›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…449450452454455…707

Comments

  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The second half of TLD is better than the first half. The first half takes a long to get going, very plot heavy. Even breaking the ice with Kara takes some time. The second half feels more like traditional Bond where nothing needs explaining too much.

    You know what the first half needed? MORE DEFECTION sequences! :)

  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    Not sure what is happening.
  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    Kill this computer now.
  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    ..............
  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    .............
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    If you educate yourself with Rambo movies and CIA propaganda, you may still think so.

    Yeah that’s how it went. I watched Rambo III and blinded by my stupidity I thought the Mujahedeen must have been a fun gang.

    Of course not, I am interested in history and looked all that stuff up. Furthermore, I have a brother who studied Middle Eastern and North African History at university, so no need to patronise me Mr Thunder.

    I have a brudder, too.

    But probably one that doesn’t know as much when it comes to the situation back then. Look, back in the 80s you would have been very hard pressed to find anyone ( apart from the Pravda that is), who didn’t consider it right to help the Afghanis in their fight. Most saw them as a kind of noble savage. Kind of like Indians. Religion wasn’t on the monitor all way back then. Actually the educated consensus was that religion was on its way down and probably almost nonexistent in the 21st century. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Look, I believed the propaganda machinery myself back then, that the Soviets had just invaded the country for expansionist reasons or whatever. Like I have said before, the communist party won the Afghan election, and we can t have that, can we? They abolished sharia law, and made the country a secular one, with equal rights for women.

    This was just too much for Kamran and friends, so they started an armed rebellion. Consequently Kabul asked Moscow for military aid, which they then legally got.

    The west using jihadi savages to topple regimes that stand in their way still goes on.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    Let's not forget that even in Fleming stories there was a tendency to gloss over some unsavoury elements of our reality: crime lord Colombo does not do drug smuggling and Draco while a mobster is more a romantic "bandit d'honneur" than a Corsican thug. So in the movie TLD I can live with Afghan rebels who are good savages and not future Islamists.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    octofinger wrote: »
    Here's one:

    I'm a very big fan of Craig - I really like him in general, like him in the role, and like his movies. I also think he's got a great look for the part.

    But: on the way to the Macau casino in Skyfall, he looks awful. I think it's a combination of lighting and makeup and the general palette of the movie, but he looks like a clown:

    Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz0044.jpg

    I take no joy in saying it, but there you go.

    I can get on board with this. His haircut in SF is terrible and whilst that is better in SP the terrible lycra suits he has been wearing in the last two films are an abomination.

    In terms of looking the part probably QOS is his best.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    If you educate yourself with Rambo movies and CIA propaganda, you may still think so.

    Yeah that’s how it went. I watched Rambo III and blinded by my stupidity I thought the Mujahedeen must have been a fun gang.

    Of course not, I am interested in history and looked all that stuff up. Furthermore, I have a brother who studied Middle Eastern and North African History at university, so no need to patronise me Mr Thunder.

    I have a brudder, too.

    But probably one that doesn’t know as much when it comes to the situation back then. Look, back in the 80s you would have been very hard pressed to find anyone ( apart from the Pravda that is), who didn’t consider it right to help the Afghanis in their fight. Most saw them as a kind of noble savage. Kind of like Indians. Religion wasn’t on the monitor all way back then. Actually the educated consensus was that religion was on its way down and probably almost nonexistent in the 21st century. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Look, I believed the propaganda machinery myself back then, that the Soviets had just invaded the country for expansionist reasons or whatever. Like I have said before, the communist party won the Afghan election, and we can t have that, can we? They abolished sharia law, and made the country a secular one, with equal rights for women.

    This was just too much for Kamran and friends, so they started an armed rebellion. Consequently Kabul asked Moscow for military aid, which they then legally got.

    The west using jihadi savages to topple regimes that stand in their way still goes on.

    I’m not arguing with this, I just pointed out that not all Mujahideen warriors became Taliban. That’s even factually impossible considering there was a civil war when the communists left. A civil war needs at least two sides to get going you know. Who would the Taliban have fought against if they had all joined that group?

    Furthermore, if you look up a certain Ahmad Shah Massoud, you’ll find that he also fought against the Soviets and later opposed the Taliban because he believed their ideals to be far too fundamentalistic. Subsequently, he was assassinated by them in 2001. I’m not claiming he wanted to be our best buddy but he definitely was not planning to start some sort of religious war either. He even went on record proclaiming he was a moderate Muslim.

    Claiming 007 helped the Taliban in TLD and dismissing the film for that reason alone is jumping to conclusions a bit too easily for my taste.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Here's one:

    I'm a very big fan of Craig - I really like him in general, like him in the role, and like his movies. I also think he's got a great look for the part.

    But: on the way to the Macau casino in Skyfall, he looks awful. I think it's a combination of lighting and makeup and the general palette of the movie, but he looks like a clown:

    Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz0044.jpg

    I take no joy in saying it, but there you go.

    I can get on board with this. His haircut in SF is terrible and whilst that is better in SP the terrible lycra suits he has been wearing in the last two films are an abomination.

    In terms of looking the part probably QOS is his best.

    I agree.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    If you educate yourself with Rambo movies and CIA propaganda, you may still think so.

    Yeah that’s how it went. I watched Rambo III and blinded by my stupidity I thought the Mujahedeen must have been a fun gang.

    Of course not, I am interested in history and looked all that stuff up. Furthermore, I have a brother who studied Middle Eastern and North African History at university, so no need to patronise me Mr Thunder.

    I have a brudder, too.

    But probably one that doesn’t know as much when it comes to the situation back then. Look, back in the 80s you would have been very hard pressed to find anyone ( apart from the Pravda that is), who didn’t consider it right to help the Afghanis in their fight. Most saw them as a kind of noble savage. Kind of like Indians. Religion wasn’t on the monitor all way back then. Actually the educated consensus was that religion was on its way down and probably almost nonexistent in the 21st century. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Look, I believed the propaganda machinery myself back then, that the Soviets had just invaded the country for expansionist reasons or whatever. Like I have said before, the communist party won the Afghan election, and we can t have that, can we? They abolished sharia law, and made the country a secular one, with equal rights for women.

    This was just too much for Kamran and friends, so they started an armed rebellion. Consequently Kabul asked Moscow for military aid, which they then legally got.

    The west using jihadi savages to topple regimes that stand in their way still goes on.

    I’m not arguing with this, I just pointed out that not all Mujahideen warriors became Taliban. That’s even factually impossible considering there was a civil war when the communists left. A civil war needs at least two sides to get going you know. Who would the Taliban have fought against if they had all joined that group?

    Furthermore, if you look up a certain Ahmad Shah Massoud, you’ll find that he also fought against the Soviets and later opposed the Taliban because he believed their ideals to be far too fundamentalistic. Subsequently, he was assassinated by them in 2001. I’m not claiming he wanted to be our best buddy but he definitely was not planning to start some sort of religious war either. He even went on record proclaiming he was a moderate Muslim.

    Claiming 007 helped the Taliban in TLD and dismissing the film for that reason alone is jumping to conclusions a bit too easily for my taste.

    I didn t call them Taliban, and I don t dismiss the film.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,437
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Here's one:

    I'm a very big fan of Craig - I really like him in general, like him in the role, and like his movies. I also think he's got a great look for the part.

    But: on the way to the Macau casino in Skyfall, he looks awful. I think it's a combination of lighting and makeup and the general palette of the movie, but he looks like a clown:

    Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz0044.jpg

    I take no joy in saying it, but there you go.

    I can get on board with this. His haircut in SF is terrible and whilst that is better in SP the terrible lycra suits he has been wearing in the last two films are an abomination.

    In terms of looking the part probably QOS is his best.

    I would be a stalwart defender of QOS but I do think Craig looked his best in CR particularly in the tux!
  • kg54mvpkg54mvp USA
    Posts: 34
    I think that his hair looked best in Spectre, but the suits and clothing looked best in QOS. I love the Haiti look.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    Koskov and Le Chiffre (film version) are on an equal level of effectiveness as Villian's. You can decide whether that's a good thing or not. They both have quite brilliant and detailed plans but ultimately not very menacing or imposing. Kinda get outshined by stronger elements.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,917
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Koskov and Le Chiffre (film version) are on an equal level of effectiveness as Villian's. You can decide whether that's a good thing or not. They both have quite brilliant and detailed plans but ultimately not very menacing or imposing. Kinda get outshined by stronger elements.

    I agree. Don't think that's controversial. I like Le Chiffre more, he's more effective, there's just something about him.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    Koskov was brilliantly cast but poorly written. He could have come off as more menacing and less of a buffoon even in the early scenes.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    I, for one, absolutely love Koskov.

    “What’s this? Caviar? That’s peasant food for us, but with champagne it’s ok.”

    “Real reason: new directives.” (While pointing with his shoe)

    This guy cracks me up.

    Wonderful show, Jeroen!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain? Jeroen Krabbe plays Handel in Farinelli the way I wanted him to play a Bond villain.
  • UncooperativeDominoUncooperativeDomino England
    Posts: 7
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    I genuinely think Octopussy is a great Bond film. Guilty pleasure doesn't even come to mind
    You're in the wrong thread mate. That's not controversial in the slightest.

    Quite controversial for me. I see OP definitely in the lowest quarter of them all and keep wondering if I don't prefer even AVTAK and DAF in the meantime.

    Okay, okay. Let's not get crazy.

    Agreed. The Berlin section alone puts OP ahead of quite a few Bond films.

    I fail to see what's so great about the Berlin section. I suppose you are talking about the initial chase with 009 - or whichever number it was- being pursued by Mishka and Grishka and miraculously floating through that weir without any obstacles, and in spite of having a knife in his back, all the while hanging on to a balloon and the Fabergé egg, and ending up at the British ambassador's residence.

    If that could really work out at the time, literally thousands of East Germans would have gladly and successfully taken that route, obviously without aiming for knife, balloon and egg, but nevertheless it amounts to an opening in the Berlin wall that simply wasn't there. It's Cold War Berlin as Little Johnny in 3rd grade may have imagined it.

    Same with the fantasy railroad station of "Karl-Marx-Stadt" (once again called by its original name, Chemnitz, since 1990), a city which contrary to M's statement in the Mercedes on Kurfürstendamm is not at all to the east of Berlin, but actually to the southwest. OK, I realise they couldn't build a copy of the real station on the Nene Valley Railroad:
    01_chemnitz_hauptbahnhof.jpg
    I also forgive them for using non-German engines including the Danish steam loco which was at least made to appear like a DR 62 series (minus one axle), and for ignoring that except for historic purposes, no steam engines were allowed to use West German tracks at the time any more. However, pretty soon after leaving the station the train supposedly crosses the border to West Germany, but AFTER that you see a selection of red (aka Communist) propaganda posters stretched across tunnel portals and the like. Someone didn't pay attention in editing. Or simply had no clue.

    Likewise, I find it very unusual to say the least that the USAF would allow a train (and/or a complete circus) coming directly from East Germany to enter the premises of an air force base stocking nukes without thorough scrutiny. But here comes Little Johnny again.

    As someone who has been quite familiar with all things German-German and Cold War for most of my life (my father was an office in the West German border protection force), all this strikes me as particularly unbelievable and renders the Octopussy story sort of fairy-tale-like for me. And it's that lack of "suspension of disbelief" that disqualifies the movie so much in my view. And the other silly issues that usually come up sort of do the rest, whether it's the Tarzan yell, the gorilla costume, the tiger incident...you name it.

    See what I mean by controversial? (EDIT: Even in 1983/4, I - like most Germans I talked to at the time, and most of the German press critics - considered NSNA the clear winner of the Battle between the Bonds raging at that time. I still do.)
    If you employ such forensic levels of pedantry to any Bond film the results would likely be the same so not sure why you're so keen to single out OP?

    And just because you live there and know the place well is hardly an excuse. I live in London and work for TfL so I'm irked by the following:

    - Bond and Silva sliding down the escalator without this happening:


    - The bus on Vauxhall Bridge when MI6 blows up clearly being a driver training bus not an actual bus.

    - The tube station claiming to be 'Embankment' being a disused station that TfL rents out to film companies as a generic tube station location.

    I'd prefer these things not to be there but it doesn't stop me enjoying the film. Ar some point you have to understand that filmmakers take liberties from time to time.

    A few more travesties from OP that you missed:

    - The landing gear disappearing from one shot to the next when the Acrostar takes off and flies over the persuing vehicles.

    - At the speed it was flying the Acrostar would take about a second to fly through the hangar not five or six as depicted.

    - Bond: 'Well I've got 55 minutes to catch that flight Sir'. Even pre Al Qaeda security checks Whitehall to Heathrow in that time is very good going.

    - Flying past the Taj Mahal makes no sense as Agra and Udaipur are hundreds of miles apart.

    - Bond recognising the Bond theme?

    Etc.

    If you want realism watch a documentary or a Ken Loach film but it's a bit pointless ripping into a Bond film that has the sole aim of delivering 5 star Rogertainment.

    Although a pedantry thread is a great idea. Does anyone know if we have one or not?

    Bloody Hell! That looked painful! The silly bugger!
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited April 2018 Posts: 3,262
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain?

    Remember, TLD's script was written prior to Dalton taking the role officially so Maibaum and Wilson didn't necessarily have Dalton Bond in mind when writing it. This aspect would of course be corrected when they came up with Sanchez(arguably the darkest villain up to that point in the series) to oppose Dalton's Bond in LTK. And later, Michael France GE's script was written with Dalton Bond in mind initially hence Alec Trevelyan was written more seriously than Koskov also.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I think it works very well with Jeroen Krabbe. I like his manipulative scheme. I think Koskov is rather playing that comedic character partly to fool mi6. In fact it is hard to imagine that he is able to arrange such an intrigue which makes his "smiert spionem fairy tale" more believable.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,437
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I, for one, absolutely love Koskov.

    “What’s this? Caviar? That’s peasant food for us, but with champagne it’s ok.”

    “Real reason: new directives.” (While pointing with his shoe)

    This guy cracks me up.

    Wonderful show, Jeroen!

    I enjoy him, and Whitaker. I think the make a good pair.

    Me too! Three in fact, as I like Necros as well!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain?

    Remember, TLD's script was written prior to Dalton taking the role officially so Maibaum and Wilson didn't necessarily have Dalton Bond in mind when writing it. This aspect would of course be corrected when they came up with Sanchez(arguably the darkest villain up to that point in the series) to oppose Dalton's Bond in LTK. And later, Michael France GE's script was written with Dalton Bond in mind initially hence Alec Trevelyan was written more seriously than Koskov also.

    I understand that, but still don't like the approach to the character. Little changes on shooting would have been sufficient to make Koskov far more menacing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain?

    Remember, TLD's script was written prior to Dalton taking the role officially so Maibaum and Wilson didn't necessarily have Dalton Bond in mind when writing it. This aspect would of course be corrected when they came up with Sanchez(arguably the darkest villain up to that point in the series) to oppose Dalton's Bond in LTK. And later, Michael France GE's script was written with Dalton Bond in mind initially hence Alec Trevelyan was written more seriously than Koskov also.
    That's a good point actually. I could see Brosnan in TLD quite easily and I could see Dalton in a slightly tweaked GE as well. Glen, as an old hand, may have been a good choice to break Brosnan in and Campbell's approach may have suited Dalton better than Glen.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    I always thought Dalton and Glen did not work well together. As he did not play Dalton's strengths.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain?

    Remember, TLD's script was written prior to Dalton taking the role officially so Maibaum and Wilson didn't necessarily have Dalton Bond in mind when writing it. This aspect would of course be corrected when they came up with Sanchez(arguably the darkest villain up to that point in the series) to oppose Dalton's Bond in LTK. And later, Michael France GE's script was written with Dalton Bond in mind initially hence Alec Trevelyan was written more seriously than Koskov also.
    Glen, as an old hand, may have been a good choice to break Brosnan in

    I hope you don t mean that the way I hope you don t ?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Kinky.....
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    @bondjames Glen directed five films in a row, and I like a lot of them, but I don't think any one filmmaker should direct that many. He was workmanlike, sure, but he is in part responsible for the series going into machine-mode for awhile. At least that's how it feels if you watch them chronologically.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @ThighsOfXenia, good to see you back. I'm with you on Glen. I enjoy his films too, but a certain trite predictability does appear to have set in during his tenure, at least from my perspective. I feel that his films have a pedestrian quality to them, at least in comparison to the films which preceded them. It's compensated for by pretty amazing action sequences. Perhaps if he had taken a break for a film, like Young did between FRWL & TB, it may have helped.

    Campbell appears to have been a serious breath of fresh air in 1995. I have hope that Boyle can be the same for 2019 after the Mendes run of films.
    ---
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He comes off as far too comedic at first. An issue I had with Elliot Carver too, come to think of it. What I don't understand is why they went this route with him. Surely with Dalton and the overall more serious approach, they could have gone a darker routee with the villain?

    Remember, TLD's script was written prior to Dalton taking the role officially so Maibaum and Wilson didn't necessarily have Dalton Bond in mind when writing it. This aspect would of course be corrected when they came up with Sanchez(arguably the darkest villain up to that point in the series) to oppose Dalton's Bond in LTK. And later, Michael France GE's script was written with Dalton Bond in mind initially hence Alec Trevelyan was written more seriously than Koskov also.
    Glen, as an old hand, may have been a good choice to break Brosnan in

    I hope you don t mean that the way I hope you don t ?
    Perish the thought!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    Boyle at his age is not exactly fresh.
Sign In or Register to comment.