable for Brosnan.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,219
    I think TND is Brosnan's best movie.

    I think the problem is that it's not a GE sequel. I'm not a GE fan so I don't care. This is more fun and more suitable for Brosnan.
    I like TND but I certainly have problems with the film, regardless of it not being GE 2. Once we've left Hamburg, the story is pretty much over. From then on, we move from one action scene to another until the curtains close. And it's not always good action. The video game shooter pose of Bond with a weapon in each hand is a bit silly. I absolutely hate the way he and Wai-Lin "just" escape from Carver's building in Beijing after we've been 'promised' some kind of epic torture. All the kicking around gets exhausting after a while. TND loses its focus as a Bond film by being too much like Under Siege.
  • Posts: 4,230
    I think TND is Brosnan's best movie.

    I think the problem is that it's not a GE sequel. I'm not a GE fan so I don't care. This is more fun and more suitable for Brosnan.

    I can sort of understand how after GE TND was seen as an odd follow up. It's much faster paced and slightly more action orientated. That said to me it feels more or less in line with GE. Both involve modern takes on the megalomaniac Bond villain trope (amongst other Bond tropes) and we get characters from Bond's past being involved in the plot to dramatic effect. I personally rate both highly.
Sign In or Register to comment.